Yes. The old gods forgive me, but they make a darn tasty sandwich (if only they’d leave off the pickle!)
Reconstructionist - Bring back headhunting, human sacrifice, and slash & burn farming.
Wait, aside from maybe the headhunting, that’s not so different from the Bush administration <rimshot>
It’s much easier to say that’d I’d vote for some nutcase to the House, where they would have a chance to prove themselves. Senate would require more… um, mainstream actions. President shouldn’t have hardlyl any power, but since he does I’d allow his professed religion to be part of the decision-making process. I think someone has held the Bush vs. Carter comparison - two totally different men with strong religious beliefs.
I’m often conflicted in my estimation of an individual’s faculties when their beliefs are manifestly crazy. Does holding those beliefs indicate, or at least strongly imply, that the believer is himself crazy? Presently, I just don’t know. Suffice to say, if I find an individual’s beliefs to be sufficiently bizarre as to make me question their sanity, I consider that doubt sufficient to withold my support.
Not a pleasant thing to admit, but a Muslim would have to work very hard to convince me of his loyalty before I could consider voting for him. Sorry, but that’s just the way it is.
On the other hand, if his opponent was a Scientologist … :eek:
I know whatcha mean. When I come across someone who insists consciousness and intelligence are merely by-products of a random flux of atoms blindly obeying the laws of physics and chemistry, I would really have to worry about whether or not he’s fit for public office.
Hint: Qualities such as “crazy” and “bizarre” can be very subjective; like beauty, they’re often very much in the eye of the beholder.
Are you familiar with the term circular reasoning? Read my posts and you will see that my point is that individuals determine that other individuals’ “beliefs are manifestly crazy.” It doesn’t matter if they really are. It’s a judgment call.
It’s not circular. Sane people can be brainwashed, or otherwise inculcated with beliefs overwhelmingly contradicted by all available evidence. One might assume that a individual harboring such beliefs could appear crazy in specific circumstances, but their general judgement could be otherwise entirely reliable. The judgement call might be the person is sane but terribly misinformed and rigid when it comes to certain ideas.
And sometimes there’s nothing remotely subjective about it, because mountains of factual information contradict a belief, and yet some individuals, for whatever reason, can not, or will not, acknowledge the evidence and adjust their understanding accordingly. Many people confess total belief in ideas that are about as well supported as this assertion: I can defy gravity and hover several feet in the air at will. I’d say that’s objectively so wrong a notion I’d be justified in calling it “bizarre” or “crazy”.
I don’t like their pizza, so no problem there - I wouldn’t vote for Tom Monaghan, either. (You know, I should someday check to see if David Brandon/Bain Capital are carrying on Tom’s legacy. I sure can’t fault them for supporting St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital)
Jesus pickles - that made me laugh. Would they be kosher, you think?
Do you mean, his loyalty to the United States? Why should a Muslim bear a higher burden of proof there than any Christian?
In 1960, it seemed a reasonable objection to JFK that a Roman Catholic, owing moral and spiritual (and just arguably political) obedience to the infallible Pope of Rome, could never be a completely loyal American. Few think that way any more.
That judgment should depend, in part, on how the person in question acquired those beliefs. E.g., you were raised in a certain belief-system, questioning it might be a very hard thing to do, no matter how mentally healthy you are.
Also, as Avram Davidson pointed out in “The Great Rough Beast,” his classic essay on the life of Aleister Crowley: “The human mind has compartments, and they are often watertight compartments. Are we to believe that no Communist is highly intelligent?”
It might not be right or open minded, but I would never vote for an Evangelical/Fundie Christian, Orthodox Jew or Fundamentalist Muslim. I do not care about the religion of the candidate if their religion is secondary to serving the country. They could be a Wiccan, Mormon or Atheist and I would not care. It might be nice bonus if they were an Agnostic or Unitarian.
No Muslims. Sorry, but if they were more vocal in denouncing the extremists, maybe. But they weren’t, so, no.
Also, I wouldn’t vote for an atheist. I know it’s not a religion, but I thiink that’s the type of stuff the OP is looking for. If not, please disregard. Deist? Absolutely. Agnostic? I think so.
Yeah, I know. Let’s keep this short. Although I am not religious at all, I do believe there to be a higher power. I think that is where we get the rights enumerated in the DofI from. If they are not bestowed by a higher power, they are the whims of man, and can be taken away as easily as they were invented and given.
Most of the atheists I’ve encountered (mainly on this board), strong variety in particular, do not allow (by definition) for a Creator (Deist sense). Some even think the notion of religion is evil. I know it is responsible for it’s share of the world’s ills, but, on balance, I think it a positive. Plus, even if religions, as so far constructed by man, are working for ill, that does not mean that there is not a Creator. I see a logical flaw in their line of thinkiing that I’ve argued many times here before.
