Did they argue that they were saving real sex for marriage?

19:
It might have been a power thing on Nixon’s part, considering Kissenger’s religion.

Nixon clearly was not a devout Quaker as he enlisted in the military and requested transfer to a combat theater. He also chose to “swear” his oath at his inauguration rather than “affirm”. But according to Woodward and Bernstein’s Final Days, he insisted that Kissinger get down on his knees and join him in prayer in a private meeting (i.e., just between the two of them) at the White House.

i caution you against judging the sincerity of someone’s religious beliefs by indicator variables of behavior. i’ve had discussions in college with sincere baptists who liked to smoke pot and have anal sex with their girlfriends, who were nevertheless worried about the fact that as an atheist was going to hell. i don’t really want to discuss in detail how this individual elaborated how they could believe in their religion while engaging in such acts, but they were for real, and though an extreme case it illustrates one tendency within modern christianity which emphasizes salvation through faith, and redemption from even the grossest sins.

Lincoln wasn’t an orthodox Christian of any denomination, though it’s unclear if he was a Deist; it appears that he became more of a believer in some sort of God during the Civil War.

One wonders how sincere Nixon’s Quakerism or Clinton’s Baptistry were, and whether they actually believe in the theistic parts of their publicly professed religion. Neither seem particularly troubled about their sins against their (supposed) religious beliefs.

(Labor, roughly equivalent to the Dems, won the last election. The Labor leader, Kevin Rudd, lost the support of his party during his term in office, Julia Gillard took the leadership of the party and thus also the position of Prime Minister)

We had a non-Christian president as recently as William Howard Taft, although he affirmed that he was not an atheist when pressed.

I’d bet my right leg that the first atheist president has come and gone, though. Possibly more. Though I’d flinch from guessing as to who it might have been.

Joke aside. This country might need religion for obvious reason. Most simple people want simple answer for their life, which only religion can provide.

#10 – back in 2007, the Mormon candidate was the outsider trying to interfere with the coronation of the Republican’s designated successor.

The question would be more interesting (though difficult to include independents) if it were “If your party nominated a (black/woman/catholic/jew/atheist/mormon/muslim/gay) candidate for President, would you vote for that person?” Or something along the lines of “If the candidate for President whose positions you most agreed with were (black/woman/catholic/jew/atheist/mormon/muslim/gay), would you vote for them over a (non-black/man/Protestant/Christian/Christian/non-Mormon Christian/Christian or Jew/straight) candidate with whom you disagreed on more political positions?”

To that I say, if man had no morals, religion would never take hold. Neither would society.

Sort of an inverse Bradley effect.

What is interesting is that independents are more biased than members of the big two parties for a number of categories. I would have presumed them to be the more tolerant group.

As to Mitt Romney, I think he’s done a lot to help break down certain stereotypes about Mormons. Particularly the one that they are characteristically nice, polite people.