Can An Atheist Be President.

[Abracadabra]

Originally posted by Kendra17
to abracadabra: I said this: You are correct again. However, if one is a Conservative, one may be delighted that the President chooses to try and figure out the Right thing to do in any given situation. Of course he will consult with other knowledgeable people. His moral code, however, will also guide him. This may matter less to a liberal. Okay.

I could have worded that differently. I should have said "You are correct again. However, if one is a Conservative, one may be delighted that the President chooses to try and figure out the Right thing to do in any given situation. Of course he will consult with other knowledgeable people. His moral code--based on his religious background-- however, will also guide him.

I think I am still following you.

Everyone will make decisions based on their moral code. For some, that code will be shaped by religious belief. For others, it will be shaped by experience, environment, parents, family, friends, society.

I think the point where we digress in agreement is when we disagree on specific points of that moral code. One president may see nothing wrong with abortion on demand while another finds it morally objectionable. Each one, however, has a valid moral code that they use in making decisions.

The American people will probably always find points of disagreement with one another and with our political leaders.

Maybe it's time for us to find and focus on the points of agreement with each other instead. I'm sure there've got to be some ... somewhere.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by JoeThaNo1Stunna
Revy, that is a very narrow-minded post.

While I am not a Christian, I have no problem with a Christian who thinks anyone else is going to hell. It IS in the Bible that only those who have faith in Jesus Christ will have salvation, so obviously most Christians would believe this. To say that their belief is sad, is my opinion, bigoted. Let's be "liberal" here and be open to other views and beliefs.

I have no problem with a Christian saying that I along with 90% of the world is going to hell. That is their belief, and there is nothign sad about it. It is sad that you choose to condemn anyone who has a view different from your own. Shows that the liberal tent is not open to anyone who doesn't share the same views. The Republican Party is the most inclusive party IMHO, I belong to Republican organizations at work and school and they welcome this non-Christian, pro gay marriage, enviromentalist with open arms. You however, condemn anyone who disagrees. Shame shame shame.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by WDWHound
I understand what you are saying, but in my experience the ideal is the reality for most Christians most of the time (we are human, and all of us fail in this from time to time). I'm not trying to beat you over the head with this, but this is so central to what I and the Christians I know practice that I want to try to be understood. Please be patient with me as I try to communicate just a bit more.

I do believe that Jesus is the one way to God. Does that mean anyone who doesn't beleive in Jesus is damned? Well, thats not for me to say. Thats between them and God. The Bible teaches me that that is none of my business. Thats between God and you. I am responsible for seeking my own salvation, not yours. I will tell you what I have found, but I leave the judging of others to God

Now, IF you were damned and I was not (and again, thats not for me to say), then am I better than you? No. If you walked off a cliff and I did not because i saw a sign warning about the cliff and you didn't, that would not make me better. It would simply mean that I saw and read the sign. In fact, it might be seen as making me worse than you if I saw the sign, read it, and didn't warn you about the cliff.

I know there are those Christians who treat non-Christians like they are inferior and who are constanmtly selling hell insurance. Please, please know that they are not the only type of Chriustains out there, nor are they even the majority. They are meerly the most annoying, and therefore the most memorable. There are Christians who beleive that we are all equal, evenif we might have different fates based on our choices. In fact, my experiences indicate that this type of Christian is in the majority, but I fully recognize that you might have had different experiences..
.

Well said, WDWHound....And I apologize if I made you believe that I view ALL Christians that way, as I don't. I try, as hard as I can, to avoid generalizations of that sort. Most of my family is christian of one flavor or another, and only one (an aunt I can't stand) acts the way I was describing.

But I was responding to a direct quote from someone, not just an abstract "feeling" I got. If more people believed, as you do, that "it's not for me to say, but is between you and your God", then I can assure you that I, as an agnostic, would have a helluva lot better opinions of christianity as a whole. It's been my experience that MOST christians are people such as yourself, but the number that fall under the other heading is, in my opinion, unfortunately high.

Thanks for the reasoned response

 

[Abracadabra]

Originally posted by JoeThaNo1Stunna
Revy, that is a very narrow-minded post.

While I am not a Christian, I have no problem with a Christian who thinks anyone else is going to hell. It IS in the Bible that only those who have faith in Jesus Christ will have salvation, so obviously most Christians would believe this. To say that their belief is sad, is my opinion, bigoted. Let's be "liberal" here and be open to other views and beliefs.

I have no problem with a Christian saying that I along with 90% of the world is going to hell. That is their belief, and there is nothign sad about it. It is sad that you choose to condemn anyone who has a view different from your own. Shows that the liberal tent is not open to anyone who doesn't share the same views. The Republican Party is the most inclusive party IMHO, I belong to Republican organizations at work and school and they welcome this non-Christian, pro gay marriage, enviromentalist with open arms. You however, condemn anyone who disagrees. Shame shame shame.

