Religious People with (present day) Political Power

[Falconer02]

Before I begin, let me just say that this thread isn't necessarily to go on a tirade against people who are religious. This is primarily to discuss beliefs coupled into politics and how they can be beneficial and dangerous. The reason for this thread came from me watching a bit of the republican candidates speaking about their faiths and (to me) how goofy it sounded coupled with an interview with Penn Jilette on youtube. If these people want political power yet willingly preach their beliefs which encompass things like ghosts, afterlives, magic, but most importantly the end of the world, should they have political power? For instance, do you believe Mitt Romney is well-equipped to deal with this country when he devoutly believes that a 19th century conman saw angels and formed the 'correct' religion? Do you believe Rick Santorum should have control over any form of scientific education considering he's a devout creationist and has been pushing for Intelligent Design for years?

I know some will say that it's not these types of things that one should be worried about as their are many more technical aspects to these politician's merit (for instance Mitt Romney being a smart businessman). To that I say- how can you trust someone whose fundamental grasp on reality is so skewed? How can you trust someone who goes against American principles and willingly tries to blur the line between church and state? Granted people have every right to believe what they want to believe, when you boast and throw these types of things on the table (as these candidates have), how can these be positive things when viewed rationally- something that should be encouraged during an election?

This goes well beyond just the current candidates though as it's constantly being brought up in politics in the past (Bush telling people that god wanted him to go to war, the IL governor who quoted the bible when the topic of global warming was brought up, Sarah Palin and her infinite religious spurts, etc. etc.). What do you think? Is this just a dirty tactic to sway voters with the most-popular religion in this country (as I believe Obama did) or do you think these types of people are actually this delusional? Or is this topic have no weight and really does not even matter?

Personally I wish people would ask these politicians basic religious conundrums rather than blunt questions about their faith. And I'd wish for them to just say "Yeah, my religion is psychotically crazy at times, but I'm not." Unfortunately this is rarely the case.

[falcon9]

Before I begin, let me just say that this thread isn't necessarily to go on a tirade against people who are religious. This is primarily to discuss beliefs coupled into politics and how they can be beneficial and dangerous.

The danger of insinuating dubious religious beliefs into political decisions should be fairly apparent.  From influencing domestic secular laws to potentially announcing that 'god told him to nuke the infidels' one morning, a religious agenda in a politician isn't worth the risks.

The reason for this thread came from me watching a bit of the republican candidates speaking about their faiths and (to me) how goofy it sounded. If these people want political power yet willingly preach their beliefs which encompass things like ghosts, afterlives, magic, but most importantly the end of the world, should they have political power? For instance, do you believe Mitt Romney is well-equipped to deal with this country when he devoutly believes that a 19th century conman saw angels and formed the 'correct' religion?

It can be extrapolated that at least some religious adherents will attempt to claim that a politician's religious beliefs somehow do not skew their decision process, (which either means that such beliefs are merely a 'stance' taken to glean votes or, that such beliefs will influence their decisions).

Do you believe Rick Santorum should have control over any form of scientific education considering he's a devout creationist and has been pushing for Intelligent Design for years?

No, because such unsupported opinions rely entirely upon faith, (rather than reason), are are indicative of very selective reasoning ability.

I know some will say that it's not these types of things that one should be worried about as their are many more technical aspects to these politicals' merit (for instance Mitt Romney being a smart businessman). To that I say- how can you trust someone whose fundamental grasp on reality is so skewed? How can you trust someone who goes against American principles and willingly tries to blur the line between church and state? Granted people have every right to believe what they want to believe, when you boast and throw these types of things on the table (as these candidates have), how can these be positive things when viewed rationally?

That line is blurred in any devout religious adherent, (constituents can never be completely assured that a politician's irrational religious beliefs aren't influencing their policies and decisions).  When such religious views are tossed out in public by those politicians who do so, there is little doubt that they are implicitly announcing that those views will color their politics.

