Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The issue will be batted back and forth like a tennis ball...just like it was when JFK ran...if it had an effect in that eletion, it was minor....but later, he and Jackie did go to Rome to kiss the Pope's ring.
JFK's election was bought and paid for by dear old dad...this time around everyone's involved...Saudi's, Chinese, Movie Producers...you name it...they're putting money in the pot...that's what really worries me...What are they expecting in return.
Before we push this too far into the religion thread, I'd just like to let you know that the burden of proof is on the person who believes an invisible security camera in the sky watches over you, loves you, created everything, has no need for being created himself, reads your thoughts, and can send you to an eternity in fire and brimstone (that he also created but can't be proven exists). It is with that logic that I deduce that there most certainly isn't a god and it scares me that anyone would make decisions of such importance with the notion that such a thing exists, and is also going to rely on such a thing. I understand if you can't get over the concept of matter coming from nothing, but at least we can prove matter exists, you can't prove God exists anymore than you can the Bogeyman or Santa Claus.
This should not turn into a debate of "does God exist". I have it on great authority HE does...U can't prove otherwise! So where does that leave the subject of the role of religion in this upcoming presidential election? I wonder how will u evaluate the candidates to determine who is the best person for the job? Especially if your position is a person's belief in God somehow suggests he or she is a simpleton, believes in fictional characters and is lacking in sound reasoning ablilities. It is obvious religion is a real and important consideration; also, it is one that engages voters on both sides across the board no matter what their faith is. There is nothing pretend, illogical or from fairy land about that.
Who said anything about a "religious test?" There's a huge difference between being a Christian and having Christian values and putting someone through a religious test.
And our candidates who are running are of many different faiths, Baptist, Catholics, non-denominationals, and yes, Mormons.
There is nothing in the least hypocritical about having a faith and running for office.
If one votes for or against a candidate based upon that candidate's religion then they are imposing a "religious test." To then claim to be a constitutionalist is hypocritical.
Here's what scares me: The notion that if someone does not believe in a god, he therefore "does not believe in any law higher than himself" .... and/or that a person who does not believe in a god, therefore "has no values" and "has little restraint". Neither of those assumptions are necessarily true.
Someone who breaks the law (Federal, State, local, whatever) is effectively saying "I am above this law, because I choose not to follow it; it does not apply to me, or, it applies to me only when I decide that it should." That certainly doesn't sound like much "restraint" to me! Either one believes in the rule of law, or one doesn't. Yet there are many Christians and other supposedly god-fearing people who have no hesitation about ignoring laws. (There are many who say that President Bush has an "above-the-law mindset" himself, or at the very least considers himself entitled to pick and choose which laws of the land he will follow!)A person who does not follow a religion does not "have nothing to lose". He has plenty to lose by the consequences his actions: his freedom, his reputation, his self-respect and the respect of others. The very same things that people who believe in god have to lose by the consequences of their actions.
The notion that a person who does not believe in a god must therefore have no "values" (by which I assume you mean a moral compass) is as offensive as it is inaccurate. Sigmund Freud, Linus Pauling, Andrew Carnegie (who as you know was one of the great philanthropists of the 19th and 20th centuries), Francis Crick, Madame Curie, Albert Einstein, and Charlie Chaplin -- to name only a few -- would no doubt all be surprised to hear themselves described as having "no values".
Yeah, yeah, yeah... u may find the notion of faith and values being linked together offensive and scarey. It is not my intention to offend or scare. And u may even doubt the that if someone does not believe in God-he knows no law higher than himself, but that doesn't make it any less truth. We can debate the issue all day long. What purpose would it serve? At the end of the day we have several candidates who all claim faith and a personal belief in God. Each of them have a whole package to offer. Religion is part of that package whether u agree with it or not. Furthermore, each candidate says more or less it is their faith to some extent that helps him or her to be the best person for the job. An informed voter will not be able to ignore a candidates faith. It is a serious and compelling issue that will influence votes. How much? I don't know, but I am starting to think a lot. And maybe that's a good thing. Is sounds like no matter who wins the White House u r going to be scared if a candidate's religion, faith and belief in God scares u. It seems they are all religious
If one votes for or against a candidate based upon that candidate's religion then they are imposing a "religious test." To then claim to be a constitutionalist is hypocritical.
This is your definition of a religious test you mean. Wanting a God-fearing man to lead our country is not what I would consider a test.
I can't believe I am reading so many shallow responses here. As a social conservative and an evangelical Christian, I will only cast my own vote for a Christian who is against abortion, same sex marriage, and believes and worships Our Lord. I believe our nation is in desperate moral degradation at this time in our history, with profane acceptance of the pornographic entertainment being piped across the land by Hollywood, with our institutions turning out a leftist agenda that is very very hostile to Christianity, and a feeling of morose hanging in the air. I believe God will judge our country and this will happen very soon. There is a biblical verse that expresses it like this. "The wicked shall be turned into hell and all the nations that forget God." Does anyone believe that almighty God will bless a country that becomes as vulgur as we have become, embraces perversion and homosexuality, as well as heterosexual promiscuity, materialism, greed, and turns its back on God? My small vote will be for a Christian in the next election, and if there are no real ones, I will vote for a third party candidate or forfeit my vote.
