digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Dear ALL 2008 US Public Office Candidates: When Quizzed About Your Religion

archives.gov — Please say: "Thankfully, the Founding Fathers of the United States of America forever resolved this and engraved the answer into the Constitution. It's in Article VI which in part reads: 'no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.' That, my fellow American, is my answer too."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • masamunecyrus, on 12/04/2007, -16/+30Thank God someone finally figured it out. I can't believe it took a major news journalist to point it out before it penetrated some peoples' thick skulls.
    • Marzuk, on 12/04/2007, -12/+4Just a bunch of irrelevant *****. If I want, I can pick a president based on ANY criteria I want. Cant believe the rest of the people pointing this crap out, have not figured THAT out. I am tired of seeing this crap.
      • yodaj007, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1Fool, the Article is talking about requirements as defined by law. The Article cannot stipulate the criterion upon which the voters elect public servants, nor can it stipulate how the President chooses his cabinet or how congressional members choose their office staff. It is illegal, as per the constitution, to define a law requiring public servants to be of a particular religion.
    • da_bradler, on 12/04/2007, -1/+3whether you believe in the tooth fairy or jesus shouldn't make any difference in your vote, if you believe it does you have no place operating in a modern society and should consider building yourself a time machine to go back to the middle ages where you belong.
  • Calann, on 12/04/2007, -8/+101The government may not have a religious test but the voters certainly do. With the exception of John Kennedy, who was Catholic, every President has been a Protestant. No Muslims, no Hindus or Buddhist, no Mormons and certainly no Atheists.
    The voter religious test is alive and well.
    • 01l0, on 12/04/2007, -31/+7I don't know if Kucinich is Buddhist or not, but he might as well be. He's even been awarded the Ghandi Peace Medal. Truly the most enlightened of presidential candidates.
      • renagadex2, on 12/04/2007, -1/+22"I am a Hindu by birth. And yet I do not know much of Hinduism, and I know less of other religions. In fact I do not know where I am, and what is and what should be my belief. I intend to make a careful study of my own religion and, as far as I can, of other religions as well."

        - Ghandi
        • scott2007, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1How old was he when he wrote that though?
      • thezentiger, on 12/04/2007, -6/+0I read that Dennis Kucinich is a Roman Catholic that is a vegan and practices meditation.
      • HentaiJeff, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2you forget all the deists from the early days
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/04/2007, -7/+47Key phrase being: not required by the government.
    • asskey, on 12/04/2007, -2/+11Ya forgot Jews. Like that'll ever happen.
      • SwedishNinja, on 12/04/2007, -10/+3They don't mind, they already run every thing else.
      • proliance, on 12/04/2007, -1/+1I can see a Republican nominee choosing Lieberman as a Vice Presidential running mate.
        • HentaiJeff, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1Worked for gore... oh wait it actually did didn't it?
          • MacEnvy, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1Well, actually it did. The Supreme Court had other plans though.
    • fonebone2, on 12/04/2007, -2/+13Well that shouldn't be a problem since the Constitution restricts the actions of the government, not the people and certainly not voters.
    • thezentiger, on 12/04/2007, -1/+9There has been four Unitarian Presidents though: 1) John Adams 2) John Quincy Adams 3) Millard Fillmore 4) Howard Taft. Granted, back in Adam's time, Unitarians were considered much more "Christian" per say.

      Also of note, although he was officially an Episcopalian, Thomas Jefferson had very well known (and often not appreciated by some of his peers) Unitarian leanings and is quoted as saying: "There is not a young man now living in the US who will not die a Unitarian" and also asked for the Unitarians to send ministers to Virginia since there were none at the time (which is one suspected reason he never officially joined).

      Anyhow, the point is, there were at least 5 other Presidents (including Kennedy) that in today's environment would not be considered Protestant Christians. Although I would agree, it would be hard to imagine that happening during this particular upcoming election. ;-)
    • arbulus, on 12/04/2007, -3/+8I saw a poll once that said that the majority of americans would rather have a gay man as president as opposed to an atheist. And as much as this country is still disgustingly homophobic, I find those results to be disgusting. I think someone who were gay or atheist or both or any other religion or sexual orientation should have just as much of a shot as anyone else out there in the field.
    • LeeSoong, on 12/04/2007, -4/+7no Atheists ?

      Are you so sure? A lot of Atheist politicians have to 'put on the god act' - just to get votes...
    • tk0680, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1A Muslim US President would be one of the most surreal events in world politics for some time.
    • sportbikepilot, on 12/04/2007, -4/+4for ***** sake, Buddhism is NOT a religion
      • amesolaire, on 12/04/2007, -1/+4Buddhism is in fact a religion, albeit a non-theistic one. Confusing, I agree.
        • cphoover, on 12/05/2007, -0/+2Id say its more a philosophy than a religion
    • beardsauce, on 12/04/2007, -1/+9"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
      - Thomas Jefferson

      My man TJ was one of many founding fathers who were in fact Diests though not publically claiming so. Even back then not being a christian was bad for business, and the founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, David Humes, James Madison and Thomas Paine were all very aware of this. This country wasn't founded by christians but rather people with a distaste for christianity.
      • sophiaperennis, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1The Christians of the 17th and 18th century would most likely not be considered Christians today. Deism is closer to original Christianity, in the sense of adhering to and emphasis on cosmological- and metaphysical interpretations and explanations of the christian doctrine.
  • 01l0, on 12/04/2007, -13/+11Coincidentally that was "Flip" Romney's exact answer when asked about his Mormonism.
    • coreman, on 12/04/2007, -1/+2That's not what he said on NPR tonite...
  • dildoolielly, on 12/04/2007, -36/+73Wow, ONE guy in Congress doesn't actually believe that a mythical anthropomorphic "Bible-God" impregnated a virgin in order to give birth to himself in order to be sacrificed to himself in order to sit beside himself in order to save the world from himself some kind of sadistic experiment in psychopathic, self replicating, redemption?!

    Wow, ONE guy in Congress doesn't believe in preaching death and destruction to millions of people on as many corners of Amerika as possible?

    Wow, ONE guy in Congress doesn't believe in filling the heads of precious innocent impressionable children with disturbing stories of hell and damnation and devils and eternal suffering?

    Are magical invisible green elephants who control the universe from their homes inside doorknobs any less real in the minds of psychopaths in insane asylums?

    Most of the general criticism isn't directed at moderate or liberal Christians but at the fire and brimstone Fanatics. If you oppose them, then speak up against them. A Good Christian's silence is a tacit approval of these fanatics actions.

