A new poll below shows just how wedded the American voters are to faith-based politics. Two-thirds of voters say that it is very important (39%) or somewhat important (28%) for a presidential candidate to have strong religious beliefs. However, it has to be the right religion. Forty-three percent admitted that they would be uncomfortable with a Mormon in the White House. The numbers are even greater in opposition to a Muslim (64%). However, it is an atheist that draws the most universal opposition. Sixty-seven percent say they would not want an atheist in the White House. It would indicate that the attacks on atheists (and here) in this country and abroad may be resonating with voters and that faith-based politics remains good politics for candidates.
There are some interesting details like that fact that Democratic voters are more opposed to a Mormon president than Republicans. Fifth percent of Democratic voters (50%) express discomfort on the issue over Republican voters (36%) or Independent voters (38%). What is also interesting is that younger voters are less comfortable than older voters.
The news is not good for Obama either. The number of people unhappy with Obama has not significantly changed with 45% approve and 44% disapprove. However, a majority (54%) of white Americans disapprove of how Obama is handling his job as president. Yet, 88% of African Americans approve of his performance. The poll suggests that people like Obama . . . they just don’t like him as president.
It is a study worth browsing if you have the time.
PRRI-2011-American-Values-Survey-Web
Source: American Values
mespo,
I agree with most of your comment–but I’d don’t think that religion is a marker that a person is moral.
Haven’t we witnessed enough religious folks who hold/have held political office who have proved themselves to be immoral or amoral?
Mespo,
I think you hit the nail on the head. The voters want to believe that the person in the White House can be trusted to not be oblivous to what life is like for real Americans and to deal with them honestly. That shouldn’t be too much to ask.
What voters want is not a particular denomination, but some measure of assurance that the man or woman they place in a position of high authority will have some sense of the Golden Rule.
——————————
I agree
the Seneca post also was profound…
I think most voters want a moral person in the White House. Religion is their marker and like most crude implements is better than nothing. The truth is that nothing assures the morality of the office holders and religion is probably one of the worst indicators. Be that as it may, it’s something.
As for the electorate being the faithful, they may well be, but as for being religious that’s another matter. Church-going is diminishing and traditional religions are finding the young in their pews less and less. Voters then are voting with their feet and moving those feet right out the aisle.
What voters want is not a particular denomination, but some measure of assurance that the man or woman they place in a position of high authority will have some sense of the Golden Rule. That’s not asking too much and their reliance on religion as an indicator of that sensitivity –while being sometimes misplaced– still rings true with many voters. It’s an educational thing. Tell them Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian and you will see shocked amazement. Tell the Jimmy Carter was the epitome of one and that look wil creep across their face again. Ask them who’d they vote for if both were eligible and willing today, and you’ll see shock give way to puzzlement.
Currently, the most popular religion is Mithraism, although it uses an alias now that sounds similar:
“The Mithras worshippers compared the practice of their religion to their military service”
Guess who?
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”
~Seneca
ATHEISTS FILE SUIT TO BLOCK WTC MEMORIAL CROSS: (July 25th, 2011) – An atheist group is filing a complaint on Monday in an effort to block display of the “World Trade Center Cross” which is scheduled to be part of a memorial display commemorating the 9/11 attacks.
————————————
Atheists could be more tolerant….
Fundamental Christians could be more respectful….
‘According to producer Jeremy Thomas, the United States was one of the last countries to find a distributor due to the prominence of the Creation–evolution controversy. Thomas said: “It is unbelievable to us that this is still a really hot potato in America.’ (Wikipedia on Creation (2009 film))
at the end of the day our Governing body is separate from Church doctrine…
In the Constitution of the United States, the First Amendment reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ….”, while Article VI specifies that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
I believe that should be very very visible and brought to minds by being part of every politicians answer when asked about their own religeous preference.
Sorry — “their (exploited?)”
It’s all about Authoritarians (read:amoral opportunists) and — more dangerously — their 9exploited?) followers. Their whole philosophy of life is to follow. Many follow “God.” The mere existence of an atheist is an existential threat to their philosophy.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
Blouise
TOUCHE!!
Bill Maher &. Bill O’Reilly on Religion
Of course they do…The feeding frenzies must continue…But I will reiterate….I’ll give you nothing for a mans religion whose dog is not the very better for it…..Abe Lincoln or somebody said that….
Ditto Blouise…
Very nice, Blouise.. That’s the heart of it, really…
Who is the base of the American voting public?
