(In my opinion)
Religion and personal worldview played an increasingly public and important role among candidates and voters during the Presidential election process in the U.S. The influence of religion had on various political parties such as Democrats, Republicans, and other parties.

If the only stance one can take in public life is to remain mute about one...

(In my opinion)
Religion and personal worldview played an increasingly public and important role among candidates and voters during the Presidential election process in the U.S. The influence of religion had on various political parties such as Democrats, Republicans, and other parties.

If the only stance one can take in public life is to remain mute about one's most deeply held beliefs, then the election process is diminished. The American public requires a basis for knowing and evaluating the core values that shape our leaders' actions and policies. Without the increased role of religion in the presidential election process, voters would be forced to speculate as to what the underlying political philosophy of a potential president might be. If values rooted in religious tradition (or any other philosophical worldview, for that matter) are an important element of a candidate's decision-making process, the public ought to know this. Religious discussion only helps in the selection of good leaders who desire to lead the country down a moral road."

Racial tolerance continues to be a clear trend in American society. In fact, during the past six years there has been a significant positive change in the perceptions of both African Americans and whites regarding the present state of race relations. Many of the issues that are presently important to racial minorities are issues faced by low income Americans-- generally, for example access to affordable health care and quality education. In 2004 Democratic platform makes reference to the racial aspect of the health care issue and affirms the Democratic Party's opposition to racial profiling. On the other hand the Republican platform also pledges to erase racial inequality with respect to health care and to provide support for black and Hispanic educational institutions.

The following are two website excerpts

Why does race remain an important public policy issue?

Despite over three decades of a concerted effort to rectify past racial injustices, race remains a crucial aspect of American society with policy implications throughout our governmental systems.

Racial issues historically have involved African Americans. Indeed issues associated with Black Americans remain the principal focus today. But a new wave of immigration during the past 30 years has overwhelmingly consisted of Hispanics and Asians. New issues associated with these groups have similarities and differences with issues facing African Americans.
http://www.newsbatch.com/race....

The Democrats’ “New Deal coalition” once dominated American national elections. By the late 1960s, this coalition fractured, as white southerners began to vote increasingly for Republican presidential candidates and to identify more with the Republican Party. One common explanation for this development is that issues of race and civil rights became clearly defined along partisan lines, with the national Democratic Party favoring federal intervention—a position at odds with the “states’ rights” position of most white southerners. Yet, new research disputes the primacy of race as a factor in the partisan realignment of the South. Moreover, it is less clear what the role of race is in today’s politics. Are southern Democrats still more hostile than non-southern Democrats on the issue of federal intervention to ensure civil rights? Are racial issues still salient to white voters? Do attitudes about equality and feelings toward blacks influence voting behavior in presidential elections? Using data from the American National Election Study, the results demonstrate that southern Democrats now resemble non-southern Democrats on issues of race. However, while the South and non-South distinction has become blurred, racial issues remain salient to voters nationwide. Perhaps most important, the results demonstrate that individual attitudes about race and equality, as well as feelings toward blacks, have a significant effect on individual voting behavior in presidential elections, even when controlling for party identification, the South, and other factors. These results make clear that attitudes about race, equality, and blacks still matter—a finding that holds important implications for the upcoming 2008 presidential election.
http://www.allacademic.com/met...

Not at all....

Not at all.Race, religion, and the sex of the person has no business in anyplace what so ever for it is discrimination

One of our greatest presidents of all our presidents was a Catholic but he did not try to forced on the American people the way he believed. That was our thirty-fifth president, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

I do believe that there should be a separation of religion and any government or politics but that will never be the case in the foreseeable future.

I really admire US culture in one part is that people there respect eachother irrespective of race,color,religion and ethnicity. I lived in New York for 4 years and I had great experience of life which I admire US Citizens about which my countrymen lacks.

Here in India most people judge and treat you with your caste,tribe,religion,economic strength, political or bureacratic power and so on. This really...

