Evolution, Politics and Religion

Discussions related to politics and social issues
(the impact of religion on society)

Re: Evolution, Politics and Religion

Postby romansh » Fri Sep 25, 2015 6:42 pm

Sometimes we don't need to ask

"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Douglas Adams
User avatar
romansh
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4671
Images: 23
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:46 pm
Location: BC/US border - in the woods
Affiliation: Agnostic

Re: Evolution, Politics and Religion

Postby romansh » Sun Nov 08, 2015 1:56 pm

Came across this ...
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/b ... oming-soon

I just find it hard to defend not asking about religious beliefs. Michele took a pot shot at being president, and now she is doing stuff like this.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Douglas Adams
User avatar
romansh
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4671
Images: 23
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:46 pm
Location: BC/US border - in the woods
Affiliation: Agnostic

Re: Evolution, Politics and Religion

Postby romansh » Thu Nov 12, 2015 11:32 am

I was reading The Mining Journal a couple of days ago at work. Usually the last article is written by an author that goes by the pseudonym "A View from the West End". An Australian based in London who I think advises clients on investment strategies within the mining community. Anyway he always starts his articles with a tongue in cheek homily and this quote in his introduction caught my eye:

As much as I respect the right to faith, I for one would prefer the nuclear launch codes not be in the hands of someone who thinks the book of Revelations is anything other than a fairy story to frighten children.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Douglas Adams
User avatar
romansh
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4671
Images: 23
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:46 pm
Location: BC/US border - in the woods
Affiliation: Agnostic

Re: Evolution, Politics and Religion

Postby romansh » Sun Oct 09, 2016 10:21 am

It has been argued that one's belief in evolution has nothing to do with one's ability to govern/lead. And we as voters have no business asking about his beliefs.


But here is my question if leadership and one's beliefs are somehow independent of one another, then how come Mike Pence gave speech from the US House?



I can't help thinking one's beliefs do affect the way one governs.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Douglas Adams
User avatar
romansh
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4671
Images: 23
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:46 pm
Location: BC/US border - in the woods
Affiliation: Agnostic

Re: Evolution, Politics and Religion

Postby Bill » Sun Oct 09, 2016 11:42 am

In forming a personal evaluation over a candidate's ability to serve the electorate, a voter is free to ask any question whatsoever in coming to a conclusion.

But if we are supposed to have a universal litmus test to eliminate the unworthy instantly, it needs to equal something as basic as "Have you ever been convicted of a major felony," I would opine that a guy who has committed armed robbery on a bank is unlikely to pass muster if he stood for the post of State Treasurer. But not that he attended Church every Sunday at a place of worship that I disapproved of.

The connection that belief in one specific deity makes it impossible for one to make a valid decision over, say, city zoning laws is presented to us as a "it stands to reason" case. But it really does not stand to reason. It would become valid if evidence was presented that linked every insane government decision to the activities of fundamental Christians. With no such evidence available, we are left with joining in some unsupported bigotry against such people, on the grounds that there has to be some connection with having the wrong Christian belief and being able to make non-Christian rulings.

If anyone wants to only vote for candidates who are not fundamental Christians that is their affair: but I see no compelling case that their decision-making process is the only valid one available to the rest of us.

I dismissed Pence from my list of possible choice after he did everything he could to defund Planned Parenthood in his State: and I think that had nothing do do with his Christian beliefs but on his far-right conservative philosophy.
The only reality is the moment that we call "Now".
= = = =
We evolved to seek dinner, not to seek the truth - Mark Whatever
User avatar
Bill
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5027
Images: 1
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 1:23 pm
Location: South Orange, CA
Blog: View Blog (8)
Affiliation: Agnostic
Country: United States

Re: Evolution, Politics and Religion

Postby romansh » Mon Oct 10, 2016 8:27 am

Bill wrote:In forming a personal evaluation over a candidate's ability to serve the electorate, a voter is free to ask any question whatsoever in coming to a conclusion.

