Would you vote for an otherwise qualified...

[Mattforclark]

If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be a Gay person, or Atheist, would you vote for that person?

[Muddleoftheroad]

1. You don't give other

Like depends. Based on the threads here on DU, I would never vote for a radical anti-religionist candidate, even if he or she were qualified. However, I would vote for an atheist who didn't hate religion or the religious.

[Vagabond]

2. Perfect response.

just my opinion

[Az]

3. Otherwise equal

I believe the intent is to suggest the only difference is they are gay and/or atheist. This would imply that their attitudes are similar in matters of respect and behaviour. The focus of the question is simply on the belief and gender identity.

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. There is a big difference

Between qualified and being someone I would vote for.

[Az]

5. So all things being equal

Would the simple fact that an individual is gay or an atheist be enough to cause you to not vote for them? That is the essense of the question. Do you believe an atheist or a gay can effectively govern?

[Muddleoftheroad]

6. Gay, yes

As I have said, I am hesitant to give a blanket endorsement of an atheist without knowing more because all things ARE NOT equal. I would vote for an atheist who didn't have an anti-religion agenda, but I would definitely do my share of investigating first.

[Gringo]

7. What is an "anti-religion" agenda?

Have any major politicians proposed banning religious superstitions? Keeping religion & state separate is not "anti-religion".

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. Well, your post is a prime example

If a politician used the word, "superstitions" to refer to religion, then I would vote against him or her.

[Gringo]

20. I'm not a politician, so I don't have to pander to superstitious people.

su·per·sti·tion     P   Pronunciation Key  (spr-stshn)
n.
An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.

A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.

Idolatry.



Sums up all religions pretty well, if you ask me.

"Religious" politicians (most are NOT real believers) never EVER pander to my NON-beliefs. I see no reason why I should pander to your beliefs by pretending that they are rational or based in anything other than cultural inculcation from birth.

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. Civil discourse

Clearly, that concept is beyond you.

So, in the same vein, I could decry the obnoxious and assinine behavior of the atheists, which based on the DU behavior of the last few days is pretty massive.

It seems, ultimately, that some here would rather have their own obscure micro-party than be a true party of diversity. If that is the case, good luck to you. Much like the Greens, you will never win any election of note.

[Gringo]

31. No. I am NOT a politician.

I have had christian superstition rammed down my throat since childhood by others trying to impose it on me. I am NOT a politician, and I am not here trying to get elected. If I can't speak the truth on an anonymous LIBERAL board, where can I? And who's being uncivil? I'm more than happy to have superstitious folks with good hearts in our party, but I'm never going to endorse the mixing of government and religion, no matter who few think like me.

It is an offense and an assault on non-believers and believers in non-christian superstitions every time christians try to impose their religious rules on us. THAT is uncivil.

Why is there no debate about whether the sale of pork should be banned? After all, Mohammed said eating it was a no-no! In fact a lot of buddhist sects don't believe in meat-eating at all - let's ban all meat. Don't like it? Too bad, it's in my "bible"

Tyranny by the majority is still tyranny.

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. Clearly, you are not a politician

It is all about being deliberately rude and obnoxious. Some here think that's the way to go to win friends and influence people.

I don't endorse mixing government and religion either -- though I'd bet our definitions differ.

[Gringo]

41. No, I'm not here to win friends or influence people

If this board influenced people, Clark would've been the nominee.

Maybe I think it's rude and obnoxious for preachers to come on CNN calling those they don't like "sinners", but I wouldn't shut down the debate because of it. In the fantasy world of Christian superstition, "sinner" is not an insult, it is a fact that we are all sinners, but to those of us who live in the physical world, it is just an insult - based on an irrelevant concept - that of offending some temperamental deity somewhere.

Christians are rarely challenged on their beliefs & statements because people are wary of bruised feelings. I too am deferent to my Xian friends & family member's feelings, and don't give unsolicited opinions on the subject. If they ask me my opinion, though - I tell them in no uncertain terms what Itold you. To beat areound the bush is patronizing.

If your faith is so flimsy as to be shaken by any of my rhetoric, maybe you should reexamine yourr belief system. None of the endless pro-theocratic ranting I hear on the media on a daily basis has ANY effect on my status as non-believer, nor does my wife's stubborn insistence on belonging to a mind-control cult (Soka Gakkai). I love her like the dickens but I am NOT going to pretend to believe in hogwash.

