Will God have a role in how you vote?

[cnalvarez]

Reality is proving itself on my facebook page, growing up Mormon, I have a lot of friends who remain in that faith (I do not) and are not shy about voting Romney in solely on his LDS religion.  To quote one of my fb Mormon friends "He is temple endowed, that means he is worthy and has my vote".  

Thank you for the ancedotal evidence of why church and state are constitutionally separated.

Thank you for your well thought out, deep and moving thoughts.

I guess the question could also be posed "would you re-elect Obama if it was proven he was a Muslim" as some claim...

www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

[falcon9]

And now, because you were proven wrong,

False conclusion; none of your diversionary crap 'proved me wrong'.  It remains that you wished to shift the emphasis of the initial question by tacitly conflating "god" and "religion".  That can be seen from the those replies posted by you, (or maybe a fugitive alias instead).

I clearly demonstrated and gave proof of where you were wrong. 

No such demonstrated proof has been presented; the claim that it has does not constitute proof.

You awkwardly tried to shift the subject away from the charges you initially made to the above 'god' and 'religion' nonsensical position you have taken. 

The "charge", (or challenge), that "god" and "religion" were conflated by you is justified by your comments, in your own words.  Conflating the two terms isn't a nonsensical position; it was your ignorant position since there's a difference in a 'belief' and _what_ that belief is in.

The evidence is absolutely in my favor, while once again you are left with your typical falcon9 'proof' consisting of only the false allegations you have made.

Conversely, the evidence, (consisting of prior posts in this thread), supports the contention of your typical "Abrupt" illogic of false allegations of claiming proof while lacking it.

you try to move the goalpost by switching to some ridiculous god vs religion bullshit that isn't even pertinent to anything ...

Right; the distinction isn't pertinent to anything, except the context of the discussion.  Other than that, it's completely random, aye.

I stand by that it isn't pertinent and you have been given repeated opportunities to provide any examples of such.  You still fail to recall that you first brought up but you the change from 'god' to 'religion' via your injection of the following:

However, "Flackle" is correct in that a belief or, disbelief in various deities may have an effect on voting decisions.  That's where fundamentalism looses the 'fun' part.

Now do you wish to propose that "a belief or, disbelief in various deities" does not constitute a reference to religion? 

My comment related to religion and not to whether "god will play a role" in voting.  Once again, the two terms are not conflated by me, (that was you, as the message IDs show).

Once again, you invent a charge against me that you yourself were the one to commit

The "charge" was not invented; you did attempt to conflate "god" and "religion" where I did not "commit" that conflation.  Since the evidence of posts which contradict your 'invention' exists in this thread, your lie fails to convince.

and now since you have been proven wrong in one area

Your claim is false so, anything derived from it does not follow.

you try to shift the onus of "your" offense onto me -- and for what purpose other than to try to bury your previous failures or to obfuscate even more.

I've seen little kids try this cheap tactic of yours; the attempt to reverse "onus" and accuse another of what they did instead.  Again, the content of the posted exchanges do not support your onus-reversing attempts.  Perhaps your migraines are further clouding your already clouded ability to reason.

[Abrupt]

My comment related to religion and not to whether "god will play a role" in voting.  Once again, the two terms are not conflated by me, (that was you, as the message IDs show).

And what did my comment relate to?  You forgot didn't you?  Let me remind you:

However, "Flackle" is correct in that a belief or, disbelief in various deities may have an effect on voting decisions.  That's where fundamentalism looses the 'fun' part.

People will vote for qualities they agree with and this is not limited to a belief or disbelief in a deity.  To single out religion shows a prejudicial approach.  That is much like asking ones race or gender, or the home state or height or weight of the candidate will factor in.  It is virtually impossible to eliminate all such conditionals from a choice (even if one submitted only text of the candidates without their names or gender or physical appearances or speech inflections or other things).

I have a good idea of  what your next argument might be, as you have become somewhat predictable.  Let me advise you to look very close before you step and perhaps you should actually try to prove what you say instead of just make an anecdotal accusation.

