Drastic Times Call for Drastic Measures
If you had asked me this question 8 years ago I would have emphatically said “NO” . I’d quote the Constitution that states that no religious test shall be imposed on any public official, and I’d slide in an attack on the anti-atheist prejudices that link morality to religion by quoting statistics on the lack of Atheists in prison and our lowest-of-all divorce rates.
However, recent politicians have changed my mind, and I now believe that faith needs to be addressed head-on.
President Bush is not just a religious man, he’s a true believer who thinks God wanted him to be president, and that has given him the most closed-to-the-public administration in years. His faith in an uber-power has brought us brazenly into war (against the UN’s demands) and emptied our surplus by funneling billions of dollars into illegal religion schemes without oversight under the guise of “Faith Based Initiatives”. There is no doubt that President Bush’s dedication to his god (above his dedication to his country) has hurt this country in terrible long-lasting ways (stem cell research, sex ed, the Supreme Court’s tilt). President Bush’s religion diminished our freedom and our wallets, and we now need to face the fact that religion can and will get in the way of good government.
Bush isn’t alone. Mitt Romney ran for President. As a Mormon, Mr. Romney wears underwear that he literally thinks has magic powers to protect him from evil. This, quite simply, is stupid. And don’t forget James Watt, President Reagan's first Secretary of the Interior, who told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
While it may not be wrong to address the religion of a candidate, this is simply presuming that those of any faith other than atheism are far more incompetent than those of a faith in no god. It seems unfair to deny someone position in office due to their personal beliefs, though it is my personal belief there should be a seperation of Church and State.
I would like to remind you that atheism is not a faith. It is the absence of faith. It's a clever little word trick that non-atheists like to use to drag atheism into a category in which it clearly does not belong. Don't fall for it.
I would like to remind you that I place just as much faith in my beliefs about the existence of a God as does any other person who believes in Him. Atheists are not devoid of faith, and it is silly to think we are incapable of having it.
There is, after all, no evidence to prove either side right or wrong.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but I would like to mention that it's not the atheists job to prove that god does not exist. As the phrase goes "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." So far there is no evidence whatsoever of some super being that is invisible to us. An extraordinary claim indeed.
First, American Atheists aren't very pragmatic. There simply are not enough candidates willing to run openly as an atheist. This could change if the irrational bias against atheists in officer went away, but until then, we have to vote based on the candidates available. I see strongly held religious beliefs as a liability, but it is only one aspect. I look toward policy and positions first and then when I am satisfied, I will vote for the least religious candidate. However, usually there are not that many choices.
I am actually surprised that Christians were as open to Romney as they were. The church I was raised in taught us that Mormonism is a cult and they held crazy beliefs that they hid so that people would be more open to joining the church. I completely believe that, however, I also now believe that all religion is irrational the only difference is that Mormonism is relatively new for a religion and so we have excellent history regarding its founding. If Christianity weren’t engrained in our culture and we had the same detail about Abraham, Moses, Jesus, etc. We would probably look at Christianity the same way.
All the science on this that I have read suggests that humans are wired to believe in irrational things. The theory is that questioning authority wasn't very helpful in establishing tribes and therefore humans selected toward people believing what they were told. The strength of community was stronger than the negative from the irrational beliefs. Very smart people are capable of holding very irrational beliefs. Most people don’t even know that they hold irrational beliefs because they have been engrained in them over time or by authority and therefore they never explore them. Losing your faith and realizing that your family has fed you a line of crap that is the same that was fed to them is painful. It is easier to fight the people who disagree than to explore their arguments. I know this from personal experience. How many creationists actually read any information on evolution that didn’t come from a pro-creation source?
Additionally, religious people love to take offense when someone tells them that they are wrong. Well get used to it. I take offense when anyone tells me that I am going to Hell, but that doesn’t seem to stop people from proselytizing. Your beliefs are by definition irrational. They are based on faith not fact. So if you push your faith on me, be prepared for me to tell you what I think about your faith. Keep it to yourself, and we should get along.
American Atheists seems to suggest that because they find aspects of other people's faiths "absurd" or "stupid" means that a person who believes in them should be automatically rejected from office. I would be willing to bet that many of those at American Atheists believe in Global Warming, which one could definitely argue is a religion with many things that non-believers scoff at, no matter how much they try to pass it off as science. Furthermore, the vast majority of Americans believe in a Supreme Deity of some kind, as have the vast majority of people since the dawn of civilization. Furthermore, science often supports the existence of such a deity. Denying such an existence could be called "stupid." Attacking someone for their religious beliefs, no matter how foreign they may seem, is offensive and uncalled for. The truth is, I don't care if Mitt Romney wears aluminum foil on his head to stop the aliens from stealing his brains, if he is the best candidate for the job, he has my vote. Now, of course, if he wants to set up some multi-billion dollar plan to defend the Earth from an alien invasion, he's not the best candidate for the job, but as long as the president's personal religion stays relatively personal, and policy isn't enacted for purely religious religions, the candidate's religion should not be a factor.
"Furthermore, science often supports the existence of such a deity."
Fascinating. I would be interested in reading any papers or articles you have access to that confirm this. I doubt you can name even one credible source. Global warming, on the other hand, is simply a graph of data over time showing that the Earths temperature--on average--is indeed going up. Actual global warming is not a belief system.
