a Presidential candidate who was a strict creationist, who did not believe in evolution?
Could you vote for...
- Thread starter Serial Midget
- Start date
No. Well, unless the other guy was and wanted to put homosexuals on the trains to the camps (did I just describe the Republican primary?)
When someone comes out and makes a statement of ignorance to that level, it says a lot about their effectiveness as a potential leader.
When someone comes out and makes a statement of ignorance to that level, it says a lot about their effectiveness as a potential leader.
I could make assumptions about the person based on that belief that would make me not vote for them.
I'm not a single issue voter. I guess it is possible that a candidate could have that belief but did not want to make that part of any legislation. As long as I supported the rest of their platform I could vote for them.
I'm not a single issue voter. I guess it is possible that a candidate could have that belief but did not want to make that part of any legislation. As long as I supported the rest of their platform I could vote for them.
if they got to that position through critical thinking, yes.
if they got there b/c there was a whole pile of cash pushing them there, not so much.
were you & jr_bullit on some sort of shackleton expedition? come to think of it, i never did see you 2 in the same room at the same time...
I too like to look at the total package, but something like that would kill a deal for me.
There is no way I could vote for someone who doesn't understand science because it conflicts with a personal belief.
There is no way I could vote for someone who doesn't understand science because it conflicts with a personal belief.
Agreed with Westy in the sense that those personal beliefs would have to remain apart from any proposed legislation. However, I'd still be cautious about my support.
*Strict*?
Nope.
Nope.
not a concern, as so many of them have a god complex
Has this ever happened? It seems most politicians campaign and are elected for their personal opinions with the mandate to then go act out those beliefs. When I was a idealistic youngin I thought democracy was all about electing a servant of the people who would then go act upon what they thought was the will of the people.
Has it ever happened? Not to the best of my knowledge.Has this ever happened? It seems most politicians campaign and are elected for their personal opinions with the mandate to then go act out those beliefs. When I was a idealistic youngin I thought democracy was all about electing a servant of the people who would then go act upon what they thought was the will of the people.
The general population will only elect a Christian, or someone who holds "Christian values" as part of their belief system. That much is a fact. But how does the general population react when said politician wants to put those beliefs in writing via legislation? Bad reactions across the board (evangelicals and rednecks excl). What are we to do? Perhaps the best example I can think of is how several politicians have answered the question about gay marriage: leave the decision up to the state.
the fact that you think "critical thinking" and "creationist" go together amuses me.
Well my answer is no, I couldn't do it. I understand that 3 of 5 Republican hopefuls claim to be creationists. I'm wonder if evolutionist will be this coming election's code word.
If they got to thinking creationism was the truth by 'critical thinking'?
Are you serious? You'd vote for someone whose grip on reality was that tenuous?
ok, it's like this: i'm an old earth creationist, & i believe the universe is 13.5 billion years old (give or take an epoch). you know how i got to that?
science.
the bible teaches me how to live & how to think; it's not an encyclopedia.
check it: http://www.rationalchristianity.net/unknown_verses.html#crit
As opposed to the "magical" birth of the universe, life, and everything as we know it?If they got to thinking creationism was the truth by 'critical thinking'?
Here is something for you to consider, Science is nothing more than the next evolution of Religion. They are both nothing more than an attempt at a rationalization of our universe, and they both are based on things you must accept purely on faith.
I think it might be a gross generalization, but when I think of "creationist", I think of the crazy bastard that thinks the Earth is 6000 years old and dinosaurs lived in the age of man.
I think that somewhere someone/something was created because it had to start SOMEWHERE. But I am far from what most would consider a creationist.
Goddamn, I'm getting tired of correcting this. Where's OMGF when you need him?
She don't lie,
She don't lie,
She don't liiiiiii-iie,
.
.
Cocaine.
She don't lie,
She don't liiiiiii-iie,
.
.
Cocaine.
He and Andyman are sure to take over at least one of the current threads, surely?
He got into a car accident last year. The bad news is Santa has a meth problem and may not make it to Christmas this year...
I've never seen regression go so quickly before...
Evolution and "Intelligent Design" are not mutually exclusive. Oh wait, you thought they were, how cute.
I think you need to start wearing a helmet when you ride.
Wow that just whizzed right over your head, didn't it?
I'll stick to pee and poop jokes for you from now on.
And this is a means to a whatnow?
michael stipe?
Rofl. Well done, sir. Well done.
Some flunky.
"Don't look a gift horse in the mouth"
- Anonymous
Tom Cruise
Maybe, but a pint of beer is worth a half credit in philosophy.