Religious People with (present day) Political Power

[Abrupt]

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)?  

Yes.  History either proves or doesn't disprove such a position (take your pick).

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?

Everyone's reality is different.  In nearly any argument, where you find two or more people on different sides (such as the constitutionality of the health care law), you are witnessing two different views on reality.  I suspect you are being crafty here and putting forth the concept that someone might make a decision and support it with evidence that lacks supporting evidence of its own, and you present this as an aberration and/or flaw.  This is done every day though, and by the non religious as well as the religious.  You will find such things hinted at in standard deviations, risk assessments, probability prediction methodologies, contingency planners, etc.  The ability to factor in the unknown and unknowable is an important part of everyday complexity.  Had our ancestors simply limited themselves to the purely perceived we would likely have few or none of the modern devices we enjoy today (and I suppose for some, hate).

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.

Incorrectly interpreting a scenario is not limited to only the religious and thus your point is non sequitur.  Additionally, there are cases where the non religious could be just as bad as the religious concerning such events as prophesy and apocalyptic events. 

You have many people now convinced (or as much as that word can be used) that the Mayan calender ending is significant of such an event.  These people are not limited to a belief in any Mayan religion.  Pseudo science has put forth (badly I would add) evidence of such a thing by pure coincidental rhetoric.  You have the suggestions of aliens warning the Mayan and that, for some reason, makes it seem more plausible to many people.  You have those who show only the similarities with such a position and compare it with other religions  (Hopi Indian beliefs as an example).  You have the conspiracy theorists with their 'evidence' of a large object approaching earth that is being covered up by NASA or the President or some other scientific body, etc. 

In fact, in the Christian belief system it is pretty much pointed out that in such times you are more than likely to think such is happening and will be wrong, and that nearly everyone will not see the events as what they are.  In those of the Shiite Muslim faith you have some who ascribe to the 12th imam and actually believe it is possible and their responsibility to bring such a world ending event about (these would be the ones you would be most correct in avoiding electing to positions of power and influence and Ahmadinejad is such a believer). 

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.

Again your point is non sequitur, as you clearly point out.  If you don't know or understand the reasons behind their decisions then what does it matter where these reasons came from?

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.

There is an objective way to ask this.  In fact in the above quote you do this objectively.  You could extend to ask if they perceive any particular good or bad reasons, or if they have particular concerns with certain faiths more than others.

I agree here with you regarding the constraint of The Constitution and it is one reason I am so against much of what is done by our elected leaders today.  The considerations that the few could easily become tyrannical or overly influential over the many is the exact reason of The Constitution.  This is why I hate such people who hold to positions that follow "for the good of the many" and similar lines of reasoning (such as the health care law).  The federal government is supposed to be weak in our lives, and the President is supposed to have less direct influence over us than our local mayor would.  This design has been compromised by progressives who wish to unshackle the confines of The Constitution and to centralize authority and power in the federal government.

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?

Yes I do.  But a conservationist could do the same thing.  A vegetarian could as well.  An artist would have their bias.  A musician would have theirs.  An atheist theirs, etc.  Again this is where The Constitution and limited federal powers comes in to play.

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'.

The only way my statements can be mutually contradicting is if your concerns then become moot.  It cannot be both ways.

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.

No I am not.  I would personally think that those of Shi'a Islam considered as 'twelvers' would make bad decisions.  I am simply stating that you can get a better understanding of what decisions they might make 'if' you know their faith and degree of adherence.  They could, of course, be lying about it and then you end up building your probabilities based upon false data and could be more apt to draw incorrect conclusions and predictions.  Considering the degree at which politicians seem to be dishonest I would put the odds being high, that much of what they say and portray is false and thus cannot be factored into anything.  You can over factor, or under factor, or incorrectly factor.  It doesn't seem to matter much in the end though does it as at the heart of it all lies the dishonesty and unpredictability that is common to men, and especially those in power.  You either take what they say or ignore it.  There is a lesson in futility there somewhere and I feel it makes the concerns of religion put forth here to be rather petty and weak and biased.

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

You know that I am.  I have argued this case before and gave examples why such decisions without requiring evidence can be necessary for ones existence and sanity.

... 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.

You are both poisoning the well and presenting and presenting a false dilemma here.  I agree that it isn't possible to gauge what some fundamentalist religious extremist may do, but that is true of every single one of us as you even clarify yourself.  I ask you, if the religious president or the non religious president is making a decision from their bomb shelter, what difference does it really make to the rest of us on the outside?

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?

They will certainly influence their decisions.  The tall presidents beliefs and experience will influence theirs, the short presidents theirs.  The carnivore's theirs as well as the omnivore's or vegetarian's or vegan's.  You have a lot of fallacies here, both implied and indicated ("begging the question", "false dilemma", "fallacy of composition", "ludic fallacy", "post hoc ergo propter hoc", "psychologist's fallacy", and maybe some others).  This whole thread is based on a weak argument riddled with faulty conclusions and generalizations.  It is a typical progressive tactic that is so overused as to have come to the point of being blatantly obvious to nearly everyone hearing it.  Had their never ever before been a president with a particular belief system, then the question may have merit.  Since such is not the case, though, we can readily reveal everything by firing back at the OP with the following retort: "And your point is?". 

[falcon9]

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)?  

Yes.  History either proves or doesn't disprove such a position (take your pick).

Heads I win, tails you lose statement, eh? History is replete with examples of religiously-based 'negative impacts' on societies, (wars, terrorism, persecutions).  Given the easily available evidence, (should you actually require cites to generally well-known historical events, those can be provided), such evidence supports the contention that an overtly religious leader's decisions can have a negative impact on the governed, (not that it automatically would but, that a stronger potential exists within a religious adherent than a non-religious president).

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?

Everyone's reality is different.

No, everyone's subjective experience of objective reality varies.  This is not quite the same thing as asserting that "reality" itself is different for everyone. Nevertheless, within the context of a fundamentalist/religious president, your comments tend toward a tacit agreement that such a president's viewpoints and decisions are indeed affected by their religious beliefs.  The contentions deriving from that being that such impacts can be either deterimental, beneficial or neutral. If neutral, there is no discernable impact.  Both 'detrimental' and 'beneficial' are somewhat open to interpretation however, grossly deterimental, (or grossly beneficial), impacts are not. Since you go on to present an example of a muslim fundamentalist's religious beliefs having negative impacts, there is no inherent difference between the negative impacts of different religious beliefs.

In those of the Shiite Muslim faith you have some who ascribe to the 12th imam and actually believe it is possible and their responsibility to bring such a world ending event about (these would be the ones you would be most correct in avoiding electing to positions of power and influence and Ahmadinejad is such a believer).

The OP's "begged question" is only "begged" if you are implicitly agreeing that an overtly devout leader's religious beliefs can, (and sometimes do), negatively impact governmental decisions.  If you aren't implicitly agreeing with that conclusion, then the question isn't "begged", (since it allows for a response which isn't predetermined).

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.

Incorrectly interpreting a scenario is not limited to only the religious and thus your point is non sequitur.  Additionally, there are cases where the non religious could be just as bad as the religious concerning such events as prophesy and apocalyptic events.  

The context of the post isn't whether a non-religious president would incorrectly interpret events within a religious paradigm, (since they wouldn't, not being religious).  It concerns an overtly-religious president incorrectly interpreting worldly events within a religious pretext and making executive decisions, (like launching a nuclear war), under such religious beliefs.  Therefore, my point was not a non sequitur and yours becomes one, (being non-contextual).

In fact, in the Christian belief system it is pretty much pointed out that in such times you are more than likely to think such is happening and will be wrong ...

Not much consolation in that once mushroom clouds sprout up just because some religious fundamentalist president decides it's 'armegeddon time'.
 

... 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.

Again your point is non sequitur, as you clearly point out.  If you don't know or understand the reasons behind their decisions then what does it matter where these reasons came from?

Again, the point is not a non sequitur merely because you declare it to be without demonstrating it within the defintion.  The OP concerned the possibility that a religious president's irrational beliefs, (and religious beliefs aren't rational, as previously demonstrated), could impact their decisions.  You've already tacitly admitted that they would, (quoted within this posted response), therefore we would be able to determine that at least some of their decisions were based upon their religious beliefs, (or general psychosis).  It matters because the electoral college needn't elect such an overtly fundamentalist candidate to the presidency, knowing in advance their religious predispositions could lead to disaster.

You could extend to ask if they perceive any particular good or bad reasons, or if they have particular concerns with certain faiths more than others.

That the OP didn't specify any particular religious belief system in the original question should have been a large hint that he wasn't singling out xitanity, mormanism, satanism or, wicca.  The broader question being whether _any_ religious beliefs can affect the political decisions of presidential candidate's decisions.

I agree here with you regarding the constraint of The Constitution and it is one reason I am so against much of what is done by our elected leaders today.  The considerations that the few could easily become tyrannical or overly influential over the many is the exact reason of The Constitution.  

In that case, consider the possibility of a 'devoutly-religious' president declaring martial law during some crisis event and suspending such constitutional constraints or, that such circumventions can occur incrementally, (and not necessarily overtly, as your position regarding "obamacare" posits).  The potential for a 'de facto' theocracy cannot be so blithly dismissed.

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

Yes I do.  But a conservationist could do the same thing.  A vegetarian could as well.  An artist would have their bias.  A musician would have theirs.  An atheist theirs, etc.  Again this is where The Constitution and limited federal powers comes in to play.

