you shouldn't be allowed to operate heavy machinery, let alone be the president or leader of a large country.

whyz that?

i agree, no one with irrational beliefs like the supernatural or god should. we should just take out and shoot 95% of the worlds population.

on a more seriouse note; irrational doesnt necessarily mean stupid. i dont see why they shouldnt be leaders provided they dont push their bullshit on others.

say the guy is a committed christian.

if he's elected to serve the people, then he should do what's best for the people.



since the church says what god wants, they theoretically tell all the followers what to believe.

if the president is a follower of a church, he has to obey "gods word"

so if there is a conflict of interest betwean societal progress and the church (stem cell research) then the president always has to obey the church.

Yah, sure, but if there isn't democracy (ya ya,i know - Bush is a fucking tit and democracy has become a pyrimid of in justice and inequality because it has been 'diluted' by religon) wot is the alternative?

Socialism?

That'll be the day...

it depends where his ultimate loyalties lie. as i said before; if he doesnt push his shit on others it isnt a problem, if he does then it is.

unfortunately in most cases leaders go with the church when its convenient and the rich, powerfull and influential at all other times. there are very few governments in history that have truly represented the people.

The Church doesn't directly influence policy though, if it was a matter of "Church says x is evil" and then a leader immediately made "x" illegal, that would be a violation of the separation between church and state.

But the influence is indirect. What happens is the Church condemns "x" whatever that may be, and as a result most religious conservatives and some religious liberals will believe that "x" is evil, and shouldn't be done by people. Those religious people happen to also be voters, and if they believe that "x" should not be allowed, they will be more inclined to vote for a politician who says he will make "x" illegal. Politicians, knowing this, will then be influenced to take a position against whatever the thing is, in order to get more votes.

In a democracy you have to give a population the right to believe whatever they want, and simply hope that it's for the best, in some "greater good" sort of way. If, as it happens in the case of things like stem cell research, people aren't particularly making intellectual decisions on their own, but rather going with their feelings and being influenced by official Church positions on things, well that sucks but unless you're willing to resort to an authoritarian society you've gotta live with it (and going with the first option presents problems of it's own).

The only reason people make dumb decisions as a result of blindy following religion, is that people aren't taught and trained to think for themselves and think critically. Don't blame the Church, blame the educational system.

quote:The only reason people make dumb decisions as a result of blindy following religion, is that people aren't taught and trained to think for themselves and think critically. Don't blame the Church, blame the educational system.

the church encourages ignorance - it suites their purpose. you need look no further than the story of adam and eve to see evidence for this. four hundred years ago laypeople were discouraged or even prohibited from reading the bible and other scripture.

[QUOTE]The Church doesn't directly influence policy though[QUOTE]

it was not always so, and they did not give up their powers willingly or without a strugle.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

The Church doesn't directly influence policy though, if it was a matter of "Church says x is evil" and then a leader immediately made "x" illegal, that would be a violation of the separation between church and state.

But the influence is indirect. What happens is the Church condemns "x" whatever that may be, and as a result most religious conservatives and some religious liberals will believe that "x" is evil, and shouldn't be done by people. Those religious people happen to also be voters, and if they believe that "x" should not be allowed, they will be more inclined to vote for a politician who says he will make "x" illegal. Politicians, knowing this, will then be influenced to take a position against whatever the thing is, in order to get more votes.

In a democracy you have to give a population the right to believe whatever they want, and simply hope that it's for the best, in some "greater good" sort of way. If, as it happens in the case of things like stem cell research, people aren't particularly making intellectual decisions on their own, but rather going with their feelings and being influenced by official Church positions on things, well that sucks but unless you're willing to resort to an authoritarian society you've gotta live with it (and going with the first option presents problems of it's own).

er yeah i know this, what im saying is to prevent the church from influencing government and peoples minds it must be made illegal and serious effort put into eradicating those who spread religious beliefs.

Too fucking bad. If that really was such a big deal, you should have brought that up during the election.

People knew what kind of a man Bush is, and they also know that a man like that is going to follow the church. Deal with it. People wanted him elected, he got elected.

This thread is stupid and I'm closing it.

Cheers,

Lost