Now I got a little heated where you called me a liar, as that is something I am not.  I can be wrong but I do not lie.  I am very touchy about that and that generates a fist flying reaction from me in person (doesn't say well abut me I suppose but such is how it is and that is my reaction for whatever reason).  I will ask you not to do that again, please.

[falcon9]

People will vote for qualities they agree with and this is not limited to a belief or disbelief in a deity.  To single out religion shows a prejudicial approach.  

However, belief in a deity, (generally termed as a religion), is not the same as asking "will god have a role in how you vote?"  Further, no specific religion was singled-out since "religion" can refer to any number of extant and unspecified religions, (as well as to any "god", not just the vaguely undetermined xtian one).

I have a good idea of  what your next argument might be, as you have become somewhat predictable.  Let me advise you to look very close before you step and perhaps you should actually try to prove what you say instead of just make an anecdotal accusation.

Apparently you did not accurately predict my argument since I made no ancedotal accusations within my reply.

Now I got a little heated where you called me a liar, as that is something I am not.  I can be wrong but I do not lie.  I am very touchy about that and that generates a fist flying reaction from me in person (doesn't say well abut me I suppose but such is how it is and that is my reaction for whatever reason).  I will ask you not to do that again, please.

I will agree on the condition that you do not post verifiable lies, (as in the instance alluded to).  Your false characterizations were both "wrong" and untrue, which makes them lies.  If you prefer not being called on lies, consider not lying, (rather than merely denying posted evidence of it).

[Abrupt]

People will vote for qualities they agree with and this is not limited to a belief or disbelief in a deity.  To single out religion shows a prejudicial approach.  

However, belief in a deity, (generally termed as a religion), is not the same as asking "will god have a role in how you vote?"  Further, no specific religion was singled-out since "religion" can refer to any number of extant and unspecified religions, (as well as to any "god", not just the vaguely undetermined xtian one).

What is the relevance of your fist statement?  I actually agree with you on this as should everyone, but I also know that it has no relevance to anything we discussed and you are posing your question as if it is some sort of argument I have suggested -- which I haven't. 

You seem stuck on this 'specific religion' bit and I don't understand why you are.  I never indicated a specific religion either -- and even if I did I had, there is no relevance.  After I used the word 'singled out' in relation to religion in response to your 'may have an affect on voting decisions' you seem to have focused in on that like it is a prize in a contest.  You have assaulted it multiple times and always in a fallacious way and have never demonstrated the relevance it might have even if it were true (which it isn't as I said "single out religion", not a specific religion and to expand on that to the reader it would be like saying 'single out gender' or 'single out race' and someone coming back with 'women' or 'white').  I am well aware that there are 'religions' that don't even have a god (and I consider the quasi-atheist to be a practitioner of a religion also).

I have a good idea of  what your next argument might be, as you have become somewhat predictable.  Let me advise you to look very close before you step and perhaps you should actually try to prove what you say instead of just make an anecdotal accusation.

Apparently you did not accurately predict my argument since I made no ancedotal accusations within my reply.

You are correct that your argument was not the one I predicted.  I would cite your argument as anecdotal through implication though as it is undocumented and entirely hearsay on your behalf.  Considering that documentation proves me innocent of your accusation it seems to all fall in my favor.

Now I got a little heated where you called me a liar, as that is something I am not.  I can be wrong but I do not lie.  I am very touchy about that and that generates a fist flying reaction from me in person (doesn't say well abut me I suppose but such is how it is and that is my reaction for whatever reason).  I will ask you not to do that again, please.

I will agree on the condition that you do not post verifiable lies, (as in the instance alluded to).  Your false characterizations were both "wrong" and untrue, which makes them lies.  If you prefer not being called on lies, consider not lying, (rather than merely denying posted evidence of it).

Something can be wrong or untrue and not be a 'lie'.  A lie suggest knowing they are wrong or untrue.  Now recall you accused me of attempting to shift the debate from god to religion and I have given documentation of you as being the first of us to expand upon the effects of religions in voting.  You admit there is no verifiable proof that I lied, and I claim that I have cited proof that I told the truth.  If you wish to present evidence that what I cited is not true, or show a relation of it being misrepresented, then you are free to.  To call it a lie when you admit you cannot prove it is a lie suggest knowledge of my intentions that you are not capable of possessing and is simply anecdotal speculation.  I am being overly reasonable here, and have kept sheathed the misericorde of reciprocation.

