# In God They Trust **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 29, 2005, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-they-trust/328412 "2005-10-29T02:56:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Fritz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c57346/32.png) [@Fritz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fritz)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-they-trust/328412/1 "2005-10-29T02:56:30Z")
In response to an NBC special report airing tonight, which I haven’t seen yet… I’ve been wondering for some time now, what would happen if a politician that was running for President had a clearly stated agenda that was firmly against religious interference within American politics, law and the American education system? What would happen if this politician was fully supportive of most things Science? What would happen if he or she was supportive of Gay rights and those social issues that do not seem to have any real impact on society, but that religious fundamentalists (or even the non-fundamentalists) find so offensive and feel so impelled to speak out against? What if this politician was forthright and completely outspoken over these issues - be damned to losing the support of a pretty large voting block - and regarded creeping religious zealotry to be a genuine threat to our American ideals and freedoms, and _said so_, often and with conviction? Would said politician be able to gather enough support to edge out other politicians that support the religious right, or give the rr lip service? Or are those that are alarmed at creeping religious zealotry simply too diverse (or too disinterested) to be able to unify behind a leader with this stated purpose against it? Of couse, this leader must have well-thought foreign and economic policies, at least equal to or just as convincing as his/her opponents, but all other factors being somewhat equal: Would such a leader be able to prevail or would this leader get demolished? What say you, Dopers? ---
**Author:** ![Noctolator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Noctolator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noctolator)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-they-trust/328412/2 "2005-10-29T02:58:58Z")
> [@Fritz](#): > > What say you, Dopers? He or she would carry New York and/or California. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-they-trust/328412/3 "2005-10-29T03:01:31Z")
> [@Fritz](#): > > Would such a leader be able to prevail or would this leader get demolished? > > What say you, Dopers? Creamed. Splatted. Crushed. Beheaded. Toasted. And she’d lose, too. ---
**Author:** ![SnakesCatLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4af34b/32.png) [@SnakesCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakesCatLady)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-they-trust/328412/4 "2005-10-29T03:05:16Z")
In Georgia, not a chance of being elected. He/she would be lucky not to be burnt at the stake. It is safer to be gay in Georgia than to be pagan. ---
**Author:** ![Fritz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c57346/32.png) [@Fritz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fritz)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-they-trust/328412/5 "2005-10-29T03:18:22Z")
> [@Snakescatlady](#): > > In Georgia, not a chance of being elected. He/she would be lucky not to be burnt at the stake. It is safer to be gay in Georgia than to be pagan. I wouldn’t suggest such a politician would be pagan. On the contrary, this politician would be respectful of religion (could even be religious his or herself), and supportive of those that believed what they wanted to believe, as long as such belief had no political power, or no power to force others that are just as moral but not religious to believe/behave as they do. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-they-trust/328412/6 "2005-10-29T03:27:01Z")
What would happen if a square had five corners? Who knows? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-they-trust/328412/7 "2005-10-29T03:39:55Z")
Well, Carter had the advantage that he was running against Ford after the Nixon pardon. I don’t think it could happen (soon) again. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-they-trust/328412/8 "2005-10-29T04:04:54Z")
> [@Fritz](#): > > I wouldn’t suggest such a politician would be pagan. On the contrary, this politician would be respectful of religion (could even be religious his or herself), and supportive of those that believed what they wanted to believe, as long as such belief had no political power, or no power to force others that are just as moral but not religious to believe/behave as they do. A democrat might have a fighting chance if they were very charesmatic and mainstream on other issues. I still have my doubts that any politician could win by being areligious in regards to government or even would attempt to try. Its so ridiculously easy to pander to the religious that there is no reason not to. A few church appearances and a few God Bless Americas is all that it really takes. If a politician were stupid enough to try I doubt they would be smart enough in other aspects to make up for the deficiency. A republican canidate would never make it past a primary. Too much of that base wants a heavily religious leader. ---
