Which God-boy are you voting for?

[Charlie Monoxide]

I just finished watching the final debate tonight. Both candidates did well and "stayed on message". The sloganeering from the first debate seemed to have returned, especially for Kerry.

With all this religeon and faith stuff that both candidates professed, Badnarik of the Libertarian party is starting to look good.

If god is so important to these two men, why can't god choose by striking one of them with lightning or some otherly "godly" thing?

Charlie (alienated atheist) Monoxide

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Charlie Monoxide
If god is so important to these two men, why can't god choose by striking one of them with lightning or some otherly "godly" thing?

Because God is bipartisan.

[geni]

Well to be fair kerry did include people of no faith.

(god refuses to strike either with lightening on the basis that politicians are not his to play with)

[varwoche]

Originally posted by geni
Well to be fair kerry did include people of no faith.
Didn't Bush also?

[Jude]

Originally posted by varwoche
Didn't Bush also?
I recall Bush expressly stating Muslims and Christians, but I don't recall anything about atheists.

[Ed]

Originally posted by geni
Well to be fair kerry did include people of no faith.

(god refuses to strike either with lightening on the basis that politicians are not his to play with)

I refuse to strike either with lightining because they are beneath contempt.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Jude
I recall Bush expressly stating Muslims and Christians, but I don't recall anything about atheists. About the closest Bush came was this:But I'm mindful in a free society that people can worship if they want to or not. You're equally an American if you choose to worship an almighty and if you choose not to.Some might argue that this is a back-handed insult, in that Bush is saying that there is an Almighty but the government cannot compel worship of Him. I believe, however, that no insult was intended. I also suggest that anyone who would criticize Bush for this remark should also criticize Kerry, because his remarks were similar, but phrased in terms of "practice" rather than "worship":And as president, I will always respect everybody's right to practice religion as they choose -- or not to practice -- because that's part of America.

[Ipecac]

I found the god-speak somewhat depressing. When will we ever have a President who can forego all that nonsense?

In light of Bush Senior's comments about atheists, I was pleased to hear W's statement about those who don't worship still being American. But I don't really believe that he thinks that way. Kerry's remarks were troubling in that he was kowtowing to the religious, but he's still saying more of the right things than Bush on this issue.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Charlie Monoxide
I just finished watching the final debate tonight. Both candidates did well and "stayed on message". The sloganeering from the first debate seemed to have returned, especially for Kerry.

With all this religeon and faith stuff that both candidates professed, Badnarik of the Libertarian party is starting to look good.

If god is so important to these two men, why can't god choose by striking one of them with lightning or some otherly "godly" thing?

Charlie (alienated atheist) Monoxide

I heard a story the other day about Clinton mentioned Jesus more than Bush and even said his presidency was providence. I had always assumed Bush mentioned Jesus/God an inordinate amount of times because that was the meme and I didn't think to question it because it sounded right.

Now we have Kerry who indicated last night that his christian faith guides his socialistic thinking.

On the other hand we have Bush who indicated that his faith is at the roots of his policy of regime change.

So, which faith driven candidate are you going to vote for on Nov. 2?

[Tmy]

I find most politicians to be insencere when it comes to religion. Going to chruch is little more than a photo op. Its pandering at the highest level.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Ipecac
I found the god-speak somewhat depressing. When will we ever have a President who can forego all that nonsense?

They're both acting in accordance with their faith.

I suspect that the first President that will ever "forego all the nonsence" will be an agnostic/atheist. Until then, we'll have to keep putting up with theists and their beliefs.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I suspect that the first President that will ever "forego all the nonsence" will be an agnostic/atheist. Until then, we'll have to keep putting up with theists and their beliefs.

I don't think even an atheist would be able to "forego all the nonsense." The God talk is a political necessity for presidential candidates now and for the foreseeable future. I always tell people never to assume that a politician is a Christian just because he pretends to be one. I think there are more atheists in office than most of us suspect.

Jeremy

[punchdrunk]

Originally posted by corplinx
I heard a story the other day about Clinton mentioned Jesus more than Bush and even said his presidency was providence. I had always assumed Bush mentioned Jesus/God an inordinate amount of times because that was the meme and I didn't think to question it because it sounded right.

Now we have Kerry who indicated last night that his christian faith guides his socialistic thinking.

