You find my lack of faith disturbing?

[Carol]

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

Why do I agree -- fatigue and cynicism, frankly speaking. I may reading too much in to the post, but in the current political climate, politicians are bringing up creationist stories as a veiled attack on science in the classroom. I'm sick of it. I feel very strongly that science should be taught in science class, and I also feel very strongly that a child should have a chance at an academically rigorous education.

 

[Mark Jordan]

People in public office should be role models and do their jobs well no matter what religious beliefs they have. Sadly, politicians happen to be shirking their responsibilities like it's going out of style. Isn't it common sense that they should do their jobs well and be responsible?

 

[Tez3]

Then don't make statements that assume you are speaking a universal truth, it's rude.

I didn't. You assumed that was what I meant.



I want someone who shares my values, goals, and opinions.



A cook cooks food. A mechanic fixes things. An accountant balances the books. Differences in how they do these things are down to taste (cooking) or correctness (mechanic) or legality (accountant). A political leader is much more than that. I want my leaders to not just lead the nation, but to lead it in the way I believe it should be led. To that end, I want a leader that shares my background, my goals, my hopes and dreams, my aspiractions, and yes, my morality. And there is nothing wrong with wanting that.

A way back a lot of Americans here were upset at Obama because he didn't give the Queen a present they thought he should but no one here was upset because while you regard him as a leader we regard him as a politician. he's climbed the greasy pole of politics and got the top job sure but he's still a politician, he doesn't turn into a demi god becuase he got the top job. We regard him as the representative of your government not the leader of your country, that's how we regard all such as he so there's a big difference in how you perceive your president and how the rest of the world does. so perhaps you shouldn't get so upset with him or any other incumbent if you think he doesn't behave properly on the world stage.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I looked up the definition of 'morality' and never found a direct link to religion, so we can use the word.

No, we really cannot. That is one of the three arguments atheists use to attempt to explain why they can have a framework of ethics known as 'morals' and not be religious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

Morality is inextricably linked to religion. Even the Wikipedia article, which ascribes morality to religions, cultures, and societies, does not note that all cultures and societies came from and with religious underpinnings. There are and have never been atheist societies.

Unlike I think the word 'Righteousness' because in its definition there are religious connotations. Your definition -a set of codes or rules by which they have chosen to live, which certainly function as morals do is pretty much the definition of 'morals'. What if God said " Intercourse with infants pleases me. You are commanded to partake in this ritual once per year"

There have been societies in which the religious requirements were those which would be unacceptable to us today. At the time, however, such commandments were considered correct and proper; which ties into the argument that morals are based on religion. "Right and wrong" are subjective terms that are defined by the societies that use them, and those rules of right and wrong are based on religious belief.

 

[Sukerkin]

I just wanted to say that I have enjoyed reading this thead very much and have had to realise that I cannot add "Thanks" to every single post - so please take it as read that I have done so. Some very cogent and well explained positions :bows to all:.

 

[seasoned]

A way back a lot of Americans here were upset at Obama because he didn't give the Queen a present they thought he should but no one here was upset because while you regard him as a leader we regard him as a politician. he's climbed the greasy pole of politics and got the top job sure but he's still a politician, he doesn't turn into a demi god becuase he got the top job. We regard him as the representative of your government not the leader of your country, that's how we regard all such as he so there's a big difference in how you perceive your president and how the rest of the world does. so perhaps you shouldn't get so upset with him or any other incumbent if you think he doesn't behave properly on the world stage.

Leaders are hard to find, politicians are a dime a dozen. But, there is protocol that one should follow either way. Sometimes people may mistake the actions of our "leaders" as an indication of all. Maybe not relevant, but 2 cents anyway.

 

[Sukerkin]

"Right and wrong" are subjective terms that are defined by the societies that use them, and those rules of right and wrong are based on religious belief.

I would argue that the rules of right and wrong have been codified in the religious tenets of a society but that they do not spring from those religious tenets.

I know it's my old song so I shall not belabour it but all significant religions, that might be described as "national faiths" were founded as a method of social control by those with the wealth and power to do so. The use of the 'divine' to back up 'law' was a very effective method of maintaining authority (and usurping it in some cases).

