For those that are religious: are you dismayed by the fact that we care about the religous positions of the candidates?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TechAZ

Golden Member
Sep 8, 2007
1,188
0
71
Originally posted by: manowar821

What I mean is not letting their "religion" dictate how they work for the country. Using their baseless faith to make decisions about how WE get to live OUR lives, or who to bomb, or who is more of a citizen and as a result who receives more rights. That would make them a terrible person, not worth the air they breathe, much less the presidency.

That would make them a religious dictator.

Religion is not something that should be touted or used, simply for the fact that so many people follow (or don't follow at all) different kinds of faiths, never-mind the complete lack of evidence for any kind of gods or super-heroes whatsoever. They're supposed to represent us, not tell us what is moral and who the gods bless at the moment. I'm afraid that I won't see the day this comes true, though. At least not for some decades.
When has any President made decisions based on religion that change the way we live our lives, who we've ever bombed, and who is more of a citizen?

Listen up, I'm not religious AT ALL....don't think about it, gonna have to lean against believing in a God. What you do however, is very untactful and makes you sound very juvenile. It's not exactly a hard thing to do to respect people's personal religious beliefs, even if you find it stupid or wrong.

 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Originally posted by: TechAZ
Originally posted by: manowar821

What I mean is not letting their "religion" dictate how they work for the country. Using their baseless faith to make decisions about how WE get to live OUR lives, or who to bomb, or who is more of a citizen and as a result who receives more rights. That would make them a terrible person, not worth the air they breathe, much less the presidency.

That would make them a religious dictator.

Religion is not something that should be touted or used, simply for the fact that so many people follow (or don't follow at all) different kinds of faiths, never-mind the complete lack of evidence for any kind of gods or super-heroes whatsoever. They're supposed to represent us, not tell us what is moral and who the gods bless at the moment. I'm afraid that I won't see the day this comes true, though. At least not for some decades.
*****When has any President made decisions based on religion that change the way we live our lives, who we've ever bombed, and who is more of a citizen?*****
Bush(s). God "told him to invade Iraq", god tells him gays are not supposed to get tax benefits that go along with marriage licenses. Bush senior once said that he believed atheists were not valid US citizens. Attempting to pass laws that make birth control as difficult to obtain as an abortion currently is.
 

TechAZ

Golden Member
Sep 8, 2007
1,188
0
71
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: TechAZ
Originally posted by: manowar821

What I mean is not letting their "religion" dictate how they work for the country. Using their baseless faith to make decisions about how WE get to live OUR lives, or who to bomb, or who is more of a citizen and as a result who receives more rights. That would make them a terrible person, not worth the air they breathe, much less the presidency.

That would make them a religious dictator.

Religion is not something that should be touted or used, simply for the fact that so many people follow (or don't follow at all) different kinds of faiths, never-mind the complete lack of evidence for any kind of gods or super-heroes whatsoever. They're supposed to represent us, not tell us what is moral and who the gods bless at the moment. I'm afraid that I won't see the day this comes true, though. At least not for some decades.
*****When has any President made decisions based on religion that change the way we live our lives, who we've ever bombed, and who is more of a citizen?*****
Bush(s). God "told him to invade Iraq", god tells him gays are not supposed to get tax benefits that go along with marriage licenses. Bush senior once said that he believed atheists were not valid US citizens. Attempting to pass laws that make birth control as difficult to obtain as an abortion currently is.
I didn't see God listed in the Authorization of Military use in Iraq. Didn't realize Bush changed the US to outlaw gay marriage. Didn't realize Bush Sr made atheists move out of the US. Birth control will never be hard to obtain.
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Originally posted by: TechAZ
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: TechAZ
Originally posted by: manowar821

What I mean is not letting their "religion" dictate how they work for the country. Using their baseless faith to make decisions about how WE get to live OUR lives, or who to bomb, or who is more of a citizen and as a result who receives more rights. That would make them a terrible person, not worth the air they breathe, much less the presidency.

That would make them a religious dictator.

