Does a candidates' faith matter? Answer hinges largely on race
October 4th, 2012
02:24 PM ET

Does a candidates' faith matter? Answer hinges largely on race

By Dan Merica, CNN

Washington (CNN) – A survey released Thursday shows striking racial and religious divides over the role of religion in presidential politics.

More black and Hispanic millennials – ages 18 to 25 – said that it was important that a presidential candidate hold religious beliefs than white millennials, according to survey by the Public Religion Research Institute and Georgetown University’s Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs.

Nearly 70% of black and 57% of Hispanic millennials indicated that religious beliefs were important, while white young millennials with this belief were in the minority. Only 44% said it was important, while 53% said it wasn’t important.

“There are striking differences along racial lines about the role of faith in the lives of presidential candidates,” Dr. Thomas Banchoff, director of the Berkley Center, said in a release about the poll. “Strong majorities of black and Hispanic younger millennials say it is important for presidential candidates to have strong religious beliefs, while a majority of white younger millennials disagree.”

Overall, there was a near  equal divide among all millennials – with 49% saying religious beliefs among presidential candidates is important and 48% saying the opposite.

The poll also shows that a desire for a candidate with strong religious values benefits Romney, not Obama.

The poll asked millennials whether certain traits – like honesty, trustworthiness and leadership – fit Romney or Obama more. The president did particularly well in all these traits, except for one – “has strong religious beliefs.”

“The majority of millennials said that that trait went to Romney,” said Dan Cox, research director for the polling firm. According to the poll, 54% said that trait best described Romney, while 32% selected Obama.

Even in that question, though, there was a racial divide. Of black young millennials, 69% said “has strong religious beliefs” described Obama, while 22% selected Romney.

Religion has played a small but noticeable role in the current presidential showdown between Obama, a Christian, and Romney, a Mormon. Romney has used religion as a dividing issue with Obama, challenging the president on issues of religious freedom, contraception and the role of religion in American life.

The poll also finds that a group once thought to be politically up for grabs – white evangelical Protestants – are decidedly Republican. “Eight-in-ten (80 percent) white evangelical Protestant younger Millennial voters… favor Romney,” reads the poll.

This statistic bucks both conventional wisdom and the hopes of some Democratic operatives who felt that younger evangelicals would be more likely to support Democrats because of their age. Earlier this year, in a conference call with reporters, faith advisers to the Democratic National Committee indicated that they hoped to make gains in this demographics of voters.

While Romney also has a slim majority in white mainline Protestant young millennials, Obama maintains a lead in younger Catholics, religiously unaffiliated voters and minority Protestant voters.

These demographics may prove important in November’s election because these religious voters – particularly the millennials – are excited to vote. Two-thirds (66%) of these young millennials are registered to vote, according to the survey, and half those registered stating that “are absolutely certain they will vote in 2012.”

“One of the most striking findings of the survey is the impact of parental example on younger millennial voter engagement and voting preferences,” said Robert P. Jones, CEO of Public Religion Research Institute. “Younger millennials whose parents brought them to the voting booth as children are significantly more likely to be registered to vote, and younger millennials who have two parents supporting the same presidential candidate are closely following the vote choices of their parents.”

The poll of 1,214 adults aged 18 to 25 was conducted online between August 28 and September 10. The margin of error for the entire poll is 4.3 percentage points.

- Dan Merica

Filed under: Polls • Race

soundoff (243 Responses)
  1. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer really changes things

    October 5, 2012 at 3:06 pm |
    • .

      "Ronald Regonzo" who degenerates to:
      "truth be told" degnerates to:
      "Atheism is not healthy ..." degenerates to:
      "Dodney Rangerfield" degenerates to:
      "tina" deganerates to:
      "captain america" degnerates to:
      "just sayin" degenerates to:
      "Chad" degnerates to
      "Bob" degnerates to
      "nope" degnerates to:
      "2357" degenerates to:
      "WOW" degnerates to:
      "fred" degnerates to:
      "!" degenerates to:
      "pervert alert"

      This troll is not a christian. .

      October 5, 2012 at 3:08 pm |
    • Jesus

      Prayer does not; you are such a LIAR. You have NO proof it changes anything! A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work and their children died. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested.

      An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.

      The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs!/!

      October 5, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
  2. TonyinCNY

    It is well known that people prefer the candidate who most closely resembles themselves. Thus, Blacks favor Black candidates, Whites favor Whites, Women favor females, Hispanics favor Hispanics etc.
    But, to make an impartial and better informed decision, try making both candidates the same. For the Black community, ask them IF THEY WOULD VOTE FOR OBAMA IF HE WERE WHITE?
    Now, with two White candidates, Black voters could evaluate the qualifications and records of both candidates equally and make a better informed decision.

    October 5, 2012 at 1:20 pm |
    • EducatedBlackFemale

      It's funny how you focused primarily on "BLACK" people as if we only base our political choices on skin color. The majority of white people that consider themselves Republicans, vote against their own interests and have for centuries out of pure ignorance. Furthermore, to answer your question as to whether or not "BLACKS" would vote for Obama if he were white, the answer is simple- YES! We voted for Bill Clinton!!!

      October 5, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
  3. ted

    Ah Geesh, not this again!

    NO faith doesn't matter, a Harry Christner could be elected in this country if you can get enough people to believe your lies, you will win and be President.

    I thought Obama already proved that?

    October 5, 2012 at 1:06 pm |

    I truly wish we could get a candidate that doesn't talk to a magical invisible man in the sky...

    October 5, 2012 at 1:04 pm |
  5. boocat

    What's it like living in fantasyland?

    October 5, 2012 at 12:52 pm |
  6. ug

    The libs are still playing their old game of releigion and race...LOL! it hasn't worked in the past and it won't now...your boy is toast and you all know it! Vote Romney.

    October 5, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
    • T-Max73

      I candidate's beliefs in fantastic, supernatural nonsense is everyone's business.

      October 5, 2012 at 12:55 pm |
  7. Sagebrush Shorty

    Race colors everything.

    October 5, 2012 at 12:45 pm |
  8. Brian

    Why does a candidates faith matter? We are electing a president, not a pope.

    October 5, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
    • Lew

      Yes Brian we are not electing Pope, but think of someones beliefs as the core, like abs, after 36 yrs in the Mormon church I left last yr, why ? because the church leaders in Utah hide and cover up church history, READ THIS EVERYONE,

      Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 10,

      October 5, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
    • ug

      Your vote for ovomit will be the only one then fool...vote Romney.

      October 5, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
    • Jack Be Humble

      One of the similarities between the LDS (Mormon) Faith and the Catholic faith is that they both have a single human man on earth who can speak with the authority from God. That's a pretty powerful thing for anyone. The concern that people had with JFK was that he would (as a Catholic) be subject to the dictates of the Pope. JFK went out of his way to clarify that he was going to be the supreme executive authority for the United States of America, and put that ahead of any loyalties he might have to the Pope. I am certain (even though I am not voting for the man) that Romney has done the same in his bid for the Presidency; He will not be ordered around by the President of the Mormon church, regardless of his words from God.

      October 5, 2012 at 1:00 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      For the vast majority of people who are not Catholic, the pope speaks only for himself. Protestant denominations hold the belief that God speaks through the Bible, and that any Christian who is properly disposed (e.g. by prayer) will be able to discern God's will by reading its contents. There is no need for a pope or religious leader to "speak for God".

      Catholics also believe that the Bible is the word of God, and that it contains wisdom that may be discerned through prayerful reading. However, Catholicism also holds that it is Christ's will that the Church be led by a person who represents Him (i.e. Christ) on Earth, and that this person (the pope) is guided by the Holy Spirit in a special way.

      Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_the_pope_speak_for_God#ixzz28S6IybaS

      October 5, 2012 at 2:54 pm |
  9. kenny

    sorry sharky but your the uniformed one if you think scientists are religious. they might play along so as not to upset the ignorant masses, but they don't have faith. politicians have "faith" so long as it gets them elected. didn't the dems take out religion, then put it back when all u ignorant religgy masses biotched about it.. .that wasn't done for votes AT ALL?!?!?!

    October 5, 2012 at 12:20 pm |
    • The Taught Police

      You're making a mess of your presentation. There are two tu's to your tutu too. Whose who's are you hewing into hues? It's time for its proper use. They're positing that in their posts there.

      October 5, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
  10. glades2

    ...to call someone an millennial...

    October 5, 2012 at 12:01 pm |
    • sharky

      LOL I am sure someone will say it is racist somehow. Just like the term anchor baby is supposedly racist. LOL.

      Just wait the PC police will speak up soon enough and say millennial is a derogatory term.

      October 5, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
  11. glades2

    Millennial – that's a $5 word for you (less with an Internet coupon):

    mil·len·ni·al [ mi lénnee əl ]
    1.of millennium: relating to a millennium
    2.person born between 1977 and 1994: a member of the generation of children who were born between the years 1977 and 1994

    But I thought that'd be anyone born within 10 years of the millenium (1990-2010) – 35 years before 2000 doesn't make sense to calls someone a millennial, but not much does these days...

    October 5, 2012 at 12:00 pm |
  12. kenny

    sadly this is an example of our poor education system and poverty that remains high among minorities. the more ignorant a person is the more likely they are to have FAITH. its pretty simple since if you can't understand how the world around you works, you can't figure out how to control it so whatever happens is "up to god" ... while the intelligent person can figure out how to solve problems and control the world around them because they understand it. an atheist and priest are stuck in the desert, the atheist figures out how to find water and build shelter from the sun and uses the stars to navigate to a more hospitable environment, the priest prays for god to save him and dies. Its about that simple.

    October 5, 2012 at 11:54 am |
    • sharky

      WOW given the fact the founding members of the scientific world, were not only white, they were scientists and they were religious.

      Your condescending comment is amazing.

      So you have to be completely ignorant to have faith. So I guess Obama is ignorant. *smiling*

      October 5, 2012 at 12:12 pm |
    • mark

      sharky – Please provide proof – not from religious sources – to back up your asinine claim.

      October 5, 2012 at 12:27 pm |
    • Pat

      Yes, there was a time when in order to be a scientist, you had to at least pretend to be religious. Times have changed, now it only to be President that you are required to at least pretend to be religious.

      October 5, 2012 at 12:31 pm |
    • T-Max73

      @sharky- So, the fact that algebra was discovered by a Muslim says that Islam is the true religion? Think man, THINK!!

      October 5, 2012 at 12:57 pm |
    • J

      Fact: the more education an American has, the more likely he or she is to attend church.

      October 5, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
  13. Jeetu

    I am amazed at our short-term thinking and be guided by one incidence that the whole picture. Take for instance the lackluster debate performance of Obama on Wednesday night. Should we base our decision to vote on that debate? Or should we look at the substance of the debate issues and the candidates positions and performance through the years? I think the later of the two.

    When we examine the details, we find that Romney seems to saying anything to get eleced. He said 47% people are victims and that are not his concern; now when he found out that people are annoyed at that comment, he says he did not mean it after defending it for so many weeks. He says he will decrease the taxes on the wealthy, now he says he is for uplifting the middle class. He said he is for abortion, now he says he is against it. He oppoeses women' freedom to control their reproductive capabilities, gay rights, and the need for some fairness in USA. He opposes Wall Street reform as well healthcare reform and let 40+ million people without inusrance saying that issue to be left to the States. Healthcare was left to the States and nothing heppened. Medicare was created as a federal program, not by the States. Social Security was created by the Federal Government, not by States. The fact is most important programs are created by Federal Government as they collect lot more taxes than the States and then those programs are managed by the States. He does not answer as to how to provide insurance to 40+ million people because he wishes to make rich richer at the expense of middle class and the poor. He does not want to make investments for the future of USA because he does not want help the poor and the middle class.

