Must a candidate be Christian to be elected President.

I presume or assume that anybody can compete/contest to occupy the holy chair in White House.
Religion is immaterial and should not play any roll to distract the attention from the vital problems.
Since the title of this thread is about one religion
I wish to quote this for your critical observation.

" Science has done more for the development of WESTERN CIVILIZATION in one hundred years than
CHRISTIANITY did in eighteen hundred years.-- John Burroughs.
Let me wish all the believers of various sortiments of religion happy contended life.

0 Replies

Quote:

Christian fundamentalists interpret the Bible as the inerrant, factual, and literal word of God. Though each of these terms can be argued as to what exactly the terms mean,

Which means that Christian Fundamentalists are just bogeymen created by the Left for political purposes. There is no single set of universally applicable diagnostic characteristics by which you can identify a Christian Fundamentalist- meaning that Christian Fundamentalism is a non-issue as far as politics are concerned.

Quote:

it is in any case clear that fundamentalism rejects any modernist critical interpretation of the Bible.

Explain. What is "modernist critical interpretation of the Bible"?

Quote:

They reject most modern scientific findings in biology and geology, or at least greatly reinterpret them to "fit" their view of the Bible.

Care to give some examples?

Quote:

Most believe, for example, that the world was created in seven 24 hour days simply because that is what the Genesis account says.

Most? You have documentation for this statistic? I have a bachelor's degree in biology and I am a Christian Fundamentalist, but I don't believe the world was created in 6 (remember God rested on the 7th day) 24 hour days because this is not what the Bible says and we have ample documentary and archaeological evidence that the earth has not always had 24 hour days or 365.25 day years. I have never personally met any Christian Fundamentalist that believes the days of the Creation week were literal 24 hour days.

Quote:

Most fundamentalist also believe that the earth (and the universe) is no more than a few (less than ten) thousand years old based on the genealogies in the Bible.

Again your documentation for this statistic? I don't know how old the earth or the universe is because the Bible doesn't expressly tell us and science cannot tell us because no one on earth observed the earth's or the universe's origins. And again I have never personally met any Christian Fundamentalist that insists that the earth or the universe has any particular age.

Quote:

Any findings by science that seem to refute this argument are simply discarded and seen to be "obviously wrong" since it disagrees with the Bible.

Care to document any Christian Fundamentalist with a science background who makes this claim? We reject the commonly accepted age for the earth/universe because the available scientific evidence for the age is inconsistent, based on unwarranted assumptions or is in disagreement with each other.

0 Replies

Why would anyone want to argue with Flaja? His beliefs must give him comfort. Far be it for me to take away someone's comfort.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

blatham wrote:
As a liberal, I perceive and acknowledge that many of our liberal or progressive values are greatly informed by quite old and traditional notions of charity and egalitarianism which have come up over 2000 years from, in part, the early christian communities (there are other sources too, of course).
Yeah but where is the reasonable expectation to argue that religiosity provides substantive humanitarian values not available to the non-religious?

That's not my claim or implication. I don't accept the thesis that faith precedes the impulse towards humanitarian behavior or empathy because they are evident not only in all human societies but also clearly evident in observations of primate behavior. Chimpanzees don't have a sacred text and have built only a few churches.

But it is the case that faith communities (precisely in the same manner as ethnic communities or defined institutions or family groups, etc) serve as a means of carrying ideas and value-sets up through time. It is in this sense that liberalism or the US constitution/bill of rights (or the Canadian Charter) is informed by christian notions as well as much else.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Hey Blatham,
I forgot to add: your claim falls prey to the logical fallacy called "Argumentum Ad Antiquitatem" in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with tradition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

Hope this is clarified now. But let me add that your address to the logical fallacies is happily welcome. The more of that, the better.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Let's do this one question at a time for flaja:

1) Who is a Christian Fundementalist?