The predeliction to so do is rooted in our social behaviours that have evolved to make us so successful as a species - the ability to use fantasy and symbols to convey real messages understood across the social groups was an integral part of our survival in the times when we were scattered bands of hunter gatherers. It's still useful now but the power structures of organised religions have less relevance than they once did and make it all too easy to do ill to our fellow man because A. N. Other Divine Being says it's okay - happily, something the West is finally leaving behind I think.

Anyhow, as I said, it's my old tune so I wont bore everyone with it all again :lol:.

EDIT: Just wanted to make clear that when I say "Fantasy" I mean it in the sense of the ability to use imagination and description to convey that which is not tangible or visible. It's the same mental ability that we use to plan for the future or forsee what steps we need to take to achieve a long-term goal.

 

[fangjian]

No, we really cannot. That is one of the three arguments atheists use to attempt to explain why they can have a framework of ethics known as 'morals' and not be religious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

Morality is inextricably linked to religion. Even the Wikipedia article, which ascribes morality to religions, cultures, and societies, does not note that all cultures and societies came from and with religious underpinnings. There are and have never been atheist societies.

The entire first paragraph just says:

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. Immorality is the active opposition to morality, while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles.

Nothing in the above says it 'comes from religion'.
You say our morality is as old as our religious inclinations. I would have to disagree. If we go back, we find evidence that our ancestors likely did not have a sense of culture and religion. There is evidence that Homo neanderthalensis did and maybe one more, but when we go back far enough it is quite clear. They didn't have the brain capacity for it. However, they did have a sense of right and wrong otherwise we wouldn't be here. Animals in the wild, show behavior parallel to this. These sets of moral codes was most certainly developed first.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I would argue that the rules of right and right have been codified in the religious tenets of a society but that they do not spring from those religious tenets.

I have yet to see a definition of 'right' and 'wrong' which is not tied to human belief, religious or otherwise. It is, then, a human invention, and purely subjective. And humans has historically been possessed of various religious beliefs, most or all of which presented a codified set of rules or instructions. In a nutshell, they told believers what was 'right' and 'wrong'. Has their ever been a society which was not made up of religious believers or inheritors of such a society? Even the modern communist experiments of the USSR, Vietnam, and the PRC seemed to have been unable to either eradicate religion or base their notions of law and order upon anything other than the traditions and laws which came before, which were clearly based upon the religion claimed by the masses. There is not one set of rules or laws that has been arrived at without having been derived from religious rules.

I know it's my old song so I shall not belabour it but all significant religions, that might be described as "national faiths" were founded as a method of social control by those with the wealth and power to do so. The use of the 'divine' to back up 'law' was a very effective method of maintaining authority (and usurping it in some cases).

I would not deny it. I have no trouble accepting the shortcomings of any religion's rules, and I definitely accept that religion presented not only a set of ethics and morals by which one was to live, but was and is also a method by which power can be achieved and the masses controlled.

What I have said is that because I have a framework of morality based on my religious beliefs, I can understand what a person running for office means when they describe themselves as a Jew or a Christian; it's not a guarantee that we believe the same things or what the same goals or that he or she is decent, kind, intelligent, or a good leader, but it is a framework upon which to being. With an atheist, I have no framework, unless they actually are possessed of a set of morals that is quite frankly based upon religion.

The predeliction to so do is rooted in our social behaviours that have evolved to make us so successful as a species - the ability to use fantasy and symbols to convey real messages understood across the social groups was an integral part of our survival in the times when we were scattered bands of hunter gatherers. It's still useful now but the power structures of organised religions have less relevance than they once did and make it all too easy to do ill to our fellow man because A. N. Other Divine Being says it's okay - happily, something the West is finally leaving behind I think.

Anyhow, as I said, it's my old tune so I wont bore everyone with it all again :lol:.

Unfortunately, I think many atheists have a sense of impending attack whenever anyone of faith says anything about them. I understand this flinch response, but it is not my intent to attack.