[Muddleoftheroad]

44. My faith is not shaken

But I respond when people call me "nigger" and I respond to what I encounter here about religion.

[Gringo]

48. I didn't call you "religous wacko" as many would do

I called you superstitious, which under the dictionary definition, you and all other "people of faith" ARE. To equate it to the n-word is nonsensical. It's more equivalent to "person of African descent".

I don't hate or even dislike religious people, but I still fail to understand why I should humor them when they express pro-theocratic leanings as you have.

The fact is, that if an atheist politician were running, he/she would certainly be sensitive to the feelings of the superstitious, and would certainly never use the word "superstitious" to describe them.

Exactly what is it that atheist politicians would do that you consider "anti-religious"?

I've never seen any politician advocate an anti-religious agenda. The only thing I've ever seen is secularists trying to preserve the separation between church and sate, which is the only thing separating us from the Taliban.

[Muddleoftheroad]

50. No, words do damage whether you acknowledge it or not

I am religious. Superstition is for those who knock on wood or throw salt over their shoulder. Some religious people are superstitious. Many are not.

As for what an atheist politicians would do that Iconsider "anti-religious," word choice would be key. "Superstition." "Cloud being." And othe catchphrases of the adversarial atheist contingent would be automatic negatives.

[Gringo]

54. Sorry you feel that way. How are you damaged?

I've never felt damaged when called "godless heathen". You don't like the terminology - deal with it. You've got at least 80% of the population to commiserate with. You and your ilk will NEVER be as marginalized and ignored as atheists.

[Muddleoftheroad]

58. Terminology

Designed to hurt can actually hurt. Again, I equate this to racial abuse. It amazes me that atheists who complain they are abused then don't see abuse as a bad thing.

[Gringo]

61. It's not intended to hurt.

Maybe to throw a little cold water in the face, but not hurt. ALL beliefs NEED to be questioned from time to time. Mine are constantly being challenged by the superstitious majority. Yours are not. I have to think things over every now and then and reassess whether this really is the right path for me.

Sure, the conformist religion path would be much easier in some ways. I could go throught he motions (like most people do) and benefit through social & business opportunities that arise within a religious community, but I hate being untrue to myself. Now I'm not saying that you are, but I know for a fact that MILLIONS of church-going folks are not really believers.

Again, I'm sorry that you feel hurt, but you are like a gay person complaining about being labeled as "homosexual". Gays ARE homosexual, whether they care for the label or not. And you, my friend, are superstitious.

[Muddleoftheroad]

62. You, my "friend" are bigoted

Just as you claim I am "superstitious," your dislike, distrust and outright hatred for religion blinds you to your own flaws.

[Gringo]

65. Perhaps. I'm chock full of flaws.

And religious superstition is not one of them.

I'm well aware that many people have attained great peace of mind and other achievements through religion, so it is not necessarily a "flaw".

But then again many people have won the lotto after rubbing a rabbit's foot...

[Exultant Democracy]

77. It is rather easy to use a value neutral word instead of

one as emotionally charged as, superstition. The term superstition also directly implies falseness, and since his religion includes beliefs like loving your fellow man then to call it all a superstition is to imply that love of your fellow man is a false notion.


MOTR and I debate quite a lot and rarely agree, but I have to side with him on this one. You should not toss the baby out with the bathwater. The problems that you have with Christianity should be addressed directly without the blanket derision of the whole faith.

[rexcat]

82. Bigotry against atheist is OK but attack someone's religious

beliefs and watch out. Also nice post on superstition! As an out of the closet atheist I can attest to the bigotry we atheists endure in this country. There is so much intolerance of atheists in this country , both from the right, middle and left!

[Atlant]

23. So you'd vote for them as long as they weren't too, say, "uppity"? (NT)

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. LOL

Nope, I'd vote for them as long as they weren't disrespectful of or antagonistic to my beliefs.

However, given some of the responses even in this thread, if I had to vote without time for research, I would vote against, though I have not voted in the poll.

[Az]

32. Was it right

for blacks during the civil rights movement of the 60s to be angry at their oppressors? Did everyone in the movement voice their anger with a reserved and polite fashion? If you wish to change the behaviour of those that oppress you I cannot recommend a better course than that advocated by Jesus ...whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them. When those that oppose your beliefs beat upon your door show them the better way.