Not intending to speak for wvrevy -- -- but I understood his post in a different way.

My concern is how an individual's beliefs will inform/impact their daily activities, attitudes and actions toward other people. There is much historical precedent of those who claim to be Christians persecuting their fellow man (the Inquisition is a terrible example of this).

If I believed that someone who does not share my religious beliefs is doomed to hell, that MIGHT impact the way I act or react toward people. In the exercise of my free will, I may choose to act in an uncaring or even hateful manner (eg., the KKK). I MIGHT make a decision that could lead to hundreds or thousands of deaths (or more) of those condemned people without it bothering my conscience.

I am not saying this happens; I am saying it is a possibility based on that belief system. That is what I would object to. I am not condeming anyone for what they believe. I do think people should be cautious and aware of how their beliefs will influence their decisions and actions.

 

[louie694]

Can't we all just get along?
We can all agree on this, right?
Wasn't rudy guiliani great at the convention?

 

[Patch'sD]

It won't matter to me. I would vote for someone who has good character and stong Moral Conviction. If a person believes or does'nt believe in God is not important to me.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by Abracadabra
Not intending to speak for wvrevy -- -- but I understood his post in a different way.

My concern is how an individual's beliefs will inform/impact their daily activities, attitudes and actions toward other people. There is much historical precedent of those who claim to be Christians persecuting their fellow man (the Inquisition is a terrible example of this).

If I believed that someone who does not share my religious beliefs is doomed to hell, that MIGHT impact the way I act or react toward people. In the exercise of my free will, I may choose to act in an uncaring or even hateful manner (eg., the KKK). I MIGHT make a decision that could lead to hundreds or thousands of deaths (or more) of those condemned people without it bothering my conscience.

I am not saying this happens; I am saying it is a possibility based on that belief system. That is what I would object to. I am not condeming anyone for what they believe. I do think people should be cautious and aware of how their beliefs will influence their decisions and actions.

I agree with what you're saying for the most part. Conversely, though, I think Conservatives that share a value system based on a Christian value system also believe that liberals (who may or may not deny the existence of God) may choose to make the less difficult or easier decision rather than choose the more difficult decision --not because they are devoid of morals but because the framework that guides them might be be guiding them in a different direction. And, since the moral framework comes from a more subjective place (feelings, past experiences, etc.), Conservatives might also see this as an issue.

Obviously, we already know that what we deem to be correct may be different.

 

[MinnieYC]

Originally posted by Kendra17
Actually, I came on here to correct my reference, since Steven Emerson didn't write Closed Circle-- so, I don't see how you could have read the book in question. I meant to recommend David Pryce-Jones' Closed Circle and Steven Emerson's American Jihad. Also, why not read the Middle East Forum's website? Daniel Pipes, who began the forum actually believes only about 8% (if I remember correctly) are actually extemists. The percentage matters less since the fact is, the larger and less extreme majority has been unable to reform the extreme, capable, murderous minority.

Actually, I just noticed your reference to Emerson, not to Closed Circle. I've read American Jihad.
While 8% of Muslims worldwide may be extremists, I believe that among American Muslims, it's much lower.

That website sounds very interesting, and I'd like to check it out. Do you have a link? Thanks very much!

 

[Pongo69]

Originally posted by wvrevy
If you're done being a bad 1950's comedian, you might take into account the fact that the person I was discussing this with stated EXPLICITLY that they would not vote for an atheist. Period. That means that, regardless of that candidates stance on any actual issue that the president deals with, they wouldn't vote for them on that one thing alone.

I've heard people say the same thing about blacks. Doesn't make it respectable.

Helloo Black Female waving here

Even if the person was Black I still wouldn't vote for him/her.

Seriously revy you have such a chip on your shoulder. In my first post I clearly stated I would never push my beliefs on you or anyone else.

I never said I was any better than you because you didn't believe in GOD. IF YOU SEE WHERE I SAID THAT PLEASE POINT IT OUT!!!

Seems to me your the one condemning us for our beliefs.

Whichever path you take as far as religion is concerned, I hope you find peace and let go of all the anger

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by MinnieYC
Actually, I just noticed your reference to Emerson, not to Closed Circle. I've read American Jihad.
While 8% of Muslims worldwide may be extremists, I believe that among American Muslims, it's much lower.

That website sounds very interesting, and I'd like to check it out. Do you have a link? Thanks very much!

http://www.meforum.org

This think tank, btw, offers a different view than CAIR's, for instance. I believe it is more objective; you may disagree. Please note, though the names on the list of contibutors: http://www.meforum.org/experts.php

They are of very VARIED backgrounds--unlike the contributors on what I think are the more biased and less critical, pro-Islamic sites you may find (with the exception of Trevor-Roper, for instance).

