15 Jan 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasI can't think of a more ridiculous way to choose a candidate than by trying to judge their "character." Their voting record is the only criteria that should be used. In other words, a candidate's "character" is the sum total of his previous votes, and not some intrinsic but nebulous quality that he supposedly possesses.
I would vote for an atheist president. Just because I didn't vote for George W Bush doesn't mean I wouldn't consider voting for an atheist president in the future. 🙂 Generally, though, I vote based on character. A man's (or woman's) character is a good indication as to their overall judgment. If I think someone is an incorrigible BS'er who'll say a ...[text shortened]... whether or not they claim to have faith in a higher power of some sort.
Obama '08!!!
15 Jan 08
Originally posted by rwingettI was talking with a woman the other day and she said she could never vote for a woman because women were emotional. So I said "What is wrong with being emotional?" She said they might cry. I retorted that Lincoln cried. She was adament that no woman should ever be president for this simple reason. I finally said, "Well I could never vote for a black because they all shiftless."
I can't think of a more ridiculous way to choose a candidate than by trying to judge their "character." Their voting record is the only criteria that should be used. In other words, a candidate's "character" is the sum total of his previous votes, and not some intrinsic but nebulous quality that he supposedly possesses.
15 Jan 08
Originally posted by kirksey957Does she suppose that Queen Elizabeth I, or Queen Victoria never cried? I don't think that their being of the supposedly "weaker" sex was much of a detriment.
I was talking with a woman the other day and she said she could never vote for a woman because women were emotional. So I said "What is wrong with being emotional?" She said they might cry. I retorted that Lincoln cried. She was adament that no woman should ever be president for this simple reason. I finally said, "Well I could never vote for a black because they all shiftless."
15 Jan 08
Originally posted by rwingettAnd Golda Meyer, Corazone Aquino, Margaret Thatcher (though I know you probably hate her), Benazere Bhutto, and Indira Ghandi.
Does she suppose that Queen Elizabeth I, or Queen Victoria never cried? I don't think that their being of the supposedly "weaker" sex was much of a detriment.
15 Jan 08
Originally posted by PsychoPawnAre creationism and evolution mutually exclusive concepts?
Whether someone believes in creationism could be an issue simply because I think it is important to have a president that is literate in science and is going to promote science and not try and inject creationism into science classes.
If a candidate can believe in creationism and also acknowlege that creationism is religion and not science then it would ...[text shortened]... policies is somewhat relevant, but how they would affect their policies is the critical issue.
15 Jan 08
Originally posted by whodeyNot necessarily, although many might disagree with me. It really depends on the type of creationism you are talking about.
Are creationism and evolution mutually exclusive concepts?
This site (I just found it using google) describes some of the various types:
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_cre_types.htm
It seems to do a good job of providing a general description of the types and how they relate to creationism.
You can be a theist and respect science and the need to teach real science in classrooms and not religion, I just don't see enough vocal members of that group around.
15 Jan 08
Originally posted by whodeyYes.
The question should be asked, would you vote for an atheist president? What would concern you about such a President? Would you be worried that his morals might be askew with the notion that there is not a higher authority to answer to so long as no one ever discovers what his vices are? Would you worry that they would have blatant disregard for those of v ...[text shortened]... he majority believes in God then should they not elect someone who identifies with such beliefs?
I'd be concerned that he was a selfish sort of person. The freedom from fear of divine retribution can let loose some nasty personality characteristics in some people, and such people can be charming and intelligent.
I'd also fear he was a Communist.
I'd fear oppression against the religious, but it's unlikely without most of the populace being atheist. Protestants can be oppressive because they're in the majority.
Islamic nations would hate us even more.
No, no atheist Presidents as far as I know; Deism isn't far from atheism though.
The majority does not always rule in a Constitutional Republic. However when it comes to deciding what religions our President is allowed to follow, it does, and yes, they consistently do elect such people.
15 Jan 08
Originally posted by whodeyThe two questions are not analogous. Creationists oppose scientific consensus.
I never made the declaration that religion was an issue, rather, I was merely raising the question. To be honest, my inspirition came from the ones who questioned if one should vote for someone who believes in creation. What difference does that make?
15 Jan 08
Originally posted by whodeyThere are Atheist here who belittle at every turn, and those that do
The question should be asked, would you vote for an atheist president? What would concern you about such a President? Would you be worried that his morals might be askew with the notion that there is not a higher authority to answer to so long as no one ever discovers what his vices are? Would you worry that they would have blatant disregard for those of v ...[text shortened]... he majority believes in God then should they not elect someone who identifies with such beliefs?
not as a rule, it is up to the person. The beliefs or lack there of I
guess does mold the person, it does matter, but on what level, and
by how much depends on the person, and what their own personal
views/beliefs about life and all that touches it.
Kelly