The ramifications of a conservationist, vegetarian, artist or musician are not on par with the ramifications of presidential decisions made on the basis of specious religious beliefs, however. This is because 'save the forests', 'we must all cease eating meat', 'no more impressionist works of art', 'no more rock 'n roll', or 'let's remove deities from politics' isn't equivalent to 'god told me to nuke the infidels'.

The only way my statements can be mutually contradicting is if your concerns then become moot.  It cannot be both ways.

Your conclusion does not logically follow from that premise; the demonstrably irrational does not become 'rational' merely because a religious believer believes it to be, (sans substantiating evidence of rationality, not "rationalizing").  Your statements remain logical contradictions, (not because I 'say so' but, because irrationality and rationality are mutually exclusive by definition).

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.
[/quote]

No I am not.  I would personally think that those of Shi'a Islam considered as 'twelvers' would make bad decisions.  I am simply stating that you can get a better understanding of what decisions they might make 'if' you know their faith and degree of adherence.

There is no inherent difference between the negative effects of one religious belief system or another, nor in the potential for making bad decisions based upon various religious beliefs, (not just islamic or xtian ones).  All that needs to be understood about various religious belief systems is that any decisions based upon them are built upon faulty premises.

They could, of course, be lying about it and then you end up building your probabilities based upon false data and could be more apt to draw incorrect conclusions and predictions.  Considering the degree at which politicians seem to be dishonest I would put the odds being high, that much of what they say and portray is false and thus cannot be factored into anything.  You can over factor, or under factor, or incorrectly factor.

Exactly; either the candidate genuinely believes in what they believe in, (and that such a 'true believer' is more likely to infuse their decision-making process with specious religious beliefs), or they are lying to gain the votes of a religious constituency.  In either instance, they'd be deceptive, (even if by omission).

It doesn't seem to matter much in the end though does it as at the heart of it all lies the dishonesty and unpredictability that is common to men, and especially those in power.  You either take what they say or ignore it.  There is a lesson in futility there somewhere and I feel it makes the concerns of religion put forth here to be rather petty and weak and biased.

If you are implictly contending that you'd prefer a dishonest religious adherent to a dishonest secular president, (presumably imputing some 'moral character' that a lying religious adherent has which a lying secular candidate lacks), read the preceding within the parenthesis again.
Optimally, most might prefer an honest candidate but, U.S. politics is a 'game' of political compromises.  Given that, I see no benefit in giving any de facto theocracy a toe-in-the-door by electing a Pat Robertson or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad-type of candidate.  The risks would far outweight any superficial benefits.

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

You know that I am.  I have argued this case before and gave examples why such decisions without requiring evidence can be necessary for ones existence and sanity.

No matter what specious tales someone needs to tell themselves to maintain what's perceived as "sanity", such tales remain irrational if they can be demonstrated to lack rationality, (again, as opposed to "rationalizing" them).  There is exactly zero valid evidence presented to support a contention that unsubstantiated religious beliefs are rational and numerous iterations of the reasoning showing them to be irrational.

You are both poisoning the well and presenting and presenting a false dilemma here.

Not so; the well was already poisoned by irrational religious beliefs before the OP's bucket was lowered into it. Neither is it presented as a false dilemma since you've agreed that a president who is also a religious adherent would have their decisions affected by their religious beliefs, (thus making any "dilemma" for them one of circumventing constitutional constraints).

I agree that it isn't possible to gauge what some fundamentalist religious extremist may do, but that is true of every single one of us as you even clarify yourself.  I ask you, if the religious president or the non religious president is making a decision from their bomb shelter, what difference does it really make to the rest of us on the outside?

Fundamentally, (pun intended); none - since mushroom clouds are mushroom clouds, whether a secular or religious president precipitates them.  There is one significant difference in that it is far less probable for a secular president to base executive decisions upon religious beliefs they don;t have than for a religious adherent to do so based upon specious religious beliefs they do have.  By not electing such a religious adherent, that candidate cannot be placed in the position of suddenly deciding it's the 'second coming' and helping it arrive.

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?

They will certainly influence their decisions.

Thank you for answering the OP's initial question.

This whole thread is based on a weak argument riddled with faulty conclusions and generalizations.

Yes, however I've endeavored to refute the weak arguments, faulty conclusions and generalizations you and "joey" have presented while returning discussion to the initial context as well.  

Had their never ever before been a president with a particular belief system, then the question may have merit.

This must be one of those weak arguments you mentioned.  Since there have been previous secular and religious presidents, the question's merit remains regarding the (constrained or unconstrained) influence a president's religious beliefs have on their decisions.  

Since such is not the case, though, we can readily reveal everything by firing back at the OP with the following retort: "And your point is?".  

Nothing is revealed by such a flippant rhetoric other than the lengths religious adherents will go to before admitting the possibility that another religious adherent could be placed in a position to instigate a de facto theocracy/dictatorship, nuclear war or a curtailment of constitutional constraints under the guise of a 'Marshal Law' crisis for 'religious purposes'.

[Falconer02]

 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.

History does not contradict this. American history alone is full of positive and negative examples when times and settings are placed on the table.

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.

Yes, this is why I stated "should it even matter?" in the original post. But with the current political climate in this country, I find it important (and dangerous) when politicians are quoting magical tales and the 'truth' behind them during what should be rational matters.

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?

If I'm a big fan or an agent of such an athlete and they begin making irrational claims on camera such as "I won't play in the next big game because my magic lucky gold coin told me so", yes. Yes I would be greatly concerned.

Your inclusion of "it could be beneficial" doesn't conceal your positing it as only detrimental given your own words.

'can be beneficial and dangerous.' Those were the actual words. Covers both ends of the spectrum. I admit I am being more antagonizing to the subject than shwoing the helpful or passive qualities, but it's only because of what I currently see happening.

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.

I see your point. Strangely enough I brought up a similar identity-example in a past thread but didn't realize I did not take the same consideration (as much) in this thread. My view of religion mixed with politics will vary greatly with one who loved...say...Jerry Falwell. I'm fine with the separate stances-- I'm just bringing up the possible problems on their end and want to hear what that person would say.

[Abrupt]

Heads I win, tails you lose statement, eh? History is replete with examples of religiously-based 'negative impacts' on societies, (wars, terrorism, persecutions).  Given the easily available evidence, (should you actually require cites to generally well-known historical events, those can be provided), such evidence supports the contention that an overtly religious leader's decisions can have a negative impact on the governed, (not that it automatically would but, that a stronger potential exists within a religious adherent than a non-religious president).

I meant it as I said it and not in the slight "Heads I win, tails you lose" method.  The reason is that beneath the religious appearance you still have the man who is capable of making the same decisions as any other man.  I would like to see some of these examples of US Presidents religious beliefs causing them to be untrustworthy with the duties of the Presidency.  It is practically necessary for you to demonstrate an example of a situation and prove that a non religious president could never have made the same decisions for any other reasons.  I realize this is particularly challenging a task, but that is the only way for you to prove, with certainty, the conditions you set forth.

No, everyone's subjective experience of objective reality varies.  This is not quite the same thing as asserting that "reality" itself is different for everyone. Nevertheless, within the context of a fundamentalist/religious president, your comments tend toward a tacit agreement that such a president's viewpoints and decisions are indeed affected by their religious beliefs.  The contentions deriving from that being that such impacts can be either deterimental, beneficial or neutral. If neutral, there is no discernable impact.  Both 'detrimental' and 'beneficial' are somewhat open to interpretation however, grossly deterimental, (or grossly beneficial), impacts are not. Since you go on to present an example of a muslim fundamentalist's religious beliefs having negative impacts, there is no inherent difference between the negative impacts of different religious beliefs.

That is what I meant, considering we cannot appreciate reality directly and can only interpret what our senses can detect.  There was nothing tacit about my indication that a President's viewpoints and decisions would be affected by their religious beliefs.  In fact I think I adamantly stated that.  Your focus on religious beliefs here in this manner is dishonest.  It is as if you are suggesting that another President's viewpoints or decisions would not be influenced by any of their personal beliefs or feelings or bias.  My particular example of a 'twelver' was because their particular beliefs are that one must actively bring about the end of the world in any way possible, and this is very different than other religions (and I cannot think of another that holds such a belief, but there could be those I assume).  Even in places such as Iran, "twelvers" are outlawed.

The context of the post isn't whether a non-religious president would incorrectly interpret events within a religious paradigm, (since they wouldn't, not being religious).  It concerns an overtly-religious president incorrectly interpreting worldly events within a religious pretext and making executive decisions, (like launching a nuclear war), under such religious beliefs.  Therefore, my point was not a non sequitur and yours becomes one, (being non-contextual).

Your point is non sequitur because there is no religion that sets any conditions for engaging in a nuclear war or interpreting any worldly events under a religious paradigm to make such decisions.  The only thing close is a 'twelver' and they require no interpretation of anything and the only condition necessary to satisfy them is existence itself.

Not much consolation in that once mushroom clouds sprout up just because some religious fundamentalist president decides it's 'armegeddon time'.

Well Armageddon doesn't require active participation, and it isn't avoidable either within the religions mentioning it so I fail to see any relevance in hinting that it is more likely under a religious sort than a non religious sort.  I suppose there might be some presidents who would allow our country to be nuked and not reciprocate -- is that what you are saying?  Is that the leadership you are advocating?
 

Again, the point is not a non sequitur merely because you declare it to be without demonstrating it within the defintion.  The OP concerned the possibility that a religious president's irrational beliefs, (and religious beliefs aren't rational, as previously demonstrated), could impact their decisions.  You've already tacitly admitted that they would, (quoted within this posted response), therefore we would be able to determine that at least some of their decisions were based upon their religious beliefs, (or general psychosis).  It matters because the electoral college needn't elect such an overtly fundamentalist candidate to the presidency, knowing in advance their religious predispositions could lead to disaster.

How often do you use non sequitur without stipulating your reasoning?  Your premise here is that you would be more apt to know the reasons for the non religious persons decisions, and your conclusions is that you would only be more likely to determine that it wasn't based on a religious belief.  Your conclusion doesn't follow your premise.

In that case, consider the possibility of a 'devoutly-religious' president declaring martial law during some crisis event and suspending such constitutional constraints or, that such circumventions can occur incrementally, (and not necessarily overtly, as your position regarding "obamacare" posits).  The potential for a 'de facto' theocracy cannot be so blithly dismissed.

Such is no more frightening or likely under a religious President as a non religious President. 

The ramifications of a conservationist, vegetarian, artist or musician are not on par with the ramifications of presidential decisions made on the basis of specious religious beliefs, however. This is because 'save the forests', 'we must all cease eating meat', 'no more impressionist works of art', 'no more rock 'n roll', or 'let's remove deities from politics' isn't equivalent to 'god told me to nuke the infidels'.

The actions of the conservationist releasing a virus to kill all humans is just as plausible as the religious seeking to '..nuke the infidels', as is the vegetarian ordering the deaths of any meat eater, as well as what ever other insanity you wish to reply to the others.

Your conclusion does not logically follow from that premise; the demonstrably irrational does not become 'rational' merely because a religious believer believes it to be, (sans substantiating evidence of rationality, not "rationalizing").  Your statements remain logical contradictions, (not because I 'say so' but, because irrationality and rationality are mutually exclusive by definition).

Lol you are seriously useing the 'Chewbacca defense'?  We are talking about taking a man at his word.  I put forth that it was far more likely to believe a religious mans word regarding his beliefs (especially since you are particularly identifying him by his word regarding his beliefs) than it was another man at his words in general.  You stated that was a mutual contradiction, so ergo we are only left to conclude the commonality of 'taking a man at his word' and that makes the entire matter moot since the man's word regarding his religion is false so ergo the man's word is false as is the word of the man sans the religion.

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.

No, I am not at all saying anything like that and I think the more decisions and laws that leaders make that the worse off it becomes for the rest of us in general.  I only stated that if you know the faith of the person you can get a better understanding of what choices they might make when such issues are covered within their faith.  You, on the other hand, are implicitly assuming that a person without faith is incapable of making the same decisions as one with faith.

There is no inherent difference between the negative effects of one religious belief system or another, nor in the potential for making bad decisions based upon various religious beliefs, (not just islamic or xtian ones).  All that needs to be understood about various religious belief systems is that any decisions based upon them are built upon faulty premises.

There most certainly is.  The 'twelvers' believe that it is their duty to bring about as much death and destruction to the world as they are capable of.

If you are implictly contending that you'd prefer a dishonest religious adherent to a dishonest secular president, (presumably imputing some 'moral character' that a lying religious adherent has which a lying secular candidate lacks), read the preceding within the parenthesis again.
Optimally, most might prefer an honest candidate but, U.S. politics is a 'game' of political compromises.  Given that, I see no benefit in giving any de facto theocracy a toe-in-the-door by electing a Pat Robertson or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad-type of candidate.  The risks would far outweight any superficial benefits.

In such a case it wouldn't matter one bit (except for the 'twelver' you indicated, and in such a situation I would rather his belief be visible instead of hidden so I could decide via my vote).

Fundamentally, (pun intended); none - since mushroom clouds are mushroom clouds, whether a secular or religious president precipitates them.  There is one significant difference in that it is far less probable for a secular president to base executive decisions upon religious beliefs they don;t have than for a religious adherent to do so based upon specious religious beliefs they do have.  By not electing such a religious adherent, that candidate cannot be placed in the position of suddenly deciding it's the 'second coming' and helping it arrive.

Since your presentation here is not based in fact or supported by any truth, it is nothing more than another red herring.

Thank you for answering the OP's initial question.

It was a fools question.  It was much the same as asking if the knowledge and experience of a president would influence their decisions.  This wasn't the question he was 'really' asking though, if one could call it a question that is, and not a derisive accusation as it begged to suggest.

Yes, however I've endeavored to refute the weak arguments, faulty conclusions and generalizations you and "joey" have presented while returning discussion to the initial context as well.  

Woe is the burden that such a great man as yourself must endure, eh?

This must be one of those weak arguments you mentioned.  Since there have been previous secular and religious presidents, the question's merit remains regarding the (constrained or unconstrained) influence a president's religious beliefs have on their decisions.

It isn't at all weak.  There is nothing new or alarming expressed in the OP, yet it is displayed in a manner signifying a dire threat.  It would be as if a bank teller sounded the alarm because the manager entered the vault, even though the manager does this routinely.  The teller would argue that in this case he didn't know if the manager was robbing the bank or not and was just exercising caution since it was possible that he could have designs to rob the bank even though he never demonstrated them previously.

Nothing is revealed by such a flippant rhetoric other than the lengths religious adherents will go to before admitting the possibility that another religious adherent could be placed in a position to instigate a de facto theocracy/dictatorship, nuclear war or a curtailment of constitutional constraints under the guise of a 'Marshal Law' crisis for 'religious purposes'.

And this is preferably to you over a dictatorship, nuclear war, or curtailment of constitutional constraints under the guise of 'Marshal Law' crises for 'the good of mankind' or 'the good of the planet' or some other declared 'good' that is no more than same end by another means?  That is a completely irrational and fear based situation you are presenting there that leads me to ask you if you think you have properly understood this dire 'prophesy' you appear to have envisioned?

[Abrupt]

 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.

History does not contradict this. American history alone is full of positive and negative examples when times and settings are placed on the table.

Cite particular examples that fulfill the conditions you propose and are provable to a point.

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.

Yes, this is why I stated "should it even matter?" in the original post. But with the current political climate in this country, I find it important (and dangerous) when politicians are quoting magical tales and the 'truth' behind them during what should be rational matters.

I hear plenty of magical tales that don't involve religion.  Such as the health care law supposedly being able to lower costs and improve services and other such obvious fairy tales.  It amazes me that the secular will so easily swallow that (something that harms all of us) but then balk like mad mules over someones belief in the devine (something that bothers no one).

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?

If I'm a big fan or an agent of such an athlete and they begin making irrational claims on camera such as "I won't play in the next big game because my magic lucky gold coin told me so", yes. Yes I would be greatly concerned.

And well you should be, that is an insane, but that isn't what I asked. 

Your inclusion of "it could be beneficial" doesn't conceal your positing it as only detrimental given your own words.

'can be beneficial and dangerous.' Those were the actual words. Covers both ends of the spectrum. I admit I am being more antagonizing to the subject than shwoing the helpful or passive qualities, but it's only because of what I currently see happening.

Your position was harsh and forced me to be antagonistic as it left no room for reason.  Had you omitted the emotion and kept to the facts it would have been different.  What are these things you are seeing that trouble you so?  I keep abreast of events and am unaware of any abnormal religious positions within the candidates running for office.

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.

I see your point. Strangely enough I brought up a similar identity-example in a past thread but didn't realize I did not take the same consideration (as much) in this thread. My view of religion mixed with politics will vary greatly with one who loved...say...Jerry Falwell. I'm fine with the separate stances-- I'm just bringing up the possible problems on their end and want to hear what that person would say.

Politics and religion are always a guaranteed argument, and I suspect it would be no matter what fashion it was brought up.  I think we tend to be rather civil here compared with many discussion on the matter I have witnessed.  Not sure why this thought came up but I just remembered one of the nastiest fights I ever witnessed broke out over a game of 'Risk' lol.  No bearing on this conversation but figured I would share it anyways.

[falcon9]

I meant it as I said it and not in the slight "Heads I win, tails you lose" method. 

If so, it would've been stated as 'prove or disprove' rather than "History either proves or doesn't disprove such a position (take your pick)."--Quote from: Abrupt on 30-03-2012, 08:15:45

The reason is that beneath the religious appearance you still have the man who is capable of making the same decisions as any other man. 

Whether or not a man's religious beliefs are an "appearance", (facade), you still have a man whose religious beliefs have an influence over his decisions where a non-religious man's do not.

I would like to see some of these examples of US Presidents religious beliefs causing them to be untrustworthy with the duties of the Presidency.  It is practically necessary for you to demonstrate an example of a situation and prove that a non religious president could never have made the same decisions for any other reasons.  I realize this is particularly challenging a task, but that is the only way for you to prove, with certainty, the conditions you set forth.

Thusfar, the U.S. has not suffered under a theocracy established by a religious president so, there are no examples of this to provide. As previously extrapolated, the potential for such exists if constitutional constraints are eroded by executive, judicial legislative branches of government.  From appointments of Supreme Court justices to executive 'white papers' and congressional 'add-ons- to bills, a de facto theocracy is at least possible beginning with an overtly-devout religious president.  The fact that it hasn't happened in the past is both an enormous relief and the legacy of secular decision-makers adhering to the constitution, (specifically the establishment clause of the first amendment), rather than to religious beliefs.

There was nothing tacit about my indication that a President's viewpoints and decisions would be affected by their religious beliefs.  In fact I think I adamantly stated that.  Your focus on religious beliefs here in this manner is dishonest.

The context of this post concerns any influence a presidential candidate's religious beliefs may, (or may not), have on their executive decisions. It is not "dishonest" to focus upon those religious beliefs merely because you speciously asserted that. What is "dishonest", (tangential in this context), is your conflating a religious adherent's decision-making processes with a non-religious person's.

It is as if you are suggesting that another President's viewpoints or decisions would not be influenced by any of their personal beliefs or feelings or bias. 

My statements have suggested no such thing as your strawman argument.  There's no "as if" to it; the salient point was/is that a religious adherent's decisions are clouded by their religious beliefs, (not whether a non-religious person's decisions are clouded by other biases). While I can see why you'd prefer to draw attention away from any particular irrational religious belief and conflate them irrational non-religious bias, that's not the context of the OP.  Since you've conceded that a presidential candidate's religious beliefs can and do affect his political decisions, it remains to discuss whether or not such decisions would be detrimental or, beneficial for the governed population, (not just the other religious adherents shouting 'praise tha Lard, we're on the way a theocracy!').

The context of the post isn't whether a non-religious president would incorrectly interpret events within a religious paradigm, (since they wouldn't, not being religious).  It concerns an overtly-religious president incorrectly interpreting worldly events within a religious pretext and making executive decisions, (like launching a nuclear war), under such religious beliefs.  Therefore, my point was not a non sequitur and yours becomes one, (being non-contextual).

Your point is non sequitur because there is no religion that sets any conditions for engaging in a nuclear war or interpreting any worldly events under a religious paradigm to make such decisions. 

The nuclear war example was just that; there are other potentialities slightly less dire but, nonetheless drastic, (such as the erosion of constitutional guarantees under a fundamentalist theocracy).  

Well Armageddon doesn't require active participation, and it isn't avoidable either within the religions mentioning it so I fail to see any relevance in hinting that it is more likely under a religious sort than a non religious sort. 

You're the one who brought up fundamentalist muslims, ("twelvers"), as an example supporting my point. Other religious adherents are as capable of irrationality as the next.
 

I suppose there might be some presidents who would allow our country to be nuked and not reciprocate -- is that what you are saying?  Is that the leadership you are advocating?

No, your red herring is not what was stated nor, implied. What was implied was that a 'devoutly-religious' president could decide that 'nuking the non-believers' was something that 'god wanted him to do'.
 

The OP concerned the possibility that a religious president's irrational beliefs, (and religious beliefs aren't rational, as previously demonstrated), could impact their decisions.  You've already tacitly admitted that they would, (quoted within this posted response), therefore we would be able to determine that at least some of their decisions were based upon their religious beliefs, (or general psychosis).  It matters because the electoral college needn't elect such an overtly fundamentalist candidate to the presidency, knowing in advance their religious predispositions could lead to disaster.

Your premise here is that you would be more apt to know the reasons for the non religious persons decisions ...

No, my stated premise was/is that there's a greater probability of a presidential religious adherent not using reasoning than a non-religious president using religious beliefs he doesn't have instead of reasoning.

 

...and your conclusions is that you would only be more likely to determine that it wasn't based on a religious belief.  Your conclusion doesn't follow your premise.

Since you presented a false premise, it's no wonder that a false conclusion derived from it.  Here's the actual premise and conclusions; while it is possible that a devoutly-religious president is capable of making executive decisions unclouded by their religious beliefs, it is far less likely for a non-religious president to let religious beliefs he doesn't hold cloud his decisions.

In that case, consider the possibility of a 'devoutly-religious' president declaring martial law during some crisis event and suspending such constitutional constraints or, that such circumventions can occur incrementally, (and not necessarily overtly, as your position regarding "obamacare" posits).  The potential for a 'de facto' theocracy cannot be so blithly dismissed.

Such is no more frightening or likely under a religious President as a non religious President. 

So you contend, (being a religious adherent yourself, thus inherently biased).  For many of the non-religious constituency, it's far more probable that a fundamentalist theocracy is more likely under a religious president than a secular one, (in addition to being a reasonably logical extrapolation).

The actions of the conservationist releasing a virus to kill all humans is just as plausible as the religious seeking to '..nuke the infidels', as is the vegetarian ordering the deaths of any meat eater, as well as what ever other insanity you wish to reply to the others.

I'll borrow a page from your own counter-argument; show me examples of such previous eco-terrorist presidents or, vegan 'tater-eating presidents doing any such things.  Hey, a 'satanic' president could also establish a theocracy of sorts however, this post discusses the implications of a religious adherent as president and the likeliest suspects aren't vegan, satanic, wiccan or even muslim.  That's what's getting you bent out of shape; that fundie xtians like Pat Robertson, (who did make a presidential bid), or Romney are of potential concern.

We are talking about taking a man at his word.  I put forth that it was far more likely to believe a religious mans word regarding his beliefs (especially since you are particularly identifying him by his word regarding his beliefs) than it was another man at his words in general. 

I completely disagree since a religious adherent is no more honest than any other man, (and in fact, somewhat more dishonest in that the basis of their religious beliefs is specious - based upon 'faith' alone - and thus, inherently dishonest/self-delusional).  The conclusion that follows from that premise is an indication of underlying dishonesty which premeates a religious adherent's decision-making processes to the extent that they themselves are unable to perceive this inherent dishonesty/self-delusion.

I think the more decisions and laws that leaders make that the worse off it becomes for the rest of us in general.

That would logically include any religiously-based decisions and laws which leaders who are religious adherents make.  In such a case, I agree. 
Even worse than what we have now would be a set of theocratic laws, incrementally introduced to circumvent the establishment clause of the first amendment.

You, on the other hand, are implicitly assuming that a person without faith is incapable of making the same decisions as one with faith.

No, what I actually stated, (as opposed to the strawman you've propped up as an implicit tangent), was that a non-religious person isn't likely to make decisions based upon a religious "faith" which they don't have. Furthermore, a religious adherent is far more likely to have their religious "faith" cloud their decision-making process than a non-religious person, (which means that conditions would exist wherein the religious adherent is incapable of making the same decisions as a non-religious person is capable of under the same conditions).

There is no inherent difference between the negative effects of one religious belief system or another, nor in the potential for making bad decisions based upon various religious beliefs, (not just islamic or xtian ones).  All that needs to be understood about various religious belief systems is that any decisions based upon them are built upon faulty premises.

There most certainly is.  The 'twelvers' believe that it is their duty to bring about as much death and destruction to the world as they are capable of.

If we're moving from the general to the specific then the religious beliefs of 'born again xtians' preclude doing anything to obviate their 'second coming rapture', (which apparently includes going about and declaring that non-believers are "going to hell" and other evangelising which could result in a theocracy if they get sufficiently devout religious leaders elected).

If you are implictly contending that you'd prefer a dishonest religious adherent to a dishonest secular president, (presumably imputing some 'moral character' that a lying religious adherent has which a lying secular candidate lacks), read the preceding within the parenthesis again.
Optimally, most might prefer an honest candidate but, U.S. politics is a 'game' of political compromises.  Given that, I see no benefit in giving any de facto theocracy a toe-in-the-door by electing a Pat Robertson or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad-type of candidate.  The risks would far outweight any superficial benefits.

In such a case it wouldn't matter one bit (except for the 'twelver' you indicated, and in such a situation I would rather his belief be visible instead of hidden so I could decide via my vote).

Well, I'd rather avoid a potential theocracy.  Are you tacitly advocating one?

There is nothing new or alarming expressed in the OP, yet it is displayed in a manner signifying a dire threat. 

There is nothing particularly "new or alarming" about wanting to stave off either a nuclear war or, a fundamentalist theocracy for example; both are potentially dire threats. If the difference between a fundie theocracy and our present system of government elude you, it doesn't follow that it eludes others.  Your "bank teller/manager" analogy is a false parallel since it omits any influence the "manager's" religious beliefs may have on his decision to rob the bank, (such as a mormon's religious beliefs and a mormon bank manager's irrational decision to provide campaign funding to a mormon candidate for instance). The point is that the analogy is only applicable if the teller had reason/evidence to conclude that the manager was robbing the bank or, embezzling to fund the campaign of a fellow religious adherent-candidate.

That is a completely irrational and fear based situation you are presenting there that leads me to ask you if you think you have properly understood this dire 'prophesy' you appear to have envisioned?

The concern over the potential for the establishment of a theocracy dates back prior to the establishment clause of the first amendment.  Falsely characterizing it as "a completely irrational and fear based situation you are presenting" is disingenious of you.  Neither are such constitutional preventative measures considered to be dire prophesies; such protections are in place to make it more difficult for a theocracy to emerge and to remind the leaders and constituency to be vigilante lest some fundie wrest the reins of this runaway stagecoach away in a 'faith-based' attempt to rob us of our current form of government, (so that they can rob us of our current form of goverment themselves).

[falcon9]

I hear plenty of magical tales that don't involve religion.  Such as the health care law supposedly being able to lower costs and improve services and other such obvious fairy tales.  It amazes me that the secular will so easily swallow that (something that harms all of us) but then balk like mad mules over someones belief in the devine (something that bothers no one).

That's no more 'amazing' than an expectation that healthcare costs will fall, just because some irrational religious adherents 'pray' that they will.  If you believe such irrational beliefs "bothers no one", you are contradicting your own agreement that religious beliefs can and do affect such decisions & conclusions.  Healthcare costs have risen dramatically and recently.  The current healthcare laws are intended to lower these costs, (according to the language as written).  Whether or not they will is speculative in advance, (and no where near speculating that a religious adherent's belief in the "divine" is one of a "mad mule").

I ... didn't realize I did not take the same consideration (as much) in this thread. My view of religion mixed with politics will vary greatly with one who loved...say...Jerry Falwell. 

Distinguishing between specific religious adherents moves the context of this thread from a general concern over the influence of religious beliefs in politics to the particular religious beliefs of specific persons.  I suppose that's a logical progression and that discussion about the particular religious beliefs of current presidential candidates was previously raised in the OP.  Falwell however, isn't running.  Of the ones who are, which ones can be perceived as having the greater possibility of their religious beliefs affecting their political platforms than others?

[Falconer02]

Distinguishing between specific religious adherents moves the context of this thread from a general concern over the influence of religious beliefs in politics to the particular religious beliefs of specific persons.  I suppose that's a logical progression and that discussion about the particular religious beliefs of current presidential candidates was previously raised in the OP.  Falwell however, isn't running.  Of the ones who are, which ones can be perceived as having the greater possibility of their religious beliefs affecting their political platforms than others?

Rick Santorum.

[falcon9]

Of the ones who are, which ones can be perceived as having the greater possibility of their religious beliefs affecting their political platforms than others?

Rick Santorum.

"Santorum is a devout Catholic, and at one time was even listed as one of the 25 most influential evangelists in America by Time magazine. A former aide was once quoted as saying that Santorum was a ‘Catholic missionary’. Santorum was conferred with the Sovereign Military Order of Malta in 2004 by the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta. The award is accorded to Catholics worldwide who have displayed exemplary chivalry, nobleness or service to the faith."


What about Mitt Romney, ("I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because he believes in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers -- I will be true to them and to my beliefs.").

[Falconer02]

What about Mitt Romney, ("I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because he believes in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers -- I will be true to them and to my beliefs.").

At the moment I'm more concerned with him alienating himself from his voters both from some of the things he has said and his radical religion. The origins of his religious beliefs are batshit insane, but since you quoted him saying "I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because he believes in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it." gives him a bit more lee-way in my mind. He seems to 'get' that aspect.

Rick Santorum on the otherhand is just a backwards thinker who in my mind is pushing for a 1950's "Leave it to Beaver" America while also pushing for his religion in schools and gov't. He has stated that he's a small gov't politican imploring education, and yet here he is wanting Creationism to be an option in science classes, banning gay marriage, pornongraphy, etc. When he wants the gov't to mandate what you can and can't do in your bedroom, he is not a small gov't politician.

It looks like Romney will most likely be the republican candidate going against Obama at this point. If he chooses to, I think it would be suicide for him to get Santorum as VP. Don't forget that this is just my .02 though and I doubt he'll choose him seeing how Santorum gives him the most flak.

[Abrupt]

If so, it would've been stated as 'prove or disprove' rather than "History either proves or doesn't disprove such a position (take your pick)."--Quote from: Abrupt on 30-03-2012, 08:15:45

No, the reason for my language was that history couldn't disprove it because you still have the man behind the decision and cannot draw any conclusion that could distinguish any failure to be trustworthy as President as being from the 'religious man' instead of simply the 'man'.

Whether or not a man's religious beliefs are an "appearance", (facade), you still have a man whose religious beliefs have an influence over his decisions where a non-religious man's do not.

A non religious man's beliefs have just as much sway over their decisions as a religious mans, to suggest otherwise is completely ridiculous.

Thusfar, the U.S. has not suffered under a theocracy established by a religious president so, there are no examples of this to provide. As previously extrapolated, the potential for such exists if constitutional constraints are eroded by executive, judicial legislative branches of government.  From appointments of Supreme Court justices to executive 'white papers' and congressional 'add-ons- to bills, a de facto theocracy is at least possible beginning with an overtly-devout religious president.  The fact that it hasn't happened in the past is both an enormous relief and the legacy of secular decision-makers adhering to the constitution, (specifically the establishment clause of the first amendment), rather than to religious beliefs.

So this is just a witch hunt then?  I find it amazing that you attribute the establishment clause to 'secular' decision makers when it was in fact a consensus of the religious groups to protect themselves from the government trying to force a single state religion as they had in England.  Secular's are attempting to adopt this very thing now with their crusade against religion.  They would adopt a religion of atheism in the US and have made great steps to promote such a radical agenda.  When people get arrested for reading their bibles in public (as has happened) we can clearly see who is violating this position. 

The context of this post concerns any influence a presidential candidate's religious beliefs may, (or may not), have on their executive decisions. It is not "dishonest" to focus upon those religious beliefs merely because you speciously asserted that. What is "dishonest", (tangential in this context), is your conflating a religious adherent's decision-making processes with a non-religious person's.

A persons beliefs influence everything about the person.  Be this person religious or not.  To isolate it to one particular thing, as if it had never before appeared with a previous President, and to suggest some impending dire risk is insane.  Are you going to suggest that a liberal persons beliefs would not influence their decisions?  How about a conservative person's beliefs?  Shall we start a ridiculous thread regarding any personal belief or affinity a person has and put to question whether it influences their executive decisions?  How about "Animal lovers with (present day) Political Power" or "Native Americans with (present day) Political Power" or "Prostitutes with (present day) Political Power"?  We could start so many of these as to never be capable of running out of fresh new topics.  We have had religious presidents frequently before, and even more so that the lot running now.  Maybe you are stuck reading only liberal progressive revisions of history and are not aware of this though.  Maybe in such revisions they have no mention of any religious presidents previously and have such things removed (much as they did they great historical achievements of blacks in early American history).

My statements have suggested no such thing as your strawman argument.  There's no "as if" to it; the salient point was/is that a religious adherent's decisions are clouded by their religious beliefs, (not whether a non-religious person's decisions are clouded by other biases). While I can see why you'd prefer to draw attention away from any particular irrational religious belief and conflate them irrational non-religious bias, that's not the context of the OP.  Since you've conceded that a presidential candidate's religious beliefs can and do affect his political decisions, it remains to discuss whether or not such decisions would be detrimental or, beneficial for the governed population, (not just the other religious adherents shouting 'praise tha Lard, we're on the way a theocracy!').

Why make such a narrow distinction?  Why the deceptive format and isolation?  The question was a fool's questions.  Should we start yet another thread and ask if 1 + 1 equals 2 in base 10?  The OP is not an idiot and he would not have posed such an obvious question had he not had other motives.  It is such a simple thing to extrapolate the end and not dance a silly dance of idiocy.  Isn't it truth we are after?  Well that is just what I did, draw out the truth.

The nuclear war example was just that; there are other potentialities slightly less dire but, nonetheless drastic, (such as the erosion of constitutional guarantees under a fundamentalist theocracy).  

Things that the religious protected us from at the origins of our nation.  Without any proof they would do this, and being well aware they are the ones that defended and provided this protection, you now draw fear that they would be the ones to violate the very laws they enacted.  Such a strange paranoia based not on any fact but in fact counter to fact.  Talk about being irrational.

You're the one who brought up fundamentalist muslims, ("twelvers"), as an example supporting my point. Other religious adherents are as capable of irrationality as the next.

And that is why I brought them up.  I don't conceal data just because it doesn't agree with my position (as liberal progressives seem to have a tenancy to do).  I would never turn a blind eye to a knife easing toward my throat just to prove a point.
 

No, your red herring is not what was stated nor, implied. What was implied was that a 'devoutly-religious' president could decide that 'nuking the non-believers' was something that 'god wanted him to do'.

More likely a secular President could decide that "nuking believers" was "for the greater good of mankind".
 

So you contend, (being a religious adherent yourself, thus inherently biased).  For many of the non-religious constituency, it's far more probable that a fundamentalist theocracy is more likely under a religious president than a secular one, (in addition to being a reasonably logical extrapolation).

And it is far more likely for an atheocracy under an atheist and dogs like to sniff other dogs butts.  Again you present the Chewbacca defense as if everyone wouldn't see right through it.  The truth is that martial law is far more likely under progressive leadership than any other.  Progressives love that "greater good" and "ends justify the means" *bleep*, and anytime you hear them use it be assured a bunch of people are going to be unfairly screwed over and measures of force are being put in place to get such a means across.

I completely disagree since a religious adherent is no more honest than any other man, (and in fact, somewhat more dishonest in that the basis of their religious beliefs is specious - based upon 'faith' alone - and thus, inherently dishonest/self-delusional).  The conclusion that follows from that premise is an indication of underlying dishonesty which premeates a religious adherent's decision-making processes to the extent that they themselves are unable to perceive this inherent dishonesty/self-delusion.

Faith isn't dishonesty.  For it to be dishonest it would require proof of the opposite.  According to your logic, the person who trust's their spouse has remained faithful is dishonest, because after all, they have no proof their spouse has remained faithful.

That would logically include any religiously-based decisions and laws which leaders who are religious adherents make.  In such a case, I agree. 
Even worse than what we have now would be a set of theocratic laws, incrementally introduced to circumvent the establishment clause of the first amendment.

If you are so up in arms over circumvention of the establishment clause then why are you not actively defending people's religious freedoms when the government tries to trample them?  Secular progressives have for a long time been circumventing the establishment clause to the point that they view it as "freedom from religion" instead of "freedom of religion". 

Well, I'd rather avoid a potential theocracy.  Are you tacitly advocating one?

Considering that the odds favorable support that this is less likely than any other outcome (based upon history) I must ask if you are applying the gambler's fallacy here in your reasoning?  Are you more afraid that it is more likely now because no previous religious president has ever done this before (and thus you would think it less likely to happen had a previous president done it before (simply based on frequency, not the peoples reactions to the event))?  Your paranoia regarding this is irrational (both mathematically and intellectually).

There is nothing particularly "new or alarming" about wanting to stave off either a nuclear war or, a fundamentalist theocracy for example; both are potentially dire threats. If the difference between a fundie theocracy and our present system of government elude you, it doesn't follow that it eludes others.  Your "bank teller/manager" analogy is a false parallel since it omits any influence the "manager's" religious beliefs may have on his decision to rob the bank, (such as a mormon's religious beliefs and a mormon bank manager's irrational decision to provide campaign funding to a mormon candidate for instance). The point is that the analogy is only applicable if the teller had reason/evidence to conclude that the manager was robbing the bank or, embezzling to fund the campaign of a fellow religious adherent-candidate.

More Chewbacca defense, what gives with all of this ridiculous positing you are doing?  My analogy was perfect and it highlights the ridiculous arguments you have put forth.  You even reveal this with your declaration of the want of a "reason/evidence to conclude that the manager was robbing the bank".  Since we have had many prior presidents who were religious and they never enacted a theocracy, and since religious people were the ones that established the 'establishment clause' you have no proof that any religious president would try to enact a theocracy now or in the future, and on the contrary you have every bit of proof that they wouldn't.  You supplement rationality with your fears and prejudice and you call it 'reason'.

The concern over the potential for the establishment of a theocracy dates back prior to the establishment clause of the first amendment.  Falsely characterizing it as "a completely irrational and fear based situation you are presenting" is disingenious of you.  Neither are such constitutional preventative measures considered to be dire prophesies; such protections are in place to make it more difficult for a theocracy to emerge and to remind the leaders and constituency to be vigilante lest some fundie wrest the reins of this runaway stagecoach away in a 'faith-based' attempt to rob us of our current form of government, (so that they can rob us of our current form of goverment themselves).

Prior to the establishment clause.  And who were the main advocates behind the establishment clause?  The religious.  You sound like someone who checks repeatedly at night to see if their is a boogey man under your bed...boo!

[falcon9]

... history couldn't disprove it because you still have the man behind the decision and cannot draw any conclusion that could distinguish any failure to be trustworthy as President as being from the 'religious man' instead of simply the 'man'.

Whether or not a man's religious beliefs are an "appearance", (facade), you still have a man whose religious beliefs have an influence over his decisions where a non-religious man's do not.

A non religious man's beliefs have just as much sway over their decisions as a religious mans, to suggest otherwise is completely ridiculous.

The non-religious man does not however, have religious beliefs.  The salient point you seem to be missing is that the non-religious man may have non-religious beliefs which influence his decisions while the religious adherent has both religious and non-religious beliefs influencing his decisions.
The relevant difference is that the non-religious man does not have religious beliefs influencing his decisions.  That's why the point was raised, much as you want to ridicule it.

So this is just a witch hunt then?

No, a witch-hunt would be when fundamentalist xtians hunt down men and women who were not "witches" and either hung them, crushed them with rocks or drowned them, (few were burned, despite the latter appelation of "the burning times").  In order to turn the phrase within context, you might have asked if this was a 'fundie hunt'.  

I find it amazing that you attribute the establishment clause to 'secular' decision makers when it was in fact a consensus of the religious groups to protect themselves from the government trying to force a single state religion as they had in England.

No, the establishment clause of the first amendment was written in such a way as to preclude any _particular_ religion, (including xtianity), from being state sanctioned.  It most emphatically was not written to protect religions; it was written to protect the people from the excesses of religions, (like a theocracy).

Secular's are attempting to adopt this very thing now with their crusade against religion.  They would adopt a religion of atheism in the US and have made great steps to promote such a radical agenda.

 
Your argument is invalid because atheism is not a religion, (a disbelief is not a belief and are polar opposites).  Neither is atheism any more "radical" than some of the extremist religious adherents, (and in fact, pales in comparison to religions as far as radicalism is concerned).

A persons beliefs influence everything about the person.  Be this person religious or not.  To isolate it to one particular thing ...

Since I never suggested that they did not, your latest strawman argument is set ablaze with reason: The non-religious man does not however, have religious beliefs.  The salient point you seem to be missing is that the non-religious man may have non-religious beliefs which influence his decisions while the religious adherent has both religious and non-religious beliefs influencing his decisions. The relevant difference is that the
non-religious man does not have religious beliefs influencing his decisions. The reason that aspect is "isolated" for discussion here is because that's the context of this thread.  If you want to start other threads, with other contexts - feel free.

Why make such a narrow distinction?

The OP made that aspect contextual to the thread.  If you wish to expand beyond that context, (and not just dilute and divert discussion surrounding the influence a religious adherent's religious beliefs have on his non-religious decisions), go for it.

Well that is just what I did, draw out the truth.

What "truth" is that, that religious adherents feel 'persecuted' when their specious beliefs are challenged?  Or, that religious beliefs do influence a religious candidate's decisons, (and that the decisions of someone who does not have such religious beliefs aren't influenced by beliefs he doesn't have)?

Things that the religious protected us from at the origins of our nation.  Without any proof they would do this, and being well aware they are the ones that defended and provided this protection ...

What?  Despite your mangled grammar, the ones who protected the origins were members of the thirteen British colonies before there was a nation. The largest number of loyalists were found in the middle colonies: many tenant farmers of New York supported the king, for example, as did many of the Dutch in the colony and in New Jersey. The Germans in Pennsylvania tried to stay out of the Revolution, just as many Quakers did, and when that failed, clung to the familiar connection rather than embrace the new. Highland Scots in the Carolinas, a fair number of Anglican clergy and their parishioners in Connecticut and New York, a few Presbyterians in the southern colonies, and a large number of the Iroquois Indians stayed loyal to the British king.  Some patriots, (not loyal to briton), were religious and some were not although at that time, pretty much everyone outwardly claimed to be religious - just as they do now.

...you now draw fear that they would be the ones to violate the very laws they enacted.  Such a strange paranoia based not on any fact but in fact counter to fact.  Talk about being irrational.

What was alluded to were scenarios in which a de facto theocracy could come about.  Would you want to see Pat Robertson as president in 2016?

More likely a secular President could decide that "nuking believers" was "for the greater good of mankind".

That might require a more widespread anti-theocracy and some indiscriminate nuking.  Yours is therefore a less likely scenario than a de facto theocracy, (given the pervasive miasma of religions in this and other countries).
 

And it is far more likely for an atheocracy under an atheist and dogs like to sniff other dogs butts.  Again you present the Chewbacca defense as if everyone wouldn't see right through it.  The truth is that martial law is far more likely under progressive leadership than any other.

It isn't a "chewbacca defense" just because you inaccurately characterize refutations your strawman "atheocracy", (is this a word or, an alliteration?), as such.  Regardless, an "atheocracy" would not impose religious beliefs upon the populace, (unlike a repressive theocracy), due to tacking the "a" prefix on and making it the opposite of a theocracy.

Faith isn't dishonesty.  

I disagree; it is inherently dishonest because it relies on belief without evidence, (asking a 'believer' to take someone's word for it who presents no evidence whatsoever to support their claims).  Most telling though is that "faith" encourages intentful self-deception, (that take their word for it thing).  Such self-deception is internally dishonest.

For it to be dishonest it would require proof of the opposite.

The "proof" is that, because "faith" requires internal self-deception, (accepting incredulous claims with any evidence whatsoever), it's dishonest.
  

According to your logic, the person who trust's their spouse has remained faithful is dishonest, because after all, they have no proof their spouse has remained faithful.

Fortunately, such sophistry as you propose does not apply as a parallel.  This is because, sans evidence either way, there wouldn't be proof of fidelity.  By the way, mixing terms metaphorically is intellectually dishonest, (a visible spouse's fidelity is not the same as blind faith in an invisible deity).  Nice try though.  The analogy fails after even a cursory examination; proof that a spouse has remained "faithful" is obtainable, whereas proof that a deity exists in which to place faith remains unavailable.

If you are so up in arms over circumvention of the establishment clause then why are you not actively defending people's religious freedoms when the government tries to trample them?

What trampling?  Why would I champion "religious freedom" for people trying, (ever so evangelically), to impose their superstitions upon others?  

Secular progressives have for a long time been circumventing the establishment clause to the point that they view it as "freedom from religion" instead of "freedom of religion".  

While some may cynically approve of religion as an "opiate of the masses", I actually think it's a delaying tactic.  

 

Considering that the odds favorable support that this is less likely than any other outcome (based upon history) I must ask if you are applying the gambler's fallacy here in your reasoning?

No gambler's fallacy; I'm applying the don't-let-the-religious-toe-in-the-presidential-door reasoning.  Of course, all the candidate would have to do is downplay or de-emphasize their religious beliefs, (except where such gain them electoral votes, of course), get into office and start laying the de facto theocracy groundwork. Especially given some self-proclaimed "minister's" recent comments on FC:

"Whomever displays the most godly characteristics is the one I will be casting my vote for.  We certainly need a man or woman who will put our country back on track to godly principles that will benefit all Americans and not just a select few ... "   

 

Are you more afraid that it is more likely now because no previous religious president has ever done this before (and thus you would think it less likely to happen had a previous president done it before (simply based on frequency, not the peoples reactions to the event))?  Your paranoia regarding this is irrational (both mathematically and intellectually).

Actually, general polling seems to indicate that the percentage of Americans claiming to be "religious adherents" declined from 87% in the 1990s to less than 76% by 2008.  While such are general estimates, it should be recalled that self-declaring as "religious" is vague enough to include Santeria, Voudon and Satanists too.  Regardless, the mathematical odds of a theocracy are steadily diminishing as time goes on.  YaY.  

 

[Abrupt]

The non-religious man does not however, have religious beliefs.  The salient point you seem to be missing is that the non-religious man may have non-religious beliefs which influence his decisions while the religious adherent has both religious and non-religious beliefs influencing his decisions.
The relevant difference is that the non-religious man does not have religious beliefs influencing his decisions.  That's why the point was raised, much as you want to ridicule it.

I am well aware of the point you are tying to make, nd it deserves much more ridicule than I have delivered on it.  Were you not so blinded by your prejudice and hate you would see the significance of this. and the comedy that it is.  You love to criticize what you call 'blind' faith, yet you display a 'blind' arrogance that you seem oblivious to.  You keep bringing this point up, much like a person with a manilla envelope of supposed incriminating evidence.  Yet when the envelope is opened it is entirely empty without even a blank sheet of paper to present as a secondary bluff.  My analogy should be sufficient for you to now realize the error in the approach you have so stubbornly taken.

No, the establishment clause of the first amendment was written in such a way as to preclude any _particular_ religion, (including xtianity), from being state sanctioned.  It most emphatically was not written to protect religions; it was written to protect the people from the excesses of religions, (like a theocracy).

It was written to protect the religious beliefs of the people from the tendencies of government corruption to centralize and control.  You only have to see that it is leads off the first section of the bill of rights and is joined with the freedoms of speech, press, and petition to understand its purpose.  It places no limitations on religion at all and limits the government in such a away that it cannot advocate one religion over another.  It is, in all ways, a freedom of religion.

 
Your argument is invalid because atheism is not a religion, (a disbelief is not a belief and are polar opposites).  Neither is atheism any more "radical" than some of the extremist religious adherents, (and in fact, pales in comparison to religions as far as radicalism is concerned).

It certainly qualifies as a religion, and the reason is that it address the nature of religion.  A disbelief requires a focus of a subject to not be believed in.  Remove religion from the topic of atheism and you are left with absolutely nothing.  It cannot stand on its own sans religion and thus its existence is inseparable from religion.  I use the word 'radical', because every other word a democrat or a liberal uses anymore to describe anything conservative or republican is 'radical'.  I will join in this trend until the word loses all its efficacy.

 
Since I never suggested that they did not, your latest strawman argument is set ablaze with reason: The non-religious man does not however, have religious beliefs.  The salient point you seem to be missing is that the non-religious man may have non-religious beliefs which influence his decisions while the religious adherent has both religious and non-religious beliefs influencing his decisions. The relevant difference is that the
non-religious man does not have religious beliefs influencing his decisions. The reason that aspect is "isolated" for discussion here is because that's the context of this thread.  If you want to start other threads, with other contexts - feel free.

See my earlier reply to understand why this is not a strawman and is in fact a valid statement of clarity.  Most kind of you to allow me to start another thread.  I was going to ask your permission but was afraid you wouldn't allow it.

 
The OP made that aspect contextual to the thread.  If you wish to expand beyond that context, (and not just dilute and divert discussion surrounding the influence a religious adherent's religious beliefs have on his non-religious decisions), go for it.

Again see my earlier reply.

 
What "truth" is that, that religious adherents feel 'persecuted' when their specious beliefs are challenged?  Or, that religious beliefs do influence a religious candidate's decisons, (and that the decisions of someone who does not have such religious beliefs aren't influenced by beliefs he doesn't have)?

The truth that you are prejudice against people who do not think exactly like you do.  You continue to dance this silly dance of denial of the obvious.  The OP asked an obvious question that has no point of significance (one you have repeated many times (some rhetorically) and you become obtuse when your charade is exposed and you are called on it.

What?  Despite your mangled grammar, the ones who protected the origins were members of the thirteen British colonies before there was a nation. The largest number of loyalists were found in the middle colonies: many tenant farmers of New York supported the king, for example, as did many of the Dutch in the colony and in New Jersey. The Germans in Pennsylvania tried to stay out of the Revolution, just as many Quakers did, and when that failed, clung to the familiar connection rather than embrace the new. Highland Scots in the Carolinas, a fair number of Anglican clergy and their parishioners in Connecticut and New York, a few Presbyterians in the southern colonies, and a large number of the Iroquois Indians stayed loyal to the British king.  Some patriots, (not loyal to briton), were religious and some were not although at that time, pretty much everyone outwardly claimed to be religious - just as they do now.

Mangled grammar?  You wound me so!  Put it in the context of your question and notice the natural flow.  Don't make me break out the grammar checker and show how nearly everything either of us posted is full of troubled formation and structure.  I have no clue why you are bringing up colonial conflict and organization when you damned well can clearly see my reply was to your expression of fear of a "fundamentalist theocracy" (by the way, I would also be concerned about a theocracy, and even if it was one based exclusively on my religion).  Maybe you wished to share with the readers that you have some knowledge of history, but, as you say, "If you want to start other threads, with other contexts - feel free.".

What was alluded to were scenarios in which a de facto theocracy could come about.  Would you want to see Pat Robertson as president in 2016?

Don't misunderstand me, a theocracy would be a bad thing indeed and something that the religious of us Americans would be entirely opposed to and would once again stand in opposition and resistance to it.  Wow what a red herring you ask.  He already failed to gain the Republican nomination in 1988, and I doubt he would try again at the age of 86 -- but he would certainly not stand much of a chance.  Once again you are overly fearful of things that have already failed to come about. 

That might require a more widespread anti-theocracy and some indiscriminate nuking.  Yours is therefore a less likely scenario than a de facto theocracy, (given the pervasive miasma of religions in this and other countries).

Actually it is far more likely.  It is the secular progressive that proposes such concepts as "for the good of the many" and "ends justify the means" and such nonsense.  The secular progressives continually attempt to exercise control and restrict the wills of the governed.  The secular progressive is deluded into believing they know best and as is often demonstrated on even this forum, they will inject themselves into anything with but the attempt to control. 

 

It isn't a "chewbacca defense" just because you inaccurately characterize refutations your strawman "atheocracy", (is this a word or, an alliteration?), as such.  Regardless, an "atheocracy" would not impose religious beliefs upon the populace, (unlike a repressive theocracy), due to tacking the "a" prefix on and making it the opposite of a theocracy.

It is a chewbacca defense.  You make a nonsense point and put it up as challenge.  Your point seems to make sense if viewed in isolation and in ignorance of reality.  When all things are included it is seen for what it is, a nonsense statement that has no relevance.

I disagree; it is inherently dishonest because it relies on belief without evidence, (asking a 'believer' to take someone's word for it who presents no evidence whatsoever to support their claims).  Most telling though is that "faith" encourages intentful self-deception, (that take their word for it thing).  Such self-deception is internally dishonest.

It doesn't require self deception.  There is no deception in my faith.  In fact my faith dictates that I explore the curiosities of our existence as such is given to my nature.  It is through that exploration that I realize the impossibility of existence.  That knowing that time is distance then the concept of measuring it only becomes a bubble unit onto itself and has no significance externally -- and that in some state it has no value or measure.  My faith led me to conclude that there is knowledge beyond my knowing or understanding and that I couldn't appreciate the basics of them even if they were explained to me as a child.  You often mention emergent phenomena and surely the fact that it has no meaning in an empty set has not escaped you?  To have any considerations for emergent phenomena requires as much faith as my own.

Fortunately, such sophistry as you propose does not apply as a parallel.  This is because, sans evidence either way, there wouldn't be proof of fidelity.  By the way, mixing terms metaphorically is intellectually dishonest, (a visible spouse's fidelity is not the same as blind faith in an invisible deity).  Nice try though.  The analogy fails after even a cursory examination; proof that a spouse has remained "faithful" is obtainable, whereas proof that a deity exists in which to place faith remains unavailable.

Who is mixing what here and being dishonest.  Your clumsy attempt to shift meaning does not escape me.  We are not comparing the spouse against the deity, we are comparing trust without proof.  The analogy holds beyond your deceleration of failure.  Notice in your "cursory examination" you cannot prove the spouse has remained faithful and at best could only prove a lack of faithfulness.

What trampling?  Why would I champion "religious freedom" for people trying, (ever so evangelically), to impose their superstitions upon others?  

You reveal yourself here.  You would uphold the Bill of Rights regarding freedom of religion to protect peoples freedom to believe as they wish.  If you do not hold such a position then you are tacitly admitting that given authority you would strip such rights from people, and thus you would become your own fear.

No gambler's fallacy; I'm applying the don't-let-the-religious-toe-in-the-presidential-door reasoning.  Of course, all the candidate would have to do is downplay or de-emphasize their religious beliefs, (except where such gain them electoral votes, of course), get into office and start laying the de facto theocracy groundwork. Especially given some self-proclaimed "minister's" recent comments on FC:

That toe has already gone through that door many many times.  You are now then proposing to lock the door to the house they helped build.  The position you put forth here actually brings me to alarm to imagine our entire elected officials to think as you do.  I can imagine all the things they would ban and destroy would make Hitler look like a saint.