    So if you aren't an gaybashing hate-mongering Christian, good for you. However, your leaders all are; that's why we generalize, because the face of Christianity in this country is bigoted, anti-science, and repressive in general. Choose better leaders that espouse intelligence and acceptance, and we won't all think you're dumb assholes.
    • godfather62, on 12/04/2007, -22/+1Can you say"I am an idiot"---didn't think so!!!
      • dildoolielly, on 12/04/2007, -1/+6Aren't you late for Church?
      • yodaj007, on 12/04/2007, -1/+5You're skills at discourse and debate far exceed our own. Please respond to his points, or don't respond at all. These ad hominem attacks only give the impression that you disagree because you want to. If you have any disagreements with what he said, state them. Otherwise, would you be so kind as to not click "Submit Comment" next time? Thank you.
    • d00by, on 12/04/2007, -8/+27you have a point, but there's no reason to be bluntly offensive while making it. People do crazy stuff in the name of love, but you don't see everybody bashing the entire concept of love do you? Make your point. Christianity has a bad image because the leaders are bigots. There's your point. You can't make a point about bigotry when all you do in your post is bash other people's beliefs. I was raised christian, but I by no means believe the mainstream preachings, but I still don't believe we should have blunt misdirected hate for those that do. Just because what you write is essentially anonymous on the internet, that doesn't give you the right to be a douche bag,
      • JonStark, on 12/04/2007, -6/+8eloquently said... dug up for it
      • sancho, on 12/04/2007, -3/+5I do agree, and I dugg you up, however I do think that people have the right to be douche bags if they want to. The key is that they should choose to be nicer.
      • Flamancot, on 12/04/2007, -4/+7Actually sir, it gives him that right exactly, and we're probably all better for it. I loved his comment, because the guy had a voice rather than a simple point. Because the point, my dear Mrs. Post, is only half the story. It's frustrating - REALLY frustrating - dealing with legions of foolish people who don't have enough intelligence or shame to be led by people who are genuine. He'd says: Good for you! Indeed, it is good that you, personally, aren't a "dumb *****" - but why don't you spend your time trying to change the people who give you such a bad name than chastising a single voice of frustration. He DOES have a point - and it is much more complicated than "Christianity has a bad image because the leaders are bigots." Personally, I'm on Digg in the first place to get a sense what frustrates people, excites them, enrages them, and so on... I'll give you that "dildoolielily" probably wouldn't represent the most diplomatic voice out there - but it is a very legitimate one nonetheless - at least I was amused by it.. you ought to try harder to be amused by things like this, especially since you agree with his "point." SMILE BITCHES
        • Zyphron, on 12/04/2007, -5/+2Yes, but doesn't it seem slightly hypocritical when he is complaining about "gaybashing hate-mongering Christian(s)" while he is essentially a Christian-bashing hate-mongering atheist? (I am assuming atheist, simply due to the anti-supernatural leanings of the above post, it is possible I am incorrect in that assessment)
      • KDAY12, on 12/04/2007, -1/+2Thank you for that.
      • bortis, on 12/04/2007, -0/+6Nicely said Flamancot. Dooby might also want to consider the fact that his comparison of "love" and "christianity" is critically flawed. Those that behave badly "in the name of love" do so because they either misunderstand the concept, or are unable to control the conflicting feelings that it may bring about. Either way they have made some kind of error. The kinds of christians with which "dildoolielly", and indeed much of the world, find frustration are those who are actually getting the texts correct. Moderates like to distance themselves from extremists by pointing out that these extremists don't represent the majority of christians, but they fail to explain why the majority of christians don't take exception to the actual texts of the bible. Nor do they present any coherent argument as to how they came to chose which parts of the bible are to be take literally and which are metaphorical lessons. The problem is not, as so many like to say, that a few extremists get things wrong, its that these extremists get things right... biblically speaking that is. Moderates need to admit that the bible is a human text that expresses moral and ethical viewpoints that are several thousand years out of date. Until they do, they need to live with the stink that the biblical literalists bring.
        • Zyphron, on 12/04/2007, -3/+3Your post shows an EXTREME lack of knowledge of conservative (read, not crazy) biblical teaching/philosophy/theology. If you are going to make statements like that, try to do the research. www.str.org (Stand to Reason) is an excellent example of a site out there that is educating Christians (and Non-Christians) on logical distinctions about biblical theology and why certain things make sense.
          To give you a QUICK explanation, taking all parts of the bible literally is not actually ACCURATE, if the original intent of the text was metaphorical. For example, if we were to take Tolkien's works, and assume he was implying there were elves and giant tree's and angry eye things running around everywhere, it would probably NOT be Tolkien's intention. Several passages in the Bible (the Creation story being a good example of this) give textual clues (such as the fact that the Creation account seems to follow all the forms of Hebrew poetry) which allow for the possibility that it should be taken non-literally. That is not to say that you are not taking it to be TRUE, you are just not taking it to be literal. CS Lewis’ Narnia chronicles are a good example of this, where Lewis was using fictional stories in order to get across his ACTUAL point.
          Now, good Biblical interpretation looks at all of these textual clues, as well as the context of the verse to determine when/where/how it should actually be applied. For example, much of Old Testament law was written for a particular time, and a particular government (a Theocracy), and a particular people, and was not intended for application outside that governmental system.
          By the way, everything I have just talked about is like Bible 101 at ANY conservative seminary or Christian school. This is not hard information to find. No one looks for it because everyone would much rather talk about the hate-mongering Christians than actually listen to the reasonable conservatives.
          • dgendreau, on 12/04/2007, -1/+3Come back to us when you conservatives can come to a consensus on specifically what parts of the bible are literal and what parts are figurative, because for every passage in the bible, there is a large group of conservatives somewhere that swears its literal.
          • Zyphron, on 12/04/2007, -2/+2So everyone must agree to everything??? That is just silly. Does every Atheist agree on specifics of morality? Does every democrat agree on national policy? Does every teacher agree on education? Groups of people don't agree on everything, that does not make the points they are trying to make invalid.

            Saying "come back when you all agree on something" is your way of not citing sepecific passages, or actually RESPONDING to my points but instead setting up some sort of vague straw man argument (a straw man is a type of logical fallacy, btw) and then striking it down as if it disregards the entire point. Come on, don't sound all superior when that is the best you can do. Try an ACTUAL argument, or an ACTUAL refutation of my points, and I will happily deal with it. Straw men and vague generalities with no real thought behind them are not real points. They are people trying to defend something (or attack something) without any real knowledge.