Quote:
Christian fundamentalists interpret the Bible as the inerrant, factual, and literal word of God. Though each of these terms can be argued as to what exactly the terms mean, it is in any case clear that fundamentalism rejects any modernist critical interpretation of the Bible. They reject most modern scientific findings in biology and geology, or at least greatly reinterpret them to "fit" their view of the Bible. Most believe, for example, that the world was created in seven 24 hour days simply because that is what the Genesis account says. Most fundamentalist also believe that the earth (and the universe) is no more than a few (less than ten) thousand years old based on the genealogies in the Bible. Any findings by science that seem to refute this argument are simply discarded and seen to be "obviously wrong" since it disagrees with the Bible. In other words, "if it disagrees with the Bible (the fundamentalist view of the Bible), then it is wrong and probably straight from Satan." It must be stated for the record that there are differing levels or versions of fundamentalist belief. Some fundamentalists, for example, believe that the Genesis account allows for so the called "day - age" interpretation, in which the days of creation are actually unknown periods of time. Even such "liberal" fundamentalists, however, believe that everything written about in the Bible is an accurate reporting of actual historical events.

This "literal" interpretation of the Bible is very dear to fundamentalist to the extent that most believe that anyone who does not accept this "literal" interpretation are not true Christians. Many "hard core" fundamentalist even believe that anyone who does not use the King James (1611) version of the Bible is destined for Hell.
link

Joe(couldn't have said it better myself)Nation

Rather appropriate quote, joe.

0 Replies

Quote:

There is no single set of universally applicable diagnostic characteristics by which you can identify a Christian Fundamentalist-

This is so odd. You say the above, and yet you say

Quote:

... I am a Christian Fundamentalist,...

How can you tell? What set of applicable diagnostic (as opposed to agnostic -that's a joke) characteristics did you use to become a Christian Fundamentalist? More importantly, with a degree in Biology, what makes you stay one? (And please capitalize your field of study.)

Quote:

Quote:
They reject most modern scientific findings in biology and geology, or at least greatly reinterpret them to "fit" their view of the Bible.

Care to give some examples?

Enjoy.
Those poor mopes are in there trying to figure out how all those fossils could have happened during the same flood, they are trying to figure out if some of them might have been in deeper water, meanwhile real Science is reconstructing viruses from 100,000 years ago from junk portions of our DNA . Did you read about that during your college career? Get the New Yorker from three weeks ago. Fascinating but not in alignment with Genesis.

But this is always my favorite dodge of the believer:

Quote:

We reject the commonly accepted age for the earth/universe because the available scientific evidence for the age is inconsistent, based on unwarranted assumptions or is in disagreement with each other.

First of all, no, it's not. In case you are wondering, and I know you are not because wondering might cause you to doubt and doubt leads to sin, the universe is 13.7 billions years old that's with a margin of error of about 1%. Source: NASA WMAP A margin of error of 1% is better than most dads achieve when asked the ages of their own children but I am sure it won't be dogmatic enough for you because you believe in the inerrancy of the Word of God. Science doesn't work on being inerrant, it works from best, testable evidence.

You asked someone else

Quote:

What is it about Christian fundamentalism that you find dangerous?

Personally speaking, it is the adherence to dogma in the face of evidence and the total resistance to change. Had Western civilization adhered to the pronouncements of the Roman Popes and Luther and Calvin and the other Christian Mullahs, we would have been in the same state as Afghanistan is today.

But much more dangerous than that:
The beliefs about Armageddon and the hoped for, prayed for, desired end of the world with Jesus arriving on a cloud drives the foreign policy aims of people like Sens. Trent Lott, Sam Brownback and, my friend, Jim Inhofe, as well as the former Senator and Attorney General John Ashcroft and others to promote the Nation of Israel over other nations in the Middle East. Golly, I wonder why George W. Bush hasn't done anything to benefit the Palestinians during his administration?

To attempt to mold the world's stage to fit your peculiar vision of scripture in the face of extreme danger to the rest of humanity verges on the insane and ought to be avoided.

Joe(and now a reading from the Book of Revelations--- )Nation

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Chimpanzees don't have a sacred text and have built only a few churches.

I may have a use for this.

Thank you.

<curtsies>

0 Replies

flaja said

Quote:

I accept the AKJ's because it is the authority that God has lead me to accept and God's guidance is confirmed by the history behind the AKJ.

Apparently, that's it as regards your claim for the sole legitimacy of your version of christian faith.

I suppose part of your trial here in the mortal realm will be to somehow maintain this notion of your unique relationship with god even while everyone else in the world tells you we don't accept your self-consecration.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

blatham wrote:
Chimpanzees don't have a sacred text and have built only a few churches.

