Whom would you rather vote for?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hitetlen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hitetlen

Guest
I just joined your community, and I received a very cute reply on my opening post at the Water Cooler (ahem… why not a wine cellar? or a beer garden? Catholics usually do not have this unhealthy aversion to good food and alcoholic beverages). Anyhow, the post said, that being a heathen is preferable (to the poster) to being a Calvinist (aka Presbyterian). That started me to think, and now I have a question:

Whom would you rather vote for? An atheist (heathen) or someone who belives in a deity, but maybe a different deity from yours (Muslim, perhaps) or in the same deity, but in a different manner (Baptist, Lutheran, Calvinist) Or does it matter at all?

My personal view: if I could agree with the person’s political and economic views, I would not care at all about his personal belief system. (provided he does not try to impose his belief system on others!)
 
I agree with you. In this free country we need people who respect the religous freedom of others and who have economic and political views consonat with those of the majority as long as they do not infringe on the constitutional rights of the minority.
 
Just my opinion, but I don’t think it’s possible for most to seperate the two. I know from personal experiece that I’m not able to.
 
Hi! It’s me again–the smartypants. 😃

Don’t you know? This forum is a virtual wine cellar, beer garden, and feast all rolled into one! Here we lift our glasses and steins (“It comes in pints?”) to the joys of life and the follies of faith.

Have you ever heard of or read anything by G. K. Chesterton? You’d like him, I’m sure.

I agree with you. If a candidate has the wisdom to make good decisions based in natural law (defense of the weak, might for right, justice modified by mercy) then I could vote for a person of any or no religious persuasion.
 
What was the old Irish proverb ?
Never trust a man that says he doesn’t drink .
Who does that cover.
 
Consider John Kerry. No right-minded Catholic can or did vote for him without sinning.
 
Aha! Nice to see you again.
40.png
Della:
Have you ever heard of or read anything by G. K. Chesterton? You’d like him, I’m sure.
Click to expand...
Only some of his Father Brown mysteries, and I sure liked those. Well crafted stories.
 
Aaron I.:
Consider John Kerry. No right-minded Catholic can or did vote for him without sinning.
Click to expand...
Obviously you did not agree with his agenda, which is your right and privilige.

(Not to derail this thread, but I despise both Bush and Kerry, pretty much to the same degree. But that does not really belong here, I just wanted to clarify.)
 
I despise both Bush and Kerry
Click to expand...
Ditto.
But, then, I can’t think of a single politician that I particularly like and none that I trust.
 
40.png
catsrus:
Ditto.
But, then, I can’t think of a single politician that I particularly like and none that I trust.
Click to expand...
If there would be a 120% agreement, this would be it! It is funny to think about it, but there is only one profession - the politician - which does not require any special training, and is not tied to license. Even the humblest professions need some training, and most cannot be practised without a license - and this license is granted - by a politician! To become a politician, one needs nothing, but the capability to lie convincingly, and bamboozle the people to vote for him. Very strange, indeed.
 
40.png
Hitetlen:
I just joined your community, and I received a very cute reply on my opening post at the Water Cooler (ahem… why not a wine cellar? or a beer garden? Catholics usually do not have this unhealthy aversion to good food and alcoholic beverages). Anyhow, the post said, that being a heathen is preferable (to the poster) to being a Calvinist (aka Presbyterian). That started me to think, and now I have a question:

Whom would you rather vote for? An atheist (heathen) or someone who belives in a deity, but maybe a different deity from yours (Muslim, perhaps) or in the same deity, but in a different manner (Baptist, Lutheran, Calvinist) Or does it matter at all?

My personal view: if I could agree with the person’s political and economic views, I would not care at all about his personal belief system. (provided he does not try to impose his belief system on others!)
Click to expand...

I agree - political life is far too complex for any one issue to be a litmus test for choosing whom to elect. Issues are more important than the candidate’s beliefs - unless one is living in a state which allows party politics only for show.​

I would be delighted to vote for a Calvinist, if the policies on offer were for the common good - but I would not vote for a Calvinist who wanted, as a few do, to make the Law of Moses the Law of the land (in the US at least). Politicians can be devil-worshippers AFAIC, as long as they don’t wreck the country. ##
 
40.png
Hitetlen:
Obviously you did not agree with his agenda, which is your right and privilige.

