Would you vote for a president who didn't believe in god?

would you?

  • nope

    Votes: 6 23.1%
  • yes

    Votes: 13 50.0%
  • maybe

    Votes: 7 26.9%

  • Total voters
    26
Our brand of democracy is as foreign a concept in the Middle East as Arab culture is to most of WASP America. In that regard, I consider our Middle East policy not reality based. To introduce our form of democracy in the Middle East would take at a minimum 2 generations so that we had at least one generation raised in it. Neither the American public nor the Arabs are going to stand for that. Our attention span is good for about 3 years tops.

At best, they will have a bastardized form of democracy that incorporates Arab culture and Islam.

Totally agreed. That's why the Bush policy is well intentioned but stupid. He didn't know enough about the people or the region before he made his utopian decisions. His lack of personal experience with the larger world has bit him (and us) in the ass.
 
Totally agreed. That's why the Bush policy is well intentioned but stupid. He didn't know enough about the people or the region before he made his utopian decisions. His lack of personal experience with the larger world has bit him (and us) in the ass.

Except that you really can't blame that on Bush alone. It isn't like the US hasn't tried it before. It's called arrogance mixed with ignorance and it drive our train all over the place.

I also believe that should the current government of Iraq prevail, they will be closer to a democracy than they were, or would be under fundamental Islamic rule.

However, I agree that regardless WHO thought or thinks it was a great idea to "bring democracy to the Middle East," they're just dreaming thinking that it will be a Western-society-based brand of democracy.
 
However, I agree that regardless WHO thought or thinks it was a great idea to "bring democracy to the Middle East," they're just dreaming thinking that it will be a Western-society-based brand of democracy.

That kind of democracy is called "mob rule".
 
That kind of democracy is called "mob rule".

In what sense? The government was voted for using the democratic process. No one has as of yet cried "foul" except for those who wanted unilateral control.

If you are referring to the criminals whose actions are legitimized by calling the media calling them "insurgents," only the Iraqi people can stop them; especially, since our troops' hands are tied by so much red tape and political correctness they amount to little more than an ineffective police force.

And THAT is my problem with the Middle East, Arabs, and/or Muslims. THEY are the ones letting it happen by providing at its most inhospitable an apathetic reaction to their presence.

I have ZERO problem with kicking Saddam's ass. He had to be dealt with sooner or later. I DO have a problem with a people who won't even stand up for themselves against thugs.
 
I DO have a problem with a people who won't even stand up for themselves against thugs.

Me too, why should we care about dictatorship if the people who are subjected to it don't care enough to rise up?

What I said about mob rule-I think for the most part the public in the Middle East will use democracy to elect people who will not safeguard the rights of minorities.
 
Who's wondering? You've made your intolerance and hate rather obvious; yet, have substantiated NOTHING in your belief in disbelief.

Did you read the utterly STUPID post I replied to?

You go back and read it and you tell me you don't find that the stupidest thing you've ever read in your life.
 
My last comment about Jews and Muslims was 100%, pure sarcasm.;)

I am well aware there are plenty of "live and let live" athiests, just as there are plenty of "live and let live" Christians, Muslims, Jews, et al. Obviously, they are not part of the discussion.

Answering the question for the sake of argument on a message board (go figure) does not take into account that any candidate would have to be considered based on individual merit, IF one wanted to make an educated decision instead of just chanting the party chant and following the lemmings off the cliff at the polls.

One cannot ignore however that a vast majority in our society are Christian and hold Christian beliefs/morals/values. Naturally, they are going to lean toward someone who represents those beliefs before they are going to lean toward someone with no such conviction.


Oh, so YOU are allowed to use sarcasm but when anybody ELSE does it, you get to call them intolerant and full of hate.

Got it.
 
Except that you really can't blame that on Bush alone. It isn't like the US hasn't tried it before. It's called arrogance mixed with ignorance and it drive our train all over the place.

I also believe that should the current government of Iraq prevail, they will be closer to a democracy than they were, or would be under fundamental Islamic rule.

However, I agree that regardless WHO thought or thinks it was a great idea to "bring democracy to the Middle East," they're just dreaming thinking that it will be a Western-society-based brand of democracy.

The way I see it, there isn't much of a choice... If you conquer the country and remove the old power structure, you have to replace it with something else, or you will just have the same type of dictatorship, in different people, rushing in to fill the power vacuum. Maybe a democratic form of gov't won't work there exactly as it has here, but it seems a lot better to help them build something along those lines than to allow another totalitarian power to take over. Better for the people of that country, as well as for peace between countries.
 
