How secualr is the USA when it comes to elect a president.

The thread “Would you vote for an atheist” including in the OP the question if an atheist would have any change to be elected as president, brought me to the idea for this one.

After reading the answers on that thread, I posted the following question:

And received interesting answers on which I would like to reply.
So to avoid hijacking the other thread, I shall do it in this one to start the intended discussion.
To avoid this OP becoming too long I shall make a new post for every answer I received.

Salaam. A

I’m sorry, but it is not because you claim “nobody should” that it isn’t been done by uncountable people.
And I don’t have the impression that those who are in lead in the US right now are secular. Quite the contrary. The US president seemed to have claimed that he is even guided by God in his decision to wage war on a sovereign nation.

I can’t call such president “secular” making “secular decisions” since he claims himself that his decisions are “guided by God”.

That is in my opinion a very dangerous evolution and not that far away from statements made by some people in other nations that God asks them to murder innocent people.
Salaam. A

That’s silly. The US is secular because its laws are secular (for the most part).

Why should voting “tap into people’s belief”?
And how do you separate writing laws and enforcing them by approving them by vote, from the belief of those who write/approve them?
You most recently had a case of an elected judge who was very vocal about his belief influencing his decisions and brought his belief even visible demonstrated into the courthouse. It is not because he was later forced to withdraw this “artwork” that he becomes all of a sudden completely secular.

Which implies that there is a large influence of religion(s) on the election of whatever politician and teh decisions made by such politicians who want to be re-elected.

Iit “made itself felt” yet this is clearly overruled by the influence of the religion(s).
I don’t “impose” anything. I pose myself questions and try to come to conlcusions.

I think I must disagree here. It is very visible that a candidate for presidency is judged on his private life, which can easily lead to attacks refering to his overall integrity.
Many people seem to tend to connect a “stable marriage-with-children” to stability in decision making.
I find this an incomprehensible reasoning. I am tempted to look for a connection with religious teachings on this behaviour.

Salaam. A

I find this explanation very informative and to the point.
Salaam. A

I would like to apologize to the entire SDMB community for “encouraging” Alde to open this thread. I will take into account in the future that he doesn’t understand the meaning of the “rolleyes” smiley. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Johm M,

I’m sorry to disappoint you so greatly, but you have no influence what so ever on whatever I choose to post on this message board.

I do hope you survive that cold shower and the related shock.

Salaam. A

The fact is there is no easy way to track the answers here with the posts there. Frustrating is the nice way to describe it.

Now I know you hate all the back stage clutter threads develop but this thread itself is clutter in its own right.

This is simply another example of Aldebaran being unable to distinguish between governmental agencies and individual beliefs. I suspect it will follow the same path as his trainwreck of a free speech thread.

Julie

You might enjoy this NY Times editorial Aldebaron:
The God Gulf

Grey,

The answers there at the first question in the OP are of no relevance for - and have in my opinion no connection at all with -what is intended to be discussed here.

I quote these posts because they are answers on my OP, though made in an other thread I do not wish to disturb.

What is so extremely difficult about that?

Salaam. A

You answer your own question:

So peope are allowed to judge a candidate, based on their beliefs, when it suits your argument, but it is not permissible for them the judge a candidate, based on their beliefs, when you need the decision to go the other way. Whether a presidential candidate is a good family man (which many divorced men are) is not really different regarding his ability to govern than whether he is a churchgoer. The distinction (without a difference) is simply one that you need to claim to make your point.


He did not become secular, at all. And for that reason, he was removed from office by the secular decison of the court (a court made up of people who share many, if not all, of his religious beliefs). In other words, despite the pervasive nature of religion in the personal lives of a great many Americans, the country is able to function at a secular level. When he allowed his religious actions to interfere with his judicial office, he was removed.

You are imposing your personal understanding on the word secular. You seem to want to pretend that it means that religion cannot be seen, heard, or believed by any person connected to government. It does not. It means that the laws, themselves, are not supposed to be based in religion. You hold up Belgium as a “more secular” nation, yet the religious beliefs of the Belgian ministers of parliament prevented the legalization of abortion until 1990–years after the U.S. had legalized the procedure.

Mostly this is simply more of your inventing things to complain about regarding your misunderstanding of the way that the U.S. functions.

squink,

My impression is that this writer supports my views.

Salaam. A

If you think Al is misguided here, point out why rather than giving him the 'ol ad hominum shoutdown.

Tom, where do I say the following:

"peope are allowed to judge a candidate, based on their beliefs, when it suits your argument, but it is not permissible for them the judge a candidate, based on their beliefs, when you need the decision to go the other way. "
And that judge was free to let his belief directly influence his decisions during all the time he was in function.
Are all his decisions now reviewed by secular judges or are they not. If not, then his religious views still influence justice in the USA.

And no, I don’t pretend that
“religion cannot be seen, heard, or believed by any person connected to government.”
I say that in my opinion it influences indeed that laws risk to be based in religion.

Your example of Belgium is comparing apples with oranges (and I don’t recall when that specific law was finally signed and I am too lazy to look it up, so I take it that you are correct).
It was not “religion” influencing the parliament. The opposition coming from a variety of people of different political colour is only possible in a nation with a variety of political parties. They provide for counter balance and opposites in the ranks of goverment and in the opposition.
It is not the most easy way for governing a country, and especially a rather complicated one like Belgium, but in my opinion one of the most democratic systems possible.

In a nation where only two parties have any countable effect and thus have the opportunity to deliver the Head of State, there is much more danger for religion entering the law making process if religion is part of the way electionable candidates are winning votes. Or better said: must try to win votes.

The fact that the Belgian king at the time was that much influenced by his religion that he declared himself incapable of signing this law (= making it legal by his counter signing the signature of the Prime Minister) didn’t manage to prevent the law being approved and implemented. His refusal caused a crisis that was rather quickly solved by the creativeness of the Belgian politicans and their law specialists.

Salaam. A

There are a few people worthy of ad hominem attacks.:slight_smile: At any rate, the OP is actually a question with a factual answer (and it has been answered). That leaves a free-for-all as long as this stays in GD instead of GQ or the BBQ Pit (where it belongs).

Aldebaran:

Theoretically, the US government is secular in that it cannot legislate relgious doctines into law, nor can it endorse or support one religion over another. The government, theoretically cannot treat people differently based on religious beliefs. In practice this has not always been the case but our justice system has gotten better over the decades at rectifying institutional religious bigotry.

With regards to elections, there is a strong cultural prejudice in favor of candidates who seem to be religious, not because they necessarily want theocratic legislation (although some of them do) but because they perceive a person who believes in god as being inherently more ethical and trustworthy than a person who doesn’t. It’s about perception of moral character than it is about legislating religion.

I think it’s a false presumption, and it leads to a lot of candidates who wrap themselves in religion purely for show, but such is the political climate.

the government has to be secular in its legislation but the people are allowed to vote based on any prejudice they want. You don’t have to justify your vote or even tell anyone who you voted for.

In short, the institutions are secular, the people need not be.

I have no desire to only see posts that I think are reasonable and agree with my opinion. No fun or way to learn anything from that. You are right, sarcasm doesn’t seem to be a good method of communication with Aldebaran. See, you’ve learned something from him. :rolleyes:

No, my comparison is direct and equal. The reason that Belgium took until 1990 to legalize abortion is that the members of the various parties were following their religious beliefs through the 1970s and 1980s. What party in Belgium ever opposed abortion on non-religious grounds? (I made no reference to King Boudewijn because he was not acting in Parliament.)

As to the judge in Alabama: if you can cite a previous decision that he made which he based on religious arguments, I will see whether those decisions were allowed to stand. That I am aware, his every attempt to make religious decisions was reversed by higher courts.