Should candidates for office be forced to affirm their faith in God before taking office?
No and they can’t.
In fact, it is clearly specified in Article VI, Section 3, of the Constitution that "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States..."
But when has that ever stopped anyone from using religion?
I didn't say it has. I'm just answering the poll question.
I was agreeing with you
Because we are a nation founded on Judeo/Christian beliefs the answer would be no. If we were founded on Islamic beliefs, the answer would be yes.
I swear I totally love Jebus, Jebus will save us all.
Lefty ... I thought the evil George Soros was your savior.
Well not anymore I didn’t get my damn paycheck from him this month 🤬
Lefty ... how could he abandon you? I thought he’d always be there for you!
It should not be a requirement nor should it be a roadblock. Unfortunately, it’s now more of a roadblock than a requirement.
How...just how. Everybody in the US government is Christian.
Bower ... everyone? Really? Did you want to share your revelation to Mr Ellison of Minnesota? If you do, please post the video of the encounter and share with us here!
Aside from your delusion, I point you to Ms Feinstein‘s recent grilling of a judicial nominee who is a devout catholic. Do you need references to help jog your sluggish mind?
Your ridiculous overstatement is a classic ignorant move by a blind leftist. Did I call you a blind leftist? Nope, but it appears the shoe might fit ...
You really think being Christian makes it harder to get elected?
We have radical Christians in the Senate. I see no radical Muslims. Or atheists.
"Everybody in the US government is Christian."
Not really. Here is a *long* list of Jewish members (religious, not just ethnic) of Congress, both Senators and Representatives, going back to the early 1800s and including about 20 serving at present:
Other religions (besides Christianity) are of course not as well represented, although there are currently two Muslims, one Buddhist and one Hindu serving in Congress. I don't believe there are any members who have identified as atheists, although there are some who state they are "unaffiliated."
And that, of course, is just members of Congress.
You were right, that was a hyperbole and incorrect.
You know there has never been an openly atheist elected to national government though?
Yes, I'm aware of that.
Theres also the fact that people seem to be fine with Roy Moore and others like him, who believe Christian law should govern the US, in the government. Imagine if a Muslim who believed Muslim law should govern the country was running.
Being non-Christian is a roadblock, being a Christian is not even close to being a roadblock.
When people were asked to design their "ideal candidate", being a Christian was the biggest boost. Being an Athiest or Muslim was the biggest roadblock.
Pof ... you’re tirade is interesting, but you curiously avoided dealing with the facts. What do you make of Ms Feinstein’s behavior with Amy Coney Barrett?
I get that your google may be broken, so here’s one of many links on the attacks ...
Bower ... first, it’s good that you can finally admit that you lied.
Next, your ridiculous statement about Roy Moore is no different than those who are convinced that Keith Ellison will push for Sharia Law. Neither is going to happen.
You appear to simply be yet another flame thrower using fear, uncertainty and doubt to stir up others. Knock it off!
@think You have posted an anecdote. The plural of anecdote is not data.
I have real data to back up my claims, you have an anecdote. Being a Catholic, to American voters is a big boost 16% of Americans are more likely to vote for you. 8% of Americans are less likely. Being an tEvangelical Christian is also a boost. 22 of Americans are more likely to vote for you. 20% of Americans are less likely. That's a margin of +2%.
Being a Muslim would make 3% of Americans more likely to vote for you. It would make 42% of Amercans less likely to vote for you. That's a margin of -39%.
For Atheists, you get 6% more likely, 51% less likely. That's a margin of -45%.
If someone posting that refutes your point offends you, Think, as it seems to, you've identified yourself a snowfake.
Being an Atheist or a Muslim were by the far the least liked traits. Americans would rather have a president that used to use drugs, poor financial history, is homosexual, or has cheated on a spouse than a squeaky clean Atheist or Muslim.
Think....Roy Moore has literally stated Americans should follow the bible over the constitution...
Pof ... I get that you think you’re an intellectual who is somehow above mere mortal. My point, albeit anecdotal, is valid. You’ve chosen to look past the real discrimination of Mrs Feinstein. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be you have a particular bias against Christians that leads you to excuse the discrimination of them?