Good
We are agreed ... this was my original point.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Douglas Adams
User avatar
romansh
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4671
Images: 23
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:46 pm
Location: BC/US border - in the woods
Affiliation: Agnostic

Re: Evolution, Politics and Religion

Postby Bill » Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:27 pm

You presented a case that your question was a valid one. That is where we parted company.

I was not persuaded by the original post that a case had been made that we ought to ask your particular question. It seemed to me to be a reqto join you in your personal vendetta against people of faith, and nothing so far added has changed my point of view.

I may, for example, ask a candidate if he prefers Pepsi to Coke and form my final verdict on the candidacy's, according to the answerI wished to hear. It does not make it a valid question, it just fits the mold that I may ask any question I like. A freedom to ask inane questions does not make them any less inane.
The only reality is the moment that we call "Now".
= = = =
We evolved to seek dinner, not to seek the truth - Mark Whatever
User avatar
Bill
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5027
Images: 1
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 1:23 pm
Location: South Orange, CA
Blog: View Blog (8)
Affiliation: Agnostic
Country: United States

Re: Evolution, Politics and Religion

Postby Bill » Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:34 pm

You presented a case that you considered that your question was a valid one. That is where we parted company.

I may, for example, ask a candidate if he prefers Pepsi to Coke and form my final verdict on the candidacy's value, according to the answer I wished to hear. It does not make it a valid question, it just fits the mold that I may ask any question whatsoever that I wish to ask. A freedom to ask inane questions does not make them any less inane

I was not persuaded by the original post that a case had been made that we all ought to ask the same question that you posed. It seemed to me to be some sort of case that everyone, everywhere, should reject people of faith to be incompetent to hold public office, simply because they had a belief system we disapprove of. In a similar manner to one that a theist may argue that agnostics and atheists should not be permitted to vote - but with the polarity of the argument reversed.

.
The only reality is the moment that we call "Now".
= = = =
We evolved to seek dinner, not to seek the truth - Mark Whatever
User avatar
Bill
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5027
Images: 1
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 1:23 pm
Location: South Orange, CA
Blog: View Blog (8)
Affiliation: Agnostic
Country: United States

Re: Evolution, Politics and Religion

Postby romansh » Sun Oct 16, 2016 4:55 pm

Bill wrote:You presented a case that you considered that your question was a valid one. That is where we parted company.]

This is fair enough.
Bill wrote: I may, for example, ask a candidate if he prefers Pepsi to Coke and form my final verdict on the candidacy's value, according to the answer I wished to hear. It does not make it a valid question, it just fits the mold that I may ask any question whatsoever that I wish to ask. A freedom to ask inane questions does not make them any less inane]

That you think having a preference between Pepsi and Coke is akin to asking whether someone believes in evolution blows my mind Bill. If you had asked which is the "healthier" drink and how a prospective politician answers it would for me also be more indicative than a simple preference.
Bill wrote: I was not persuaded by the original post that a case had been made that we all ought to ask the same question that you posed. It seemed to me to be some sort of case that everyone, everywhere, should reject people of faith to be incompetent to hold public office, simply because they had a belief system we disapprove of. In a similar manner to one that a theist may argue that agnostics and atheists should not be permitted to vote - but with the polarity of the argument reversed.

Where in the OP was claimed that "we" "ought" to ask?

I have certainly not suggested that someone with faith should be automatically rejected, quite the opposite if you actually read what I have said. Where has this been posited in this thread?

I happen to think that I want my politicians to be able to evaluate evidence accurately.
If they don't know to say so clearly.

I can't see how you would want otherwise.

edit
I would vote for Hiliary even though she has faith, I would not vote for Donald even if he were agnostic or atheistically inclined.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Douglas Adams
User avatar
romansh
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4671
Images: 23
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:46 pm
Location: BC/US border - in the woods
Affiliation: Agnostic

Previous

Return to Political and Social Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron