Do people think?

[GryffinSong]

...If they are letting their beliefs affect their political decisions, then they are both as bad as each other.

^^^This.

There's not enough information to decide who to vote for, but if their religion outweighs any reasonable execution of their office, then they are not good presidential material.

 

[Resha Caner]

If they are letting their beliefs affect their political decisions, then they are both as bad as each other.

... if their religion outweighs any reasonable execution of their office, then they are not good presidential material.

Might I offer another way to word this sentiment, because as it stands this is nonsense. I wouldn't vote for someone who professes a belief and then doesn't act on it. IMO it means they're false, fickle, duplicitous, or some other undesirable characteristic. For me, the ideal would be someone who is honest about their beliefs and then does their best to live up to those beliefs once in office.

I think what you guys mean is that if someone professed a strong religious conviction and the intent to follow that conviction in office, you wouldn't vote for them. (shrug) That's your option. That's why we're given a vote.

The problem is, you'll never really know what the true beliefs are for those running for office in the U.S. - especially at the national level. Our pluralistic system forces politicians to make promises to competing factions in order to build a coalition that will elect them.

 

[stiggywiggy]

I would say from personal experience the answer is very rarely and only if absolutely necessary.

1 Example:

(a) Would you vote for a President known to be a born-again Christian?
(b) Would you vote for a President who was known to be a practicing witch?

Historically Christians killed about 60,000 witches in total and the witches are certainly way behind if it can even be said that any of the institutionalised witch/satanist organisations have ever killed or harmed anyone.

As for a born-again Christian, G W Bush said he listened to his heavenly father when it came to the decision to invade Iraq. He was sure he had the Lord's leading and well, it went badly wrong, lots and lots of dead Iraqis later and I'm not sure just an apology will do any more. Nobody could deny that spiritual leading killed fewer than 100,000 civilians.


History is pretty conclusive that you should choose the witch but pretty well nobody does. It wasn't until 20 years after leaving the Christian faith that I dared to look up the church of satan to find out what it was about.


The fact is we are more prone to superstition than to logic.

Yeah, right. Real cerebral thinking should lead us to choose a witch for President. Maybe she could pay off the debt by wiggling her nose? Perhaps real human thinking would lead us to vote for a cannibal as Veep. Was real human thinking behind this post?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Might I offer another way to word this sentiment, because as it stands this is nonsense. I wouldn't vote for someone who professes a belief and then doesn't act on it. IMO it means they're false, fickle, duplicitous, or some other undesirable characteristic. For me, the ideal would be someone who is honest about their beliefs and then does their best to live up to those beliefs once in office.

I think what you guys mean is that if someone professed a strong religious conviction and the intent to follow that conviction in office, you wouldn't vote for them. (shrug) That's your option. That's why we're given a vote.

The problem is, you'll never really know what the true beliefs are for those running for office in the U.S. - especially at the national level. Our pluralistic system forces politicians to make promises to competing factions in order to build a coalition that will elect them.

I would argue that the system does not force them to do anything but it rewards them for such behavior and it only rewards them because the electorate prefer politicians that are dishonest.

 

[Resha Caner]

I would argue that the system does not force them to do anything but it rewards them for such behavior and it only rewards them because the electorate prefer politicians that are dishonest.

Maybe "force" is too strong a word.

Further, I don't think the electorate explicitly wants dishonest politicians. Rather it is a combination of clouded thinking and laziness. For instance, people like the idea of lowering their taxes but they don't want their benefits cut. And they'll vote for the guy who says he will lower taxes and not cut their benefits, but then they don't bother to check whether he actually tries to do it.

Of course checking up on such things would require much more transparent accounting ... and the ability to connect actions to consequences, which isn't easy even in an honest world.

But the majority of my point was directed at the idea of pluralism. A politician may not be forced to placate both the left and the right, but he won't get far unless he does.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Maybe "force" is too strong a word.

Further, I don't think the electorate explicitly wants dishonest politicians. Rather it is a combination of clouded thinking and laziness. For instance, people like the idea of lowering their taxes but they don't want their benefits cut. And they'll vote for the guy who says he will lower taxes and not cut their benefits, but then they don't bother to check whether he actually tries to do it.

Of course checking up on such things would require much more transparent accounting ... and the ability to connect actions to consequences, which isn't easy even in an honest world.