How many voters come from places where the separation of church and state is not valued as here in the US?
Is that number changing?
If the population just hit 7 billion, and Americans are older and not having so many kids anymore….there is an exogenously induced change that is not being met by iatrogenic values….if we are going to be ‘welcoming’ and a place that values diversity ANDindividual freedoms and rights AND freedom of religeon…how do we protect all that while all this fundamental change is happening?
Thus it has been since 1776 when we actually went to war to establish this nation.
I always liked what Ben Franklin had to say in a letter to his father in 1738:
“I think vital religion has always suffered when orthodoxy is more regarded than virtue. The scriptures assure me that at the last day we shall not be examined on what we thought but what we did.”
I like it because of the final few words. No one really knows, everything is just an opinion but one can’t go wrong in being able to welcome an examination knowing that what one thought was irrelevant and that what one did is all that counts … whether it be here or there.
During an election cycle all presidential candidates are photographed coming out of a church with a smiling family by his side. If they can find one that is white sitting on a green grassy hill with a white steeple all the better. (ALA Norman Rockwell)
Image not faith is what matters.
As for Brad Pitt being crowned Homecomming King, It is my theory that the handsomer of the candidates will win. Taller over shorter. Thinner over heavier. (There will never be a fat president again. Taft’s huge bathtub can sit in the White House cellar.)
Most church goers that I know have very little faith. but in their community it would be an embarrassment to be seen Not attending. Church too often is the Club. And if you are a church goer you can be sanctimonious when you see someone doing something you disapprove of or rather you see someone do something the club disapproves of.
Atheism is one of the biggest social buggaboos left in this country. It is better in a lot of areas to claim to be Wiccan than atheist. A Wccan may be Saved but Ooohhhhh an atheist is going to rape, murder, pillage and as Jay said Jaywalk. Everyone knows that they themselves wont do any of the above but fears all others. And as a country we have been taught that the only thing keeping society from anarchy is Jesus. I rarely tell anyone I am atheist. I did tell a family friend who I considered a true and faithful Christian as she practiced what she believed and didn’t berate or belittle people who believed differently. She was a rare one. A good friend and gentle lady.
I’m glad that homosexuals are becoming more socially acceptable. The closet is much roomier now.
I am an atheist.
In my experience, Americans really only follow a tiny core of their religion, basically the universal ideas (shared by most atheists I know) that it is wrong to lie, cheat, steal, rape, kill or otherwise get your way by dint of force. Both of us (religionists and atheists) believe that should be the rule.
The big difference is that religionists want a supernatural enforcement of those rules, and religions generally provide it, whether the religion is witchcraft or Christianity or a belief in reincarnation; a central tenet of virtually all religions is some kind of supernatural retribution for evil deeds.
Religionists believe (and paradoxically, only for other people, not them) that without the threat of supernatural enforcement, other people will prey on the weak, including them.
Atheists have what at first seems like a darker view; but which I believe is more realistic and more hopeful: that only a small percentage will commit “big” evils, that there is no supernatural enforcer, so the enforcement against that small percentage is up to us to do as best we can.
Why would I think that is the more hopeful view? Because it means we can do something, that we can engineer something, that we collectively have at least some control and can thwart evil.
That figure on Republicans being less inclined to reject a Mormon candidate suggests pretty strongly that whatever the religious predispositions of voters may be, they are not deeply held.
The question is whether upon being presented with a choice of two final candidates in an election, whether the religious affiliation of one candidate versus the other candidate is going to make all that much difference to any particular voter.
Brad Pitt, for example, is going to be elected Homecoming King regardless of whether he is Mormon or an atheist. Polls need to be put in context.
I have seen the view expressed that the only way you can have any sense of morality and right-and-wrong, is if you are go-to-church-on-Sunday religious. So all atheists are evidently thieves, murderers, and jaywalkers. And no doubt the reason we feared the Soviet Union was not only that they were Communists, but they were Godless Communists…..
It’s a bit hard to square that with pedophile priests, but what does logic have to do with anything?
More important to me is why those 44% disapprove of Obama. My guess is 27% because he is a foreign born Muslim socialist and 17% are like me – I thought I was voting for a Democrat so having a Republican President take office in his place is disappointing to say the least.
Given that religious belief is no indicator of moral behavior I don’t understand the strong requirement. I’d vote for any atheist with a strong commitment to American virtues over the string of Christians we have had recently who seem more intent on destroying America than lift us up.