Seriously, GOP? Really?

[Wezil]

Out of interest, how does one separate their moral conscience from their public decision making?

Tough to do isn't it? Hence my position of not voting for them.

I want public policy grounded in fact and evidence, not the writings from an ancient and superstitious age.

[Wezil]

Of course. Politics tends to reflect the culture.

I was separating the US from places like KSA, etc.

Your religiosity is also intense just not officially mandated.

Why strangely? I'm sure you know why on the lefty side, religion pops up in death penalty debates (ie, My Lord & Savior was unjustly executed).

I should have been more clear. It is the religious on the other side of the debate that make me scratch my head.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yet as I pointed out those motivations appear to bear no relation to the politicians actual values and beliefs, so again: what value do they have for anything other than tribalist vote grabbing?

What Aeson & Jon Miller said. You appear to believe that Christianity is one monolith where everyone believes exactly the same thing on every single matter. If it wasn't obvious, there are tons of differences among Christians after "Jesus Christ, who was God, died and resurrected".

It'd be like saying all Americans have the same ideas and thus someone saying he was an American (on, say, a free speech issue) has no relevance on how he would approach things.

The way they talk about God and how their God gives them motivations for what they are going to do can tell you quite a bit about how they are going to act. It is their moral underpinning and thus relevant.

[Wezil]

I also don't buy the idea that religious politicians are any more moral than nonreligious.

[kentonio]

The way they talk about God and how their God gives them motivations for what they are going to do can tell you quite a bit about how they are going to act. It is their moral underpinning and thus relevant.

Except that has nothing to do with why politicians actually mention god (with the exception of Santorum who is a genuine fundamentalist I believe) which is because not doing costs votes. I'm actually amazed that you honestly believe you gain any insight into a politicians motivations from the speechwriters well written platitudes about how spiritually important god is to men who would usually sell their children for higher office.

[DinoDoc]

Well it seems Romney finally has the nomination sewn up.

[Dr Strangelove]

Does he have the 1400+ votes needed to win on the first ballot? I don't think so. OTOH most of the big states remaining, New York, California, Texas, Florida are likely to go for Romney. I suppose Santorum has a chance in Texas.

[Ming]

It's pretty much all over now. No, he doesn't have the needed votes at the moment, but nothing recently shows that he won't get them.

If the Repubs want a chance against Obama, it's time for the rest to give in and call it a day. Every day they go after each other is another day they can't go against the real target.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Except that has nothing to do with why politicians actually mention god (with the exception of Santorum who is a genuine fundamentalist I believe) which is because not doing costs votes. I'm actually amazed that you honestly believe you gain any insight into a politicians motivations from the speechwriters well written platitudes about how spiritually important god is to men who would usually sell their children for higher office.

Most of the time politicians don't actually mention God in prepared speeches or for photo-ops. Furthermore, if you don't think politicians have any influence on what the speechwriters place in speeches, you are delusional. For example, President Obama actually speaks of God in (relatively) complex ways that speechwriters wouldn't necessarily like to put forward (they like, as you said, simple platitudes).

[Jon Miller]

Except that has nothing to do with why politicians actually mention god (with the exception of Santorum who is a genuine fundamentalist I believe) which is because not doing costs votes. I'm actually amazed that you honestly believe you gain any insight into a politicians motivations from the speechwriters well written platitudes about how spiritually important god is to men who would usually sell their children for higher office.

It still doesn't seem to me that you understand Christians. I know you studied/tried it out, but that is really the impression I get from almost everything you say about the religious.

JM

[kentonio]

How can someone understand 'Christians' as a group when the group do not share the same beliefs and morals? To be honest with you, I long ago stopped trying to understand christians and started trying to understand individual people on their own merits and terms. I found it provides a much more honest picture.

[Jon Miller]

There are certain things that Hillary and Bush share, very important things, despite there very different policies and 'beliefs'. These are due to their shared beliefs (more central ones, not derived ones).

Now there are very important differing beliefs.

But I think you are missing something important to discount it.

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

How can someone understand 'Christians' as a group when the group do not share the same beliefs and morals? To be honest with you, I long ago stopped trying to understand christians and started trying to understand individual people on their own merits and terms. I found it provides a much more honest picture.

People are not simply just "individuals". Their societial values, their religious beliefs, etc have massive influence on who they are. Contra, Margaret Thatcher, society is not simply a collection of individuals.

[Wezil]

What is a shared belief among christians that one would expect to see reflected in policy?

[Jon Miller]

We already determined that a person's beliefs/etc shape how they act, what decisions they will make, and so on.

You aren't likely to say 'because Bush and Hillary both belief in the redemptive power of Christ, then their policy here would be ...'. There might be some thesis or book written about this, but not a couple of lines on the internet (or at least, a couple of lines on the internet should be ignored).

That does not mean that the shared belief in the redemptive power of Christ will not (and did not) impact both Bush and Hillary's political actions/etc during the last 12 years.

It does not mean that this is not a relevant thing to know about a politician.

Obviously what determines policy/etc is the combination of a person's beliefs/experiences/values/intelligence/etc. To claim that it doesn't because you can't directly see the correlation between some major policy standpoint and the belief (independent of everything else) does not mean that it doesn't play a crucial role in the particular policies/actions that person takes.

Private religion doesn't really exist. Not for meaningful definitions of religion and private.

JM