 

[jimmiej]

Let's reverse the situation. I'd be interested to know if non-Christians would NOT vote for a person if they announced, "I'm a Christian, & I'm running for President of the United States."

???

 

[kpgclark]

Well everyone who has run in my life has been a Christian and I always vote. Not sure what your point is.

 

[MinnieYC]

Just an interesting fact to consider:
American Catholics are pretty much split down the middle between being conservative and liberal. Just goes to further show that being Christian does not equal being conservative.
(Sorry, no link, as I've read this in several printed sources).

 

[Kendra17]

I know this is off-subject, but it's related to the other off-subject stuff, so here it goes.

It APPEARS to some Conservatives that many Liberals don't believe that a devout Christian or someone who follows that moral framework, HAS a valid life framework. I am not sure how to explain this, but I'll try. When one states that they are a Christian, for instance, they sometimes are looked at as anti-intellectual--the antithesis of modernity, for instance. If one promotes abstinence as a valid life choice (until marriage), that is deemed unrealistic. If one promotes the idea of Creationism it is deemed as anti-scientific (and, it's as valid a THEORy as anything else--they are all theories, and they are all unproven) challenged if even mentioned in public schools--even along with Evolution. I mean, it is a valid and popular THEORY--agree with it or not.

It appears to some, that many liberals will, for instance, be all for the public funding anti-Christian art or anti-Christian speech in a public forum, but will not even stand for, even a little bit, pro-Christian art or pro-Christian speech in a public forum. Is this even-handed, fair, just? Or, many liberals were upset with Mel Gibson's movie. However, when The Last Temptation of Christ came out, and when many Christians found that to be offensive, the Christians were criticized.


Am I wrong? If so, how?

 

[jimmiej]

Originally posted by kpgclark
Well everyone who has run in my life has been a Christian and I always vote. Not sure what your point is.

It sure seems that some people give GWB a hard time because he openly speaks of his Christianity.

 

[kpgclark]

Who? I haven't really heard that. What are they saying?

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by MinnieYC
Actually, I just noticed your reference to Emerson, not to Closed Circle. I've read American Jihad.
While 8% of Muslims worldwide may be extremists, I believe that among American Muslims, it's much lower.

That website sounds very interesting, and I'd like to check it out. Do you have a link? Thanks very much!

http://www.danielpipes.org/

just wanted to add this link for the same reason. . .although, again, you may not agree with his perspective. Personally, I think his arguments are reasoned well and he sources all of his material.

As I double checked this site while copying the link, I came across this page: http://www.danielpipes.org/cair.php and thought it particularly apropros.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by kpgclark
Who? I haven't really heard that. What are they saying?

Well, let's see. Public schools are challenged constantly regarding the teaching of creationism, abstinence, anything that can be construed as too Christian. Some children have been told they can't say prayers silently before eating, since it might offend others sitting at their lunch tables. This is fact. I don't have links presently, but if you really don't know about all of the ACLU lawsuits, I will find a few suitable or similar links. Even without the links, do you agree with this in theory?

Remember Guiliani and the Brooklyn museum? Rudy thought that public funding shouldn't be used for anti-Catholic/anti-Christian art and was troubled that the Brooklyn art museum funded works such as the Madonna covered in elephant dung. Another work that comes immediately to mind is the crucifix sitting in a lucite container full of urine. These artworks were paid for with National Endowment of the Arts funds. . .taxpayers' monies. Some plays, for instance, that promote many things antithetical to Christianity are also given public funds, though religious plays, for the very reason they are promoting Christianity, are not be given those same public funds and are expected to be funded privately.

Any pro-religious speech in schools is challenged, however, it is common to find the opposite view spoken of often. For instance, discussing moral frameworks that aren't derived from the Bible are okay, but teaching theories or beliefs based on Christianity--as valid as that belief may be--is not. So, if one's beliefs are based on their own feelings rather than the bible, it's an intellectual discussion, but if one's belief system is derived FROM the bible, it's thought of being too religious and, therefore, invalid.

 

[kpgclark]

You said the President himself was chastised for speaking about being a Christian. I'm saying I haven't heard anyone doing that. Your response didn't address that.

To address the generalities you mention, I have not heard of children not being able to pray silently before a meal. I wouldn't have a problem with that either. I WOULD have a problem if children were pressured to pray (like they do sometimes with football teams before a game or pray after the pledge). Religious expression should be done at home or at church not at a school.

I don't have a problem with religion being discussed at school if it is done in an unbiased, non-preachy way where ALL religions are discussed.

 

[AirForceRocks]

To address the generalities you mention, I have not heard of children not being able to pray silently before a meal.

Children are not only permitted to pray silently before a meal, but they are permitted to pray out loud before a meal as well.