Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

lessthan · Apr 11, 2004, 09:15 pm

no it shouldnt because not everyone is religous or follows his religion

Autophage · Apr 12, 2004, 01:41 pm

I feel it shouldn't, because whenever a code of behavior foreign to one's own morals is imposed upon them, they get angry - and thus no longer support the state that they live in.

RightThinker · Apr 12, 2004, 01:50 pm

I dont think the word "should" is appropriate. I do not think that it "should" but I am okay with it if it does. Another words it does not have to but the way decisions are made are insignificant if the decision is a good one.

harumscarum · Apr 12, 2004, 01:53 pm

I don't see how a true religious person (not a sunday warrior) could help it. They would have to turn off their values and beliefs before making any decisions. There is a chance, which I doubt, government officials would use religion to influence more votes.

We should only elect Atheists.

Autophage · Apr 12, 2004, 10:42 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (harumscarum,)
I don't see how a true religious person (not a sunday warrior) could help it. They would have to turn off their values and beliefs before making any decisions. There is a chance, which I doubt, government officials would use religion to influence more votes.

We should only elect Atheists.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I agree with the first half... last sentence, not so much. Mainly because there are leadership qualities that affect someone's political abilities as well, as opposed to just policy ones - though this is less true in some offices than others, I'd expect.

lessthan · Apr 13, 2004, 12:08 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
harumscarum
We should only elect Atheists. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I totally agree with that there would be little to no religious involvement and the middle east fundamentalism would cease to exist if we put atheists over there and in control

Suburbanite · Apr 13, 2004, 12:47 am

Religion can be dangerous because it can be exploited. The problem in the Middle East isn't Islam, it is exploitation. It is easy to make them out to be victims of their own religion but it does their history no justice. After the fall of rome, they became the philosophers and intellectuals whereas Europe was terroristic, poor, and violent. They might have been sitting back thinking it was Christianity, but it wasn't, it was the people in charge.

Sentinel · Apr 13, 2004, 08:30 am

This really a non-question since no one can make a decision that is not influenced by his or her values and beliefs. Stating that an athiest, which is just another form of religion as far as I am concerned, can make decisions which are not, at least in part, a product of his associations and life experiences, is naive at best. Now, if the question had been, should the President, or any other person, IMPOSE their personal belief system (including atheism) on anyone else, that would be a different matter all together.

Autophage · Apr 15, 2004, 01:42 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lessthan,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
harumscarum
We should only elect Atheists. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I totally agree with that there would be little to no religious involvement and the middle east fundamentalism would cease to exist if we put atheists over there and in control<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

True, but I'm not so sure the people these atheists would be governing would want them ruling. I doubt they'd elect any atheist, period - and we were talking about electing atheists or religious believers, were we not?

5010 · Apr 15, 2004, 11:09 am

The president is not a robot that follows some preset program in its duties. Although she/he has limitations provided by the Constitution, he/she is still human and we elect him/her based on her/his principles, promises, and past.

Ugh... we need better pronouns.

PatrickHenry · Apr 15, 2004, 01:04 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sentinel,)
no one can make a decision that is not influenced by his or her values and beliefs<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Well said, Sentinel. And indeed 5010. People, including leaders, do the best they can with what they've got.

Unfortunately, a lot of what passes for religion is just social programming. I grew up as a teenager in a First Baptist church in a large city in the South.
Jim Crow days. Segregated.
What happened when Blacks began to seek membership was instructive.
Church opinion split fiercely right down the middle.
One side: "Let them go to their own people. They're just causing trouble."
Other side: "God's Word says 'Love your brother'. Everyone should be welcome."

Ya gotta listen to your heart, if you have one...

Mozart1220 · Apr 15, 2004, 05:26 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (harumscarum,)
I don't see how a true religious person (not a sunday warrior) could help it. They would have to turn off their values and beliefs before making any decisions. There is a chance, which I doubt, government officials would use religion to influence more votes.

We should only elect Atheists.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I don't think that's possible, nor do I think a man with TRUE religious convictions could or should just "shut them off. I do however, think he should be as objective as possible, and understand that the majority of Americans probably don't believe exactly as he does.

lostkiwi · Apr 17, 2004, 03:11 am

I'd rather my leaders made decisions upon rational thought, not religious whims.

LogicaLunatic · Apr 17, 2004, 03:18 am

Should he? No. But the fact that he does have religious convictions means that he will.

Damn Theists :)

Impenitent · Apr 17, 2004, 08:52 am

religious types wanting to force their religion in the guise of government programs... pathetic...

religious types want to feed, clothe and shelter the poor... can't have that in government... END ALL WELFARE NOW

religious types want people to obey the laws... can't have that in government... STOP ENFORCING THE LAWS

anything that even comes close to looking like it could be religious must be seperated from government...

too far? bullshit... let 'em in a little, they take a mile... pretty soon they are gonna force kids to pray in school... ever take a test for which you didn't study?

lessthan · Apr 17, 2004, 07:48 pm

i agree it is all based on a person that we dont even know if "he"/"they"/"thing" existed. there is not substancial evidence that he lived just because there is a book saying he did doesnt make it true. maybe ill start my own religion and base it on an ancient organism that killed a giant mythological creature through a war and see how many people i get. or maybe a cult

Blef · Apr 17, 2004, 10:31 pm

Shouldn't, but I think it is impossible for anyone to completely divorce his decisions from his personal values and beliefs.

The solution is to limit the authority of government to the barest minimum function required to serve the people. Government should exist solely to guard people from force and fraud and theft. Unfortunately, our government, federal and state, is in the business of employing force and fraud and theft to limit our freedoms.

ConservativeX · Apr 18, 2004, 12:19 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sentinel,)
This really a non-question since no one can make a decision that is not influenced by his or her values and beliefs. Stating that an athiest, which is just another form of religion as far as I am concerned, can make decisions which are not, at least in part, a product of his associations and life experiences, is naive at best. Now, if the question had been, should the President, or any other person, IMPOSE their personal belief system (including atheism) on anyone else, that would be a different matter all together.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I was going to post, but you already said it. The question is loaded, in as it assumes religious beliefs are less worthy than non-religious beliefs.

When in fact, the opposite is true; there is no freedom of philosophy in the Constitution; but there is a freedom of religion (it is, in fact, the FIRST right in the Bill of Rights).

EVERYONE makes decisions based on their beliefs and religious beliefs are no more outlawed than philosophical beliefs.

So, since religious beliefs are Constitutionally protected and philosophical ones are not, the question should be, "Should a President not allow his philosophical beliefs to influence his decisions?"

ConservativeX · Apr 18, 2004, 12:23 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
religious types wanting to force their religion in the guise of government programs... pathetic...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Is it okay for NON-religious types?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
religious types want to feed, clothe and shelter the poor... can't have that in government... END ALL WELFARE NOW

religious types want people to obey the laws... can't have that in government... STOP ENFORCING THE LAWS

anything that even comes close to looking like it could be religious must be seperated from government... <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Based on what? There is no "separation of Church and State" in the Constitution...

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
too far? bullshit... let 'em in a little, they take a mile... pretty soon they are gonna force kids to pray in school... ever take a test for which you didn't study?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

So it's okay if YOUR side forces kids NOT to pray?

Sounds like you want to be able to force YOUR beliefs and it's okay, huh?

Impenitent · Apr 18, 2004, 03:40 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ConservativeX,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
religious types wanting to force their religion in the guise of government programs... pathetic...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Is it okay for NON-religious types?

:rolleyes: no, it isn't... it is unavoidable

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
religious types want to feed, clothe and shelter the poor... can't have that in government... END ALL WELFARE NOW

religious types want people to obey the laws... can't have that in government... STOP ENFORCING THE LAWS

anything that even comes close to looking like it could be religious must be seperated from government... <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Based on what? There is no "separation of Church and State" in the Constitution...

:rolleyes: no kidding... but if you look at what I wrote, it is the nanny state liberals who want government to take the place of church charity, not me...

So it's okay if YOUR side forces kids NOT to pray?

:rolleyes: read my posts, I am a republican NOT a religious zealot

Sounds like you want to be able to force YOUR beliefs and it's okay, huh?

:rolleyes: every politician wants to force their beliefs... everyone wants to rule the world... your vote is your way of forcing your belief... THINK

<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

View Poll Results: should the presidents religous preference influence his decisions
yes	9	29.03%
no	22	70.97%
i have no idea	0	0%
Voters: 31. You may not vote

Apr 11, 2004, 09:15 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
lessthan Igneous Magma Location: Buffalo NY ( hell ) Posts: 196	no it shouldnt because not everyone is religous or follows his religion My, my what a mess we've made Of our pretty little heads these days. It appears a heavy wind's blown through here recently. Best wishes have been made for you

Apr 12, 2004, 01:50 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
RightThinker Molten Ash Location: St. Thomas U. S. V. I. Posts: 146	I dont think the word "should" is appropriate. I do not think that it "should" but I am okay with it if it does. Another words it does not have to but the way decisions are made are insignificant if the decision is a good one. "This country was founded and built by people with great dreams and the courage to take great risks." -Ronald Reagan- January 26, 1983

Apr 12, 2004, 01:53 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
harumscarum Igneous Magma Posts: 183	I don't see how a true religious person (not a sunday warrior) could help it. They would have to turn off their values and beliefs before making any decisions. There is a chance, which I doubt, government officials would use religion to influence more votes. We should only elect Atheists. under construction....