I’m not in any way offended by your comment and therefore your attempt to cast me as a snowflake fails. My position would be the same if there were discrimination against any faith. Sorry to disappoint you in your quest to skewer Christians.
@think Until you're willing to post evidence and data to back up your opinion, take the L and take a seat.
Bower ... it appears that his constituents are fine with that. That is not my view, I believe that we must be subject to the law of the land. However, similarly, I do NOT support the introduction of Sharis law either. Do you?
Pof ... I get that you think you get to tell others what to do, so I’ll be the first to remind you that you do not.
I provided ample evidence of discrimination against a Christian and you keep trying to look past it as if it didn’t happen. It did. What’s your view of that case?
I posted evidence to prove my point. You're the one who is saying your anecdote is evidence.
So tell me, @think, who do you think you are that you don't have to post evidence but others do?
Your inflated ego and denial of evidence really shows us who you are. Stop crying when others point it out.
Americans see being a Christian as a slight positive. Americans see being Atheist or Muslim as EXTREME negatives. This is a survey of a sample size representing ALL Americans. You have an anecdote. Anecdotes are NOT data.
Pof ... let’s be clear. You’re attempting to maintain that the senior senator from California’s comments in September somehow escaped you and your google is somehow broken that you need me to present to you the documents to support my common knowledge assertion, right?
Sure! I’ve got nothing to hide. That’s the luxury of telling the truth rather than some made up story.
Enjoy, here’s one of the MANY non-leftist accounts of the attack by Democrats Mrs Feinstein and Mr Durban.
You may want to review your sources of information, if you were really incapable of finding this detail.
Pof ... so, is it time for you to “take the L and take a seat”? Ya, who realistically could’ve expected to succumb to your own demands.
A Senator doing something=anecdote
A survey of Americans using scientific sampling methods= data
Until you understand the difference, you are not worth conversing with. Nothing can be gained.
Pof ... as I said, who’d expect you to be honest about this topic. Certainly not me!
Pof ... did Mrs Feinstein and Mr Durban cross the line in questioning the religious convictions of the jurist?
Ad hominem is the lowest form of debate, and that is what you clutch to now.
You don't have data or evidence to support your point of view, so you resort to insults.
On the debating totem pole, that tactic takes its place right at the bottom.
If you have evidence to support you view, please share it. So far, you have refused to find evidence. If being a Christian is such a giant roadblock, and we live in a Christian majority country, surely someone must have noticed this and researched it? Surely you must have something besides a politician doing something? Surely something more than an anecdote?
Judging by how your entire view on the issue is based on an anecdote that goes against the evidence, you don't want to be reasoned with.
You have a victim mentality, even though evidence says you aren't a victim.
You are a snowflake.
I adore this thread
Pof ... distract, maybe no one will notice your dishonest attempt to avoid answering the questions. I’ve done nothing to you that you didn’t already do to me.
Suck it up and answer the question ... if you dare.
Your questions are irrelevant to whether you are right or not. Find evidence to support your assertions or drop your assertions.
Pof ... of course you’d call the question irrelevant even when it directly applies to this situation.
I’m going to enjoy the rest of my evening knowing that anyone with the fortitude to have read this far can clearly see you’re unwillingness to honestly address this situation.
I suspect form this and other hostile poll questions that you’ve posted recently that you have some real issues to be sorted out with your relationship to Christianity. I wish you well in your recovery.
Until next time.
Until you find evidence to support your assertions, I'm done talking to you.
I don't debate with people with tell me to take their word for it and then deny evidence placed right in front of them.
They're usually not very intelligent.
Doesn't look very good for you.
I'm done. @think wants to debate with emotions and not facts. Evidence proves that he is wrong. I've done what I need to do to refute his point.
His aversion towards evidence didn't make it any harder.
Warning to all ... for anyone still interested in this thread, it is worth noting that after I said good evening to @Pof she/he/it felt compelled to ...
— add three more posts to this thread egging me on
— then she/he/it began following me