It is so sad that the price of admission to politics is religious "belief"

[flowomo]

Religion doesn't just have a "place" in politics -- it is an absolute requirement for those who would seek office. Oh, maybe there is an exception here and there (and I'd be interested in examples) but no one could have sat on the stage at Messiah College tonight as a presidential candidate without having Big Credentials when it comes to faith/belief/religiousness -- even though a non-religious person might be AS compassionate, possibly MORE compassionate in purely human terms. Sen. Obama noted tonight that we are an "atheist" nation as much as we are a (name your religion) nation -- but that doesn't mean that an atheist (or an agnostic) could possibly have been on that stage as a candidate. I wish he had said that. The ultimate problem, of course, is that since religious belief is the sine qua non of a political career, the temptation to hypocrisy is almost overwhelming. I am not saying that either Sens. Obama or Clinton, or any presidential candidate past or present, is a hypocrite -- just that we can never truly know who is sincere because all must put "belief" forward.

[Condem]

1. flowomo

You're absolutely right. It seems that DUers are afraid to touch this thing cos' they might rot in hell. Must be alot of Catholic guilt here .

[Dudley_DUright]

2. Congressman Pete Stark of CA is the only one that comes to mind,

but he did not admit to being an atheist until recently (2007), after serving 16 terms in congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Stark

[flowomo]

3. well, that's ONE (with that huge qualifier)

thanks for posting that -- it begins to make my point, which I guess was pretty obvious anyhow.

[Condem]

5. I don't give a shit if you're an athiest

The Beatles were afraid to come here in 1964 because of our Puritan beliefs. Nothing has changed.

[rucky]

17. The only people who weren't afraid to come here were the Puritans. n/t

[Condem]

19. Yeah, because they had no idea what to expect.

They were leaving religious persecution.

[JoFerret]

40. In order to perpetrate their own.

.

[IntravenousDemilo]

4. You know, I used to be agnostic, willing to accept that there is a god if only I were shown proof.

But all those years of having to listen to loud, persistent, and self-serving religious folk who stubbornly offer no conclusive evidence of a deity, have been pushing me firmly into the atheist camp. If all those truly stupid people, who are never right about anything -- and some of them are just plain stupid anyway despite their religion, not just because of it -- say that there is a god, then it obviously cannot be so. Religions are irretrievably tainted by their adherents.

[Yurovsky]

6. I know several very intelligent religious people ...

but they are so vastly outnumbered by mindless, reactionary, superstitious zealots that it really gives the whole God Squad a bad name.

If people would simply live peacefully and follow the Golden Rule, ahhhh, what a wonderful world it would be. Sadly, many of the worst violators of these tenets are the holier-than-thou people who don't want to sell me a damn beer just because it's the day they want to go sit and listen to stories about their invisible man who gives them the green light to kill others in his name.

The older I get, the more tolerant I've become of just about everyone except for the bible-thumpers.

[Condem]

8. Yessir, Yurovsky!

[Condem]

7. A crutch, Intravenous

Obama said it himself- " In tough times"

[GodlessBiker]

10. Proof is just a measure of how much evidence is needed to convince you.

For some it is little, for others it is great. But we all set our own bar as to how much evidence is needed to say that the issue is proved.

[IntravenousDemilo]

25. What I require...

...is that god, if it exists, reveal itself through an obvious miracle that can't be even remotely explained by science -- say, making a herd of red-and-green-striped elephants fly over the CN Tower. And, just so I'll know I'm not in fact insane, I want this to be witnessed in person not just by me, but by thousands of other people who all see exactly the same thing I do, who along with me have taken video footage of said flying elephants, and who are willing to swear to their findings in a court of law. I also want the elephants to land in front of me, allow me to touch them, and then give me and a bunch of other strangers a ride on their backs as they soar over Toronto.

I really don't think that's too tall an order for a supposedly omnipotent being.

[GodlessBiker]

41. I'm glad you don't have the same standard of proof to believe in electrons.

And I still don't see how that proves the existence of God.

Kierkegaard said it best: It is a leap of faith. There is no rational explanation for it. When asked about it, the best a believer can do is to place his hand over his mouth.

[IntravenousDemilo]

44. Mom and Dad should have called me Thomas as they were going to,...

...because I definitely have my doubts.

