Buttigieg is more vocal about his faith and its connection to his political views than any candidate I can think of since Jimmy Carter and Rev. Jackson . Pete uses it as a shield, a sword, and a guiding star on which he bases much of his decidedly left of center philosophy of government. Now despite my identity as a agnostic atheist ( Not sure/ I don't know whether there is one. I don't believe in one), I don't find it particularly annoying or worrisome. For forty years the conservative Christians have completely dominated the political landscape, to the point that social and economic liberal Christianity has been completely muted by the likes of Falwell, Graham, Bakker, Dobson, Meyer, Robertson etc. The social and economic Christians just don't get any airtime, and Politicians under their sphere, tend to keep their faith under a bushel, either because they worry such references will be divisive with Jews or atheists or Muslims, or because they feel it unseemly. . Mondale and Hillary barely mentioned their Methodism and how it impacted their political vision. Dukakis did not discuss his orthodox Christian faith, nor did Gore his Baptist past. Obama's faith was more an issue when others brought up his controversial pastor and his ' secret Muslim ties' and his time in the madrasa as a kid. Obama did not talk much about it. this thread is not a debate about whether his interpretation of Christianity is a better one than Reagans or Bush or Nixon, its about whether it troubles you that he is unabashedly talking about it. i
It's a good political strategy though, for their are Christians both in the Republican and Democrat camps, but the problem is it's like walking in thin fine line one slip up and the votes would fly away. It's a very difficult thing to incorporate religion into the world of dirty politics.
It’s a worrying aspect. Australians are suspicious of people who talk about their faith. If you have a faith, you should shut up about it. It’s something which shouldn’t have an impact on your public service.
I am suspicious of people of faith who don't admit that it does impact how they make decisions and it forms a foundation for values that frame one's views. In other words, people who say their faith has no impact, either have an incredibly weak faith, or are not being honest about the inevitable impact a religious perspective must have. people who just don't want talk about it, for whatever reason, are just leaving us voters without all the information we might use. D we really want all that unexamined before we vote?
Heck Americans are sick an tired of Atheism who talk non stop of a god they don't believe in. If you dont believe in something why talk about it something you don't believe in?
We are talking about something that motivates a hell of a lot of behavior in people, even if it does not motivate us. We would be fools not to see its significance in our lives, despite our atheism and even bigger ones if we don't try to understand and yes, predict its influence, even if it is a second hand influence on ourselves.
It triggers people's behavior when, intellectually kids think they are theologically smarter , then wisdom
I worded that clumsily. Should your religion have a greater weight than your duty to carry out your public service in an impartial manner? If you have an objection to abortion, birth control or assisted dying, can you vote as your constituents wish if they are in favour of it?
Why would anyone think abortion is not murder or assisted suicide is not murder? Dont you think people need a chance it the latest miracles of science?
Not going down this road. politicians can state that they have a faith and if there’s a conflict between their faith and what their constituents want, they should vote ac their constituents wishes.
It really only bothers me if they go on talking about it over and over and over. When they do that, it's a form of pandering, on the basis of religion. There is nothing wrong at all with religious faith and religious beliefs, and nobody is suggesting the creation of an official "State Religion", the adoption of which would be specifically forbidden in the Constitution. But beyond a certain, perhaps vague point, it is pedantic, obtrusive, and in poor taste....
I think your highest duty is to your oath of office and the constitution. Within those parameters, you can base your decisions on your conscience, your sense of fairness, your faith, your sense of reason, what you think your constituants want, what you think represents good policy and any combination or mixture of the above . Its up to voters to find out how you are likely to decide things based on what you have done in the past, and how you answer question or your reason within the bounds of the constitution and your oath. . They should know if you are going to vote pro-life, or anti capital punishment and they should ask why . If they can tolerate those votes of conscience and send you to represent them, then they should do that. For example, if I had a liberal Dem pro-lifer named Rep. Smith ( there are a few out there) running for office, and he or she was open and forthright about not being able to cast a pro-choice vote, but I liked everything else they stood for, Then I vote for them knowing that this is a issue of conscience for Rep. Smith and I have to accept that as a compromise to get all the good that I think will come from Rep. Smiths other votes. I intentionally look for my candidate to stand against their base of support on something. If they vote the party line on everything, or say they will then they are either cowards, or they are party hacks without their own mind. I will forgive a few votes of conscience whether they are driven by faith, or by reason or whatever, because I want signs that they will stand up against public opinion. I can't get too pissed when someone says 'this I cannot do' as long as he told me before I voted for him.
The nice thing about religion is that its subjective. Anyone of any religion can hold any political belief. Who they worship and how is not important. Why their policy is as it is, isn't important (not to me anyway). I only care what that policy is. There's Satanists that value the right to self defense and private property, just as there's Christians who would force me into dependent collectivism for Jesus if they got their way. Religion doesn't matter. Only policy.
I read an article where Buttigieg talked about his faith and mainly it was all about cherry picking verses to promote glbtqxcf.... it didnt seem but a tool. But I had only read that one article.
Religion plays a role like that in everyone's life, and religion is designed specifically as a tool on which we organize our lives, or morality and our social structure. It is designed to have a physical/ structural, emotional and mental benefit to us. As it competes with either other religions, other institutions for resources, support and its potential growth as an idea, it modifies itself to a changing cultural climate, in order to better compete. If religions, their clerics and their houses of worship, ditched everyone who 'cherry-picked' ( or we can say 'prioritized',or ' re-interpreted' some parts that are more convenient or useful, if you like) they would have nobody left in the pews. Its a natural almost unavoidable approach to very broad doctrines whether religious, philosophical or political, impacting the lives of communities in large geographical regions and individuals therein for centuries. The parts of the bible we pick to concentrate on to justify decisions in our teens and twenties are often very different from the ones we concentrate on in our later years. Referencing your 'but a tool' comment, as you appear to understand yourself, you are in no position to know squat about the limits or breadth of his faith or what it does for him as a tool, an inspiration, a structural or moral guide etc , from an interview, or how large or small a role it plays in his life. You sure won't know if it shrank or grew in the last 10 years, or what it may do in the next, or the next or the next ten years. I imagine that role and its size, and purpose, changes in everybody even the most devout, over time at least a little.
I think Christianity should be about glorifying God and not used as a political tool. I'm not saying people can't have discussions...but to say Buttigieg was putting his faith front and center was not accurate in my opinion unless his faith is glorifying homosexuality.
