You find my lack of faith disturbing?

[Tez3]

Religion seems from an outsiders point of view a big part of American politics, surely though that's at odds with the American thing about religion and state being separate. Here religion plays no part in politicking and rarely if ever does a politician mention what if any faith he has and it doesn't come up when they are looking for votes in elections.

 

[MA-Caver]

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?

Yes.

 

[Ken Morgan]

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



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.

Second Hand Lions - Great movie!

 

[Carol]

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..."

Full agreement there :lol:

 

[Jenna]

How do you feel as strict athiests, having leaders not only openly professing religious faith and but potentially seeking counsel from that faith in a decision-making process?

Would you feel more comfortable with a leader who shared your own view?

I think that is thus far generally not the case. However, if it were to become the case that your next leader was not only athiest and but eschewed all forms of faith as delusion or at best foolhardiness, how do you imagine that would change politics both for good and for bad on a national and global level?

 

[elder999]

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.

First off, I don't care one way or the other about your lack of faith, or anyone else's, including elected officials. In this, I look to the founders, and follow Jefferson's position:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]Say nothing of my religion. It is known to my god and myself alone.
[SIZE=-1]-- Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams, 11 January 1817, in Lester Cappon, ed. The Adams-Jefferson Letters, (1959) p. 506, quoted from Jeremy Koselak,

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. "[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]

Why should you care about someone's faith?

People are not rational, no matter how much they try-what seems to be a rational position to one can seem completely irrational to another.
We generally want to elect people "like us," which, like it or not, for most in this country means Christian or Jewish, at the very least.

With that said, there are people who voted for Bush because he said he was a "born-again Christian." There are people who voted for him because they thought he'd be a great guy to ahve a beer with. There are people who voted for him on the issues, or, in some cases, their issue, like abortion.

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.

Is that any moe rational than voting for someone because of their faith?

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.

Why? They don't generally make decisions on "faith."

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'?

In my experience, not much else, except when it comes to poeple.

Evidence and reason is how we make sense of the world around us.

There is no making sense of the world around us. We are irrational creatures-naked apes, really-and the world is one of chaos. The things we do to make sense of our lives are individual to each life, and, for some, it's religion. Or art. Or evidence and reason.

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.

None of which are precluded by "faith."

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.

Not exactly, though he's been quoted by others as believing himself to be chosen by God to do so. Remember he's a politician, though, and a capitalist-there were deeper motivations to the invasion of Iraq that will never be completely ignored, as they are obscured by stuff like this.

I don't want a president that 'relies on their gut.........'.

Don't think we've ever had one that didn't. They relied on other things, like evidence, reason and their advisors, but, in the end, leadership is often about making gut decisions.

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'?

It's fair to say that whatever your elective choices, a professional politician in this country is going to also appear to be a person of some faith, if only marginally. He'll be photographed going to church-even if he's at best a Christmas and Easter Christian.

Hell, the Republican candidate for President is likely to be a Mormon this election cycle-an adherent to a religion founded by a con-man from New York named "Joe Smith." Talk about taking things "on faith...." :lfao:

 

[cdunn]

First off, I don't care one way or the other about your lack of faith, or anyone else's, including elected officials. In this, I look to the founders, and follow Jefferson's position:

Why should you care about someone's faith?

People are not rational, no matter how much they try-what seems to be a rational position to one can seem completely irrational to another.
We generally want to elect people "like us," which, like it or not, for most in this country means Christian or Jewish, at the very least.

...

It's fair to say that whatever your elective choices, a professional politician in this country is going to also appear to be a person of some faith, if only marginally. He'll be photographed going to church-even if he's at best a Christmas and Easter Christian.

Hell, the Republican candidate for President is likely to be a Mormon this election cycle-an adherent to a religion founded by a con-man from New York named "Joe Smith." Talk about taking things "on faith...." :lfao:

The only time I am concerned about a candidates faith is when he or she promises directly call upon his faith as a reason to do things which I believe are poor for the nation or unethical. I will not vote for any person who promises to put any dogma above pragmatism - Be that dogma Dominionism or Communism. It does me no injury that Obama may or may not believe in god. But when a sitting governor chooses to make his public face prayer, rather than fighting wildfires and seeking water sources in the face of a drought, I hear the distant strains of a fiddle playing in Rome.

 

[Touch Of Death]

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'?

I hate that you are making defend TF, but your premise is a little flawed Moral Compasses and the super natural are not related.
Sean

 

[fangjian]

Full agreement there :lol:

Why though? Why do you agree with me? I thought you were someone who implied that 'these things don't matter when voting'

How do you feel as strict athiests, having leaders not only openly professing religious faith and but potentially seeking counsel from that faith in a decision-making process?

