Sorry about going back to this but it seems like this went off-topic a while ago....

Just focusing on this one comment, I don't see how saying "people who believe in creationism shouldn't hold office" is an attack on theists.

If everyone who believed in God didn't believe in evolution, your point would stand but many people that do believe in God also believe in evolution so there does not necessarily have to be a link between the two.

I, for one, would never vote for someone who does not believe in evolution into office. This is not because I don't like religious people or do not trust them, just that I see creationism as a logical flaw (not the exact word I'm looking for but eh) because it requires a belief that is not supported by any evidence.

All evidence about how humans came into existence goes to evolution and none of it supports creationism. As I said before, this not only means that these people believe in something that has zero empirical evidence backing it but it also means that they put God in front of science. That would most likely mean that they will put God and their personal religious beliefs in front of politics, which is something I would personally like to avoid being secular. If there is tremendous support of something that goes against someone's religious belief, I would like a politician that would side with the evidence and support instead of something with zero proof.

This is more of a stretch but it also deals with flaws in logic. I would not like a president who, in lack of evidence, firmly believes that a country has WMDs and supports Al Qeada and will be willing to risk the lives and security of millions to act out on that belief. I am not saying that the decision to attack that country has anything to do with religion or creationism, but that someone who has previously put faith in front of evidence will probably be more likely to do it in the future.


For the record, I do not believe that most politicians have politics that favor the greater good as their first priority anyways but it is my personal preference to not throw religion in the mix.

Well, as I mentioned in a later post, it's your choice to vote for whoever you choose regardless of what anyone else thinks about what someone who holds office is allowed to (or should) believe.

That's what democracy is all about.

Nope. You can only choose based on what I think. Me. Dammit. Me. :p

Listen mate, in case you haven't got the picture yet, it's all about me.

*hides knife behind back, outreaches hand with big grin*

Ok, we can share the title.

ok, I'm not stupid enough (close though) to fall for that one! ;)

Wait a minute..... you do know there is no separation of church and state in the UK? That here is a national religion there?




....What am I thinking, of course you know that -from the days when you used to work in British Government

I think what you are defining here is faith, and I think having faith can be a good thing.

Yes I am talking about faith, but even though you say it can be a good thing, which I won't disagree with, it can be very deadly when someone with as much power as the president uses it.

I know this isn't the reason for the Iraqi invasion but just imagine how many lives would have been saved and how much less fucked up the Middle East would be if George Bush Jr. didn't attack Iraq based on faith but held back because he didn't have any evidence of WMDs? You cannot avoid making assumptions altogether as president but when faith is put ahead of evidence, people will be unnecessarily hurt, which I am trying to avoid.

I just had a thought that hadn't occurred to me before. I wonder if Bush's remarks about divine guidance in attacking Iraq, were to cut off further questioning by the press, into reasons he didn't want to divulge?

more likely it was a preemptive move to ensure that members of some of the large christian organizations were firmly on his side.

SHEEP: Well, if God told Mr Bush that Iraq is where we have to go, then we must follow even if we don't understand.

sadly enough a lot of the folks that follow some of the well known "christian leaders" don't question anything if the leadership says they heard from god. in that way they are very similar to some of the large unions. the leadership may be giving them the unlubed shaft, but it would be "wrong" to not follow the leader.

i've said it before, i don't think W is stupid. I think he has cultivated that image to endear him to one group and confuse another. you may not like where he has/is taking us, but i think he is fairly shrewd in getting what he wants.

I think that's an article of faith.

Making not requiring justification from those in authority (or a book purporting to be an authority) into a virtue strikes me as pretty manipulative. It's not limited to religious leaders, of course. Unquestioning obedience is a common "virtue" of those surrounding... strong, shall we say... leaders.

I specifically said CAN, not always is.
piercehawkeye45 - good points
Happy Monkey - Hmmm scary, but true.

Frankly, I couldn't give a damn WHAT my politicians believe. What I care about is how they vote, and their policies. You can be 7th tier Scientologist for all I care, just don't let your crazy into the law books or policy.

I know this will make a lot of people angry/judgemental at/of me, but I think "faith" is a bad thing. "Faith" means "I will hold this belief in the contradiction to all the evidence against it." It makes no sense, and it doesn't make someone strong. Just like ignoring all contrary evidence in ANY forum, it is a stubbornness.

We all get on the cases of people who won't change their arguments, people who won't listen to astounding evidence. Yet somehow if it's being stubborn for God it makes it something to be admired.

There are lots of forms of faith that do not contradict any known evidence; rather they focus on the things we can't know.