            (If that last line sounds familiar to you, it is meant to, that is the argument brought against Christians all the time, but when we actually try to bring out real points, it is responded to with crap like what you just posted above)

            Edit: Normally I dont digg down for disagreeing with me, but I do generally digg down for logical fallacies.
          • dildoolielly, on 12/05/2007, -2/+2Funny how Christians only interpret the Bible anyway they seem fit. Funny how they interpret it to justify their intolerance, their own politics, their hypocrisy and the self-righteous bullsh1t they impose on others huh?

            Strange how they are the ones most likely to start wars, to murder "because god told me to do it"... to drown their kids in a bathtub "because they were not pure", to smash their kids to death with rocks "because god said he would bring them back to life", to cut the arms off their kids and watch them bleed to death, to drive their car into a lake with their kids inside, to kill their wives and entire families because they weren't "godly enough", they kill to "get satan out", they tortured and burned innocent people (as well as animals) at the stake for centuries.

            Strange how "Believers" also make up aprox. 99.9 of violent prison inmates ,,, and now the "holier than thou" are famous for molesting, raping, torturing, and threatening little children..... etc. etc. etc. ... the list goes on and on and on.

            funny how-- the majority of atheists and agnostics are intelligent, educated, well-rounded, scholarly, non-superstitious, non-threatening, critical-thinking, balanced, emotionally & mentally healthy and socially stable people... who are capable of intelligent debate, and not prone to "magical thinking" (one of the hallmarks of mental illness and psychosis). 9 times out of 10 it's the religious nuts who are the real pathological crackpots.
        • KDAY12, on 12/05/2007, -1/+1This is a reply to dildoolielly's rant against Chrstians (It wouldn't let me reply to his comment directly):

          Don't even know where to begin with your comment. Yours is this new arrogant brand of atheism that goes beyond the intolerance of the Christians you bash. You are guilty of the most dramatic and outrageous stereotypes that should be unacceptable no matter the circumstance, without making exception for your hatred for Christians.

          The fact that you polarize groups of people like you did - Christians as irrational, intolerant, war mongers, and atheists as intelligent, educated and non-threatening - suggest to me the amazing amount of intolerance, ignorance, and immaturity that you you have. You speak as one who is so full of prejudice that they can dismiss an entire group of people without blinking an eye, while using that as fuel for their own pride.

          Seriously. Wake up and get off of your parent's computer.
      • dildoolielly, on 12/04/2007, -0/+724000 people die every day from hunger or hunger-related causes.
        5700 Africans die each day of aids
        67% of people who die will burn in hell fire for all time because they don't believe in the equivelant of santa claus

        Believe whatever you like, but if you want me to believe it then provide evidence or expect mockery and ridicule. Do not expect polite debate. Religion has been given too much liberty to murder and enslave humans while hidden in the garb of "Faith". It and whoever believes it does not deserve to pick the fecal matter from my ass. Politeness is out the door by far by now. I don't give a damn what brand of ***** anyone believes.
        Feel free to believe in whatever brand of ***** you want, but when those beliefs begin to turn into laws and campaign platforms, you've overstepped the boundry separating church from state.

        Thats what happening in this country. Don't expect politness

        America is a nation based on FREEDOM. If you want a little Christian wonderland, then GO FORM ONE. America has already been earmarked as a democratic republic. We have no room for religious zealots trying to elbow in.
        http://atheism.about.com/b/a/198420.htm
        • Zyphron, on 12/04/2007, -7/+1You seem to value human beings as being valuable, and their death as being a bad thing. That is great, I agree with you 100%. I have a belief system which justifies why that is logically consistent. (in a nutshell, we were created, with value, in the image of God.)
          Justify to me why human beings have intrinsic value, and why their death is actually a "bad" thing. Logically.
          • dgendreau, on 12/04/2007, -0/+4Morals have been carefully and slowly explained to theists by atheist philosophers for over a hundred years and you still dont get it. See:
            http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/08/03/morality-wit ...

            The way I see it, Animals have evolved instincts for self preservation, preservation of their families and preservation of their species as a whole. Our inherent sense of value for other human beings is a sophisticated expression of those same instincts. Death is "bad" because as an Atheist, I believe I only have one shot at living this life (self preservation) and after that, I cease to be, so I want to make the most of it. I also believe everyone else has only one shot at this life and if that precious one shot at life is cut short, it is a tragedy.

            The converse of your question also more telling. Christians are effectively arguing that if there were no God, people would have no morals and we would all be serial killers and rapists. I think that viewpoint is degrading to all human beings including Christians themselves.
    • bratpack8, on 12/04/2007, -2/+5It has nothing to do with whether someone believes in God, but rather that there shouldn't be a requirement. And there isn't. Some people vote that way, but then some people vote for who they think looks presidential (William Bennett quote), while others vote because the candidate will let woman abort babies, while others vote based on hearing 5 sound bites from every candidate, while others vote based randomly. That's democracy.
      • Flamancot, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2word... democracy sucks.
      • Tebixan, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1I've managed to convince my gf that voting based on who is the most attractive is a bad idea
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/04/2007, -2/+2No matter what, you should judge people for who they are. Not because of some label attached to them.
      • amesolaire, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2When these people claim a certain label to be shaping, and a part of, who they are, we're forced to take that into consideration.
        • aduzik, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1It's not the label itself, though. It's what you do with it. I've seen Christians perform the most amazing acts of kindness and also the most despicable acts of depravity. Both can legitimately claim the same label. So, by itself, the label is meaningless. We should be judging candidates by their past actions, not their group membership.
          For example, I'd never vote for Mitt Romney. Not because he's a Mormon, but because he doesn't want to end the Iraq war. He doesn't support my right to marry, and he doesn't support the right of a woman to assert ownership over her own body. I judge him based on his actions, not because of his religion.
          • amesolaire, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1And you can't see how being a mormon (excuse me if I don't capitalize) is precisely the source of the issues you listed?

            Adherence to a religious doctrine, especially when we're talking about theistic religions, is not a guarantee for the minimum of moral and ethical standards which one observes, but it usually is a very robust indication of where that person is likely to stand on the so-called controversial issues. Issues which have been rationally approached and in many cases conclusively resolved by philosophers and scientists, in a way that can only be deemed controversial when stacked against a body of outdated religious dogma.