This goes well beyond just the current candidates though as it's constantly being brought up in politics in the past (Bush telling people that god wanted him to go to war, the IL governor who quoted the bible when the topic of global warming was brought up, Sarah Palin and her infinite religious spurts, etc. etc.). What do you think? Is this just a dirty tactic to sway voters with the most-popular religion in this country or do you think these types of people are actually this delusional? Or is this topic have no weight and really does not even matter?

The pragmatic response would be a combination of a cynical vote-getting stance and underlying delusional thinking on the part of religious politicians.  If this is doubted, imagine a self-declared satanist or wiccan, (which are a federally recognised), running for the presidency; forget popular vote, (remember the electoral college), and consider that for a moment.  Would you estimate that xtian voters would raise a stink about such candidates because of their 'religious' views?

[teflonfanatic]

I agree with the separation of church and state thing, and why does intelligent design make him unequipped to teach science?

[falcon9]

why does intelligent design make him unequipped to teach science?

Because there is no supporting evidence for that theory and due to the implicit assumption of an 'intelligent designer', (for which there is also no validly-attributible evidence).

[Joeyramone]

You are assuming any given religious politician puts his or her religious beliefs above the Constitution.  I would argue the cult/church of the leftist progressive is far more dangerous and ignorant than a devoutly religious politician who upholds and defends the US Constitution first and foremost.

[falcon9]

You are assuming any given religious politician puts his or her religious beliefs above the Constitution.

Not any given one; just a few would were they not constrained by the Constitution, (and some of those would give circumventing it a go if they believed they could get away with it). 

I would argue the cult/church of the leftist progressive is far more dangerous and ignorant than a devoutly religious politician who upholds and defends the US Constitution first and foremost.

I disagree.  A fundamentalist theocracy would be far worse than some vague "leftist progressive" rhetoric.

[Joeyramone]

Leftist Progressivism is what we have now... not working out too well.

I challenge you to find any candidate or politician who draws above 2% in any poll who advocates a theocratic state.

I will show you dozens who advocate a 'workers paradise'

[Joeyramone]

I agree with the separation of church and state thing, and why does intelligent design make him unequipped to teach science?

The is no such thing as the separation of church and state.  The real language is that government shall not establish a state sponsored religion... a big difference.

[falcon9]

Leftist Progressivism is what we have now... not working out too well.

No, it's not however, neither was right-wing republicanism.  A fundamentalist theocracy would be somewhat worse.

I challenge you to find any candidate or politician who draws above 2% in any poll who advocates a theocratic state.

Non sequitor; there are numerous politicians who advocate xtian religious stances in their policy proposals.  This represents a tendency toward a fundamentalist theocracy.

 

[falcon9]

The real language is that government shall not establish a state sponsored religion... big difference.

It's not that much of a difference if the de facto "state sponsored religion" is xtianity, (given the pronounced religious stances of several politicians who comprise state representation).

[teflonfanatic]

why does intelligent design make him unequipped to teach science?

Because there is no supporting evidence for that theory and due to the implicit assumption of an 'intelligent designer', (for which there is also no validly-attributible evidence).

Agreed it's an assumption based on how complex design is in material things and then compares it to the complexity of something else.  However adaption is also an assumption based on traits that developed over a long period of time.

[falcon9]

why does intelligent design make him unequipped to teach science?

Because there is no supporting evidence for that theory and due to the implicit assumption of an 'intelligent designer', (for which there is also no validly-attributible evidence).

Agreed it's an assumption based on how complex design is in material things and then compares it to the complexity of something else.  However adaption is also an assumption based on traits that developed over a long period of time.

Adaptations aren't assumptive when there's evidence supporting organisms adapting to their environment over a period of time.

