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

While that might well be a problem, it isn't what I'm asking.The issue is decision making based on faith instead of evidence. I'm less concerned about what the actual beliefs might be, more concerned by the process.Time after time here I have seen posts saying that all of the fossil evidence is only interpretation. There have been statements that say scientific theories are clouded by worldview. People have implied that belief is superior to evidence.So back to the question.Should someone be in power that exhibits a decision making process that places belief ahead of evidence?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Of course, Mr. Jack, "No God" is hardly a given. Why...if nothing else, we super intelligent humans have invented our own!
http://greatorkgods.co.uk/ Perhaps the next topic that we should examine is this:
"Should a Candidate who plays Fantasy Role Playing games ever be allowed to contemplate Foreign Policy?"
================================================================= If J>F>K> had tackled the Cuban Missle Crises on Faith rather than Evidence, I might be dead, or I might be calling you Comrade! Seriously, though, a Bible Believing President would face scriptures such as these: Blessed are those who have seen (no evidence) and yet believe!This message has been edited by Phatboy, 10-13-2004 10:56 AM

Perhaps, but if there really is a God, then of course you'd want one of his buddies running the country. So the question is meaningful only in the absence thereof, no? Of course! Creativity, analytical skill, a willingness to not be taken seriously and imagination are all skills that are desirable in a political candidate.

In fact, I think instead of the next presidential debate the two candidates and their respective sidekicks should be made to play through The Temple of Elemental Evil, DM'd by Kofi Anhan (sp?).Bush can play a Dwarven Barbarian with a big Axe,
Cheney can play a Cleric of St. Cuthbert,
Kerry can play an Gnomish Illusionist,
and Edawrds can play an Elven Bard.It'd be great I tell you! And so much more insightful!

Of course not! But the western democracies use a method for weeding out those that we don't want. If the US votes someone like that in then they and (unfortunately ) all of us are stuck with the result.Here in Canada we have had a Catholic Prime Minister who pushed for the allowance for same sex marriages and refused to reinstate overturned laws against abortion. He felt that his beliefs could not be allowed to influence what laws a diverse country had.His beliefs were not a problem.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-13-2004 11:10 AM

I find it rather ironic that a country that has one of the strongest legal setups and traditions for seperating church and state does, in fact, have one of the worst records for religious influence in government.

I think we could describe the politics of Bush's entire administration as "fantasies." His term has certainly not characterized any judgement with a basis in reality or sense.

This is spreading to europe as well, despite the widely promoted idea governments are secular in origin. I just saw a HardTalk interview on the admission of Turkey to the EU and the question is being posed that it may have a secular government but it is secular-muslim gov't and the rest of europe is secular-Xian.What the hell does that even mean? Gov'ts are secular or they are not.I would say an added irony in the US is its mythic stance of being the world's true democracy, which it must spread to other nations, yet it's elections are not only not concerned with democratic results they are carried out in such a slipshod fashion they are subpar in performance to just about any other nation... including those we monitor to make sure THEY are doing it RIGHT!

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Ok, I'm sorry that just gave me a total geekgasum.Would I want a surgion who beleved in santa claus? I dunno is he a good surgion?This message has been edited by The Dread Dormammu, 11-17-2004 05:48 AM

Hey Dread, perhaps you've seen this before, originally from The Onion - it definitely took me back when I saw it: You should check out the entire article here, if for nothing else, go to see Bill Gates' character sheet.

Yes I have seen that article HILARIOS. But perhaps we should discuss this in the coffie house rather than clutter up this thread anymore.Anyway geting back to the topic at hand I think If someone can demostrate that they are competant at what they do they should be allowed to do it regardless of beliefs.

No theist should be permitted a position of power anywhere, ever.Yesterday, during the apppontment of Condoleezza Rics, Bush expounded on how "freedom is the gift of god", thus making it clear that it is not democracy, not the constitution, not universal rights that makes a country free, but the accident of gods will.This is 2004. Planes fly in the sky, huge buildings stand, and we have left footprints on the moon. There is no longer an "innocent" excuse for falling for theistic claims. Too many of these claims have been falsified for the basis of the belief to remain reasonable, and therefore I reject all theists universally as mentally incompetent to hold positions of authority.

quote:

---

No theist should be permitted a position of power anywhere, ever.

---

Yeah, because the legacy of the Athiests in great power has been stellar.It's not Theism that is the problem.It is the abuse of power and the rise of ignorance.

quote:

---

Yeah, because the legacy of the Athiests in great power has been stellar. It's not Theism that is the problem. It is the abuse of power and the rise of ignorance.

---

And the two are directly linked. A theist necessarily assumes the existance of immaterial evidence as appropriately impinging on their decision making. I demand that anyone in a position of authority keep their eyes strictly on THIS world, not the next. I demand that they make decisions based on cause and effect, on practicality, not on vague and undemonstrable moral fables. And even where atheists in power have been cruel and heartless, they have been RATIONALLY cool and heartless.

quote:

---

Yesterday, during the apppontment of Condoleezza Rics, Bush expounded on how "freedom is the gift of god", thus making it clear that it is not democracy, not the constitution, not universal rights that makes a country free, but the accident of gods will.

---

Could it be possible to claim that God was indirectly influential in the construction of universal rights? Could this be analogous to the philosophy of theistic evolution where God moves things through secular law? I for one am not a believer, but I don't find Bush's statement to be threatening.