Talk Elections

All of them, if you like.

And I'm referring to the guy from Nazareth.

Somehow I think if he were around, and not restoring the Kingdom, he'd be too busy improving the lives of common people to give a damn.

That and I'd doubt he'd endorse any candidate because each is flawed.

Well, we're all flawed. Let's say Jesus was an ordinary person. Based on his views, who would he vote for?

2004: Badnarik (L)
2004: Gore (D)
1996: Perot (Reform)
1992: Perot (I)
1988: Bush (R)
1984: Mondale (D)
1980: Reagan (R)
1976: Ford (R)
1972: McGovern (D)
1968: Humphrey (D)
1964: Goldwater (R)
1960: Nixon (R)
1956: Eisenhower (R)
1952: Stevenson (D)
1948: Dewey (R)
1944: Dewey (R)
1940: Wilkie (R)
1936: Roosevelt (D)
1932: Hoover (R)

That's my point, it wouldn't matter if he actually was the son of God incarnate...he'd still not want to endorse any candidate's flaws.

Interesting; though I'm not sure about 1968, I can definitely see him voting Perot.

1789: Washington
1792: Washington
1796: Jefferson
1800: Jefferson
1804: Jefferson
1808: Madison
1812: Clinton
1816: Monroe
1820: Monroe
1824: Jackson
1828: Jackson
1832: Jackson
1836: Van Buren
1840: Van Buren
1844: Polk
1848: Cass
1852: Scott
1856: Fremont
1860: Lincoln
1864: Lincoln
1868: Grant
1872: Grant
1876: Hayes
1880: Garfield
1884: Blaine
1888: Harrison
1892: Cleveland
1896: Bryan
1900: Bryan
1904: Roosevelt
1908: Bryan
1912: Roosevelt
1916: Wilson
1920: Harding
1924: LaFollette
1928: Smith
1932: Roosevelt
1936: Roosevelt
1940: Roosevelt
1944: Roosevelt
1948: Wallace
1952: Eisenhower
1956: Eisenhower
1960: Kennedy
1964: Johnson
1968: Humphrey
1972: McGovern
1976: McCarthy
1980: Anderson
1984: Mondale
1988: Dukakis
1992: Clinton
1996: Clinton
2000: Nader
2004: Nader
2008: Kucinich

Actually coming to think of it, I doubt Jesus would vote at all. Certainly not for any of the candidates of the mainstream left or right.

Though I think he would have voted for James Birney.

Definite Nader voter in 2000, maybe 2004.

Kerry in 2004.

Paul '08. No? Anyone?

Eugene Debs, Norman Thomas, and all the Socialist candidates through Walt Browne.

Jesus never was a pragmatic fellow and would not worry about "wasting His vote"

Oh boy, this is basically the ultimate "let's see who's a hack" thread.  You can't brag any bigger about your candidate than "God's on his side".

2004: Michael Peroutka
2000: Pat Buchanan
1996: Bob Dole
1992: Ross Perot
1988: Ron Paul
1984: Ronald Reagan
1980: Ronald Reagan
1976: Jimmy Carter
1972: Richard Nixon
1968: George Wallace
1964: Barry Goldwater
1960: Richard Nixon

No. Why do you hate Jesus?

Actually, I always vote for Democratic candidates, whereas Jesus would have always voted for Socialist candidates.

Jesus wouldn't have voted, because that would be an endorsement of a far from perfect political system and government.

He endorsed the Roman Empire, which is much further from perfect.

I thought he merely said to pay rome's taxes, a legal requirement.  Not to choose, without reprocussion, to endorse their actions.

Because he was immoral.

I don't believe in human sacrifice and I refuse to accept them, frankly.

1960: JFK
1964: Neither. Socialist Workers or whatever.
1968: Ditto.
1972: McGovern
1976: Carter
1980: Carter
1984: Mondale
1988: Dukakis
1992: Perot
1996: Perot
2000: Gore
2004: Kerry

Hovering between Meretz and Labor, I should think.

WTF!? Go get a life. Without Jesus, America would be rules by Pagans that would probably persecute you Athiets, asshole. Haven't you noticed that almost every single Christian nation is a Liberal Democracy. We respect your rights.

I'm not sure how that has any bearing on Jesus's morality, or lack thereof.

He didn't say that Christians had installed some sort of draconian regime; he said that their founder was immoral.  While I'd be interesting to hear him support his claim, what you're talking about is totally unrelated.

It's pretty silly to speculate how someone who lived almost two thousand years before modern democracy would vote.

Well all that I meant was that even if he thinks Jesus is immoral, he shouldn't badmouth him so much, as without him there wouldn't be Christians, and maybe not Democracy in the modern sense of it.

