Yes, but we’re not talking Angels vs. Demons type Good here. We’re saying it’s good that our president wants to crack down on crime. That’s a bonus. It’s bad that he’s a total drunkard. That’s a malus.
BTW, if you didn’t realize, those were just arbitary statements. I’m illustrating the use of bonus vs. malus as I’ve heard most people use them. How often is it that the original Latin definition of a word matches exactly the current common usage of it?
bo·nus ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bns)
n. pl. bo·nus·es
Something given or paid in addition to what is usual or expected.
Just a polite question. If it sounds inflammatory, I don’t mean it that way. I don’t want to be bowing over any more of those sequinned Jimmy Choos, this week.
Why are statements from Atheists that indicate believers are somehow impaired reasonable(to you). But yet when the Choo is on the other foot, we’d better only be saying that your perceptions are “different”? Is there a code of PC that only we are required to follow? Did I miss an important cite?
I think “religious” politicians are only problematic if they become theocratic or bigoted. Believing in God or the Divinity of Christ doesn’t bother me in the slightest. Attempting to mandate the teaching of creationism in public schools would bother me a lot.
I think an example the kind of attitude Eve was referring to was when Bush Sr. said that atheists aren’t really Americans. It’s completely safe politically to bash atheists and make sweeping moral pronounements about them.
BTW, an atheistic candidate for POTUS may not be as impossible as it seems. I can think of one avowed atheist who was elected to a significant political office and that’s former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura. Ventura actually said in an interview with Playboy tht “religion is for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers.”
While he did get some heat for that, particularly back home in Minnesota, it was not a career destroyer and people sort of got over it. I can’t imagine another politician who could have gotten away with something like that but Jesse was unique.
Anyway, it shows that people can accept a non-theistic candidate if he has other traits or abilities which are appealing on a mass level.
We’ve been through this, haven’t we? It’s because there’s no evidence theists are correct, and non-existence is the default assumption. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
I never said it was alright—I would never say such a thing. Even if I thought it, I am too well-mannered and have too many religious friends to say such a thing.
Yes, we’ve been through this. Doesn’t mean I agree that a belief in something you have no evidence of puts me in some sort of second-class competency status. I can agree that we just believe differently and even accept that you think I have no good reason to believe it. I just don’t agree that this “default assumption” opens the door for a one-way evaluation, which includes your perception of my(collective) mental status. Don’t run for president, Priceguy. I’m not voting for you.
Priceguy, I think you may have misunderstood IWLN’s intention with her post. She was reacting to a post by Eve which expressed discomfort at the thought of being governed by “religious” people.
IWLN was stating that if it’s unfair to make presumptions about the ability of atheists to govern it’s equally unfair to make them about theists.
She wasn’t talking about the theism debate in general just defending against the notion that theists would be inherently less intelligent or less competent in political offices.
Anyone who shows hostility towards different beliefs would be troublesome but a theistic belief in itself has no bearing on a person’s competence to lead. Some of the greatest leaders of all time have been theists.
Don’t worry. I’m not eligible.
How can you say that? You live in Brazil! Brazilian former president, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, is an atheist. He recognized this when running for maire in São Paulo, and partly because of his confession, he lost the election to Jânio Quadros.
When he ran for president he refrained to recognize his atheism and was elected and reelected, but he is still n atheist and one of the best presidents ever in Brazil.
Sérgio, see, with the way American politics is, a public confession of atheism, no matter how long ago, would definitely be dug up by the opposition and made public far and wide in a presidential election campaign. It doesn’t matter if the word “atheist” never left the candidates lips from the moment they declared candidacy to election day, the other candidates would be advertising far and wide that that candidate was a godless atheist and probably a communist too.
It’s just American politics… 
I know. Not exactly my main point, but who am I to argue with your honest, but bigotted opinion. I’d still vote for an atheist, but probably only a tactful one.