# Would you refuse to vote for a candidate based solely on his/her religion? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 4, 2006, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109 "2006-07-04T00:35:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2006, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/141 "2006-07-08T16:33:39Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You know as well as I. When I grew up each town could decorate the public property at Christmas. We could celebrate in class (as we did Hanauka (SP?)). Now, we can’t. The problem, as the founding fathers feared, was a creation of a state religion and the discrimination that creates; it is becoming a defacto state of affairs in some areas: > **[Howard Dean could be our Grover Norquist](https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2006/7/5/114513/8932)** > > Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we... > [@](#): > > Two families, one Jewish, one anonymous, have fled a Delaware town amidst alleged death threats and threats of violence. One of the two families has remained anonymous… > > Part of the reason the two Indian River families fled involve alleged threats, and those may have stemmed, in part, from the efforts of a group called Stop The ACLU Coalition to publicize the names, address, and telephone number(s) of the Dobrich family on the group’s website. > > Stop The ACLU Coalition has ALSO been doing quite a lot of work in the campaign to accuse the New York Times and the Washington Post of treason. > > The flashpoint for the initial dispute that has led those two families to flee for fear of violent attack was an alleged pattern of egregious violations of church state separation in the form of the teaching of Christianity in an Indian River school. At least one Jewish family, the Dobrich’s, raised an objection, and the outcome has led them to sell their home and relocate to another area > [@magellan01](#): > > Now we have a push to oust the Ten Commandments from court houses. [http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr\_10c6.htm](http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c6.htm) > [@](#): > > The combination would be clearly unconstitutional because it contains a purely theological component that is unique to Judaism and Christianity. By posting the Ten Commandments, a government or school is in effect telling its citizens and students: > > That Yahweh/Jehovah is the only or most senior God. > That the Gods and Goddesses of Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Wicca and hundreds of other religions are non-existent and/or are deities that are inferior to the one true God: Jehovah. By government decree, they are not to be worshipped. > Students and citizens have an obligation to worship Him. > Saturday is a religiously imposed time of rest. > Saturday is the only appropriate day for weekly religious observance. > A religious lifestyle is superior to a secular one. > > By posting the Ten Commandments, the government would make a strong statement against tolerance of non-Judeo-Christian religions. This would take a major step towards establishing an official state religion. It would also increase divisions within the school or office along religious lines. If the goal is to decrease school shootings and violence, it might be best to not post the Ten Commandments, unless they are accompanied by similar codes of other religions and of secular origin. > [@magellan01](#): > > We’ve had a case go to the Ninth Circuit (I think) attempting to strip currency of “In God We Trust”. That implies it was always so, the things is, the founding fathers would have made the whole point moot by making laws to make it it so at the start of the Nation; instead, history shows currency was changed to begin to say that some Americans are not equal to others: [http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat\_mott.htm](http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_mott.htm) > [@](#): > > Almost a century and a half ago, eleven Protestant denominations mounted a campaign to add references to God to the U.S. Constitution and other federal documents. Rev. M.R. Watkinson of Ridleyville PA was the first of many to write a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase in 1861 to promote this concept. 2 Watkinson suggested the words “God, Liberty, Law.” 3 In 1863, Chase asked the Director of the Mint, James Pollock to prepare suitable wording for a motto to be used on Union coins used during the Civil War. Pollock suggested “Our Trust Is In God,” “Our God And Our Country,” “God And Our Country,” and “God Our Trust.” Chase picked “In God We Trust” to be used on some of the government’s coins. The phrase was a subtle reminder that the Union considered itself on God’s side with respect to slavery. Congress passed enabling legislation. Since a 1837 Act of Congress specified the mottos and devices that were to be placed on U.S. coins, it was necessary to pass another Act to enable the motto to be added. This was done on 1886-APR-22. “The motto has been in continuous use on the one-cent coin since 1909, and on the ten-cent coin since 1916. It also has appeared on all gold coins and silver dollar coins, half-dollar coins, and quarter-dollar coins struck since” 1908-JUL-1. 3 > > Decades later, Theodore Roosevelt disapproved of the motto. In a letter to William Boldly on 1907-NOV-11, he wrote: > > “My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege…It is a motto which it is indeed well to have inscribed on our great national monuments, in our temples of justice, in our legislative halls, and in building such as those at West Point and Annapolis – in short, wherever it will tend to arouse and inspire a lofty emotion in those who look thereon. But it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements.” > > In 1956, the nation was suffering through the height of the cold war, and the McCarthy communist witch hunt. Partly in reaction to these factors, the 84th Congress passed a joint resolution to replace the existing motto with “In God we Trust.” The president signed the resolution into law on 1956-JUL-30. The change was partly motivated by a desire to differentiate between communism, which promotes Atheism, and Western capitalistic democracies, which were at least nominally Christian. The phrase “Atheistic Communists” has been repeated so many times that the public has linked Atheism with communism; the two are often considered synonymous. Many consider Atheism as unpatriotic and un-American as is communism. The new motto was first used on paper money in 1957, when it was added to the one-dollar silver certificate. By 1966, “In God we Trust” was added to all paper money, from $1 to $100 denominations. 