Perhaps you're right on the democracy part, but you're being needlessly reactionary.

I don't see anything wrong with bad-mouthing the means, even if they result in ends that you don't mind so much.

But whether or not what you say is true, his original assertion (Jesus was immoral) is unaffected.  It's not as if he's forced to be pragmatic here; he can't alter world history, so what pragmatic negative is "bad-mouthing Jesus" going to have?  None.  So he might as well say what he believes.

lol, the 12 year old Democrats strike again!

I have a life.

Without Jesus, America would probably be ruled by.. actually, that's sort of a stupid speculation, isn't it?  Christianity is just another religion.  I'm sure it made many positive contributions to the philosophies of many Americans who were heroes in many different ways.  I'm not going to give your religion credit for the founding of the nation, though.  Not every founding father was a Christian anyway.

What I don't understand is why I can't say that Jesus was immoral without being told to get a life, but you, an adherent of Jesus, can call me an asshole because I have a different viewpoint than you do.  Christians call atheists immoral all the time.  They seem to think it is inherent within our very framework.  I don't think Christians are immoral.  Some are, certainly.  My contention is that Jesus himself was immoral.  If you want my reasons, I'm happy to give them to you.  But I also know that I'm not going to be able to convince you because you hate the very idea that someone could reject your God.

And, for the record, I respect your rights as much as anyone else's.

Explain to me about why Jesus is immoral.

Oh yeah sorry about calling you an asshole. That was uncalled for.

Whoa. We're 13. :P

Whatever. Mithras was super militarstic, and Juliani was Fascist in his ways of supressing Christianity.

1. He was, literally, killed in the form of a human sacrifice.  Old Testament Jews regularly sacrificed animals to appease God for their sins.  I find animal sacrifice to be revolting enough, but the idea that we could only gain acceptance from God if a human being (his own son, no less) was sacrificed strikes me as horribly immoral.
2. Jesus affirmed the holiness and correctness of the Old Testament, which is in itself a very immoral piece of literature, in its condoning of animal sacrifice, its treatment of homosexuals, its sanctioning of excessive capital punishment, and genocidal invasions by the Israelites of other people in the same area of the world.
3. Jesus' views on marriage and divorce have caused endless subjugation of women and the continued tolerance of domestic abuse, marital rape, and unequal treatment.  Divorce was outright prohibited in one gospel, while another quoted Jesus as only making an exception for infidelity.  My view of morality dictates that if a person, or both people for that matter, are hopelessly unhappy in a marriage, whether because of abusive treatment or anything else, it is extremely offensive to deny them the right to annulment.

Though he should be aware that a lack of respect for the founding of a belief system* of any sort (religious, political, all the same in this regard) is the same as having no respect for the beliefs of its believers (except in a highly vacuous sense; "I respect your right to believe that" and so on). And if someone has no respect for the beliefs of someone else, why should the second person have any respect for the beliefs of the first?

*As something seperate from any institutions that might go with it. That's actually quite important.

I disagree, actually, although that depends on the sense.  There are few things near enough to total evil that I have no respect for them whatsoever.  But my respect for people's beliefs are not necessarily proportional at all to my respect for the beliefs themselves.

And is there a difference between dismissing a belief as absurd (as he is, and as Christians effectively do by denying the realistic possibility of being incorrect) and disrespecting it?  Because dismissiveness and disrespect are different beasts.

If you do not have at least some respect for the founding of a particular belief, then how can you have any respect for the belief? And if you don't have any respect for the belief, how can you have any respect for the believer, beyond mindless platitudes? And if you don't have any respect for the believer, why should you expect them to have any respect for your beliefs?

And this matters because it raises other questions; the motives of a secularist who has no respect for the religious should be questioned just as much as the motives of a political-christian with no respect for the non-religious. But if there is respect (in either case) then there is no real reason to worry.


Proportionality has nothing to do with it.


There is obviously a difference between not having a belief and not respecting the same belief. I've a lot of respect for, by way of example, Islam, but I'm certainly not a Muslim.

By being a former Christian.  I understand as well as I can why he says what he does.

I don't think it's inherently disrespectful or offensive to suggest that the founder of a religion was immoral.  Muhammed is accused of being a child molester on a frequent basis, but some of his doctrines may have good in them.  The fact of the matter is that both Christianity and Islam are influenced much more by their adherents than their founders.

Don't be disingenuous. How could it not be?


But not by Muslims or people with respect for Islam.


That may be true. But it's also irrelevant as far as this is concerned.

How else am I supposed to make that assertion?  It's not like I'm going after Jesus by making s**t up or whatever.  I'm just using what's written in the Old & New Testaments and my personal interpretation of morality.

