US President

Tim Robbins

Religion is never far away from US politics. Who would you like to see as next US President?

Dades

Romney

I voted Clinton (in the poll!), though frankly I'm not pushed. A politician is a politician.

Any of the genuine contenders (i.e. not Romney or Huckabee) would be an improvement on the present incumbent.

redfacedbear

Huckabee and Romney would have to be out immediately on religious grounds.

I suspect that Clinton's religious tendencies are merely a flag of convenience as an Atheist/nonreligious person would never get anywhere near the White House.

I've no idea about Obama or McCain on the religion front. I've seen Obama courting the religous vote before the Sth Carolina primary - again is it a matter of necessity or through conviction?

McCain is perceived as too liberal by a lot of Republican's, I assume that part of that animosity could relate to his religious views. If that's the case he'd get my number 2 after Clinton - if I was basing my preferences solely on their religious outlook and by making some large presumptions

Tim Robbins

Clinton

redfacedbear wrote: »

McCain is perceived as too liberal by a lot of Republican's, I assume that part of that animosity could relate to his religious views. If that's the case he'd get my number 2 after Clinton - if I was basing my preferences solely on their religious outlook and by making some large presumptions

There's a clip of McCain on youtube being asked his view on Iran as being part of the Axil of Evil. He replies referencing the Beach Boy songs "Bo bo bo bomb Bomb Bomg Iran".

You can also see sticking his head in to a conference about the second coming. He is also likely to make one of the other nuts his vice President.

Dades

Romney

Tim Robbins wrote: »

He is also likely to make one of the other nuts his vice President.

That's a good point there Tim.

PDN

Clinton

A personal view from a theist who is fascinated by the process of the American political system.

As always the Democrats are courting the religious vote much more fervently than any of the Republicans. Every Monday you can pick up a newspaper and see photos of Hillary Clinton & Obama attending black church services from the day before. However, if any of the Republicans appear at a Church event you will hear loud squeals from our media about the dreaded influence of the 'Christian Right' (the 21st century equivalent of the bogeyman).

I will heartily admit to my bias in that I detest the idea of Hillary Clinton as President. Her strident support of increased access to abortion can only mean more dead babies.

John McCain is an interesting character. Right wing Republicans hate him because he is liberal on issues such as immigration and increased welfare spending (issues with which I agree with him). He is also anti-abortion. His sense of humour appeals to me as well. He commented on Clinton's participation in the anniversary of Woodstock by referring to his stay as a POW in the Hanoi Hilton: "I'm sure it was a great pharmaceutical event, but I was a bit tied up at the time." However, McCain's belligerent attitudes towards Iraq and Iran would make more wars an increased possibility, which can also only mean more dead babies. If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination then McCain would be the only Republican who could defeat her in November - so in that case he would be the lesser of two evils.

Mitt Romney is a smarmy career politician whose vast personal wealth appears to blind many Republicans to the fact that he would be utterly unelectable and would lose by a mile in November against Clinton and Obama. He probably appeals to those Republicans who would value a spell in opposition for 4 or 8 years while they take their party to a much more right-wing position. His religion is also a liability. I doubt if Americans are ready for a Mormon in the White House.

Mike Huckabee seems a very likeable kind of guy (but then again, so did Tony Blair). His Christian faith appears to be genuine - not like Bush - and you have to admire a guy who obviously believes all the Chuck Norris emails sufficiently to seek Chuck's endorsement. However, while Chuck Norris might be able to do everything else, I don't believe he is able to persuade a majority of Americans to vote for a Baptist pastor. Therefore, as with Romney, Huckabee would lose in November against either Obama or Clinton. I think a candidate who pays more than lip service to their Christian faith is as unelectable as an atheist. Americans want a President who, like Bush or Clinton, will talk Christian talk but be prepared to act in unChristian ways (eg invading other countries or rogering White House interns).

Obama, for me, would be the ideal victor in this very interesting campaign. A black President would be a hugely symbolic repudiation of the past slavery and segregation. Obama has lived in a Muslim country for 5 years (as a boy in Indonesia) and has a Kenyan father - two qualities that would hopefully help better policies in regard to the Middle east and towards poverty and AIDS in Africa. His religion is unimportant to me (he belongs to the Church of Christ, a liberal denomination with which I would disagree on just about everything except the existence of God). Obama, in his speeches, reminds me of John F. Kennedy. He may be a great actor - but I think he really does have vision and the ability to inspire and unite his nation. If he can use that ability to launch a great 'crusade' (sorry, can't think of a better word) in respect to climate change (as Kennedy did with reaching the moon) then his election could be crucial for all of us. I don't know if Obama can overcome Clinton for the democratic nomination - but if he does then his crossover appeal should easily ensure a win against any of the Republicans.

So, in terms of electabilty in November, I would tip Obama to beat anyone, and Clinton to beat Romney and Huckabee - but McCain to beat Clinton.

Tim Robbins

Clinton

PDN wrote: »

Mike Huckabee seems a very likeable kind of guy (but then again, so did Tony Blair). His Christian faith appears to be genuine - not like Bush - and you have to admire a guy who obviously believes all the Chuck Norris emails sufficiently to seek Chuck's endorsement. However, while Chuck Norris might be able to do everything else, I don't believe he is able to persuade a majority of Americans to vote for a Baptist pastor.

Huckabee can't accept evolution. I can't understand how someone can deal with complicated geopolitics, if they can't accept a simple theory backed by voluminous evidence and most Christian churches. It's very worrying and a reflection of poor education standards of the masses that he is even still in the race right now.

For too long some of the best Scientists in the world have been engaging in a needless debate with creationists. This silly creationism needs to wrapped up and kicked into the bin. It's not good for Science or Religion.

cavedave

Originally Posted by PDN
Her strident support of increased access to abortion can only mean more dead babies.

In spite of all the evidence? The research shows that increasing restriction on abortions do not reduce the amount of abortions.

http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9989951
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html

I support Ron Paul who is a pro-life Christian who put his name on a magazine with a lot of weirdos writing in it.

Dades

Romney

Lets not go off on a separate abortion tangent. Suffice to say PDN has been open with his reasoning.
Stick to politics!

