You find my lack of faith disturbing?

[fangjian]

I hope that this thread isn't just a 'spill over' from another thread but anyway..

I remember TF one time told me 'he would never vote for someone who wasn't religious'. His reason was, he thinks they lack a 'moral compass', which implies that he thinks that our wide spectrum of morals is transmitted supernaturally or something like that.

Today Billcihak posted a video in which Darth Vader is seen assaulting one of his subordinates because they questioned him, and Vader said ' I find your lack of faith disturbing'. It's all in good fun of course.

So I was thinking about how if there was an official running for president and he/she identified as an Agnostic or Atheist or whatever, I would vote for them simply on those terms. My thought process for this? Well, while Billcihak finds my lack of faith disturbing, I think I find if someone is in a position of power and they have a 'faith', I find that disturbing. Most people are aware that if they have a religious belief, they 'take it on faith'. What I am wondering is, what else will they 'take on faith'? Evidence and reason is how we make sense of the world around us. Law Enforcement, Teachers, Politicians etc. It's important that these people will be educated in how to do their job and will make rational decisions while doing it. If I remember correctly, GW Bush 'took it on faith' when we went to war with Iraq. Something which I take personally, as I had to watch a lot of people die. I don't want a president that 'relies on their gut.........'. I want people in power ( cops, leaders....) that can rationally evaluate all evidence and make reasonable decisions. This is why I just can't vote for someone like Rick Perry. What else will he 'take on faith'?

 

[Steve]

I think that a politician's faith is irrelevant. At one time, there was a correlation drawn between what someone said that they believe in and what kinds of decisions they would make. In other words, if you're a self identified Christian, you would vote in a way that is consistent with your faith.

History has shown that this is completely unreliable. A person could self-identify as an atheist, but make decisions that endear him to a Christian base. Or he could be Christian, but vote in a way that is inconsistent to that base.

There are a billion reasons why, but ultimately, the President represents (or should represent) EVERYONE. That means a jewish president will work on the Sabbath, buddhists might have to send troops into a foreign country or order a tactical air strike, and, yes, an atheist would have to stand up and protect the rights of Christians and other religious faiths from unlawful persecution. It's in the job description.

 

[Empty Hands]

Not worried either way. Many people claim to have faith, but vanishingly few take it seriously in the sense that Jesus taught: " So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ [SUP]32[/SUP] For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. [SUP]33[/SUP] But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. [SUP]34[/SUP] Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Vanishingly few religious people refuse to see a doctor, refuse to work and get a job, or step off a cliff, knowing that their heavenly Father will protect them.

When it comes right down to it, nearly all of the faithful act in their day-to-day life as if they had no faith at all.

That said, true fanatics should of course be kept from the levers of power. But that holds true for all fanatics, religious or not.

 

[Omar B]

I don't see the contrived tie between religion and the realm of morals and ethics ... because such things predated any religion. So no, in fact I'm more likely to vote for an atheist rather than trying to vote based upon who seems less of a religious nut-job.

 

[fangjian]

There are a billion reasons why, but ultimately, the President represents (or should represent) EVERYONE. That means a jewish president will work on the Sabbath, buddhists might have to send troops into a foreign country or order a tactical air strike, and, yes, an atheist would have to stand up and protect the rights of Christians and other religious faiths from unlawful persecution. It's in the job description.

Of course. I'm not saying 'I don't want basic human rights for people'.

But there are jobs out there, where they evaluate your mental faculties and how you evaluate the world around you. If the results are not to their standard you can't have the job.

How many people here would vote for a Presidential candidate who publicly declared he was a Satanist? He doesn't like kill people or anything, he just worships demons. Would you consider him maybe unfit to lead the USA?

 

[Archangel M]

Like it or not. A LOT of Americans espouse some sort of Christian belief. They vote.

Need I continue?

 

[fangjian]

I don't see the contrived tie between religion and the realm of morals and ethics ...

Not talking about morals. Just 'how the person evaluates the world around him/her and makes decisions about who to go to war with, who not to etc

 

[Steve]

Of course. I'm not saying 'I don't want basic human rights for people'.

But there are jobs out there, where they evaluate your mental faculties and how you evaluate the world around you. If the results are not to their standard you can't have the job.

How many people here would vote for a Presidential candidate who publicly declared he was a Satanist? He doesn't like kill people or anything, he just worships demons. Would you consider him maybe unfit to lead the USA?

To an atheist/agnostic or anyone outside the christian faith, what's the functional difference between a satanist and a christian? They believe in the same things. God, Jesus, devils, demons, heaven and hell. In other words, it would be pretty far down on my list of concerns.

My point is this. If you're asking how faith informs the person's decision making process, my answer is that it doesn't. If the person is a zealot, regardless of faith, I'd be leery. If the person isn't a zealot, regardless of faith, I just don't see it being an issue.

Now, archangel makes a great point. I'm answering on strictly an academic level. In the real world, a non-christian wouldn't make it to the final party.

 

[Archangel M]

So what...the OP thinks that teachers, cops, politicians need to be atheists to do a good job???

 

[billc]

yeah, there is something to the religous doctrine that each individual is important and precious in their own right, with out regard to the "big picture" of a society. The atheists have just as bad a track record on bad decisions, based on science. Religion may not be necessary for a good person but atheism is no gaurantee either.

 

[fangjian]

So what...the OP thinks that teachers, cops, politicians need to be atheists to do a good job???

Hahaha. I know it makes me sound like a jerk.

I'm sharing because I am not afraid to have my worldview changed, and was wondering what others think.

Do you think it's ok to 'take things on faith' and not worry about evidence, when investigating a crime scene? Is it ok if the president 'takes it on faith' that Iraq has Nuclear weapons?

Or do you think that the practice of 'taking things on faith' is generally just in matters of Cosmology and Biology, and most people don't use it for other areas ?

The atheists have just as bad a track record on bad decisions, based on science.

This is a good point. The Atheists in question had irrational beliefs ( which is exactly what I'm talking about) on what they thought was science but were really just conjectures that many 'took on faith'.

It's not just 'Atheists'. It's beliefs without evidence.

 

[Carol]

I would not cast a vote for someone simply because they were atheist/agnostic (or any other religion/worldview), much like I wouldn't vote for someone simply because they were a particular gender, or simply because they are (insert race here), or simply because they are (insert party affiliation here).

In the 2000 election, voters in my city elected a state rep (Tom Alciere) that advocated civilians shooting LEOs if the cops stepped out of line. Alciere resigned ~3 weeks after taking office.
Local (audio): http://www4.nhpr.org/node/92
National: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0101/05/tl.00.html

This year, we had a 91 year old, agnostic state rep (Marty Harty) resign because he suggested that "mentally defective people" be "sent to Siberia to freeze." Harty resigned shortly after making the comment, ~3 months after taking office.
Local: http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news...7-227/rep.-harty-send-defects-to-siberia.html
National: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/10/martin-harty-suggests-sen_n_834316.html

Many have speculated that many people that voted in Alciere did so because many in our (very Republican) city were voting a straight Republican ticket in 2000. The same logic could (potentially) vote in an agnostic like Marty Harty.

It doesn't matter to me that a candidate is an atheist/agnostic. It doesn't matter to me if a voter likes a candidate because they are atheist/agnostic and sees that as a plus. Remove worldview and substitute race, gender, party, or any other personal attribute if you like.

But such an attribute should never be a substitute for a voter's due diligence.

 

[fangjian]

In the 2000 election, voters in my city elected a state rep (Tom Alciere) that advocated civilians shooting LEOs if the cops stepped out of line. Alciere resigned ~3 weeks after taking office.
Local (audio): http://www4.nhpr.org/node/92
National: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0101/05/tl.00.html

This year, we had a 91 year old, agnostic state rep (Marty Harty) resign because he suggested that "mentally defective people" be "sent to Siberia to freeze." Harty resigned shortly after making the comment, ~3 months after taking office.
Local: http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news...7-227/rep.-harty-send-defects-to-siberia.html
National: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/10/martin-harty-suggests-sen_n_834316.html

Do you think these people are fit to be leaders? I don't, because I think they hold irrational beliefs. Is it wrong for me not to vote for them?

 

[billc]

I think the fact that they are politicians automatically assumes there is something wrong with them at some level regardless of what religion or non-religion they believe. Hence the need to monitor them constantly for bad behavior or, more accurately, to see if once in a great while they manifest good behavior.

 

[Archangel M]

I think you are making somewhat of an assumption about people who believe in God. What makes you think that I can't separate issues of fact/science from issues of faith? I don't have "faith" in the accuracy of DNA evidence. I don't look to science to answer questions about what happens to my loved ones after they die.

