Marco Rubio: Deluded This Way or That Way?

Most of the time they behave in office as if their only god is their Swiss bank account.

What sect one belongs to might matter to the outside world in that it may be a reflection of how seriously he takes his religion and how seriously he thinks OTHERS should take his religion.
Catholics that were born into the sect are notorious for not taking their Bible, leadership or faith very seriously at all. Many will just admit that this was the religion they were raised in and that they feel comfrotable going to Mass and participating in Catholic ceremonies. There’s very little thought or strong emotion involved, and most of them just do it for reasons of tradition.
Many adherents to Protestantism however, are at the other end of the spectrum. Protestants also have a reputation (well deserved) for being more evangelical and driven to spread their particular form of mental illness. Catholics are less inclined to be interested in pushing creationism in public schools because they know that their leadership isn’t worried about evolution, and in fact supports it and modern science in general. This is NOT the case with many Protestant sects. Many Protestant sects are more likely to be militant in their beliefs and in their attitude and/or approach towards those who do not share their beliefs.
What form of lunacy one subscribes to may indeed, make a world of difference in the public and political arena.

Guess what? It doesn’t matter if you get dunked in water as a baby or as an adult. Nothing. Actually. Happens. You’ll end up in the same place when you die either way.

I actually sort of disagree with this. I think adult baptism is the morally superior of the two, because you are not submitting a child to a ceremony he or she has no say in. Of course, what really ought to count is that you don’t indoctrinate religion into your children but wait until they’re old enough to make a considered choice of their own. In this sense, I doubt there’s much difference between Baptists and Catholics. Even if Baptists do the ceremony as adults, they’ve still pushed religion on their children since they were born, so that it’s less of a “choice” than it seems.

But from the atheist perspective, does it make a damn bit of difference whether Rubio’s a Protestant or Catholic?

Yes it does matter in a certain sense. However “protestant” is a term that covers Quakers to Pentacostals, which sort of renders it a meaningless term that only means “non-Catholic Christian”. It does matter what the actual religious beliefs of a candidate are though. It matters that a politician denies global warming because God promised not to destroy the Earth again. It does matter if a politician believes in witchcraft, or thinks homosexuality is an “aberration” and a “sinful choice” along with pedophilia and necrophilia.

Yes, all Christians believe in a god for which there is no evidence, but that does not mean all Christians are the same, in the same way a moderate Turkish Muslim is not the same as a member of the Afghani Taliban or an ultraorthodox Jew is not like Jon Stewart.

The tone of the article is that of religious infighting, but I do think atheists should pay attention to the religious beliefs (less the religious labels) of politicians, given that some are perfectly compatible with good public service but some are most certainly not.

It’s the same feeling I get when I hear that people were once all up in arms over John F. Kennedy being a Catholic. “Oh no, we can’t elect a Catholic! He’ll take direction from the Pope!”

I want to say to them: Yeah, well, you all elected a bunch of people who think Jesus rose up from the dead… are their religious beliefs any more sane than Kennedy’s?

Err… the complaint was never that his beliefs lacked sanity. It was a power issue – would the president be the person elected, or would the president be the Pope?

But yes, the only time I care about the faith of a political candidate is when I know the faith of the political candidate.

I remember the Kennedy campaign. West Virginia, oddly enough given its small population, because WV at the time was the most Protestant state in the union, but reliably Democratic due to mine- and steel-worker unions.
The candidates both visited the Charleston Press Club (my father was a columnist at the Charleston Gazette). Both Humphrey and Kennedy danced with my mother, who never quite regained her breath over it.
Kennedy won WV, of course, and went on to beat Nixon, principally by buying votes in Chicago.
But I digress.
When I feel tempted to scoff at objections to the alleged Vatican influence on the Oval Office, it reminds me that six of the nine Supreme Court justices are Roman Catholic – and apparently devout.
That DOES bother me, given the church’s record of denouncing Catholic politicians, such as John Kerry, who do not oppose Roe v. Wade.
In my opinion, those six should recuse themselves from every decision regarding abortion or birth control. I don’t think their religious beliefs are a trivial matter.

“Oh no, we can’t elect a Catholic! He’ll take direction from the Pope!”

The Pope is a political leader and head of a state. The Vatican issues directives to its emissaries in other countries to try to influence Catholic politicians abroad. Remember that some bishops have declared that they will deny communion to Catholic politicians who support keeping abortion legal. As a religion, Catholicism is just as foolish as the rest of them. But it’s the willingness of Catholic clergy to try to influence domestic politics that concerns me the most.

Archbishop Naumann: Kansas governor should stop receiving communion

Bishop cites “national impact” of denying politicians communion

I grew up Catholic and as I discovered that I didn’t think there was a reason to believe there was a god I began to look at the Catholic Faith as more of a spirituality. The amount of cafeteria Catholics out there confuses me. They tend not to listen to the Pope or their Bishop or priest.
To me, religion seems to becoming more evangelical and conservative. And a lot of people naturally resist that which is why, in his cynical effort to get votes, Mr. Rubio courts the more right-winged electorate along with the wishy-washy right.

