Chad Feldheimer
Well-Known Member
Assuming you can vote in this country of course and agree with their policies enough to vote for them.
Why or why not.
Why or why not.
Would you vote for an atheist for President of the US
- Thread starter Chad Feldheimer
- Start date
JohnStockalypse
Well-Known Member
Is he/she the stereotypical pseudo-intellectual self-righteous douche athiest or just a normal person who happens to be an athiest? The latter I could vote for.
It would be just as stupid to not vote for an athiest just because of that as it would to not vote for someone because they are Mormon, Catholic, etc.
It would be just as stupid to not vote for an athiest just because of that as it would to not vote for someone because they are Mormon, Catholic, etc.
This.
If I feel strongly about their platform, their religious leanings are of little consequence to me.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
I vote for the person and their politics, not their religion. If I felt it was the best option I would vote for an athiest, a hindu, a muslim, a hare krishna, a moony or even, heaven help us all, a mormon.
No scientologists though.
No scientologists though.
yes - if they seemed to be a decent person who could get the job done, and whose stands on the issues were more closely aligned with my own positions than other candidates, their religious beliefs would probably not be a factor for me.
Platforms are worthless professions crafted by committees and ignored by elected officials. It's all about the man. . . . or in some cases The Man. . . . or maybe even THE MAN.
Anyone with focus on the last is an incompetent ideologue who won't be able to make good decisions because of nonsense pathological compulsions to make everything "right" in conformity to his "vision". But I think we have seen one case presently where even an atheist/progressive can do that, despite some public professions of being something else.
I'm intensely critical of Jon Huntsman despite his Mormon label because he just has too much pragmatism including important connections to power that are just so compelling even Obama knows he's just as controlled by The Man as he is.
I'm just as critical of Marriot for the same reasons, which happen to include most of the George BushX control points.
Evem Mike Lee and Jason Chaffetz who locally enjoy the support of swooning conservatives worry me.
I might cringe with embarrassment at most of the religious zealot conservatives, even Constitution Party and Libertarian Party, who are also incompetent ideologues unable to trace the fine lines of freedom woven into the fabric of our intentionally limited Constitutional government. Which was the only concept that could be successfully negotiated between thirteen or so wrangling freshly independent former "colonies" of the Imperial Crown. It was the fears of being freshly subjected and economically dominated by British cartelists that raised the horrors that only could induce them to have any central government at all.
Until I see someone intent up taking our federal government back into the original concept, including deconstructing the cartel-protecting international trade structures, I'm just gonna vote for third party dark horses, so I can look my kids in the eye and tell them I didn't vote for this government.
An atheist who is just as disbelieving in Government would get my vote.
Chad Feldheimer
Well-Known Member
What would explain only having one openly atheist Congressman? Despite the atheist population accounting for about 7% of the total. Do atheists just not vote?
Craig K. Manscill
Well-Known Member
Absolutely not.
- Craig
- Craig
Yes. I don't care about people's religious affiliations, with some notable exceptions (like snake handlers and other nutjobs).
Craig K. Manscill
Well-Known Member
JohnStockalypse
Well-Known Member
Chad Feldheimer said:
Too many of these:
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
Yes. Anyone who says otherwise is a moran.
Chad Feldheimer
Well-Known Member
as opposed pseudo-intellectual self-righteous doucher _________ (other belief)?
Who fits this claim? An open atheist who ran and lost because he was a douche?
This kid is somewhere between 14 and 16. He doesnt' actually mean anything but this is what impresses his idiot friends. Just ignore him.
No women huh?
I'm curious as to why you seem to be equating athiesm with progressivism.
That's the last thing I want in my leaders. I strongly prefer to have them howling at the moon.
I have news for you. Sit down because this may shock you. This is not the late 1700s. Things are different now.
Surely none of your children will find this embarrassing.
I find the concept of only hiring people for government jobs who don't believe in government curious.
Notions of the Constitution being divinely inspired or paving the way for Jesus is non-canonical lay doctrine. This is one of the problems with having a non-professional clergy.
That wasn't what "some states" thought. That was the law prior to the enactment of the 14th Amendment. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore
What you're talking about is called the doctrine of incorporation which was largely rolled out in the 1890s with lots of specific protections regarding religion officially codified by the 1940s (although those were finer points, in practice the cases in the 1940s were about things like "do religious school children have the right to tax reimbursement for public transportation" not "can a state have an official religion.")
People came to the US for a lot of reasons. This particular storyline is overblown. Many were frankly hoping to get rich.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
I would.
the red flags to me aren't race or religion. they're what they stand for. Vote the issues and integrity, not the party, sex, religion, or race.
the red flags to me aren't race or religion. they're what they stand for. Vote the issues and integrity, not the party, sex, religion, or race.
JohnStockalypse
Well-Known Member
sirkickyass said:
This kid is somewhere between 18 and 35. He doesnt' actually mean anything but this is what impresses the (removed) he is forced to settle for. Just ignore him.
Last edited by a moderator:
If you knew Kicky's tax-bracket, you'd realize he ain't the one settling...
Last edited by a moderator:
O/T: For those who believe that Millsapa and babe are the same person (I'm mostly looking at Trout) here's all you need to know: Babe actually pos repped me for my response to him. Millsapa would have gone off the handle.
We may disagree with babe but he does deserve some credit for being honestly open to opposing viewpoints and sharp criticism. You can draw your own conclusions about his partner in crime.
Johnstockalypse responded to the "criticism" that he's between 14-16 by, predictably, acting his age. Complete with font size and color changes for emphasis.
We may disagree with babe but he does deserve some credit for being honestly open to opposing viewpoints and sharp criticism. You can draw your own conclusions about his partner in crime.
Johnstockalypse responded to the "criticism" that he's between 14-16 by, predictably, acting his age. Complete with font size and color changes for emphasis.