The O'Donnell thread had me thinking about this.

[Moonbeam]

I voted for candidate 2. However, a candidate's irrational beliefs are a relevant factor. If the two candidates were in other respects about equal, I would vote for candidate 1.

- wolf

Notice how easily what you believe to be irrational beliefs become actual irrational beliefs?

 

[Jaskalas]

The second has an exemplary record and has enacted public policies which you find agreeable. No hint of impropriety. The problem? This person has questioned evolution.

Questionable mind, but useful nonetheless.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'd vote for a write-in.

Candidate #2 seems good otherwise according to your fantasy construct, but if they seriously and profoudly "questioned" evolution, just as if they questioned the holocaust or the theory of gravity, I would have my own "serious and profound" doubts about their judgment on any issue going forward.

They would be unqualified to hold public office, imho, just as if while having "an exemplary record" and having "enacted public policies which you find agreeable" and having a personal record with "no hint of impropriety" they nevertheless believed that aliens were responsible for 9/11 or "questioned" whether the earth really revolved around the sun.

OP, you have presented us with a FALSE dichotomy. Your poll is rigged unto irrelevance by the basic implausibility of its premise.

Get real.

A person is rarely a naysaying, retrograde, fundie-based idiot about just one thing, you know?

Hay's pole shows something important, in my opinion, the inability of minds to let go of their preconceptions in the face of facts. Folk with a few exceptions just can't get over the notion that somebody who votes as they would could possible be a good candidate if in any way at all he or she believes in something that goes against one of our sacred cows. I think he demonstrates the fact that we are so attached to mental constructs we can't think straight. Thus all the mental gyrations and squirming......

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hay's pole shows something important, in my opinion, the inability of minds to let go of their preconceptions in the face of facts. Folk with a few exceptions just can't get over the notion that somebody who votes as they would could possible be a good candidate if in any way at all he or she believes in something that goes against one of our sacred cows. I think he demonstrates the fact that we are so attached to mental constructs we can't think straight. Thus all the mental gyrations and squirming......

It is often of greater benefit to learn about oneself than another.

 

[Jaskalas]

Hay's pole shows something important

To me, it's a question of whether evolution is an absolute deal breaker.

 

[PJABBER]

it is often of greater benefit to learn about oneself than another.

lol! Qft!

 

[zsdersw]

It is often of greater benefit to learn about oneself than another.

True, but that doesn't happen here.

 

[SammyJr]

It is strange, I find myself in this exact position. I don't like our current governor, our state is a disaster (IL, if it isn't apparent), and I don't like the way state politics have been playing out. However, our other choice supports a few policies that I like (the ones I know about so far), but he apparently believes in creationism. So far, I am going for candidate B, the creationist, but I am not thrilled about the lack of a good choice.

I'm in IL and am voting Green as a protest vote. There's no way I'm voting Fundie for anything.

 

[Jaskalas]

True, but that doesn't happen here.

Yet the answer on this poll IS about oneself.

 

[zsdersw]

Yet the answer on this poll IS about oneself.

That doesn't mean anyone learned anything about themselves that they didn't already know.

I also meant that in a more general sense, as in, it doesn't happen here on these forums.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That doesn't mean anyone learned anything about themselves that they didn't already know.

Then know that knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom is knowledge put to constructive purpose.

 

[zsdersw]

Then know that knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom is knowledge put to constructive purpose.

Wonderful. No wisdom to be had here either.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Wonderful. No wisdom to be had here either.

That is everyone's own choice.

 

[Moonbeam]

Wonderful. No wisdom to be had here either.

If you are having trouble finding wisdom, look for something that looks like shit.

 

[zsdersw]

If you are having trouble finding wisdom, look for something that looks like shit.

If that's what wisdom looks like, there's an overabundance of it here.

 

[woolfe9999]

I took the conditions of the poll at face value. That means that I assume candidate 2 is a social liberal in spite of believing in creationism, because I am socially liberal and the poll says that the candidate's policies are in accordance with my own views. While it may be unlikely that a creationist is socially liberal, this is a hypothetical. Those who are saying "a creationist can't be a social liberal" fail at hypotheticals.

BTW, one of my best friends is a creationist and self-described bible literalist, and a social liberal. It's unlikely, but not impossible.

- wolf

 

[Throckmorton]

I wouldn't vote for either of them

 

[Mursilis]

BTW, one of my best friends is a creationist and self-described bible literalist, and a social liberal. It's unlikely, but not impossible.

- wolf

I don't know how unlikely it really is - I've known a ton of fairly liberal Catholics. I'd also note that blacks generally are tend to be religious, and also vote Democratic overwhelmingly. Of course, their social liberalism really depends on the particular issue.

 

[Throckmorton]

I don't know how unlikely it really is - I've known a ton of fairly liberal Catholics. I'd also note that blacks generally are tend to be religious, and also vote Democratic overwhelmingly. Of course, their social liberalism really depends on the particular issue.

You're right about blacks, but creationism isn't part of Catholic dogma.

 

[woolfe9999]

Hay's pole shows something important, in my opinion, the inability of minds to let go of their preconceptions in the face of facts. Folk with a few exceptions just can't get over the notion that somebody who votes as they would could possible be a good candidate if in any way at all he or she believes in something that goes against one of our sacred cows. I think he demonstrates the fact that we are so attached to mental constructs we can't think straight. Thus all the mental gyrations and squirming......

Pretty much this. Notice how people keep changing the conditions of the poll, voting for third parties when no such option is specified, refusing to vote, etc?

- wolf

 

[surfsatwerk]

I wouldn't vote for either of them

This, but if you had a gun to my head I'd pick the first option. I can't bring myself to ever endorse someone who has no basic grasp of reason or logic.

 

[woolfe9999]

I don't know how unlikely it really is - I've known a ton of fairly liberal Catholics. I'd also note that blacks generally are tend to be religious, and also vote Democratic overwhelmingly. Of course, their social liberalism really depends on the particular issue.

Well catholics tend to be liberal in general, relative to protestants. Blacks tend to vote democrat, but they are *not* generally "socially liberal."

My buddy, however, is an evangelical protestant (born again), and is a social liberal. Now THAT is unusual, but his reasoning is quite logical, i.e. internally consistent. For example, he thinks abortion is a sin, but it's for God to punish in the hereafter, not man through laws.

- wolf

 

[Mursilis]

You're right about blacks, but creationism isn't part of Catholic dogma.

That really depends on how you define "creationism" and "evolution".

 

[Mursilis]

For example, he thinks abortion is a sin, but it's for God to punish in the hereafter, not man through laws.

- wolf

But where does he draw the line? You could say the same about murder.

 

[woolfe9999]

But where does he draw the line? You could say the same about murder.

He could, but he recognizes that certain things are prohibitted by law because there is a overwhelming societal consensus on the matter, which crosses religious and secular lines. He doesn't want murder criminalized just because the bible says so, for example. He believes in church/state separation. However, when everyone agrees, be they fundies, non-fundies religious types, and secular humanists, on a point of morality, that is where government can step in. But with something like abortion, it is morally controversial, and hence the individual should decide. From a religious perspective, it is a sin to him, but he thinks God gave us free will to choose sin or righteousness, and God will punish the wrong choice in afterlife. Man should only punish where we basically all agree and hence it becomes a matter of maintaining a degree of civic order.

The guy has pretty well developed views on the subject and they do make a certain amount of sense within his framework of evangelical christianity.

- wolf