When deciding which political candidate gets our vote in any election, there are many things to consider. For some, a candidate who believes in a higher power is very important. However, I couldn't care less whether or not a politician is a believer. Although I used to be an atheist, I converted to agnosticism several years ago. I can hear some of the conservatives who might be reading this say, "I knew that dirty progressive Malcolm had to be a Godless heathen! I knew it!" My feeling is that religious beliefs and a core set of values don't always go hand in hand. Just think of the countless number of elected officials who have been busted for all sorts of crimes and misdemeanors. I'm willing to bet that a majority of them professed to believing in a higher power.
Although it's obviously not mandatory, I'd love to hear what reasons you have for voting the way you did in the blog poll. If you'd like to share your reasons, you can do so in the comments section of this post.
27 comments:
"religious beliefs and a core set of values don't always go hand in hand"
I love that!
I would vote for an Atheist.... values, intelligence, leadership, love of country and the American people...what does that have to do with Christianity?
Well, if you can't get anything out of electing someone personally, the next best thing is to have a reflection of yourself handing down judgment over everyone.
I wouldn't damn all religious people and call them hypocrites, but there is quite a contrast between the views some espouse and how they really act when it comes down to it. And that's not necessary political; as I've said here before, it's more that it just wouldn't get play the other way, not to mention being an openly devout Christian is going to box you in on the right 8 outta 10.
I wouldn't vote for someone not religious just to do it, but as someone who prides himself in seeing the logic in every situation--unless I'm just pissed off or aggied to death--I want more representation in America believing that, at the least, man can rule himself.
It would be nice, at least for me, to see someone who isn't religious out there in the public eye, who also doesn't have a personal vendetta against the religious.
I've yet to hear one solid argument or view one piece of evidence that even remotely hints to the existence of any god, and I'm sitting here scratching my head wondering WTF I'm missing. I'm not a brilliant guy. I'm not cutting edge or revolutionary. I just think some things sound a bit preposterous and I'm dumbfounded that there aren't more supposedly educated politicians who feel the same.
It's not a stance against anti-gay, or the violence carried out in religion's name, or even the putty that holy word is when needed to fit any particular situation. It's just a hankering for something that makes more sense across the board. Like: No doing things because a god extorts it; no spending money we don't have; no separate standards for people. It's not a lot to ask that someone fit that bill!
Politicians suck.
Malcolm, I would never call you or any non-believer a godless heathen. Because I believe that no one is beyond God's love.
There are many aspects of how I choose a candidate, and one of them is being a believer in Jesus Christ. Because that would entail a person who values family, life and liberty.
"It would be nice, at least for me, to see someone who isn't religious out there in the public eye, who also doesn't have a personal vendetta against the religious."
There probably are dozens of politicians who are not religious, but our current religion-drenched country, at this point, wouldn't vote for them. BTW I don't think atheists are any more vendetta prone against the religious than are religious against nonbelievers.
There's an inaccurate meme out there that falsely claims atheists attack nonbelievers when the facts show that nonbelievers get much more negative coverage than do believers. For proof, how many self-admitted nonbelievers are in prominent political positions in this country vs. religious politicians?
BTW, calling atheism a religion is just plain bunk. If atheism is a religion, then so is cooking or hockey or flossing one's teeth.
"There are many aspects of how I choose a candidate, and one of them is being a believer in Jesus Christ. Because that would entail a person who values family, life and liberty."
So, a Jewish man or woman could never get your vote no matter how exemplar a life she or he leads? Muslim? Hindu? Atheist?
Perhaps you would choose Pat Robertson for president?
Malcolm, I voted “yes”.
I don’t place a lot of weight on whether an individual believes in a Higher Power or not. I place my confidence in how a person lives his life and if he is of good character and whether he tries, to the best of his ability, to do the right thing. We are all fallible and make mistakes but when people flaunt their religion like a designer label, I feel as if they are trying to over-compensate for something.
Welcome to the family of agnosticism. I don't know how long you took to get here, but welcome aboard anyway.
