Welcome to Gaia! ::

HeroesDoodie's avatar

1,450 Points
  • Member 100
  • Gaian 50
  • Dressed Up 200
Additionally, we'd have a better understanding of the candidates's character, since they wouldn't justify their behavior or choices with religion. We'd all have a better time in deciding who to vote for.
Lavender Outlaw's avatar

Rainbow Raider

9,200 Points
  • Nerd 50
  • Gender Swap 100
  • Grunny Rainbow 100
Doodieballsdotcom
Lavender Outlaw
I don't care what religion the president follows as long as they are respectful of other views and do not base government policy off religious text (the world has changed a lot since those books were written).


Sadly, I don't think we've had a president willing to do as you suggest.
Sometimes I wonder if some of our presidents would have been more respectful if the current political system didn't force them to loudly announce their religion. sad
HeroesDoodie's avatar

1,450 Points
  • Member 100
  • Gaian 50
  • Dressed Up 200
Lavender Outlaw
Doodieballsdotcom
Lavender Outlaw
I don't care what religion the president follows as long as they are respectful of other views and do not base government policy off religious text (the world has changed a lot since those books were written).


Sadly, I don't think we've had a president willing to do as you suggest.
Sometimes I wonder if some of our presidents would have been more respectful if the current political system didn't force them to loudly announce their religion. sad


Perhaps, but we can't know for sure.
Avgvsto's avatar

Dapper Reveler

Doodieballsdotcom
Avgvsto
Doodieballsdotcom
Avgvsto
Everyone has philosophical bias, in fact not having a philosophy would basically mean you don't think. If you wanted someone like that, just vote in a machine.


I'm not saying there would be no bias. I just believe that we would benefit by having someone make decisions based on their own personal beliefs and wouldn't defend their actions based on what a book that's over thousands of years old.
A religion is a personal belief. Also, it is quite arrogant in my opinion to dispel other beliefs on the fact that they are not completely your own, until I somehow become God I'll be quite satisfied knowing that I am not intelligent enough to know everything. Until that day I will accept other beliefs as something of extreme value and only judge them logically cause it is the best my intellect can allow.


I'm not dispelling anyone or anyone's belief, and most of the time decisions based on one's religion kicks other people's beliefs to the side, dontchya think?
Is this a bad thing? It seems it either one belief exist or none of them in your scenario. Most beliefs i consider moral overlap in ideals frequently. Also, if you don't believe in the constitutional doctrines of religious/economic freedoms and powers only extending far enough to Defend these then you shouldn't be president anyway.
(sorry for the late response, I was eating dinner)
SoullessSingularity's avatar

Lunatic

An Atheist president would just go it on an atheist perspective. I don't even think America is ready for an atheist president. Too much controversy would make for a s**t president.
Ask Jappleack's avatar

Greedy Consumer

Doodieballsdotcom
The more I think about it, the more I think we'd be better off.

The main reason I believe an atheist president would benefit the country is because his decisions would not be swayed by religious bias. This would mean that he or she would make decisions based on what they feel is right rather than making decisions based on what their god or bible says.

Discuss:
Benefits of having an atheist president.
Are there any benefits of religion being involved in a president's decision?
what they feel is right is a bias also, technically know whats right and what works for the country is better.
HeroesDoodie's avatar

1,450 Points
  • Member 100
  • Gaian 50
  • Dressed Up 200
Ryu Kei Shou Kawazu
Doodieballsdotcom
The more I think about it, the more I think we'd be better off.

The main reason I believe an atheist president would benefit the country is because his decisions would not be swayed by religious bias. This would mean that he or she would make decisions based on what they feel is right rather than making decisions based on what their god or bible says.

Discuss:
Benefits of having an atheist president.
Are there any benefits of religion being involved in a president's decision?
what they feel is right is a bias also, technically know whats right and what works for the country is better.


...but at least it would be based on what they feel is right alone rather than what their bible says. It would also give voters a better idea of that person's character.
Avgvsto's avatar

Dapper Reveler

Doodieballsdotcom
Xiam
Doodieballsdotcom
Ontological Empiricism
Avgvsto
I have to disagree with you. Being secular is an inhuman pretense and a horribly cold thing to wish for in my opinion. I value people having beliefs more than most everything else. If something was completely secular it would probably be heathen. In fact, I admire atheists because they at least make an assertion rather than pretend to be secular. I don't see how anyone could want anything for anyone else without any objective concerns for the world or for humanity.

If we, as an American government, didn't make decisions based on religious...nay...Christian/Catholic beliefs, we most likely wouldn't have to fight for things like gay marriage. But because the majority of the American government, and its people, identifies as Christian (even having the audacity to call it a "Christian Nation".), the bias is wholly religious.


Let's not forget how religion was used to justify not allowing for blacks and whites to marry.