**Author:** ![Fritz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c57346/32.png) [@Fritz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fritz)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-they-trust/328412/9 "2005-10-29T04:14:55Z")
What I’m after here, is this: Is our country, at its core, ripe for a religious groundswell? Is the _majority_ of our country ready to adopt the values of Evagelical Christians? Do you think that a _majority_ of our citizens believe that our country is on a path to hell, and needs a good shot of “that old time religion?” That creationism is right, and evolution is “just a theory?” Yes, I know that this particular point seems to be laughable to most(?) of the posters at the SDMB, but is it laughable to the majority of the voters? Do you believe that reason does not have a chance against religious conservatism in our country? That our leaders (politicians) must always pay lip service to Christianity, regardless of their personal convictions? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-they-trust/328412/10 "2005-10-29T04:19:10Z")
> [@Fritz](#): > > I…what would happen if a politician that was running for President had a clearly stated agenda that was firmly against religious interference within American politics, law and the American education system? What would happen if this politician was fully supportive of most things Science? What would happen if he or she was supportive of Gay rights and those social issues that do not seem to have any real impact on society, but that religious fundamentalists (or even the non-fundamentalists) find so offensive and feel so impelled to speak out against? That’s pretty vague. What does it mean to be against “religious interference?” Be specific. What does it mean to be “supportive of most things Science?” Be specific. What does it meant to be “supportive of Gay rights?” Be specific. I can think of policies along those lines that would make such a candidate unappealing to ~70% of the populace, not just “religious fundamentalists”. Hell, if he/she advocated taking “under God” out of the Pledge, he’d be creamed. If he advocated SSM, he’d be slaughtered. Think about it. You’re asking how would a candidate do if he advocated things that most people find offensive. He’d lose. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-they-trust/328412/11 "2005-10-29T04:41:27Z")
Take religion out of U.S. politics?- welll, there was considerable religionist participation & propagandation for (as well as against) the American Revolution, abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage (yes, there was actually Evangelical support as well as opposition to that), and civil rights, so a retroactive taking of religion out of U.S. politics would have removed some fire out of all of those movements. Does the general U.S. population want the Evangelical Right’s hope for America? Obviously not- heck, I have reservations about some of the policies of my co-religio/politicos. Take what the Religious Right wants & what the (Secular or Religious) Left want- split the difference between the Right & Left about 55/45 & I think you have the general US view. Don’t remove Evolution from schools, don’t necessarily include Creationism, but don’t exclude consideration of the Creator. Don’t ban abortion, or even restrict it to the roughly 5% hard cases, but do regulate it for minors & give some consideration to the rights of the father, a minor’s parents, & the unborn themselves. Don’t push sectarian faith in public forums, but don’t remove acknowledgement of God. Don’t criminalize homosexuality, but don’t have public school sex ed programs discount religious/moral objections to it. Also- maybe allow for gay partnerships but don’t allow marriage to be re-defined. ---
**Author:** ![Fritz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c57346/32.png) [@Fritz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fritz)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-they-trust/328412/12 "2005-10-29T05:11:41Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > That’s pretty vague. What does it mean to be against “religious interference?” Be specific. What does it mean to be “supportive of most things Science?” Be specific. What does it meant to be “supportive of Gay rights?” Be specific. > > I can think of policies along those lines that would make such a candidate unappealing to ~70% of the populace, not just “religious fundamentalists”. > > Hell, if he/she advocated taking “under God” out of the Pledge, he’d be creamed. > > If he advocated SSM, he’d be slaughtered. > > Think about it. You’re asking how would a candidate do if he advocated things that most people find offensive. He’d lose. Most people? 70%? > [@](#): > > “What does it mean to be against “religious interference?” Be specific.” Demonstrations and outrage against the court in the Schiavo case and a call to remove “activist judges”; As said above, attempts to introduce creationism in science classes in public schools; Let’s get real simple and say “Blue Laws” in some state that prohibit the sale of booze on Sundays. > [@](#): > > What does it mean to be “supportive of most things Science?” Stem cell research? Evolution? Birth control or abstinence for teenagers? > [@](#): > > “supportive of Gay rights?” Be specific. I made this a bit broad. Let’s be very narrow and say simply and nothing more than Same Sex Marriage. On preview: > [@FriarTed](#): > > but don’t remove acknowledgement of God. I agree. And I agree with the rest of your reply. I am not saying that this theoretical leader/politician would be anti-religion, just non-religion. I’m not suggestion a denial of religion. Yes, if taken to a completely anti-religious stance, I can easily imagine more than 70% of the voting public taking a stand against such a platform. My question is, does a politician that espouses resistance to purely religious influence/incursion/intrusion on our freedoms stand a chance in American politics? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-they-trust/328412/13 "2005-10-29T05:50:12Z")
> [@Fritz](#): > > Most people? 