[Muddleoftheroad]

34. It wasn't productive

The way of Dr. King was.

[Az]

39. But was it expected

Oppress a people and some are going to react with anger. It took a great deal of effort to get Dr Kings message of pacifism to the people. The natural instinct is to react in anger.

[Muddleoftheroad]

40. Again, doesn't make it right -- or smart

If some here aspire to become the Atheist Panthers, I will oppose them just as I oppose the Black Panthers.

[Gringo]

43. I'm personally not speaking out of anger

I'm being frank and blunt because superstitious people (I guess muddle would prefer the more common "religious freak"?) are never spoken to frankly and bluntly. The TV personalities who have discussions with them always dance around the issue and pretend as though their contention that EVERYONE should follow THEIR religious tenets is somehow reasonable.

For example, the discussion of whether Jesus (or whatever deity) approves of homosexuality or pork or whatever, really belongs on a religion board, or at least in the Religion & Spirituality section of DU, not in GD.

Millions of us don't particularly care what Jesus has to say on the matter.

[Az]

9. Assume

They stand up for all issues you support. They present no negetive traits or anti religious bias. The only factor that you may find negative is they are an atheist. Would you vote for this person.

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. As I said above, yes

But another poster gave me a good example of the anti-religious bias, so I would definitely be looking for it.

[Az]

12. Would you also

be looking for an antiwhite bias in a black candidate?

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. Nope

[Az]

15. I trust I do not

have to tell you what that makes you. You may believe your position to be justified but so to have millions of other prejudicial people.

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. It makes me realistic

That doesn't mean I wouldn't vote against someone like Sharpton for example. Al is a race-baiter and back when he ran his fantasy campaign, I made that clear.

[Az]

22. I know you are trying to be fair

But you seem to be of the mindset that simply because a person does not believe there is a god and is courageous enough to say so they must also hate religion. It is a bias. It is a prejudice. I would hope you could challenge yourself enough to see through it. Let the person speak for themself.

I know you have been offended by atheists. I have been offended by theists. Should I look at all theists as narrowminded delusional hate mongers because of those experiences?

Yes if they fly the flag of bringing down freedom of religion then you should oppose them. But most atheists do not fly that flag. We are a hidden minority. Most stay closeted for fear of what outing themself will bring. No candidate dare breath a word of skepticism about god for fear of a backlash. We do not need the further burden of having to prove our tolerance to those who are intolerant of us.

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. Courageous?

Again, it is about accepting views of others in a respectful way. If they did that, then I wouldn't have a problem. If they didn't, they would be toast.

[Az]

37. There are atheists in office right now

They just cannot come out and admit they are atheists or they will lose their job. They perform their job with dignity and respect for religion. But because of intolerennce and hatred for atheists they must stay in the closet and live a lie.

I suspect the person that initiated this poll is aware of a recent gallop poll that showed that all things being equal an atheist is unelectable. Over 50% of people polled would vote against a person simply because they were an atheist. No other group was in the over 50% range.

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. As I have made clear

That would not be the case with me.

[Mattforclark]

45. poll

"I suspect the person that initiated this poll is aware of a recent gallop poll that showed that all things being equal an atheist is unelectable. Over 50% of people polled would vote against a person simply because they were an atheist. No other group was in the over 50% range."

Yeppers.

Part of the problem is that the word "atheist" has gathered such bad connotations over time. IE "godless atheist Soviets" who want to rape your children and eat your parents. But the new term "bright" doesn't seem to be better, because it suggests that religious people would be "dim." Some relatively uncommon word with nonetheless positive connotations like "keen" or "spry" would probably be better.

20 years ago only about 25% of people would have voted for a gay person, but now they have surpassed atheists.

[Az]

10. Do you assume

All atheists have an antireligion bias unless they prove themself to you?

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. No

But I assume it is more likely based on my encounters here, so I would have no problems having friendships or such. But I would investigate prior to voting.

[Mattforclark]

17. Doesn't seem so unreasonable

If someone said, like Bush Sr. did, that Atheists are not citizens or really Americans, that would most certainly be a very strong negative. The same would go for an atheist who said something like "religious people are not citizens or really Americans."