[Abrupt]

Your question, Falconer02, seems pretty disingenuous to me.  I would much prefer you to make whatever statement it is you are wishing to make in your initial post, instead of presenting it to be something other than what it is (which is exactly what you claim it isn't necessarily to be).  If you cannot recognize the bias and dishonesty in your own writings, then you are allowing your contempt to blind you as much as you claim those of faith to be blinded by their beliefs.  You display all of the worst characteristics you attribute to faith and none of the distinguishing qualities -- such is the comical shame of the self-perceived smiling face that the frowning anti-faithful view in their mirrors as they cast their self-judgmental accusations on any they perceive to possess the quality of religion.  You are implying a weakness (more like an insanity) in others that you are incapable of recognizing in yourself, and I would find the whole event comical if I didn't recognize the hate behind it all.

Why don't you start with something simpler.  Loose your venom on the man who trusts his wife, or the woman her husband.  Criticize the foolishness of any human that believes at all even a single word of any other human.  We are all well aware of the weakness of humanity and have it displayed for us every single day, and repeatedly.  We thrive on this weakness as we somehow use it to mute the same flaws we see in ourselves and especially as a justifications for the base characteristics we conceal in our own dark corners.  Such a shame to the one who fishes another man's waters and insults the same fish he is after as the thrash about in the others net.  Surely you must recognize some of this -- you must have a hint of this in those places you avoid lingering long enough to look around.

[falcon9]

Your question, Falconer02, seems pretty disingenuous to me. 

Quote from: Falconer02 on 25-03-2012, 17:05:40
"Before I begin, let me just say that this thread isn't necessarily to go on a tirade against people who are religious. This is primarily to discuss beliefs coupled into politics and how they can be beneficial and dangerous."

His first question was, "Do you believe Rick Santorum should have control over any form of scientific education considering he's a devout creationist and has been pushing for Intelligent Design for years?"--Falconer02 on 25-03-2012, 17:05:40

From the wording, it seems to me that the question was inquiring about any possible effects, ('positive' or 'negative'), that candidate's religious beliefs would have over political policies.  It cannot be accurately deemed as inherently "disingenuous" since some could be expected to believe such a stance is either "beneficial" _or_ "dangerous", (although Falconer02 did write "and" between those words, subtely implying the bias you're suggesting).

The bottomline is that such religious beliefs will either have some or no impact on a candidate's political agendas and the question was presumably posed to determine which any respondants perceive the case to be. Your response pre-emptively jumped ahead to the counter-attack prior to any direct attack on such religious beliefs in this context.  While you can infer a previous stance applies to the question posed, so too can others infer your previous religious stance guided your reply.  In that regard, it is possible that a candidate's previous/current religious stance may well affect their political agendas.

[Abrupt]

Your question, Falconer02, seems pretty disingenuous to me. 

Quote from: Falconer02 on 25-03-2012, 17:05:40
"Before I begin, let me just say that this thread isn't necessarily to go on a tirade against people who are religious. This is primarily to discuss beliefs coupled into politics and how they can be beneficial and dangerous."

His first question was, "Do you believe Rick Santorum should have control over any form of scientific education considering he's a devout creationist and has been pushing for Intelligent Design for years?"--Falconer02 on 25-03-2012, 17:05:40

From the wording, it seems to me that the question was inquiring about any possible effects, ('positive' or 'negative'), that candidate's religious beliefs would have over political policies.  It cannot be accurately deemed as inherently "disingenuous" since some could be expected to believe such a stance is either "beneficial" _or_ "dangerous", (although Falconer02 did write "and" between those words, subtely implying the bias you're suggesting).

The bottomline is that such religious beliefs will either have some or no impact on a candidate's political agendas and the question was presumably posed to determine which any respondants perceive the case to be. Your response pre-emptively jumped ahead to the counter-attack prior to any direct attack on such religious beliefs in this context.  While you can infer a previous stance applies to the question posed, so too can others infer your previous religious stance guided your reply.  In that regard, it is possible that a candidate's previous/current religious stance may well affect their political agendas.

It is presented in an insulting manner with the appearance of honest debate.  How can it be anything but disingenuous to the given query?  Had he omitted the insulting and belittling bias it would qualify, but including them -- while waiving the flag of reasonable debate -- nullifies any such considerations.