70%? My guesstimate if you added up all the people who’d be alieanated. > [@](#): > > Demonstrations and outrage against the court in the Schiavo case and a call to remove “activist judges”; “Activist judges” isn’t a religious issue. It certainly might encompass aspects of the establishment clause, but that’s only a small part. > [@](#): > > As said above, attempts to introduce creationism in science classes in public schools; Let’s get real simple and say “Blue Laws” in some state that prohibit the sale of booze on Sundays. But then you’re getting into an issue of federal vs state authority. AFAIK, the feds have never had the ability to regulate in that sphere. > [@](#): > > Stem cell research? Evolution? Birth control or abstinence for teenagers? Stem cell research is already popular with \> 50% of the population. Evolution (in schools) is again a state matter. Birth control isn’t a scientific issue. > [@](#): > > I made this a bit broad. Let’s be very narrow and say simply and nothing more than Same Sex Marriage. SSM = death for a candidate at the national level. We’re a good generation, at least, before that will change. > [@](#): > > My question is, does a politician that espouses resistance to purely religious influence/incursion/intrusion on our freedoms stand a chance in American politics? Polls consistently show that ~90% of Americans want to keep “under God” in the Pledge. Good luck separating out what is “purely religious” from what is not. I know what you’re trying to get at, but politics just isn’t that simple. I’d be happy to see religion expunged from public life, but any politician who advocated that would’t stand a chance of getting elected (at the national level). ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-they-trust/328412/14 "2005-10-29T06:05:29Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > SSM = death for a candidate at the national level. We’re a good generation, at least, before that will change. As a nation we might be that far away but states like California and Massachusetts aren’t that far away. In my opinion we will see SSM on the state level within the next 5 years and within multiple states in the next 10. Once a few states pass SSM there will be a Supreme Court ruling invalidating the DOMA and requiring the rest of the States to honor the SSM marriages. When that happens SSM will be legal for all intents and purposes. ---
**Author:** ![Fritz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c57346/32.png) [@Fritz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fritz)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-they-trust/328412/15 "2005-10-29T07:03:03Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > “Activist judges” isn’t a religious issue. It certainly might encompass aspects of the establishment clause, but that’s only a small part. It was mostly the Evangelical Christians that were most vocal on this issue. > [@](#): > > Stem cell research is already popular with \> 50% of the population. Evolution (in schools) is again a state matter. Birth control isn’t a scientific issue. Yes, it is. Most, if not all, Evengelical Christians are advocating abstinence as the best method to prevent early pregnancy, STDs, etc., despite statistical evidence that concludes that “abstinence” is more harmful than teaching proper methods of protection. Look it up[here](http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=19531) And there are tons of other sites that illustrate the weakness and failure of abstinenece - based on _statistics_. Statistics = science (or mathematics), no? > [@](#): > > SSM = death for a candidate at the national level. We’re a good generation, at least, before that will change. > Polls consistently show that ~90% of Americans want to keep “under God” in the Pledge. Good luck separating out what is “purely religious” from what is not. I know what you’re trying to get at, but politics just isn’t that simple. I know that. Politics are definitely not simple. I have posed an _artificially_ narrow scenario in order to isolate the question: Are Americans so spiritual and religious that a gifted leader that advocated “Reason” and “Logic” and “Science”, all other considerations being equal, could not prevail? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-they-trust/328412/16 "2005-10-29T12:00:25Z")
> [@Fritz](#): > > I wouldn’t suggest such a politician would be pagan. On the contrary, this politician would be respectful of religion (could even be religious his or herself), and supportive of those that believed what they wanted to believe, as long as such belief had no political power, or no power to force others that are just as moral but not religious to believe/behave as they do. It wouldn’t be smart to slam the religious zealots, but a smart politician might be able to respectfully disagree and explain why seperation of church and state is protection for all Americans, religious and other wise. H/she might swear to be a defender of the church in the sense of defending religious freedom for all. This might help dilute the religious “persecution” complex. Many evangelicals believe that their is a move tp repress their religious freedom or to negate their opinions as citizens. A candidate would have to be specific about supporting a students right to choose “Under God” in the pledge and praying at school. It’s not officially sanctioned by the government but the right to do so is defended. There are Christian groups such as Sojourners and another group that is Christians for Speration, that such a candidate would be wise to court. Resepcting religion means more than just tolerating. It would mean actively seeking the council of select religious leaders, “Reverand Al Sharpton” and being seen to listen to them. I would stress seeking “What is good for all Americans”, and display the diversity of America. You might be able to demonstrate that the zealots who want to declare America an official Christian nation are “confused” or “mistaken” but still recognize their love