Will America ever vote for a non-believer? How about an agnostic? How about someone who classifies themselves as an atheist? The term “atheist” has a fervor associated with people who protest Christmas mangers and other religious displays or events which quite frankly I find a bit odd. However, I do like someone who can separate the facts from personal religious beliefs. Can America elect someone who professes a lack of religion in their personal life? It is probably unlikely. America is a land of believers and we have a tendency to be very concerned about what each other believes.
I want to feel good about who I am voting for. The ideal candidate should have the proper background, personality, and priorities suited for the office of president. I really do not care what he or she believes. In fact, a candidate claiming to be an agnostic or some similar classification would not be troublesome at all for me.
It is curious that we rarely find comfort or reassurance in what we know. True happiness comes from beyond. Does it not diminish this life when we say that there is something better afterward? Is that what God intended?
So often we compliment a man by saying that he is a man of faith. We lower our voice and pause as we say it. “He is a man of, faith.” Why do we never say that he is a man of knowledge?
When a husband cheats on his wife with his secretary, who also happens to be the wife’s best friend, the betrayed and hurt wife may well find solace in the notion that Jesus will always love her. I can’t imagine there is any harm finding consolation in that manner.
On the other hand there are times when we should rely on our presence of mind. I remember an interview with a motorcycle daredevil I heard a long time ago. He was asked before a big jump if he ever said a little prayer while he was on his way up the ramp. His answer was, “If you are praying while heading toward the ramp you are going to die. Your mind had better be on what in the hell you are doing.”
When the President of the United States makes a decision to send America’s best and bravest young men and women into harm’s way he had better know what he is doing. I do not want the president to have prayed about the decision and to have faith that he is doing the right thing.
Before sending in the troops I want the president to consult all of his top advisors. I want him to check with all of the intelligence agencies. I want him to confer with all of our closest and trusted allies if that is appropriate in a given situation. I want him to review every possible scenario and back-up contingency. After having done these things and before sending members of our forces into hostile situations, possibly to be killed or maimed in the prime of their lives, I want the president to agonize during the final closing moments of the decision. His only comfort should be in knowing that it is the best calculated move that he can make in what is undoubtedly one of the most difficult set of circumstances of any presidency.
Practical analysis should always be the basis for evaluating any issue that either directly or indirectly might make its way through the Oval Office. For example, certain medical advancements are now outpacing our current laws and the boundaries of common understanding. Clearly, the more we know the better.
I have heard many people say that they would not vote for someone who did not believe in some sort of a higher power. I understand the need to be humble but being too empowered by the divine is not so hot either. What country ever went to war without God on their side?
How about a good fact check instead?
I want a leader who respects the value of a human life and objectively (as much as is possible) considers all likely outcomes before making decisions that could affect the lives of our miltary or our citizens. I think decisions like this should be based on what is best in this life, without regard to what someone may believe will be the consequences in some future plane of existence. I strongly support separation of church and state and do not believe that religion should be a consideration in our political elections; we aren’t electing ministers, after all.
Yes Mike. I also feel we have not learned our lessons about how the military should be utilized. There should be a clear mission. Get in, destroy the enemy, and get out. No stabilizing the situation, nation building, or changing light bulbs.
I am a pretty strong more or less liberal Catholic myself, but I would vote for an agnostic or atheist if I thought he or she was the best candidate for the job of President. It’s certainly better to have an honest atheist in office than a hypocritical pseudo-Christian, which is what a lot of our conservative candidates are, in my opinion.
Yes I agree. They also borrow religious concepts to mold a social agenda.
Not to mention giving lip service to religious concepts just to get people to vote for them.
The funny thing about this Billy is that the “forefathers” were all either agnostic or atheist. They really had no respect for the Christian beliefs. Washington, an Episcopalian, would go to church, hear the readings and then leave at the “Eucharistic rites” because he could not make sense of it. He went because Martha made him go. The rest of the creators of the “Constitution” believed the same. They wanted everyone to have the right to worship whatever God they wanted, but they did want a definite separation of church and state. The GOP of today forgot that lesson. Go figure. Personally, I would feel a lot better knowing someone is making a decision on reason rather than God told him to do it. Great post.
Thanks Donna! So many are all for freedom of religion as long as it is Christian.