# Would you refuse to vote for a candidate based solely on his/her religion? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 4, 2006, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109 "2006-07-04T00:35:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/61 "2006-07-06T04:37:01Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > No Muslims. Sorry, but if they were more vocal in denouncing the extremists, maybe. But they weren’t, so, no. So, I guess you’re not going to be voting for any Christians either? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/62 "2006-07-06T04:56:26Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Although I am not religious at all, I do believe there to be a higher power. I think that is where we get the rights enumerated in the DofI from. If they are not bestowed by a higher power, they are the whims of man, and can be taken away as easily as they were invented and given. That makes _no_ sense. No matter where they came from, they can be taken away, whether written down by humans, gods or sentient squirrels. God isn’t the one enforcing laws; people are, including the ones that guarantee our rights. I also find that enormously insulting to all the people who have fought and died for their rights over the centuries; handing the credit to your God spits on all of them. As well, they are just as arbitrary handed down by a god as they would be from us mere mortals. Finally, if you “believe in a higher power”, you are religious. Period. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/63 "2006-07-06T04:57:12Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But Jefferson said, "We hold these truths to be **self-evident."** If so, why woud they require divine sanction? Let’s start with this: > [@](#): > > When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume **among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them** , a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. > > We hold **these truths** to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. What do you think the passage you quoted— "We hold these truths to be “self-evident,”—means? To what do you think “these truths” refers? It seems quite obvious to me that they refer to five main things: 1. that all men are created equal 2. that they are endowed **by their Creator** with certain **unalienable** Rights 3. that among **these** are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. 4. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men… 5. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it… So we have five things that are “self-evident”. Number 1 says “ **created** equal”. Now men, never mind women, are not created equal in a physical sense, or in a mental one, so it must be refering to something else. But if the passage appeared in isolation I think you would be correct in saying that equality is simply “self-evident”. But it doesn’t. It is preceeded by “… the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…” So we have a God, and this God entitles people to enjoy a separate and equal station. Reading Number 1 after that, it seems to me that the meaning is that equality, both on the individual and “national” level are God-given. Number 2 states, unequivocally, that there is a Creator and that he has endowed us with certain inalienable rights, which include those mentioned in Number 3. Remember, #3 is not a comprehensive list. Numbers 4 and 5 are stylistically linked back to either “these things that are self-evident” or “certain unalienable rights”. It is unclear, until we look back and take everything in context. Additionally, the end of #5, “…as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” talks about “happiness”, one the rights the pursuit thereof is clearly expressed as God-given in #s 2 and 3. If this is confusing, I apologize. But I tried err on the side of a more complete explanation. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/64 "2006-07-06T05:24:55Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > That makes _no_ sense. No matter where they came from, they can be taken away, whether written down by humans, gods or sentient squirrels. God isn’t the one enforcing laws; people are, including the ones that guarantee our rights. Wrong. They can be ignored, dishonored, or trampled upon, but they are part of man. > [@Der Trihs](#): > > I also find that enormously insulting to all the people who have fought and died for their rights over the centuries; handing the credit to your God spits on all of them. Coming from you this is beyond laughable. You trying to stick up for people who carried guns and killed other people. Precious. > [@Der Trihs](#): > > handing the credit to your God spits on all of them. I’m sure they would love to hear that as a great majority of them, I’d say, fought for them because they believe them to be derived from God. > [@Der Trihs](#): > > As well, they are just as arbitrary handed down by a god as they would be from us mere mortals. Can you not see that IF they are handed down from God that they are not arbitrary. Concentrate on the “if” for a second. Or do you also believe that when a tiger comes into this world that his stripes are arbitrary? > [@Der Trihs](#): > > Finally, if you “believe in a higher power”, you are religious. Period. As far as the last point, I’ve explained this numerous times before, if you’re interested enough to start foaming, go look it up. And, as in almost any discussion concerning religion, you are wrong. Just as wrong as when you claim Communism is a religion. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/65 "2006-07-06T05:49:34Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > So, I guess you’re not going to be voting for any Christians either? Why not? I don’t recall a large portion of them swearing death to Americans. And some of them suceeding. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/66 "2006-07-06T06:39:11Z")
Define “large portion.” I don’t hear very many Christians denouncing the Christians who terrorize people. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/67 "2006-07-06T07:13:26Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Define “large portion.” I don’t hear very many Christians denouncing the Christians who terrorize people. Not isolated groups. Do you not recall the TV coverage of Muslim throngs in the Middle East celebrating after 9/11? ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/68 "2006-07-06T09:18:28Z")
