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

it is absolutely reprehensible to suggest such a thing. we have lemon tests for laws. now we just have to make sure that congress obeys that. we must curtail the abuse of presidential power. that is a separate issue. but we can never require a religious test for office holding. at least not in this country. and for you to suggest such disappoints me. if we can forbid one group, we can forbid another. pretty soon, no one will be able to hold office.

from Message 1"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

it could not ever be anything but a religious test. you'd have to go through more gymnastics than they do in order to demonstrate that it is anything but.and just because a person has minor issues with universal origins means nothing about the rest of their faculties. it is easily arguable that anyone who believes in anything without proof should not be able to hold office... and then where would you be? it's simply an unacceptable option.

No, not really. This does not relate to believing in something without proof, but rather if someone is capable of ignoring all the evidence.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

It is a valid test to be applied by the electorate.I didn't vote for the guy. I did my part.

---

Impeach Bush

When it comes to effecting the way they do their job, then it is an issue.From today's NY times at Here

I submit jar's OP as evidence of something I have noticed for quite awhile. Secularists are trying to institute their ideology as the de facto official religion/ideology.That's why it seems perfectly reasonable to someone like jar to think that it's OK to use an ideological test to disqualify people from public office. He doesn't think the government should be religiously or ideologically neutral, but that certain religions and beliefs should be excluded.His idea of the establishment clause is to promote ideological discrimination, not liberty, as it was designed to do.

My understanding is the Big Bang is a theory. So why shouldn't it be called a theory. Personally, I see the Big Bang as supportive of the Bible, but either way, it is a theory, right?

There is a big bang theory. Then there are events that the theory describes (the early expansion of the universe), and the term "big bang" can be used to refer to these events, as distinct from the theory.There is nothing wrong with calling the theory a theory. However, one should not be expected to call the events a theory, when they are not.

You do kind of render the second part of your OP redundant by making the criteria of exclusion a belief in Creationism.If it was just the ability to show a level of intelligence and rational reasoning you wish to test for, then test for that. Bringing Creationism in to the mix makes it a religious argument, no matter how great an indicator of a lack of rational capacity you feel it to be.- Edit to make it readable -This message has been edited by ohnhai, 09-02-2006 12:27 AM

1. Last century nearly 100 million citizens were slaughtered by their athiestic secularist governments, beginning with the Bolshevik Revolution. Scores of millions of the surviving citizenry lived in terror, fear, poverty and repression, hoping to escape to the land of the free where creationists abounded, being the majority voting block in their representative government. .2. The most blessed, free and prosperous nation in history, the US of A was designed, originated and headed by majority of creationists with the Bible, from which the creationist story originated, being used in the schools over 100 years after it's founding and another 100+ years previous to it's founding.3. God fearing heads of state, having a sense of accountability to a higher power, will likely tend towards justice, equity and righteousness so as not to be held accountable in the after life judgement. This, imo, trumps the science argument as to origins, relative to how well one governs.

---

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

quote:

---

1. Last century nearly 100 million citizens were slaughtered by their athiestic secularist governments....

---

I hear this one a lot, but I have never seen anyone present actual believable surveys of this, and especially compared them to the equally horrendous atrocities committed during the "God-fearing" Middle Ages and the Reformation.-

quote:

---

2. The most blessed, free and prosperous nation in history, the US of A...

---

Well, I'll let others debate just how committed the founders of the US were to Christianity or creationism, but I will point out that during the so-called Christian period the US practiced a particularly vile form of chattel slavery, committed the largest and most successful wave of ethnic cleansing and genocide in its expansion across the North American continent, and then embarked on a period of imperialist conquest with the use of extremely abhorrent war crimes. You might not want to press this one.-

quote:

---

3. God fearing heads of state....

---

If history (and your own post) shows anything, it is that people who are committed to being "God fearing" will blindly following any demagogue who wraps himself in the cloak of religion and justify the atrocities committed along the way.

The Big Bang was an event, not a theory. The theory that describes it is called "inflation."And neither of those things is properly referred to as an "opinion."

Oh, don't you know? Buz thinks this was all ok, now that we let the Indians run the casinos.

jar,When I was watching all the hearing for Judge Alito, the one question I wanted someone to ask him, was how old he thought the earth was.If he says 6-10 thousand, then in my opinion he doesn't have the proper judgement to be on the Supreme Court.If he says a few billion...thats close enough for me, let him through.But no one ever asks my question.~clpMINI