What do you mean when you use the word 'strict' here?
I think it is very scary when leaders seek counsel on decision making. Whether GW seeking advice from a minister or Reagan consulting with Astrologers.

Would you feel more comfortable with a leader who shared your own view?

By 'my view', I will define it as a leader who 'makes decisions based on Human Reason, Physical Evidence, Logic, and Empathy'. Yes, I guess I would be more comfortable with my leader having this worldview.

I think that is thus far generally not the case. However, if it were to become the case that your next leader was not only athiest and but eschewed all forms of faith as delusion or at best foolhardiness, how do you imagine that would change politics both for good and for bad on a national and global level?

It would not be good to publicly belittle others. I don't think he/she should 'push people away'. Like when Reagan said Atheists are 'not real Americans'.
It would be good for politics and the USA as a whole if a future president was an 'out of the closet' Atheist. The word Atheist still holds strange negative connotations. The terms Agnostic, Humanist etc. are a bit gentler for most Americans. However the Atheist/Agnostic/nonreligious community mostly identify with the word 'Atheist' now, so that is the 'flag I will fly under'. Pearlists, Rationalists, Humanists, Secularists, Agnostics,....... The word doesn't matter to me. I would just like to see more of us coming together, since there are more of us ( non religious people ) than many like to think.

Why should you care about someone's faith?



Is that any moe rational than voting for someone because of their faith?



Why? They don't generally make decisions on "faith."

People in positions of responsibly do base decisions on 'faith'.
For example:
-The movement of banning proper Biology being taught in schools.
-Politicians talking about how we are 'on missions from gods' etc.
-The entire existence of Israel and it's location- a self fulfilled prophecy.
-Teachers beating children in schools because gods say it's 'ok to do so'.
-Treatment of Homosexuals
-The existence of slavery in the USA being rationalized because gods 'said it's ok'

I hate that you are making defend TF, but your premise is a little flawed Moral Compasses and the super natural are not related.
Sean

I don't understand this sentence. Sorry

 

[Balrog]

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.

Are you me?

I feel the same way. I'd rather have a solid agnostic as President because he won't waste time on religious hooey. I like Rick Perry (I live in Texas), but man - I wish he'd shut his piehole with the religion yapping.

 

[MaxiMe]

Cathonlic, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, or Purple Sneekers. I just want to know "Where's the beef" and don't try and feed me "corn, corn, corn". Gotta watch for the traveling salesman.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

What does the term "Do the right thing," mean to an atheist? When I get a satisfactory answer to that question, I can say whether or not I would vote for any given atheist who runs for public office.

 

[jks9199]

Do I care about a political candidates faith? Absolutely. Must it be my own? No. Must they be true to their faith? Absolutely. I'm not saying they must be some born-again Christian uttering "Praise God" every third sentence, nor must they be an ultra orthodox Catholic who promises to confer with the Holy Father on every decision. But they must be true to their faith and their expression of it. (I demand this of my friends, as well.) I don't want a politician who's beliefs change with the church pulpit they're giving a stump speech from. I want to know that I can reasonably predict how well their decisions will reflect my own beliefs and choices.

If they're agnostic or atheistic, no problem. I'll look to their character, and how well I believe they'll reflect my choices and how I think the government should be run. Just like I would a candidate of faith.

I do, since I consider myself a person of faith, think that it's important for a candidate, ESPECIALLY FOR PRESIDENT, be a person of faith. I simply feel that the spiritual support and guidance of a faith is important in that position. I know that I have had more than one incident in my career where I've found my faith to be a vital comfort and support in handling it -- and can only imagine it to be even more necessary, if in a different way, for the President of the United States.

 

[Tez3]

When your car isn't working do you look for a competent mechanic to fix it or do you look for one that shares your religious/non religious beliefs? When you employ politicians, which is what you do when you vote for them, do you want them doing a good job or do you want them believing what you do? I have no idea what my MP ( the Foreign Secretary William Hague) is religion wise, I wouldn't dream of asking him, what I want is him to be a good MP which he is. Religion has no part in choosing politicians.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

When your car isn't working do you look for a competent mechanic to fix it or do you look for one that shares your religious/non religious beliefs? When you employ politicians, which is what you do when you vote for them, do you want them doing a good job or do you want them believing what you do? I have no idea what my MP ( the Foreign Secretary William Hague) is religion wise, I wouldn't dream of asking him, what I want is him to be a good MP which he is. Religion has no part in choosing politicians.

"Religion has no part in choosing politicians for me."

There, I fixed it for you.

There is nothing wrong with making a decision about the leadership of the nation based on one's own values and the presumption that another shares them.