I really admire US culture in one part is that people there respect eachother irrespective of race,color,religion and ethnicity. I lived in New York for 4 years and I had great experience of life which I admire US Citizens about which my countrymen lacks.

Here in India most people judge and treat you with your caste,tribe,religion,economic strength, political or bureacratic power and so on. This really hurts as here politics and election is completely based and focussed on race, religion and tribe factor which does not elect the real leader who can move forward the whole society together.

When an American is fighting on foreign soil then does he look at the race, color or religion..I think it's big NO. Then why is it not possible to look for same scenario in politics. We must have courage to join hands together to develop country first and with the development of the country we automatically will progress with it's flow.

God bless the whole Universe and give us all strength to move forward together.Oh! yes, since this lovly question is still open I have a small point to add. Now instead of religion, gender & race or ethnicity in US election between Hillary & Obama is heating up. This again is no good for matured people to look at to choose efficient leader to lead a country. If all women of USA start thinking that voting for Hillary as a women as first female president will bring more success , happiness and power then they will commit blunder. Similarly if all blacks will vote for Obama generalising that they are going to elect first black president then again it will be bigger blunder. What any US citizen should look up is that who has more far sighted vision to lead the country and bring peace, strong economy and better healthcare system along with other necessities to grow USA .

Shrek... reword it... Should Race, Religion or SEX play a role....?

What you are asking is certainly valid; although, as you know, this world is corrupt.

Sure, we were all born equal. But, why have we not had a WOMAN president? Now, as for Hillary, I think NOT, but only my opinion.
...

Shrek... reword it... Should Race, Religion or SEX play a role....?

What you are asking is certainly valid; although, as you know, this world is corrupt.

Sure, we were all born equal. But, why have we not had a WOMAN president? Now, as for Hillary, I think NOT, but only my opinion.

Politics are politics. Its who you know, not what you know.... that gets you into office. And, if you are the poor "chinese" or "black" man, well, if your high school friend remembers you during their term, then they will hire you to do the work for the local college, the local church, or even the local state house (where the roof has been leaking for 17 years).

Sad, but true. So, my comment.....

SPEAK THE TRUTH, and stand by what you mean. Sometimes that is not always easy and explaining to your children is somewhat harder. Oh well.

Best to you and your family. Take care.

I believe it helps some people decide who to vote for by knowing if they share the same beliefs as the voter, but I don't like it. A candidate should be voted in for what they are saying they are going to do once elected, and for what they did in their past that proves their honesty. Not lying, while it is one of the 10 commandments, is more of a basic virtue than a "religious" virtue. What race or sex has to do with politics, I have NO IDEA whatsoever....

I believe it helps some people decide who to vote for by knowing if they share the same beliefs as the voter, but I don't like it. A candidate should be voted in for what they are saying they are going to do once elected, and for what they did in their past that proves their honesty. Not lying, while it is one of the 10 commandments, is more of a basic virtue than a "religious" virtue. What race or sex has to do with politics, I have NO IDEA whatsoever.

Would like to state the full notions, because if not then misconceptions will arise.
When I was little, born was the way to say it. Now fetuses are considered by many to be equal. This gives rise to a lot of religious and anti-religious ideas being injected into politics. There in no cure for this especially if the constitution is viewed as a living breathing document, which it should not be.
...

Would like to state the full notions, because if not then misconceptions will arise.
When I was little, born was the way to say it. Now fetuses are considered by many to be equal. This gives rise to a lot of religious and anti-religious ideas being injected into politics. There in no cure for this especially if the constitution is viewed as a living breathing document, which it should not be.
We are not born equal. That is obvious. We should be equal before the law. To the extent we are not, that is bad for our country.
We are not born free except in the sense of slavery. I like the religious way of stating it. We are born free with limitations. This is from God, our creator.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say there should be a separation between church and state. It says the state cannot establish a state religion and this is a good thing. It also says that we cannot be prohibited from practicing our religion.
This aspect of the constitution is being downplayed by the courts right now. If religious people do not get active in politics, we will lose the right to practice our religion publicly. And it could easily get worse than that.
On the other hand, there are a lot of religious people who would pass repressive laws. I live in the bible belt and we have a lot of them here. This is very dangerous. I believe that you and I are freedom lovers.!
Does the Iowa caucus elections mean that race as an issue is diminishing in our country? I think it does. Iowa is perhaps 98% white and they ignored race. We had a black Republican congressman from Oklahoma that I dearly loved. Elected primarily by whites. But the black leaders will not let the issue die.
Gov. Mitt Romney's Mormonism played a big role in the election. Since he has never governed by any Mormon principles, I think it should not have.
I note that I gave both whys and why nots. But life is like that. I hope the principles I outlined were black and white and clear.

