Must a candidate be Christian to be elected President.

Sure.This is the part I'm not wholly convinced of one way or the other.
Yes but without the application of a least a reasonable and rational level of Argumentation Theory wouldn't the problems of historical studies and theses be rather empty?Perhaps too much chatting with religionists has worn a groove in my thinking patterns. In any case sometimes a certain text catches my eye, and I amplify upon it and see where it leads. I appreciate that you indulge this.An interesting point, however if one accepts that there must be at least a reasonable and rational level of Argumentation Theory then as I understand it the reverse of a logical argument is not automatically also true. The argument that all Poodles are dogs thus all dogs are Poodles is false. Also as discussed prior you are making a comparison (reversed though it may be in this case) to a proposition that I did not make and to one you have already agreed requires a higher level of burden of proof than you are capable of providing.To some modest degree only.It would appear according to Wiki at least, that your notions of logical positivism are only applicable in this senseand not in logical positivistism's introductory sense

So blatham, it would appear that from the introduction of logical empiricism (as provided by Wiki) that you can have both a component not derived from observation, and a component derived from a finite procedure for conclusively determining true or false!

But you have proudly claimed in the past that you are a Christian.
Would you like me to post some links to those statements?

chumly

I think we are there. It's the strong position where logical positivism ceases to be much help except in a very limited sphere like mathematics. One can understand the temptation to demand such rigor in proofs or truth claims simply by looking at what happened with deconstructionism, for example (see Sokal's Hoax )
And obviously, historical or anthropological claims aren't like mathematics. Watch Rove try to "rewrite" history, for another example.

You are right in that there has to be rigor in historical claims too. Which is why good historians spend years wading through primary documents or seeking witnesses and verifying information or accounts.

As well, you are right to suggest that, in line with standard argumentation theory, where I make the sort of claim I made, the burden of proof falls to me. Also, that as I proceed, there ought not to be logical fallacies in my reasoning (plus all the other logic rules ought to be met).

So we do end up in this sort of discussion or claim with a somewhat grey zone where the questions 'how much proof is needed/appropriate?' arises.

I have a bit of a benefit here as my degree is in education and I was lucky to have some very good professors who came out of the philosophy of education camp (there are a bunch of camps in educational thought). One question addressed in my studies related to the differing modes of proof that were appropriate for different intellectual disciplines (if you want to follow this up, but you'd have to be REALLY keen to do so, R.S. Peters and R.H. Hirst are your boys).

Shall we conclude, then, that the bridge between us is completed and when the moon is up, we can meet in the middle and kiss?

My last sentence was worded fuzzily as it should have read: So blatham, logical empiricism (the better phrase as defined by Wiki) embraces both observational evidence and a version of rationalism.

Thanks it's been fun!

As always. thanks back.

Mysteryman
"But you have proudly claimed in the past that you are a Christian.
Would you like me to post some links to those statements?

Let me have your links.
I had stressed that I got married to a pious, religious German christian.
I had never said that I am a christian.

This thread addresses some of what we talked about, naturally our duologue was light-years more effectual :wink: http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=108130

Carroll: America's politics of religion

By James Carroll Published: December 17, 2007



What in the name of God is going on in American politics? Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech, riddled with mistaken assertions about religion, was itself a warning. But other presidential candidates, debate moderators, pundits and religious leaders all share a dangerous confusion about questions of faith and citizenship. Here are only a few:

Is America's goodness grounded in God? When Romney and others assert that American virtues, generally summed up in the idea of "freedom," are based on faith, a cruel fact of history is being ignored. The politics of human rights, like the idea of individual freedom, were born not in religion but in the Enlightenment struggle against it. When Thomas Jefferson located "inalienable rights" in an endowment from the creator, he was decidedly speaking from outside the mainstream of any denominational faith. Jefferson's point was not to affirm God, but to deny King George.

It is not an accident that "God" does not appear in the Constitution. Following the American lead, religions, too, learned from the nonreligious improvements of modernity, but it is dishonest to claim after the fact that religions somehow sponsored them.

Were "the Founders" religious? It is a convention of political speechmaking to ascribe faith to the Founders, but what kind of faith, and what Founders? The Pilgrims, for whom "freedom" and "rights" meant nothing, wanted a theocracy. One hundred fifty years later, the Deist revolutionaries assumed a distant God whose interest in creation, much less the young nation, was minimal. By Lincoln's time, traumas of war drove piety, and it was only then that present notions of public devotedness were born. (It was Lincoln who established the motto "In God We Trust.") In truth, the power of faith in American politics has waxed and waned. There is no consistent tradition to be upheld or to be betrayed.

Is "secularism" dehumanizing? When Mitt Romney praised vital American religion in contrast to Europe where churches are "so grand, so inspired, so empty," one could wonder what the collapse of institutional faith in Europe actually means. Romney condemned the "religion of secularism."