            Even if the label (by that I really mean religion in my original comment) is equally applicable to both kind and despicable people, it does not follow that it is devoid of meaning in other ways. Of course, there are no purely evil or perfectly good people. But people holding a religious world view are in a different camp from those holding a naturalistic world view - they place their proverbial bets differently and for differing reasons. I can even go as far as to say that they don't play the same game at all. Why?? While naturalists/atheists/humanists/etc. focus on this life, here and now, where religion is concerned the focus is on the afterlife (preferably heaven, which in the end is the reason why the pious constantly look for ways to please and appease god, above all else)
      • Zyphron, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1That, and our entire society revolves around labels. We use brands as ways to differentiate products. We label each other in order to make sense of different groups. I am not saying it is a good thing, but the fact that we as a society rely on labels to function in our every day lives seems to be a fact of life.
    • MoniqueMoniCat, on 12/04/2007, -13/+2actually any animal knows that same sex sex is not correct. dogs, cats, horses, cows, even rats and snakes know this.

      i don't bash homosexuals personally or want to see any harm come to them, but please do not tell me immitating the opposite sex in a sex act with someone of the same sex is correct and how nature intended it to be. if it were so "normal" then why does the very act of same sex sex immitate the physical act of the opposite sex? if being the same sex was so correct, why do they immitate the opposite sex in the act???

      again, animals seem to know more than we do.
      • bortis, on 12/04/2007, -0/+10Spend some time educating yourself on this topic Monique. A cursory view of the research into animal sexual behaviour will show you that 'homosexuality' in non-human animals occurs at a rate similar to that in human animals. There are many theories about why exactly this is, but there is no debate over whether or not it occurs. Seriously, read something other than church pamphlets and you might find these things out for yourself.
      • katrayun, on 12/04/2007, -2/+1At least we can agree on one point: animals seem to know more than we do.

        But studies show your assertion on sexual behavior among animals is completely off.
      • amesolaire, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1Monique, what's wrong with not being normal? Are you suggesting you tend to agree with those who discriminate against people not considered normal, even if the specific "condition" does not pose a threat of any (other than ideological) kind to their community?

        You must know there are no perfectly normal people. We're all deviants in more than one way. Gays and lesbians' deviances happen to include a particular one, which in the past people were not (and some still, ignorantly, aren't) sure if it isn't contagious. This was then codified against in "moral guides" like the bible, and various memes. Now that we know better, people should try and overcome what is for many a gut feeling of distrust towards gays and lesbians. Regardless of whether what makes them happy we consider normal or not, correct or otherwise.
    • rysp10, on 12/04/2007, -2/+4Actually any animal knows that using a back scratcher is not correct. Dogs, cats, bears, etc.

      I don't bash people who use back scratchers, or want to see any harm to come to them, but please don't tell me that imitating a tree to scratch your back is how nature intended it to be. If it were so "normal" then why does the very act of scratching your back imitate the physical act of scratching your back with a tree? If using a back scratcher was so correct, why do they imitate the tree in the act?

      Again, animals seem to know more than we do.

      PS I've gone ahead and fixed instances of "immitating" (sic)
      PPS Natural law is such a joke
      • DeviantDragon, on 12/04/2007, -1/+1Your logic is flawed because the fact that you can scratch your back with a tree does not make it abnormal to use a backscratcher. Technology does not conflict with natural law. The more closely related statement to natural law might be to say that since nature did not give us arms long enough to scratch our backs, we were not meant to scratch our backs. That way you don't try to differentiate between using a tool, ie: an object not part of us, to accomplish a goal.
    • B1gm1tch, on 12/04/2007, -7/+0I'd have to say that his comment quite ironically made him out to be a dumb *****. Way to go! You just perfectly fit the stereotype of the most outspoken Atheists that preach about intolerant religious types while proving to be quite intolerant yourself.

      Just going off the assumptions you made in your comment, the Bible has no anthropomorphic God (he's referred to as omnipresent), and preaches to love your enemies, as opposed to bringing death and destruction. Granted we all have to make lots of assumptions every day, but you could have done your homework before you shot your mouth off.
      • dildoolielly, on 12/04/2007, -2/+4I love getting Christians pissed off, especially with lack of evidence for the mythical Jesus. When you piss them off they start cursing like whorehouse bouncers. Even better yet, they don't recognize any irony in it.
    • dildoolielly, on 12/04/2007, -0/+3""It has nothing to do with whether someone believes in God, but rather that there shouldn't be a requirement. And there isn't. Some people vote that way, but then some people vote for who they think looks presidential (William Bennett quote)""
      -----------

      There are not laws based on whether people look like William Bennett or not. There are not billions of taxpayer dollars given to people for looking like William Bennett.

      Apples and oranges
    • sophiaperennis, on 12/05/2007, -2/+1"Wow, ONE guy in Congress doesn't actually believe that a mythical anthropomorphic "Bible-God" impregnated a virgin in order to give birth to himself in order to be sacrificed to himself ... "

      I can understand your sentiment about the current general level of understanding of Christian theology. It is very bare-minimum and too literal. Nevertheless, when you mention the word mythical, I fear you take this in the modern sense of 'is not true, is just a funny story.' Mythos in the more classical sense really doesn't mean that at all, but means a way of explaning things indirectly, as to provide a framework of that which can't be explained literally and requires a framework that is there to provide a path of revelation and discovery.

      One other thing, God as such in the bible is of course not anthropomorphic, but I am pretty sure you already are aware of that.
  • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/04/2007, -18/+32ATTN angry diggers and original author. Please refer to this original Digg story for many refutes of this argument.
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Tonight_The_Cons ...

    Learn to interpret the Constitution correctly.
    1. The debate was run by a private entity. The Constitution does not apply to that.

    2. The candidates were NOT required to comment. They would not be denied the right to run for the presidency if they didn't answer. Would it be in their best interest to? Yes, since most of the American people are christian and would like to hear so.
    • jsffive, on 12/04/2007, -2/+3So it's OK to violate the spirit of the law, if not the letter of it?
      • tacojohn48, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2The spirit of the law is that the government won't say you can't run because you aren't of xyz religion. The spirit of the law has nothing to do with individuals or private entities. Since when does the spirit of the law matter, didn't the supreme court do away with that.
    • Zyphron, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2No, it is OK for private citizens to find out more about a candidate if that is something they personally are interested in.
      As was said above, people vote for every reason from "I think that candidate looks better" to "I saw an ad for that guy that I liked" to "my friend voted for that guy." I am not saying this is ideal, but it is what happens. That is the right of the American voter.
  • iPirate, on 12/04/2007, -12/+7This is exactly what Chris Matthews said on Hardball the other night while interviewing Huckabee.
  • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/04/2007, -22/+11oh yeah, buried as inaccurate.
    • badqat, on 12/04/2007, -13/+4Wow...usually I don't see eye to eye with you...but you're hitting them out of the park on this one! Digging you up all over here!
  • Kahlnen, on 12/04/2007, -2/+30Voters can care about a religious affiliation, but the government has no say in whether or not a candidate gets into office based on their religion.
    • da_bradler, on 12/04/2007, -1/+2voters shouldn't I believe is the biggest point that needs to be made, and the sure fire way to make them stop caring is for people to stop asking and telling. America needs to catch up with the rest of the world before some outside force decides to invade you guys just to "set you right"
  • kelly, on 12/04/2007, -18/+19buried not only as inaccurate but also a dupe of an article which was later buried when it was shown that the foundation from whom which it (and this) is based on is false.