So was the theory of evolution.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how it would be any different. An atheist politician could still be a corrupt politician. He would still be susceptible to all the self-serving egotistical garbage the others are guilty of. Religion has nothing to do with it. I've said this before in relation to political parties, but I'll say it again now in regards to religion: A politician is a politician is a politician is a liar.


At least their choices wouldn't be justified by religion, and at least they wouldn't hid behind their religion when they made mistakes.
Of course they would have flaws. Everyone does.
Corruption is unjust according to most religions. We wouldn't have corruption in a man if we had a true Christian, Muslim, or anyone who was faithful to a reasonable moral system. (I didn't include other religions because I am terrible at spelling). If anything a more faithful population wouldn't be as corrupt, atheism makes no strict claims on morality for the most part so it is completely based in personal philosophy which is just as questionable, and more self centered. Corruption is also a personal affair so blaming a person for a religion or someone elses folly is simply silly. Besides you philosophically disagree with Christians so you would obviously want a person who shares in that specific moral belief to be your leader, which is wanting a sort of religious leader to destroy another religion in just the same way.
HeroesDoodie's avatar

1,450 Points
  • Member 100
  • Gaian 50
  • Dressed Up 200
Avgvsto
Doodieballsdotcom
Avgvsto
Doodieballsdotcom
Avgvsto
Everyone has philosophical bias, in fact not having a philosophy would basically mean you don't think. If you wanted someone like that, just vote in a machine.


I'm not saying there would be no bias. I just believe that we would benefit by having someone make decisions based on their own personal beliefs and wouldn't defend their actions based on what a book that's over thousands of years old.
A religion is a personal belief. Also, it is quite arrogant in my opinion to dispel other beliefs on the fact that they are not completely your own, until I somehow become God I'll be quite satisfied knowing that I am not intelligent enough to know everything. Until that day I will accept other beliefs as something of extreme value and only judge them logically cause it is the best my intellect can allow.


I'm not dispelling anyone or anyone's belief, and most of the time decisions based on one's religion kicks other people's beliefs to the side, dontchya think?
Is this a bad thing? It seems it either one belief exist or none of them in your scenario. Most beliefs i consider moral overlap in ideals frequently. Also, if you don't believe in the constitutional doctrines of religious/economic freedoms and powers only extending far enough to Defend these then you shouldn't be president anyway.
(sorry for the late response, I was eating dinner)


I'm not wishing to exclude religion or any beliefs. I just feel that a president with no belief but an idea of what is ethical and what is not would be better. What is ethical may vary, yes, but at least we would have a better idea of the president's character.

For example: "I don't want gays to marry, because it's against the bible" is a lot different than "I don't want gays to marry, because I just don't like gays."

The first statement tells the people that the candidate is ruled by religion, and the second statement tells us that the guy is just plain homophobic. Those who are for gay rights then have a better idea of who they would vote for. The problem with religion in politics is it gives politicians a safe place to hide. Religion is fine and dandy, but it should be kept out of politics.
Lykeios Orizontas's avatar

Aged Poster

5,000 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Contributor 150
  • Popular Thread 100
Doodieballsdotcom

Discuss:
Benefits of having an atheist president.
Are there any benefits of religion being involved in a president's decision?


Honestly, sometimes I wonder if we wouldn't be better off having an atheist federal government. The legislative branch is not there to uphold "morals" or "values" anyway, nor is the executive or the judicial. They are there to run the country as smoothly as is possible and to keep us as safe as possible. Bias of any kind has no place in government in my opinion. Our politicians should be as objective as is humanly possible, just like our judges are supposed to be.

Not that I think we should forcefully eject religion from government or anything of that nature. However, I don't think there is any benefit to having political leaders that are ruled by their religious beliefs.
HeroesDoodie's avatar

1,450 Points
  • Member 100
  • Gaian 50
  • Dressed Up 200
Doofi3
Doodieballsdotcom

Discuss:
Benefits of having an atheist president.
Are there any benefits of religion being involved in a president's decision?


Honestly, sometimes I wonder if we wouldn't be better off having an atheist federal government. The legislative branch is not there to uphold "morals" or "values" anyway, nor is the executive or the judicial. They are there to run the country as smoothly as is possible and to keep us as safe as possible. Bias of any kind has no place in government in my opinion. Our politicians should be as objective as is humanly possible, just like our judges are supposed to be.


Emphasis on "supposed to be." lol
Lykeios Orizontas's avatar

Aged Poster

5,000 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Contributor 150
  • Popular Thread 100
Doodieballsdotcom
Doofi3
Doodieballsdotcom

Discuss:
Benefits of having an atheist president.
Are there any benefits of religion being involved in a president's decision?