3 > [@magellan01](#): > > There was an attempt to purge “under God” from The Pledge. That is because that was not mentioned in the original pledge: [http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat\_pled1.htm](http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.htm) > [@](#): > > Between 1924 and 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance was worded: > > “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” > > In 1954, during the McCarthy era and communism scare, Congress passed a bill, which was signed into law, to add the words “under God.” The current Pledge reads: > > “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” > > … > > The stand taken by Pledge of Allegiance Restoration Project: 1 > Imagine, for a moment, that you are a Jewish student. You have the choice of > Reciting a pledge that an Atheist – a person who has no belief in the existence of a God – wrote: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, without God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” > Refusing to recite it, and leaving yourself open to being belittled, harassed, insulted, assaulted, etc. > As the Pledge of Allegiance Restoration Project writes: “Would you repeat all the words? Would you skip over the phrase “without God?” Would it make you feel comfortable about being an American?” Or, as one person posting to a forum said, would you recite “under all.” > > Imagine that you are a Christian, and you were forced to read a pledge written by an Muslim – a person who believes in the existence of Allah: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, under Allah, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” > Imagine that you are a Muslim, and you were forced to read a pledge written by an Wiccan – a person who follows an earth-centered religion, and believes in the existence of a God and a Goddess: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, under the God and Goddess, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” > Imagine that you are a Wiccan, and you were forced to read a pledge written by an Christian: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” > > “That is the situation today for millions of Americans who do not believe they are ‘under’ God. Some find God within their own hearts. Others believe they are part of – not under – a sacred universe. Still others do not believe in God at all. Yet every day the religious beliefs of these patriotic Americans are violated by our government in schools, in public meetings…anywhere the Pledge Of Allegiance is led and spoken.” 1 > [@magellan01](#): > > A valedictorian had her mic cut off when she talked about God. In FreeRepublic… out of all places… the discussion did notice the inconvenient truth that the Foothill High School valedictorian had agreed to change her speech. This being a publically funded event, she was right away ignoring the rights of others that did not want to be proselytized in a virtually captive audience. Since in essence she did go back on the promise to use the edited speech, she did lie and the administration had the right to kill her mic. > [@magellan01](#): > > At the heart of it is a fantasy that the Founders intend a “wall” between church and state and the blind embracing of Jefferson’s utterance in a letter to a Connecticut clergymen, while ignoreing the overwhelming evidence in the oposite direction. I get the feeling once again that the founding fathers and early government people did not lose any sleep by not having a church or religion in control of making the laws: [http://www.religioustolerance.org/scs\_intr.htm](http://www.religioustolerance.org/scs_intr.htm) > [@](#): > > “Wall of Separation” between Church and State > Thomas Jefferson, as president, wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut on 1802-JAN-1. It contains the first known reference to the “wall of separation”. The essay states in part: > > “…I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State…” > > During the 1810’s, President James Madison wrote an essay titled “Monopolies” which also refers to the importance of church-state separation. He stated in part: > > “Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.” > > The US Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment as if it requires this “wall of separation” between church and state. It not only prohibits any government from adopting a particular denomination or religion as official, but requires government to avoid excessive involvement in religion. The Tripoli Treaty of 1797 between the US and the Barbary States, unanimously approved by the US Senate on June 10, 1797, specifically states that the US is NOT a Christian nation; once again, there was no sleep lost then by dropping religion from the affairs of the state. > [@magellan01](#): > > There’s also the desire to paint any one who doubts any aspect of evolution as a knuckle-dragging troglodyte and aqnyone who utters the phrase “intelligent design” as a rabid, unthinking, Youg Earther. All ridiculous. All not helpful to our society. In a board dedicated to fight ignorance, that is not a desire, it is a position based on the facts found so far. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2006, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/142 "2006-07-08T19:36:43Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Care to make some kind of philosophical argument for that? And please begin by clearly defining “essense.” Essence is that which makes something itself. That which makes it itself and _not_ something else. Take man, his essence—that which makes him unlike other beings—is the power and quality of his mind. The reason he has such a mind is to use it. This essence, this ability is present in man when he is born. Nothing need be done to instill it. It might be heightened and honed, but the seed is there. And it will grow. Similarly, man comes into this world with certain rights, those that allow him to live as per his design. So he has a right to his own life, and the right to defend it. He has the right of liberty, to go and do as he wishes. He has a right to self-determination, to be able to work to improve his situation on earth. The essence of man is entwined with those basic rights. The essence is to grow and to use his mind to improve his situation. This all goes back to the defining quality of man. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I disagree with the words “created” and “endowed.” Otherwise it’s perfectly true, provided we remember Jefferson was making an assertion in ethics rather than science, and such a statement cannot be considered “true” or “false” in a factual sense. But if you don’t agree with those two words you’re really not left with anything except the opinion of one man. Tell me, do you think slavery is morally wrong? Why? And it’s not enough to say “well I wouldn’t want someone to enslave me”. Is it an absolute wrong independent of whatmay or may not happen to you? and again, why? > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > In legal parlance, by the way, an “inalienable” (or “unalienable”) right is a right you yourself have no power to give up or renounce. A right no one else can take away from you is an “indefeasible” right. Of course, in law, “rights” are defined much more specifically than in ethics. I was unaware of this legal distinction (thanks), but a discussion of “legal” rights is different than the one we are having. Maybe “inseperable” would avoid confusion, if you think it exists. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2006, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/143 "2006-07-08T20:41:09Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > This essence, this ability is present in man when he is born. Nothing need be done to instill it. It might be heightened and honed, but the seed is there. And it will grow. Similarly, man comes into this world with certain rights, those that allow him to live as per his design. We are born with the capability for intelligence for _genetic_ reasons, not some mystic essence handed over by a god. You don’t really believe rights are genetic, do you ? > [@magellan01](#): > > But if you don’t agree with those two words you’re really not left with anything except the opinion of one man. Which is less authoritive that the word of some uncaring god, how ? > [@magellan01](#): > > Tell me, do you think slavery is morally wrong? Why? And it’s not enough to say “well I wouldn’t want someone to enslave me”. Yes it is; that’s pretty much the foundation of morality. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2006, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/144 "2006-07-08T20:45:19Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Essence is that which makes something itself. That which makes it itself and _not_ something else. Take man, his essence—that which makes him unlike other beings—is the power and quality of his mind. The reason he has such a mind is to use it. You getting this from Aristotle or Plato? (Please not Aquinas!) > [@magellan01](#): > > But if you don’t agree with those two words you’re really not left with anything except the opinion of one man. Tell me, do you think slavery is morally wrong? Why? And it’s not enough to say “well I wouldn’t want someone to enslave me”. Is it an absolute wrong independent of whatmay or may not happen to you? and again, why? You only asked me what I agree with. Now, if you want to get into what actually gives moral rules their authority, or how we can **know** what is ethical or unethical, that’s a whole separate thread. Five or six separate threads, actually. Let’s get back on topic: You wouldn’t vote for an atheist for a **practical** reason: You don’t think an atheist would respect human rights the way a theist would. But what reason do you have to think so? Comparing the actual behavior of atheists and theists throughout history lends that assumption no support to speak of. > [@magellan01](#): > > Maybe “inseperable” would avoid confusion, if you think it exists. “Inseparable rights”? . . . Nah. Doesn’t work. ---
**Author:** ![Hostile\_Dialect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Hostile\_Dialect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hostile_Dialect)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2006, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/145 "2006-07-08T20:52:32Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > The idea that a person who did not have a belief in a god would be less likely to support the rights of people, merely because Jefferson included some ceremonial deism in his text is based on nothing but a personal prejudice that seems to have no underlying support. It should be noted, BTW, that as Jefferson spent more time in government, his unshakeable support for basic human rights grew stronger while his Christian faith grew weaker, until he was in fact quite the strong atheist with an opinion pretty much completely opposite of **magellan01** ’s. If Thomas Jefferson doesn’t know about who can or can’t appreciate personal liberties, I don’t know who does. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2006, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/146 "2006-07-08T20:56:37Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > No. You’re dodging. Your claim is that someone who acknowledges a Creator is less likely to dismiss natural rights than someone who does not acknowledge a Creator and you are avoiding the very clear point that such is not the case. Because you say so? Let’s say we have two princes, twins even, Prince A and Prince B. They both were equally loved and equally educated. They are both equally intelligent and share identical politics. When the turn 21, theirir father—the benevlolent, kind, and wise King—asks each of them to rule two of his distant lands, which are also identical in every way. As they depart for their new realms, Prince A has an experience, a dream, and when he awakens he believes they he has become aware of a much higher power, God. He is intrigued by this and meditates on it. He even seeks out an old wise man who knows about this God. After a year of study, he feels enlightened. He is also pleased that ALL of God’s laws comport perfectly—100%—with the beliefs of his father and his twin brother. He then goes off to rule his realm. The question is, does Brother A have more reason to protect the laws than Brother B? I don’t see how you can say no. Keep in mind, Brother A has all the reason Brother B has. PLUS he has an additional one, as well. > [@tomndebb](#): > > For one thing, the DoI is not the law of the land, the Constitution is. Immaterial. We are not discussing what