for America, their patriotism, their passion for justice. The abortion and gay rights issue would be tough. On abortion the candidate would have to stress understanding the feelings of those who opposed abortion. I would also stress that there are still unwanted children being born who need our care and support. If we oppose a womans right to choose then we bare some moral responsibility to care for the children of this world. Dare to raise the question. If you oppose a womans right to choose then what are you doing to care for the chiildren in need? Take the route of supporting choice but trying to offer education and financial alternatives so woman can afford to choose not to have one. Gay rights, same sex marriage. Again, no intellectually superior or condescending airs. Acknowledge concern about the moral direction of this country. Acknowledge that balncing this moral direction and defending people’s rights is a challenging issue and find some examples. Support gay marriage as an equal rights issue, but don’t try to force it on the states. Add these to a real concern for working class America and you’d have an interesting fight. Even walking a careful line and being smart it would be very hard for this kind of candidate to get elected, but I’d love to see some smart person with a ounce of guts and integrity really try. What seems to happen is that being in Washington s corrupts the integrity of all but the select few. Add to that the fact that Americans can’t seem to focus on any issue for very long and it gets tricky. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-they-trust/328412/17 "2005-10-29T12:17:39Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > Does the general U.S. population want the Evangelical Right’s hope for America? > Obviously not- heck, I have reservations about some of the policies of my co-religio/politicos. Take what the Religious Right wants & what the (Secular or Religious) Left want- split the difference between the Right & Left about 55/45 & I think you have the general US view. What policies in particular? I’m curious. > [@](#): > > Don’t criminalize homosexuality, but don’t have public school sex ed programs > discount religious/moral objections to it. Also- maybe allow for gay partnerships but don’t allow marriage to be re-defined. I was with you up to this point. I think with teenage pregnancies still too high I think sex education is something we need. Not that it will solve every problem, but I think it’s an important part of education. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-they-trust/328412/18 "2005-10-29T12:36:57Z")
> [@Fritz](#): > > Most people? 70%?Demonstrations and outrage against the court in the Schiavo case and a call to remove “activist judges”; > As said above, attempts to introduce creationism in science classes in public schools; Let’s get real simple and say “Blue Laws” in some state that prohibit the sale of booze on Sundays. religious interference? You can’t campaign to discount and suppress the feelings and opinions of people simply because it’s based on their religious beliefs. If people want to protest something because of their beliefs they have every right to do so and any candidate needs to support and defend that right. What you can stress is that we pass laws based on what can be logically shown to be in the public interest not based on religious belief. When people cast their ballot, the source of their feeling and opinion doesn’t matter. Creationism in school would violate this since it is specically a religious belief but a community should be able to limit liquer sales if they choose to. > [@](#): > > Stem cell research? Evolution? Birth control or abstinence for teenagers? > > I made this a bit broad. Let’s be very narrow and say simply and nothing more than Same Sex Marriage. These issues need to be discussed in terms of the rights of all those involved. What about parents rights concerning their kids. Do I want my daughter to have the “right” to get an abortion without even telling me, or to get birth control pills without parental consent or knowledge. It’s not a simple issue of religious interference. > [@](#): > > I am not saying that this theoretical leader/politician would be anti-religion, just non-religion. I’m not suggestion a denial of religion. Yes, if taken to a completely anti-religious stance, I can easily imagine more than 70% of the voting public taking a stand against such a platform. > > My question is, does a politician that espouses resistance to purely religious influence/incursion/intrusion on our freedoms stand a chance in American politics? I think people would disagree on what is purely religious influence. You also have the issue of supporting the majorities right to decide certain issues. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-they-trust/328412/19 "2005-10-29T22:18:56Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I was with you up to this point. I think with teenage pregnancies still too high I think sex education is something we need. Not that it will solve every problem, but I think it’s an important part of education. **Friar Ted** wasn’t suggesting there should be no sed ed. He accidentally had a paragraph break in there. The full sentence was: > [@Friar Ted](#): > > Don’t criminalize homosexuality, but don’t have public school sex ed programs discount religious/moral objections to it. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-they-trust/328412/20 "2005-10-29T23:34:59Z")
> [@andros](#): > > **Friar Ted** wasn’t suggesting there should be no sed ed. He accidentally had a paragraph break in there. The full sentence was: ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh :smack: my mistake. thanks for clearing that up for me. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-they-trust/328412.md?page=2)