Thought you guys might like this one...Follow

So, you think that this:



Really happened? That some people, 6000 years ago, lived for 900 years?

Though, you know what, I really don't mind. I couldn't care less what you believe in, not because you don't matter, but because you're not running for the US Presidency. Or for any post that requires a basic understanding and acceptance of science.

People can have crazy beliefs, we all have them, and that's great, it makes people more intresting. It's like that old thread where Joph was asking what we would say to someone who really believed in Greek mythology.

My only gripe comes when people who run for office let superstition trump science. That's all.

Well, I'm not suprised. 900 years old? Without Medicare? yeah, right

Seriously though, I agree the 10 commandments are decent moral guidelines, and I agree that most of the moral principles of christianity are good, or at least not too harmful, like most other religions.

But when there is a conflict between a 2000 year old book and modern science, you gotta be realistic, especially when you are in a position where your decision will impact on other people's lives. That's the main danger of talking the Bible literally, in my opinion, but it's still a serious one.

Maybe its different in the US.

But in Europe, we had 1500 years of people talking the Bible literally, roughly from the Romans until the Renaissance. It took 1500 years to finally allow reason and science to dominate the debate. And that's after witch burning, scientific burning, other sect/denomination/religion burning, well, you get the idea, a lot of burning. We had the Crusades, the Holy Wars, the Wars between the Protestants and the Catholics, the Inquisition, 1500 years of this stuff that only stopped after a lot of burning and a lot of killing...

So, I guess it just offends our European sensibilities when we see a sizeable chunk of the US, of all countries, seemingly sliding back into religious obscurantism. And then seeing politicians take advantage of that, and use it for their own personal advancement, it's just slightly mindboggling.

It's always a matter of perspective, and mine is obviously skewed that way.

Double

Edited, Oct 30th 2007 8:30am by Jophiel

What the heck?



Sure. As long as they don't actually hold religious beliefs that you don't agree with. Fine distinction there, don't you think?



Ok. I can buy that. But you have shown absolutely zero evidence that Huckabee's beliefs prevent him from doing his job properly. You are instead guessing that his beliefs will because you don't agree with them and can't seem to comprehend that people of faith can actually separate what they believe personally and what they think should be public policy.



Sure. Because each of those are specific professions that require actions that are in violation of their beliefs. I'm not sure where the job of president required that one actively work with evolution in some manner. As he stated, he's not applying to be a science teacher. You do see the difference, right?



Again. It's somewhat irrelevant. It's not quite the same as someone saying that they don't believe in stop signs (for example). See. Not believing in evolution isn't going to cause some huge calamity. We're talking about a scientific theory about how something in the past occurred.

See. I'm far more concerned about a presidential candidate who doesn't believe that taxes on capital gains and big business has a direct impact on overall national economic growth. Cause that's something that happens *today* and a presidents opinions on it will directly affect me.

You do see how that's also a belief (just not a religious one) that can have vastly larger impact on a nation then something like evolution. Yet oddly, we spend huge amounts of time discussing a candidates position on something like evolution, and very very little on something as absurd as the position by most Liberals that taxing "the rich" has no overall negative impact on an economy over time. Cause their political agenda requires that they hold this belief (otherwise where will the taxes come from to do all the wealth redistribution they want to do and that'll allow them to buy more votes?).


Sorry. Call me silly, but I think that's a *vastly* more important issue to be worried about. In fact, if I were to list all the things about a presidential candidate that I think are truly important, belief in evolution is incredibly far down the list.



Why? Because I don't make a big deal out of this? I'm agnostic. Ok. I'm a reformed Catholic (which means even my religious background doesn't oppose evolution). I don't agree with his position on evolution either. I don't agree with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament. Great! We agree on that.


I just don't think that's the most important thing to judge a candidate by.