I may have a use for this.

Thank you.

<curtsies>

Borrow freely.

<bows>

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Chumly wrote:
blatham wrote:
As a liberal, I perceive and acknowledge that many of our liberal or progressive values are greatly informed by quite old and traditional notions of charity and egalitarianism which have come up over 2000 years from, in part, the early christian communities (there are other sources too, of course).
Yeah but where is the reasonable expectation to argue that religiosity provides substantive humanitarian values not available to the non-religious?

That's not my claim or implication. I don't accept the thesis that faith precedes the impulse towards humanitarian behavior or empathy because they are evident not only in all human societies but also clearly evident in observations of primate behavior. Chimpanzees don't have a sacred text and have built only a few churches.

But it is the case that faith communities (precisely in the same manner as ethnic communities or defined institutions or family groups, etc) serve as a means of carrying ideas and value-sets up through time. It is in this sense that liberalism or the US constitution/bill of rights (or the Canadian Charter) is informed by christian notions as well as much else.

Do you in any way claim that these "early Christian communities provided traditional notions of charity and egalitarianism" which would now not be present in "our liberal or progressive values" had there not been these "early Christian communities"?

If you do not in any way make said claim, then I see no relevance to your claim that these "early Christian communities provided traditional notions of charity and egalitarianism".

Why?

Because the "notions of charity and egalitarianism" would be there regardless.

However if you do in some way make said claim, then you may have the two issues I referred to:

1) Yeah but where is the reasonable expectation to argue that religiosity provides substantive humanitarian values not available to the non-religious?

2) Your claim falls prey to the logical fallacy called "Argumentum Ad Antiquitatem" in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with tradition.

Mind you I do see your points, and I may be arguing a bit on the silly-side, but it's all in good fun! BTW I have been reading up on Argumentation Theory and Logical Fallacies and it's truly fab. I'm waiting for the day that I can make the absurd sound reasonable, at which point I'll know I have joined the human race Cool

0 Replies

chumly wrote

Quote:

If you do not in any way make said claim, then I see no relevance to your claim that these "early Christian communities provided traditional notions of charity and egalitarianism".

Why?

Because the "notions of charity and egalitarianism" would be there regardless.

We of course don't have a world to look at where western civ evolved without christianity. So it's a matter of studying history and trying to tease apart the real and relative influence of earlier events, ideas, persons, etc. We can, for example, observe that the US constitutiona and bill of rights were influenced by christianity (among other influences, of course) not to mention how america was deeply influenced by specific christian movements and sects. How much influence can be argued but we must acknowledge influence.

More broadly, we can look at the notion of womens' equality. Though we gain much of our thinking and values about a fair and equitable (democratic) polity from the Athenians, they of course didn't consider women to be citizens. And there were no women in the Roman senate. In contrast, the early christian communities acknowledged a far higher level of equality for women.

It isn't a stretch at all to conclude that we've arrived at a point where a woman might well be the next President here because of both Athenian and christian influences.

Logic is fun. Pleased to hear you think so too.

0 Replies

To clarify, if that's needed, the thread title asks whether a candidate has any chance of reaching the presidency if he's not a christian.

I think that now a jew could get there. But all other options are closed off...no hindus or buddhists and certainly no muslims. Less chance for faiths not so common or popular. Likewise, a proclaimed atheist has no chance in american high elected political office now.

I state those claims as conclusions on american culture and politics. I certainly do not support what is concluded. All else being equal, I don't care at all what faith or lack of it a political figure might have.

0 Replies

From a logicality perspective blatham you have not shown the causality you claim! It's clear that in some way* you claim that these "early Christian communities provided traditional notions of charity and egalitarianism" which are present in "our liberal or progressive values".

But......

From a logic point of view, you cannot argue with specificity that "notions of charity and egalitarianism" are a product of "early Christian communities" unless you can successfully argue with specificity that similar "notions of charity and egalitarianism" would not exist without said product of "early Christian communities".

This is something you say cannot be done because you say "We of course don't have a world to look at where western civ evolved without Christianity."

Thus you present yourself with the impossible!