We're all human. We judget people by what they look like, what they believe in, their background, their education, the way they talk, the way they walk, etc.

When voting for a President, people are going to judge him/her as a person. Therefore, a person's beliefs, race, and sex are inevitably going to play a role. It's not a matter of right or wrong, it's really more of a practic...

We're all human. We judget people by what they look like, what they believe in, their background, their education, the way they talk, the way they walk, etc.

When voting for a President, people are going to judge him/her as a person. Therefore, a person's beliefs, race, and sex are inevitably going to play a role. It's not a matter of right or wrong, it's really more of a practical matter where people want to know everything about a candidate before they make a choice.

The United States is a nation of consumers so even with politics, we have to be savvy shoppers and understand how the product is made, what's inside the product, and how it's going to function.

As our current President demonstrates, as consumers we make mistakes and we are sometimes forced to buy something because we have no choice and we end up paying a dear price.

There seems to have been a number of questions about politics. I guess it's a propos given that we are in the beginning of an exciting political race for the white house.

You certainly ask an interesting question but I think it's a little misguided and perhaps controversial for the sake of controversy.

...

There seems to have been a number of questions about politics. I guess it's a propos given that we are in the beginning of an exciting political race for the white house.

You certainly ask an interesting question but I think it's a little misguided and perhaps controversial for the sake of controversy.

Race and religion by itself does not play a role in US politics. We don't discriminate people by their color of their skin when electing officials. The church and other religious organizations have no formal role nor direct influence in governmental affairs. Therefore, the current political system we have in place is fair and just when it comes to race and politics.

However, what does happen is that race and religion still have a big influence in people's lives. I don't know it if it's encoded in our DNA or reinforced through social conditioning, but human beings will always prefer people who are like them and fear people who are different. This inevitably leads to race influencing people's decisions about people. Therefore, you are right, race does play a role in politics. However, this is unavoidable and as long as the institutions do not support nor encourage this bias, I think the system will work.

When it comes to religion, it's a matter of life and death for many people. After all, what is religion except for a set of beliefs about the way we should live our lives and what is waiting for us when we die? If these beliefs are as important as life and death, it's only natural that they're going to play a role when it comes to selecting candidates for office. Like racial preferences, it's inevitable and as long as the political institution does not further the religious bias, it's not a bad thing.

My general feeling is that with democracy, you're going to have an open society where people are free to choose what they believe. This means that they're believe what they want about people of different races, and also hold different religious beliefs. This isn't a bad thing and I think it forms the basis for democracy.

By allowing different points of view and electing people via a process that enables people to work out their differences and come to a resolution on how we should govern as a society, we end up with a more accommodating and reasonable society that works for all of us.

So, to answer your question is a long winded fashion, I think it's right for race and religion to play a role in US politics.

Others may differ, so feel free to express yourself.

I think race shouldn't be a factor in deciding who we want as President. It doesn't matter if it's a he or a she, white, black, red, purple, etc. We should vote for the person who's going to do the best job.

When it comes to religion, I think it should play a role in US politics. Religion provides us with a set of morals which we should use to shape our laws and society.
...

I think race shouldn't be a factor in deciding who we want as President. It doesn't matter if it's a he or a she, white, black, red, purple, etc. We should vote for the person who's going to do the best job.