I for one need to do some more reading today about the candidates.

cavedave

Lets not go off on a separate abortion tangent. Suffice to say PDN has been open with his reasoning.
Stick to politics!

Oh sorry it was not my intention to start an abortion debate. I was attempting to present evidence that a view held is not backed by research.
The question of whether abortion is moral is not a good one for this topic. The belief of "decreased restrictions on abortion mean more abortions" is a scientific question. As such once this belief is used as an argument for a candidate I believe evidence about this belief is germane.

redfacedbear

Dades wrote: »

I for one need to do some more reading today about the candidates.

Me too!

PDN

Clinton

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Huckabee can't accept evolution. I can't understand how someone can deal with complicated geopolitics, if they can't accept a simple theory backed by voluminous evidence and most Christian churches. It's very worrying and a reflection of poor education standards of the masses that he is even still in the race right now.

For too long some of the best Scientists in the world have been engaging in a needless debate with creationists. This silly creationism needs to wrapped up and kicked into the bin. It's not good for Science or Religion.

I don't see that Huckabee's personal views on how the world was formed millions of years ago should have any bearing on his fitness to fulfill the tasks of President. He has publicly stated that he supports the continued teaching of evolution in schools and does not support the teaching of creationism, so I fail to see that raising this issue is anything other than the kind of bigotry that opposed John F Kennedy on the grounds that he was a Catholic.

There are plenty of educated and intelligent creationists, so it would be entirely illogical to oppose a guy on the basis of his personal religious beliefs.

There seems to be a whiff of hypocrisy in some of the posts on this board on this subject. On the one hand posters are saying how horribly bigoted Americans are because it would be electoral suicide for a candidate to admit to being an atheist. On the other hand posters are horrified at the prospect of America electing someone such as Romney or Huckabee who have strong religious convictions.

To me it seems equally wrong to oppose a candidate on the grounds that they are an atheist, a Mormon or a Creationist. I find such bigotry profoundly depressing. If they can do the job well then why should their religion (or lack of it) be a factor?

Dades

Romney

PDN wrote: »

To me it seems equally wrong to oppose a candidate on the grounds that they are an atheist, a Mormon or a Creationist.

The presidency of the US is the most powerful office in the world. Hence the responsibilities go far beyond just domestic affairs. Nobody can deny that the environment is going to be a crucial issue from now on - so forgive me if I don't believe a key player in the future of our planet should be so openly dismissive of real science.

Tim Robbins

Clinton

PDN wrote: »

There are plenty of educated and intelligent creationists, so it would be entirely illogical to oppose a guy on the basis of his personal religious beliefs.

I disagree. They either understand Science and are exploiting those who don't or else they are Scientifically illiterate and most definetly not intelligent.

On the other hand posters are horrified at the prospect of America electing someone such as Romney or Huckabee who have strong religious convictions.

Nothing wrong with having strong religious convictions, however religious extremism is a no no. Bigotry is q misused word in your last post PDN.
I don't like Huckabee because I see his views as a threat to the common good not just because I don't like his views. Is someone a bigot because they would say no to an Islamic facist who blows up people with flying airplanes or suicide bombers?
Doubt it. So where do you draw the line and delineate when someone is a bigot or not. I say where there is a clear threat to the common good.

To me it seems equally wrong to oppose a candidate on the grounds that they are an atheist, a Mormon or a Creationist. I find such bigotry profoundly depressing. If they can do the job well then why should their religion (or lack of it) be a factor?

What a ridiculous argument. Creationism is widely accepted as being nothing more than a silly propaganda movement. This is the view of most Christian Churches, any reputable Scientist and the European Union.

http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?Link=/documents/workingdocs/doc07/edoc11297.htm

Would you have a problem with people opposing Huckabee if he said he didn't believe in gravity? Would you call these people bigots? Doubt it.

Tim Robbins

Clinton

Dades wrote: »

The presidency of the US is the most powerful office in the world. Hence the responsibilities go far beyond just domestic affairs. Nobody can deny that the environment is going to be a crucial issue from now on - so forgive me if I don't believe a key player in the future of our planet should be so openly dismissive of real science.

Not just the enviroment but a huge problem in Africa is rampant psuedo science claiming cures for AIDs, malaria etc. A lot of the time this is propagated by leading politicians. Again if the leader of the most powerful country in the world can't accept accepted Science, it hardly helps.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I don't see that Huckabee's personal views on how the world was formed millions of years ago should have any bearing on his fitness to fulfill the tasks of President.

The issue is whether the USA and the rest of the world is better off with a president who adopts a reality-based worldview, or a faith-based worldview.

GWB's worldview in which he conjured up WMD (and much else) on the basis of faith alone, has proved a lamentable and murderous disaster and it's a long way from "bigotry" to point this out.

PDN

Clinton

robindch wrote: »

The issue is whether the USA and the rest of the world is better off with a president who adopts a reality-based worldview, or a faith-based worldview.

GWB's worldview in which he conjured up WMD (and much else) on the basis of faith alone, has proved a lamentable and murderous disaster and it's a long way from "bigotry" to point this out.

I think you are letting your zealotry lead you up the garden path, Robin. It is very doubtful that Bush invaded Iraq on the basis of faith alone (certainly not in the religious sense) since the majority of his neocon advisors would not profess strong religious convictions.

You appear to be applying the following logic:
A politician acts on the basis of his beliefs.
We see his actions to have negative consequences.
Therefore we should avoid electing politicians with similar beliefs.

No doubt most posters here approve of this argument when it is applied to bush and his supposed Christian faith. However, what if we apply the same logic to Dutch politics?

Pym Fortuyn acted on the basis of his belief that homosexuality is an acceptable, even preferable, lifestyle. His actions were a xenophobic right wing immigration policy (due to his anger at islamic homphobia).
Most of us would see a xenophobic right wing immigration policy as an undesirable consequence.
Therefore we should avoid electing homosexuals as politicians?

Something wrong with your logic, I think.

PDN

Clinton

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I disagree. They either understand Science and are exploiting those who don't or else they are Scientifically illiterate and most definetly not intelligent.

Or they maybe hold a different view to yourself? Most of us are able to tolerate that without using it as an excuse to question other people's intelligence.