I seriously don't see how any one person can know absolutely about God or science when there are so many questions out there that have never been sufficiently answered by either side. Therefore I'd vote for an atheist just as easily as I'd vote for a believer since either one would probably end up screwing me or saving me with as much vigor as the other one would.
Hi Curious,
The difference between science and religion is this: Science is not dogmatic. It is evidence based; and if evidence comes along that shows a theory is not correct, then science adjusts that particular theory to reflect the new evidence.
Religion does not do this. With religion, one is commanded to believe what the particular dogma tells you to believe. For example, in certain Xtian sects, the adherents unequivocally believe humans cannot enter heaven unless they accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. IOW, it is their inarguable belief that only a born-again Xtian is saved, and that no other human, no matter how exemplar a life he/she has led, will find salvation or paradise. This includes, BTW, those people in this world who have never heard of Xtianity.
Science never claims it has all the answers; religion does.
Many of the Atheist and Agnostics I know have better logic and "moral stability" than so called Christians. So yes without hesitation I would vote for an Atheist. I believe in the "Separation of Church and State".
Shaw, I think you may have your arguments mixed up with someone else. My comments were in reference to this post and whether I would vote or not vote for an atheist. I looked for the similarities on both sides of the question and found neither one with an advantage over the other and gave that as the reason for my vote. I'm not looking to discuss religion because I know I'd lose. I'm not looking to defend science because I don't understand all of it and I'm not sure that I ever will, so again I would lose. That's why I'm an agnostic and perfectly happy with my doubts and have no need to denigrate yours.
Sue: Thanks! It kills me how some Christians think their religion makes them better than some others.
Josh: I too would like to see an atheist in the public eye such as you described.
dmarks: I'm torn on whether or not atheism is a faith. I think there are good arguments on both sides of the debate.
Leticia: Two questions for you. How does being a believer in Jesus Christ automatically mean a person also values family, life and liberty? Also, can't an atheist also value those three things?
“And no, I would not vote for an Atheist, Buddhist, Muslim or Hindu. Not ever. Because most of these people tend to be liberal, I said, "most" and I believe in tradition marriage, one man and one woman, I am against abortion, and so forth.”
That sounds like religious bigotry to me. If you don't think it is, I'd love to hear your explanation.
Shaw: It’s a shame that our political climate has made it virtually impossible for atheist politicians to come out of the closet (religiously speaking). Just looking at the scant list of U.S. atheist politicians kills the lie that believers are persecuted more than non-believers.
I think the prominence of Bill Maher gives the false impression that atheism=anti-religion. For the people who push this false meme, it’s the “either you’re for us or against us” philosophy.
Pamela: Thanks for weighing in; it’s great to hear from a conservative atheist. It seems to me that many people who make it a point to publicize their religion are using it as some sort of “get out of jail free card”. As if their religion gives them license to do whatever the hell they want.
Curious: Thanks for the welcome. I think my conversion to agnosticism occurred in the early 2000s. Yes, a politician’s religious beliefs isn’t necessarily an indication that they will or won’t screw their constituents over. Then again, when you list the number of shady/illegal activities committed by so-called religious politicians, their religious supporters might try to employ the “no true Scotsman” defense.
Pjazzy: Many times, logic goes out the window when it comes to religion. There was a scene in “Inherit the Wind” which illustrated this point beautifully.
I don’t think we’ll see an atheist become President of the U.S. in our lifetime. It’s unfortunate, because the right atheist politician could school some of these so-called believers on what moral stability really means.
God, yes.
Murr: Thanks for voting. By the way, nice play on words. :-)
Two questions for you. How does being a believer in Jesus Christ automatically mean a person also values family, life and liberty? Also, can't an atheist also value those three things?
Answer to 1. If a person is a sincere believer in Jesus Christ than more than likely they would follow the Lord's teachings. We embrace His Word and we do our very best, and usually fail, to emulate his teachings. I used to be pro-choice and pro-abortion, that changed when I accepted Jesus into my heart. Many things changed for me.
