What is Digg?Sponsored by Guitar Center
When Heavy-handed Hints Fail--Guitar Center Wishlist Posters view!
guitarcenter.com - Cool personalized designs send a friendly reminder that a new Stratocaster would rock, thanks.
158 Comments
- Calann, on 12/04/2007, -8/+101The government may not have a religious test but the voters certainly do. With the exception of John Kennedy, who was Catholic, every President has been a Protestant. No Muslims, no Hindus or Buddhist, no Mormons and certainly no Atheists.
The voter religious test is alive and well. - XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/04/2007, -7/+47Key phrase being: not required by the government.
- inactive, on 12/04/2007, -36/+73Wow, ONE guy in Congress doesn't actually believe that a mythical anthropomorphic "Bible-God" impregnated a virgin in order to give birth to himself in order to be sacrificed to himself in order to sit beside himself in order to save the world from himself some kind of sadistic experiment in psychopathic, self replicating, redemption?!
Wow, ONE guy in Congress doesn't believe in preaching death and destruction to millions of people on as many corners of Amerika as possible?
Wow, ONE guy in Congress doesn't believe in filling the heads of precious innocent impressionable children with disturbing stories of hell and damnation and devils and eternal suffering?
Are magical invisible green elephants who control the universe from their homes inside doorknobs any less real in the minds of psychopaths in insane asylums?
Most of the general criticism isn't directed at moderate or liberal Christians but at the fire and brimstone Fanatics. If you oppose them, then speak up against them. A Good Christian's silence is a tacit approval of these fanatics actions.
So if you aren't an gaybashing hate-mongering Christian, good for you. However, your leaders all are; that's why we generalize, because the face of Christianity in this country is bigoted, anti-science, and repressive in general. Choose better leaders that espouse intelligence and acceptance, and we won't all think you're dumb *****. - Kahlnen, on 12/04/2007, -2/+30Voters can care about a religious affiliation, but the government has no say in whether or not a candidate gets into office based on their religion.
- renagadex2, on 12/04/2007, -1/+22"I am a Hindu by birth. And yet I do not know much of Hinduism, and I know less of other religions. In fact I do not know where I am, and what is and what should be my belief. I intend to make a careful study of my own religion and, as far as I can, of other religions as well."
- Ghandi - d00by, on 12/04/2007, -8/+27you have a point, but there's no reason to be bluntly offensive while making it. People do crazy stuff in the name of love, but you don't see everybody bashing the entire concept of love do you? Make your point. Christianity has a bad image because the leaders are bigots. There's your point. You can't make a point about bigotry when all you do in your post is bash other people's beliefs. I was raised christian, but I by no means believe the mainstream preachings, but I still don't believe we should have blunt misdirected hate for those that do. Just because what you write is essentially anonymous on the internet, that doesn't give you the right to be a douche bag,
- fonebone2, on 12/04/2007, -0/+17Anyone with the faintest understanding of constitutional law should understand why this should be buried as inaccurate. The constitution restricts actions by the government, not individual voters. If anything, the submitter is suggesting that voters' First Amendment rights be restricted, which is a far more dangerous proposition than the notion that voters be allowed to ask politicians (and that politicians be allowed to respond) about their religious beliefs.
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/04/2007, -18/+32ATTN angry diggers and original author. Please refer to this original Digg story for many refutes of this argument.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Tonight_The_Cons ...
Learn to interpret the Constitution correctly.
1. The debate was run by a private entity. The Constitution does not apply to that.
2. The candidates were NOT required to comment. They would not be denied the right to run for the presidency if they didn't answer. Would it be in their best interest to? Yes, since most of the American people are christian and would like to hear so. - masamunecyrus, on 12/04/2007, -16/+30Thank God someone finally figured it out. I can't believe it took a major news journalist to point it out before it penetrated some peoples' thick skulls.
- fonebone2, on 12/04/2007, -2/+13Well that shouldn't be a problem since the Constitution restricts the actions of the government, not the people and certainly not voters.
- thomasoa, on 12/04/2007, -0/+10The Constitution only means to say that there can be no government religious requirementt. You and I are free to exercise our right to vote based on our own religious biases, if we so wish.
So candidates still might have to address religious questions, even if those questions are not mandated by the government. Not because the government requires it, but because the American people do.