(Not to derail this thread, but I despise both Bush and Kerry, pretty much to the same degree. But that does not really belong here, I just wanted to clarify.)
Click to expand...

That’s why I cut out a line or two critical of “the Shrub” - we have our own Kerry in the UK, and his name is Tony Bliar. If Ian Paisley were in charge, the country would be much better off. No EU membership, no abortion, no IRA, closer union of Ulster with the mainland…if only !​

 
40.png
rwoehmke:
I agree with you. In this free country we need people who respect the religous freedom of others and who have economic and political views consonat with those of the majority as long as they do not infringe on the constitutional rights of the minority.
Click to expand...
As Atheists have, as I shall put it, “Stolen” our culture, and are, somewhat, more respective and open to religion than a Muslim, I would vote for an Atheist - But a simple way, would be to get more candidates.

Also, for “Whom” to be correct there, you should put “For” at the start of the sentence: “For whom…”, it has to be after the preposition. 👍
 
tom.wineman said:
What was the old Irish proverb ?

Never trust a man that says he doesn’t drink .

Who does that cover.
Click to expand...

And, that reminds me…

Never trust a skinny cook.

And, no disrespect intended, certainly:

Wherever there are four Catholics, there’s always a fifth </sheepish grin>.
 
40.png
Hitetlen:
if I could agree with the person’s political and economic views, I would not care at all about his personal belief system. (provided he does not try to impose his belief system on others!)
Click to expand...
I would tend to agree with you. Athiests can be good people, and people of all faiths have proven that they don’t always live out that faith.

I’d love to see a truly Catholic politician. Anyone come to mind?
 
Ah, old Irish proverbs… No Irish people actually know any. What’s funny is, then we have Irish Americans, or what not, reciting them to us when they’re here… It just confuses us! 😛

My guess is they were written by crazed old Irish men who emmigratated to America all those years ago. Notorious for lying, their charisma and charm! 😛
If Ian Paisley were in charge, the country would be much better off. No EU membership, no abortion, no IRA, closer union of Ulster with the mainland…if only !
Click to expand...
Heh, you what? Yes, make him leader, then the Unionists would realise what a mistake they made. Just thank God he isn’t as bad as Craig, he was… Much worse. He established the UVF.

Heh, “With the mainland”…

If it were a choice between a man, who was so extreme, and racist, that he was kicked out of the Presbyterian Church, and who set up his own, and Tony Blair, I’d vote Blair - No, wait, Conservative.
 
I would not consider voting for anyone who denied the existance of objective truth. You may call that my litmus test. Atheists are ruled out for me.

I would consider Christians, Jews, and Deists as equally qualified for office (all else being equal). Other faiths I would have to consider on a case-by-case basis.
 
40.png
Zerith:
Also, for “Whom” to be correct there, you should put “For” at the start of the sentence: “For whom…”, it has to be after the preposition. 👍
Click to expand...
Ah, I just cannot resist! Of course, you are absolutely right. (I realized my mistake too late, when it was impossible to fix it). Obviously I was “infected” by the culture around me. Here is a wonderful joke about it:

A kid from the Deep South starts his college years in one of the Northern universities. On the first day of the semester, he walkes around on the campus, and meets one of the professors. He asks: “Whar is the laabrary at?” The proferssor answers: “Young man, you are in college now, and here we speak proper English; where one does not end the sentence with a preposition!”. The kid just looks, and finally says: “Ok, so whar is the laabrary at, *****hole?”
 
40.png
Angainor:
I would not consider voting for anyone who denied the existance of objective truth. You may call that my litmus test. Atheists are ruled out for me.

I would consider Christians, Jews, and Deists as equally qualified for office (all else being equal). Other faiths I would have to consider on a case-by-case basis.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your honest post. I wonder if you meant “objective” truth or “absolute” truth. (They are not the same.)

Some states actually have this kind of a lithmus test: denying public office to anyone who does not profess a belief in some deity or another. (South Carilona used to have it until quite recently). Mind you, they do not actually have to believe, they just have to say so! So liars are OK, but honest people are discriminated against. Don’t you find this weird?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top