    The people can AND SHOULD ask about somebody's religion. As important to some of you diggers that a presidential candidate not respond to questions from the public about religion, I personally want to know their religious views to see if they're inline with my own. Stop trying to push an agenda that religion is somehow bad.
    • banmaster, on 12/04/2007, -10/+14Why should religion be important??
      All it does is give any weak willed bastard a cheap and easy get-out clause when it comes to explaining why they have just decided to ***** things up!

      "I don't believe abortion should be legal under any circumstances"
      'Why'
      "God told me so"

      Its that kind of crap that effectively puts an end to any serious discussion on many topics because for some ***** up reason religion is somehow seen as being something untouchable and beyond any debate or question! So, rather than give logical thought and debate to a question that a political guy might be a bit uncomfortable with, they can just trot out the 'GOD' excuse and walk away!!
      • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/04/2007, -3/+8Because what usually comes with a person's religion is a set of morals. Don't get me wrong- that stuff can come from anyone. But when a crowd of people can know for sure that this presidential candidate has been successfully inculcated with the beliefs and morality of a religion, they can be sure that the candidate as a president will do nothing radical. Religion, like anything else a candidate's background might include, simply adds credibility.

        This is not opinion, this is fact. The American people see religious background as credibility. And banmaster, no person has EVER successfully used that argument.
        • Skwerl, on 12/04/2007, -3/+4Then explain to me why abortion clinic bombers aren't tried as domestic terrorists.
        • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/04/2007, -4/+3What the hell are you talking about? That has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
        • coreman, on 12/04/2007, -1/+5Actually, it does. Your statement of "they can be sure...will do nothing radical" is all in the eyes of the beholder. For a group of christians, it does not matter if a woman, homosexual, transgender, etc. is their spiritual guide. But for others, they go holy ***** over it.

          Religious alignment does not add general, objective credibility. It only adds credibility for those who share the same beliefs. It is a purely subjective argument.

          I would more argue that what comes with a person's choices and actions through their lives reveals their set of morals. Would you argue that the current pope is the same as his predecessor as far as morality? No? OK, then.

          QED.

          But arguing about this, pointing out that 95% of the American voting population is essentially full of ***** as far as their ability to make rational, well-thought out choices, is in the end pointless. It's about as useful as trying to convince someone driving a SUV about why they should think about other choices, while then watching them bitch and moan at the gas station about the $80 to fill up their gas tank, as they sneer at the Toyota Prius filling up next to them.

          In the end, we're all a bunch of self-deluding, stupid naked apes. It's easy to notice it in others; the hard part is accepting it about yourself.
      • Zyphron, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2That, and we kinda live in a country that was founded on the concept that people should have the freedom to believe whatever they want. Those freedoms would include the freedom to believe that religion is important. (as well as the freedom to believe that it is not.)
    • ndavisAA, on 12/04/2007, -6/+3"Freedom is the distance between Church and state" Under no circumstance should a religious question ever be brought up in our political system.
      • arbulus, on 12/04/2007, -1/+2who are you quoting?
        • ndavisAA, on 12/04/2007, -2/+2Pretty sure it was Tomas Jefferson. Besides being a Deist he had different religious views.
        • Zyphron, on 12/04/2007, -2/+2Show me the reference
    • bortis, on 12/04/2007, -0/+4Indeed, as we have recently seen, the religious beliefs of a potential president may be of vital interest to the voting public. I too would like to know the religious beliefs of anyone who is to represent me, especially since such beliefs reveal much about the character and mind of the person in question. I certainly would like to know if the person in charge of the monetary and military systems of my country believed that she was one of a select few who would soon be lifted up to heaven. This might affect my vote. I also would be concerned to learn that my representative was involved in funding far right groups in Israel because he and some of his constituents believed this may help bring about the "end times". Others might reasonably have difficulty voting for a man who believes that God speaks to his creation through magical golden tablets only readable by a sly con-man. I think it only sensible that people be interested in these things. I also think it is all too apparent that religion is not only "somehow bad", but is especially bad where world politics and social health are concerned.

      See:
      http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html
    • sportbikepilot, on 12/04/2007, -2/+3but religion is BAD, and destroying this country.
  • Digg4This, on 12/04/2007, -5/+2haha i liked submit comment- which i digg

    however written that thing it links to has to be like 200 years old; what is it? buried as old.
    /jk
    //lol
  • jbarna, on 12/04/2007, -4/+8If someone believes that killing virgins to appease God is necessary, should we leave that out of our decision-making process in choosing a candidate?

    I think not. And there are enough criticisms of one main-stream candidate's religion to keep me away from him. Check out the parts about sexism, racism, homophobia, and archaeology here (don't believe everything you read, but do some further digging): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mormonis ...
    • wentwj, on 12/04/2007, -3/+3Well... if we open up the bible we'll see a WHOLE lot of crazy ***** going on in there too... does this mean we can get rid of all the Christians too?

      The issue is we should judge people based on their stances on the issues. Religion is only important in so far as it applies to their stances. Someone could be a Scientologist, but if I agree with all their positions, I don't care. Though I suppose yes... the thought of ANY politician ACTUALLY believing literally the religions they cling to, is a scary thought.
      • bortis, on 12/04/2007, -0/+4If someone believes in scientology, or any religion for that matter, they reveal much about their capacity for rational and critical thought. Though I understand that, given the current example, I am perhaps asking too much, I would like the president to be someone especially well endowed in these areas.
  • kelly, on 12/04/2007, -4/+3HAH!

    Burried
  • wonky73, on 12/04/2007, -12/+12Man you diggers are the dumbest humans on this ball of rock.. It's like somebody took all the stupidity, ignorance, arrogance, bigotry, and narrow mindedness and just smushed it together to make a web community.
    • enri, on 12/04/2007, -1/+8says a digger.
    • arbulus, on 12/04/2007, -1/+7care to explain what the hell you're talking about and what you're referring to?
      • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/04/2007, -3/+1Read the "article" and now read the comments. But not bigoted one thats being dugg up.
      • Zyphron, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1You can really read these comments and NOT know what he is talking about?
    • MoniqueMoniCat, on 12/04/2007, -4/+1yes, please explain.
  • Nathynael, on 12/04/2007, -12/+9Can someone please tell Ron Paul's spam army to cut it out? This is like the fourth time I've seen the Constitution make it to the frontpage.