 

[fangjian]

I think you are making somewhat of an assumption about people who believe in God. What makes you think that I can't separate issues of fact/science from issues of faith? I don't have "faith" in the accuracy of DNA evidence.

I don't know. I guess I can't see them as describing separate issues. Both science and Islam or Mormonism or whatever are describing the same phenomena. How the universe works. It's laws. When it began. What its fate is. etc. Both fields are using techniques to describe the same phenomena. You say you separate it. What do you mean? For every subject matter you use the scientific method except for Cosmology?

I don't look to science to answer questions about what happens to my loved ones after they die.

Why not?

 

[Carol]

Do you think these people are fit to be leaders? I don't, because I think they hold irrational beliefs. Is it wrong for me not to vote for them?

Not wrong at all. It is wise to take a person's decision-making in to account when assessing their leadership capabilities. However, that is
inconsistent with your opening premise: that you would vote for a candidate simply because they are atheist or agnostic.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[WC_lun]

We have seen people of great "faith" turn out to morally bankrupt. There is no way to see into a person's mind and soul to know if they truly follow the tenants of any religion. This goes double for most politicians who seem to have a knee jerk reaction to lie if they believe it will garner them a few votes. The same is true for anyone agnostic or athiest. Because they do not believe in a religion does not mean they cannot be a moral person. Statements to the contrary are just self-serving and based upon no fact. The best indicator of a person's morality is his behavior. While this is not always the easiest thing to know, if a person has behaved in immoral ways in the past, odds are he will do the same in the future. Make it easier or reward that same person for immoral behaviour and it is almost a certainty he will behave in an immoral way. So if you want to know how a politician will behave in office, do a little research on how he has behaved in the past. Don't rely on empty titles such as Christian, Athiest, or even Muslum. They are not an accurate indicator.

 

[Archangel M]

My "faith" has nothing to do with creation allegories or actually believing that God pulled a literal rib from Adam and made Eve. Maybe your personal experience was different, but being religious does not mean you cannot accept science (and never has since many scientists have been people of one faith or another). The Catholic church even accepts evolution.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

I think this clip makes a good example of "faith":

[yt]duu0bCkSlUo[/yt]

If you want to define your world as love=brain chemistry, oxytocin, dopamine, etc. and that courage and self-sacrifice is an evolutionary development to ensure the survival of the tribe/species have at it. I prefer to have "faith" in my definition of whats important to me and the world I choose to live in during my ride on this globe. Trying to frame people like me as being no different from some native who literally thinks the earth rides on the back of a turtle seems like willful pigeonholing to fit me into YOUR worldview.

 

[fangjian]

Not wrong at all. It is wise to take a person's decision-making in to account when assessing their leadership capabilities. However, that is
inconsistent with your opening premise: that you would vote for a candidate simply because they are atheist or agnostic.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Good point. If the Agnostic politician is a deuchebag with stupid views like 'sending people with mental issues to Siberia to freeze', then I of course, do not support them. But to be honest, if I heard that two candidates were running, one identifies as Agnostic and the other as Scientologist, I would support the Agnostic. I just don't think I'd be comfortable with a president that thinks "Xenu brought Homo sapiens to Earth 75 million years ago..."

My "faith" has nothing to do with creation allegories or actually believing that God pulled a literal rib from Adam and made Eve. Maybe your personal experience was different, but being religious does not mean you cannot accept science (and never has since many scientists have been people of one faith or another).

I would imagine that most of the people on Earth are fairly reasonable. However the more I think about, it the more I think my argument is valid. There are still people out there trying to get Evolutionary Biology out of the school system. Stuff like that is exactly what I'm talking about. People in positions of responsibility not evaluating overwhelming evidence and just taking other views 'on faith'. Why does everyone think this is ok?

The Catholic church even accepts evolution.

I remember the pope issuing some statement about it as if his opinion in Biology matters. If he's not a Biologist, why is he making public statements about Biology and acting like he knows something? Seems weird.

If you want to define your world as love=brain chemistry, oxytocin, dopamine, etc. and that courage and self-sacrifice is an evolutionary development to ensure the survival of the tribe/species have at it. I prefer to have "faith" in my definition of whats important to me and the world I choose to live in during my ride on this globe. Trying to frame people like me as being no different from some native who literally thinks the earth rides on the back of a turtle seems like willful pigeonholing to fit me into YOUR worldview.

Just who do you think you are making fun of those with other faiths than your own? Do you think what you just said, about people who believe the world rides on a turtle, was rude?