Nothing wrong with having strong religious convictions, however religious extremism is a no no. Bigotry is q misused word in your last post PDN.
I don't like Huckabee because I see his views as a threat to the common good not just because I don't like his views. Is someone a bigot because they would say no to an Islamic facist who blows up people with flying airplanes or suicide bombers?
Doubt it. So where do you draw the line and delineate when someone is a bigot or not. I say where there is a clear threat to the common good.

So you are drawing a comparison between Huckabee (a guy who holds a different opinion to yourself concerning the origin of human life millions of years ago, but has specifically stated he has no desire to force his opinion on others) and Islamists who believe they have a divine mandate to murder thousands of people. Such a comparison does your argument no favours. I personally think your desire to see those who disagree with you excluded from high political office to be more of a threat to the common good than anything Huckabee believes.

What a ridiculous argument. Creationism is widely accepted as being nothing more than a silly propaganda movement. This is the view of most Christian Churches, any reputable Scientist and the European Union.

A great many creationists hold their personal opinions and make no attempt to propagate them - so I doubt that very much. However, your faith in the pronouncements of the European Parliament is touching.

Would you have a problem with people opposing Huckabee if he said he didn't believe in gravity? Would you call these people bigots? Doubt it.

I am too much of a Christian to accuse you of hypocrisy, so I will assume you have had a Damascus Road conversion to the usefulness of arguments by analogy. However, in this case your analogy is particularly ill chosen. Gravity is a physical law that can be easily demonstrated or falsified and which effects many aspects of our lives today. The theories of human origins are a very different kettle of fish indeed.

If you want to become more skilled in your newly found practice of argument by analogy I suggest you look at my rather apt example concerning the Salvation Army in the "rosary beeds" (sic) thread in the Christianity forum.

niceonetom

PDN wrote: »

You appear to be applying the following logic:
A politician acts on the basis of his beliefs.
We see his actions to have negative consequences.
Therefore we should avoid electing politicians with similar beliefs.

if i may interject...

first off crying bigotry is, i think, laughably inappropriate. a bigot is someone who judges others on factors that are beyond their control e.g. race, sex, disability, sexual orientation (if you don't think this is beyond an individual's control try to change your own orientation for a minute and see if it works) NOT ON THEIR BELIEFS, which we must take personal responsibility for holding, religious beliefs cannot be above this kind of criticism if we expect to live in a free society.

i think what is worrying about Romney, Huckabee and the shrub is not just what they believe (the bible, literally) but howthey think truth can be arrived at . in order to be a biblical literalist one must believe that logic, science, and sceptical inquiry are not the best tools with which to investigate and evaluate the world we live in. i do not think that truth can reliably be arrived at by studying ancient texts of highly dubious origin, or by personal divine revelation.

it's not just that what they think is wrong, it's that how they think is a very poor way of arriving at the truth.

that lack of intellectual honesty and rigour, in my book, would not only disqualify a candidate from high office but from any position of power in a nominally secular society. the progress our little species has made up to this point is largely due to stepping away from these kinds of people, not investing them with ever more centralised and unfettered power.

edit-
as regards the poll; i would be favouring Gravel (now that Kucinich is out) who is not listed for some reason(?). he has publicly defended secularism and has said that military action against iran is not an option.

PDN

Clinton

niceonetom wrote: »

first off crying bigotry is, i think, laughably inappropriate. a bigot is someone who judges others on factors that are beyond their control e.g. race, sex, disability, sexual orientation (if you don't think this is beyond an individual's control try to change your own orientation for a minute and see if it works) NOT ON THEIR BELIEFS, which we must take personal responsibility for holding, religious beliefs cannot be above this kind of criticism if we expect to live in a free society.

So Ian Paisley is not a bigot if he harbours fear and hatred of someone who has voluntarily converted to catholicism? :rolleyes:

As for trying to change my sexual orientation, I would find it easier to contemplate becoming a homosexual than converting to islam or Scientology. However, I don't think either is a realistic prospect.

I would certainly see it as bigotry if a Christian was opposed to an atheist becoming principle on account of their atheism, even though many of us see atheism as an irrational and even silly position.

However, as is usual on this board, what is good for the goose is certainly not good for the gander.

Fanny Cradock

Clinton

PDN wrote: »

However, as is usual on this board, what is good for the goose is certainly not good for the gander.

Indeed!


Back on topic, I'd be an Obama man myself.

niceonetom

PDN wrote: »

So Ian Paisley is not a bigot if he harbours fear and hatred of someone who has voluntarily converted to catholicism? :rolleyes:

he is a bigot, but not for the reasons you give. do you honestly think that the troubles are about religion? that is obviously a conflict based on national identity and sovereignty issues. transubstantiation has fúck all to do with it - it's politics. it's basically good old fashioned tribalism - us and them psychology. theological differences are flags of convenience up there, nothing more. "catholic" is not a faith up there, it's a umbrella term for someone of a specific political persuasion. paisley's general beliefs in the pope as antichrist etc. would more accurately be termed idiocy than bigotry imo.

PDN wrote: »

As for trying to change my sexual orientation, I would find it easier to contemplate becoming a homosexual than converting to islam or Scientology. However, I don't think either is a realistic prospect.

interesting...

PDN wrote: »

I would certainly see it as bigotry if a Christian was opposed to an atheist becoming principle on account of their atheism, even though many of us see atheism as an irrational and even silly position.

see, i wouldn't call that bigotry at all. it is perfectly legitimate to disagree with someone based on their beliefs and the methods by which they arrived at them. it would probably be wrong, in the sense that it would most likely be based on the christian's own misleading pre-conceptions rather than the actual beliefs of the atheist in question, but it would not be bigotry. it could become bigotry if no attempt is made to understand the other persons point of view and "atheist" is used as a convenient short hand for an "out-group to be unquestioningly hated".

are you using bigotry as a general synonym for dislike? i have a more specific usage in mind as i tried to explain in a previous post. it is perfectly reasonable to dislike someone based on their beliefs, but i don't think that the disliked person should simply be able to cry "bigot" and thereby move his attacker into the same category as a racist.