    We get it, guys: Now STFU.
    • ndavisAA, on 12/04/2007, -3/+3You are right, who cares about the constitution... all that matters is jesus and fighting terrorism. I despise neo-cons more and more every day.
    • jsffive, on 12/04/2007, -1/+5Look it may SEEM like a complicated read, but that's only because your "leaders" have created a world where you would THINK that a six page document is difficult to read and understand.

      That's right, I have a copy of the US Constitution that is contained on six 8 1/2 x 11 pieces of paper, and I keep it in the Restroom, where I do all my good reading...

      And I'm sorry if this bores you Nathynael, but we are talking about the ONLY thing that stands between US... and THEM.

      The US Constitution is UNIQUE in the fact that it is a BINDING document on government power... which is the ONLY threat to your freedom, bin Ladens be damned.

      Trust me, you don't see nearly enough of the Constitution, and the reason is because when enough people read it, the JOBS of the people at the top gets HARDER to do, because abiding by the Constitution means they have to do their jobs CORRECTLY, without shortcuts.
      • MoniqueMoniCat, on 12/04/2007, -1/+2yes, and when put like you stated it i don't think anyone would have a problem with people speaking of the constituion. but you've got a bunch of kooks blogging up and down on the sites misapplying it and we just get sick of any mention of it. your post was one of the very few that put it in a clear and consise way, without 4-letter words and snobby comments.

        again, a nice steak served on a filty trash can lid ruins the steak and this is how most of the ron paul bloggers serve it so when someone comes in with it on a plate we just assume it's on the trash can lid because 99% of the time that's how it's served to us by ron paul bloggers.
      • amesolaire, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2I agree, however, as it has been pointed out many times already, the Constitution does not apply in this case. There's nothing in Article VI that says how the voter should form his or her opinion of the candidate. The no-religious-test rule only applies to the government.
    • bestlynx, on 12/04/2007, -0/+5YOU're the one who brought up Ron Paul. This thread focuses on one point of the Constitution that supports its timelessness and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers in its authorship. Ron Paul is a great defender of the Constitution and advocate for government in accordance with its principles. If this offends you, there are plenty of politicians to choose from who prefer to interpret it to fit their own agendas (or ignore it altogether) and to continue the downward spiral of subverting the Founding Fathers' intentions of ensuring liberty and justice for all.
  • captpopular, on 12/04/2007, -4/+5Step 1: Candidate decides not to disclose religious belief.
    Step 2: Fox news launches investigation into candidates beliefs, probably headed by Geraldo.
    Step 3:
    Step 4: Profit!
  • thomasoa, on 12/04/2007, -0/+10The Constitution only means to say that there can be no government religious requirementt. You and I are free to exercise our right to vote based on our own religious biases, if we so wish.

    So candidates still might have to address religious questions, even if those questions are not mandated by the government. Not because the government requires it, but because the American people do.

    Personally, there are a lot better reasons to not vote for Mitt Romney than his Mormonism.
    • brisbin33, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1very sane response, dugg because i agree completely
  • Nathynael, on 12/04/2007, -7/+0The Constitution is old news.
  • fonebone2, on 12/04/2007, -0/+17Anyone with the faintest understanding of constitutional law should understand why this should be buried as inaccurate. The constitution restricts actions by the government, not individual voters. If anything, the submitter is suggesting that voters' First Amendment rights be restricted, which is a far more dangerous proposition than the notion that voters be allowed to ask politicians (and that politicians be allowed to respond) about their religious beliefs.
    • vroom101, on 12/04/2007, -1/+2I, the submitter, DID NOT suggest or even hint that our First Amendment rights be restricted. I'm very concerned about what (arguably) amounts to "unofficial religious litmus tests" in recent U.S. elections. There are two fundamental reasons why the United States of America is a great nation: (1) The individual freedoms, individual rights, and individual protections set forth in the Constitution of the United States and (2) the brilliant way the Constitution solves the religion question.

      If a candidate doesn't believe in the separation of church and state, We the People of the United States of America should say "NO" to that candidate for public office. If a candidate believes Religion-A is better than Religion-B AND wants preferential state treatment for Religion-A, We the People of the U.S. of A., then the candidate should not be voted into public office. If a candidate believes that one position or some positions or all positions in the local, state, or federal government should have some type of implied or explicit religious litmus test, then We the People of the U.S.A. should vote "NO" for that candidate.
      • amesolaire, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2If the presidential candidate answers with what essentially boils down to "My religion is none of your business" (as you suggested), how are the voters supposed to know how likely is this candidate to act on his or her religion while in office?
        • vroom101, on 12/04/2007, -1/+1Allow the U.S. Constitution itself to dictate the religious questions that need to be asked. Because We the Voters are sensitive on this matter AND because the U.S. Constitution language is so plain -- not allowing for any spin -- we'll know in a heartbeat where the candidate stands on this matter.
          • amesolaire, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1Again, the Constitution, and Article VI in particular, says nothing about how the _voters_ should form their opinion and what questions they can or cannot ask. Article VI only refers to the government.

            The Constitution could not and does not address every possible aspect of public life. It is not a prescription for every situation.

            (And for the record, I applaud you for acting on what you consider an informed belief. I on my part, did not and still do not agree with the premise of your article, so I respectfully buried it.)
      • amesolaire, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2As to the "unofficial religious litmus tests" - I agree wholeheartedly. But tell that to the 53% of the US voters who would never vote for an atheist president, even if he or she is well qualified. Compare that to 24% for a mormon candidate, and just 4% for catholic.
        ( source - Gallup. I couldn't immediately find the original, so here: http://sadlyno.com/archives/5125.html )
  • skews13, on 12/04/2007, -0/+0you see just how fast you can provoke an attack on the very constitution that protects a citizens right to practice,or not to practice their religious beliefs,freely in this country.
    there out there.
    • MoniqueMoniCat, on 12/04/2007, -0/+5but when that candiate's religion specifically states that people with dark skin are bad and lower than white people, i'd say we all have a reason to question the man's faith. romney specifically. the book of mormon is full of scriptures denouncing people of color.

      if you're white that may not bother you, but if you are a person of color it most definately does.
  • tacodealer, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2The only problem is that (to use two disparate belief systems) Christian voters don't want to risk voting an atheist into office, just as atheist voters don't want a ninja Christian to slide past with calculated logical rhetoric. The actuality of dodging such a question would only serve to raise additional questions about what the candidate might be hiding rather than being an "open book". Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective), living under a national rule guided by religion is what builds the definitions of "right" and "wrong", and without them you'd have vast gray areas of uncertainty.

