Which is worse? A politician motivated by a lust for power, a politician motivated by greed, or a politician motivated by religion?

Compared with a politician motivated by the public good they are all equally unwelcome.

Greed is an oddly stabilising force, since it incentivises the maintenance of the status quo.

I think religion is more neutral, and can be either a force for good or bad, or just irrelevant.

Lust for power, however, is a sort of madness, and can be extremely destructive. All the worst statesmen I can think of were primarily motivated by power.

Which is worse? A politician whose aim is power and greed. I voted for president Trump because he was NOT a politician. As Christian nation founded by our forefathers, I think
has a good foundation for a politician. We all remember Trump took no salary.

I’d say power.

Many who seek the power use religion as a tool though. Whether they believe the religion or not is irrelevant. I would say most religious leaders who do evil don’t believe what they preach. Not to be confused with religious leaders who truly seek good for their people and the world.

Bloomberg took no salary as mayor. He must be a good person too. Also, Kennedy took no salary as president. Actually, Trump and Kennedy donated their salaries, I’m not sure about Bloomberg, I just know he took $1 a year. I’m also not sure if Trump got a tax write-off when he donated?

Does anyone actually believe Trump is religious?

Definately greed, just because I’ve seen it at play in politics more often than the rest.

@JLeslie People who think religion is bad, or hate religion, think Trump is religious,

@si3tech I agree totally—excellent answer imho

Here in the United States?? A politician motivated by religion. Because it is totally NOT what our founding fathers wanted.

@Yellowdog I’m not sure I understand. So, I’m assuming you don’t think he’s religious. Or, do I misunderstand? One of my fairly religious friends believes he is religious. I just don’t get it.

@kritiper Our founding fathers were extremely religious, There is nary a word they wrote that wasn’t in reference to God.

None. The worse one is the citizen who can’t see through this kind of politician…or sees it but votes for him anyway. Like deplorable trump voters.

@Yellowdog Yes they were. And it’s no wonder they wanted a separation of church and state. Remember Henry VIII? Our founding fathers sure must have!!!

@kritiper I think it was Brendan Behan who said that the foundation stone of the Church of England was King Henry VIII’s balls.

I’m not sure who’s the worst, but motivated by religion scares me the most.

Personally, I don’t think you can separate the trinity. The combination..if there were a unifying word..it would define the attributes inherent in ambition and application of politics… Or, you can’t have one without the others.
But..that’s my view of political adgenda and fanatical religious zealots..

..oh..and the founding fathers.. the stenographer made a mistake in transcribing.. It was supposed to be…and freedom “from” religion..
..people of that period in history were kinda sick and tired of the Papists and other fanatics insisting allegiance or die

I really think this sticking point about the prepositions of and from is insignificant. Do we really know for sure they were used so differently over 200 years ago? In Spanish it is the same word.

Actually, the constitution says absolutely nothing about religious freedom.

..hmmm. even then they knew not to get in that dog fight?

Well they came out of a nation that was ruled by religion. They recognized what a horrible disaster that model was.