• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does religion affect your vote?

Does religion affect your vote?

  • It is my main focus.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    47
Would you vote for a Muslim?

Might as well. No different than voting for a Christian, from where I'm sitting.

Doubt that will ever be a real possibility, though. Any more than I'm ever going to have the chance to vote for someone who is not a Christian or a Jew.
 
Might as well. No different than voting for a Christian, from where I'm sitting.

Doubt that will ever be a real possibility, though. Any more than I'm ever going to have the chance to vote for someone who is not a Christian or a Jew.

I only ask because you mentioned that one Christian is as good as another in your last post. Thanks.
 
I'm not Christian, myself. Just commenting on the fact that mainstream politicians must be, in order to get elected.
 
Doubtful.

Religion doesn't alter your personality, your personality alters religion.


Whoa! This is something that probably deserves it's own thread.


Religion doesn't alter your personality I disagree.

Your personality alters religion I agree.
 
To me, whether or not a candidate is religious doesn't matter. My concern for religious background, or lack thereof, would only depend upon the person's policies, which is primarily what I base my vote upon anyway.

-k
 
I actually worked quite hard to get a Muslim female to be picked to replace a friend who is retiring as an MP at the next general election.

She was picked because she is a great young politician, and if she is elected(it was a very safe seat) she will be the first female Muslim MP in the house.

I had to interview 30 or so applicants, 6 were Muslim.

One was a speech writer for Blair, the slimy bastard only lasted 10 minutes.
 
Whoa! This is something that probably deserves it's own thread.


Religion doesn't alter your personality I disagree.

Your personality alters religion I agree.

Religion itself can't really alter anything. It just is a set of concepts/beliefs that one subscribes to or not. A person interprets the meanings of these concepts based on their inherent personality traits which exist independent of religion.

For example: A person who is stubborn and believes that anything that they feel is right and everyone else is wrong will be that way no matter what the specific thing they believe is.

In the described scenario, this is what we see. A guy who thinks his views are right and all others are wrong simply because he holds them. It wouldn't matter if he was an atheist, Taoist, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or toilet worshiper. He's going to be a stubborn jackass in any scenario. The specifics are irrelevant.

The traits inherent in the person will dictate how they approach their religion. I can't even imagine a scenario where someone's personality is honestly altered because of the beliefs they hold, because to even begin holding the beliefs, there must be something within their personality that dictates it as a possibility.

For example: Someone joins one of those crazy Heaven's Gate type of cults. The cult doesn't change their personality. It is in fact their personality, specifically their suggestibility and a desire to feel like they belong to something "greater" than themselves that makes it possible for them to become a member. All subsequent actions are just facets of this pre-existing personality trait. There me an apparent shift in personality, but it's just an extant personality trait being thrust out front.

No religion can possibly cause someone to have a new personality trait that they never had prior to entering that religion. Not everyone has the same personality traits.

The proof of this is the cases where people are "born" into cults. They are taught the same things as everyone else, but they do what they can to leave at the first opportunity. This is because these people lack the personality traits necessary to fall into the cult's line of thinking.


The fact that I feel this way is the reason why religion means nothing in regards to my vote. If I hear that a politician is a practicing baptist I know nothing of them or their personality traits based on that alone. How they practice their religion may affect my vote. If they go around protesting soldiers funerals with "God hates fags" signs, they will lose my vote automatically. An Atheist who went to church gatherings with a "There is no God" sign would also lose my vote. To me, the atheist and the baptist would have the same personality traits that I abhor. Their religious affiliation does not dictate these behaviors.

Going back to the example that was given by Obvious Child, if the person in question was an anti-theist who called any atheists who weren't militant anti-theists "Jesus-freaks" or "Bible-thumpers", I would have the same feelings as I would for the guy who calls any other from of Christianity "atheism". To me, they are the same person, with the same personality traits.
 
Religion itself can't really alter anything. It just is a set of concepts/beliefs that one subscribes to or not. A person interprets the meanings of these concepts based on their inherent personality traits which exist independent of religion.

For example: A person who is stubborn and believes that anything that they feel is right and everyone else is wrong will be that way no matter what the specific thing they believe is.

In the described scenario, this is what we see. A guy who thinks his views are right and all others are wrong simply because he holds them. It wouldn't matter if he was an atheist, Taoist, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or toilet worshiper. He's going to be a stubborn jackass in any scenario. The specifics are irrelevant.

The traits inherent in the person will dictate how they approach their religion. I can't even imagine a scenario where someone's personality is honestly altered because of the beliefs they hold, because to even begin holding the beliefs, there must be something within their personality that dictates it as a possibility.

I disagree simply because I've seen Faith change a person from someone ugly and hateful into a caring and giving human being. Was it always there? I can't say, but there was certainly no evidence of it.


For example: Someone joins one of those crazy Heaven's Gate type of cults. The cult doesn't change their personality. It is in fact their personality, specifically their suggestibility and a desire to feel like they belong to something "greater" than themselves that makes it possible for them to become a member. All subsequent actions are just facets of this pre-existing personality trait. There me an apparent shift in personality, but it's just an extant personality trait being thrust out front.

No religion can possibly cause someone to have a new personality trait that they never had prior to entering that religion. Not everyone has the same personality traits.

In this case I'm talking more along the lines of the “brainwashing” that can occur. The Stockholm Syndrome of religion.