[lucina78]

yes it will

[sigmapi1501]

yes it will

Then, who will you pick?

[falcon9]

What is the relevance of your fist statement?  I actually agree with you on this as should everyone, but I also know that it has no relevance to anything we discussed and you are posing your question as if it is some sort of argument I have suggested -- which I haven't. 

Quote from: Abrupt on 17-01-2012, 02:45:57:
"People will vote for qualities they agree with and this is not limited to a belief or disbelief in a deity.  To single out religion shows a prejudicial approach." 

You seem stuck on this 'specific religion' bit and I don't understand why you are.  I never indicated a specific religion either -- and even if I did I had, there is no relevance. [/quote]


Neither of us mentioned any particular religion however, the point was that you attempted to conflate an unspecified "god" with an unspecified "religion" by accusing the OP of "singling out religion", (albeit as religion in general, rather than in particular). 

I am well aware that there are 'religions' that don't even have a god (and I consider the quasi-atheist to be a practitioner of a religion also).

Out of curiousity, which "religions" don't have a "god" and what's a "quasi-atheist'?

I would cite your argument as anecdotal through implication though as it is undocumented and entirely hearsay on your behalf. 

My argument is documented within this thread and isn't "anecdotal through implication" merely because you assert it is, (without evidence).

Considering that documentation proves me innocent of your accusation it seems to all fall in my favor.

Again, that's not what the posted exchanges in this thread indicate.  Your accusation that I first brought up "religion" is false as the sequence of posts shows:
Quote from: Abrupt on 17-01-2012, 02:45:57:
"People will vote for qualities they agree with and this is not limited to a belief or disbelief in a deity.  To single out religion shows a prejudicial approach."

After that post of yours came my responses regarding religion, (to "Flackle" and then you).

 

Something can be wrong or untrue and not be a 'lie'.  A lie suggest knowing they are wrong or untrue. 

That's nominally correct in that you could have been unintentionally "wrong" however, your phrasing strongly suggested that you lied with intent that you weren't wrong, (and you were), so the designation of lying was accurately applied.

Now recall you accused me of attempting to shift the debate from god to religion and I have given documentation of you as being the first of us to expand upon the effects of religions in voting. 

This is incorrect; the sequence of replies in this thread shows that isn't true. It is your insistance to the contrary, (despite the documented sequence of posted replies), which elicits a conclusion of lying.

You admit there is no verifiable proof that I lied ...

That's not what I stated; there's a difference between identifying verifiable lies and agreeing not to consider unverifiable speculations as outright lies.

... and I claim that I have cited proof that I told the truth. 

Your claim is false because it omits the actual sequence of posted replies which contradict your claim.

If you wish to present evidence that what I cited is not true, or show a relation of it being misrepresented, then you are free to. 

The evidence is in the sequence of replies in this thread.  You are free to reread them, in sequence, rather than enirely reposted.

To call it a lie when you admit you cannot prove it is a lie suggest knowledge of my intentions that you are not capable of possessing and is simply anecdotal speculation.  I am being overly reasonable here, and have kept sheathed the misericorde of reciprocation.

The specific instances of your stating falsehoods where specifically addressed in previous posts, (for instance, your claim that "And now, because you were proven wrong ..."-Quote from Abrupt on 19-01-2012 15:33:17 and "I clearly demonstrated and gave proof of where you were wrong."- Quote from Abrupt on 20-01-2012 06:23:00).  The 'proof' that these were intentionally untrue statements is that there is no accurate demonstration nor proof of evidence to support such claims, despite your unsubstantiated insistance to the contrary.  These are not "speculations" since a review of the posts in this thread do not reveal anything to support your claims other than the unsupported claims themselves.

[Abrupt]

What is the relevance of your fist statement?  I actually agree with you on this as should everyone, but I also know that it has no relevance to anything we discussed and you are posing your question as if it is some sort of argument I have suggested -- which I haven't. 

