Would You Vote for a person for president who prayed and read the Bible daily?

Simple question. If asked why they read the Bible daily the only answer they gave was "looking for answers".

/thread

That's his image I suppose. But do you have any actual evidence he did either?

It ought to be a big black mark against them, but other policies are more important.

Yes. Next?

ETA: Never mind. My answer what @Quest said. Dayton altered the question.

Yes.

ETA, @Dayton Kitchens has altered the OP, but my answer remains the same.

what if that better reason was a serious mental illness?

I have not altered the opening post in any way.

Yes, I would. But really, knowing that about them wouldn't change my vote one way or the other. They could be a great person or they could be a complete shitbag.

I asked because I know some people (at another forum) who said to the effect that they wouldn't vote for someone for presidency if they had ever attended a church service as an adult except for weddings and funerals.

Carter vs the Great God Reagan, for example.

Why do you mock President Reagan? You're not like @Shirogayne who with a straight face makes the utterly ridiculous claims that the Reagan Admin. was in some way responsible for the AIDS epidemic are you?

To quote you from the other day: "I wasn't talking to you."

no you don’t.

Once again, @Dayton Kitchens fails English as a First Language, whether deliberately or mendaciously.

When someone says "I only attend church for weddings and funerals" they are NOT saying what Dayton said.

Yes I would, because in my experience people find very different answers from the same material, depending on what questions they ask and how they interpret what they have read. What would matter as that it as someone whose decision making was accessible and positive by my estimate, not where they looked for inspiration.

Clinicians do tend to hold the view that Reagans' reticence delayed research, which in turn made it much more difficult to manage the outbreak over the longer term.

There's just as much evidence on this board for his religious practices as there is for yours.

I've never heard an unbiased member of the medical profession who seriously made that claim.

1) AIDS didn't even have a name for part of Reagans terms of office.
2) For most of Reagans time in office, the methods of transmission were not fully known.

I've never met an unbiased member of the medical profession, by and large we tend to have quite a strong bias towards that which saves lives and reduces suffering.

However you're right, the method of transmission was unknown at the time and the research to establish that knowledge could have happened with much more alacrity. Think about that.

Of course a French team did discover the HIV virus and published in exactly the same issue of the same journal the American task force did. Shame really given how much more progress could have been made earlier if more money resources and international cooperation had been facilitated.

That's just an assumption. Not a fact.

A candidate's religiosity is trivial. It's their policy platform and savviness to execute it that matters.

What if you came to believe that a candidates "religiosity" played a major role in their decision making?

That’s fine if it leads them to the right conclusions about policy. Ie, if Christians actually follow the Gospels and choose to advocate for the poor via improved social programs.

You seriously think that's all the Gospels are about? Or even their primary focus?

Matthew 22:40

That "disagree" is the most honest thing @Dayton Kitchens has ever posted here. He does not believe "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Matthew 22:40

37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38This is the first and great commandment. 39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Nothing in there about supporting the poor.

Case closed

For you, yes, the case is closed permanently. We've had the "love thy neighbor" discussion innumerable times and your definition of "love" is apparently "anything that doesn't inconvenience @Dayton Kitchens."

Tell me, where are you mentioned in the New Testament? I can't seem to find it.

Yes, you are, but you're also not mentioned in the New Testament.