Yet such American smugness seems to miss the largest point of difference between the Old World and the New. In the very years that majorities of Europeans were walking away from organized religion, they were resolutely turning away from government-sanctioned killing, whether through war or through the death penalty; they were leaving behind narrow notions of nationalism, mitigating state sovereignty, and, above all, replacing ancient hatreds with partnerships. All of this stands in stark contrast to the United States, where the most overtly religious people in the country support the death penalty, the government's hair-trigger readiness for war, and the gospel of national sovereignty that has made the United States an impediment to the United Nations.

Does God send people to hell if they vote wrong? You would think so if you listened to the American Catholic bishops, who said in November that forbidden political choices "have an impact on the individual's salvation." The five Catholics running for president all hold positions that, in the bishops' view, might earn their supporters eternal damnation. Whenever preachers appeal to hellfire as a way of reinforcing injunctions, you can bet they have failed to make a persuasive moral argument.

What is discouraging here is that the bishops, aiming to reinforce their squandered moral authority, are resuscitating an image of a threatening, violent God that religious people generally, and Catholics in particular, have struggled to leave behind. Religion aims not to "save" from an unmerciful God, but to reveal that God's mercy is complete.

Is Mormonism a religion of myth? The answer, of course, is that every religion is a religion of myth. The symbols, rituals, and sacred texts of every faith grow out of contingent historical circumstances that seem at odds with the transcendent claims that religions make. Joseph Smith's origins in upstate New York might seem disqualifyingly banal, yet so did Jerusalem to those who lived in Rome, as did Galilee to those who lived in Jerusalem. Religions claim to be above such history, and that myths are revelations - but the glory of God is that God reveals through human invention. What Mormons believe is outlandish - which is the point.

Politics and religion, like art and music, aim to accomplish the same thing, which is to overcome absurdity with meaning. Religion does this by seeing God's hand in history. Politics does it by affirming that, if history is all there is, it is enough.

James Carroll's column appears regularly in The Boston Globe.

au wrote-



To go from "have an impact on the individual's salvation." to ""might earn their supporters eternal damnation" and on to "hellfire" and to summing up with "failed to make a persuasive moral argument" is, I'm afraid, a rather serious insult to the intelligence of A2Kers who have presumably been educated sufficiently to be alert to slippage in the meaning of concepts as editorial paragraphs meander from where they start to where they end up.

Hell can be seen to be disappearing from Christian iconic art in the 16th century.

Religion is also the most wonderful lovable uplifting factor in the world.

The problem is, like anything humans touch, religion can be used for selfish or ultruistic purposes.

parados wrote:


How mature, mabee we should just forget about religion until we become intelligent enough to societally dispose of such politically congesting hogwash.

If it is required to analyze a candidates faith to fully understand their political point of view on a given policy, then that in itself is a boundary that should never have been crossed. Also, if the usa is indeed considered a "christian nation" then is it at all conceivable that the attack on iraq could be construed as a "christian attack" on a "muslim nation"? If so then surly that in itself would cause a fair amount of resentment within the mid-eastern territories.

Just a thought, apparently their free.

parados wrote:



Touch it hell they made the entire concept up.

Quite wise parados.

Religion is a human institution and as such is subject to all of the virtues and failings of mankind.

This doesn't mean that the teachings that represent a religion are necessarily flawed, and it certainly doesn't mean that God is flawed.

That the religions of mankind have resulted in great suffering is undeniable. Likewise it is undeniable that these very same religions have led to vast grace and goodness. What should we expect from a construct of imperfect mankind?

It is, in my opinion, an entirely childish notion that because mankind has, in the name of religion, done terrible things that the core teachings of these religions are perforce malignant. It is worse than childish to extend this argument to the conclusion that God is malignant.

All of the major religions contemplate that certain base aspects of the nature of mankind must be overcome.

The great religions are not about advancing the worse behaviors of mankind, but overcoming them. That individuals have twisted the power of mankind's desire to connect with the divine into horrible means to advance their satisfy their own bent desires is not a condemnation of religion, but of those who would misuse it.

There are bent parents who use the power of their relationships to advance their twisted desires and abuse their children, Does this condemn parenthood?

There are bent elected politicians who use the power of their office to advance their lust for power and fortune. Does this condemn democracy?

There are are bent individuals who use the power and advantage of their wealth to advance their personal lust. Does this condemn capitalism?

Some may find the third choice distinct from the other two, but this is because of personal inclinations and the influence of ideology.

Ideologies do not force bent human behavior. They may disguise it or offer facile justification, but it is always up to the individual to determine what his or her behavior will be.

Blaming religion or God for the flaws of mankind is a dodge.

Finn
Blaming religion or God for the flaws of mankind is a dodge."
Sorry.
It is not my intention to hurt any religious, pious devotees.
My critical views reveal my inadequacies.
I am of the opinion that there is no God.
I read a little bit of all religious telephonebook and I stick to my views while i respect- i repeat respect other's views.
Accept my unpalatable views