is legal and what is not. That is a different, much simpler discussion. If you want to know what is legal and what isn’t, simply look to the Constitutions and your local statutes. > [@tomndebb](#): > > The DoI has a lot of flowery rhetoric to stir up support for the independence movement, but people routinely ignore major passages in it. Rhetoric merely helps make or reinforce a point. It persuades. The fact that rhetoric is used, flowery or otherwise, does not detract from the meat of the document. This seems to be an attempt on your part to disparage, without substance. Unless I misunderstanfd you. And what passages do you think are often ignored? And for good or ill? > [@tomndebb](#): > > The idea that a person who did not have a belief in a god would be less likely to support the rights of people, merely because Jefferson included some ceremonial deism in his text is based on nothing but a personal prejudice that seems to have no underlying support. To clarify: belief in a Creator who imbued us with those rights at birth. See the twin Princes above for support. (logical) > [@tomndebb](#): > > This is especially true when we take the _longer view_ that a large number of those good theists were continuing to defend the right to deny rights to their fellow citizens over 100 years after the country had abolished slavery. Can you point to any atheists who have advocated denying rights to citizens of this country? Not off the top of my head. But I’m sure there were a few atheists in the south and I’d bet that some of them were perfectly happ to perpetuate slavery, maybe even “string one of 'em up”, just like their Christian brethren of the time. Jefferson was not an atheist, but one of the least religious of the bunch and he had plenty of slaves. I don’t think that most people would say that Jefferson did not believe the words he wrote, but his keeping slaves turns him into a hypocrite. I think there we have, in one man, the struggle of the age: embracing the ideals of the nations while doing what was necessary to keep it together. Tell me, if you could travel back in time and your only ability was to stop the formation of a U.S. that allowed for slavery or to allow it to be formed as it has, would you stop or allow it’s formastion? > [@tomndebb](#): > > Actually, you do not remember “throngs” dancing in the streets. What you recall are a few video shots of a fairly small number of people taken for maximum effect to make it appear that the groups were much larger than they were. Prove it. You can’t. And since my recollection does not agree with what you describe, I will go with my recollection of what I remember, not yours. As odd as that may seem. > [@tomndebb](#): > > As to your claims about Imams, unless you can put numbers to your claims, they are meaningless. Fine. Then just ignore them. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2006, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/147 "2006-07-08T20:59:05Z")
> [@fetus](#): > > It should be noted, BTW, that as Jefferson spent more time in government…while his Christian faith grew weaker, until he was in fact quite the strong atheist… Cite, please. ---
**Author:** ![Hostile\_Dialect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Hostile\_Dialect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hostile_Dialect)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2006, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/148 "2006-07-08T21:12:49Z")
I’ve got it in some of my school materials from a couple semesters ago. You’ll have to give me a little time, but I’ll see if I can find it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2006, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/149 "2006-07-08T21:24:58Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Cite, please. Jefferson was a Deist, which was about as close to atheism as an intellectual during the Enlightment could become. He believed in a “creator” of sorts but did not believe in a deity who was active in the universe. He did not believe in miracles or the supernatural and was greatly contemptuous of religion in general and Christianity (which he compared to “demonism”) in particular. Something which I think is most pertinent to some of your own assertions is that Jefferson did not believe morality came from God. If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? …Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God. –_Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Thomas Law, 1814_. Jefferson said a number of other things which indicated an explicit belief that religion had no place in government. Abraham Lincoln was even more hostile to Christianity and was probably an atheist (at least for some periods of time). George Washington may have been an atheist or agnostic too. He attended church rarely and declined to pray when he did attend. It was said by close associates that no one ever saw him pray privately either or ever express any religious opinions at all. He was at least decidedly indifferent to religion and it played no role in shaping his public policies. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2006, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/150 "2006-07-08T21:30:06Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Let’s say that they’re both equally honest. The theist has an additional hurdle to overcome before falling to the point of seeking to strip people of the most basic human rights. No, he doesn’t. Atheists do not hold their convictions any less strongly than a theist. They face the same hurdle in losing those convictions: the idea that rights are important, and make the world a better place. Believing that God backs that interpretation does not give one any extra strength in avoiding it. All one has to do is decide that God doesn’t really support those rights after all. And what is there in the world to contradict that viewpoint? There are plenty of religious denominations that do not have any interest in human rights. Their arguments about what God wants are no more or less persausive than the arguments that God granted us our rights. The only barrier to accepting them is the experience and moral character of the person listening to the arguments. > [@](#): > > I think before anyway ascribes to Christian dogma that he must subscribe to natural law theory. No, they do not. Natural law theory is in no way an integral part of the Christian faith. If you’ve got evidence to the contrary, please present