Religious People with (present day) Political Power

[falcon9]

It is presented in an insulting manner with the appearance of honest debate.  How can it be anything but disingenuous to the given query?  Had he omitted the insulting and belittling bias it would qualify, but including them -- while waiving the flag of reasonable debate -- nullifies any such considerations.

No doubt Falconer02 can repond at will to your interpretation of his post.  I didn't see an "insulting manner" within it; would you care to point out which specific phrasing was seen as such?

[Abrupt]

It is presented in an insulting manner with the appearance of honest debate.  How can it be anything but disingenuous to the given query?  Had he omitted the insulting and belittling bias it would qualify, but including them -- while waiving the flag of reasonable debate -- nullifies any such considerations.

No doubt Falconer02 can repond at will to your interpretation of his post.  I didn't see an "insulting manner" within it; would you care to point out which specific phrasing was seen as such?

"...how goofy it sounded..", "If these people want political power yet willingly preach their beliefs which encompass things like ghosts, afterlives, magic, but most importantly the end of the world, should they have political powe...", "...when he devoutly believes that a 19th century conman saw angels...", "...should have control over any form of scientific education considering he's a devout creationist and has been pushing for Intelligent Design for years...", "...how can you trust someone whose fundamental grasp on reality is so skewed...", "How can you trust someone who goes against American principles and willingly tries to blur the line between church and state?", "...when you boast and throw these types of things on the table (as these candidates have), how can these be positive things when viewed rationally..." are a few examples.  I might be some stupid, knuckle dragging, caveman religious type, but I do recognize when I am being insulted.  What he is doing here is building a prejudicial argument.  It is even constructed of non associated data and presented in a package as if it is a componentized kit.

You might not detect the insult though as you could be viewing it subjectively.  If I said "Atheists think they created themselves", do you see the hidden insult there?  How about if I said "Atheists created themselves"?  Many people might not see those as anything more than statements, and although they might recognize some sort of debasing manner in the former, the later would likely completely escape them.  These are simple and subtle examples and benign compared with the above.  To those with the proper ear, my contumely is readily obvious.

[Falconer02]

First off- I must agree with your first post, Falcon. Well said.

why does intelligent design make him unequipped to teach science?

ID is just a broader Creationist movement that ultimately pushes for Christianity but, again, shows no evidence of the claim. If a politician is pushing for something that has no evidence into something where the entire study is based upon evidences, it shows a severe lack of intelligence.

Your question, Falconer02, seems pretty disingenuous to me.  I would much prefer you to make whatever statement it is you are wishing to make in your initial post, instead of presenting it to be something other than what it is (which is exactly what you claim it isn't necessarily to be).  If you cannot recognize the bias and dishonesty in your own writings, then you are allowing your contempt to blind you as much as you claim those of faith to be blinded by their beliefs.  You display all of the worst characteristics you attribute to faith and none of the distinguishing qualities -- such is the comical shame of the self-perceived smiling face that the frowning anti-faithful view in their mirrors as they cast their self-judgmental accusations on any they perceive to possess the quality of religion.  You are implying a weakness (more like an insanity) in others that you are incapable of recognizing in yourself, and I would find the whole event comical if I didn't recognize the hate behind it all.

I really don't know what you're talking about here. Generally when a religious person gets offended when another calls their own beliefs delusional (by definition), they're far too emotionally compromised to be in a debate or discussion. If one can show that these beliefs are not delusional (as in the myths are accurate depictions of what really happened -proofs-), by all means please do! But the problem is as I presented it- a politician having a strong fundamentalist/religious tone and using it as their forefront to get elected can be problematic and a major hurdle to anyone who values rational decision making. I also said it could be beneficial and/or not really of concern, but as of lately I have seen nothing but negative examples when religion is tightly coupled with politics.

Criticize the foolishness of any human that believes at all even a single word of any other human.  We are all well aware of the weakness of humanity and have it displayed for us every single day, and repeatedly.  We thrive on this weakness as we somehow use it to mute the same flaws we see in ourselves and especially as a justifications for the base characteristics we conceal in our own dark corners.  Such a shame to the one who fishes another man's waters and insults the same fish he is after as the thrash about in the others net.  Surely you must recognize some of this -- you must have a hint of this in those places you avoid lingering long enough to look around.

Uhhh....what? I'm really not following you here. This is just a religious/political thread. Not some creepy trip into my Hannibal Lecter psyche!