Personally, there are a lot better reasons to not vote for Mitt Romney than his Mormonism. - bortis, on 12/04/2007, -0/+10Spend some time educating yourself on this topic Monique. A cursory view of the research into animal sexual behaviour will show you that 'homosexuality' in non-human animals occurs at a rate similar to that in human animals. There are many theories about why exactly this is, but there is no debate over whether or not it occurs. Seriously, read something other than church pamphlets and you might find these things out for yourself.
- asskey, on 12/04/2007, -2/+11Ya forgot Jews. Like that'll ever happen.
- thezentiger, on 12/04/2007, -1/+9There has been four Unitarian Presidents though: 1) John Adams 2) John Quincy Adams 3) Millard Fillmore 4) Howard Taft. Granted, back in Adam's time, Unitarians were considered much more "Christian" per say.
Also of note, although he was officially an Episcopalian, Thomas Jefferson had very well known (and often not appreciated by some of his peers) Unitarian leanings and is quoted as saying: "There is not a young man now living in the US who will not die a Unitarian" and also asked for the Unitarians to send ministers to Virginia since there were none at the time (which is one suspected reason he never officially joined).
Anyhow, the point is, there were at least 5 other Presidents (including Kennedy) that in today's environment would not be considered Protestant Christians. Although I would agree, it would be hard to imagine that happening during this particular upcoming election. ;-) - beardsauce, on 12/04/2007, -1/+9"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
- Thomas Jefferson
My man TJ was one of many founding fathers who were in fact Diests though not publically claiming so. Even back then not being a christian was bad for business, and the founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, David Humes, James Madison and Thomas Paine were all very aware of this. This country wasn't founded by christians but rather people with a distaste for christianity. - enri, on 12/04/2007, -1/+8says a digger.
- inactive, on 12/04/2007, -0/+724000 people die every day from hunger or hunger-related causes.
5700 Africans die each day of aids
67% of people who die will burn in hell fire for all time because they don't believe in the equivelant of santa claus
Believe whatever you like, but if you want me to believe it then provide evidence or expect mockery and ridicule. Do not expect polite debate. Religion has been given too much liberty to murder and enslave humans while hidden in the garb of "Faith". It and whoever believes it does not deserve to pick the fecal matter from my ass. Politeness is out the door by far by now. I don't give a damn what brand of ***** anyone believes.
Feel free to believe in whatever brand of ***** you want, but when those beliefs begin to turn into laws and campaign platforms, you've overstepped the boundry separating church from state.
Thats what happening in this country. Don't expect politness
America is a nation based on FREEDOM. If you want a little Christian wonderland, then GO FORM ONE. America has already been earmarked as a democratic republic. We have no room for religious zealots trying to elbow in.
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/198420.htm - bortis, on 12/04/2007, -0/+6Nicely said Flamancot. Dooby might also want to consider the fact that his comparison of "love" and "christianity" is critically flawed. Those that behave badly "in the name of love" do so because they either misunderstand the concept, or are unable to control the conflicting feelings that it may bring about. Either way they have made some kind of error. The kinds of christians with which "dildoolielly", and indeed much of the world, find frustration are those who are actually getting the texts correct. Moderates like to distance themselves from extremists by pointing out that these extremists don't represent the majority of christians, but they fail to explain why the majority of christians don't take exception to the actual texts of the bible. Nor do they present any coherent argument as to how they came to chose which parts of the bible are to be take literally and which are metaphorical lessons. The problem is not, as so many like to say, that a few extremists get things wrong, its that these extremists get things right... biblically speaking that is. Moderates need to admit that the bible is a human text that expresses moral and ethical viewpoints that are several thousand years out of date. Until they do, they need to live with the stink that the biblical literalists bring.
- Rodman930, on 12/04/2007, -1/+7He's right. Why are you digging him down?
- arbulus, on 12/04/2007, -1/+7care to explain what the hell you're talking about and what you're referring to?
- wentwj, on 12/04/2007, -1/+7You sir, do not understand Atheists. Atheists by necessity have become quite familiar with voting for Christians, whether ninja or not (though for the record I'd much rather vote for a ninja candidate than a non-ninja candidates... ninjas are always better).
