Sorry about going back to this but it seems like this went off-topic a while ago....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliantha
This to me says that if you don't believe in evolution you shouldn't hold office.
Many people who believe in God don't believe in evolution.
This then means that you are critical of anyone who believes in God and not evolution, holding office.
|
Just focusing on this one comment, I don't see how saying "people who believe in creationism shouldn't hold office" is an attack on theists.
If everyone who believed in God didn't believe in evolution, your point would stand but many people that do believe in God also believe in evolution so there does not necessarily have to be a link between the two.
I, for one, would never vote for someone who does not believe in evolution into office. This is not because I don't like religious people or do not trust them, just that I see creationism as a logical flaw (not the exact word I'm looking for but eh) because it requires a belief that is not supported by any evidence.
All evidence about how humans came into existence goes to evolution and none of it supports creationism. As I said before, this not only means that these people believe in something that has zero empirical evidence backing it but it also means that they put God in front of science. That would most likely mean that they will put God and their personal religious beliefs in front of politics, which is something I would personally like to avoid being secular. If there is tremendous support of something that goes against someone's religious belief, I would like a politician that would side with the evidence and support instead of something with zero proof.
This is more of a stretch but it also deals with flaws in logic. I would not like a president who, in lack of evidence, firmly believes that a country has WMDs and supports Al Qeada and will be willing to risk the lives and security of millions to act out on that belief. I am not saying that the decision to attack that country has anything to do with religion or creationism, but that someone who has previously put faith in front of evidence will probably be more likely to do it in the future.
For the record, I do not believe that most politicians have politics that favor the greater good as their first priority anyways but it is my personal preference to not throw religion in the mix.