I don't know. It just doesn't ring true to me to say that 'no religion can cause someone to have a new personality trait'.

The proof of this is the cases where people are "born" into cults. They are taught the same things as everyone else, but they do what they can to leave at the first opportunity. This is because these people lack the personality traits necessary to fall into the cult's line of thinking.

Okay, I found myself nodding my head and agreeing with you on this <above>. I don't think that everyone is the same which is why I struggled with your statement that no religion can cause someone to have a new personality trait.

I think what you're saying is that the trait was always there, even if it wasn't clearly revealed?

If so, that puts a different twist on it for me.



The fact that I feel this way is the reason why religion means nothing in regards to my vote. If I hear that a politician is a practicing baptist I know nothing of them or their personality traits based on that alone. How they practice their religion may affect my vote. If they go around protesting soldiers funerals with "God hates fags" signs, they will lose my vote automatically. An Atheist who went to church gatherings with a "There is no God" sign would also lose my vote. To me, the atheist and the baptist would have the same personality traits that I abhor. Their religious affiliation does not dictate these behaviors.

I also agree with this.
 
I think what you're saying is that the trait was always there, even if it wasn't clearly revealed?

If so, that puts a different twist on it for me.

That's basically what I'm saying. Using the example of going from ugly and hateful to generous and caring, the trait must exist in order for the "ugly and hateful" person to seek the change in the first place.

Religion, or more specifically, the guidance given by the religious community, may foster that trait, but if the person doesn't want to receive the guidance, they will not. It still comes from within that person. They must want to change and have the ability to change before they ever will change. Religion may act as a "catalyst", but from the start, the person who seeks the change is the one who decided to add that catalyst into the mix.
 
I've said before that the people on this forum have a higher IQ than the norm for our population. I think the replies on this particular thread show this, especially in light of the polls that state atheists are so mistrusted. Not one person so far has stated they would not vote for someone because they lacked a religion.

That's not to say there aren't those who admitted religion plays a role in their decision.

Maybe my assessment of another generation til we have an openly atheistic president is to conservative.
Don't get me wrong if you asked me in general would I vote for an Christian over an Atheist then I'd say certainly yes and I'd vote for an Anglican over any one else but when one looks at specific candidates there is a lot to influence one besides this. But still I'd love to see no Atheist or Agnostic British politicians.
 
I know for me it means nothing. I would rather have a candidate that says he or she is an atheist then a believer. I know this is unlikely to happen in my lifetime here in the US.

Wouldn't this actually mean that religion DOES affect your vote though, IE, it affects it in such a way that you view someone that doesn't have religion as being a bonus over someone that does. That is religion affecting your vote, just in the opposite way that you're presenting.

For me I'm in line with Celtic Lord. I feel in general more comfortable with someone that has belief in SOMETHING simply because that is what the majority of this country feels and I feel that will best represent them. That said, I'd take a realistic and grounded athiest over an extreme christian/muslim/jew/zoroastrian/scientoligist any day of the week. I don't really feel comfortable with "zealotous" people in power be they Christian or Athiest.

So religion, or belief to a better description, matters to me when I vote but it is one on a list of things that does.
 
I prefer honest athiests to those christians whose ethics are situational....
 
To what degree does religion affect the way you vote?

It has some importance.I won't vote for someone who claims to be a christian,catholic,jewish or muslim if it was in name only in otherwords a liberal religious person.IF there lying about being religious IE some of these politcians who run around and claim to be of a particular faith but support things like abortion and gay marriage, then who knows what else they will lie to you about. I will vote for a atheist if he is upfront about being a atheist and doesn't bash religion. I would also vote for a jew,catholic, christian, or muslim if they were actually what they claimed to be. Because real/actual religious people are supposed to be influenced by their faith not kick it to the curb when they go vote.
 
While I don't really care what a candidate's religion is, I voted "I wish the candidates were atheists", not because I care, but because I want them to act secularly while in office, at least in the pursuit of their jobs. What they do outside of their legislative offices is entirely up to them, but when they're representing me, I want a complete wall of separation between their religion and the state.
 
I don't care if a politician is a "born again" Christian, as long as he can keep his affection under control...much like a Barney Frank..
But, if he wears his beliefs on his sleeve, then....no vote.
 
It's never been a problem for me so far but I can't say that someone's religious views would have no affect on my vote.
 
I know that this is a question that always comes up about candidates. I wonder how much religion influences you when you make your way to the polling place.

I know for me it means nothing. I would rather have a candidate that says he or she is an atheist then a believer. I know this is unlikely to happen in my lifetime here in the US.

To what degree does religion affect the way you vote?

I'm not sure what you're asking...my religion or the candidate's religion?

If the candidate's religion doesn't render his outlook on policey to alien from my own, then I don't have an issue with it.

That being said, I will never support an atheist.
 
Even if their atheism doesn't render their outlook on policy alien from your own?

That's just the thing: it does.

Atheists don't share a common understanding of the Natual Law premis because they reject the source of all rights. Since the source is rejected, the existance of the rights themselves falls into question.
 
That's just the thing: it does.

Atheists don't share a common understanding of the Natual Law premis because they reject the source of all rights. Since the source is rejected, the existance of the rights themselves falls into question.

The same conclusions can be reached through different methods.
The final results would be identical, but the methods are different.
 
Back
Top Bottom