PDN wrote: »

However, as is usual on this board, what is good for the goose is certainly not good for the gander.

quite possibly. atheism is not another religion, it is the rejection of religion, so the analogy/cliché may not hold up to much scrutiny.

mcgarnicle

PDN wrote: »

So Ian Paisley is not a bigot if he harbours fear and hatred of someone who has voluntarily converted to catholicism? :rolleyes:

Funny how you scoffed at an earlier poster's effort at argument by analogy but managed to serve up this fine example of the practise.

As has already been pointed out the reason Paisley hates Catholics are numerous, it is not a matter of dogma and the word Catholic is a catch all.

As for the candidates I think it is entirely valid to criticise Huckabee and Romney based on their religious beliefs.

When any rational person considers Romney, even if you ignore the fact that he believes that a convicted conman was given a new book of God via gold tablets read from a bucket or that Jesus will return soon and split the mountain in two leaving one half in Israel and moving the other to Utah... Even if you ignore all that, as a lot of people would seem to think is the decent thing to do, then you still have to ask what Romney thought about past official racism on the part of his church. The fact that until the late 70s a black person could not hold any high office in his church or that for a long time the only way for a black person to get into Mormon heaven was as a slave. Then he would have to clear the air about whom he takes his orders from. Mormons believe that their church leaders are above the state so would a Mormon president’s first loyalty to the American people or to his church? Romney could clarify these positions but instead he has responded that to ask such things is un-American.

Huckabee is an altogether despicable character and the fact he is even still in the race is quite scary and a rather unfortunate indictment of a large minority of Americans in my opinion. Even ignoring his total failure to grasp reasonable scientific issues he has managed to reveal some idiotic views down the years. Among the best was one he expressed saying that people with hiv/aids should be rounded up and quarantined in order to protect the rest of the population or his equating homosexuality with bestiality. He is an ignoramus of the highest order and only last week was caught on camera announcing his intention to put god into the American constitution, an utterly deplorable consideration in a country born of the Enlightenment.

Is it bigoted to want to know the answers to these questions? Is it bigoted to ask a man how he felt about the racism of his own organisation? Is it bigoted to point out a bona fide bigot’s views about hiv sufferers and homosexuals? Well if it is then I am one massive bigot.

PDN

Clinton

mcgarnicle wrote: »

Funny how you scoffed at an earlier poster's effort at argument by analogy but managed to serve up this fine example of the practise.

I love analogies! Analogies are a powerful and valid form of logic that, when used properly, are very useful.

The reason I scoffed at an earlier poster's effort at argument by analogy is because he has a history of avoiding arguments that demonstrate the falsity of his positions by accusing his opponents of being 'confusing' and then, when you try to simplify things for him by using an analogy, he refuses to engage by dismissing arguments by analogy as illogical. Therefore I was having some fun at his apparently recent conversion to analogies.

Zombrex

Clinton

PDN wrote: »

I don't see that Huckabee's personal views on how the world was formed millions of years ago should have any bearing on his fitness to fulfill the tasks of President. He has publicly stated that he supports the continued teaching of evolution in schools and does not support the teaching of creationism, so I fail to see that raising this issue is anything other than the kind of bigotry that opposed John F Kennedy on the grounds that he was a Catholic.

You seem to be getting a bit muddled.

Some Protestant Americans opposed John F Kennedy because they assumed/feared that a Catholic President would have to be answerable to the Pope before the US people. This was never a stated position of Kennedy himself, it was an assumption on the part of people who assumed that all Catholics would hold this view.

The objections to Huckabee on the other hand are based entirely on his own expressed opinions and views, rather than a bigoted view of what people assume he must believe.

No one is assuming Huckabee rejects evolution because he is a Baptist, Huckabee himself has stated that he does not accept evolution.

To reject someone based on an stereotypical assumption of what you think they must believe because they belong to a certain group is called bigoted.

To reject someone based on their own stated position is called democracy.

Dades

Romney

Interesting post, mcgarnicle.

It seems that it's perfectly reasonable to question a candidates shadier actions and opinions - unless they have anything to do with his religious convictions. Then it's not reasonable assessment - it's bigotry!

Tim Robbins

Clinton

PDN wrote: »

Or they maybe hold a different view to yourself? Most of us are able to tolerate that without using it as an excuse to question other people's intelligence.

They hold a different view to me = no problem.
They hold a different view to me, the entire scientific community, most mainstream religions, nearly all people who have any education = a problem.

So you are drawing a comparison between Huckabee (a guy who holds a different opinion to yourself concerning the origin of human life millions of years ago, but has specifically stated he has no desire to force his opinion on others) and Islamists who believe they have a divine mandate to murder thousands of people.

Such an argument is in fact also by Theologians. Read Karen Armstrong.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bible-Biography-Karen-Armstrong/dp/1843543966/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=gateway&qid=1202290813&sr=8-1

She also argues all Religions have their extremes. Extreme Christianity manifest in Creationists. Extreme Islam manifest in suicide bombers.

Such a comparison does your argument no favours. I personally think your desire to see those who disagree with you excluded from high political office to be more of a threat to the common good than anything Huckabee believes.

I would disagree with all candidates on different issues. Politics is always about picking the best candidate or party, you are never going to agree with anyone on everything.

However, your faith in the pronouncements of the European Parliament is touching.

It's not faith, belief in evolution is evidence is based on and is consistent with the scientific method.

I am too much of a Christian to accuse you of hypocrisy, so I will assume you have had a Damascus Road conversion to the usefulness of arguments by analogy. However, in this case your analogy is particularly ill chosen. Gravity is a physical law that can be easily demonstrated or falsified and which effects many aspects of our lives today. The theories of human origins are a very different kettle of fish indeed.

It's not an analogy it's an example. In both cases gravity and evolution are Scientific theories consistent with the scientific method. There is no different kettke of fish, no analogy.

I suggest if you knew a bit more about Science you might realise the difference between analogies and examples of the scientific method.

Huckabee represents glorifed ignorance. I can't understand how someone who can't even understand the basis of the Scientific methodology can work with any sort of complexity.

