Zguy28 Posted January 16, 2008 Author Share Posted January 16, 2008 A statement "I do not believe in Evolution" by a Presidential candidate is more than just a statement of belief, it is a statement of policy. How? Do we have an official policy on evolution?There is no conflict between the science and the religion. As a Christian you do not have to reject Evolution. We need a President who understands and champions that approach. Our country needs it.As a Christian, you don't have to accept it either. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 It does not matter at all to me unless it is someone trying to use their religion as a reason to vote for them, or push their religion on me. EDIT: And nor should it matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 How? Do we have an official policy on evolution? It seems a candidate's position on the issue translates into a President's policy on the issue. I think it is reasonable to consider every statement a candidate makes to be an expression of his proposed policy. Personally I'd like to see religious leaders steer the religious folk towards an entirely reasonable "God guided Evolution with his loving hand" position. Huckabee's statement does not show him to be such a leader. As a Christian, you don't have to accept it either. :2cents: Given the evidence I'd say it is a requirement to being considered a reasonable (or properly educated) person, Christian or not :2cents: Otherwise we are talking about a lack of proper education or a lack of ability to see clearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted January 16, 2008 Author Share Posted January 16, 2008 It seems a candidate's position on the issue translates into a President's policy on the issue. I think it is reasonable to consider every statement a candidate makes to be an expression of his proposed policy. That's my point though. Is evolution an "issue" of national importance? I'm sure it is to folks like PeterMP who work in that field but to most everybody else, probably not so much.Considering the evidence I'd say it is a requirement to being considered a reasonable person, Christian or not :2cents: I feel the same about Christianity, considering the evidence... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 They are both important issues, but I don't rank abortion as my primary issue with regards to elections anymore since I believe it is being used as a perpetual political platform issue to get votes and will never be resolved.Also, it usually ranks higher because death is always "permanent" while being poor always is not. Hard to explain it with out coming off as not caring about the poor. Maybe if I said, the unborn victims of abortion are the poorest at all, because they have nothing, not even the opportunity to live.:2cents: I think that was actually an enlightening answer to your p.o.v. as well. I guess its fair to say that preventing death is more important to you than preventing poverty - even though both are important. Good answer. I think I just have a hard time saying abortion is actually the ending of life. So maybe that's me putting my personal views into the discussion? Not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Why is abortion more important than being generous to the poor? The issue with Republicans and social programs has nothing to do the the desire, or lack thereof, to assist the poor. It has to do with wasting vast sums of money on poor who are poor of their on volition. Who refuse to make better of themselves. Abortion has to do with ending the life of someone who has no choices. The poor have choices. As long as their are jobs to be had, there is opportunity to be self supporting. The statement of Obama and abortion was made specifically to voting for the most disgusting method of infanticide. That has absolutely nothing to do with the right to privacy. Even if you believe privacy guarantees a persons right to abortion, it is absolutely within the governments right to determine what are acceptable forms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 A candidate would have to be an extremist for religion to affect my vote. So I said "a little." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted January 16, 2008 Author Share Posted January 16, 2008 I think that was actually an enlightening answer to your p.o.v. as well. I guess its fair to say that preventing death is more important to you than preventing poverty - even though both are important. Good answer.I think I just have a hard time saying abortion is actually the ending of life. So maybe that's me putting my personal views into the discussion? Not sure. Well, that's really where the hinge is in the whole debate over it. When do we consider it "life"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 That's my point though. Is evolution an "issue" of national importance? I'm sure it is to folks like PeterMP who work in that field but to most everybody else, probably not so much. Evolution itself may not be an issue of national importance, but the relationship betwen science and the Government is very extremely hugely important. This issue is one of the, if not THE ISSUE that will determine well-being of our nation in the long run. I feel the same about Christianity, considering the evidence... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Yes. As a non-Christian I accept that 99% of all candidates will be Christian, and that's fine. Normally I don't even think about that when I vote. But if one is TOO Christian (or at least, evokes his Christianity very often when campaigning), that scares me. Huckabee scares me, for example. I like to think our leaders think of themselves as Americans first and Christians/Jews/Muslims/whatever second. But this is especially true for Christians, because they have much more power than the rest of us already.Sorry Christians. Ditto, and I'll add that Bush was the Christian's choice the last two times so I hope they realize that placing their priority on religion was a mistake, even if their agenda was realized. Also Obama trying to hide his Muslim-ness worries me, not that I'd vote him anyway but this guy does not to the POTUS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McMetal Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Seriously - evolution?!?! You're debating evolution? Keep fighting the good fight. And don't listen