Jesus would spoil his ballot paper.

I don't find "I respect you even though I find what you're saying absurd, and maybe dangerous" to be a "platitude."  I find it to be an important part of a functioning human society.


Unless I'm missing something, that doesn't really make sense as a reply to what I said.


I suppose this is a difference in "respect," then.

Does belief that something is silly and dangerous, but well-intentioned, entail "respect"?  I don't think so.  Perhaps you need to define "respect."

Jesus was from Nazareth.

What is "despite thinking that what you believe in is both stupid and dangerous, I respect you anyway" if it's not a platitude?

Anyway, you've not responded to my main point (or at least the point I was trying to make) here.

Stop being a fundie hack.

An essential part of functioning in human society, as far as I'm concerned.


Then I've probably missed it (I try not to weasel out of answering to points).  Sorry.  I'd appreciate a restatement or a backquote.

You could argue that, yes. And I would actually agree, though only to a very limited extent.


Basically: lack of respect (no, actually more like active disrespect) towards the founding of a belief system = lack of respect for the believers of that religion, ideology or etc. Two points follow on from this, the first is that if person a actively disrespects the beliefs of person b, then person a has no right to expect person b to respect his beliefs. The second is this:

What kind of question is this?

That dependes entirely on who you ask.

Most religious people tend to think God is on their side, politically.

I'm religious too, by the way, I don't believe Jesus would take a clear political position.

Well, if your very definition entails your conclusion...that's no fun.  :P


I agree.  Maybe I didn't see that as your over-arching point because it seemed so unobjectionable.  Sorry if I glossed over it because of this.

Here's a question.  Under your construct is it possible for a Christian to respect a non-theist, when faith entails being effectively sure of your moral beliefs?  I don't see how that's any different than the treatment given by atheists to Christians.

Clearly plenty of Christians find my beliefs on certain things to be unquestionably immoral, and by your definition there is an automatic disrespect.

My bad.

---

Well, a lot of people say Jesus (as shown in the Bible) was socialist, which the religious right would heartily disagree with.

I'm guessing Al's point is something else than you think. I'll try giving an example. I have a friend who's a very active socialist. We basically disagree on every political issue around. He comes from a family where everyone is communist. The foundations of his belief system is basically that poor people should be taken care of and that people shouldn't be so obsessed with money. That I can respect. On a personal level we're even pretty much in agreement on how one should live one's life. I have several friends, in fact pretty much all my friends, who are atheist. I understand where they're coming from, having an essentially empiricist world-view and being fostered in a very non-religious society like Sweden. That is, I understand and can respect the foundations of their beliefs.

If you, as an atheist, regard religious people as suffering from a mental impairment (like Opebo) that would be an example of not showing respect, for instance.

What you just said is what I'm arguing.

You probably regard your socialist friend's politics as wrong and probably dangerous when put into practice.  But you still respect him for the intent behind his belief, I'd wager, right?  Because you think he's fundamentally decent, and perhaps his beliefs are unavoidable products of growing up in a certain environment - as, statistics would suggest, most beliefs are.

So, unless we define "respect" as including thinking something is dangerous and stupid but well-intentioned, I have to disagree with Al...you see where I'm going better, now?


I'm not an atheist and I don't.  Of course, the definition of a "mental impairment" is another matter entirely.  I may think certain beliefs are irrational but they don't form enough of a schism or threat for me to consider them a "mental impairment."  Besides, I just don't care.  There are more important things to fight against in life than perhaps-misled beliefs that probably do more good than harm.

I am not. I just overreacted there. I am not a big fan of my lord and saviour being called immoral.

Isn't calling almost every Christian nation a liberal democracy not hackish? Is Angola a liberal democracy? Is Burundi? Is the CAR? Is the DRC? Is Congo? Is Cuba? Is Equatorial Guinea? Is Gabon? Is Malawi? Is Namibia? Is Mozambique? Is Swaziland? Is Uganda? Is Zambia? Is Zimbabwe? That's quite a lot.

You might also want a dictionary.

Then defend it, dude.

It's what he taught you to do.

The "you" in the last sentence was a third-person "you" not an Alcon "you". :)

I see what your point is and perhaps I'm reading things wrong here, but I thought Al was talking about the foundations of beliefs rather than the beliefs themselves?

Ah, gotcha.


I'm not sure to what you're referring with that.

The bolded part was what I was referring to. But reading on maybe that part wasn't as vital to the debate as I thought it was.

I see where you were going, but I assumed he meant "founding" as in "the act of being founded," not as in "foundation."  Which is a different matter entirely.  :P

I really hope this hasn't been all an incorrect-paradigm issue.