As to believing in electrons, their existence can be almost mathematically extrapolated from data, and after repeated and easily falsifiable experiments and procedures that make use of the scientific method and keep coming up with the same results, no one seriously questions whether there are such things as electrons. And it really isn't that big an issue in our society. You're not going to find pro-electronists and anti-electronists screaming at each other outside abortion clinics, or standing on the corner insanely barking out the Word of the Electron to passers-by, or coming to your door on a Sunday morning to tell you the Good News from the lab. That's because science is reason, and faith is merely passion. What truly bugs me is that faithists are so damned definitive (and loud) in their statements that something they can't prove exists actually does exist, and then they generally try to make everyone else conform to their beliefs. If they'd just shut the hell up about their religion, you know, keep it to themselves and stop evangelizing, I'd have no problem with them.

My theory is that god was invented by some very nasty people in their own image, in order to explain and justify their prejudices and hatreds in a way that stupid, gullible, fearful, desperate, unevolved people can understand. Why would a loving god start a flood that drowns all of humanity except for his sycophants (there's vanity for you), or similarly drown all of Pharaoh's armies, or rain fire and brimstone upon Sodom and Gomorrah, or exhort the faithful to kill their enemies? Simple -- those are rotten human behaviours anthropomorphized in some imaginary being, not the other way around. To say, "I hate (Muslim/Jewish/gay/atheistic, etc) people and I want you to kill them," for instance, doesn't carry that much weight, but "It is written by GOD ALMIGHTY that (Muslim/Jewish/gay/atheistic, etc) people are an abomination and you must not suffer them to live" is so much more powerful. "Oh yeah, this god thingy says it must be so, so I'd better obey or I'm in for a world of hurt!" :eyes:

Can't people just indulge in goodness for its own sake, rather than out of fear of punishment or expectation of some reward down the line? Well, apparently some people can't, and I pity them. I admire and strive to live by the teachings of Jesus, so I'm quite possibly a better Christian than most professed Christians, or so the evidence of the world around me would suggest. But my brain just refuses to wrap itself around the concept of divinity, because it has better and more important things to do.

[JasonHill]

12. I am still an agnostic

I tend to look at atheists and theists both in the same light as those claiming to know what reality is when humans don't have the ability to know one way or another. Overall, i really dont care what beliefs someone has just what policies they subscribe to.

[flowomo]

13. I should have added "agnostics" to the OP...

you can't run for office as either.

[Condem]

14. So, Jason

What do you believe in?

[JasonHill]

23. Right now

all i can tell you is that i don't know. I have tremendous respect and empathy (not just saying that for political reasons, nor am i saying it condescendingly since i don't have a claim to know reality either. God may or may not exist) for religious folks and atheists, but more i try to promote people treating each other with kindness and compassion instead of promoting fear and intolerance.

[Condem]

29. Well, Jason, I can. easily accept that.

[JasonHill]

31. accept what?

i don't understand.

[Condem]

32. Your fuckin reply, Jason.

[JasonHill]

33. why are you being rude?

i have no idea what you are talking about. You told me to accept something, but i am not following. Are you saying accept that some people might believe that God exists or doesn't exist? If so, then i'd say that i agree with you, and that since i dont have a monopoly on reality i dont know either. That's why i am an agnostic. It doesn't make a belief in god or atheism illegitimate.

[Condem]

35. Hey , Jason

Don't take yourself so seriously. You're probably a 22 year old kid who thinks he has all the answers. You don't. I'm was simply answering your post #23.

[JasonHill]

36. I admit i do tend to take life seriously

and it's probably something i should change.

I agree i don't have all the answers, but more important i said i don't have all the answers in the post you cited yet you used it as a basis to verbally attack me. If you agree or disagree with me, that's fine - i try to be easy going and like i said before i don't care what anyone believes outside of what policies they try to put forward politically, just do it civilly.

[Condem]

37. So was I right, Jason?

[JasonHill]

38. in regard to what?

that i'm a 22 year old kid who thinks i have all the answers? That would be no.

We're off topic, so unless you want to talk about the substance of what my posts are about then i'm done

[Condem]

39. Have a good night, Jason.

[IntravenousDemilo]

16. Yes, I used to feel that way.

But they've chosen not to offer any evidence. Now I'd prefer that the god faction would just put up or shut up.

[WyLoochka]

24. 'Religions are irretrievably tainted by their adherents"

Pulling this highly quotable out of the foregoing IntravenousDemilo comment for emphasis and reiteration!

[DangerousRhythm]

9. It IS sad.

Whatever happened to "no religious litmus test" for the presidency or any other political position, for that matter? It's been a while, surely, but where did it all go so crazy and wrong?