    No matter what Romney says or does in debates, he cannot be trusted and hence cannot be POTUS. Let is make sure that he does not get to WH in November. Vote for Obama and all the democrats in November elections.

    October 5, 2012 at 11:40 am |
    • James

      You are absolutely correct.

      October 5, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
    • sharky

      And Obama has absolutely NOTHING to run on.

      47% of the country is NOT paying Federal income taxes they are getting handouts and that is primarily Democrat based as it is a give give give party, yet have NO way to pay for anything and it enables people to stay on the dole. Those 47% wouldn't vote for Romney. If you get the milk for free why buy the cow.

      October 5, 2012 at 12:14 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Sorry Sharkey. The vast majority of those 47% are working and paying payroll taxes – which goes to FICA and Medicare. But they don't have an I Co e high enough to pay income taxes. Another large chunk are the retired elderly and the disabled – who can't work. Another big chunk are folks with incomes less than $20,000 – primarily students.

      This leaves a whopping 0.9% who are the deadbeats. And that includes over 30,000 people making over $150,000 a year!

      Seriously, why do you tea bagger nutters lie?

      October 5, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
  14. CosmicC

    I don't so much care about a candidate's faith as to whether or not he will attempt to force it on others. Obama has shown he will not. Romney's party is controlled by those demanding that he will.

    October 5, 2012 at 11:39 am |
    • bannister

      Not really. The Republican Party has ever demanded that everyone be a Christian. Yes, they HAVE stated that churches and Christian schools and hospitals should not have to pay for abortions if it violates their faith- and I agree with that.

      Over the last 32 years, we've had a Republican presidents in office for 20 of those years. And yet here we are in 2012 and there is no Christian theocratic state – we live in a pluralistic, multi-religious nation where nobody is forced to worship any one God. I think your fears of the Republican Party are unfounded.

      October 5, 2012 at 11:54 am |
    • mark

      Bannister – where the hell have you been the last decade? Under a rock?

      October 5, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
    • Primewonk

      @ bannister – so, I guess that 30 states just accidentally fell into laws that make gay folks second class citizens? And numerous states each year accidentaly fall into laws making the state in charge of their wombs? And many states magically try and pass laws putting religious myths on equal footing with science in our public schools?

      Are you sure this is how you want to roll?

      October 5, 2012 at 12:53 pm |
  15. Wolfgang Halbig

    Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California . He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies.
    "Barry" (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan . During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a "round the world" trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia , next Hyderabad in India , three weeks in Karachi , Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family.

    My question – Where did he get the money for this trip? Nether I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they were in college. When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York . It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack – not Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia ?It's not cheap to say the least.

    My girls asked me; where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe it's none of my business?

    After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000. a year.
    Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living in New York. By "chance" he met Antoin "Tony" Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago . Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery several times in the past and in 2011. Rezko, was named "Entrepreneur of the Decade" by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association". About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School. Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School ?

    Where did he get the money for Law School ? More student loans? His family has no money that's for sure.

    After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what I discovered? They represented "Rezar" which is Rezko's firm.

    Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago. In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with "seed money" for his U.S. Senate race.

    In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). With ALL those Student Loans – Where did he get the money for this property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.

    Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran! Am I going nuts or is there a pattern here?

    On May 10, 2008, The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor to Obama was "sacked" after the press found out he was having regular contacts with "Hamas", which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran. This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq , he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will "Take care of things". What the heck does that mean?

    Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that were born in Pakistan? They are in charge of all those "small" Internet campaign contribution for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East ?

    And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2009, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, "My Muslim faith". When questioned, "he made a mistake". Some mistake, eh?

    All of the above information I researched on line. If you would like to check it – Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times – Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times – September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.

    October 5, 2012 at 11:12 am |
    • matt

      The paranoia and racism run deep in this one. Never before has a college student gone abroad...or gotten scholarships!

      October 5, 2012 at 11:15 am |
    • Sparky

      Your whole rant in on snopes.com verbatim.

      October 5, 2012 at 11:27 am |
    • togirl

      Sir you sound like a conspiracy theorist!! You have too much time on your hands. Here's a subject you can research: why did Americans permit a moron like Cubya to ocvupy the White House for 8 years?? Why was someone so uneducated, illiterate and frankly dumber than dirt elelcted to the highest office in the land? A little Daddy nepotism maybe?? The man was a dumb suit and he's seen as a better choice??

      Obama's election is seen by the rest of the world that maybe, just maybe the US had grown up a little!!! You don't have to be white to run your country, but from what I see on these boards the fact that Obama is black detracts from the fact the he is heads and shoulders above the man he replaced.

      The Romney you see on the debates won't last. The Romney you've seen on the circuit for the last year or so, is the real one. He's flipped and flopped from his original convictions, I doubt he will be able to remember his position on anything. But I'm sure the Tea Party will remind of what he believes in.

      October 5, 2012 at 11:37 am |
    • Lee Oates

      Wow....real KKK marerial. Reminds me of the John Birchers back in the 60's. True Tea Party material. I am suprised that such a searching mind fails to mentiion the out right lying that Romney indulges in every day, or his absolute rejection of the 47% he labels as takers, or his preference for the very rich.

      October 5, 2012 at 11:54 am |
    • J Stensrude

      All of your questions are easily answered from public knowledge that many who oppose Obama's policies and/or existence refuse to look at and/or believe. He received scholarships for his undergraduate work. HIs grandmother went to work in her 40s/50s so that she could pay for his private school in Hawaii. All his life, his grandparents lived in the same small condominium. Instead of buying things as she progressed in her job and got higher wages, she spent her earnings on her grandson's education. Obama (and his wife before him) went to law school with student loans. He received a grant to write a book. The grant included funds to travel for research. This is quite common. I have a good friend who received such a grant, and she had a nice, extended trip to Africa. Her grant required that she do some travel. I don't know if Obama's grant required travel but it did cover it, allowing him to do some travel that he otherwise could not have afforded. The book was not a success - until his second book, which he wrote to pay the debt created by his run for congress, became a bestseller. Then the publisher re-released the first book. Both books hit the bestseller list and he became a millionaire. The first thing the Obamas did with this new wealth was to pay off their student loans. Then they bought a condominium. Books written by both the Obamas continue to bring them a nice income, though not quite as high as when there were two books on the bestseller list.

      October 5, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
    • sharky


      Ah yes another race card. If you were against Bush, or even if you are against Romney, you yourself are a racist why because they are white.

      October 5, 2012 at 12:16 pm |
    • mark

      If you used Wikipedia as your first source of information, then your opinion is about as relevant as a pile of crap on the side of the road.

      October 5, 2012 at 12:29 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Sharkey wrote, " If you were against Bush, or even if you are against Romney, you yourself are a racist why because they are white."

      No. I don't oppose Bush and Romney because they are white. I oppose them because they are ignorant fundiot nutter îdîots

      October 5, 2012 at 1:00 pm |
  16. matt

    Thank god the jeebus freaks are here to keep this country in the 14th century....they should all be denied medical attention since they don't believe in science.

    October 5, 2012 at 11:12 am |
    • sharky

      LOL Funny enough they ave been trying to GET the waivers for the Obaamcare crap but Obama says no.

      October 5, 2012 at 12:17 pm |
    • Nate

      Hey Matt. Some of the founding fathers were "Jesus Freaks". And last I checked, it wasn't the 14th century when the country was founded. Somehow those early "freaks" and the non-"freaks" were able to get along and form what I consider the greatest nation. Most of us "freaks" CAN get along with people that don't have the same beliefs, but don't expect me to toss my beliefs aside because they don't agree with yours.