There are those who believe that an atheist cannot be a moral person, cannot have any set of moral behaviors, cannot be in any sense 'good' because good and evil are human inventions - and ultimately based upon religious beliefs. While I agree that morals are indeed based on historical religious beliefs, I do not share the opinion that atheists are therefore devoid of morals, a sense or right or wrong, or are evil beings. I believe that a person can be good or evil, right or wrong, decent or indecent, without regard to their religious belief or lack of same. In that sense, I simply do not care if my fellow man is a Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Christian or atheist, so long as they leave me in peace to practice my own beliefs.

But we are not talking about atheism qua atheism. The subject is, I believe, elected officials. There are two things I wished to mention. The first is that in the USA, politicians running for office, especially for national office, are practically compelled to make a faith statement and to be seen practicing that faith. I wish it were not so, because to me it is little more than a show, a kissing of the public ***.

The second, however, is what I've been expounding upon. And again, I do not say that an atheist is not fit for office. I say that I, perhaps like many or most humans, seek common ground and understanding with those who would seek to lead me. I want them not to rule wisely, but to rule as I would. I want them not to do the right thing in general, but the things which I think are right. And although this must seem incredibly selfish, I can't imagine that most Americans are any different. We want our leaders to represent our own views, not those of some universal goodness for all.

In that pursuit of leaders who represent me and my desires, I use shorthand methods of establishing frameworks that are broad and often incorrect in the details, but which are probably true in the aggregate and until proven otherwise. I am not a Republican, but I can generally trust that Republican candidates will not seek to take away my guns, for example. Now, everyone can find examples of Democrats who support gun rights and Republicans who do not, but again, I am speaking of a framework. A framework is a useful construct, despite its flaws. I tend to look, therefore, to those candidates who declare themselves conservatives, veterans, religious, and so on. I can't be certain they'll represent my desires, but they are within the set of candidates which I will examine first.

The question was whether or not an atheist could get my vote. Certainly he or she could. But as I said, before I could say whether or not I would vote for a particular atheist, they must first explain to me what they mean by 'right' and 'wrong' and how they came to those decisions. I say this because they do not provide me with a framework that has any significance to me. I cannot make even basic assumptions about what an atheist means when they claim to be for 'good' things and against 'bad' things. Since we do not share a framework, I must know what they mean by that.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The entire first paragraph just says:

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. Immorality is the active opposition to morality, while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles.

Nothing in the above says it 'comes from religion'.
You say our morality is as old as our religious inclinations. I would have to disagree. If we go back, we find evidence that our ancestors likely did not have a sense of culture and religion. There is evidence that Homo neanderthalensis did and maybe one more, but when we go back far enough it is quite clear. They didn't have the brain capacity for it. However, they did have a sense of right and wrong otherwise we wouldn't be here. Animals in the wild, show behavior parallel to this. These sets of moral codes was most certainly developed first.

Every society, every culture, was created by religious people. There have been none which were not. Even noted experiments in atheistic societies were based upon the societal beliefs about right and wrong which came before them, which were based upon religion.

All human society comes from religion. Period. There has never been a time when human beings did not invent religions to suit themselves and create both rules and societies around those beliefs.

Animals have no moral codes. Morality is a human construct entirely.

What you are describing are survival characteristics which describe traits or patterns, and not morals. For example, most animals do not kill each other for sport in the wild. While some may surmise this to be a moral, it is not. The reason it is not is that there is no punishment for violating it. A monkey which DOES kill for sport is not put in prison or sentenced to death or even cast out of their group. Such behavior may be rare, probably because it does not breed group cohesion and therefore long term survival, but it is no moral code.

Morals are rules, and rules imply consequences for breaking them, imposed by the group that embraces them. Monkeys have no courts, nor do giraffes. People do. And all people were religious before they were not. All rules for living came originally from religious laws and were later absorbed into the culture or society. They may have come apart from religion, but they all sprang from it.