Actually, general polling seems to indicate that the percentage of Americans claiming to be "religious adherents" declined from 87% in the 1990s to less than 76% by 2008.  While such are general estimates, it should be recalled that self-declaring as "religious" is vague enough to include Santeria, Voudon and Satanists too.  Regardless, the mathematical odds of a theocracy are steadily diminishing as time goes on.  YaY.  

Then your fearful paranoia has been wasted on noises from beneath your bed.

By the way good to see you back.  I noticed you seemed absent a few days and I found the only thing significant was the tornado's in Texas and I had concerns that maybe you lived in the area and were temporarily displaced.  Apparently that was not the case and hopefully you and yours are well.

[falcon9]

The relevant difference is that the non-religious man does not have religious beliefs influencing his decisions.  

I am well aware of the point you are tying to make ...

Yet, your comments seem contrary to any such awareness.  Why don't you tell me what point you think I'm trying to make instead?

 
Your argument is invalid because atheism is not a religion, (a disbelief is not a belief and are polar opposites).  Neither is atheism any more "radical" than some of the extremist religious adherents, (and in fact, pales in comparison to religions as far as radicalism is concerned).

It certainly qualifies as a religion, and the reason is that it address the nature of religion.

What?  It most certianly does not qualify as a religion, (under the defining terms and conditions pertaining to that word, rather than 'crap you make up to support your weak point').  If, by "addressing the nature of religion", you mean refusing to believe unsubstantiated religious claims and vagueness of 'faith', that still doesn't qualify an atheistic position as a "religion".  Since you don't get to whimsically redefine terms, (unless you're nuts), the remainder of responses along such lines will diminish accordingly.  

A disbelief requires a focus of a subject to not be believed in.

Nope.  A disbelief can be generalized, (e.g., someone who does not believe in magic need not specify a particular type or method of magic) or, specialized, (as in not believing in a specified concept).  Someone who does not believe in any "gods/goddesses" isn't required to focus on any particular "god/goddess".

Remove religion from the topic of atheism and you are left with absolutely nothing.

Well now, let's invert that premise and see if it still holds; remove theism from religion and you're left with ... nothing.  Yep, it's all good.
  

It cannot stand on its own sans religion and thus its existence is inseparable from religion.

I have not been out drinking tonight, have you started early?  That sort of comment is equivalent to asserting that, without "hot", "cold" cannot stand on its own - they're inseparable, (except of course where they're separated by being opposites).

I use the word 'radical', because every other word a democrat or a liberal uses anymore to describe anything conservative or republican is 'radical'.  I will join in this trend until the word loses all its efficacy.

Ah, like "irony", eh?

See my earlier reply to understand why this is not a strawman and is in fact a valid statement of clarity.  

I saw your earlier dissembling, raised you another refutation by lighting your strawman on fire with logic and disregard your empty claim of clarity, (because it lacks evidence, substance and veracity).

The truth that you are prejudice against people who do not think exactly like you do.

What a whiny dodge of a weak position; I oppose unreasoned, unsubstantiated religious beliefs - of course such people don't think like I do.  That isn't prejudice, it's reason vs. irrartionality.  You sit on the fence of irrationality and still want to dangle your leg over into logic.  That's what gives you those splinters, not me.  Any rancher knows that it's difficult to mend a fence while you're sitting on it.
  

(by the way, I would also be concerned about a theocracy, and even if it was one based exclusively on my religion).

Then the thread, the OP's point and my subsequent points were not entirely "redundant", (unless by "concern", you meant 'only if you get to be in charge, then it'd be okay'?).  

Don't misunderstand me, a theocracy would be a bad thing indeed and something that the religious of us Americans would be entirely opposed to and would once again stand in opposition and resistance to it.

You know, I can probably extrapolate the reasons for that, based upon available data.  There are even more religious variations of xtianity now than back when the first amendment was ratified.  It'd be difficult to establish a monolithic theocracy if the subsects are bound to squabble.  Squabbling could lead to shooting, (hel, a theocracy could lead to shooting), and that's a lot of shooting in the name of 'god'.  Sounds familar though.  I do however, agree that a theocracy would be a "bad thing", (likely for reasons at some variance with yours).

Wow what a red herring you ask.  He already failed to gain the Republican nomination in 1988, and I doubt he would try again at the age of 86 -- but he would certainly not stand much of a chance.  Once again you are overly fearful of things that have already failed to come about.  

Robertson was used an an example, not a herring.  The point you missed was that any candidate has the potential of being a religious fundie, (overtly or, convertly).

It is the secular progressive that proposes such concepts as "for the good of the many" and "ends justify the means" and such nonsense.

That same palp is expounded from church puplits on any given sunday and those folks aren't all "secular progressives", (by the way, if we get to use 'boogeyman terms like "secular progressives", I'm going to inflict 'repressive religious republicans' on you in turn ... r3).

The secular progressives continually attempt to exercise control and restrict the wills of the governed.  The secular progressive is deluded into believing they know best and as is often demonstrated on even this forum, they will inject themselves into anything with but the attempt to control.  

Wow, sounds like the same thing repressive religious republicans do from all appearances!  

 

It doesn't require self deception.

If there is no substantiating evidence to support 'faith' then holding such a belief is self-deceptive, (this is because if one had evidence, no 'faith' would be required - the implicit clause being that one must 'suspend disbelief' in a self-deceptive manner in order to make a "leap of faith").
 

There is no deception in my faith.

You are mistaken; the xtian belief systems, (which you may or may not distinguish significantly from your personal "faith"), are riddled with deception, dissembling, contradictions and outrageous claims made with no supporting evidence, (reference: any 'bible').

In fact my faith dictates that I explore the curiosities of our existence as such is given to my nature.

Jesuit?
  

It is through that exploration that I realize the impossibility of existence.  That knowing that time is distance then the concept of measuring it only becomes a bubble unit onto itself and has no significance externally -- and that in some state it has no value or measure.  My faith led me to conclude that there is knowledge beyond my knowing or understanding and that I couldn't appreciate the basics of them even if they were explained to me as a child.  You often mention emergent phenomena and surely the fact that it has no meaning in an empty set has not escaped you?  To have any considerations for emergent phenomena requires as much faith as my own.

Emergent phenomenon are not posited as empty sets, nor as arising from one.  We could sit and and ramble mathematically about dimensionally overlapping sets, cyclic islands of stability and such but, beyond a mostly narrow interest, I do not apply the concept of 'faith' to such phenomenon nor, any mathematical basis for it - that's not required.  Either emergence is a valid theory or, it is not - 'faith' has no bearing on that, (just as it has no bearing on the existence of anything else besides the immaterial concept of "faith" itself ... 'wishcraft'?).

The analogy holds beyond your deceleration of failure.  Notice in your "cursory examination" you cannot prove the spouse has remained faithful and at best could only prove a lack of faithfulness.

Sure I could. The suspicious spouse could hire private investigators to determine the other's physical fidelity.  No one can hire an equivalent investigator to confirm fidelity in a theoretical supernatural being.  Who ya gonna, faith-busters?

What trampling?  Why would I champion "religious freedom" for people trying, (ever so evangelically), to impose their superstitions upon others?  

You reveal yourself here.  You would uphold the Bill of Rights regarding freedom of religion to protect peoples freedom to believe as they wish.

Some revelation; I'd uphold the Bill of Rights, sure.
 

If you do not hold such a position then you are tacitly admitting that given authority you would strip such rights from people, and thus you would become your own fear.

It's possible that you nearly sprained a synapse trying to 'out-clever' yourself there however, no such admission, (tacit or overt), was made.  There's a huge difference between someone believing whatever nonsense they want to and them imposing their nonsense upon others, (as in a theocracy).
Parenthetically, there aren't any pragmatic ways to strip the ability of others to believe in nonsense away from them, (sans electroshock, etc. - not practical), nor would it necessarily be wise for political leadership to do so, (opiate ... masses ...yada-yada...).

You are now then proposing to lock the door to the house they helped build.  The position you put forth here actually brings me to alarm to imagine our entire elected officials to think as you do.  I can imagine all the things they would ban and destroy would make Hitler look like a saint.

No doubt you can imagine several things far less likely than a theocracy however, let's try a hypothetical thought experiement, if you will.  Let's say that religious affiliation barred a politician from office as a premise.  What sort of difference can you imagine which would be at variance with a 'secular' government?

By the way good to see you back.  I noticed you seemed absent a few days and I found the only thing significant was the tornado's in Texas and I had concerns that maybe you lived in the area and were temporarily displaced.  Apparently that was not the case and hopefully you and yours are well.

Thanks.  I could say I was working with Tesla technology in a undisclosed location northeast of Texas which was completely unrelated to any emergent weather phenomenon whatsoever in the Lone Star state.  Or, that I was on a nice trip to a friend's California beach house, (how they can afford that place, no one will say but, the sunburn supports this more than the occasional static zap from metal - which I don't experience!)
I do know some people around Austin and outer areas but, they're fine.  Plus, I have this tan to prove I was at thebeach the whole time, dammit.

[mardukblood2009]

It is a scary thing Religious People with Political Power. There is now no separation between church and state in this country since Bush jr. was president. It is only a matter of time until we wind up like the Middle East.