Presidential religion.

[Arc]

We are a secular democratic republic at the federal, state, and local level. The rule of the land is a secular document--arguably the most powerful and influential document ever written, the United States Constitution. In it is the bill of rights and one of those rights is for individuals to exercise or practice their religion.

From the same part of the constitution that establishes that freedom is what's the foundation for the constitutional case law that has created the phrase and legal concept of a strict "separation of church and state."

So in essence religion as a specific formal entity has no place in our government and individuals whether they are in our government or not will not be denied or discriminated against in their individual practice of religion.

With the above I have just one question after watching part of the GOP debates tonight. Why when they are interviewing the candidates for the nomination after the debate do they show a quickie graphic profile that gives name, age, title, and religion--"Baptist", "Catholic", and "Mormon" to just name three.

What is wrong with this picture?

[Coot]

What is wrong with this picture?

Nothing at all, it's freedom of the press.

[Stiofán]

I think his point is that it's not done to Democrat candidates as a rule.

[joseftu]

I think whoever wrote those captions might want to have a look at Article VI, Section 3, of our Constitution.
...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

(And the phrase "separation of church and state" comes originally from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, decades before it was ever used by the Supreme Court--but I'm nitpicking again)

[Steve]

I fail to understand how a simple statement of fact becomes a "test", let alone (regarding the OP) how it impacts anything in any way. Those who care about such things will have already educated themselves and no number of laws or Constitutional clauses will ever prevent such voters from taking into consideration a candidate's religion (as silly as that may seem). Those who do not care about such things....should just keep on not caring about them, since there is no way that information should or could influence those who don't care.

[joseftu]

It's obviously not a test just to state the fact. But the implication is clearly that it somehow should matter to voters. And it does...and that's a problem. There's obviously no way to forbid or prevent people who will consider it as a test from doing so. Even to try to forbid or prevent that is a solution much worse than the problem. But the number of people who do care, or more accurately who use it as a criterion (sometimes the main or even only criterion)...that's a bad indicator about the state of our secular democracy.

I don't know if that's what Archangel saw as what was "wrong with the picture," but it is one thing that I saw. Again--not saying it should be forbidden, of course. But it's not a good picture, and the fact that the "news" channel broadcasting the debate chose to make that picture is also bad.

[Steve]

I agree entirely with you.

[ethics]

With the above I have just one question after watching part of the GOP debates tonight. Why when they are interviewing the candidates for the nomination after the debate do they show a quickie graphic profile that gives name, age, title, and religion--"Baptist", "Catholic", and "Mormon" to just name three.

What is wrong with this picture?

As others already stated: If religion is not part of the qualification, why is it being listed?

[ravital]

Voters making a decision in favor of or against a given candidate, based on the candidate's religion, are no different than voters making such a decision based on the candidate's party affiliation, looks, or oratory skills. Fortunately - or not, depending on one's POV - we have no "relevant criteria" test, or intelligence test, or any test for voters other than being living citizens 18 years of age or older.

Why a media outlet with the stated primary purpose of reporting news, would highlight, or even mention - persumably with a semblance of neutrality - any candidate's religion, is a relevant question. It shouldn't surprise anyone that candidates from one party would be deliberately presented in a different light than candidates of another. It might be a legally valid argument that such outlets, using - as they do - public airwaves, could be or should be compelled by law to observe rules that would more closely comply with reasonable expectations of neutrality, to enforce even-handedness. That's a huge can of worms, which one could fully expect to make matters worse. Not to mention that when it comes to presidential elections, we now regularly see upwards of 150 or 200 presidential candidates in every election cycle, all of whom would clamor for the same level of attention and coverage, based on the same argument of the outlet's obligation to the public - which of course doesn't serve the public at all.

[MNeedham73]

Unfortunately, a lot of people do care about what religion a candidate is.

Look at JFK for instance. A lot of people were concerned about the fact he was Catholic. So much so that he had to address that concern.

"I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters — and the Church does not speak for me."

[Domh]

I think his point is that it's not done to Democrat candidates as a rule.

I think most people see "Democrat" AS a religion.

:whistle: