Michael Gray <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:

What on earth does that have to do with my direct answer to your very
clear question?

You asked: "does anyone really imagine"
I answered it clearly, numerically and unambiguously.Okay - if that's the only part of the conversation you were interested in,

consider your response noted. That being the case, it does make your
answer pretty banal, but if that's how you want it...

Another bogus binary choice.
Are you hard of thinking?It would seem so.

I was in the throes of beginning to form a grudging respect for your
rational responses, but you have blown that way out of the water.I'm devastated. Really.

Seriously - if your respect has to be 'grudging' I'd rather not bother
with it in any case, thanks. 'Grudging respect' from someone I don't know
would suggest that they've already formulated some quite complex
prejudices that I'm really not interested enough to try to overcome.

I answered your question directly and honestly, yet your retorts are,
(at best), pusillanimous hand-wavings.What a load of rubbish. Your initial answer was nothing more than a

mocking reference to something called Xefkoklkfekj - though mocking what I
still don't know - and now you come along pretending intellectual
superiority?

Looks like we've blown each other out of the water, doesn't it?

Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

If the people are god-soaked they'll vote for a president who's
god-soaked.

Hang on, no - the point here is whether the candidate is 'god-soaked', not
whether the people are.

Believing in something for which there's no evidence is proof that the
person can believe other things for which there's no evidence - and
that can be deadly to the planet.

Yes, it could be - but then, someone could just as well have beliefs
entirely unconnected to religion that could also be bad for the planet.

And someone who's religious might have beliefs that could only be good for
the planet, or at least their country - perhaps that they consider it
their religious duty to put their country first, to help the needy, to
improve their people's quality of life, and so on. Maybe they believe
it's their duty to help protect the creation of their god or gods, so they
might be inclined to actually get off their backsides and do something
about the environment.

True again - although, as I said, you'd have a pretty good idea what
sort of person he was, because you'd already have learned as much as
possible about him prior to voting.

Which is why Bush is in office? I don't think so.

Bush is a special case, I guess, since nothing about his presidency seems
to have anything to do with common sense. The American people seemed
quite happy as a whole to allow this cowboy to steal the election, and not
only did they not kick him out then and hold the election again, but they
actually re-elected him the second time around. Madness.

But is he a bad president because he's religious? Partially, I guess,
although in his case there are numerous other flaws as well. It's not my
claim that a religious person *can't* be unfit for office, after all. But
if he's where he is because people agree with his religious position, then
as above, the problem is at least partially that the PEOPLE are religious.

But a leader who doesn't accept things for which there's no evidence
will probably continue to not accept things for which there's no
evidence.

Perhaps - although that's a fragile 'probably', and in truth there's no
real reason to assume that a belief in one thing will equate to abject
gullibility in any other area.

There are religious scientists, after all, many of whom are perfectly
capable of doing their jobs proficiently.

N. Korea?

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with Kim Jong-Il's religious beliefs. What
faith does he follow?

Don't be fooled - Bush & Co. don't answer to the public.

The subject is whether or not religious belief automatically makes someone

unfit for office.

In general terms, I meant that I'd rather see someone religious in a role
that's at least theoretically answerable to the public than some religious
coward ranting frothing propaganda in some Middle Eastern bar and handing
out the ticking briefcases to the zombies stupid enough to go and do his
dirty work for him. (Yes, I know bombs don't usually tick any more.)

No, *among those* I consider unfit for public office are those who
want to head us to the Christian Armageddon.

Now if someone actively wanted this, then damn right they're unfit for
office - I'd be the first to agree with you. But not all religions
involve such beliefs, and for that matter, it's a minority of Christians
who actually want to hurry Armageddon along. I'm even doubtful whether
the majority believe in Armageddon at all.

So if we're saying that someone whose religious beliefs make him unfit for
office is unfit for office, then we agree.