When it comes to religion, I think it should play a role in US politics. Religion provides us with a set of morals which we should use to shape our laws and society.

The thing we need to avoid is to have one religion dominate all others. Then we end up like the Taliban. What we need is representation from all religions based on their relative sizes of followers. We can then let democratic votes determine the amount of influence.

NO.But its not consistent, is unavoidable and is human nature.

Your initial premise is incorrect. The formative years of the US Constitution held equality to all, accepted at the time, as men of governing citizenry of civilization in an era of burgeoning enlightenment. Questions regarding all humans was not defined nor addressed. Attitudes wer held toward uncivilized, and unknown, unrecognized nations of inferior development of law, ...

NO.But its not consistent, is unavoidable and is human nature.

Your initial premise is incorrect. The formative years of the US Constitution held equality to all, accepted at the time, as men of governing citizenry of civilization in an era of burgeoning enlightenment. Questions regarding all humans was not defined nor addressed. Attitudes wer held toward uncivilized, and unknown, unrecognized nations of inferior development of law, society and soul to be not considered capable of functioning with autonomy in cooperative effort within US society and its beliefs, manners,goals and diplomatic partnerships.
Thus, slaves,on average,(for some Individuals proved educatable to an acceptable degree of parity or performance, and sometimes quite more), American Indians, on average(see certain Cherokee tribes) and peoples of exotic lands(often un-Christian) were considered physically, mentally or morally inferior and not held in the equal creation. Capability of functioning equally was the standard, and if it was unknown or misunderstood for the time period, then those without known agreed potential were not equal.
Women even came into question, for at the time they could not own property or land in many colonies therefore were barred from supportive ability and hence participatory ability in government. Exceptions(as with slaves and Indians) came in some colonies(NJ, ?NH) where widows and spinsters could own property, businesses and participate actively in trade and government coucil. Thus, the little known event in our USA History wherewhich Women actually had suffrage(which was a big topic for male debtors without land who didn't-see Poll Tax) and did participate in voting for our Presidential Election in some colonies for George Washington, as well as other offices(see "Petty Coat Party" campaigning.) Society and Church, and later Victorianism reversed and upheld its impropriety for this suffrage, but women did vote in 1789.!!!
> Hence, you can see that ideas of the time held their own standards not necessarily easily translated to today or any other era, for even in their own time they had exceptions and disparities.You, today, are not the thinkers of the time when the Enlightment was the guidelight of attention to some, and the taste of freedom and independence was the drive for others. Everything is assumption and presumption, which makes interpreting and applying the constitution difficult. If too rigid, it would be oppressive with legalism(to the very letter& word). If too liberal, the spirit of the Enlightened Enlightenment may be lost from our founders intent.
>If we accept capabilities of thought, learning and morality as universal to all genders,races and religions and creeds now,we are left with the potential for
equality to be applied to those who would accept social cooperation, contribution and compromise for the purpose of nationhood under our flag.
Those that excel and elevate to these goals in ability or at least heart(followers, supporters) will prove equal in value for government and justly enable this with blindfold to race and religion. Essenitally, its another Darwinian episode, where the notion of ability of different peoples has evolved to equal survivability followed by Constitutional support, Now there is no leverage or factor for superior survivability legally, so culturally we have to make pseudo-advantageous allegiences and divisions seemingly based on race or religion, but in fact simply, people are people, it's just political bedfellowing played upon by the media and those of unsophisticated prejudices. Good cop/Bad cop, whatever, just to give images to gather support. History has shown us that all of these divisions break up, divide themselves among opposing loyalties, dissolve, and reformulate cyclically usually depending on who wants what for their constituency(a nepotistic character). It can never end if originality and innovation are desired in government, for all ideas need support, and support incurs debt, and we all want loyal lenders and friendly manageable debt holders. So, the divisions will continue to arise, most frequently based on old line standards.(We haven't evolved to Red Hat/Blue Hat level of the 5 Million year advanced Cat Culture of "Red Dwarf" legend.(see BBC series).