I recall my Muslim neighbors decrying the event. I recall my Muslim classmates praying that such a terrible thing never happens again. I also recall some of the TV coverage to which you refer. Exactly how big a percentage of the **billion or so** Muslims did that TV camera manage to show? ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/69 "2006-07-06T11:40:21Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > I recall my Muslim neighbors decrying the event. I recall my Muslim classmates praying that such a terrible thing never happens again. I also recall some of the TV coverage to which you refer. Exactly how big a percentage of the **billion or so** Muslims did that TV camera manage to show? I also recall a recent poll which showed that more than half the people surveyed in places like Egypt and Morocco refused to believe that 9-11 was the work of Arab terrorists. Please do understand that there are millions of Muslims around the world, and some in this country, who would dearly love to kill you and believe that God has given them the right to do so. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/70 "2006-07-06T15:10:31Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But Jefferson said, "We hold these truths to be **self-evident."** If so, why woud they require divine sanction? Clearly, he was bluffing. Not that I think our rights need divine sanction to be valid. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/71 "2006-07-06T15:16:22Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > I know whatcha mean. When I come across someone who insists consciousness and intelligence are merely by-products of a random flux of atoms blindly obeying the laws of physics and chemistry, I would really have to worry about whether or not he’s fit for public office. > > Hint: Qualities such as “crazy” and “bizarre” can be very subjective; like beauty, they’re often very much in the eye of the beholder. Yes, of course, because what it really is is magic. Anyone who prefers scientific investigation over making up magical explanations is clearly insane. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/72 "2006-07-06T15:17:30Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > I also recall a recent poll which showed that more than half the people surveyed in places like Egypt and Morocco refused to believe that 9-11 was the work of Arab terrorists. Please do understand that there are millions of Muslims around the world, and some in this country, who would dearly love to kill you and believe that God has given them the right to do so. And that makes them different from Christians how? ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/73 "2006-07-06T15:19:19Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > I also recall a recent poll which showed that more than half the people surveyed in places like Egypt and Morocco refused to believe that 9-11 was the work of Arab terrorists. Please do understand that there are millions of Muslims around the world, and some in this country, who would dearly love to kill you and believe that God has given them the right to do so. Silly me. I thought there were about a billion Muslims around the world. Is it a majority of them who think that God has given them the right to kill me? I seriously doubt it. Until you provide some cite for that assertion, I’ll maintain my doubts. On the other hand, I’ve met quite a few “lovely Christian people” who think they have every right in the world–given to them by God, of course–to tell me that I’m going to Hell. Some of them have also expressed support of that nutjob who murdered a doctor who performed abortions. Now, I don’t believe for a minute that they represent the majority of Christians. Do you see my point now? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/74 "2006-07-06T15:21:22Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Let’s start with this: > What do you think the passage you quoted— "We hold these truths to be “self-evident,”—means? To what do you think “these truths” refers? It seems quite obvious to me that they refer to five main things: > > 1. that all men are created equal > 2. that they are endowed **by their Creator** with certain **unalienable** Rights > 3. that among **these** are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. > 4. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men… > 5. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it… > > So we have five things that are “self-evident”. Number 1 says “ **created** equal”. Now men, never mind women, are not created equal in a physical sense, or in a mental one, so it must be refering to something else. But if the passage appeared in isolation I think you would be correct in saying that equality is simply “self-evident”. But it doesn’t. It is preceeded by “… the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…” > > So we have a God, and this God entitles people to enjoy a separate and equal station. Reading Number 1 after that, it seems to me that the meaning is that equality, both on the individual and “national” level are God-given. > > Number 2 states, unequivocally, that there is a Creator and that he has endowed us with certain inalienable rights, which include those mentioned in Number 3. Remember, #3 is not a comprehensive list. Numbers 4 and 5 are stylistically linked back to either “these things that are self-evident” or “certain unalienable rights”. It is unclear, until we look back and take everything in context. > > Additionally, the end of #5, “…as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” talks about “happiness”, one the rights the pursuit thereof is clearly expressed as God-given in #s 2 and 3. > > If this is confusing, I apologize. But I tried err on the side of a more complete explanation. The DOI is irrelevant to US law. The Constitution makes no reference to God and most of the Founding Fathers did not believe in a God who was active in the universe. The COTUS is in no way based on any religious precepts. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/75 "2006-07-06T15:48:49Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Wrong. They can be ignored, dishonored, or trampled upon, but they are part of man. Prove it, and prove that it matters. What matters are the facts on the ground; it doesn’t matter it I have the “right” to be free if I’m in a dungeon cell. > [@magellan01](#): > > Coming from you this is beyond laughable. You trying to stick up for people who carried guns and killed other people. Precious. Ah yes; because I oppose a war of conquest by America, I must oppose people who fight _against_ such wars, and tyrants in general. I have said in the past that I _approve_ of the Iraqis who kill foreign soldiers, and regard it as their patriotic duty to kill as many as possible. I’m not a pacifist. > [@magellan01](#): > > I’m sure they would love to hear that as a great majority of them, I’d say, fought for them because they believe them to be derived from God. Ridiculous. I seriously doubt that most _cared_ what they derived from. > [@magellan01](#): > > Can you not see that IF they are handed down from God that they are not arbitrary. Concentrate on the “if” for a second. Why is God’s opinion relevant ? A declaration by a god is just as arbitrary as one of mine or yours. > [@magellan01](#): > > Or do you also believe that when a tiger comes into this world that his stripes are arbitrary? No, that’s evolution; it’s functional, not philosophical. > [@magellan01](#): > > As far as the last point, I’ve explained this numerous times before, if you’re interested enough to start foaming, go look it up. And, as in almost any discussion concerning religion, you are wrong. Just as wrong as when you claim Communism is a religion. And your proof of this is ? > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Yes, of course, because what it really is is magic. Anyone who prefers scientific investigation over making up magical explanations is clearly insane. Ah, but you’re only insane if most people diagree with you. > [@Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR)](#): > > A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.\*\* The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture (e.g. it is not an article of religious faith). \*\* So, believing in invisible men in the sky who control everything is only crazy if it’s _unusual_. I do find it telling that a special exception is made for religion. > [@magellan01](#): > > Not isolated groups. Do you not recall the TV coverage of Muslim throngs in the Middle East celebrating after 9/11? And some held candlelight vigils instead. Not to mention, has it occurred to you they may hate us because we’ve _hurt_ them, and not because of religion ? Given our behavior, the whole world could suddenly become atheist or Christian or otherwise religiously unified, and they’d _still_ hate us. The rhetoric would change, that’s all. ---
**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:** [July 6, 2006, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/76 "2006-07-06T15:48:50Z")
I don’t vote for a religion, I vote for a candidate. For example, it doesn’t matter to me if someone is anti-abortion rights because she’s a fundie, a Catholic, a dandelion worshipper, or an atheist. If she’s anti-abortion rights, I’m anti-voting for her. Now, if I had the choice between an atheist and a religious person who both claimed to have the same political views, I would likely be more likely (likely!) to vote for the atheist for two reasons: 1. I’d like to see atheists get elected, or rather would like to see atheism not be cause for not getting elected, and 2. I’d trust the atheist very very slightly more to deal with future events in a nonreligious way. ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/77 "2006-07-06T16:20:06Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > I also recall a recent poll which showed that more than half the people surveyed in places like Egypt and Morocco refused to believe that 9-11 was the work of Arab terrorists. Please do understand that there are millions of Muslims around the world, and some in this country, who would dearly love to kill you and believe that God has given them the right to do so. I don’t see how your first sentence implies the assertion in your second sentence. To me, it sounds like people who were ashamed of the transgressions their fellow Muslims reacting with denial (as the kin of criminals often do). And if they were ashamed, they probably weren’t in favor of the actions. I would think that people who wanted to see Americans killed would be more likely to say, “Yeah, we did it, and we’d do it again” than “We didn’t do it”. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/78 "2006-07-06T16:26:42Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > If this is confusing, I apologize. But I tried err on the side of a more complete explanation. Not confusing, really, but beside the point. What good reason have you to believe that an atheist in public office will be any less respectful of human rights than a Christian? Lincoln was an atheist, but did not for that reason behave as though people are cattle. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/79 "2006-07-06T16:30:02Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Can you not see that IF they are handed down from God that they are not arbitrary. Of course they are. Either human rights are something as absolute and essential as the laws of mathematics, in which case they are the same whether God exists or not, or approves of them or not; or they are in the nature of preferences, moral judgments and policy decisions, which are just as arbitrary when God decrees them as when a mortal king decrees them. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/80 "2006-07-06T16:31:35Z")
> [@F. U. Shakespeare](#): > > I would think that people who wanted to see Americans killed would be more likely to say, “Yeah, we did it, and we’d do it again” than “We didn’t do it”. I dunno. Consider the Holocaust deniers. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109.md?page=5)