Some jobs do not require an ability to deal with complexity, unfortunately the President of the most powerful country in the world is not one of them,

Tim Robbins

Clinton

I watched a lot of the analysis last night. Interesting to note RTE's PC analysis. IMO Religion is playing a huge role in this election:
1. Guiliani being a Catholic was never gone to get the Republican ticket.
2. Huckabee is more than likely only getting votes from uneducated evangelical Christians.
3. Romney is never going to get the ticket, because he is a Morman.
4. McCain will win purely because he is the only conventional WASP the Republicans have.
5. No matter who wins surely it is pertinent they can construct some sort trust with the Muslim world.

However, RTE being nice and PC didn't even mention the Elephant in the room.

Tim Robbins

Clinton

PDN wrote: »

I love analogies! Analogies are a powerful and valid form of logic that, when used properly, are very useful.

The reason I scoffed at an earlier poster's effort at argument by analogy is because he has a history of avoiding arguments that demonstrate the falsity of his positions by accusing his opponents of being 'confusing' and then, when you try to simplify things for him by using an analogy, he refuses to engage by dismissing arguments by analogy as illogical. Therefore I was having some fun at his apparently recent conversion to analogies.

It wasn't an analogy. Analogies are illogical because there is usual something different between the two points. So one point can be perfectly valid when one is utterly invalid. They are nothing more that a tool of sophistry used by those who wish to argue a point rather consider something logically.

Gravity and Evolution are both examples not analogies of the Scientific method.
In you rebuttal you tried to argue Gravity was different to Evolution. In terms of the Scientific validity - there is NO difference. Think about that, the next time you get on a airplane.

In fact, in post #6, you mentioned your concern for AIDs (well any understanding we have of AIDs is based on accepted Scientific theories) and your concern for Global warming. The most objective study of Global Warming is the IPCC 4th report which suggests 90% probability it's anthropogenic. So in a Scientific sense evolution theory is far more realiable and accurate than anthropogenic global warming.

But while you accept scientific understandings on AIDs, gravity and Global warming. You toe pock evolution. I wonder why.

If you were to applaud a president because he has a similar belief to you on global warming and aids, one would naturally think you would not applaud a president who didn't have the same beliefs. So by your own fluffy logic that would make you a bigot.

PDN

Clinton

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It wasn't an analogy. Analogies are illogical because there is usual something different between the two points. So one point can be perfectly valid when one is utterly invalid. They are nothing more that a tool of sophistry used by those who wish to argue a point rather consider something logically.

Something different between the two points? Like the difference between a guy not accepting evolution and a guy flying an aeroplane into a building?

Think about that, the next time you get on a airplane.

That will be in about 5 hours time. When I board my flight in Helsinki I will eye up my fellow passengers carefully to see if any of them look like a creationist. If I see someone who looks like a creationist I will warn the air stewards/stewardesses so as to avoid being caught up in a dreadful terrorist incident.

You toe pock evolution. I wonder why.

If you explain the phrase "toe pock" I will gladly do so.

If you were to applaud a president because he has a similar belief to you on global warming and aids, one would naturally think you would not applaud a president who didn't have the same beliefs. So by your own fluffy logic that would make you a bigot.

Oh come on, Tim, start thinking logically for goodness sake. I don't care if a president shares my views on past historical events that are irrelevant to the present. I would not, for example, applaud a candidate because he shares my opinions as to how the Roman Empire fell or whether Queen Nefertiti was the mother of Tutenkhamen or not.

AIDS and climate changes are issues where a President's opinion will dramatically affect the actions that he takes. I'm sure you can see the difference if you try.

PDN

Clinton

mcgarnicle wrote: »

As for the candidates I think it is entirely valid to criticise Huckabee and Romney based on their religious beliefs.

When any rational person considers Romney, even if you ignore the fact that he believes that a convicted conman was given a new book of God via gold tablets read from a bucket or that Jesus will return soon and split the mountain in two leaving one half in Israel and moving the other to Utah... Even if you ignore all that, as a lot of people would seem to think is the decent thing to do, then you still have to ask what Romney thought about past official racism on the part of his church. The fact that until the late 70s a black person could not hold any high office in his church or that for a long time the only way for a black person to get into Mormon heaven was as a slave. Then he would have to clear the air about whom he takes his orders from. Mormons believe that their church leaders are above the state so would a Mormon president’s first loyalty to the American people or to his church? Romney could clarify these positions but instead he has responded that to ask such things is un-American.

I share your distaste for Mormonism's beliefs and history. However, I wonder if you felt similarly about John Kerry 4 years ago, given that Kerry was a member of a religious organisation (the Roman Catholic Church) with equally bizarre beliefs and a much bloodier and hate-filled history than that of Mormonism.

In fact, if you want to judge candidates by their religious affiliation then the best Presidents in the last 40 years for most posters here would be George W Bush (a Methodist - they have a good history of social activism and are accepting of homosexuals) and Richard Nixon (a Quaker). Of course neither would hold a candle to Mao and Stalin, but we are discussing US Presidential poltics in this thread so maybe we should leave atheist politicians out of the discussion.

Of course the truth is that someone should be judged on their personal character and policies, not on their religious affiliation. I would rather live under a Prime minister or President who was a good, honest atheist with sensible policies than under a dishonest Pentecostal (my own brand of Christianity). I'm surprised that such a rational view is unpopular on this board ..... well, maybe I'm not surprised at all.

niceonetom

PDN wrote: »

Oh come on, Tim, start thinking logically for goodness sake. I don't care if a president shares my views on past historical events that are irrelevant to the present. I would not, for example, applaud a candidate because he shares my opinions as to how the Roman Empire fell or whether Queen Nefertiti was the mother of Tutenkhamen or not..

it really isn't just what they believe that's worrying, it's their method of arriving at that point. creationism requires the surrender of logic, rationality and evidence based reasoning. without these basic tools one is not fit to make rational decisions on the behalf of MILLIONS of others.

if they thought that rome fell in certain circumstances AS AN ARTICLE OF FAITH, i.e they did not feel that any historical evidence on the fall of rome could be used to change their minds that would be a closer, em, analogy.

redfacedbear

PDN wrote: »

Of course the truth is that someone should be judged on their personal character and policies, not on their religious affiliation. I would rather live under a Prime minister or President who was a good, honest atheist with sensible policies than under a dishonest Pentecostal (my own brand of Christianity). I'm surprised that such a rational view is unpopular on this board ..... well, maybe I'm not surprised at all.

