For president?

I know you people go on and on about the dangers of mixing church and state.

Well, if you had a Roman Catholic as president, not only would you have a religious president, but you would have one who is beholden to a foreign power, that of the Pope and the Vatican. There a lot of wonky religions out there, but few require their adherents to pledge alleigance to some man on a marble chair, an allegiance that should supersede allegiance to the red white and blue.

I think it shows Biden's wisdom and prudence that he decided not to run for president. He may not have wanted to compromise his patriotism.

Although that could be  because Mrs. Bubba is too formidable of a candidate for anyone to beat.

I fear that electing JFK as president set a terrible precedent.

Thoughts? Opinions?

Sure. If I thought she or he was the best candidate available.

JFK didn't seem to let too much of his Catholicism get in the way of his presidency.

And to be honest, most of the Catholics I've met are easier going than the various flavors of Protestants I've met in the South.

JFK promised to be a not very good Catholic, and then swore an oath of office that if there was no such thing as a political consideration in the Vatican would have got him immediately excommunicated.

Considering the competition (Nixon) and his ultimate fuck ups, I guess I'm not sure what the TS is getting at.

Additionally, recognizing the near total dearth of Literalists in the country, it would be somewhat silly to just have a blanket prohibition on religious candidates for the office, electing a backsliding compromised scripture cherry picking slacker does not seem to advance the cause of religious fealty/piety at all.

(December 28, 2015 at 3:10 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: JFK didn't seem to let too much of his Catholicism get in the way of his presidency.

And to be honest, most of the Catholics I've met are easier going than the various flavors of Protestants I've met in the South.

Thats because they worship the Whore of Babylon and are willing to compromise with the changing times rather than obey the Word of God.

Fortunately the RCC does condemn contraception. It teaches that one sins twice if a person fornicates with a condom. The fornication might be bad, but the contracpetion is even worse.

Not surprisingly, few Roman Catholics follow this teaching which means that in their religion, they will be tortured in Hell. Forever.

(December 28, 2015 at 3:06 pm)TrueChristian Wrote: For president?

I know you people go on and on about the dangers of mixing church and state.

Well, if you had a Roman Catholic as president, not only would you have a religious president, but you would have one who is beholden to a foreign power, that of the Pope and the Vatican. There a lot of wonky religions out there, but few require their adherents to pledge alleigance to some man on a marble chair, an allegiance that should supersede allegiance to the red white and blue.

I think it shows Biden's wisdom and prudence that he decided not to run for president. He may not have wanted to compromise his patriotism.

Although that could be  because Mrs. Bubba is too formidable of a candidate for anyone to beat.

I fear that electing JFK as president set a terrible precedent.

Thoughts? Opinions?

Why would electing a Catholic have any relevance to the separation of church and state? The personal religious views of government officials are not a threat to separation of church and state unless they attempt to impose or support those views by law or to prohibit other religious views by law. The last president to seriously challenge the separation of church and state was evangelical George W. Bush with his faith based inititves. I don't think JFK ever came anywhere so near crossing the line. Several current Republican candidates appear poised to do worse.

(December 28, 2015 at 3:10 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: JFK didn't seem to let too much of his Catholicism get in the way of his presidency.
...

Or, it seems, his extracurriculars knowmsayin'?

(December 28, 2015 at 3:28 pm)TrueChristian Wrote: Not surprisingly, few Roman Catholics follow this teaching which means that in their religion, they will be tortured in Hell. Forever.

Totally worth it. This bad Jew LOVES fucking bad Catholics.

I would prefer our president not be deeply religious, but if they can manage to treat the first amendment like it pertains to ALL religion, I don't care what their religious beliefs are. Muslim, catholic, hindu. As long as they can separate their personal beliefs from their job, it doesn't matter.

Unfortunately that would be hard to do in practice. Being a president requires compromise, which certain religiong would call heresy. After all, he's supposed to be a public servant. Not a dictator.

I have no horse in any American race, but as far as our presidents or chancellors go, I'm not the least bit interested in the religion of the particular candidates but in their politcal programs. Happens that our current president calls himself an agnostic. I did vote for him, since he had an impeccable political record over the many decades he served in parliament.

I wonder why, for some people, the religious affiliation of a person is of any importance. We don't live in theocracies but in democracies. And the religious believes of any given candidate are only of importance if he or she happens to be a radical, wanting to change the constitution in favor of their particular believes.