Quote from: Abrupt on 17-01-2012, 02:45:57:
"People will vote for qualities they agree with and this is not limited to a belief or disbelief in a deity.  To single out religion shows a prejudicial approach." 

You seem stuck on this 'specific religion' bit and I don't understand why you are.  I never indicated a specific religion either -- and even if I did I had, there is no relevance.


Neither of us mentioned any particular religion however, the point was that you attempted to conflate an unspecified "god" with an unspecified "religion" by accusing the OP of "singling out religion", (albeit as religion in general, rather than in particular). 

I am well aware that there are 'religions' that don't even have a god (and I consider the quasi-atheist to be a practitioner of a religion also).

Out of curiousity, which "religions" don't have a "god" and what's a "quasi-atheist'?

I would cite your argument as anecdotal through implication though as it is undocumented and entirely hearsay on your behalf. 

My argument is documented within this thread and isn't "anecdotal through implication" merely because you assert it is, (without evidence).

Considering that documentation proves me innocent of your accusation it seems to all fall in my favor.

Again, that's not what the posted exchanges in this thread indicate.  Your accusation that I first brought up "religion" is false as the sequence of posts shows:
Quote from: Abrupt on 17-01-2012, 02:45:57:
"People will vote for qualities they agree with and this is not limited to a belief or disbelief in a deity.  To single out religion shows a prejudicial approach."

After that post of yours came my responses regarding religion, (to "Flackle" and then you).

 

Something can be wrong or untrue and not be a 'lie'.  A lie suggest knowing they are wrong or untrue. 

That's nominally correct in that you could have been unintentionally "wrong" however, your phrasing strongly suggested that you lied with intent that you weren't wrong, (and you were), so the designation of lying was accurately applied.

Now recall you accused me of attempting to shift the debate from god to religion and I have given documentation of you as being the first of us to expand upon the effects of religions in voting. 

This is incorrect; the sequence of replies in this thread shows that isn't true. It is your insistance to the contrary, (despite the documented sequence of posted replies), which elicits a conclusion of lying.

You admit there is no verifiable proof that I lied ...

That's not what I stated; there's a difference between identifying verifiable lies and agreeing not to consider unverifiable speculations as outright lies.

... and I claim that I have cited proof that I told the truth. 

Your claim is false because it omits the actual sequence of posted replies which contradict your claim.

If you wish to present evidence that what I cited is not true, or show a relation of it being misrepresented, then you are free to. 

The evidence is in the sequence of replies in this thread.  You are free to reread them, in sequence, rather than enirely reposted.

To call it a lie when you admit you cannot prove it is a lie suggest knowledge of my intentions that you are not capable of possessing and is simply anecdotal speculation.  I am being overly reasonable here, and have kept sheathed the misericorde of reciprocation.

The specific instances of your stating falsehoods where specifically addressed in previous posts, (for instance, your claim that "And now, because you were proven wrong ..."-Quote from Abrupt on 19-01-2012 15:33:17 and "I clearly demonstrated and gave proof of where you were wrong."- Quote from Abrupt on 20-01-2012 06:23:00).  The 'proof' that these were intentionally untrue statements is that there is no accurate demonstration nor proof of evidence to support such claims, despite your unsubstantiated insistance to the contrary.  These are not "speculations" since a review of the posts in this thread do not reveal anything to support your claims other than the unsupported claims themselves.

Would you care to take a closer look at the order of replies?:

God doesn't belong to a political party, and no party can claim any special appreciation from Him.

I am guessing you are just being silly with your question and maybe trying to get some sort of argument going or someone to say something you can label as crazy.  You seriously cannot believe the suggestion you are making here can you?

However, "Flackle" is correct in that a belief or, disbelief in various deities may have an effect on voting decisions.  That's where fundamentalism looses the 'fun' part.

People will vote for qualities they agree with and this is not limited to a belief or disbelief in a deity.  To single out religion shows a prejudicial approach.  That is much like asking ones race or gender, or the home state or height or weight of the candidate will factor in.  It is virtually impossible to eliminate all such conditionals from a choice (even if one submitted only text of the candidates without their names or gender or physical appearances or speech inflections or other things).