Edit: When I say "emotionally compromised", I'm not specifically referring to you, Abrupt. I'm referring to the past 100 threads where religion was brought up and what the followers tend to do within the discussions.

[falcon9]

"...how goofy it sounded..", "If these people want political power yet willingly preach their beliefs which encompass things like ghosts, afterlives, magic, but most importantly the end of the world, should they have political powe...", "...when he devoutly believes that a 19th century conman saw angels...", "...should have control over any form of scientific education considering he's a devout creationist and has been pushing for Intelligent Design for years...", "...how can you trust someone whose fundamental grasp on reality is so skewed...", "How can you trust someone who goes against American principles and willingly tries to blur the line between church and state?", "...when you boast and throw these types of things on the table (as these candidates have), how can these be positive things when viewed rationally..." are a few examples.  I might be some stupid, knuckle dragging, caveman religious type, but I do recognize when I am being insulted. 

While it's somewhat ironic that you have contempt, ("contumely"), for someone who has contempt for specious religious beliefs, I sometimes wonder if you can perceive that irony.  Specifically, an irrational contempt of rationality.

What he is doing here is building a prejudicial argument.  It is even constructed of non associated data and presented in a package as if it is a componentized kit.

The argument isn't "prejudicial" just because you claim it is.  The post emphasized specific religious bias and sought opinions as to whether or not such bias would influence political agendas of certain candidates.  The specific religious bias was not presented as non-associated data, it was presented in the form of an example of such a bias, (which is either a cynical political posture or, the actual religious position of the politician claiming it).

You might not detect the insult though as you could be viewing it subjectively. 

True, I fail to perceive an "insult" in pointing out that something is irrational.  Although I can see how a person holding an irrational position could see such an observation as being 'insulting', hypothetically. That's largely irrelavent however, since being 'insulted' does not refute the salient point, (e.g., specious religious beliefs _are_ "skewed" away from rationality).

If I said "Atheists think they created themselves", do you see the hidden insult there? 

No, since that would be a strawman statement which has not been claimed by any atheists quoted.

How about if I said "Atheists created themselves"? 

At that point you'd be making a claim and I'd request that you substantiate it however, it could be considered to be indirectly 'insulting' to reason.

Many people might not see those as anything more than statements, and although they might recognize some sort of debasing manner in the former, the later would likely completely escape them.  These are simple and subtle examples and benign compared with the above.  To those with the proper ear, my contumely is readily obvious.

While your contempt is obvious, it may be that attempts to convey contumely regarding specious religious claims have previously been too subtle.

[falcon9]

First off- I must agree with your first post, Falcon. Well said.

Thanks, dude.  I wanted to address certain specific aspects of "Abrupt's" responses however, didn't intend to give the impression that I was answering for you.  Your reply went into some other aspects of that response which only you could answer from your perspective.  Although that particular pattern you inferred concerning those making 'religious arguments' has begun to emerge, I was hopeful that the actual points raised would be responded to, (rather than going off into oblique tangents).

[d1cheetah]

I agree with Abrupt's reasoning.  Just saying.

[Abrupt]

I really don't know what you're talking about here. Generally when a religious person gets offended when another calls their own beliefs delusional (by definition), they're far too emotionally compromised to be in a debate or discussion. If one can show that these beliefs are not delusional (as in the myths are accurate depictions of what really happened -proofs-), by all means please do! But the problem is as I presented it- a politician having a strong fundamentalist/religious tone and using it as their forefront to get elected can be problematic and a major hurdle to anyone who values rational decision making. I also said it could be beneficial and/or not really of concern, but as of lately I have seen nothing but negative examples when religion is tightly coupled with politics.

Fair enough, I don't know what I am talking about half the time either I suspect, but here I do, though.  I mean your presentation is flawed.  Your supposition is that the religious characteristics of the politician will pose a problem and should be considered harshly as a negative.  History contradicts such a line of thinking though.  The greatest nation in the world was formed by a populace with many demonstrating strong religious beliefs.  Many previous presidents and politicians have displayed religious beliefs in varying degrees, from the devout to the possible agnostic/atheistic.  I would not worry about things that can be indicated by a religious tone -- that is where you can get a glimpse of the certainty of what one may exhibit (since it is often pointed out as to be blind devotion then you should feel completely comfortable with qualifying a position based upon this and therefor it should be fairly easy to remove some uncertainties that would exist in the event that the person had less obvious a compass of their morality and belief systems).  Don't treat their belief systems as a variable, consider it instead as a constant.  Instead of concerning yourself with the spiritual beliefs of the person you should worry more with the proven or demonstrated qualities or characteristic skill sets of the individual.