    I would speculate that the majority of people in America (perhaps elsewhere) don't tend to favor uncertainty, such as "where is the next meal coming from" or "will the rent be paid"; rather, they like to put those things out of sight and out of mind. As such, the certainty that their national leader will act in a reasonably consistent manner in line with their particular beliefs (including religion) lends itself to such certainty, which is why seemingly all candidates quickly establish themselves with a particular spiritual (or secular) belief system.
    • arbulus, on 12/04/2007, -1/+3So do you suggest that it is not possible to have a moral compass and have a sense of right and wrong without religion? Are you saying that only religious people can be guided by their conscience?
    • wentwj, on 12/04/2007, -1/+7You sir, do not understand Atheists. Atheists by necessity have become quite familiar with voting for Christians, whether ninja or not (though for the record I'd much rather vote for a ninja candidate than a non-ninja candidates... ninjas are always better).

      Also the statement that "right" and "wrong" come just from religion is clearly a statement by someone that has never spent much time thinking about right and wrong. It doesn't take very long in even the most basic of Ethics courses to realize that religion as the basis for right and wrong quickly falls flat.
    • jsffive, on 12/04/2007, -0/+3You said:
      "As such, the certainty that their national leader will act in a reasonably consistent manner in line with their particular beliefs (including religion) lends itself to such certainty, which is why seemingly all candidates quickly establish themselves with a particular spiritual (or secular) belief system."

      I agree. But understand that the "certainty" of which you speak is only imaginary in the fact that the candidate's religious leanings are only a PERCEPTION... Not necessarily a reality.

      I mean, how'd that religious test with Bush work out?

      It just seems to me that the "answer" to the "religion question", for the REALLY insidious and clever politician, is the EASIEST LIE they could ever tell, because there's really no way to verify it.

      As a believer of the Christian faith, I'm pretty sure that the first thing Jesus preached AGAINST was insincere prayers, and showing off your faith, instead of acting on it. He said take your prayers to a closet. Personally, I'm reluctant to vote for a person who flaunts their faith.
  • SOS84, on 12/04/2007, -4/+5What would Republicans run on if they didn't run on religion? Hate? Greed? NAMBLA?
  • mooseontheloose, on 12/04/2007, -7/+2The scariest thing to me is that the US voters would be more open to voting for a woman or a minority than someone who isn't a very specific kind of one type of religion. That scares the living ***** out of me. You lot are mental.
    • MoniqueMoniCat, on 12/04/2007, -1/+3again, white people may not understand. the book of mormon flat out teaches that dark skinned people are more evil and less important and good than people with white skin. i'd say that is a pretty important thing to people of color, to reject a man who believes in a book like that, as a religion.

      the trouble is most whites and the media don't know the book of mormon has many scriptures teaching just that and it served to fuel slavery and bigotry against people of color, even anyone with olive skin, for a very long time, and that wasn't too long ago either.

      so to someone white, perhaps the mormon thing is not important, but to people of color is sure the heck is.
      • bortis, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2I'm going to assume that you know that the christian bible condones slavery and gives specific guidelines for the treatment of slaves? The mormon holy text is not the only one full of anachronistic ethical advice.

        See below for a start...

        Leviticus 25:44, 25:45
        Exodus 21:4
        Deuteronomy 20:14, 21:10

        and just in case you cry "old testament!"

        Mathew 18:25
        Ephesians 6:5-9

        And there is much more where that came from...
  • CodeCobalt, on 12/04/2007, -2/+2This is retarded, I'm sure every single one of them was aware that they were in absolutely no way required to answer the question about religion. I'm sure they know that they do not NEED to pass a religious test, and know about the 5th amendment. So seriously everyone making a big deal about this needs to blow themselves and take a step back.. think about it, They have the right to do whatever the hell they want, the same as you. They chose to answer the question, quit making a big deal out of absolutely nothing.
  • Dropkickz, on 12/04/2007, -3/+3Stop misinterpreting the constitution, it wasn't a religious test it was a question. As a voter its important for me to know what the candidates religious beliefs are - it should be to everyone.
    • Lilitou, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1I don't need to know what a candidate's religious beliefs are. I need to know what his or her ethical beliefs are. I don't care where s/he gets them, especially since religious beliefs are so rarely a reflection of ethical beliefs and practices.
  • Shawn4168, on 12/04/2007, -1/+4I buried this as inaccurate last time it made front page, and I'm burying it as inaccurate this time too.
    The constitution guarantees that no candidate shall be required to belong to a particular religion in order to be eligible to be elected to office. It doesn't mean that a candidate isn't allowed to be asked what faith they belong to. To some voters, a person's faith speaks volumes about their morals, ethics, and integrity.
    Some people prefer to vote for people that are active in their religion. Some prefer to vote for people that aren't religiously active. Using religion as a criteria by which you vote is hardly unconstitutional.
  • ShuttleDisaster, on 12/04/2007, -1/+1http://www.pollingreport.com/politics.htm

    "Between now and the 2008 political conventions, there will be discussion about the qualifications of presidential candidates -- their education, age, religion, race, and so on. If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be [see below], would you vote for that person?"

    Atheist: 45% yes 53% no
    • wentwj, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1I'm not sure if you're bringing this up as a good or bad thing, but that's actually a WAY higher number than I thought, and quite frankly, don't really trust it as accurate, at least not if there was a slightly worse alternative who was part of some religious group
    • ndavisAA, on 12/04/2007, -1/+3Scary isn't it. Its 2008 and people are still prejudice against atheists. They still feel that if someone doesn't believe in an invisible man living in the sky, they shouldn't be president.
  • Ineedanap, on 12/04/2007, -3/+5And to think, people laugh at me when I tell them " religion should play no part in any presidential candidacy and should have no impact on decisions made while in office" .