I completely agree with you - if I had a vote in this election the candidates religious views would be (mostly) well down the list of considerations. As the question was asked in the Atheism forum - my original post only rated them on how I (perhaps incorrectly) perceived their religious beliefs.

I doubt anybody here, if given the choice, would elect Stalin ahead of Bush Senior just because he was an Atheist

Having said that there are certain times when one's religion - or more accurately - one's convictions which are informed by one's religion would form a significant factor in whether I'd vote for them or not. For example I would never knowingly vote for a politician who was a member of Opus Dei nor could I ever vote for a Creationist.

Zombrex

Clinton

PDN wrote: »

Of course the truth is that someone should be judged on their personal character and policies, not on their religious affiliation.

You seem to be (rather bizarrely) ignoring the fact that this is exactly what people are doing with Huckabee.

Huckabee is a Baptist. Last time I checked there is nothing about being a baptist that requires someone to be a Creationist, or vice-versa. The problem with Huckabee is not his religious affiliation (Baptist) the problem is is Creationist views.

As niceonetom points out to reject evolution requires quite a worrying level of rejection of reality. To me it demonstrates a quite shockingly poor grasp of science, in the same way that rejecting the holocaust demonstrates a quite shockingly poor grasp of history or rejecting that HIV causes AIDS demonstrates a quite shockingly poor grasp of biology (all assertions made by world leaders in the last few years).

Despite your claims it is not simply a matter of a difference of "opinion"

This is not a trait that would vote for in a President, and I am glad others share this view.

But by all means continue on your little campaign to make anyone who feels this way out to be a bigoted hypocrite :rolleyes:

Tim Robbins

Clinton

PDN wrote: »

Something different between the two points? Like the difference between a guy not accepting evolution and a guy flying an aeroplane into a building?

Again this was not argument by analogy. I was asking when exactly do you decide something is or is not bigotry. I gave an example, not an analogy where something is obviously not bigotry. Now why was that? Because there is a threat to the common good. Now is that principle applicable to the other point (Huckabee)? indeed it is.

PDN wrote:

That will be in about 5 hours time. When I board my flight in Helsinki I will eye up my fellow passengers carefully to see if any of them look like a creationist. If I see someone who looks like a creationist I will warn the air stewards/stewardesses so as to avoid being caught up in a dreadful terrorist incident.

The point was both creationists and terrorists pose threats to the common good. You are trying to rebutt that by deliberately misunderstanding that simple point and arguing as if I said they pose the same threat.

Now, the other salient point is you are trusting the Scientific theories of gravity when you get on the plane. Dito AIDs and Global warming. However, when Evolution comes along it's a different story. For some strange reason that's a "different kettle".

Oh come on, Tim, start thinking logically for goodness sake.

I think my logic is fine on this issue. It's your logic which as the problems. Science is fine for AIDs, Global Warming, Gravity but is a "different kettle" for evolution.

I don't care if a president shares my views on past historical events that are irrelevant to the present.

Evolution isn't just a past event, it's forever happening. How can you say you have an interest in AIDs and no interest in a central biological theory which is used extensively in medicine?
What happens if a cure is found for the HIV virus but the virus while mutating developes into another strain and the cure is uselss. Is evolution irrelevant then?

I would not, for example, applaud a candidate because he shares my opinions as to how the Roman Empire fell or whether Queen Nefertiti was the mother of Tutenkhamen or not.

Silly analogy - see above.

AIDS and climate changes are issues where a President's opinion will dramatically affect the actions that he takes. I'm sure you can see the difference if you try.

How can a President understand AIDS or Climate Change when they can't even understand evolution, a far simplier Scientific theory?

I am sure you'll see some logic if you try.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I think you are letting your zealotry lead you up the garden path, Robin.

I must say that I enjoy the irony of a christian calling an atheist a "zealot" -- I am not now, nor ever have been, jealous on behalf of god! Quite the opposite really!

PDN wrote: »

robindch wrote:

GWB's worldview in which he conjured up WMD (and much else) on the basis of faith alone, has proved a lamentable and murderous disaster and it's a long way from "bigotry" to point this out.

It is very doubtful that Bush invaded Iraq on the basis of faith alone (certainly not in the religious sense) .

I'd have thought it quite obvious that I wasn't referring to a specifically religious faith, as you seem to think -- the text of the christian bible is largely silent on the topic of WMD, as I'm sure you're know (except for god, who's painted as a pretty effective WMD himself when it suits him).

But as you raise the topic, Bush is certainly on record as saying that he wanted to act as a "a messenger of his (god's) will" when he invaded Iraq, and that he appealed to "a higher father" for advice on waging war, rather than to his cabinet members, as you'd expect in a functioning democracy (see here). I can't imagine that a man who said things like that to a reporter would have invaded Iraq if the voice(s) he hears in his head, and whom he no doubt addresses as "god", had told him not to.

Regardless of that, I was, of course, using "faith" in the sense of a belief which is based upon "revealed" knowledge, and not one which is based upon knowledge acquired from the real world -- the WMD were figments of Bush's small and heavily overheated imagination, as I'm sure you agree.

The article that I had in mind when I was making the comparison was this excellent one from the New York Review of Books:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19590

And it's certainly worth a read if you'd like to understand in much greater depth exactly how dangerous a government can become when it values faith over reason. And again, I hope that you don't find the article too "bigoted" for pointing this simple fact out.

.

mcgarnicle

PDN wrote: »

I share your distaste for Mormonism's beliefs and history. However, I wonder if you felt similarly about John Kerry 4 years ago, given that Kerry was a member of a religious organisation (the Roman Catholic Church) with equally bizarre beliefs and a much bloodier and hate-filled history than that of Mormonism.

I’m glad you recognise that regular Christianity is equally bizarre when held alongside the ludicrous Mormonism. It’s funny how many people think that the likes of Roman/Norse Paganism or Mormonism/Scientology are ridiculous belief systems yet Christianity is perfectly reasonable. Was there some sort of historical sweet spot to make up a religion?