it. Otherwise, stop repeating this falsehood as if it were true. > [@](#): > > I think you an I are using the term “rights” to mean two different things. I’m referring to those things that are inseperable from human-ness. You seem to broaden it to include written law. What rights, specifically, are you talking about, then? > [@](#): > > At the heart of it is a fantasy that the Founders intend a “wall” between church and state and the blind embracing of Jefferson’s utterance in a letter to a Connecticut clergymen, while ignoreing the overwhelming evidence in the oposite direction. Another untruth. The evidence, in personal writings, treaties, and statutes is overwhelming that the founders saw the importance of retaining a sharp division between religion and government. > [@](#): > > There’s also the desire to paint any one who doubts any aspect of evolution as a knuckle-dragging troglodyte and aqnyone who utters the phrase “intelligent design” as a rabid, unthinking, Youg Earther. All ridiculous. All not helpful to our society. A vast overstatement of the attitude towards creationism on these boards, where objects are chiefly to the idea of teaching either theory as science, and a meaningless babble when applied to the country as a whole, where the majority of the citizens believe in some form of creationism and/or intelligent design > [@](#): > > As long as you include that “and” I think you are right. But unless you are both willing to end a statement of your beleifs with “, but I may be wrong”, I think they are both extremist positions. That’s why I find the agnostic and weak atheist postion so much more reasonable. You use the word “extremist” in such a fashion as to render it meaningless. Having an opinion on the exsistence, or lack thereof, of God is not an extremist position. Extremism comes in how one prosecutes those beliefs. How many acts of violence or terrorism have been committed in the US to advance an atheistic agenda? > [@](#): > > My guess is that there have been violent acts done by them. My guess is that many of the anarchists would fall into the atheist category. Also, as I’ve pointed out, atheists have been responsible for more deaths in the past 100 years than all the wars combined. I don’t mean to keep throwing this up just to score a point. But it points to what can happen. I think we are passed the days of Christianity being contorted to similar ends, except for Islam. What makes you think that? What has changed in the Christian religion that makes it immune to such contortions? Why is Islam, in your view, especially so susceptible to it that we cannot afford to trust any Muslim, regardless of his actual character or history? > [@](#): > > I’ll have to call bullshit this time. I am happy to discuss the issue, ad nauseum, as a search of these boards will attest. I find it to be very interesting as a philosophical discussion. I do not find it interesting to have to continually read past the childishness. It is very easy to argue the actual point of fire-breathig dragons (Sagan)as an issue unto itself. But to have the term and others continuously thrown about in the discussion is completely asinine, not to mention, rude. I have moved to bowing out of the discussions when it comes to that. If people would rather have a more comfortable discussion with only those who agree with them, far be it from me to intrude on the circle jerk. That last sentence is ironic, since you’re the one who refuses to participate in discussions where people aren’t sufficiently defferential to your own beliefs. > [@](#): > > I’m not talking about rights that come from the Bible, or any book of religion. Then you can’t really claim that they’re an essential part of any religion, can you? > [@](#): > > The human rights I’m talking about—those of the D of I—are tose explained through natural law theory. And that theory necessitates belief in a Creator. That basic \*philosophical \*theory comports with any western monothistic belief system. Here are two quick cites that might help you understand where I’m coming from: > > [Wiki on Natural Law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law) > [An Overview on NLT](http://radicalacademy.com/philnaturallaw.htm) I notice that neither cite states that a belief in a Creator is a necessary component to a belief in natural law. Although the Wiki article does point out that it is a part of the Roman Catholic belief system, so you’ve got the Pope on your side. Of course, as a casual examination of the history of the Catholic church shows, there’s a wide gap between holding a belief and following it. > [@](#): > > I don’t know the number. But I’d say it is too high fro me to be comfortable. If you don’t know the number, how do you know it’s too high? This is as close as I’ve ever seen to an outright admission that someone is basing their worldview on nothing more than prejudice, with absolutely no regard to facts. > [@](#): > > Aside from 9/11, Bali, and other notable events, we have the mass killings of Christians in Africa, in Malaysia earlier this year, three little girls walking home in their Christian school uniforms were accosted and beheaded, we have the bombiing in London, we have the 7 idots in Florida, the group that just got caught in Canada, the recently uncovered pot to blow up ther Holland Tunnel, and the numerous arrests that have been made since 9/11. That’s my evidence. Do you have any numbers to show why you are so comfortable? Yeah, my evidence is the **billion** people on this planet who subscribe to the Muslim faith. You’ve got a handful of acts committed by a small number of people, all of which were instantly decried by other Muslims around the world. To you, this means all Muslims are suspect. But when presented with similar evidence of Christian atrocity, you wave it away: They aren’t “real” Christians, or it “doesn’t apply.” > [@](#): > > First, I’ll ask you to define the thousands. If you mean attacks by the Klan, I’ll grant you them, but that is not a problem in today’s world. So for our intents and purposes, they are ancient history. If the Klan’s activities are “ancient history,” then so are the “atheist tyrants” you keep going on about when you’re trying to demonstrate the perils of atheism. If the lynchings of the '60s are too far in the past to be considered, then so are the depradations of Hitler and Stalin and the other dictators of the '30s, '40s, and '50s. > [@](#): > > As far as what is the greater threat, I think you have to define what