That is why a few posts ago, I mentioned preemptively, and with a bit of a grin:

1) Yeah but where is the reasonable expectation to argue that religiosity provides substantive humanitarian values not available to the non-religious?

2) Your claim falls prey to the logical fallacy called "Argumentum Ad Antiquitatem" in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with tradition.

* blatham wrote: "So it's a matter of studying history and trying to tease apart the real and relative influence of earlier events, ideas, persons, etc"

0 Replies

Well, let me put this problem to you.

You would, I presume, suggest that the Canadian and American political arrangements are influenced by what came earlier in Britain.

Can you support that presumption in the sort of manner you are requesting of me?

0 Replies

In essence it would appear you are asking me to try and support the underlying logic of your claim, using a different set of criteria than that you initially asserted.

I know of no Theory of Argumentation that would oblige me. Can you provide one?

As per the Theory of Argumentation procedural rules:

1) you made the initial claim thus it's established that you have the burden of proof

2) you are responsible for providing argument as to why your position merits acceptance in light of my successful counter

0 Replies

snood wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
As far as I am concerned, a candidates religion is meaningles.
The candidate can worship a mango for all I care.

I wanna know where they stand on issues, not their religious beliefs.

Oh? You'd have no problem with a fundamentalist Islamic person in high public office?

Not as long as they abided by and followed the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and they left their religion in the Family quarters of the WH.

I have no problem with someone using their religious beliefs as a partial guide to their decision making and policy making, as long as they give more weight to what the Constitution says.

0 Replies

chumly

Let's see if we can get this right.

First, let me suggest that your initial citation of me for violating the 'appeal to tradition' fallacy is invalid. As noted in your original link, the fallacy takes the form of...

Quote:

this is right because we've always done it this way

But that wasn't my argument. I didn't claim that merely because christian ideas are identifiable in modern notions and institutions it is therefore 'right' or logically/morally necessary for them to be there or to be maintained.

An example from your link...

Quote:

"Murdering innocents is wrong, because it has been considered so since the dawn of civilization."

Such fallacious claims are commonly made in this context, of course. Much conservative rhetoric in the US or canada (though less so) re christianity and tradition is a swamp of argumentum ad antiquitatem.

But I haven't made that jump from 'is' to 'ought'. There's no ought in my claim. It remains an 'is' claim only.

The claim I'm making, that various aspects of our modern culture have roots in the past, is an historical claim. It's validity or lack of validity is established by whether there's sufficient historical information (or other sorts of information) which bolster it.

This appears to be where you've gone astray. And it surely is astray if all such historical, sociological or anthropoligical claims regarding causality (earlier thing influences later thing) are held as logically 'illegal'.

Make sense?

0 Replies

You are correct that the logical fallacy I referred to was preemptive and done with a bit of a grin, as I could not know what your thoughts were prior to our dialogue so I guessed / speculated.

In that I guessed wrongly and I did not do things in the correct order. I should have asked you what your rationalizations and logic were firstly, but the temptation was too great!

But.regardless of how merited or unmerited my preemptive guess, that does not in any way change my central assertion. Nor I should add, have you been able to counter it, except to ask me to argue a position of which I did not make as per "Canadian and American political arrangements".

Thus as the risk of the Logical Fallacy Argumentum ad nauseam I'll post it for our indulgence.

Chumly wrote:

From a logicality perspective blatham you have not shown the causality you claim! It's clear that in some way* you claim that these "early Christian communities provided traditional notions of charity and egalitarianism" which are present in "our liberal or progressive values".

But......

From a logic point of view, you cannot argue with specificity that "notions of charity and egalitarianism" are a product of "early Christian communities" unless you can successfully argue with specificity that similar "notions of charity and egalitarianism" would not exist without said product of "early Christian communities".

This is something you say cannot be done because you say "We of course don't have a world to look at where western civ evolved without Christianity."

Thus you present yourself with the impossible!

* blatham wrote: "So it's a matter of studying history and trying to tease apart the real and relative influence of earlier events, ideas, persons, etc"

0 Replies

We're going past each other.

You understand that no historical claim of this sort (we are influenced by greek thought, for example) is exempt from your claim there is a fallacy here?

0 Replies

Must a candidate be Christian to be elected President.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know