The O'Donnell thread had me thinking about this.

[hal2kilo]

I'd vote for a write-in.
Get real.

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

Yep, no selection for neither.

Also, it sounded like the first one you were describing is O'Donnel, except that she doesn't believe in evolution.

 

[Perknose]

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

Alrighty! Out of the hypothetical and into the concrete.

Your friend cannot be both a bible literalist and a social liberal, since by definition being a bible literalist means accepting the bible in its entirety and without deviation or question . . . and the bible contains passages, among many others, that endorse slavery and also death for adultery or even disobeying your parents! D:

These are most assuredly NOT socially liberal positions! :rollyeyes:

Your friend may be a bible literalist. Your friend may be a social liberal. But he cannot be both.


Edit: Ahhhh, didn't see your further explanations, wolfe. Interesting. :hmm:

 

[woolfe9999]

Alrighty! Out of the hypothetical and into the concrete.

Your friend cannot be both a bible literalist and a social liberal, since by definition being a bible literalist means accepting the bible in its entirety and without deviation or question . . . and the bible contains passages, among many others, that endorse slavery and also death for adultery or even disobeying your parents! D:

These are most assuredly NOT socially liberal positions! :rollyeyes:

Your friend may be a bible literalist. Your friend may be a social liberal. But he cannot be both.

Well let's just say that "bible literalist" is a rather relative term, shall we? Seriously, how many Christians today, even the most hardcore evangelicals, actually advocate slavery?

I think Christianity's interpretation of its scriptures has shifted with the times, even though many of them aren't even consciously aware of it. A typical "literalist" today is likely not quite as much a "literalist" as the typical literalist hundreds of years ago.

Suffice it to say, however, that in this particular case, he is relatively literalistic in his interpretations. He believes in Satan, hell, noah's arc as real event, etc. In today's terms, that's pretty literalist. And the fact remains, his views on social issues are remarkably liberal given his position on religion.

- wolf

 

[her209]

The first was a politician who has a checkered past at best and there has been significant evidence of corruption, but operates just this side of the legal line, or what passes for it in DC. His or her past suggests that personal gain is an important component of why office is being sought. That person also has a strong scientific background. Evolution is fact.

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.

Given that you have to select one, which would it be?

The second person always loses. Why?

1) The anti-creationism people won't vote for her.
2) You'll find that only a small percentage of the electorate will truly find ALL public policies enacted to be agreeable.
3) Anyone not belonging in 1) and 2) will vote for the 1st candidate in your scenario.

 

[bamacre]

Doesn't matter. If the price for those policies is a willingness or desire to legislate their socially conservative beliefs, I'll gladly vote against that candidate.

His OP didn't suggest anything about the 2nd candidate wanting to legislate socially conservative beliefs. People are capable of separating their personal and political beliefs. Example, someone may never choose to have an abortion, but support it being legal. Someone may not smoke pot, but oppose it being illegal. Plenty of straight people who support gay marriage. In regards to the example in the OP, the 2nd candidate may not understand the idea of evolution, but it's likely this lack of understanding would have no bearing on their position. If they were running for head of Dept of Educ, sure, there's a problem, but otherwise, what's the problem?

The whole evolution/creationism debate is ignorant. The theory of evolution does not contradict the vast majority of religious beliefs. Evolution is a scientific theory, Creationism is a religious belief. Two very different things.

 

[Mursilis]

Man should only punish where we basically all agree and hence it becomes a matter of maintaining a degree of civic order.

That's a fine idea as far as it goes, but on some "morally controversial" issues, consensus may never be reached. The classic case here is of slavery - the South was happy for the North to be full of "free" states, but wasn't going to give up its own status as slave states. Meanwhile, the North wanted ALL states to be free, including those in the South, and they eventually ran out of patience waiting for the South to agree (which might have happened peacefully eventually, but no time soon). Hence, it took a very bloody war to resolve the issue, but these days, few doubt that the North was in the right on that issue.

 

[HumblePie]

First, this is not an endorsement or condemnation of her or any candidate, but a hypothetical so don't say "but O'Donnell is" anything. It isn't about her.

Suppose you had the choice of two candidates.

The first was a politician who has a checkered past at best and there has been significant evidence of corruption, but operates just this side of the legal line, or what passes for it in DC. His or her past suggests that personal gain is an important component of why office is being sought. That person also has a strong scientific background. Evolution is fact.

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.

Given that you have to select one, which would it be?

Neither. I'd put myself down on the ballot.