If I take a jar down from the shelf and it is labeled 'salt' and it appears to be white and granular, I am going to make an assumption that it is salt, unless I have good reason so suspect it is not. If I take down an unlabeled jar and it appears to be white and granular, I don't know if it is salt or sugar (or soap powder) and I'm going to have to test it to see what it might actually be. That is entirely what I mean when I say that when a person running for office who describes themselves as an 'atheist' is an unknown quantity to me. Are they salt, sugar, or soap powder? I have no frame of reference, no label to guide me. Labels can be wrong, but if they were not mostly right, there would be no reason to have them. A person describing themselves as an atheist is not telling me anything about whether they are salt, sugar, or soap powder. So that information means nothing to me and I won't tend to vote for a person who does not then take the time to describe to me what they actually are in favor of.

 

[seasoned]

A persons faith is measured by the bible. You can't measurer it scientifically. I don't want to be a bummer or interject into an otherwise very interesting thread, something at face value, as irrelevant, but, there are some that believe the below verse as factual. No one can read a persons heart but that person, and God, if you are so inclined to believe. Just my 2 cents, now back to my corner.

Jeremiah 31:31-35
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the LORD,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the LORD.

 

[fangjian]

Animals have no moral codes. Morality is a human construct entirely.

What you are describing are survival characteristics which describe traits or patterns, and not morals. For example, most animals do not kill each other for sport in the wild. While some may surmise this to be a moral, it is not. The reason it is not is that there is no punishment for violating it. A monkey which DOES kill for sport is not put in prison or sentenced to death or even cast out of their group. Such behavior may be rare, probably because it does not breed group cohesion and therefore long term survival, but it is no moral code.Morals are rules, and rules imply consequences for breaking them, imposed by the group that embraces them. Monkeys have no courts, nor do giraffes. People do.

Many animals are social creatures just like us. They have norms taboos etc. There are consequences for undesirable behavior within animal societies. Sometimes that punishment is death, sometimes a form of 'silent treatment'. There is reward sometimes for desirable behavior as well, just like us. Sometimes that reward is sex, sometimes it's food etc.

Our's just happens to be more complex, Bill. It's like saying we're the only species that uses tools and can reason. This is untrue. Ours is just more complex.

And all people were religious before they were not.

huh?

Also a couple posts ago, I gave you a hypothetical command from the god you say you believe in.

What if God said " Intercourse with infants pleases me. You are commanded to partake in this ritual once per year"

Do you have an answer?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Many animals are social creatures just like us. They have norms taboos etc. There are consequences for undesirable behavior within animal societies. Sometimes that punishment is death, sometimes a form of 'silent treatment'. There is reward sometimes for desirable behavior as well, just like us. Sometimes that reward is sex, sometimes it's food etc.

Our's just happens to be more complex, Bill. It's like saying we're the only species that uses tools and can reason. This is untrue. Ours is just more complex.

Sorry, I disagree.

Also a couple posts ago, I gave you a hypothetical command from the god you say you believe in.

What if God said " Intercourse with infants pleases me. You are commanded to partake in this ritual once per year"

Do you have an answer?

I thought I did answer it. Many religions have or have had religious laws which commanded the believers or the citizens of that society to do things which I would consider objectionable, immoral, and wrong.

Yet they were clearly part and parcel of those societies and were therefore both moral and 'right' for their own purposes. I can judge them from my perspective and say they were not right, they were wrong. However, had I lived in that society at that time, it most likely would have seemed right to me, as it would to most citizens of that society at that time.

You appear to want me to say that religious morals are universal, but I haven't said that and they are not. With regard to voting for a political candidate, I am unlikely to find myself having to evaluate a candidate who espouses a religion which endorses sex with infants and more likely to find one who claims to be a Christian, Jew, or (less likely) Muslim. Those candidates are equally unlikely to believe that their God has commanded sex with infants. However, if I found that to be the case, of course I would not consider voting for them! When a person presents themselves for public office and declares themselves to be an atheist, what is their framework? I have nothing to go on, and hence, as I keep saying, they would have to describe to me what they consider to be right and wrong and why.