I respect your value system. It sounds like your belief in God is germane to your political views. U have very adamant criteria for the candidate who will get your vote. I certainly hope we get the right person for the job. America needs a change in my personal opinion
Is sounds like no matter who wins the White House u r going to be scared if a candidate's religion, faith and belief in God scares u. It seems they are all religious
I'm afraid you have completely misunderstood the first part of my post.
I never said that the fact that a candidate is religious (instead of being a nontheist or an atheist) scares me.
I never said that ANYONE'S religion "scares me" (well, unless an Islamic jihadist is coming at me with a weapon just because I'm "an infidel" and thus he/she believes that by killing me they will go to Paradise .... THAT would definitely scare me and I bet it would scare you too! )
What I said scares me is the narrowminded and completely unfounded opinionthat if someone does not believe in a god, he therefore "does not believe in any law higher than himself" .... and/or that a person who does not believe in a god, therefore "has no values" and "has little restraint".You can substitute the words "offends" and/or "puzzles" for the word "scares" in what I originally said, if you like; the meaning is still the same.
As a nontheist, I am just as offended by anyone's assuming that I am automatically arrogant, valueless and without restraint because I don't believe in god, as you would be offended at anyone who assumes that you are (to quote your post above) "a simpleton, (who) believes in fictional characters and is lacking in sound reasoning ablilities" because you do believe in god.
Don't you agree that both assumptions are equally unfair to the recipients?
If you do agree that to make such assumptions is unfair, why would it make sense to allow those same assumptions to influence one's choice of candidates for political office?
Last edited by Astrantia; 10-28-2007 at 09:21 PM..
This should not turn into a debate of "does God exist". I have it on great authority HE does...U can't prove otherwise! So where does that leave the subject of the role of religion in this upcoming presidential election? I wonder how will u evaluate the candidates to determine who is the best person for the job? Especially if your position is a person's belief in God somehow suggests he or she is a simpleton, believes in fictional characters and is lacking in sound reasoning ablilities. It is obvious religion is a real and important consideration; also, it is one that engages voters on both sides across the board no matter what their faith is. There is nothing pretend, illogical or from fairy land about that.
No, you're right it shouldn't turn into a debate of whether or not God exists, I was pointing out the fact that I don't have to prove he exists, I am not the one claiming the existence of such a thing. You don't have to prove that Ra, Baal, Zeus, or Choc Mool exist now do you?
I do not think that a person's belief in God qualifies them as a simpleton. I think that a fundamentalist Christian such as Bush has to much interference from his religion to make justifiable decisions. It seems like at one time, Bush always said "Based on my own opinions and Gods' help I made the decision that...." and the only thing I can think of is "RUNNNN!". I think that fundamental anything is bad when a leader is running for office. We need someone that is middle of the road. I understand that you can't claim "atheist" when running for office. It's political suicide, just as claiming "homosexual" is. But, we don't need someone who thinks the world is 6000 years old, is anti-scientific research, and still thinks the earth is flat because the bible says so. That freaking scares me. However, there's a large group of people in the U.S. that want a President to believe in those sorts of things. Heck, why don't we just go back to the 1st Century while we're getting ahead of ourselves??
I think that a fundamentalist Christian such as Bush has to much interference from his religion to make justifiable decisions. . . But, we don't need someone who thinks the world is 6000 years old, is anti-scientific research, and still thinks the earth is flat because the bible says so. That freaking scares me. However, there's a large group of people in the U.S. that want a President to believe in those sorts of things. Heck, why don't we just go back to the 1st Century while we're getting ahead of ourselves??
You say you don't want a fundamentalist Christian making decisions. So you're ok with a Christian just not a "fundamentalist." Hmm, interesting.
Also, I am just curious where in the Bible it states the world is flat?
No matter what someone uses to "slam" a candidate, religion eventually comes into the mix. Whether it is rational or not does not matter. It is simply a method of using a "factor" that will inflame debate on the person/people ( like on this thread ) and - with some people - it will be more of a deciding issue than the person's credentials.
What should matter is the person's ability to uphold the Oath of Office.
If you vote on how you personally feel on the "slam" ads and trash in the tabloids as opposed to the person's platform, shame on you. Read their websites... and wait for the 2 real candidates to be chosen. That's when you can really decide.
I also think that not voting or voting by the 'religion of default' ( that was a comment in about the 2nd post on the thread -- by Arizona Bear ) is simply silly. A candidate will have items in the plaftform which reflect their religion... you can decide based on the platform ( like I said, from their website, from interviews, etc.)
Last edited by BuffaloTransplant; 10-30-2007 at 12:49 AM..
Reason: add
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