I don't ask my mechanic what his politics are, either. Nor do I ask the cook at the restaurant. I only care about their expertise in their particular field. However, if either of them is going to make decisions and set policy that will affect my entire life, I *do* want to know a variety of things. Their politics, their background, their shared values, and so on.

Frankly, I would never vote for a person who had not served in the military. Shared value. It may not be logical - some people have served in the military rather poorly, to say the least. But if they have not served, they do not get my vote, end of discussion. But is it a valid reason to vote or not vote for a person? Sure! For me.

 

[elder999]

. Religion has no part in choosing politicians in the UK.

Fixed that for ya.

I worked with some guys, right after the 2000 election. Voted for Bush because he was a Christian, and was going to stop people from "killing little babies." Bottom line, whatever the hot button social issue is in the U.S., there's a strong religious component driving one side. Intelligent design theory in schools. Abortion. Gay mariage.Believe it or not, global climate change. etc., etc., etc......

 

[Tez3]

"Religion has no part in choosing politicians for me."

There, I fixed it for you.

There is nothing wrong with making a decision about the leadership of the nation based on one's own values and the presumption that another shares them.

I don't ask my mechanic what his politics are, either. Nor do I ask the cook at the restaurant. I only care about their expertise in their particular field. However, if either of them is going to make decisions and set policy that will affect my entire life, I *do* want to know a variety of things. Their politics, their background, their shared values, and so on.

Frankly, I would never vote for a person who had not served in the military. Shared value. It may not be logical - some people have served in the military rather poorly, to say the least. But if they have not served, they do not get my vote, end of discussion. But is it a valid reason to vote or not vote for a person? Sure! For me.

Please don't fix things for me, it's rude.

Let me ask a question. What are politicians to you? You seem to want some one to lead you morally, almost like a religious leader. In the UK and Europe a politician is simply someone you employ to run the country the same way you employ an accountant to do your books, a mechanic to mend your car etc. They are employees of the people or really in our case the Queen. Of course we want honest ones who play the game but what religion they are matters not. We don't want moral guidance from them we want lower taxes and to be left alone. Values as such don't really come into it, we want politicians to do what we want them to, frankly it doesn't matter if they are shagging someone elses wife/husband though if they get caught it means they are stupid and we don't want stupid. The Prime Minister isn't someone to look up to he's a man with a job same as the bank manager,we hope he's honest and knows what he's doing though the chances are he doesn't lol so we'll get a new one next time. People might mock the Italian Prime Minister's young women but if he does a good job running the country the Italians don't care how many girlfriends he hasm that's between him and his wife. These people are only leaders of a country because we employ them to be, they aren't spiritual leaders, they aren't there for their morals other than not having their hand in the till, we want them to reduce unemployment, lower taxes and such things. They are functionaries, we are the country.

 

[WC_lun]

In my opinion, my vote is a vote to hire a person to represent me in government. I'm not hiring them for thier religion, military service, gender, sexual preference or anything like that. If he's going tofocus on what I think is important then that is what I want. I understand many people use religion as that yardstick, but I don't feel comfortable with that. I much rather see what they've done in the past.

 

[Jenna]

What do you mean when you use the word 'strict' here?

See below

The word doesn't matter to me. I would just like to see more of us coming together, since there are more of us ( non religious people ) than many like to think.

I think you are absolutely right yes. And I also think the converse is true in that while there seem to be great numbers that follow orthodox religions, many among them that profess religion are very far from standard bearers for those religions they claim to represent. This of course is painfully evident in much of the heinous crimes by their own that have tormented the Vatican's elders recently.

Having said that, there would be athiests that would frivolously perform all kinds of pseudo-superstitious and sub-religious "ritual" even on a frivolous basis for example, something as simple as the act of wishing veers awkwardly from the realm of science towards the realms of deities of whatever ilk. This is what I meant by strict and more should I say lax athiests.

 

[cdunn]

What does the term "Do the right thing," mean to an atheist? When I get a satisfactory answer to that question, I can say whether or not I would vote for any given atheist who runs for public office.

You won't like this much; but all ethics are situational. You affix some principles as guidelines, though not absolute, and you do the best that you can for yourself, your family, your community. The ends must justify the means - and some means are not justifiable.

Life is cannot be replaced. Self determination is a part of what makes us human. You live in a community, and you both give to and recieve from it, be it formally and lawfully, or informally and charitably - This is a part of your basic nature as a human, you are evolved to it. The best functioning balance will change with the community. Right and wrong are for, and against, the better interest of the human and the community.

When your car isn't working do you look for a competent mechanic to fix it or do you look for one that shares your religious/non religious beliefs? When you employ politicians, which is what you do when you vote for them, do you want them doing a good job or do you want them believing what you do?

I want competence. But certain politicians choose to make themselves incompetant in the name of beliefs.