[truthspeaker]

18. based on your posts in other threads,

your definition of "anti-religion" is anyone who uses the name Jesus in anything other than a reverential way or anyone who thinks child-raping priests deserve to be punished by the legal system.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. Ah, the misstatements

Actually, I think all child molestors should go to jail and stay there. Clearly, reading comprehension is something you should work on.

And I expect someone to use the name Jesus in the same polite tone I use Mohammed, Budda, Confucious and others.

[truthspeaker]

21. In this very forum someone started a thread making fun of Gibson's movie

And you said they were "mocking Christianity".

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. They were

That's why I said it.

[truthspeaker]

30. making fun of a movie about Jesus is not mocking Christianity

If you think it is, the problem is in your head.

The people who are really mocking Christianity are Ralph Reed, Gary Bauer, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and George W. "Chosen by God" Bush. If you really want to defend Christianity focus on them and their money-grubbing, hate-spewing ilk.

[Muddleoftheroad]

35. It's all in how you do it

Mocking Mel is one thing. Go at it. Mocking Jesus is another.

As for the rest, I do.

[truthspeaker]

36. and, again, no one mocked Jesus in that thread

"Jesus Chainsaw Massacre" is not mockery, it's a joke.

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. A matter of opinion

[truthspeaker]

46. If your opinion is that any discussion at all about Christianity or Jesus

is "mocking" then you either have a persecution complex or a chip on your shoulder the size of a Buick.

We (atheists) are not out to get you. There are a small number on DU who express contempt for any and all religious beliefs, but they are few and far between. All most of us want is to have the same freedom of religion as every other American.

[Muddleoftheroad]

49. Anything can be discussed

It's all in how you do it.

[truthspeaker]

51. and by insisting on limitations on the discussion

you are demanding special treatment for your personal religious beliefs.

Maybe it bothers you to hear religion compared with superstition. Too bad. There are similarities; if you want to discuss the similarities and differences, discuss them, but you don't get to throw up your hands and say "How dare you discuss my religious beliefs in such a way!"

[Muddleoftheroad]

52. Nope, I am demanding the same respect you seek

for your beliefs and lack thereof.

[Gringo]

56. I respect the beliefs of superstitious folks.

If I didn't, I'd be running into crowded church services on Sundays with stacks of factual info on why Xianity is bunk, so that I could save them from a life of mental servitude to a false idol. But I don't do that. DU is no church service, and you better be prepared to bumb up against people whose thought process is different from yours.

You and I sometimes butt heads because we are on different ends of the DU spectrum - neither of us are the DU "mainstream". Heck, I thought you were a republican for the longest time, but now I see that you're just to the left of Zell Miller! :-)

[Muddleoftheroad]

59. "Lust to the left"

Sounds like a new soap opera.

Nope, far from a Republican. Just tend to post in threads where I disagree, with some exceptions. (The whole gay marriage thing pisses me off because I see it as a civil rights issue.)

But by your continual use of anti-religion catch words, you show that you do not wish peaceful debate.

[Gringo]

63. OOPS! JUST to the left!

You're free to put me on ignore if you're that offended. I think the debate HAS been pretty peaceful, personally, but then I'm a frequent poster on the Yahoo! boards, and you know what a circus that is!

[truthspeaker]

57. If that were true you wouldn't have objected to that thread title

[Muddleoftheroad]

66. How so

I found it objectionable. Hence I objected.

[truthspeaker]

69. what could possibly be objectionable about "Jesus Chainsaw Massacre"?

[Muddleoftheroad]

71. Oh I don't know

Comparing the death of the messiah to a schlock horror film can't possibly be offensive.

(Note obvious sarcasm.)

[truthspeaker]

72. I don't see how that's offensive

Comparing a movie about a historical event to a movie about a serial killer. What's the big deal?

[Gringo]

47. Many preachers publicly call non-believers "sinners"

That makes them antagonistic to atheists. I fell the need to stand up for myself and my thinking which is based on rational thought.

The newest thing is for fundie Christians to come on the media and whine about being "the newest oppressed group" What nonsense! They get TV shows cancelled with their boycotts, they get content edited with their orchestrated complaint drives. There is a church on EVERY FREAKING STREET CORNER of this country, with churches raking in hundreds of billions every year in donations, and you cry about being oppressed?

Please.