you consider a threat. I am much less concerned with a threat to our right to privacy regarding phone calls than I am with the Holland Tunnel or GW Bridge, or the Chrysler Building, or the Sears Tower being blown up. I’m worried about being killed because someone thinks that’s what their religion wants. There are a lot more Christians in this country who feel that way than there are Muslims. So I’m more worried about Christians, than I am about Muslims, because I am far more likely to become one of their victims than I am to become one of bin Laden’s. > [@](#): > > Actually I did read it. I was both gladdened and unimpressed. I remember the throngs dancing in the streets. No, you do not, because there were no throngs. > [@](#): > > I remember Imams here not renouncing the murderers. I remember them not wanting to help the authorities. Cite? How many Imams are we talking about? What sort of help were they refusing to offer? How many Imams _did_ help the authorities? > [@](#): > > Another thing, that little chart at the bottom of your cite seemed intentionally misleading. The seek to want to equate Muslim terrosim with iddle East terroism. Ignoring the terroist acts by Muslims in Asia and Africa. Nice little bait and switch. Wow. What a blatant and, I suspect, deliberate misrepresentation. The chart includes statistics from Africa and Asia. It does not break down terrorist attacks by religion, but by region, to show that not all (or even most) terrorist activity takes place in the Middle East. > [@](#): > > I doubt you can claim to know that it was a “majority”, never mind a “vast majority”. And I’m actually more focused on the Muslims here. I don’t recall all the specifics, but I remeber Mosques refusiing to cooperate with the authorities. I don’t know about you, but if you’re going to refuse after something like 9/11, you have to live with the impression your actions leave. I never heard anything about mosques refusing to co-operate with authorities. I suspect, considering the quality of your arguments so far in this thread, that you are remembering a few isolated reports and blowing them out of proportion, or that the mosques were refusing to comply with requests that were excessive or unfair. > [@](#): > > :rolleyes: Is this an intentional attempt to degrade the conversation? So what’s the number smart ass? Let’s say for all relevant years, say the last 15? You do realize that it doesn’t matter to our conversation, don’t you? That one sample size is huge and that the second is so miniscule that it doesn’t even qualify? If you’re tired of the discussion, I’d prefer that we both just bow out before it gets pissy. I don’t know what the number is. You’re the one who introduced it into the debate and began to form arguments from it. It’s not up to me to provide concrete numbers to support your wild assertions. And so long as you continue to slander me based on my beliefs, I do not think I will be bowing out of this debate. You, however, are free to run off whenever you feel like it. > [@](#): > > Do you really think there is any church, or diocese, that holds as one of its tenets “Thou shalt bash gays”? [Here’s about thirty or so.](http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp?T=25&m=4) > [@](#): > > Your conflatiing two different things here. Things that are worlds apart. Physical violence is unexcusable and illegal. Presenting your view of the world in a political forum and hoping to sway society to your thinking is not only legal, it is admirable. I think that depends on what direction you’re trying to sway society. Fred Phelps preaches that homosexuals should receive the death penalty. His followers have never actually attacked any homosexuals (to my knowledge) but his goals are hardly “admirable.” > [@](#): > > That is we figure out what the best society is. I’m surprised from the history of your posting that I am aware of that you would begrudge anyone there right to present their ideas in a legal manner, even if you did not agree with what they were proposing. Where in this thread (or anywhere else) have I called for the restriction on anyone’s freedom of speech? > [@](#): > > **Miller** , I think the inherent emotion in the issue allows for some hyperbole, but “frequently” is entirely unfair and utterly ridiculous. Just run some numbers through your head and see if the word “frequently” comes to mind. Yes, [frequently.](http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/hate.html) > [@](#): > > I’m idiot, but you agree with my major point. :rolleyes: No, I do not agree with your major point, which was that a homosexual living in America should be more afraid of violence at the hands of Muslims than of Christians. Any gay man in America who is more worried about the Taliban than Jerry Falwell is an idiot, because Jerry Falwell hates you every bit as much as bin Laden, and, because he has popular support and connections to this country’s political system, is actually in a position to affect your life on a daily basis. I’ve never been directly harmed by the actions of a Muslim terrorist. I am harmed on a daily basis by the efforts of _non-terrorist_ Christians to restrict my rights in this country. And that’s ignoring the efforts of the _terrorist_ Christians out there, who are just as willing to kill me as any frothing-at-the-mouth Shiite hiding in the deserts of Afghanistan or Iraq. > [@](#): > > As far as not having to worry about Islam and how they’d prefer to treat gays, the reason you don’t have to worry abou it is because they don’t have any power here. And Christians do. In fact, they’ve got most of the power in this country. Which is why I’m far more afraid of them than I am of any Muslim, even when the Christians aren’t actively trying to kill me. > [@](#): > > On the other hand, some manage to not let their lack of political clout to get in the way of a loveing cliterectomy and sweet little eleven-year-olds. Femal genital mutilation is not a part of Islam. It’s a cultural practice, not a religious one. Most Muslim nations do not perform it, and many non-Muslim nations do. And if you want to talk pederasty, lets not forget your natural law buddies, the Catholics. All that God-given Hobbesian philosophy didn’t do much to prevent them from cornholing a whole mess of altar boys, and then spending the better part of a century covering it up. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2006, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/151 "2006-07-08T22:29:51Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Because you say so? Let’s say we have two princes, twins even, Prince A and Prince B. They both were equally loved and equally educated. They are both equally intelligent and share identical politics. When the turn 21, theirir father—the benevlolent, kind, and wise King—asks each of them to rule two of his distant lands, which are also identical in every way. As they depart for their new realms, Prince A has an experience, a dream, and when he awakens he believes they he has become aware of a much higher power, God. He is intrigued by this and meditates on it. He even seeks out an old wise man who knows about this God. After a year of study, he feels enlightened. He is also pleased that ALL of God’s laws comport perfectly—100%—with the beliefs of his father and his twin brother. He then goes off to rule his realm. > > The question is, does Brother A have more reason to protect the laws than Brother B? I don’t see how you can say no. Keep in mind, Brother A has all the reason Brother B has. PLUS he has an additional one, as well. Not so. I could equally say Brother A has l_ess_ reason to protect the laws; after all, there is one above him who judges and lays out the law regardless of what he may do. Brother A may safely deny any or all of those rights, happy in the knowledge that the God above him will sort it all out. Brother B, on the other hand, believes that there is no life after death; that what we have on Earth is all we will have. He, then, has an extra reason to protect those laws; any and all justice will be dispenced in his realm, not the afterlife, thus he has added motivation to seek said justice. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2006, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/152 "2006-07-08T22:50:59Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Because you say so? Let’s say we have two princes, twins even, Prince A and Prince B. They both were equally loved and equally educated. They are both equally intelligent and share identical politics. When the turn 21, theirir father—the benevlolent, kind, and wise King—asks each of them to rule two of his distant lands, which are also identical in every way. As they depart for their new realms, Prince A has an experience, a dream, and when he awakens he believes they he has become aware of a much higher power, God. He is intrigued by this and meditates on it. He even seeks out an old wise man who knows about this God. After a year of study, he feels enlightened. He is also pleased that ALL of God’s laws comport perfectly—100%—with the beliefs of his father and his twin brother. He then goes off to rule his realm. > > The question is, does Brother A have more reason to protect the laws than Brother B? I don’t see how you can say no. Keep in mind, Brother A has all the reason Brother B has. PLUS he has an additional one, as well. Brother B of course. Given that Brother A is taking advice from visions in his head, he could easily decide that all children under ten should be sacrificed to God. Basically, the non-psycho brother is more trustworthy. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2006, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/153 "2006-07-08T22:53:05Z")
**magellan** , if you’re not doing so already, please don’t conflate \*\*Der Trih’s \*\* arguments with those of the rest of us. He’s on his own side in this. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2006, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/154 "2006-07-08T23:20:24Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > Not so. I could equally say Brother A has l_ess_ reason to protect the laws; after all, there is one above him who judges and lays out the law regardless of what he may do. Brother A may safely deny any or all of those rights, happy in the knowledge that the God above him will sort it all out. Brother B, on the other hand, believes that there is no life after death; that what we have on Earth is all we will have. He, then, has an extra reason to protect those laws; any and all justice will be dispenced in his realm, not the afterlife, thus he has added motivation to seek said justice. As soon as this metaphor was brought in, I wondered if the name of one of one of the brothers was George. Not the president, but a king of old England. I would say king George, like Brother A, was sure God was on his side when he decided to become so pig headed with the American colonies. Incidentally, back in those days it was common knowledge that we had kings by the grace of god or it was God’s will that we had kings, it is no wonder to me that people who were deists and/or unbelievers of that godly “rule” were part of the American revolution. What I learn from history is that there has been a continuous effort to breach what it was supposed to be the “wall of **[eternal](http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/rfa11.htm)** separation between Church and State.” ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2006, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/155 "2006-07-09T03:27:10Z")
Does it matter what this king’s religion is? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2006, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/156 "2006-07-09T05:17:31Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Because you say so? Let’s say we have two princes, twins even, Prince A and Prince B. They both were equally loved and equally educated. They are both equally intelligent and share identical politics. When the turn 21, theirir father—the benevlolent, kind, and wise King—asks each of them to rule two of his distant lands, which are also identical in every way. As they depart for their new realms, Prince A has an experience, a dream, and when he awakens he believes they he has become aware of a much higher power, God. He is intrigued by this and meditates on it. He even seeks out an old wise man who knows about this God. After a year of study, he feels enlightened. He is also pleased that ALL of God’s laws comport perfectly—100%—with the beliefs of his father and his twin brother. He then goes off to rule his realm. > > The question is, does Brother A have more reason to protect the laws than Brother B? I don’t see how you can say no. Keep in mind, Brother A has all the reason Brother B has. PLUS he has an additional one, as well. > . . . > To clarify: belief in a Creator who imbued us with those rights at birth. See the twin Princes above