to any of that nonsense about the world not being flat while you're at it. Wow, just wow. It's scary the kind of dangerous lunacy that's out there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted January 16, 2008 Author Share Posted January 16, 2008 Seriously - evolution?!?! You're debating evolution?No. Merely its importance in relation to national policy. Keep fighting the good fight. And don't listen to any of that nonsense about the world not being flat while you're at it. Wow, just wow. Actually those that believed the earth was flat or those that opposed Copernicus were actually just following the accepted science of their era. :2cents:It's scary the kind of dangerous lunacy that's out there...Indeed. Posts like these scare me quite a bit with regards to our future as a free nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Seriously - evolution?!?! You're debating evolution?Keep fighting the good fight. And don't listen to any of that nonsense about the world not being flat while you're at it. Wow, just wow. It's scary the kind of dangerous lunacy that's out there... Isn't there a woman on The View now that says the world is flat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renaissance Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Isn't there a woman on The View now that says the world is flat? I believe she said it "could" be flat. She doesn't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 I believe she said it "could" be flat. She doesn't know. I guess the world could be Mars too, huh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_cavalierman Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 It matters to me only when I feel someone is using religion to try to become POTUS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVUforREDSKINS Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 I just think its funny how Britian laughs at us everytime our leaders mention god. If that happend there, that person would have no shot of public policy again. Only in America....When will we learn??? P.S. :doh: :doh: :doh: the south Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Actually those that believed the earth was flat or those that opposed Copernicus were actually just following the accepted science of their era. :2cents: First, let me address this point specifically. NO, they weren't. The math behind Copernicus' studies was unrefuted. After a while, there was a modification of the geo-centric theory to take it into account, but the criticism was based on interpertation from the Bible, which just happened to agree w/ Aristotle, who wasn't a scientist (i.e. did not practice the scientific method). As for the rest, I think evolution is an important measure of a persons willingness to look at "facts" and reach the reasonable conclusion. It seems to me there are only three options: 1. Evolution is the best explanation how different species on Earth came to be. 2. I don't have enough information to make a decision. 3. I don't think that is likely that evolution happened and don't care (or at least not very much) what the "facts" are because it contradicts my religious veiws. For any given individual, I don't care which of the three options they take. I'm find w/ somebody coming on here and saying I don't believe in evolution because that is the decision that my faith has lead me to reach. To a certain extent, I think it says a lot about a person's faith. However, if you are running for President, taking option 3 does make me conerned about what other topics you might apply the same "logic" to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Religion: was nice until man decided to be in charge of it and give themselves places of power within. Science: its nice also, 1/4 of them even do REAL science without starting with a result and working backwards from there . The next 1000 years will mock the previous as being idiots. minus a select few genius' So who cares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 My religion matters a great deal. It is in many ways the source of my views on morality and ethics. I look for a candidate that I am morally comfortable with and that brings my religion plays a large role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 I don't care. Of the leading candidates I don't know what religion Obama, Clinton, McCain, Edwards and Giuliana claim to follow, presumably Christian. I know Romney is a Mormon, but none of those mentioned are using their religion as a platform. I have a problem with Huckabee, not because he's a Baptist, but because of his statements that put his faith well ahead of other considerations. By him arguing to be the 'Christian candidate', he's also making it clear he's less interested in those Americans whose lives are not centered around Christianity. I'd like the person in the Oval Office to be President of all Americans, not just the minority of the population who actually voted him (or her) into power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephGibbs Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Yes but just a little if the candidate is sound on the scientific side of things.Yes it is a priority number one if the candidate is Huckabee. Do not believe in Evolution = not fit for office that simple huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 For any given individual, I don't care which of the three options they take. I'm find w/ somebody coming on here and saying I don't believe in evolution because that is the decision that my faith has lead me to reach. To a certain extent, I think it says a lot about a person's faith. It says that that person's faith is not a faith in God. Yep, very harsh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raub Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 The poll options are pretty limited. I'm going to say D: It doesn't matter that much to me unless the candidate seems to stress religion too much (I'm looking at you Huckabee.) Religion has no place in politics. If a candidate can't separate their faith from their office then they shouldn't run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 that simple huh? Yep, a Presidential Candidate not believing in Evolution is akin to a Presidential Candidate deciding to dye their hair green for the campaign season :insane: Not fit for office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.