Also the statement that "right" and "wrong" come just from religion is clearly a statement by someone that has never spent much time thinking about right and wrong. It doesn't take very long in even the most basic of Ethics courses to realize that religion as the basis for right and wrong quickly falls flat. - inactive, on 12/04/2007, -1/+6Aren't you late for Church?
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/04/2007, -3/+8Because what usually comes with a person's religion is a set of morals. Don't get me wrong- that stuff can come from anyone. But when a crowd of people can know for sure that this presidential candidate has been successfully inculcated with the beliefs and morality of a religion, they can be sure that the candidate as a president will do nothing radical. Religion, like anything else a candidate's background might include, simply adds credibility.
This is not opinion, this is fact. The American people see religious background as credibility. And banmaster, no person has EVER successfully used that argument. - bestlynx, on 12/04/2007, -0/+5YOU're the one who brought up Ron Paul. This thread focuses on one point of the Constitution that supports its timelessness and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers in its authorship. Ron Paul is a great defender of the Constitution and advocate for government in accordance with its principles. If this offends you, there are plenty of politicians to choose from who prefer to interpret it to fit their own agendas (or ignore it altogether) and to continue the downward spiral of subverting the Founding Fathers' intentions of ensuring liberty and justice for all.
- arbulus, on 12/04/2007, -3/+8I saw a poll once that said that the majority of americans would rather have a gay man as president as opposed to an atheist. And as much as this country is still disgustingly homophobic, I find those results to be disgusting. I think someone who were gay or atheist or both or any other religion or sexual orientation should have just as much of a shot as anyone else out there in the field.
- inactive, on 12/04/2007, -0/+5but when that candiate's religion specifically states that people with dark skin are bad and lower than white people, i'd say we all have a reason to question the man's faith. romney specifically. the book of mormon is full of scriptures denouncing people of color.
if you're white that may not bother you, but if you are a person of color it most definately does. - bortis, on 12/04/2007, -0/+4If someone believes in scientology, or any religion for that matter, they reveal much about their capacity for rational and critical thought. Though I understand that, given the current example, I am perhaps asking too much, I would like the president to be someone especially well endowed in these areas.
- dgendreau, on 12/04/2007, -0/+4Morals have been carefully and slowly explained to theists by atheist philosophers for over a hundred years and you still dont get it. See:
http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/08/03/morality-wit ...
The way I see it, Animals have evolved instincts for self preservation, preservation of their families and preservation of their species as a whole. Our inherent sense of value for other human beings is a sophisticated expression of those same instincts. Death is "bad" because as an Atheist, I believe I only have one shot at living this life (self preservation) and after that, I cease to be, so I want to make the most of it. I also believe everyone else has only one shot at this life and if that precious one shot at life is cut short, it is a tragedy.
The converse of your question also more telling. Christians are effectively arguing that if there were no God, people would have no morals and we would all be serial killers and rapists. I think that viewpoint is degrading to all human beings including Christians themselves. - jbarna, on 12/04/2007, -4/+8If someone believes that killing virgins to appease God is necessary, should we leave that out of our decision-making process in choosing a candidate?
I think not. And there are enough criticisms of one main-stream candidate's religion to keep me away from him. Check out the parts about sexism, racism, homophobia, and archaeology here (don't believe everything you read, but do some further digging): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mormonis ... - jsffive, on 12/04/2007, -1/+5Look it may SEEM like a complicated read, but that's only because your "leaders" have created a world where you would THINK that a six page document is difficult to read and understand.
That's right, I have a copy of the US Constitution that is contained on six 8 1/2 x 11 pieces of paper, and I keep it in the Restroom, where I do all my good reading...
And I'm sorry if this bores you Nathynael, but we are talking about the ONLY thing that stands between US... and THEM.
The US Constitution is UNIQUE in the fact that it is a BINDING document on government power... which is the ONLY threat to your freedom, bin Ladens be damned.
Trust me, you don't see nearly enough of the Constitution, and the reason is because when enough people read it, the JOBS of the people at the top gets HARDER to do, because abiding by the Constitution means they have to do their jobs CORRECTLY, without shortcuts. - banmaster, on 12/04/2007, -10/+14Why should religion be important??
All it does is give any weak willed bastard a cheap and easy get-out clause when it comes to explaining why they have just decided to ***** things up!
"I don't believe abortion should be legal under any circumstances"
'Why'
"God told me so"
Its that kind of crap that effectively puts an end to any serious discussion on many topics because for some ***** up reason religion is somehow seen as being something untouchable and beyond any debate or question! So, rather than give logical thought and debate to a question that a political guy might be a bit uncomfortable with, they can just trot out the 'GOD' excuse and walk away!! - coreman, on 12/04/2007, -1/+5Actually, it does. Your statement of "they can be sure...will do nothing radical" is all in the eyes of the beholder. For a group of christians, it does not matter if a woman, homosexual, transgender, etc. is their spiritual guide. But for others, they go holy ***** over it.
Religious alignment does not add general, objective credibility. It only adds credibility for those who share the same beliefs. It is a purely subjective argument.
I would more argue that what comes with a person's choices and actions through their lives reveals their set of morals. Would you argue that the current pope is the same as his predecessor as far as morality? No? OK, then.
QED.
But arguing about this, pointing out that 95% of the American voting population is essentially full of ***** as far as their ability to make rational, well-thought out choices, is in the end pointless. It's about as useful as trying to convince someone driving a SUV about why they should think about other choices, while then watching them bitch and moan at the gas station about the $80 to fill up their gas tank, as they sneer at the Toyota Prius filling up next to them.
In the end, we're all a bunch of self-deluding, stupid naked apes. It's easy to notice it in others; the hard part is accepting it about yourself. - bortis, on 12/04/2007, -0/+4Indeed, as we have recently seen, the religious beliefs of a potential president may be of vital interest to the voting public. I too would like to know the religious beliefs of anyone who is to represent me, especially since such beliefs reveal much about the character and mind of the person in question. I certainly would like to know if the person in charge of the monetary and military systems of my country believed that she was one of a select few who would soon be lifted up to heaven. This might affect my vote. I also would be concerned to learn that my representative was involved in funding far right groups in Israel because he and some of his constituents believed this may help bring about the "end times". Others might reasonably have difficulty voting for a man who believes that God speaks to his creation through magical golden tablets only readable by a sly con-man. I think it only sensible that people be interested in these things. I also think it is all too apparent that religion is not only "somehow bad", but is especially bad where world politics and social health are concerned.
See:
http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html - yodaj007, on 12/04/2007, -1/+5You're skills at discourse and debate far exceed our own. Please respond to his points, or don't respond at all. These ad hominem attacks only give the impression that you disagree because you want to. If you have any disagreements with what he said, state them. Otherwise, would you be so kind as to not click "Submit Comment" next time? Thank you.
- Shawn4168, on 12/04/2007, -1/+4I buried this as inaccurate last time it made front page, and I'm burying it as inaccurate this time too.
The constitution guarantees that no candidate shall be required to belong to a particular religion in order to be eligible to be elected to office. It doesn't mean that a candidate isn't allowed to be asked what faith they belong to. To some voters, a person's faith speaks volumes about their morals, ethics, and integrity.
Some people prefer to vote for people that are active in their religion. Some prefer to vote for people that aren't religiously active. Using religion as a criteria by which you vote is hardly unconstitutional. - inactive, on 12/04/2007, -0/+3""It has nothing to do with whether someone believes in God, but rather that there shouldn't be a requirement. And there isn't. Some people vote that way, but then some people vote for who they think looks presidential (William Bennett quote)""
-----------
There are not laws based on whether people look like William Bennett or not. There are not billions of taxpayer dollars given to people for looking like William Bennett.
Apples and oranges - amesolaire, on 12/04/2007, -1/+4Buddhism is in fact a religion, albeit a non-theistic one. Confusing, I agree.
- jsffive, on 12/04/2007, -1/+4And Article I, Section 2 was in part, superseded by the 14th Amendment... The Amendment process... another idea of the imperfect Founders...
Correct. The Founders were NOT perfect, but they did recognize their own imperfection. A quality that's RARE these days...
And you are also correct, people DO have a right to ask whatever they want... and it is because I have a voice that I'm allowed to point out when someone's asking the wrong question...
The "unofficial religious test" that's given every election cycle is damaging to the democracy, because it's a waste of time. Because no matter WHO occupies the halls of power they are ALL supposed to be equally accountable if they screw up, no matter what their religion is. WE are failing this democracy because we refuse to hold them accountable.