There are many scientists who are proponents of Intelligent Design. Just as there are many proponents of Global Warming. And if you are referring to Al Gore's chart, you fail to realize that the chart doesn't actually show increased temperatures. It shows the normal raising and lowering of temperatures. What it also shows, and this is the case for Global Warming, is that there appears to be a correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide levels. In the film, he makes the very dramatic show of rising carbon dioxide, and how the world will be reduced to ashes in a year or two. What he doesn't tell you is that if you look very closely at the graph, you will see that the changes in temperature actually preceed the carbon dioxide changes. What does this mean, you ask? It means that the temperature changes caused the carbon dioxide, not vice versa. As temperatures rose, it allowed for increased plant and animal life, which led to increased carbon dioxide levels. As they fell, much of that life perished in the Ice Ages, and carbon dioxide levels fell. Alarmist Enviornmentalism is most certainly a religion , and a dangerous one. One that would have us uproot our economy based on unfounded fears of global warming , or thirty years ago, global cooling.
"In the film, he makes the very dramatic show of rising carbon dioxide , and how the world will be reduced to ashes in a year or two. "
Al Gore never claimed this.
The definition of religion is the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power. Even if someone zealously pursues environmental issues that is not religion. Religious people can't defend their views and are trying to bring down science by claiming it is just another religion. This is flat out wrong. If people want to believe wacky things that is their business, but when they try to equate science with their wackiness then it is my business to point out the fallacy of that.
P.S. In your next post, can you please tell me I'm part of the "vast Right-Wing conspiracy," or compare me to a Holocaust denier? It would make my day.
Couldn't find the scene from the movie where he goes up on the lift that I was talking about, but I found this great clip instead. Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1_eaZ74Z_A&feature=PlayList&p=AB8D69F1FF1797C6&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=2
Yes, Al Gore really did all of the things I described. Those might not have been his exact words, and I may have exaggerated his timeline a bit, but I watched the movie. He did that. I hath seen it with mine eyes and heard it with mine ears. I don't make shit up. Unlike Al Gore, who definitely made shit up. Even scientists who still believe in Global Warming say that Al Gore was just making shit up!
Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism, among others, are all religions that do not believe in or worship a superhuman controlling power. Your definition is bunk. Your attack on religious people is ad hominem, and even as logical fallacies go, it is a bit on the weak side, because I'm not religious. And nobody is trying to bring down science . We're just pointing out that Global Warming and enviornmental alarmism isn't science, no matter how many times you say it is. It is a religion that some scientists happen to be members of, but that many are not.
I agree with richardsonkr that the above comment by American Atheists was flat out offensive. I don't think that a candidate's religion should directly factor into one's decision to vote for them or not. In some rare cases, the candidate's religions beliefs may be the biggest factor in their push for an undesirable policy or initiative, but the religion cannot be the blame. Many courses of actions can be argued for by the same religion depending on one's interpretation of historical texts and accounts, there are very few things in every religion that are presented as "hard facts." A candidates policies and views should be the leader convincer in one's decision whether or not to vote for them, not the religion, or party for that matter, that may have influenced them.
I take issue with your mild description of President Bush's religious description: "President Bush is not just a religious man, he’s a true believer who thinks God wanted him to be president." I say, if that is what he thinks, then he is a religious fanatic and obviously neither a clear nor logical thinker if he thinks that God wants him out of all others, to be President. So yes, that unfortunately, is probably the underlying reason for the sorry state of our union!
When church and state were truly considered separate, the faith of a politician wasn't considered very important. Now, when it is used as a weapon to rally or to malign, it is important. What a tragedy. It only takes a short review of history to see that a single religion and government in bed together is lethal for democracy, science and freedom of thought. Our founding fathers recognized that. Why, in heaven's name, can't we??????
When, exactly, were church and state truly considered separate? Certainly not at the founding of this country! Indeed, the First Amendment applied ONLY to Congress, NOT to the states. Many states had official churches for decades after the Constitution was ratified.
The only separation of church and state contemplated by the founders and the Constitution was the prohibition against state interference in religious matters. As much as revisionists may wish otherwise, this country had a distinctly Christian founding and most of the founders recognized that our form of government depended on the morality that Christianity engendered.
Sadly we've come a long way since then. The many crises we face today are the direct result of the loss of religious faith and the accompanying loss of morality. People simply do not feel any remore over much of anything today and that has lead directly to the conditions we face today.
I whole-heartedly agree with you. People have lost sight of where we come from--and are solely focused on placing blame for ills that have been in the making for years. It has always fascinated me how beligerent and ugly folks get when it comes to Christianity, and the attacks are never legitimally against the morality and lifestyle Christianity teaches/instructs. Instead, issues are personalized (see comment on Bush below) and then generalized to the whole.
As a Christian, I cannot see how one's faith could not effect political, social, and economic views and decisions.
I think society has turned a blind eye toward the Founding Fathers--mostly because the truth goes against the current trends. We have reaped all these years what our founding sowed. We are short-sighted, selfish, and greedy; not willing to accept "reality" as it is, but distort and misconstrue it to fit our mold.