Many athletes have good luck charms, good luck mascots, good luck rituals, etc that they utilize/participate in.  Should fans and owners become concerned that such things will diminish their abilities to perform their duties on the field/court/etc?  Before anyone suggests this is different, I will put out there that it isn't at all as it is the consistency in the practice that is important and not the occurrence.

Your inclusion of "it could be beneficial" doesn't conceal your positing it as only detrimental given your own words.   Additionally, I didn't say I was offended, I said I knew when I was being insulted.

Uhhh....what? I'm really not following you here. This is just a religious/political thread. Not some creepy trip into my Hannibal Lecter psyche!

Edit: When I say "emotionally compromised", I'm not specifically referring to you, Abrupt. I'm referring to the past 100 threads where religion was brought up and what the followers tend to do within the discussions.

Yeah forgive my odd use of language here.  I just finished rereading "The Nibelungenlied" and I got stuck in a certain descriptive mindset (not that mine is anything like the other though) that has affected my choice of words and language and descriptions.  That is a good tale though.  I understand what you mean with the use of "emotionally compromised" and I also see the same reactions you do and on many occasions think "wow, that is a bit insane".  You must understand though with many you are not just attacking a choice they are making, you are attacking their very identity and possibly even with some it is the things that let them close their eyes at night without screaming in fear.  I have two friends and both having a wife.  One I could tell him that his wife sure is ugly and he would agree and pile on more insults towards her.  The other would proceed to stomping as big a mud-hole into my *bleep* as he was capable of.  In both cases my observations would be honest and accurate but their reactions don't depend upon the honesty or accuracy of my statements and they are simply left with my statements and whatever reasons they infer as being behind them.

[Abrupt]

While it's somewhat ironic that you have contempt, ("contumely"), for someone who has contempt for specious religious beliefs, I sometimes wonder if you can perceive that irony.  Specifically, an irrational contempt of rationality.

I didn't imply that I had disdain in the example I gave.  I simply stated that the language had subtle and arrogant contempt if one looked closely enough. Well, upon looking back at my words, the last sentence seems to challenge my claim if considered in isolation, but if including my examples it is softened enough to be not insinuated with my obvious double use of "if". 

If I can nit pick here a bit, what you suggest is not irony.  It isn't even a contradiction.  It may be a riposte but it isn't necessarily unwarranted or even challengeable on such a merit alone.  I think there is a fitting word for it but the word escapes me.  Now I am not being simply petty here in this (as we did mention it before).  It is merely that I think those such as us, who tend to use a vaster array of words than most, should be held somewhat more accountable for our usage.  You would probably agree here.  I know the word has been misused so much these days that it has a generic meaning but such slights are not for us considering our propensity to wield words somewhat offensively.  I would expect you to likewise point out any misuse that I commit, as I know there are cases I often do and I have a desire to improve.

The argument isn't "prejudicial" just because you claim it is.  The post emphasized specific religious bias and sought opinions as to whether or not such bias would influence political agendas of certain candidates.  The specific religious bias was not presented as non-associated data, it was presented in the form of an example of such a bias, (which is either a cynical political posture or, the actual religious position of the politician claiming it).

I agree, my words alone do not make it such.  It is his words that do.  Whenever you present an argument in a deliberately negative light (and even in cases where it is painted positively too), when such descriptions could be omitted and the entirety of the point or question would be just as valid, one has committed a prejudicial argument.  An obvious example would be if I asked if one would rather have the delicious raspberry or the nasty huckleberry.  Such a question is prejudicial and subjective.  The disassociation is when blending the different beliefs and views of the various candidates and other beliefs not associated with them at all into a type of commonality that wants (deliberate usage) to suggest they shared them all.

True, I fail to perceive an "insult" in pointing out that something is irrational.  Although I can see how a person holding an irrational position could see such an observation as being 'insulting', hypothetically. That's largely irrelavent however, since being 'insulted' does not refute the salient point, (e.g., specious religious beliefs _are_ "skewed" away from rationality).

It isn't necessary for you to observe injury where I claim it, in order for it to exist.  (I stole that type of usage from you.  I rather like it as it reminds me of a smart *bleep* version of a Spock.  I hope you don't mind as I really like using it.).  Irrational is taking a man at his word, since we know the nature of man.  It is far more rational to take a religious man at his word regarding his position of his religion, especially in your case where you identify his 'irrationality' by his consistency within his religious doctrine.  When dealing with the religious, their rationality will be proportionate to the degree and devoutness of their understanding of their beliefs.  When dealing with the non religious, their actions can only be rational to concepts such as self survival and personal greed.  Beyond that any other action is mostly uncertain and indeterminate.

While your contempt is obvious, it may be that attempts to convey contumely regarding specious religious claims have previously been too subtle.

I hope you meant "implied" contempt as no actually contempt was realized by me.  One can never be too subtle.  Subtlety is such an effective dagger whether it is detected or not.

[Joeyramone]

Leftist Progressivism is what we have now... not working out too well.

No, it's not however, neither was right-wing republicanism.  A fundamentalist theocracy would be somewhat worse.

I challenge you to find any candidate or politician who draws above 2% in any poll who advocates a theocratic state.

Non sequitor; there are numerous politicians who advocate xtian religious stances in their policy proposals.  This represents a tendency toward a fundamentalist theocracy.

 

What is 'right-wing republicanism'?  They can be mutually exclusive terms.  Conservatism is the adherence to the US COnstitution.  Secular Progressives are the polar opposite of that.  Do you support following the US Constitution or do you not?

Also, not sure how it is a 'non-sequitor' if there aren't any politicians you can name who are advocating for a religious theocracy.  If religious beliefs influence their views, that has nothing to do with any belief that a religious theocracy should be established.

You are fighting a losing battle here.  If you could put forth some solid examples of these boogeymen you are presenting, you might be able to help yourself.  Reality is proving you nothing more than an alarmist.

[falcon9]

 

While it's somewhat ironic that you have contempt, ("contumely"), for someone who has contempt for specious religious beliefs, I sometimes wonder if you can perceive that irony.  Specifically, an irrational contempt of rationality.

I didn't imply that I had disdain in the example I gave.  I simply stated that the language had subtle and arrogant contempt if one looked closely enough. Well, upon looking back at my words, the last sentence seems to challenge my claim if considered in isolation, but if including my examples it is softened enough to be not insinuated with my obvious double use of "if".

No doubt it is obvious that at least some "contumely" runs both ways, (perhaps not in equal proportions enough to be mutual).

The argument isn't "prejudicial" just because you claim it is.  The post emphasized specific religious bias and sought opinions as to whether or not such bias would influence political agendas of certain candidates.  The specific religious bias was not presented as non-associated data, it was presented in the form of an example of such a bias, (which is either a cynical political posture or, the actual religious position of the politician claiming it).

I agree, my words alone do not make it such.  It is his words that do.  Whenever you present an argument in a deliberately negative light (and even in cases where it is painted positively too), when such descriptions could be omitted and the entirety of the point or question would be just as valid, one has committed a prejudicial argument.  

Presumably, you are aware that there is some inherent bias in the opposing positions, (religious bias and anti-religious bias). You are focussing upon the anti-religious bias in posts which are extrapolating potential effects of political religious bias.  In recognising the inherent bias in both positions, (taking them into account), do you or do you not perceive any potential influence of a religious political bias?

The disassociation is when blending the different beliefs and views of the various candidates and other beliefs not associated with them at all into a type of commonality that wants (deliberate usage) to suggest they shared them all.

Irrational is taking a man at his word, since we know the nature of man.  It is far more rational to take a religious man at his word regarding his position of his religion, especially in your case where you identify his 'irrationality' by his consistency within his religious doctrine.

Your statements are mutually contradicting.  If it is irrational to take someone at their word regarding their irrational religious beliefs, it is not rational to imbue 'consistent' irrationality with rationality.  No matter how 'rational' someone feels their religious beliefs are, if they can be rationally demonstrated to be irrational beliefs, (and they have been since no substantiating evidence to support such beliefs is extant nor, presenting under the burden of proof requirements of making the initial claim), then there is no rationality to such 'empty faith'.  

When dealing with the religious, their rationality will be proportionate to the degree and devoutness of their understanding of their beliefs.