Religious tests are stupid... no matter WHO administers the test. - repete, on 12/04/2007, -2/+5Teh J00z pwn j00z...
- jsffive, on 12/04/2007, -0/+3You said:
"As such, the certainty that their national leader will act in a reasonably consistent manner in line with their particular beliefs (including religion) lends itself to such certainty, which is why seemingly all candidates quickly establish themselves with a particular spiritual (or secular) belief system."
I agree. But understand that the "certainty" of which you speak is only imaginary in the fact that the candidate's religious leanings are only a PERCEPTION... Not necessarily a reality.
I mean, how'd that religious test with Bush work out?
It just seems to me that the "answer" to the "religion question", for the REALLY insidious and clever politician, is the EASIEST LIE they could ever tell, because there's really no way to verify it.
As a believer of the Christian faith, I'm pretty sure that the first thing Jesus preached AGAINST was insincere prayers, and showing off your faith, instead of acting on it. He said take your prayers to a closet. Personally, I'm reluctant to vote for a person who flaunts their faith. - bratpack8, on 12/04/2007, -2/+5It has nothing to do with whether someone believes in God, but rather that there shouldn't be a requirement. And there isn't. Some people vote that way, but then some people vote for who they think looks presidential (William Bennett quote), while others vote because the candidate will let woman abort babies, while others vote based on hearing 5 sound bites from every candidate, while others vote based randomly. That's democracy.
- Flamancot, on 12/04/2007, -4/+7Actually sir, it gives him that right exactly, and we're probably all better for it. I loved his comment, because the guy had a voice rather than a simple point. Because the point, my dear Mrs. Post, is only half the story. It's frustrating - REALLY frustrating - dealing with legions of foolish people who don't have enough intelligence or shame to be led by people who are genuine. He'd says: Good for you! Indeed, it is good that you, personally, aren't a "dumb *****" - but why don't you spend your time trying to change the people who give you such a bad name than chastising a single voice of frustration. He DOES have a point - and it is much more complicated than "Christianity has a bad image because the leaders are bigots." Personally, I'm on Digg in the first place to get a sense what frustrates people, excites them, enrages them, and so on... I'll give you that "dildoolielily" probably wouldn't represent the most diplomatic voice out there - but it is a very legitimate one nonetheless - at least I was amused by it.. you ought to try harder to be amused by things like this, especially since you agree with his "point." SMILE BITCHES
- LeeSoong, on 12/04/2007, -4/+7no Atheists ?
Are you so sure? A lot of Atheist politicians have to 'put on the god act' - just to get votes... - ndavisAA, on 12/04/2007, -1/+3Scary isn't it. Its 2008 and people are still prejudice against atheists. They still feel that if someone doesn't believe in an invisible man living in the sky, they shouldn't be president.
- inactive, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2?
- amesolaire, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2As to the "unofficial religious litmus tests" - I agree wholeheartedly. But tell that to the 53% of the US voters who would never vote for an atheist president, even if he or she is well qualified. Compare that to 24% for a mormon candidate, and just 4% for catholic.
( source - Gallup. I couldn't immediately find the original, so here: http://sadlyno.com/archives/5125.html ) - Flamancot, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2word... democracy sucks.
- rysp10, on 12/04/2007, -2/+4Actually any animal knows that using a back scratcher is not correct. Dogs, cats, bears, etc.
I don't bash people who use back scratchers, or want to see any harm to come to them, but please don't tell me that imitating a tree to scratch your back is how nature intended it to be. If it were so "normal" then why does the very act of scratching your back imitate the physical act of scratching your back with a tree? If using a back scratcher was so correct, why do they imitate the tree in the act?
Again, animals seem to know more than we do.
PS I've gone ahead and fixed instances of "immitating" (sic)
PPS Natural law is such a joke - dgendreau, on 12/04/2007, -1/+3Come back to us when you conservatives can come to a consensus on specifically what parts of the bible are literal and what parts are figurative, because for every passage in the bible, there is a large group of conservatives somewhere that swears its literal.
- wentwj, on 12/04/2007, -2/+4Also... just so we're all clear... you all realize that WAY more politicians are Atheists than let on right? Just like a lot more politicians are gay. Politicians are just a sampling of the population, and they fall in line with the statistical average, only most of them realize if they came out that they were Atheists, they'd have a lot harder time campaigning.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 159 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is