[Condem]

11. Dangerous

When the republicans took over.

[madrchsod]

20. oh crap i should have googled but...

one of the early 1800`s elections there was a big religious deal between the two candidates and their supporters. it`s been around for a long time..

hell people thought jfk was going to take orders from the pope and the fundy hero ronny never went to church...

[madrchsod]

15. we can thank who ever started "wrightgate"

but that sort of blew up in their face tonight....i noticed that obama is very skilled in his delivery even though it seems he`s not.. theres is a lot of "preaching to the choir delivery" and "waiting for the responce" which makes him a very effective speaker...i loved the "hillary knows better" from his union speech...ouch

[JBoy]

18. Prominence of a politician's religion is one of the biggest differences between the US and Canada

In Canada, you almost never hear about a politician's religion. There are a few fundies (mild by US standards) who get onto ballots, and if they want to get elected they keep a lid on it. Inject it too often or too strongly into the dialogue, and you get painted as an extremist.

I couldn't tell you what Religion Stephen Harper is - he's a pasty white guy, so probably some flavor of Protestant. Stephane Dion is most likely Catholic, but I only base that on the fact that he's French Canadian. Jack Layton, I have no friggin' clue.

I'm always suspicious that many US candidates overstate the strength of their religious beliefs.

[flowomo]

21. would an acknowledged atheist or agnostic have a chance

in Canadian politics? Or is it more of a "don't ask - don't tell" situation?

[JBoy]

26. I think it would depend on how "in your face" it was, as well as which region.

If the politician were any kind of "in your face" atheist or agnostic it would probably be taken less well than for an "in your face" religious person. It would be tougher for a rural politician, particularly from the West, to get elected if they were an atheist. In the bigger cities I don't think anyone would particularly care.

It really is "don't ask, don't tell". The only time I recall religion ever coming up was when Paul Martin was Prime Minister. It wasn't in the context of a litmus test for holding office, but one of policy. Martin's Catholic, and a few years ago the Catholic church was trying to put pressure on politicians to oppose same-sex marriage. Martin's position was that gay marriage was not an issue of faith, but of fundamental human rights. He didn't believe you could cherry pick which rights from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms you would uphold. Basically told the church to get stuffed. I loved it.

[flowomo]

27. well, my grandparents were both from Novy...

so I guess that explains my "Canadian" stance on this issue.

[Condem]

22. We always overstate, JBoy. That's how you get elected.

[Beregond2]

28. True...

but the religious people of this country will never reach a point where they would trust an atheist or agnositc with the reins of government until we engage in a lot more public discussion of these issues. That's why I think tonight's "debate" was a step in the right direction.

[flowomo]

30. What "step in that direction" did you see?

Other than Sen. Obama's generalization that we are a "nation of..." I saw no suggestion that religion is not the sole, nor even perhaps the best, foundation for genuine campassion and morality.

[Aussie leftie]

34. K & R

[Apollo11]

42. Instead of "Compassion Forum" they should have called it a "Panderthon".

But seriously - as a rationalist (atheist) I appreciated how Senator Clinton addressed this issue.


BROWN: Welcome back to "The Compassion Forum", everyone. We're here with Senator Hillary Clinton.

And, Senator, there are a lot of Americans who are uncomfortable with the conversation that we're having here tonight. That they believe religion already has way too much influence in political life and public life. How do you reassure them?

CLINTON: Well, I understand that concern because part of our obligation as leaders in America is to make sure that any conversation about religion is inclusive and respectful. And that has not always happened, as we know. And it is so personal. The spiritual journey that each of us takes or doesn't take.

And I think it's important that we recognize that for good cause, I mean, we have been such a vibrant nation when it comes to religious experience in large measure because we've always protected ourselves against, you know, religion going too far, being too intrusive. So it is a balance. And we want religion to be in the public square. If you are a person of faith, you have a right and even an obligation to speak from that wellspring of your faith. But to do so in a respectful and inclusive way.

So I understand why some people, even religious people, even people of faith might say, why are you having this forum? And why are you exploring these issues from two people who are vying to be president of the United States?

And I think that's a fair question to ask. I am here because I think it's also fair for us to have this conversation. But I'm very conscious of how thoughtful we must proceed.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0804/13/se.01.html

[flowomo]

43. but she doesn't address my point:

only people who "have" religion are ever in a position to "discuss" religion AS POLITICAL CANDIDATES. If you can't put religious credentials on the table, you can "talk" all you want, but you can't run (oh, you can run, but you have no chance of winning)