The "devoutness" and any "understanding" of a religious faith is not encompassed by rationality/reason.  Instead, such concepts are understood to be taken on "faith" ALONE, (which means, sans evidence).  Rationality doesn't enter into it, although 'rationalizing', (as distinguished from reason/reationality), often does - as in this instance of your rationalizing sans rationality.

When dealing with the non religious, their actions can only be rational to concepts such as self survival and personal greed.  Beyond that any other action is mostly uncertain and indeterminate.

Your over-simplication notwithstanding, rational behaviour is not restricted to self-survival or greed any more than irrationality being restricted to the same parameters, (or opposite ones).  There are instances where the underlying intentions of actions by both the religious and non-religious cannot be accurately determined.  Essentially, this was understood as the context of the OP; whether or not a religious political figure's beliefs would influence their positions/policies, (and thus have an effect on the rest of us should those policies manifest legislatively or, by presidential influence).  Your statement regarding the non-religious is inherently insulting and biased, together with omitting that religious adherents can be, (and most certainly are), just as concerned with their own survival and personal greed as anyone else.  Being a religious adherent does not obviate such characteristics, (as implicitly implied).

The opposing views may be generally summarized as the viewpoint that the religious beliefs espoused by a politician either affect a politician's political agenda or, they do not, (insofar as such a religious stance may be held to garner votes from other religious adherents or, be genuine), as opposed to those who may somehow feel that such religious beliefs will not affect the political agendas of such politicians, (this viewpoint apparently stemming mainly from those who are also religious adherents and may feel motivated to support irrational religious beliefs because they have them too).  The question posed by the OP has had responses expressing concern about religious bias however, no direct responses expressing the view that such religious bias would no affect political agendas has been presented with substantive reasons why it would not.

[falcon9]

What is 'right-wing republicanism'?  They can be mutually exclusive terms.

Loosely, that would be extreme conservatism, (which includes 'religious conservatism' and thus, mutually-exclusive terms you mentioned).

Conservatism is the adherence to the US COnstitution.  Secular Progressives are the polar opposite of that.

You present a false dichotomy; nominally, the mainstream political parties, (if the majority of the subdivisions of them), support the constitution.  The term "secular progressives" either refers to non-religious "progressive" views, (inherently vague at best, as far as what is considered to be "progressive"), or as a weak attempt to 'demonize' non-religious positions.  No evidence has been presented to support the contention that such vague "secular progressives" do not adhere to the constitution.  This concludes my participation in your strawman arguement unless you can produce substantive evidence which supports your assertion.

Do you support following the US Constitution or do you not?

I do support it and yet, that does not make me a right-wing republican, secular progressive, religious democrat or any other pigeon-holed designator.

Also, not sure how it is a 'non-sequitor' if there aren't any politicians you can name who are advocating for a religious theocracy.

I didn't state that any were overtly "advocating" a theocracy; I hypothesized that such religious views may affect political agendas to the cumulative extent of resulting in some form of de facto theocracy.

[Abrupt]

While it's somewhat ironic that you have contempt, ("contumely"), for someone who has contempt for specious religious beliefs, I sometimes wonder if you can perceive that irony.  Specifically, an irrational contempt of rationality.

I didn't imply that I had disdain in the example I gave.  I simply stated that the language had subtle and arrogant contempt if one looked closely enough. Well, upon looking back at my words, the last sentence seems to challenge my claim if considered in isolation, but if including my examples it is softened enough to be not insinuated with my obvious double use of "if".

No doubt it is obvious that at least some "contumely" runs both ways, (perhaps not in equal proportions enough to be mutual).

The argument isn't "prejudicial" just because you claim it is.  The post emphasized specific religious bias and sought opinions as to whether or not such bias would influence political agendas of certain candidates.  The specific religious bias was not presented as non-associated data, it was presented in the form of an example of such a bias, (which is either a cynical political posture or, the actual religious position of the politician claiming it).

I agree, my words alone do not make it such.  It is his words that do.  Whenever you present an argument in a deliberately negative light (and even in cases where it is painted positively too), when such descriptions could be omitted and the entirety of the point or question would be just as valid, one has committed a prejudicial argument.  

Presumably, you are aware that there is some inherent bias in the opposing positions, (religious bias and anti-religious bias). You are focussing upon the anti-religious bias in posts which are extrapolating potential effects of political religious bias.  In recognising the inherent bias in both positions, (taking them into account), do you or do you not perceive any potential influence of a religious political bias?

The disassociation is when blending the different beliefs and views of the various candidates and other beliefs not associated with them at all into a type of commonality that wants (deliberate usage) to suggest they shared them all.

Irrational is taking a man at his word, since we know the nature of man.  It is far more rational to take a religious man at his word regarding his position of his religion, especially in your case where you identify his 'irrationality' by his consistency within his religious doctrine.

Your statements are mutually contradicting.  If it is irrational to take someone at their word regarding their irrational religious beliefs, it is not rational to imbue 'consistent' irrationality with rationality.  No matter how 'rational' someone feels their religious beliefs are, if they can be rationally demonstrated to be irrational beliefs, (and they have been since no substantiating evidence to support such beliefs is extant nor, presenting under the burden of proof requirements of making the initial claim), then there is no rationality to such 'empty faith'.  

When dealing with the religious, their rationality will be proportionate to the degree and devoutness of their understanding of their beliefs.

The "devoutness" and any "understanding" of a religious faith is not encompassed by rationality/reason.  Instead, such concepts are understood to be taken on "faith" ALONE, (which means, sans evidence).  Rationality doesn't enter into it, although 'rationalizing', (as distinguished from reason/reationality), often does - as in this instance of your rationalizing sans rationality.

When dealing with the non religious, their actions can only be rational to concepts such as self survival and personal greed.  Beyond that any other action is mostly uncertain and indeterminate.

Your over-simplication notwithstanding, rational behaviour is not restricted to self-survival or greed any more than irrationality being restricted to the same parameters, (or opposite ones).  There are instances where the underlying intentions of actions by both the religious and non-religious cannot be accurately determined.  Essentially, this was understood as the context of the OP; whether or not a religious political figure's beliefs would influence their positions/policies, (and thus have an effect on the rest of us should those policies manifest legislatively or, by presidential influence).  Your statement regarding the non-religious is inherently insulting and biased, together with omitting that religious adherents can be, (and most certainly are), just as concerned with their own survival and personal greed as anyone else.  Being a religious adherent does not obviate such characteristics, (as implicitly implied).

The opposing views may be generally summarized as the viewpoint that the religious beliefs espoused by a politician either affect a politician's political agenda or, they do not, (insofar as such a religious stance may be held to garner votes from other religious adherents or, be genuine), as opposed to those who may somehow feel that such religious beliefs will not affect the political agendas of such politicians, (this viewpoint apparently stemming mainly from those who are also religious adherents and may feel motivated to support irrational religious beliefs because they have them too).  The question posed by the OP has had responses expressing concern about religious bias however, no direct responses expressing the view that such religious bias would no affect political agendas has been presented with substantive reasons why it would not.

The quote chain method is hindering this here so I will reply externally and hopefully address every point.

First we must focus on what the initial question raised was.  Basically it was how can we trust a religious person to be President.  It was technically a form of "begging the question", with those of religious beliefs presented to have a twisted view of reality.  The assertion is that such peoples are untrustworthy as President and should thus be disqualified somehow.  History contradicts this though, and also as I tried to point out in my previous post, one would have a greater probability to be able to determine the actions of a religious sort than a non religious (now this may only be a small amount in the end, so don't let my use of 'greater probability' suggest I mean some sort of certainty).

His argument becomes very prejudicial when you consider the setup "begging the question" leading to the actual question later on.

 I am not really following what question you are asking with:

...
In recognising the inherent bias in both positions, (taking them into account), do you or do you not perceive any potential influence of a religious political bias?

My statements were not mutually contradicting, regarding the rationality of taking a man at his word.  While there is always uncertainty, with the religious one has variables to work with (and if you suggest their adherence to their religion is too flimsy to evaluate in that manner then I would counter that such an issue relating to the proposed differences to the non religious would be as reduced, thus making the whole question of the result of their faith a moot point).

You don't have to agree with the persons faith to be able to make a rational decision about what choice they might make.  Even if you cannot comprehend the convictions behind ones actions, knowing the probability of what action they might take is all that is necessary.  You remove a measure of uncertainty and lose the total chaos that would lie in the indeterminate.