Honestly, sometimes I wonder if we wouldn't be better off having an atheist federal government. The legislative branch is not there to uphold "morals" or "values" anyway, nor is the executive or the judicial. They are there to run the country as smoothly as is possible and to keep us as safe as possible. Bias of any kind has no place in government in my opinion. Our politicians should be as objective as is humanly possible, just like our judges are supposed to be.


Emphasis on "supposed to be." lol


Exactly, in fact, I'm going back and adding bold to that statement, lol.
Lykeios Orizontas's avatar

Aged Poster

5,000 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Contributor 150
  • Popular Thread 100
Avgvsto
Corruption is unjust according to most religions. We wouldn't have corruption in a man if we had a true Christian, Muslim, or anyone who was faithful to a reasonable moral system. (I didn't include other religions because I am terrible at spelling). If anything a more faithful population wouldn't be as corrupt, atheism makes no strict claims on morality for the most part so it is completely based in personal philosophy which is just as questionable, and more self centered. Corruption is also a personal affair so blaming a person for a religion or someone elses folly is simply silly. Besides you philosophically disagree with Christians so you would obviously want a person who shares in that specific moral belief to be your leader, which is wanting a sort of religious leader to destroy another religion in just the same way.


I call bullshit on this.

A "true" Christian can be just as badly corrupted as anyone else. As was pointed out both in this thread AND in the Bible, everyone makes mistakes and screws up. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" right?

There is nothing wrong with having faith or belief. However, you are wrong in assuming that atheism has "no strict claims on morality for the most part so it is completely based in personal philosophy which is just as questionable." Even within religious groups personal philosophy is often more important than the philosophy of the group. Why do you think there are so many sects and splinter groups in almost every major religion?

Personally, I think that "eastern" philosophies are more conducive to effective and fair government. Not to mention they are much less selfish than most "western" philosophies.
Avgvsto's avatar

Dapper Reveler

Doodieballsdotcom
Avgvsto
Doodieballsdotcom
Avgvsto
Doodieballsdotcom
Avgvsto
Everyone has philosophical bias, in fact not having a philosophy would basically mean you don't think. If you wanted someone like that, just vote in a machine.


I'm not saying there would be no bias. I just believe that we would benefit by having someone make decisions based on their own personal beliefs and wouldn't defend their actions based on what a book that's over thousands of years old.
A religion is a personal belief. Also, it is quite arrogant in my opinion to dispel other beliefs on the fact that they are not completely your own, until I somehow become God I'll be quite satisfied knowing that I am not intelligent enough to know everything. Until that day I will accept other beliefs as something of extreme value and only judge them logically cause it is the best my intellect can allow.


I'm not dispelling anyone or anyone's belief, and most of the time decisions based on one's religion kicks other people's beliefs to the side, dontchya think?
Is this a bad thing? It seems it either one belief exist or none of them in your scenario. Most beliefs i consider moral overlap in ideals frequently. Also, if you don't believe in the constitutional doctrines of religious/economic freedoms and powers only extending far enough to Defend these then you shouldn't be president anyway.
(sorry for the late response, I was eating dinner)


I'm not wishing to exclude religion or any beliefs. I just feel that a president with no belief but an idea of what is ethical and what is not would be better. What is ethical may vary, yes, but at least we would have a better idea of the president's character.

For example: "I don't want gays to marry, because it's against the bible" is a lot different than "I don't want gays to marry, because I just don't like gays."

The first statement tells the people that the candidate is ruled by religion, and the second statement tells us that the guy is just plain homophobic. Those who are for gay rights then have a better idea of who they would vote for. The problem with religion in politics is it gives politicians a safe place to hide. Religion is fine and dandy, but it should be kept out of politics.
The gov is just people and no one is without philosophy. Hitler took on well to many risks for me to believe that he was doing something that he believed was immoral, he had his ethics whether or not they were all that sane. He did come close to his goals and he really did some great things for utilitarian and humanitarian desires, so one could say he was faithful to some sort of twisted ethical scheme. Religion is just a simpler way to judge ethics, a person is obviously immoral if hey do not uphold their supposed beliefs. If a Christian commits mass genocide on other Christians then they are obviosly not moral, whereas if one acts according to some personal pretense of morality there is no true way to judge them because their intentions are disclosed. If ethics dont follow any rules they are no longer even reasonable or proper to be judged. If a person commits themselves to an ideal blatantly we already know how to properly judge them. To have no proclaimed philosophy is just to be a liar or simply without any morality at all.
Mrtyu-Mara's avatar

Dapper Informer

9,100 Points
  • Super Tipsy 200
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Person of Interest 200
soul_less_human
An Atheist president would just go it on an atheist perspective. I don't even think America is ready for an atheist president. Too much controversy would make for a s**t president.

Of course America isn't ready for an atheist president. People make a huge stink over Romney's Mormonism, and Obama's suspected Muslim...ism.... sweatdrop

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games