Apr 12, 2004, 10:42 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
Autophage Molten Ash Location: Washington, DC-ish Posts: 103	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (harumscarum,) I don't see how a true religious person (not a sunday warrior) could help it. They would have to turn off their values and beliefs before making any decisions. There is a chance, which I doubt, government officials would use religion to influence more votes. We should only elect Atheists.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I agree with the first half... last sentence, not so much. Mainly because there are leadership qualities that affect someone's political abilities as well, as opposed to just policy ones - though this is less true in some offices than others, I'd expect.

Apr 12, 2004, 01:41 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Autophage Molten Ash Location: Washington, DC-ish Posts: 103	I feel it shouldn't, because whenever a code of behavior foreign to one's own morals is imposed upon them, they get angry - and thus no longer support the state that they live in.

Apr 13, 2004, 12:08 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
lessthan Igneous Magma Location: Buffalo NY ( hell ) Posts: 196	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by harumscarum We should only elect Atheists. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I totally agree with that there would be little to no religious involvement and the middle east fundamentalism would cease to exist if we put atheists over there and in control My, my what a mess we've made Of our pretty little heads these days. It appears a heavy wind's blown through here recently. Best wishes have been made for you

Apr 13, 2004, 12:47 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	Religion can be dangerous because it can be exploited. The problem in the Middle East isn't Islam, it is exploitation. It is easy to make them out to be victims of their own religion but it does their history no justice. After the fall of rome, they became the philosophers and intellectuals whereas Europe was terroristic, poor, and violent. They might have been sitting back thinking it was Christianity, but it wasn't, it was the people in charge.

Apr 13, 2004, 08:30 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
Sentinel Sedimentary Rock Posts: 3	This really a non-question since no one can make a decision that is not influenced by his or her values and beliefs. Stating that an athiest, which is just another form of religion as far as I am concerned, can make decisions which are not, at least in part, a product of his associations and life experiences, is naive at best. Now, if the question had been, should the President, or any other person, IMPOSE their personal belief system (including atheism) on anyone else, that would be a different matter all together.

Apr 15, 2004, 01:42 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
Autophage Molten Ash Location: Washington, DC-ish Posts: 103	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lessthan,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by harumscarum We should only elect Atheists. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I totally agree with that there would be little to no religious involvement and the middle east fundamentalism would cease to exist if we put atheists over there and in control<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> True, but I'm not so sure the people these atheists would be governing would want them ruling. I doubt they'd elect any atheist, period - and we were talking about electing atheists or religious believers, were we not?

Apr 15, 2004, 11:09 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
5010 mostly harmless Location: USA Posts: 1,284	The president is not a robot that follows some preset program in its duties. Although she/he has limitations provided by the Constitution, he/she is still human and we elect him/her based on her/his principles, promises, and past. Ugh... we need better pronouns. - solo (my site)

Apr 15, 2004, 01:04 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,446	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sentinel,) no one can make a decision that is not influenced by his or her values and beliefs<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well said, Sentinel. And indeed 5010. People, including leaders, do the best they can with what they've got. Unfortunately, a lot of what passes for religion is just social programming. I grew up as a teenager in a First Baptist church in a large city in the South. Jim Crow days. Segregated. What happened when Blacks began to seek membership was instructive. Church opinion split fiercely right down the middle. One side: "Let them go to their own people. They're just causing trouble." Other side: "God's Word says 'Love your brother'. Everyone should be welcome." Ya gotta listen to your heart, if you have one... "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

Apr 15, 2004, 05:26 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
Mozart1220 Igneous Magma Posts: 687	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (harumscarum,) I don't see how a true religious person (not a sunday warrior) could help it. They would have to turn off their values and beliefs before making any decisions. There is a chance, which I doubt, government officials would use religion to influence more votes. We should only elect Atheists.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I don't think that's possible, nor do I think a man with TRUE religious convictions could or should just "shut them off. I do however, think he should be as objective as possible, and understand that the majority of Americans probably don't believe exactly as he does. Big Jr is watching you!

Apr 17, 2004, 03:11 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
lostkiwi Molten Ash Posts: 60	I'd rather my leaders made decisions upon rational thought, not religious whims.