Some of the religions without gods are: Church of Satan, Buddhism (although some forms of Buddhism have god's in them they are not worshiped, others don't even consider them as gods), Confucianism (religion because it denotes a purpose for life), Taoism, Druze (believes in a universal intellect so iffy on if that qualifies as a god), Unitarian Universalism, and even more.

The quasi atheist is the 'atheist' that tries to follow a moral code and denies themselves the truth of what their belief reveals.  They are very similar to the 'Christians' that go to church but don't follow the belief outside of church.

[falcon9]

Would you care to take a closer look at the order of replies?

I already had and the sequence of the replies shows that order as "Flackle" to "Aprupt", "falcon9" to "Flackle", "Abrupt" to "falcon9", (and no posts where I _initiated_ conflating "god" with "religion").

Some of the religions without gods are: Church of Satan ...

While there are some members of the CoS who do not hold "satan" as a deity, there are others who do, (and still others who'd go on to form the Temple of Set - which Does hold Set as the deital principle of darkness).

Buddhism (although some forms of Buddhism have god's in them they are not worshiped, others don't even consider them as gods)

For the ones who do not consider Buddhism as a religion because they don't worship "gods", it's a philosophy.

Confucianism (religion because it denotes a purpose for life)

That too would be a philosophy, since there no Confusianist "god".

Taoism, Druze (believes in a universal intellect so iffy on if that qualifies as a god), Unitarian Universalism, and even more.

Unless their philosophy refers to some 'supernatural source', it isn't a religion per se.

The quasi atheist is the 'atheist' that tries to follow a moral code and denies themselves the truth of what their belief reveals. 

I suppose that if you want to apply "quasi" to "atheist" and assign your own meaning, you can.  However, I dispute your inherently biased definition on the grounds that you are unaware of whatever "moral code"(s) an atheist may follow unless that atheist specifies such a code.  Further, atheism is not a "belief", (under the parameters defining a belief as an unsupported claim/position which lacks evidence).

They are very similar to the 'Christians' that go to church but don't follow the belief outside of church.

The parallel is invalid; those 'quasi-xtians' are at least minimally-aware of many aspects of the religious belief system they're nominally following whereas an atheist would, (by definition), reject such religious beliefs and either follow a personal "code" or, something else which other atheists don't necessarily adhere to.  This is due to atheism _not_ being a religious belief with a set of standard tenets.

[Falconer02]

[Abrupt]

Would you care to take a closer look at the order of replies?

I already had and the sequence of the replies shows that order as "Flackle" to "Aprupt", "falcon9" to "Flackle", "Abrupt" to "falcon9", (and no posts where I _initiated_ conflating "god" with "religion").

Let us see what you just said in your post prior:

Again, that's not what the posted exchanges in this thread indicate.  Your accusation that I first brought up "religion" is false as the sequence of posts shows:

Quote from: Abrupt on 17-01-2012, 02:45:57:
"People will vote for qualities they agree with and this is not limited to a belief or disbelief in a deity.  To single out religion shows a prejudicial approach."

After that post of yours came my responses regarding religion, (to "Flackle" and then you).

and what did I just show you:

God doesn't belong to a political party, and no party can claim any special appreciation from Him.

I am guessing you are just being silly with your question and maybe trying to get some sort of argument going or someone to say something you can label as crazy.  You seriously cannot believe the suggestion you are making here can you?

However, "Flackle" is correct in that a belief or, disbelief in various deities may have an effect on voting decisions.  That's where fundamentalism looses the 'fun' part.

People will vote for qualities they agree with and this is not limited to a belief or disbelief in a deity.  To single out religion shows a prejudicial approach.  That is much like asking ones race or gender, or the home state or height or weight of the candidate will factor in.  It is virtually impossible to eliminate all such conditionals from a choice (even if one submitted only text of the candidates without their names or gender or physical appearances or speech inflections or other things).

and what did you say earlier:

However, "Flackle" is correct in that a belief or, disbelief in various deities may have an effect on voting decisions.  That's where fundamentalism looses the 'fun' part.