I don't really see what I did as over simplification...at least not in any disingenuous way.  The religious man is the same as the non religious with the same flaws and brilliance.  The difference is that the religious has a propensity to lean more towards the guidelines of his faith when no obvious other course is apparent.  The degree of this tendency would be best judged by how devout that person is and how appropriate the quandary is to their religious doctrine.  This is the often referenced 'moral compass' -- the tendency to seek a certain course when none other is obvious.

[falcon9]

First we must focus on what the initial question raised was.  Basically it was how can we trust a religious person to be President.

Can one assume that your comments are a roundabout way of saying that an overtly religious person can be trusted with the duties of the Presidency, (and that those religious beliefs will not negatively impact presidential decisions)?  

It was technically a form of "begging the question", with those of religious beliefs presented to have a twisted view of reality.  

Since such religious views rely entirely upon 'faith', (which has no substantive evidentiary basis), they do not accurately represent reality. How can the general constituency, (which is not entirely composed of religious adherents), be assured that a holder of such religious views isn't allowing such views to impact presidential decisions?

The assertion is that such peoples are untrustworthy as President and should thus be disqualified somehow.

Although that wasn't explicitly asserted, it probably was implicit in the wording of the post.  Although such hypothetical scenarios as a religiously-devout president 'interpreting' some international crisis is a sign of the "Apocalypse" and precipatating a nuclear war may be unlikely at this time, several fictional stories have addressed such a possibility. Fiction can often precede reality, hence any potential concerns in this regard.

History contradicts this though, and also as I tried to point out in my previous post, one would have a greater probability to be able to determine the actions of a religious sort than a non religious (now this may only be a small amount in the end, so don't let my use of 'greater probability' suggest I mean some sort of certainty).

I disagree.  Even within the strictures of a religious belief system, it isn't possible to gage what some fundamentalist religious extremist may do in any particular situation, (and the most probable extrapolations are that the results wouldn't be desirable for everyone else outside the fundie president's bomb shelter). On the other hand, while the actions of a non-religious president aren't any more deterministic than anyone else's, at least we'd know with some degree of certainty that they wouldn't have a tendency to base executive decisions on specious religious beliefs.

His argument becomes very prejudicial when you consider the setup "begging the question" leading to the actual question later on.

The problem is that there isn't an 'objective' way to ask whether others feel that a religious president's policies/agendas may be influenced by such religious beliefs.  It may be "begging the question" however, no more so than asking if a fundamentalist muslim leader's religious views affect their decisions/policies/agendas.  Hypothetically, a U.S. president, (no matter how religiously-devout), is constrained by the constitution however, there's no telling how such religious beliefs may affect their policy decisions, (unless overtly declared).  Hence, the OP's question - inherently begged or not.

I am not really following what question you are asking with:

"In recognising the inherent bias in both positions, (taking them into account), do you or do you not perceive any potential influence of a religious political bias?"

Do you feel that a president with strong religious beliefs could or would allow such beliefs to influence their policies/agendas or not?

My statements were not mutually contradicting, regarding the rationality of taking a man at his word.  While there is always uncertainty, with the religious one has variables to work with (and if you suggest their adherence to their religion is too flimsy to evaluate in that manner then I would counter that such an issue relating to the proposed differences to the non religious would be as reduced, thus making the whole question of the result of their faith a moot point).

Irrational is taking a man at his word, since we know the nature of man.  It is far more rational to take a religious man at his word regarding his position of his religion, especially in your case where you identify his 'irrationality' by his consistency within his religious doctrine.

Your statements are mutually contradicting.  If it is irrational to take someone at their word regarding their irrational religious beliefs, it is not rational to imbue 'consistent' irrationality with rationality.  No matter how 'rational' someone feels their religious beliefs are, if they can be rationally demonstrated to be irrational beliefs, (and they have been since no substantiating evidence to support such beliefs is extant nor, presenting under the burden of proof requirements of making the initial claim), then there is no rationality to such 'empty faith'.

You don't have to agree with the persons faith to be able to make a rational decision about what choice they might make.

That's just it; you're implicitly assuming that such a person of faith would make beneficial decisions instead of some faith-based detrimental ones.  I'm not; both are possible and not entirely predictable where a devoutly-religious president is concerned.
  

Even if you cannot comprehend the convictions behind ones actions ...