Religion is not something that should be touted or used, simply for the fact that so many people follow (or don't follow at all) different kinds of faiths, never-mind the complete lack of evidence for any kind of gods or super-heroes whatsoever. They're supposed to represent us, not tell us what is moral and who the gods bless at the moment. I'm afraid that I won't see the day this comes true, though. At least not for some decades.
*****When has any President made decisions based on religion that change the way we live our lives, who we've ever bombed, and who is more of a citizen?*****
Bush(s). God "told him to invade Iraq", god tells him gays are not supposed to get tax benefits that go along with marriage licenses. Bush senior once said that he believed atheists were not valid US citizens. Attempting to pass laws that make birth control as difficult to obtain as an abortion currently is.
I didn't see God listed in the Authorization of Military use in Iraq. Didn't realize Bush changed the US to outlaw gay marriage. Didn't realize Bush Sr made atheists move out of the US. Birth control will never be hard to obtain.
......... Do you know how many times this information has been posted? Do a search, I'm not wasting any more time on posting and re-posting re-posts of posts linking to posts outside of this message board. The same crap happens all the time with some of the other characters in this place, they say "WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE, WHERE'S THE ARTICLE, LINK PLEASE OR STFU". No, not anymore. Not after it's been discussed # of times and you people manage to forget or ignore the past posts because it's convenient for your side. I'm sure there are 10's or 100's of people who feel the same way.

On a related note; If you (TechAZ) literally have never seen these topics before, I'm sorry, but it's damn tiring and I'm done re-posting.
 

Madwand1

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2006
3,309
0
76
Originally posted by: magomago
These types of events are just "feel good session" to woo religious voters...but does it really make a difference?
It certainly makes a difference, but to make headway in the general question of what this sort of event entails, you have to look at the event and draw some distinctions. The first is politics vs. religion. This was essentially a political event. All the players knew this, but Warren and McCain perhaps better than Obama, who made the greatest effort to discuss religion.

Warren seemed to me to be most interested in making some morally-directed political claims; to draw the candidates towards his political goals. In this, McCain played ball well for the home team. Obama, not so much -- his position on abortion for example did not please Warren. The game here was the political perspective of the so-called religious right, the team which McCain is much more strongly associated with -- which views Obama as the outsider. Obama's position was to un-alienate them as much as he could, and to validate his Christianity despite that.

Anyone who attended to hear about religion was likely disappointed by the event, beyond the self-satisfied club membership parts expressed by Warren and McCain. Obama also stood at the threshold, but I don't feel that he crossed the line to self-aggrandizement based on his religion. Instead, I think he got the question on his religion right, consistent with the religion. This I hold as the second distinction, again religion vs. politics, but from the perspective of real religion. The event was real politics. Real religion is very different. It shies away from self-aggrandizement, and public display of piety as such. These tend to be foolish and dangerous from the point of view of spirituality.

In this view, Obama came much closer to the real danger by actually talking about the religion. McCain simply trotted out some dogma and in doing so clearly demonstrated his lack of understanding of some of the profound elements of the religion.

But, it is also an error for me to apparently impose on you how I think about the religion, so I say this merely as sincere personal opinion. You can form your own.

I disagree with the OP if he meant that we should tolerate politicians while they apparently pander to certain religious constituents while acting in a different manner. That would be a form of institutionalized hypocrisy -- a real tragedy for all concerned. I think that all the players did us all a favor here on this point -- by not trotting out the religion as religion more; to avoid entrenching hypocrisy, to simply make the political elements clearer as questions of positions on issues of interest.

They could have done more to make elements of the religion and their personal perspectives on that clearer. That they didn't in my view is a good thing in itself because of the dangers of egoism and hypocrisy, and also a secularly-comforting indication that the candidates are not driving their political ambitions solely by their personal religion. But just as it's not good to feign piety, it's also not good to feign secularity, so I think this was good after all -- if you're interested in this aspect, then you can find some clarity on these matters from this event.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: TechAZ
Originally posted by: manowar821

Bush(s). God "told him to invade Iraq", god tells him gays are not supposed to get tax benefits that go along with marriage licenses. Bush senior once said that he believed atheists were not valid US citizens. Attempting to pass laws that make birth control as difficult to obtain as an abortion currently is.
I didn't see God listed in the Authorization of Military use in Iraq. Didn't realize Bush changed the US to outlaw gay marriage. Didn't realize Bush Sr made atheists move out of the US. Birth control will never be hard to obtain.

Speak for yourself ... lol

Does abstinence-only education count ???

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY