Is It OK To Have A Mormon President?

[Shandrax]

Ok, it certainly helps to know who is actually running for president in the USA, I cannot deny that.

Now this subject was about religion, but if you claim that people with minority views on religion shouldn't be given power, you have to use the same argument for other areas and other minorities also (unless religion holds a special place in your universe).

So what is the next step? Should candidates from other than religious minority groups be excluded from the race for president also? What about former bodybuilders? Would a chessplayer like Kasparov make a good president or did he sacrifice too many pawns?

What are your requirements to become an advisor for the president? The person must not be a mormon of course, but what about jews or people from the oil industry or the NRA?

Last but not least, do you think that the US president has the last decision on God? Because if he doesn't it doesn't matter what he thinks about the subject and if he is mormon or not.

[MidGe]

David, you really made me think about this. I guess, the ideal would be to constitutionally require an atheist president, barring that, one whose religious beliefs do not rest on the certainty that they are right and those who do not share his/hers religious view are wrong. Of course I would rliminate lunatics, like the current incumbent who reminds me often of that famous sentence out of the "Blues Brothers" movies ["We are on a mission from God"]. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[David Sklansky]

"Now this subject was about religion, but if you claim that people with minority views on religion shouldn't be given power, you have to use the same argument for other areas and other minorities also (unless religion holds a special place in your universe)."

You are totally missing my point. Perhaps it would be clearer if I said an apt analogous question would be if we should elect a president who believed that astrology was obviously correct.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
David, you really made me think about this. I guess, the ideal would be to constitutionally require an atheist president, barring that, one whose religious beliefs do not rest on the certainty that they are right and those who do not share his/hers religious view are wrong. Of course I would rliminate lunatics, like the current incumbent who reminds me often of that famous sentence out of the "Blues Brothers" movies ["We are on a mission from God"]. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not all. Your president shouldn't only be an atheist, he should also have an extremely high set of moral and ethical values and neither be corrupt nor selfish.

It is certainly not easy to find this person, especially since I do not qualify for the job due to lack of citizenship.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Now this subject was about religion, but if you claim that people with minority views on religion shouldn't be given power, you have to use the same argument for other areas and other minorities also (unless religion holds a special place in your universe

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course religion holds a special place -- it claims to know absolute truth, absolute morality, life after death, purpose of our existence, etc. Do you really care if a president holds a minority view that he likes the Devil Rays?

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
"Now this subject was about religion, but if you claim that people with minority views on religion shouldn't be given power, you have to use the same argument for other areas and other minorities also (unless religion holds a special place in your universe)."

You are totally missing my point. Perhaps it would be clearer if I said an apt analogous question would be if we should elect a president who believed that astrology was obviously correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

So for you being a mormon is the synonyme for being a complete idiot? I share that view, but I do not restrict it to mormons, in fact I treat all religions the same.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now this subject was about religion, but if you claim that people with minority views on religion shouldn't be given power, you have to use the same argument for other areas and other minorities also (unless religion holds a special place in your universe

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course religion holds a special place -- it claims to know absolute truth, absolute morality, life after death, purpose of our existence, etc. Do you really care if a president holds a minority view that he likes the Devil Rays?

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that the opinion of the american president doesn't matter to religion. If there is a God, he will probably laugh about Bush and his opinion.

If you treat the US president like a prophet, what happens when he gets voted out of office? Does his opinion still matter to you? What if the new president has a todally different view on things? Whom should you trust?

The catholic church avoids this problem, because their pope is president for lifetime.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
If you treat the US president like a prophet, what happens when he gets voted out of office? Does his opinion still matter to you? What if the new president has a todally different view on things? Whom should you trust?


[/ QUOTE ]

That is the crux of the problem in reverse. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

It is not whether you treat the prez like a prophet, it is what happens if he thinks of himself as god anointed!

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now this subject was about religion, but if you claim that people with minority views on religion shouldn't be given power, you have to use the same argument for other areas and other minorities also (unless religion holds a special place in your universe

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course religion holds a special place -- it claims to know absolute truth, absolute morality, life after death, purpose of our existence, etc. Do you really care if a president holds a minority view that he likes the Devil Rays?

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that the opinion of the american president doesn't matter to religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it might matter to American policy.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
But it might matter to American policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it does, but what is the conclusion?

Let's assume your president has an absolutely clean and flawless view on religion, whatever that is, but he is gay. What now? It could influence his policy, because he may decide to replace Indepence Day with Christopher Street Day and force the Disney Channel to show "Queer as Folk". Ok, better no gay president!

Assume he is straight, but what if his dad owns an oil company and they might think it's cool for the US oil industry to build a pipeline through Afghanistan...?

I mean what is the conclusion? Do you want a guy who doesn't belong to a specific group and doesn't have an opinion on anything, because this is the only way to avoid a conflict of interests? What a boring guy would that be and could a person like that ever find enough courage to take a decision?

Maybe the position of the american president is simply too powerful, so that his personal preferences gain too much importance. My own view is that a democratic system shouldn't have a king. It is simply too much of a contradiction.