Hemant, I hope you aren’t proposing a religous (or absence thereof) test for office!

Once again, I find myself agreeing with hoverfrog and, frankly, the press should be called to task for always asking that question and demanding answers. I’m still waiting for that refreshing answer.

Frankly, I think the press empowers the Religious Right by fueling the fire. Who do you think stirred up the Tea Partiers? If we could get the press to stop focusing so much on religion, if we could get the emphasis off what a candidate’s religion is and focus on the issues, the Religious Right would lose power.

@TheGodlessMonster

There’s very little thought or strong emotion involved, and most of them just do it for reasons of tradition.
Many adherents to Protestantism however, are at the other end of the spectrum.

That’s American Christianity at work again. In Europe, there is really no difference. Both are in it mostly for tradition.

I’m nominally Catholic. My father’s side of the family is Protestant – they live a bit away, so it’s just a matter of where one is born. I’ve been to Protestant services. You notice that it’s different, but it’s mostly the structure. The differences are extremely superficial.

I think hypocrisy is a fair issue to raise in considering the behavior of a politician (and most of them appear to possess this trait). In terms of predicting what a politician will do in light of his religion, it’s true that Catholicism has traditionally had a lighter touch in the field of science (no demands that co-religionists denounce evolution or believe in a young earth), contemporary Catholicism is becoming more extreme in terms of reproductive freedom and choice (today’s hierarchy is obsessed with abortion and contraception). Rubio appears to be drawing from the worst of both worlds—dogmatically anti-choice and anti-science.

Rubio’s attendance at both Catholic and Protestant churches at least suggests that his religious convictions are rather flexible (or opportunistic). In this regard he is like Dinesh D’Souza, who continues to claim to be Catholic while he preferentially goes to a Protestant church. It appears these guys aren’t sure what they believe, yet they give no evidence of harboring any political doubts.

Others have touched on it, but yeah, I do think the specifics of a candidates religion matter unless you truly believe s/he can separate his/her religious views from political obligations. A Catholic is much more likely to be science-friendly in terms of educational curriculum than an evangelical. An Episcopalian is much more likely to be LGBT-friendly than a Mormon. The different views of various religious sub-divisions absolutely affect how practitioners stand on real-world issues, and since the overwhelming majority of our representatives remain Christians, focusing on the fact that they all believe in a deity ignores the fact that some are going to be allies with you on the biggest issues of the day.

i have to agree with Kahomono the first comment.

Sure. But one is better than the other I guess – An adult making a choice(even with the indoctrination) seems to be better than parents making a choice for their child.

I sort of agree with that, but I feel like the level of indoctrination is more important. One Protestant denomination might believe in adult baptism, yet those parents drag their toddlers to fire-and-brimstone services three times a week and then claim that their children have a “choice” about what to believe. To my mind, a moderate, mild-mannered Catholic upbringing would be preferable to that. I have Catholic relatives who baptized their infants, yet the kids have normal, largely secular lives. I don’t fear for them the way I fear for children growing up in extreme fundamentalist homes.

I was walking across a bridge one day and I saw a man standing on a ledge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, “Stop! Don’t do it!”

“Why shouldn’t I?” he asked.

“Well, there’s so much to live for.” “Like what?”

“Well, are you religious?” He said yes. I said, “Me too!”

“Are you Christian or Buddhist?” “Christian.” “Me too!”

“Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Protestant.” “Me too!”

“Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?” “Baptist.” “Wow, me too!

“Are you Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?” “Reformed Baptist Church of God.” “Hey,me too!”

“Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1789 or Reformed Baptist Church of God, 1915?”

“He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915.” “Me too.”

“Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915, Western Congregation, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915, Eastern Congregation?”

“He said: “Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915, Eastern Congregation.”

“I said, “Die, heretic scum!!” And pushed him off the bridge.

I remember Kennedy once saying that he hated being the first Catholic prez because that meant for the next four years he’d actually have to go to Mass every Sunday.

Robert, what you’re proposing is a religious test for office which is supposed to be prohibited but we, in fact, have because what is made of candidate’s religion in the press.

For what you said, as I said, address where they stand on the issues. I’m pro-choice because I’m a woman who chose to make a baby and give birth and don’t think any woman should be forced to go through that for a baby she doesn’t want. Many religious people are against abortion for religious reasons. All we need to know is where a candidate stands on that issue. If they’re pro-choice or anti-abortion when deciding to vote for them. We don’t need to know why.

Besides, not all Atheists are pro-choice for instance; and not all theists are anti-abortion.

Anna
I guess you are right.
I don’t know much about baptists , being mostly exposed to Catholics only.