Should a Creationist be allowed to hold a position of Authority?

While there is a definite seperation of Church and State, should ANYONE that believes in the literal Creation story as laid out in Genesis be allowed to hold a position of authority and influence such a US President or Prime Minister of England?Although this should not be seen as a religious test, is it a valid test of the person's capability to assimilate data, form rational conclusions, accept new information, and formulate policy?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

There is no way that restricting someone based on religious belief is constitutional in (I think) any of the western democracies. Nor should it be.However, I would have no problem with a test for ALL policians that demonstrates they have some minimum of intelligence, reasoning ability and knowledge before being allowed to run.(That's not going to get by any courts even if someone was brave/stupid enough to suggest it. )

I agree with Nosy that it would be unconstitutional to exclude such a person from taking office. However, it is equally unconstitutional if such a leader uses their position to push their religious views on scientists and the general public or guide science policy based on their religious beliefs. Imagine if the NSF budget were cut to fund the Discovery Institute or some other creation ha ha "science" group.

I really don't want to divert the thread with current politics talk, but the best example I can think of where this does work is Kerry's policy on abortion.He makes no bones about being a Catholic, and accordingly thinking that abortion is wrong. But he also acknowledges that his personal religious beliefs have no place in lawmaking.

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

Hell, no.Added by edit:Ok, I should have been more clear on the matter. We know for a fact that true blood creationists that have visited this site are either crackpots or plain liers. The ones that do make sense and being honest are hybrids, where they don't see a conflict between the theory of evolution and their faith.My problem is how do we know that creationists can make good decisions if they are in power when they can't even tell what's a coherent argument and what's not? It goes back to the question that I've been asking people for as long as I could remember. If you are on trial for murder, would you want an unbiased, educated judge giving the verdict or would you want a jury of hicks and hillbillies?This message has been edited by Lam, 10-08-2004 12:03 PM

In the UK you can't be the monarch if you are a Catholic for historic/religous reasons (how could you be 'Defender of the Faith' when the main thing you are defending it against was the Pope and Catholic monarchs of mainland Europe ?).There are suggestions that this anachronism will be abolished sometime soon (possibly along with the rule that inheritance is through the first male child rather than just the first child). Then all we have left to do is replace our unelected upper chamber with an elected one and we'll have dragged British democracy kicking and screaming into the 18th. Century

quote:

---

I agree with Nosy that it would be unconstitutional to exclude such a person from taking office. However, it is equally unconstitutional if such a leader uses their position to push their religious views on scientists and the general public or guide science policy based on their religious beliefs. Imagine if the NSF budget were cut to fund the Discovery Institute or some other creation ha ha "science" group.

---

The thought of NIH and NSF money going to the DI just gave me the chills. I wonder how many journals would have to shut down due to lack of peer reviewed articles?Anyway, you are absolutely correct. Creationism is a religious position, not a scientific position. Even if a Muslim was elected it wouldn't affect either science or religious practice in the US, and I would assume other democracies would be unaffected as well.

So far the majority of responders are approaching this on the religious test basis.What about the content of the second paragraph in the OP, SeeMessage 1.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Although this should not be seen as a religious test, is it a valid test of the person's capability to assimilate data, form rational conclusions, accept new information, and formulate policy?

---

This would require intimate knowledge of the person's acquantance with the evidence. If the candidate has never been interested in biology and is not familiar with the evidence then this really doesn't apply. It still stands as a religious analysis, not a scientific one. However, if the candidate was a self-proclaimed anti-evolutionist who is "familiar with all of the evolution hog wash" then I would be concerned. It would certainly make me vote for the another candidate, assuming that they did not hold the same position.I think it is a valid test of one's capacity for using logic and reason. If the candidate said "evolution is scientifically supported, but I believe that God is our creator" I would have absolutely no problem with this candidate. It is not their belief that I would judge but how they arrived at that belief.

Am I guilty or innocent?

Great!!! Love that question.

Not necessarily. Cognitive dissonance is quite common. It's possible for an individual to be highly competent and rational in one field and hold irrational beliefs in another field, and this is true on a broad spectrum of issues, and on both sides of the political spectrum.A creationist director of NIH would be a problem, but also unlikely to have survived the career path needed to rise to such a position.OTOH, I'd not have much issue with a creationist civil engineer as director of the Federal Highways Administration, if their civil engineering career was fully in accord with the standards of that profession (in which origins issues are likely of little relevance).

Well, you've slipped right through my fingers until now because I can't recall having read any of your posts. Tell you what, you keep posting and I'll pay attention to your posts from now on. Added by edit:Ok, I looked at your posts and couldn't really find any one of them that contained more than 2 sentences. That's a pretty tough resume to analyze This message has been edited by Lam, 10-11-2004 06:59 PM

I think all candidates for office should pass a test that shows they know what are the duties of the office, the basic regulations and laws they will be dealing with and that "Friday is payday".