Apr 17, 2004, 03:18 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
LogicaLunatic Hrm... Location: MN Posts: 445	Should he? No. But the fact that he does have religious convictions means that he will. Damn Theists :) "Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive." -- Wallace Irwin

Apr 17, 2004, 08:52 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	religious types wanting to force their religion in the guise of government programs... pathetic... religious types want to feed, clothe and shelter the poor... can't have that in government... END ALL WELFARE NOW religious types want people to obey the laws... can't have that in government... STOP ENFORCING THE LAWS anything that even comes close to looking like it could be religious must be seperated from government... too far? bullshit... let 'em in a little, they take a mile... pretty soon they are gonna force kids to pray in school... ever take a test for which you didn't study? "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Apr 17, 2004, 07:48 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
lessthan Igneous Magma Location: Buffalo NY ( hell ) Posts: 196	i agree it is all based on a person that we dont even know if "he"/"they"/"thing" existed. there is not substancial evidence that he lived just because there is a book saying he did doesnt make it true. maybe ill start my own religion and base it on an ancient organism that killed a giant mythological creature through a war and see how many people i get. or maybe a cult My, my what a mess we've made Of our pretty little heads these days. It appears a heavy wind's blown through here recently. Best wishes have been made for you

Apr 17, 2004, 10:31 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
Blef Igneous Magma Posts: 155	Shouldn't, but I think it is impossible for anyone to completely divorce his decisions from his personal values and beliefs. The solution is to limit the authority of government to the barest minimum function required to serve the people. Government should exist solely to guard people from force and fraud and theft. Unfortunately, our government, federal and state, is in the business of employing force and fraud and theft to limit our freedoms. "Man will never be free until the last King is strangled with the entrails of the last Priest" - Denis Diderot

Apr 18, 2004, 12:19 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
ConservativeX Igneous Magma Posts: 259	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sentinel,) This really a non-question since no one can make a decision that is not influenced by his or her values and beliefs. Stating that an athiest, which is just another form of religion as far as I am concerned, can make decisions which are not, at least in part, a product of his associations and life experiences, is naive at best. Now, if the question had been, should the President, or any other person, IMPOSE their personal belief system (including atheism) on anyone else, that would be a different matter all together.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I was going to post, but you already said it. The question is loaded, in as it assumes religious beliefs are less worthy than non-religious beliefs. When in fact, the opposite is true; there is no freedom of philosophy in the Constitution; but there is a freedom of religion (it is, in fact, the FIRST right in the Bill of Rights). EVERYONE makes decisions based on their beliefs and religious beliefs are no more outlawed than philosophical beliefs. So, since religious beliefs are Constitutionally protected and philosophical ones are not, the question should be, "Should a President not allow his philosophical beliefs to influence his decisions?" The foundation of the Constitution is laid on the 10th Amendment. To take a single step beyond is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition - JEFFERSON

Apr 18, 2004, 12:23 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
ConservativeX Igneous Magma Posts: 259	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) religious types wanting to force their religion in the guise of government programs... pathetic...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Is it okay for NON-religious types? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by religious types want to feed, clothe and shelter the poor... can't have that in government... END ALL WELFARE NOW religious types want people to obey the laws... can't have that in government... STOP ENFORCING THE LAWS anything that even comes close to looking like it could be religious must be seperated from government... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Based on what? There is no "separation of Church and State" in the Constitution... </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by too far? bullshit... let 'em in a little, they take a mile... pretty soon they are gonna force kids to pray in school... ever take a test for which you didn't study?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So it's okay if YOUR side forces kids NOT to pray? Sounds like you want to be able to force YOUR beliefs and it's okay, huh? The foundation of the Constitution is laid on the 10th Amendment. To take a single step beyond is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition - JEFFERSON

Apr 18, 2004, 03:40 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ConservativeX,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) religious types wanting to force their religion in the guise of government programs... pathetic...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Is it okay for NON-religious types? :rolleyes: no, it isn't... it is unavoidable </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by religious types want to feed, clothe and shelter the poor... can't have that in government... END ALL WELFARE NOW religious types want people to obey the laws... can't have that in government... STOP ENFORCING THE LAWS anything that even comes close to looking like it could be religious must be seperated from government... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Based on what? There is no "separation of Church and State" in the Constitution... :rolleyes: no kidding... but if you look at what I wrote, it is the nanny state liberals who want government to take the place of church charity, not me... So it's okay if YOUR side forces kids NOT to pray? :rolleyes: read my posts, I am a republican NOT a religious zealot Sounds like you want to be able to force YOUR beliefs and it's okay, huh? :rolleyes: every politician wants to force their beliefs... everyone wants to rule the world... your vote is your way of forcing your belief... THINK <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...