On the other hand we have Bush who indicated that his faith is at the roots of his policy of regime change.

So, which faith driven candidate are you going to vote for on Nov. 2?

Does Kerry plan on pursuing any faith-based initiatives? Does Kerry support a constitutional admendment restricting the rights of a gay couple to marry, because God is against it? Has Kerry ever said anything that leads you to believe he would use the Oval Office to compromise the idea of separation of church and state?

Don't get me wrong, the religious posturing in which both candidates engage is sickening, but Kerry's is just that - posturing. Bush, on the other hand, is actively starting to tear down that separation. There is a significant difference in my opinion.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Kodiak
They're both acting in accordance with their faith.

I suspect that the first President that will ever "forego all the nonsence" will be an agnostic/atheist. Until then, we'll have to keep putting up with theists and their beliefs.

I think a Catholic president would go lighter on the god-speak than a Protestant one. Most American Catholics tend not to discuss religious beliefs; it's almost but not quite bad taste to mention stuff like that. Go to church, get the sacraments, but don't gab about it. The Catholics I've met who've been vocal about religion are invariably converts from another denomination. You can spot them a mile off by their earnest air and the fact that they actually sit in the front of the church. My most Catholic relatives find enthusiasm for religion embarrassing; even the priests and nuns change the subject!

Plus, a Catholic president would be extra-careful to tone down the god-speak for fear of reminding fundamentalist Protestants that he's part of the Scarlet Woman of Babylon.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by rhoadp
Does Kerry plan on pursuing any faith-based initiatives? Does Kerry support a constitutional admendment restricting the rights of a gay couple to marry, because God is against it? Has Kerry ever said anything that leads you to believe he would use the Oval Office to compromise the idea of separation of church and state?

Don't get me wrong, the religious posturing in which both candidates engage is sickening, but Kerry's is just that - posturing. Bush, on the other hand, is actively starting to tear down that separation. There is a significant difference in my opinion.

You've fallen for the rhetoric sadly. You might want to investigate the origins of faith-based initiatives to understand why I don't think Kerry will change that policy at all (hint, google for "charitable choice".

Its really a case of same sh*t different day.

[Jas]

Well, I'm not voting (obviously), however, I at least have respect for someone who is willing to stand up for their beliefs, rather than someone who is willing to change them in accordance with popular opinion. Kerry strikes me as trying too hard to please both sides, and I think he is full of BS, quite frankly. While I missed the debate last night unfortuanately, in the highlights I managed to catch a bit of the abortion talk, and I think Bush's response was much more sincere.

Just my opinion based on my limited knowledge of the subject.

[Checkmite]

Let's be fair, guys. Neither one of the candidates has discussed or made an issue of their faith so far, during this campaign. All the "horrible god talk" was in response to a direct question from the moderator. They answered his question, and then they moved on. Why is this such a problem?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by rhoadp
Does Kerry plan on pursuing any faith-based initiatives? Does Kerry support a constitutional admendment restricting the rights of a gay couple to marry, because God is against it? Has Kerry ever said anything that leads you to believe he would use the Oval Office to compromise the idea of separation of church and state?

Don't get me wrong, the religious posturing in which both candidates engage is sickening, but Kerry's is just that - posturing. Bush, on the other hand, is actively starting to tear down that separation. There is a significant difference in my opinion. Everyone hates a hypocrite. But this is one case where I'll take the (assumed) hypocrite over the straight shooter any day of the week.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jas
Well, I'm not voting (obviously), however, I at least have respect for someone who is willing to stand up for their beliefs, rather than someone who is willing to change them in accordance with popular opinion. Kerry strikes me as trying too hard to please both sides, and I think he is full of BS, quite frankly. While I missed the debate last night unfortuanately, in the highlights I managed to catch a bit of the abortion talk, and I think Bush's response was much more sincere.

Just my opinion based on my limited knowledge of the subject.

Well, you could vote in Chicago.:D

Seriously, I agree that Bush is sincere in his beliefs.

[Snide]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Let's be fair, guys. Neither one of the candidates has discussed or made an issue of their faith so far, during this campaign. All the "horrible god talk" was in response to a direct question from the moderator. They answered his question, and then they moved on. Why is this such a problem?

You see this a lot, not just from candidates. A celebrity will give an opinion, it gets published, and people go nuts. A ballplayer gives an opinion on his salary, and people rail him for it. Etc.

It's one thing to seek out the reporter and say, "Hey, print this, will you?" But people need to chill out when someone is just giving an honest answer to a question. Obviously, I'm not saying people DON'T seek out the attention, but we need keep it all in perspective.

BTW...Minnesota has elected what appears to be an agnostic/atheist.

"Organized religion is a sham for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers."
-Jesse Ventura

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Let's be fair, guys. Neither one of the candidates has discussed or made an issue of their faith so far, during this campaign. All the "horrible god talk" was in response to a direct question from the moderator. They answered his question, and then they moved on. Why is this such a problem? It isn't. It is a jumping off point, however, to acknowledge certain likelyhoods, i.e. composition of the supreme court and the effect on separation of church and state, creationism in public schools, prayer in public schools, Roe v Wade, rights of gay people, etc.

[Nyarlathotep]

I don't mind if the candidates are religious. Atheists are a tiny minority in this country and most people have wouldn't vote for one, and I might not like it, but I accept it. So a candidate being personally religious and making the occasional religious remark is something I will grudgingly accept.

However, what I absolutely WILL NOT accept is if the candidate is so religious that he feels compelled to inflict his religion on me. And Bush, despite making one offhand comment (that, unlike Brown, I DO think was intended as a thinly disguised insult) to the contrary has shown by his actions that he is quite happy to force his religion on others (witness his support of the anti Gay marriage amendment. I have never heard a decent non-religious reason to oppose Gay Marriage), or at the very least to openly and shamelessly pander to religious groups that want to impose their religion on everyone else.

I don't know if Kerry will be as bad, but it would be hard for him to be worse. Frankly, he doesn't strike me as the type, though. So though Kerry might be somewhat religious, I have to give it to Kerry on the religiousity issue.

[varwoche]

Seeing as some of the most powerful elected republicans in the country unabashedly advocate a foriegn policy based on biblical end-of-days prophecy, it would be reassuring (a little) to hear Bush state unequivocally that he is not doing so.

Nor can non-religious people be particuarly heartened by an attorney general who talks in tongues, and purportedly belongs to a snake-handling congregation. (I suspect Kevin Bacon in snake allegation, not sure though.)

[Batman Jr.]

Going on his stances on policy, I have a feeling that Kerry, even though he'll assert vehemently to the contrary to secure the religious vote, might be a closet atheist/agnostic. I mean, he's gotten the Catholic Church in a tizzy telling people to go Republican and he doesn't much seem to give a damn.

It also must be said that there have been at least two non-believers in office already: Lincoln and Taft.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
Going on his stances on policy, I have a feeling that Kerry, even though he'll assert vehemently to the contrary to secure the religious vote, might be a closet atheist/agnostic. I mean, he's gotten the Catholic Church in a tizzy telling people to go Republican and he doesn't much seem to give a damn.

It also must be said that there have been at least two non-believers in office already: Lincoln and Taft.

If you count Lincoln as a non-beleiver, you have to count Washington too. Both were Deists, IIRC.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Snide
You see this a lot, not just from candidates. A celebrity will give an opinion, it gets published, and people go nuts.

In all fairness, that's exactly what happened with the whole Cat Stevens/Salmon Rushdie thing...

[Brown]

Originally posted by Snide
BTW...Minnesota has elected what appears to be an agnostic/atheist.

"Organized religion is a sham for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers."
-Jesse Ventura Close, but Jesse's quote was actually a little more strongly worded than that:

"Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers."

[AtheistArchon]

Going on his stances on policy, I have a feeling that Kerry, even though he'll assert vehemently to the contrary to secure the religious vote, might be a closet atheist/agnostic. I mean, he's gotten the Catholic Church in a tizzy telling people to go Republican and he doesn't much seem to give a damn.

- I'm glad I'm not the only person who has a suspicion about this. Perhaps it's wishful thinking? Either way, I have no problem at all with Kerry for being Catholic; as you point out, he's obviously no slave to the dogma. And any politician worth a cent isn't going to run from an atheist platform! The U.S. is nowhere near prepared for that.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by AtheistArchon
- I'm glad I'm not the only person who has a suspicion about this. Perhaps it's wishful thinking? Either way, I have no problem at all with Kerry for being Catholic; as you point out, he's obviously no slave to the dogma. And any politician worth a cent isn't going to run from an atheist platform! The U.S. is nowhere near prepared for that.

I think a gay Hindu conjoined twin running as a communist has a slightly better chance than an atheist.

[AtheistArchon]

I think a gay Hindu conjoined twin running as a communist has a slightly better chance than an atheist.

- Mmmmm no, I think I could take the gay Hindu conjoined twin commie. I mean... he's gay. :D

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by AtheistArchon
- Mmmmm no, I think I could take the gay Hindu conjoined twin commie. I mean... he's gay. :D

Take him? I wonder what you plan to do with a gay Hindu conjoined twin commie? Whatever it is, I bet you couldn't air it on TV without a million dollar FCC fine.

[thaiboxerken]

"I believe that I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith."-- Kerry

This is a big reason I'm voting for Kerry instead of Bush, who does want to legislate articles of faith.

[AtheistArchon]

Take him? I wonder what you plan to do with a gay Hindu conjoined twin commie? Whatever it is, I bet you couldn't air it on TV without a million dollar FCC fine.

- Ladies and gentlemen, you again see how my opponent twists the meanings of my words. As president, I have a plan to incorporate gay Hindu conjoined twins into democratic society. Too long they've embraced communism! Gay Hindu conjoined twins are now flooding our of the former Soviet Union and across our own borders at the rate of 4,000 per day...

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by AtheistArchon
- Ladies and gentlemen, you again see how my opponent twists the meanings of my words. As president, I have a plan to incorporate gay Hindu conjoined twins into democratic society. Too long they've embraced communism! Gay Hindu conjoined twins are now flooding our of the former Soviet Union and across our own borders at the rate of 4,000 per day...

Is that 4000 pairs, or 8000 individuals? You may allege spin all you want, but your numbers are highly questionable!

[CBL4]

Two things about Ventura. He said "organized" religion not religion and not god. This does not prove he has an atheist.

Also, he made the remark after being elected and was too unpopular to be re-elected.

CBL

[Brown]

Originally posted by CBL4
Two things about Ventura. He said "organized" religion not religion and not god. This does not prove he has an atheist.

Also, he made the remark after being elected and was too unpopular to be re-elected.Not only that, Jesse specifically denied being an atheist. He was noticeably uncomfortable taking about his faith and considered it a personal matter, but he did not renounce all religious belief from his own life.

Jesse made his remarks about religion in connection with laws, particularly laws pertaining to prostitution, that he felt represented legislation of morality.

As to whether he was too unpopular to be re-elected, it's hard to say. Some of the polls suggested that, had Ventura chosen to seek another term, he would have been slightly favored in a three-way race over Moe and Pawlenty (the latter eventually winning the office). Whether that slight edge would have held up on election day is an academic point, of course.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by rhoadp
Has Kerry ever said anything that leads you to believe he would use the Oval Office to compromise the idea of separation of church and state?
Yes, he has declared himself in favor of forcing children to be indoctrinated in the idea that devotion to God is part of patriotism.

Nyarlathotep
I don't mind if the candidates are religious. Atheists are a tiny minority in this country and most people have wouldn't vote for one, and I might not like it, but I accept it. I concur, but I would add that I do have a problem with many things associated with religiosity, such as presenting one's religion as a qualification for office.

Originally posted by Snide
It's one thing to seek out the reporter and say, "Hey, print this, will you?" But people need to chill out when someone is just giving an honest answer to a question. Obviously, I'm not saying people DON'T seek out the attention, but we need keep it all in perspective.
Sure, sometimes it's important to consider the conditions prompting the statement, but just because someone is asked their opinion, that doesn't mean that they can't be criticized for their opinion. If someone says that all blacks should be killed, that’s not acceptable, regardless of whether that declaration was spontaneous or not.

Originally posted by Kodiak
In all fairness, that's exactly what happened with the whole Cat Stevens/Salmon Rushdie thing...
That claim sounds fishy to me...

[CSSMariner]

Not that he has a snowball's chance in a blast furnace of being elected president, but does anyone here know anything about Nader's opinion on the predominant American belief system? Is he a practicing idiot, or does he just give lip service to dog?

I never seem to get that word right.