2. It would be rather difficult for an Atheist to embrace the teachings of Jesus Christ or the Holy Bible since they do not believe in either or in Jehovah God. So, I don't believe they would have the same desire as believers. Our love for the Lord God is what keeps us on the path to righteousness and not to embrace what is wrong or evil. An atheist denies the the deity of our Lord, God and Holy Ghost which makes us uniquely "Christian." They are only going by what their conscience leads them to believe.
I hope I explained that right.
When I used 2 vote-I 1nce voted 4 a cadidate that didn't have a chance {just 2 make a statement} but was very radical n' it was always less of 2 evil choice factor-rama.....I do remember some of the candidates actions n ' it won me over.....I would vote{if I still voted} 4 a non-b-leever {in any form}-what kind of world R we livin' in when this B -leever usually sides with many non-B leeverz on many issues ?
Progressive Soup 4 ever !!
STAGG
Leticia: Thanks for answering my questions. However, you're under the false assumption that valuing family, life, and liberty are the sole teachings of Jesus Christ. Most people (including non-believers) are taught the differences between right and wrong. One can do what's right without ever spending a day in church or ever reading the Bible.
Did you hear the recent story about the Catholic priest who was sentenced to prison for stealing church money?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2012/01/las-vegas-priest-gambling-addict-sentenced-prison.html
Who would you trust with your money... an honest atheist or this Catholic thief?!
Stagg: Thanks for giving us your take on this debate and for supporting Progressive Soup!
Malcolm your arguments to Leticia are spot on! It's really amazing to me she believes you must be a Believer in Christ to have values!!
Malcolm you are very welcome and in the case of the priest and atheist, you got me there, I would chose an honest atheist. :)
Sue: Thanks! In retrospect, I should have been on the high school debate team. :-)
Leticia: Thanks for admitting you'd choose an honest atheist in the hypothetical situation I put to you. Who knows, you may even vote for an atheist someday. :-)
I am sorry, I meant to say "choose" darn typos.
Weirder things have occurred. I just might surprise you.
"It's really amazing to me she believes you must be a Believer in Christ to have values!!"
Those values are relative to values held sacred by devout religious people. Values isn't a single thing or a set. Values are relative to what you believe.
For example: Christians in particular value Jesus Christ himself tremendously. Love in their god is a value. So that's obviously a value that a nonbeliever wouldn't have. If they had it, they'd be a believer.
Not trying to be argumentative here; context is something that everyone should be afforded in discussion.
Josh: Leticia's stance is that only someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ can value family, life and liberty. If she feels a non-believer can also value those things, she never made that clear in any of her statements here.
Yeah. I read what she wrote - three times to make sure that I wasn't missing anything. And I just didn't interpret it like that.
I'm not religious. In fact, I can be quite condescending to religious people out of habit and annoyance at times.
But I take something different from what Leticia is saying. I could certainly be wrong, but I believe she's trying to convey that Christians place value on things for different reasons. While an atheist/agnostic is still capable of holding values, they're simply not the same values for the same reasons.
Christians value the sanctity of relationships and life in different ways, through the father/son/holy ghost aspect, through the crucifixion of Christ aspect, etc.
I'll certainly argue that one's in no way better than the other. I don't believe in any god and I know I have values. But I also know they're different values for different reasons. Things don't come back to Christ with me. For a devout Christian, they do. So the values, even if similar, aren't the same, because there's something completely different at the root.
She said it would be difficult for a nonbeliever to embrace the teachings of Christ.
I agree with that. It's awfully hard for me to embrace anything from a man I contend never existed.
So we're probably just interpreting what she said in different ways.
Leticia:
"Weirder things have occurred. I just might surprise you."
There is one way you can surprise me... say something positive about President Obama. :-)
Josh: One thing that would clear up any speculation on our part is for Leticia herself to clarify her statement.
Leticia... come out, come out wherever you are!
Post a Comment