This is another argument by analogy and this time no less spurious. My problem with Huckabee and Romney is not that they are religious. My problem is the views they express as a result of their particular slant on religion. Romney was a grown man, and part of a dynastic family within Mormonism when these racial policies were still in place, it is wholly reasonable to seek clarification as to how he acted in this organisation at that time and if he was vociferously opposed to its racism. I suspect the reason he has dodged the question here is that he never objected to it.

With regard to the question of where his loyalties lie I again find this perfectly reasonable, I can’t remember which it was but I know either Ted or John Kennedy had to clarify their respective position in relation to Rome before running and I again find this reasonable in a country founded on values such as the separation of church and state.

PDN wrote: »

In fact, if you want to judge candidates by their religious affiliation then the best Presidents in the last 40 years for most posters here would be George W Bush (a Methodist - they have a good history of social activism and are accepting of homosexuals) and Richard Nixon (a Quaker). Of course neither would hold a candle to Mao and Stalin, but we are discussing US Presidential poltics in this thread so maybe we should leave atheist politicians out of the discussion.

I have covered this above, still nice to see the religious argument is so vacuous that you need to bring in the old Mao/Stalin routine even when it is not relevant. Nice to see you left out Hitler though, I guess you accept he was a Christian?

PDN wrote: »

Of course the truth is that someone should be judged on their personal character and policies, not on their religious affiliation. I would rather live under a Prime minister or President who was a good, honest atheist with sensible policies than under a dishonest Pentecostal (my own brand of Christianity). I'm surprised that such a rational view is unpopular on this board ..... well, maybe I'm not surprised at all.

Of course and that is my point. These men have supported disgusting policies and held deplorable views, if they were atheists they would be rightly condemned as twisted and would be relegated to the back alleys and sideshows where such bigoted views belong.

The fact that they are religious though and they claim their holy book gives them the right to be bigots somehow means that the rest of us have to toe the line and be respectful to their idiotic and hateful views. If a racist wants to claim that the Book of Mormon gives him the right to be such he is a bigot, likewise if a Christian homophobe wants to quote to bible to justify his bigotry then I feel fully within my rights to call them as such. To call me a bigot for pointing out the blatant bigotry of these two idiots is stupidity of the highest order.

PDN

Clinton

Wicknight wrote: »

As niceonetom points out to reject evolution requires quite a worrying level of rejection of reality. To me it demonstrates a quite shockingly poor grasp of science, in the same way that rejecting the holocaust demonstrates a quite shockingly poor grasp of history or rejecting that HIV causes AIDS demonstrates a quite shockingly poor grasp of biology (all assertions made by world leaders in the last few years).

It's all rather academic really since Huckabee doesn't stand a snowball in hell's chance of getting the nomination, and even less of actually getting elected.

However, I don't think that having a poor grasp of history, or indeed of science, French literature, or even Indonesian architecture should necessarily be a bar to political office. A political leader can easily surround himself with the best experts available in any of these fields.

Your example of the holocaust is particularly poorly chosen (if we are seeking accuracy) or well chosen (if we are indulging in rhetoric). The reason why denial of the holocaust is important is because it opens the door for such events to be repeated. 99.9% or more of historical events are irrelevant to modern day life.

I hardly think that rejecting the link of HIV with AIDS (which poses a risk to the health of millions) can be equated to holding a minority view of how human life originated millions of years ago.

The fact that so many people are prepared to vote for Huckabee is hardly depressing or frightening. It is merely evidence that most people don't share your bee in your bonnet about creationism. I would be much more concerned about his plans to replace income tax with an increased sales tax, which would disproportionately affect those on lower incomes.

PDN

Clinton

mcgarnicle wrote: »

I have covered this above, still nice to see the religious argument is so vacuous that you need to bring in the old Mao/Stalin routine even when it is not relevant. Nice to see you left out Hitler though, I guess you accept he was a Christian?

You win the prize for the stupidest comment yet in this thread. Why would the fact that I don't mention Hitler mean that I think he was a Christian? :rolleyes:

Tim Robbins

Clinton

PDN wrote: »

You win the prize for the stupidest comment yet in this thread.

How ironic coming from a creationist sympathiser.

Saruman

Romney

Since this thread has gone down the road of "politics v Religion" it only goes to show the two should be as seperate as you can get. The US believes in sepertion of church and State, although thats sort of hypocritical and all they do is prevent religion in school yet show "in God we trust" on their money and have to say "God bless America" etc etc.

PDN

Clinton

Tim Robbins wrote: »

How ironic coming from a creationist sympathiser.

I am prepared to sympathise with a creationist and I am equally prepared to sympathise with an atheist or a Mormon. I am sorry you find tolerance to be stupid.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

However, I don't think that having a poor grasp of history, or indeed of science, French literature, or even Indonesian architecture should necessarily be a bar to political office.

Ignoring the rhetoric, are you really saying that you don't care whether politicians are ignorant of history and hold a fantasy-based worldview?

Because if a politician is clueless in these areas, then how on earth are they supposed reliably choose decent advisers? GWB, for example, is perhaps one of the dumbest fools ever to hold high office in the USA, and there are few intelligent people, who think he's well-advised. You may disagree?

bartholomewbinn

Was watching sky news on the night of Super Tuesday, Obama’s wife is a dead ringer for one of the Supremes (about 30 years ago). She moves well also, let’s hope he gets elected and we get a bit of motown into the white house.

PDN

Clinton

robindch wrote: »

Ignoring the rhetoric, are you really saying that you don't care whether politicians are ignorant of history and hold a fantasy-based worldview?

Because if a politician is clueless in these areas, then how on earth are they supposed reliably choose decent advisers? GWB, for example, is perhaps one of the dumbest fools ever to hold high office in the USA, and there are few intelligent people, who think he's well-advised. You may disagree?

No, I don't have a problem with a politician being ignorant of certain events in history. There are other events (Armenian genocide, Nazi holocaust, segregation and slavery) which everyone should be fully informed of. As for politicians holding a fantasy-based worldview - haven't I already said I would have no problem voting for an atheist?