[LincolnMcGrath]

53. You GO Gringo

Excellent

[Az]

60. Not every believer is a preacher

Tactics. You are not required to make your arguments in a civil manner. Freedom of speech means you can make your statements in whatever way you want (unless you call for others to be harmed). But it certainly makes sense to consider the effects of your words and what your goals are.

What sort of effect is calling a believer a loon or deluded fool going to have? The only people this will appeal to are those that are already in agreement with this position. If you wish to change people's minds this tactic is a sure failure.

Yes the preachers call us sinners and heathens. Yes they point to us for all manner of ill. We are the harbengers of doom. But do we want to become that which we oppose? Do we wish to lump all believers into some container the way the preachers lump us into the category of damned?

If we are truly the defenders of reason and rational thought then let us lead with these tools are our representation. Logic is ill served with ad hominem attacks. It does not prove the point and merely makes us look weak. It drives people away and allows them to continue to see us as hateful aberations. Work towards a solution not to increase the problem.

[Mattforclark]

64. Great post

:) Well done.

[Gringo]

67. For Christians to expect their beliefs to be treated

with more reverence than horoscopes or fortune cookies is the utmost of arrogance. Even horoscopes descend from teachings thousands of years old, and yet I don't see their adherents getting all out of joint when they're called superstitious.

"90% of the people share my religion, so that makes it right. Only a few people REALLY believe in horoscopes & black cats, so they're the only ones who are 'superstitious' "

That's why I always refer to Xianity (and all other religious cults) as superstition. It is EXACTLY the same. If Christianity is not superstition, then there is NO SUCH THING as supersition.

[Muddleoftheroad]

70. I rest my case

You continue to assault and insult.

You are everything you hate in Falwell.

[Gringo]

73. You can't make a logical argument, so you cry about being "attacked"

The fact is that one superstition is no different from another, and you don't like that you can't prove otherwise.

Bummer.

[Mattforclark]

75. logic

is not the point of religion.

Logic is not a premise of religious arguments, so you can't win arguments about religion with logic. Flailing around saying that your assumptions are different than someone elses doesn't accomplish much of anything.

[Exultant Democracy]

78. His point had nothing to do with the legitimacy of his religion

it had to do with the tone of your posts. Just because some priest say that you are a sinner, doesn't mean it is right to attack back.

To attack all of Christianity serves nothing, attack the parts that you have issues with. I am an atheist myself, but I find myself using quotes or paraphrasing from the bible all the time. When I say "what you do onto the least of my brothers, you do unto me," does that make me silly and superstitious?

[Az]

74. And what did you win

You have heard to phrase preaching to the choir.

You have come to certain conclusions about the nature of the world around you. How you got there I do not know. But others may not be on the same page.

The human mind works on an emotional level. Belief is leveraged by years of experience of having lived within a particular belief set. Your comments no matter how well founded in reason and rational thought do not override a life time of experience. You can take a religious person's beliefs and destroy every single one of their premises with logic and they will still believe. Their reliance on you does not overcome their reliance on what they have learned in life.

This does not make them foolish. Their beliefs work. They get through life just fine with them. In fact in many ways they may have it easier than nonbelievers because of the sophisticated social web they have built within their religious beliefs.

There are ways to affect change on others. It is not force that wins the day. It is trust and presense. Establish yourself as a allie, not as an enemy. Be part of the web of life they live. Learn from them and they will hopefully learn from you. It is in this way that society grows. It is in this way you may both win. Progressing together.

[Gringo]

76. Still - The very PREMISE of this poll is insulting.

All of us atheists vote for those who espouse religion all the time. If we didn't, we'd have no representation whatsoever.

Anybody who says they woulddn't vote for someone simply because he or she is an atheist is an a$$hole.

[smirkymonkey]

79. But you would vote for a religious person

who has an anti-"everyone but those who subscribe to my religion" agenda??

[Mattforclark]

28. I added "other"

So you can vote if you like, muddle. :)

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. Thanks

and I will.

[damnyankee2601]

55. Only if they could beat Bush nt

[Kamika]

68. Id vote for a gay atheistic monkey instead of Bush

Topic

[distortionmarshall]

80. um, duh? /eom

:)

<edit: oops just realized that the fact that i voted 'yes' doesn't get associated with my post all by itself....>

[kodi]

81. i would perfer an antheist. all his chips are betting on this world

otherwise, some religious nutbag might do whatever just to save his immortal soul instead of my ass.