I think you picked the wrong board for controversy on this particular subject, blowero. You want a knock down drag out fight on this subject, you’ll probably have to go elsewhere…maybe one of the religion boards out there.
What I wish someone would expand on is: Why would it make a difference? Why, if you agree with someone’s policies, politics, etc, would the fact that they are or are not religious make any difference at all. This question goes both ways, as several posters have implied that they feel that if someone is religiously oriented that this is somehow a bad thing as well for some reason and that this makes a person less qualified. Why? What difference does it make, as the OP is asking the question from the perspective of you agreeing with the person in question…i.e. if you are an athiest, you obviously WOULDN’T agree with some theist that is pushing for major religious things, etc. Maybe some of the hard line athiests (I’m an agnostic btw) could expand on this to make the debate a bit more interesting.
As an agnostic myself, I find it terribly disturbing that those in charge are ultimately expecting a magic sky pixie to save us. (No intention to offend, but that’s how I sees it.) How refreshing it would be to have a Carl Sagan or Ann Druyan or Steven Jay Gould in charge. And how less likely that DoMA and school prayer and such would be to happen.
My guess would be that we’ve already had several atheist presidents, but that they were smart-enough/eager-enough-to-want-the-vote to go through the motions of belief. (Leaving aside discussions of Thomas Jefferson), I doubt that Nixon, Reagan, or Clinton had any true beliefs in God (and I suspect that Bush I, despite his purported anti-atheist declaration, had no genuine belief, either).
I understood what you were asking, but believing in a God, or not, is a deep personal thing. I dont think you can split someones ideas/platforms from something held that close. So to me not believing, or believing, in God is part of persons platform no matter how hard they may try to make it not so.
It works the same in reverse. How many Athiests are sick of GW talking about Faith based plans, and quoting God all the time. I see threads here bitching about it almost everyday! Can you honestly tell me, as an athiest, you would vote for someone who continually praised God in every paper, every press conference, radio interview…etc, even if you thought his politics were exactly like yours?? Im betting hell no you wouldnt!
No worries, its a debate board! If I didnt expect a response I wouldnt have posted!
Hell, no, I wouldn’t. But I also wouldn’t vote for an atheist who continually called theists idiots and tried to have religion abolished. It would show the same disdain for other peoples’ opinions and feelings that we atheists have had to put up with for centuries.
I am an athiest. I also support Bush. I will be voting for him in the coming election.
By the way, I don’t think that his politics are exactly like mine. I disagree with him on plenty of issues. I will vote for him, though, because I agree with him more often than not.
Religion can have a positive or negative effect on someone. It’s clear to me that religion has made Bush a better person.
His mentioning God in press conferences and radio interviews isn’t any different than what every other politician does on a regular basis.
Uh…splutter. How has religion made him a better person? I’m a “believer” and I won’t vote for Bush because I’m sick of him taking his personal agenda and views on G-d and using it for political reasons and influence. Everyone who believes in G-d doesn’t believe the bigotted crap that comes out of that man’s mouth. Huff!!!
Nobody’s claiming that the US of A is a secular nation (at least, they shouldn’t be). Calling America secular is usually a reference to the government. While politicians do have a habit of bringing up religion, it’s not like we’re running a theocracy here. And the public’s refusal to elect an atheist doesn’t mean that the government is not, for the most part, secular.
Easily. There is a difference between how laws are written and enforced and how people believe. Voting taps into people’s beliefs; unless you believe that the government should (must? can?) force people to vote without allowing their beliefs to influence their personal decisions (when voting or otherwise), then your implied claim that the U.S. is not secular is without foundation.
As I noted, above, we have elected people with no particular religious belief. It is simply one of our idiosyncracies that we expect them to give lip service to religion–not because all citizens of the U.S. require it, but because there is a large enough minority that does.
Beyond that, secular does not require atheism, only the ability to tolerate beliefs other than one’s own. Since Catholics are no longer killing Huguenots and being killed, in turn, by Puritans, (and since a person from any of those groups might be elected president), secularism has made itself felt in the U.S.–although perhaps not to the particular definition that you may wish to impose on it.
Until 1980, no president could be elected who had been divorced, yet long before 1980, nearly half of all marriages in the U.S. ended in divorce. The choices an individual may exercise in the voting booth do not need to be rigidly equivalent to the choices one makes in one’s private life.
You want a knock down drag out fight on this subject, you’ll probably have to go elsewhere…maybe one of the religion boards out there.