I agree that GWB is dumb, and that he is exceptionally poorly advised. That is evidence of his poor leadership skills, which are the kinds of issues that a candidate should be judged on rather than their religious views.

Tim Robbins

Clinton

PDN wrote: »

I am prepared to sympathise with a creationist and I am equally prepared to sympathise with an atheist or a Mormon. I am sorry you find tolerance to be stupid.

Well perhaps you could through the rhetoric and tell us when you delineate and decide something is actually unacceptable. For example, which of the following are unacceptable:

1. Denial of holocost?
2. Denial of 4 + 4 = 8?
3. Denial HIV is the virus which causes AIDs?
4. Denial of the IPCC findings of anthropogenic global warming?
5. Denial of theory of gravity?

If the answer to any of the above is yes i.e. unacceptable, perhaps you could explain rationally and logically why creationism is acceptable and the why any of the others are not?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

No, I don't have a problem with a politician being ignorant of certain events in history.

Ah. "Certain" events. You knew perfectly well what I meant in my previous post.

Rhetoric no doubt works well with religious crowds, but it's a poor substitute for meaningful debate.

PDN

Clinton

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well perhaps you could through the rhetoric and tell us when you delineate and decide something is actually unacceptable. For example, which of the following are unacceptable:

1. Denial of holocost?
2. Denial of 4 + 4 = 8?
3. Denial HIV is the virus which causes AIDs?
4. Denial of the IPCC findings of anthropogenic global warming?
5. Denial of theory of gravity?

If the answer to any of the above is yes i.e. unacceptable, perhaps you could explain rationally and logically why creationism is acceptable and the why any of the others are not?

Because creationism does not have the implications for present behaviour that examples 1, 3 & 4 do.

Examples 2 & 5 are demonstrable and could easily be falsified if they were not true.

Creationism, however, is simply a rejection (on philosophical and theological grounds) of a scientifically well-supported theory of something that happened millions of years ago. I do not see that it could have any bearing on any Presidential action other than an attempt to force the teaching of creationism in schools (something Huckabee has specifically stated that he would not do).

Zombrex

Clinton

PDN wrote: »

However, I don't think that having a poor grasp of history, or indeed of science, French literature, or even Indonesian architecture should necessarily be a bar to political office.

Well I don't think anyone should be barred from running for police office, but that doesn't mean I would vote for them.

As president for the US (a very unlikely outcome as you say) Huckabee would have serious influence over a large number of scientific areas. His boastful ignorance on matters like evolution would not be a trait I would vote for in a person with this responsibility.

Look how G.W Bush and his person plan to fight AIDS in Africa has damaged HIV prevention based on Bush's personal views on how safe sex should be taught.

PDN wrote: »

A political leader can easily surround himself with the best experts available in any of these fields.

He can, but Huckabee has already demonstrated that he would reject the best experts in the field for his own ill-informed opinions over a scientific topic like evolution, I see no reason why he wouldn't do it with anything else.

PDN wrote: »

The reason why denial of the holocaust is important is because it opens the door for such events to be repeated.

Well that is certainly one of them (those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it). It certainly isn't the only one, or even I would say the most important one.

But then I'm not quite sure what your point is.

Are you attempting to say that it would be more important that we don't vote for a US President that denied the holocaust because denying that may lead to him committing his own genocide, where as denying evolution or something like that wouldn't lead him to anything nearly as bad?

PDN wrote: »

99.9% or more of historical events are irrelevant to modern day life.

Ok ...

PDN wrote: »

I hardly think that rejecting the link of HIV with AIDS (which poses a risk to the health of millions) can be equated to holding a minority view of how human life originated millions of years ago.

Well you are kinda missing the point

I never suggested that the outcome of holding such a belief on evolution would lead to as bad an outcome as someone rejecting the link between HIV and AIDS, or rejecting the holocaust (which you seem to believe would lead to another one)

If I follow your point it is that Huckabee's rejection of evolution is largely harmless and irrelevant, in that there will be no significant negative outcomes (massive increase in AIDS or another holocaust) in him holding such views.

But my point isn't how harmless or harmful possibly outcomes of such a specific belief would be. The point is that such beliefs (all of those beliefs) demonstrates a serious detachment from reality and from rational assessment of the truth. And that is not a trait I would wish in the President of the USA because such a trait would most likely effect decisions that do actually have serious consequences.

PDN wrote: »

The fact that so many people are prepared to vote for Huckabee is hardly depressing or frightening. It is merely evidence that most people don't share your bee in your bonnet about creationism.

Well that is because they are most likely Creationists. Over half of Americans are, and far more than half of Republicans are.

It is not unusual that Creationists wouldn't have a bee in their bonnet over creationism.

PDN wrote: »

I would be much more concerned about his plans to replace income tax with an increased sales tax, which would disproportionately affect those on lower incomes.

Well I didn't say it was the only reason I wouldn't vote for him

PDN

Clinton

robindch wrote: »

Ah. "Certain" events. You knew perfectly well what I meant in my previous post.

Rhetoric no doubt works well with religious crowds, but it's a poor substitute for meaningful debate.

Actually I don't know what you meant. Maybe you could make it clearer. Was there something I was supposed to read between the lines? (Genuine question).

I have made a distinction between an awareness of historical events that carry ethical consequences or not. How is this rhetoric? I was offering a straightforward answer to what I thought was a straightforward question. Sorry if I missed a loaded question.

Zombrex

Clinton

PDN wrote: »

Creationism, however, is simply a rejection (on philosophical and theological grounds) of a scientifically well-supported theory of something that happened millions of years ago.

Its actually not, though I can see why if you believed that was all it was you would see it as largely irrelevant.

Pretty much everything in modern medicine research is now moving to working based on neo-Darwinian Evolutionary theories.

http://mednews.stanford.edu/stanmed/2006summer/evolutionary-medicine.html
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nesse/EMN/editorial.pdf

Medical research is shift from simply combating disease to trying to understand why the disease happens in the first place. Evolution is key to this and the potential for medical breakthroughs are very significant.

A President with an agenda that such theories are wrong or contradict his own personal religious beliefs would be a serious issue in terms of how the government organizes this new medical research going forward.