But the majority of my point was directed at the idea of pluralism. A politician may not be forced to placate both the left and the right, but he won't get far unless he does.

I think people are much more clever and less lazy than you do. They are especially adept at self deception and appreciate politicians that are enablers in that pursuit.

 

[Resha Caner]

I think people are much more clever and less lazy than you do. They are especially adept at self deception and appreciate politicians that are enablers in that pursuit.

Maybe so, but I doubt you could ever conclusively discern the difference between my claim of "clouded thinking" and yours of "self deception."

 

[grasping the after wind]

Maybe so, but I doubt you could ever conclusively discern the difference between my claim of "clouded thinking" and yours of "self deception."

There is no discernible difference in the actions just a difference in opinion about the character and abilities of the actors. I give them more credit for intelligence and ambitiousness while you give them more credit for honesty. "Them" of course being no more adept at self deception or clouded thinking than I.

 

[Resha Caner]

There is no discernible difference in the actions just a difference in opinion about the character and abilities of the actors. I give them more credit for intelligence and ambitiousness while you give them more credit for honesty. "Them" of course being no more adept at self deception or clouded thinking than I.

Very perceptive of you. One of my biggest problems in dealing with people (and a problem I've passed on to my kids) is assumptions of honesty. It's not that I'm so naive as to think people never lie, but rather than I am often unaware of how issues of veracity underlie how I view people. So, the clever ways people play with truth sometimes slip past me.

 

[drjean]

I would say from personal experience the answer is very rarely and only if absolutely necessary.

1 Example:

(a) Would you vote for a President known to be a born-again Christian?
(b) Would you vote for a President who was known to be a practicing witch?

Historically Christians killed about 60,000 witches in total and the witches are certainly way behind if it can even be said that any of the institutionalised witch/satanist organisations have ever killed or harmed anyone.

As for a born-again Christian, G W Bush said he listened to his heavenly father when it came to the decision to invade Iraq. He was sure he had the Lord's leading and well, it went badly wrong, lots and lots of dead Iraqis later and I'm not sure just an apology will do any more. Nobody could deny that spiritual leading killed fewer than 100,000 civilians.


History is pretty conclusive that you should choose the witch but pretty well nobody does. It wasn't until 20 years after leaving the Christian faith that I dared to look up the church of satan to find out what it was about.


The fact is we are more prone to superstition than to logic.

Do people think? Obviously, they do... whether they can think critically or not I think that's a lost skill. As for logic, I find none in your posting. Another illogical thing to think about, why a non Christian finds it suitable to be a member of a Christian forum.

Just something to think about.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I believe that people think a lot........about themselves (I know I do).

 

[grasping the after wind]

I believe that people think a lot........about themselves (I know I do).

I think you might add that people think very highly of themselves as well. Though probably not of others that are no more or less worthy to be thought highly of. I know I have a very high opinion of myself even while I must admit that I don't deserve such unconditional love and admiration in any way. Why is humility so difficult to acquire for those so deserving of it?

 

[The Paul]

Yeah, right. Real cerebral thinking should lead us to choose a witch for President. Maybe she could pay off the debt by wiggling her nose? Perhaps real human thinking would lead us to vote for a cannibal as Veep. Was real human thinking behind this post?

Hint: Wicca and the sitcom "Bewitched" are different things.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I think you might add that people think very highly of themselves as well. Though probably not of others that are no more or less worthy to be thought highly of. I know I have a very high opinion of myself even while I must admit that I don't deserve such unconditional love and admiration in any way. Why is humility so difficult to acquire for those so deserving of it?

Remember that Mac Davis song, "Oh Lord it's hard to be humble"?

Oh Lord it's hard to be humble,
When you're perfect in every way.
I can't wait to look in the mirror,
Cause I get better looking each day.
To know me is to love me,
Yeah, I must be a helluva man.
Oh Lord it's hard to be humble,
But we're doin' the best that we can.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Yeah, right. Real cerebral thinking should lead us to choose a witch for President. Maybe she could pay off the debt by wiggling her nose? Perhaps real human thinking would lead us to vote for a cannibal as Veep. Was real human thinking behind this post?

By the same line of argument maybe a Christian President could single-handedly pray off the National Debt.


Well a prayer-only Christian would be a lot better than the Christian Presidents the Christians have been picking.