Did you read the utterly STUPID post I replied to?

You go back and read it and you tell me you don't find that the stupidest thing you've ever read in your life.

And had you stated you felt the post was stupid, I probably would not have interjected myself. When you state that all religious people are stupid, you, who claim to try and keep it impersonal, are personally insulting every religious person on this board. That would include me.
 
Oh, so YOU are allowed to use sarcasm but when anybody ELSE does it, you get to call them intolerant and full of hate.

Got it.

Wrong. If anyone's sense of humor is in question between the two of us, it isn't mine. That's if you ever show one.

I replied that your closed-ended, absolute statement is intolerant and full of hate. You betcha. It is. There's no sarcasm, no emoticon, and you have posted the same thing enough that there is no doubt in my military mind that it is what you believe.

BIG difference.
 
The way I see it, there isn't much of a choice... If you conquer the country and remove the old power structure, you have to replace it with something else, or you will just have the same type of dictatorship, in different people, rushing in to fill the power vacuum. Maybe a democratic form of gov't won't work there exactly as it has here, but it seems a lot better to help them build something along those lines than to allow another totalitarian power to take over. Better for the people of that country, as well as for peace between countries.

I agree, and already posted essentially the same thing. It is my opinion that it could have been planned better, and kissing the world's political butt left out until it was complete. It would have been a far faster and smoother transition.
 
Actually, Osama - and ALL muslims do NOT believe in God - they believe in a false god...

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all Abrahamic religions. The interpretations of what God wants from you to spend eternity in his kingdom is where the difference lies. All of each religions holy books (Bible, Torah, Koran) were written by humans, and thus has different interpretations of the same God.

The fact that Muslims and Jews do not believe Jesus is the Son of God does not mean they believe in a different God.

As far as the original question goes, I will vote for the person who I feel will best lead my country. I respect every person's belief. I am not religious, and I find it silly that I should believe that my religion is right and everyone else's out of the oodles of different religions are all wrong. But that's just me.

I also find it silly that someone would find someone unfit for command because he opposes or believes in things like stem cell research.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: Nuc
I agree, and already posted essentially the same thing. It is my opinion that it could have been planned better, and kissing the world's political butt left out until it was complete. It would have been a far faster and smoother transition.

Agreed. I totally loved Bush in his first term, but it seems the political pressure has gotten to him. I can only imagine the kind of pressure he endures in his position, but, he didn't get elected for his diplomacy skill. He was elected because people wanted a president who would STAND for something. It's one thing to work with people, it's another thing to allow people to work YOU.
 
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all Abrahamic religions. The interpretations of what God wants from you to spend eternity in his kingdom is where the difference lies. All of each religions holy books (Bible, Torah, Koran) were written by humans, and thus has different interpretations of the same God.

The fact that Muslims and Jews do not believe Jesus is the Son of God does not mean they believe in a different God.

I wonder why so many people are uncomfortable with this obvious fact.
 
I wonder why so many people are uncomfortable with this obvious fact.

Jews, Christians, and Muslims all started out believing in the God of Abraham... I don't think that many would dispute that. What some are uncomfortable with is the idea that those of the other two branches still retain knowledge of God. Each of these religions believes that the others lost knowledge of the truth about God, because they branched off into other sects.
 
Jews, Christians, and Muslims all started out believing in the God of Abraham... I don't think that many would dispute that. What some are uncomfortable with is the idea that those of the other two branches still retain knowledge of God. Each of these religions believes that the others lost knowledge of the truth about God, because they branched off into other sects.

Nobody has knowledge of God. We're all still alive. We can only infer from what we see around us whether or not God exists.

If people think they believe in God, they believe in God. It doesn't really matter what other people think.
 
Nienna said:
Jews, Christians, and Muslims all started out believing in the God of Abraham... I don't think that many would dispute that. What some are uncomfortable with is the idea that those of the other two branches still retain knowledge of God. Each of these religions believes that the others lost knowledge of the truth about God, because they branched off into other sects.

I'm confused by this. Are you saying that there are 3, (I'm assuming you mean 3 monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) Abrahamistic religions, 2 of which, (I'm assuming you mean Judiaism and Christianity), retain 'knowledge' of God.

Yet all 3, think the other 2 have lost knowledge of God? :confused:
 

Forum List

Back
Top