 

[fangjian]

Many animals are social creatures just like us. They have norms taboos etc. There are consequences for undesirable behavior within animal societies. Sometimes that punishment is death, sometimes a form of 'silent treatment'. There is reward sometimes for desirable behavior as well, just like us. Sometimes that reward is sex, sometimes it's food etc.
Our's just happens to be more complex, Bill. It's like saying we're the only species that uses tools and can reason. This is untrue. Ours is just more complex.

Sorry, I disagree.

But how? My statement is just a quick summary of numerous observations of nature. Unless I communicated it poorly. I'm looking at it like I just said 'The Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago', and you say 'I disagree'. How?!

I thought I did answer it. Many religions have or have had religious laws which commanded the believers or the citizens of that society to do things which I would consider objectionable, immoral, and wrong.
Yet they were clearly part and parcel of those societies and were therefore both moral and 'right' for their own purposes. I can judge them from my perspective and say they were not right, they were wrong. However, had I lived in that society at that time, it most likely would have seemed right to me, as it would to most citizens of that society at that time.

You appear to want me to say that religious morals are universal, but I haven't said that and they are not. With regard to voting for a political candidate, I am unlikely to find myself having to evaluate a candidate who espouses a religion which endorses sex with infants and more likely to find one who claims to be a Christian, Jew, or (less likely) Muslim. Those candidates are equally unlikely to believe that their God has commanded sex with infants. However, if I found that to be the case, of course I would not consider voting for them! When a person presents themselves for public office and declares themselves to be an atheist, what is their framework?

Yeah but you said things are 'right' because a god said so. That's like a 'universal right/wrong' isn't it? And I wanted your answer. What if Yahweh commanded this of you?

 

[Aiki Lee]

I've said this before but everyone has belief and faith in something, whther or not it is religious. Human beings all act on faith in some way because we are not omniscient. You have faith that the doctor operating on you knows what he is doing. You have faith that you martial arts teacher is showing you a practical way to disarm an attacker. You have faith that the physicists know what they are talking about. Belief and faith to me rely on some sort of evidence, whether or not that evidence is enough for someone else is up to them.

Let's take the doctor example. If I'm getting operated on I hope my doctor knows what he is doing. I can look at his degree, his past experience with operations, and the hospitals track record for success, but in the end it comes down to me trusting in the doctor that he is legitimate and competent.

For the physicist, we trust that he has done his calculations correct and he double checks his work and understands what his work is really about. Most of us couldn't do what a high level physicist could and so we have to trust that what he tells us is true and makes sense.

Faith is trust in something, anything. I put my faith where I feel the evidence leads, and if I don't think there is strong enough evidence for something I investigate if I feel it is important enough.

On a separate issue, I believe that all morality stems from a spiritual basis, but not necessarily a religious one. Evolution may play a key part in the formation of our moral reasoning because, after all, it is better for the species as a whole to behave in such a way, but higher degrees of moral functioning are not necessarily beneficial in an evolutionary context alone. Think about the following.

Rape is morally wrong. No one can honestly disagree with this unless you disagree with the concept of morality in the first place. Rape though, could be beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint as it can pass on a person's genes, but it is still unacceptable to humans but is acceptable to other animal species such as dolphins. Thye reason people say rape is wrong is because it violates the rights and dignity of an individual, but if there were no objective moral law that stems outside of a biological reason then why should anybody care? If it's not you or a relative. honestly, why would you care? If you do care it could be the result of social conditioning (which does play a role IMO), but is that a satisfying enough answer?

Reasonably a person doesn't need to justify to another person why it is wrong to do something like this; the fact that it is universally unnacceptable seems to be self-evident that human beings share a connection to each other (and perhaps to some sort of cosmic truth) which creates a sense of morality. This connection, whatever it is, I feel is spirituality and religion is a manmade construct set to explain it. And honestly, i feel some religious concepts are closer to the truth than others.

That's my take on it anyway.

 

[Buka]

If I go on the assumption that there is God, then everyone in the various religions are praying to the same entity. I would assume that entity knows that.
If I go on the assumption that God is Santa Claus for adults, then who cares as long as faith helps the person with said faith?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

But how? My statement is just a quick summary of numerous observations of nature. Unless I communicated it poorly. I'm looking at it like I just said 'The Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago', and you say 'I disagree'. How?!