      October 5, 2012 at 1:33 pm |
  17. Common Sense

    Not all athiest are Marxist but all marxist are athiest

    October 5, 2012 at 10:24 am |
    • jeshuey

      Not true at all: Marxism is an economic philosophy, not a belief system. Many early Marxists were Jewish intellectuals and blue-collar Catholics.

      October 5, 2012 at 10:38 am |
    • truth be told

      All atheists that have taken power have been mass murderers.

      October 5, 2012 at 10:54 am |
    • nojinx

      We have an atheist who has taken power in Congress. Is he a mass murderer?

      There have been more Christian mass murderers than any other faith (or non-faith) in the history of the planet. At this poitn in history, in fact, they may compose 50% of all time mass murderers.

      October 5, 2012 at 11:13 am |
    • Common Sense

      Simply put, religion is the Opium of the weak.

      Governments support religion in order to allow the ruling class to keep the working class down. And the working class is so stupid, they go with the flow.

      Simply put.

      October 5, 2012 at 11:14 am |
    • sharky

      Common Sense–

      All Marxists are parasites that s for sure and then they did morph into Atheists.

      October 5, 2012 at 12:18 pm |
    • nojinx

      "Common sense" is a term people use when they don't actually have a legitimate argument to support a claim.

      October 5, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
    • truth be told

      There are atheists who have taken power on their shift at burger king also. We refer to atheists who have led countries, the other atheist losers either murder privately or wish and wait. All atheist leaders are mass murderers, bar none.

      October 5, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
    • Atheism is the natural state of all living things

      LOL! You're a Poe, aren't you? I can't believe someone would really think that, much less say it.

      October 5, 2012 at 3:30 pm |
  18. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things .

    October 5, 2012 at 8:47 am |
    • Tom Baker

      Yeah, it changes the amount of time you waste praying instead of acting.

      October 5, 2012 at 9:36 am |
    • just sayin

      A good man prays, a great man acts on prayer.God bless

      October 5, 2012 at 9:37 am |
    • hal 9001

      I'm sorry, "Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things", but your assertions regarding atheism and prayer are unfounded. The degree to which your assertions may represent truths is 0.0. To help you understand the degree to which your assertions may represent truths, I will access my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE). Using my IEE module, the expression that best matches the degree to which your assertions may represent truths is: "TOTAL FAIL".

      I see that you repeat these unfounded statements with high frequency. Perhaps the following book might help you overcome this problem:

      I'm Told I Have Dementia: What You Can Do... Who You Can Turn to...
      by the Alzheimer's Disease Society

      October 5, 2012 at 10:02 am |
    • Jesus

      Prayer does not; you are such a LIAR. You have NO proof it changes anything! A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work and their children died. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested.

      An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.

      The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs!

      October 5, 2012 at 10:34 am |
    • matt

      For the worse..."god" answers all prayers, he is just a dick who says no continually.

      October 5, 2012 at 11:13 am |
    • nojinx

      I've been praying that you would stop posting on CNN articles.

      October 5, 2012 at 11:14 am |
    • boocat

      "Prayer changes things..."......so does a nice hit of LSD.

      October 5, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
    • .

      "Ronald Regonzo" who degenerates to:
      "truth be told" degnerates to:
      "Atheism is not healthy ..." degenerates to:
      "Dodney Rangerfield" degenerates to:
      "tina" deganerates to:
      "captain america" degnerates to:
      "just sayin" degenerates to:
      "Chad" degnerates to
      "Bob" degnerates to
      "nope" degnerates to:
      "2357" degenerates to:
      "WOW" degnerates to:
      "fred" degnerates to:
      "!" degenerates to:
      "pervert alert"

      This troll is not a christian.