    stupid archaic backwardass religious nutbags.
  • wentwj, on 12/04/2007, -2/+4Also... just so we're all clear... you all realize that WAY more politicians are Atheists than let on right? Just like a lot more politicians are gay. Politicians are just a sampling of the population, and they fall in line with the statistical average, only most of them realize if they came out that they were Atheists, they'd have a lot harder time campaigning.
    • dimitrisokolov, on 12/04/2007, -2/+0Bekaws yew better believe in tha Lord boa or yews goin' to Hell.
    • REBELinBLUE, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1Yeah, statistically speaking some of them will be atheist. But they pay lip service to religion because as we all know, "coming out" as atheist in the US is political suicide. Sad really.
  • AdrewMc3, on 12/04/2007, -1/+0There is no requirement that an elected official has to take a religious test. However, I think that the American people have the right to ask what their leaders believe. Though you may disagree with the beliefs, disagree with people asking about them, disagree that it should have a place in government, disagree with almost anything. Think about what would happen if you didn't answer the question? It would appear(not that it's true) that you didn't believe in anything at all. Should a candidate not answer or not be comfortable with answering it would show us that he doesn't want to tell us what he believe which is much more dangerous, cause distrust, look as if your afraid of what people think of your beliefs, appear to be weak minded, appear to be hiding something, appear to be anti religion, appear to be well not a good candidate to vote for (this being the worst thing you can do as a candidate). The spirit of this part of constitution is that you can't be deny office because of your religion, not that you deny people from asking you what your religious views are. Finally, if the candidate wants to answer, wants people to know about him/her, wants to have God as a part of his life, wants to share a common belief with the people (i.e. belief in God) he should answer and you have no right to say that he should not answer. You confuse testing with being honest, letting people choose what kind of leader they want for reason they choose (a.k.a. Liberty: the freedom of choice), the constitution limits the government not why people vote for their candidate (I don't believe you should choose on religion but i wouldn't deny people the right to vote for someone because of religion), asking candidates what they believe is important in choosing a candidate. I would rather have a candidate be comfortable with admitting their religious views than one who is not.
  • danielsousa, on 12/04/2007, -2/+2Since everyone loves jumping on the founding fathers bandwagon, I thought this was amusing:

    Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

    3/5's of 'all other Persons'.

    Please...the founding father's were far from perfect, and people have a right to ask whatever they want, everyone has a voice in democracy.
    • jsffive, on 12/04/2007, -1/+4And Article I, Section 2 was in part, superseded by the 14th Amendment... The Amendment process... another idea of the imperfect Founders...

      Correct. The Founders were NOT perfect, but they did recognize their own imperfection. A quality that's RARE these days...

      And you are also correct, people DO have a right to ask whatever they want... and it is because I have a voice that I'm allowed to point out when someone's asking the wrong question...

      The "unofficial religious test" that's given every election cycle is damaging to the democracy, because it's a waste of time. Because no matter WHO occupies the halls of power they are ALL supposed to be equally accountable if they screw up, no matter what their religion is. WE are failing this democracy because we refuse to hold them accountable.

      Religious tests are stupid... no matter WHO administers the test.
      • danielsousa, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1I agree with you man, I think it's stupid, I don't think Religion has any part in politics, and democracy relies on free and independent thinkers but I think that people in this country are going to make that decision no matter what.

        There are tons of things wrong with our democracy, that is certain.

        haha, and yes the amendment process was an excellent idea, I agree with you that they possess a quality that many today lack.
  • killarneptune, on 12/04/2007, -2/+1OMG someone ***** on the coats!
    • brisbin33, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1*warmly reminisces about when dane cook used to be funny*
  • Yage2006, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1Does not really matter anyway they are all one form of cristian or another :(
  • DavidGX, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1I don't care what crazy religion they are (and all religions are crazy, digg me down fanatics) as long as they don't get it mixed up in their policy making decisions.
  • mcbrider, on 12/04/2007, -2/+2Someone must have found a copy of the constitution - and read it. It is like the answers to the final exam for the candidates but nobody cares except Dr. Paul and Kucinich.
  • PixelEater, on 12/04/2007, -2/+1Hey, this news is so breaking the Muslims will be running for office next term. Or not.
  • gkiltz, on 12/04/2007, -1/+1When quizzed about my religion, I just say "monotheist" and I don't expand on it at all!
    If they don't know what that means, let them get a dictionary!
    The whole truth is more along the lines of agnostic, but I like to keep 'em guessing!
  • swindmill, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1There obviously should not be a religious test for candidacy, but I think I have a right to know if a candidate for political office suffers from delusional beliefs concerning the nature of the universe.

    For instance, the consequences of the president of this country not accepting evolution is an important consideration when voting.
  • wuxia, on 12/05/2007, -1/+1I wonder if Mitt would admit to the mormon truth that Lucifer and Jesus are literal brothers.
    GOOGLE: lucifer jesus kolob
  • MoniqueMoniCat, on 12/05/2007, -1/+1well, perhaps white people say it doesn't matter, but ask people of color about mormonism and you'll get a whole different answer. after all, mormonism, specifically the Book of Mormon isn't against people with white skin.

    their own Book of Mormon, the exact scriptures are listed below: God curses certain individuals with dark skin. The races are determined by how worthy individuals were prior to this mortal life. Blacks were not as faithful in their first estate. The Book of Mormon teaches that God cursed certain Israelite American Indians with dark skin, and this was meant to keep them from interbreeding with their white brethren. This scripture also teaches that God blessed some who repented with white skin. Nothing concerning the revelation in 1978 to give "all worthy males members" the priesthood invalidates these beliefs (Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:61-7; McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 527-8; Alma 3:6-9; 2 Ne. 5:21-4; and 3 Ne. 2:14-6).
    SOURCES: http://www.mormoninfo.org/ MORMON RACIST DOCTRINE: http://www.realmormonhistory.com/god&skin.htm

    Now, does someone want to tell me why we shouldn't hold this against him in deciding if he is qualified to be the president of the United States? If Romney didn't believe it, he would've denounced the Book of Mormon. But he won't because he truly believes this.

    The fact that he still has never denounced the Book of Mormon which to this day STILL contains scriptures that state unequivocally that dark-skinned people (not just blacks, but Sicilians, Italians, Spanish, or anyone with dark skin) are inferior and cursed by God; and that white skinned people are better and blessed of God. This is stated in their own Book of Mormon, which is their "other gospel," their bible.

    Until Mitt Romney denounces the Book of Mormon, he is condoning this racism and fraudulent religion that was used to justify slavery. But the most important thing is that it still remains in their Book to this very day, and THIS is the book that Romney has sworn his allegiance to?

    It makes perfect sense that people ignorant of this fact and people who are white would see nothing wrong with mormonism.
  • kimosabe34, on 12/10/2007, -0/+0Who cares........ I just want the most ruthless to WIN!!! Go Hillary!!!! We don't need to be friends with any nation because we will be letting our guard down.There is no peace unless there is reason.Unfortunately we the strong are the reason.You think some dirt thrown in our face will hurt us? Hell no....Takes alot more than that. Besides if you don't like living in America I suggest you pack up and leave. We have no room for the weenies here...Canada I hear is nice these days...Nice laid back.Good health coverage...Dam all the things we give away to the immigrants for free...Or are they stealing it from us because we are weak??? Hmmmm...Think about what you are defending......Vote Hillary...It's the right choice for our children..
  • lolo2007, on 03/08/2008, -0/+0Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
    http://download.paramegsoft.com/
    http://www.paramegsoft.com/forum/
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.