I disagree human societies evolved without religion at their core, and I do not believe your statements to the contrary. I don't know more much more clear I can make that.

Yeah but you said things are 'right' because a god said so. That's like a 'universal right/wrong' isn't it?

No. One god says one thing, another says something different. Nothing universal about it. There have been some nearly-universal taboos that one might argue are close enough to universal to serve the purpose, but they're not that common.

And I wanted your answer. What if Yahweh commanded this of you?

What purpose would it serve for me to answer this question? It has nothing to do with anything we're discussing.

 

[Archangel M]

What purpose would it serve for me to answer this question? It has nothing to do with anything we're discussing.

I think that the OP has some sort of preconcieved notion about what "being religious" means and has some odd ideas of how people of "faith" think and act.

 

[fangjian]

Thye reason people say rape is wrong is because it violates the rights and dignity of an individual, but if there were no objective moral law that stems outside of a biological reason then why should anybody care? If it's not you or a relative. honestly, why would you care?

I suppose because of the phenomena of empathy.

What purpose would it serve for me to answer this question? It has nothing to do with anything we're discussing.

Bill you said

Ask a religious person why they should not kill. It may take awhile to dig down, but ultimately the reason progresses from the notion that human value has intrinsic value to the notion that killing is 'wrong' to the basic premise; God said so

I am under the suspicion that you think things are 'right' because God says they are. If so, this question is very meaningful.

I think that the OP has some sort of preconcieved notion about what "being religious" means and has some odd ideas of how people of "faith" think and act.

This may, of course be the case. I would like to know what your view is of my 'preconceived notions', just so I know how I am coming across.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill you said I am under the suspicion that you think things are 'right' because God says they are. If so, this question is very meaningful.
This may, of course be the case. I would like to know what your view is of my 'preconceived notions', just so I know how I am coming across.

OK, I get it. Let me try to explain.

Ask anyone in the USA if, for example, murder is wrong. Most would say 'yes', regardless of their religious beliefs. Our society does not tolerate murder, and most of us agree with that.

But why is murder wrong?

Murder is wrong, some would say, because it is against the law. And so it is. But why is it against the law?

Murder is against the law because that's the way our society wants it to be. And yes, that makes sense also. But why does our society want murder to be against the law?

Now here is where things get interesting. Some might say that murder is against the law because it is wrong; a tautology and an infinite loop. Others might say that it is illegal because it is against the rules set down by the Creator they believe in, and this is of course a moral response (it is a value judgment) and religiously-based. Non-religious people might say that it is illegal because it threatens society as a whole. And I accept this as a logical, non-religious reason to feel that murder should be against the law; it threatens our society in a demonstrable way. No society could survive if people went around killing each other whenever they felt like it without repercussions.

If a person is running for public office, and they declare themselves to be a Christian, or a Jew perhaps, I do not feel the need to dive down through the layers here. Murder to them is ultimately wrong, once you peel the onion, because it is against the rules they believe their Creator established.

When someone has a different basis for their core beliefs, then I do not know what they are unless they tell me. I cannot put that person on the list of people I would tend to vote for unless otherwise persuaded; their entire base must be a question mark to me, and hence my question to them about what they feel is right and wrong and how they arrive at that decision.

And getting back to murder - while it is entirely acceptable to me if a person feels that murder should be against the law because it damages society as opposed to being against the Word of God, the axiom that would tend to flow from that basis is that if an action is not damaging to society, then it ought to be legal. There are many behaviors which may not damage society and I do not want them to be legal. They are, on the other hand, against moral codes that my religion holds, so I would tend to vote for a person who has that same framework. After all, as I said previously, I want my elected officials to represent MY values, not just logical values. My values may not be based on the damage some actions do to society, but simply based on the fact that I feel they are 'wrong'. And it is perfectly valid for me to feel this way, and to vote this way. And a statement of faith by a candidate helps me find leaders to vote for who feel that way too.