for support. (logical) Clearly, Brother B has the better odds of protecting the laws, because he is not going to change direction and drop all his education if he happens to have a new dream that tells him to go off in another direction. > [@](#): > > Not off the top of my head. But I’m sure there were a few atheists in the south and I’d bet that some of them were perfectly happ to perpetuate slavery, maybe even “string one of 'em up”, just like their Christian brethren of the time. Unless you can provide evidence that any of those atheists actually argued the point from their philosophical perspective, that is immarterial. You have made the wholly speciaous claim that just because someone happens to think that “rights” were given by a “Creator” that person will have more of a “hurdle” to denying rights to fellow citizens. The reality is that all the people who have denied rights to their fellow American citizens have, indeed, believed that those rights were bestowed by a Creator and they went and found lots of excuses to ignore that point. Your argument is based on the (Fundamentalist Christian) belief that ethics and morality only descend from God (even if you have chosen to not follow the FC beliefs, you are basing your arguments on their logical errors). > [@magellan01](#): > > Prove it. You can’t. And since my recollection does not agree with what you describe, I will go with my recollection of what I remember, not yours. As odd as that may seem. I may or may not be able to prove it; I am still working on that. However, it does not surprise me in any way to see you claim that you will hold onto your cherished beliefs rather than seek facts that would interfere with those beliefs. Name one place where people cheered the WTC/Pentagon attacks outside Palestine and Iraq (and, in Iraq, they were organized by Hussein). So your world wide feelings among Muslims are limited to a small group of people in tiny a strife-torn land and a city in which the dictator ordered the celebration. > [@](#): > > Fine. Then just ignore them. Given that you offer no evidence, I certainly shall. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2006, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/157 "2006-07-09T05:32:44Z")
BTW, here are some of the responses by Imams and other Muslims to the WTC/Pentagon attacks: [How American Muslims Really Responded to September 11](http://www.mediamonitors.net/riadabdelkarim3.html) [Council on American Islamic Relations](http://www.cair-net.org/crisiscenter/html/cair_ad.html) [U.S. Muslims Condemn Attacks](http://www.islamicity.com/articles/Articles.asp?ref=AM0109-335) [Scholars Call Attacks a Distortion of Islam](http://www.themodernreligion.com/terror/wtc-distortion.html) [Islamic Statements Against Terrorism](http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm) (World wide (including U.S.) responses to the WTC/Pentagon attacks) Given that you seem to have missed all these, I am not surprised that you missed the descriptions of what really happened regarding “dancing in the streets.” ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2006, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/158 "2006-07-09T12:44:20Z")
I wondered why this thread was still going and now I see, so, as a believer, here’s my 2 cents. It is a completely baseless and empty contention that belief in a deity will somehow make a person more likely to understand and defend the rights of others. It’s an opinion with no evidence. Someone either perceives and comprehends what is in the D of I and our Constitution or they don’t quite get it. It is just as likely that someone perceives it from a moral, ethical and philosophical point of view as a thesitic point of view. Atheist or Theist are both subject to the temptation that the reigns of power bring with the position. The individual whomever he or she might be, has to have the integrity to, honor those principles above all else. Not an easy task in a job where corruption and a compromise of those principles is rampant. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2006, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/159 "2006-07-09T17:22:50Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > **Der Trihs** is an anomaly. Most other atheists on this board don’t like him, either. But as an example, he does help highlight the paucity of your “atheism is an extremist viewpoint” argument, as you won’t find a more extreme atheist than him on these boards. So let’s look at his extremism, in context with other extremists: An extremist Muslim crashes an airplane into a skyscraper. An extremist Christian bombs an abortion clinic. An extremist atheist… calls theists mean names on an internet message board. One of these things is not like the other; one of these things does not belong. Missed this earlier, somehow. No, the problem is, _I am not an extremist_. Have I called for the religious to be executed, or imprisoned, or reduced to second class status ? Have I called for them to be harassed or beaten up or fined ? Have I protested their funerals or placed crank calls against them or toilet papered their house ? No to all of those. I get called an extremist against religion _because_ I call religion and it’s followers names on the internet; religion is so untouchable in our society that that gets me labeled an “extremist”, a label normally reserved for the people who _do_ do such things as shoot or imprison those they disagree with. Militant yes, obnoxious, yes, extremist, no. If I were to hypothetically get banned for issuing death threats against **magellan01** , it would be fair to call me an extremist; it’s not fair to call me that just because I consider his beliefs stupid or immoral and say so. Plenty of people on this board say that about Republicans, for example; are _they_ all extremists ? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2006, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109/160 "2006-07-09T17:42:15Z")
That’s a fair point. I wouldn’t say you’re (Der Trihs) an extremist, only that you’re more extreme in your views than the majority of athiests on the board. Either way, I think the main point is that your arguments and thoughts on religious people and debate in general are pretty removed from the majority of athiest-on-the-board’s arguments and ideals, and that of “athiesm” in general. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-refuse-to-vote-for-a-candidate-based-solely-on-his-her-religion/363109.md?page=9)