If such are irrational ones, based upon irrational religious beliefs, these are comprehended for being so.  Surely you're not implicitly suggesting that unsubstantiated religious beliefs, (based entirely upon "faith" alone), are 'rational', are you? <--begging the question
 

... knowing the probability of what action they might take is all that is necessary.  You remove a measure of uncertainty and lose the total chaos that would lie in the indeterminate.

To reiterate my disagreement with your contention; you're implicitly assuming that such a person of faith would make beneficial decisions instead of some faith-based detrimental ones.  I'm not; both are possible and not entirely predictable where a devoutly-religious president is concerned.
Even within the strictures of a religious belief system, it isn't possible to gage what some fundamentalist religious extremist may do in any particular situation, (and the most probable extrapolations are that the results wouldn't be desirable for everyone else outside the fundie president's bomb shelter). On the other hand, while the actions of a non-religious president aren't any more deterministic than anyone else's, at least we'd know with some degree of certainty that they wouldn't have a tendency to base executive decisions on specious religious beliefs.

I don't really see what I did as over simplification...at least not in any disingenuous way.  The religious man is the same as the non religious with the same flaws and brilliance.  The difference is that the religious has a propensity to lean more towards the guidelines of his faith when no obvious other course is apparent.  The degree of this tendency would be best judged by how devout that person is and how appropriate the quandary is to their religious doctrine.  This is the often referenced 'moral compass' -- the tendency to seek a certain course when none other is obvious.

Once again, it boils down to whether or not such religious beliefs would influence, (perceived positively or negatively, depending upon your point of view or, exposure to any ensuing radioactive fallout), their policies/agendas.  Either one can contend that such views would, (at least to some degree), or, wouldn't.  Which is it for you?

[Joeyramone]

What is 'right-wing republicanism'?  They can be mutually exclusive terms.

Loosely, that would be extreme conservatism, (which includes 'religious conservatism' and thus, mutually-exclusive terms you mentioned).

Conservatism is the adherence to the US COnstitution.  Secular Progressives are the polar opposite of that.

You present a false dichotomy; nominally, the mainstream political parties, (if the majority of the subdivisions of them), support the constitution.  The term "secular progressives" either refers to non-religious "progressive" views, (inherently vague at best, as far as what is considered to be "progressive"), or as a weak attempt to 'demonize' non-religious positions.  No evidence has been presented to support the contention that such vague "secular progressives" do not adhere to the constitution.  This concludes my participation in your strawman arguement unless you can produce substantive evidence which supports your assertion.

Do you support following the US Constitution or do you not?

I do support it and yet, that does not make me a right-wing republican, secular progressive, religious democrat or any other pigeon-holed designator.

Also, not sure how it is a 'non-sequitor' if there aren't any politicians you can name who are advocating for a religious theocracy.

I didn't state that any were overtly "advocating" a theocracy; I hypothesized that such religious views may affect political agendas to the cumulative extent of resulting in some form of de facto theocracy.

The quote tool on this is not condusive to keeping the discussion going.

I will make an observation that oyu have a very loose grip on the reality of what is around you.  There are no religious theocrats in government.  Social and fiscal conservatives differ.  Progressives and Democrats support many ideas and laws that are against the US Constitution (Obamacare for one).  You can't be pigeon holed into a philosophy is an odd position to take.  You are eithr something, or just all over the board in what you will believe.  That does not make for a strong position as there is no core belief in anything but what serves your interest for the day.  I don't know what to say to someone with no core beliefs.

[falcon9]

I will make an observation that oyu have a very loose grip on the reality of what is around you. 

Then your powers of observation are dubious at best.
 

There are no religious theocrats in government. 

Strawman; I neither stated nor implied that there were.  What was directly implied is that there are apparently 'devoutly religious politicians', (which was at least partially the basis of the OP's post).  Depending upon the extent their religious beliefs influence government, the original question remains unanswered by you, (such influence ranges from none through the far end of the spectrum extrapolated as a de facto theocracy - not that such a theocracy overtly exists at this time).

You can't be pigeon holed into a philosophy is an odd position to take.  You are eithr something, or just all over the board in what you will believe.  That does not make for a strong position as there is no core belief in anything but what serves your interest for the day.  I don't know what to say to someone with no core beliefs.

Your 'reasoning' is faulty; your unawareness of my general, (or specific), philosophical position does not equate to not having one. Although you could ask, you apparently haven't been able to accurately determine it from my posts alone. At minimum, most people would assume I'm a rationalist, (not a "liberal progressive", for instance).