Now do you wish to propose that "a belief or, disbelief in various deities" does not constitute a reference to religion? 

My comment related to religion and not to whether "god will play a role" in voting.  Once again, the two terms are not conflated by me, (that was you, as the message IDs show).

Now spin that.

Buddhism (although some forms of Buddhism have god's in them they are not worshiped, others don't even consider them as gods)

For the ones who do not consider Buddhism as a religion because they don't worship "gods", it's a philosophy.

Confucianism (religion because it denotes a purpose for life)

That too would be a philosophy, since there no Confusianist "god".

Taoism, Druze (believes in a universal intellect so iffy on if that qualifies as a god), Unitarian Universalism, and even more.

Unless their philosophy refers to some 'supernatural source', it isn't a religion per se.

A religion does not have as a requirement a belief in a god, although theologians have argued throughout history just what the definition of religion is.  I think the best example is by Patrick H. McNamara who said "Try to define religion and you invite an argument."

[falcon9]

A religion does not have as a requirement a belief in a god, although theologians have argued throughout history just what the definition of religion is.  I think the best example is by Patrick H. McNamara who said "Try to define religion and you invite an argument."

That's why I didn't conflate "god" and "religion".  Although holding a 'religious belief' without such a belief pertaining to a specific deity, ("god", "goddess", "daemon", "force", etc.), would be technically possible.  A religious belief is that which has no evidentiary basis and relies upon unsupported faith.  Faith is holding to a belief when there is no supportive evidence, (forlorn hope).

[falcon9]

Amazingly apropos.  How do you find these?

[ladavia89]

I don't agree with any of the Republicans social views so I wouldn't be voting for them regardless of my religious beliefs

I will never understand wanting to ban any form of contraceptives, abortions and cut people off from welfare. People obviously aren't going to stop having sex so more people are just going to end up with more children than they can afford but wouldn't be able to get governmental assistance.  That sounds like a wonderful plan to me

I likewise cannot vote Democratic as I cannot understand why I have to be forced into slavery to pay for contraceptives for someone who is active enough to repeatedly perform the act of propagation yet too lazy to work.  I likewise can't vote Democratic because they will force me to be complicate with infanticide.  I also cannot vote Democratic because they want people to forgo their basic responsibilities for their actions of 'acquiring' things they cannot afford and enslaving those of us that do work so that we instead  have to pay for their irresponsible behavior.  What the hell is next for the democrats?  Have the innocent go to jail and do the time for the guilty?

I used your same method of reasoning to put forth an opposite view, ladavia.  The only difference is that mine is actually quite a bit more accurate to the truth than yours is (I am not saying it is entirely accurate, only more accurate).

I'm failing to seeing how stating that banning contraception and abortions while limiting governmental assistance isn't the best isn't an accurate statement. It's accurate to say that no contraception means more unplanned pregnancies. It's accurate to say that banning abortions would lead to more unwanted children and/or harm done to mothers who will terminate the pregnancy in unsafe ways. It's also accurate to say that without governmental assistance more people would lack a minimal quality of life because they wouldn't have food to eat, a safe place to sleep at night or clothing to wear. What part of that is leaning towards towards inaccuracy to the truth?

I simply said I wouldn't any of the Republican candidates because I don't agree with their social views. That's not to say that I agree with the democratize views either. I don't think that the government should dictate what I choose to do with my body.If I want to have sex without getting pregnant than I have the right to use contraceptives. If I want to choose to abort the fetus growing in my body then that should be my choice. It should also be my right to get an abortion in a regulated environment instead of through unsafe methods. I think it should a person's choice not to bring children in the world that aren't wanted and wouldn't have a good quality life because  they can't or won't be adequately taken care of. No woman should be forced to take care of children that she doesn't want just like you shouldn't be forced to pay for it. I'm sorry that I actually think that defenseless  children shouldn't be force to go without basic needs like shelter and food because people like you feel like it's not your responsibility.I surely hope you would feel the same way if you lost your job and didn't have the means to provide those basic needs for your family.

Please remember that your reality is not that of those around you. You can't accurately judge a person until you have been in their situation.