      October 5, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
  19. Daniel Hoffman

    To the poster asking why there aren't prophets like there used to be, the answer is simple: we catch them fast. Lots of people claim to be prophets. It's just too easy to show them to be frauds. Remember Revered Moon? How about David Koresh? Who was that nut with the Kool Aid?

    October 5, 2012 at 8:30 am |
    • *

      Yep, those are the false prophets that the Lord warned us about. They are sent by Satan to confuse us so we won't recognize the real ones, but these are the latter days and God promised to restore "all things".

      19 ¶Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
      20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
      21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of resti tution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. (New Testament, Acts, Chapter 3)

      Tomorrow and Sunday is your chance to discover that restoration for yourself. Lds.org.

      October 5, 2012 at 8:38 am |
    • nojinx

      The problem with quoting scripture is that the only people who give it authoritative weight are those who already believe it to be true.

      Would you be swayed by someone posting from the Koran or Dianetics? Do you see why it is futile? The only people you can convince that there is an invisible rabbit are the people who already think there is an invisible rabbit, as the invisible rabbit is the authority required to believe in its scripture (the words you use to convince).

      If someone does not already believe in a particular god or gods, they will have no reason to think any of their respective scriptures are valid.

      October 5, 2012 at 11:18 am |
    • *

      Sorry, no jinx, but my post isn't for you nor, frankly, is this website. This is a "faith" website. Perhaps you lost your way when you were looking for the "atheist" website. I have no idea why you people are even here.

      October 5, 2012 at 11:25 am |
    • Muzak

      Dear person who goes by " * ",

      1. It is a "Belief Blog".
      2. How rude of you, for a Latter Day Saint.
      3. CNN is generally considered a liberal website, so perhaps you lost your way when you were looking for the Fox website.
      4. I would be much more enlightened through revelation by reading or hearing from modern day scientists.
      5. In the spirit of sharing, as you seem to like to do, Truth also walks the earth to bring us the light of its revelation and you can see and hear it by visiting the main athiest website or by actually listening to an athiest.

      October 5, 2012 at 12:32 pm |
    • nojinx

      Generally speaking, I come to CNN for news and opinion.

      I post usually to refute the ridiculous claims made and to help enlighten others, no matter who they are. No one should be treated as it they cannot improve themselves and learn something new.

      October 5, 2012 at 3:02 pm |
    • nojinx

      Also, using terms like "you people" identifies you as a bigot. Avoid gross generalizations and people will take you more seriously.

      October 5, 2012 at 3:05 pm |
    • *

      Muzak, that did come out obstinate and your criticism is fair and you have my apology, nevertheless, I do get irked enduring the constant ridicule of atheists who seem to think that they have this exclusive license to be rude, crude, and unrefined, but that we who have faith are stupid, nincompoops, who have no rights to even be on our own blog. My question is a sincere one. Why are you people here? All you do is ridicule and criticize and spread negativity. If you can't say something good, it is best to say nothing!

      October 5, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
    • Atheism is the natural state of all living things

      " All you do is ridicule and criticize and spread negativity."

      That is patently and demonstrably false. Many atheists and doubters are pleasant and civil, and many who are believers are also rude, they ridicule and spread negativity.

      Criticism is not something to avoid, it is essential to this process. Your comments criticized atheists, my comments criticize your comments. That's okay, because I don't have to think of you negatively to criticize your points, and vice-versa.

      Thought using terms like "you people" you are making gross generalizations as if your are bigoted. So best to avoid that.

      My question is why would you think this site is for only a specific group of people and not for everyone?


      October 5, 2012 at 3:38 pm |
  20. *

    Has God forgotten us? Why aren't there prophets today like there used to be? God lives and has not forgotten us. Living prophets once again walk the earth to bring us the light of revelation and scripture and you can see and hear them Saturday and Sunday in General Conference! Tune into LDS.ORG.

    October 5, 2012 at 8:22 am |
1 2 3 4
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.