Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 12
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Assuming there was a leadership convention, would you vote for an Atheist to lead the Conservative Party?
Yes
25%
 25%  [ 12 ]
No
19%
 19%  [ 9 ]
I vote for policy, not religion
55%
 55%  [ 26 ]
Total Votes : 47

Author Message
cerl7011





Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 334
Reputation: 26.6Reputation: 26.6Reputation: 26.6

PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:42 pm    Post subject: Who would vote for a Conervative Atheist? Reply with quote

This idea came to me a while ago while discussing religion's influence on politics with a few friends. I have a friend who is a fellow conservative and who is a devout Catholic. I also have a Liberal friend who is an atheist like I am. i asked my Catholic friend if she would vote for an atheist conservative. She said, and I quote "No way in hell!"
I began to wonder...who would vote for a Conservative Atheist?...most Canadians see the Tories as a "religious party" and see the Libs as a party more accepting to atheists, non-affiliated people etc...
So here's my question...Would you vote for an Atheist to lead the Conservative Party?

I wrote a bit on my blog about atheism and the right-wing, if you'd all like to take a look...

erl

http://mrerl.blogspot.com
ebolablue





Joined: 02 Mar 2007
Posts: 139
Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6

PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

in a second. I'd rather someone who bases their views on rational discourse than on inane fiction. Then again, I don't care what religion somebody is as long as they don't bring their religious views into the public (political) sphere.
LIttle Lulu





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 4
Reputation: 13

PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stephane Dion is an etheist Liberal. Or, Garth Turner described him as a "lapsed" Catholic.
LIttle Lulu





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 4
Reputation: 13

PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oops. I meant Dion is an Atheist. I always think that if someone does not believe in something they will fall for anything. The fact that Dion was first a Quebec separtist, then became so enamored with Marxism that he did his Thesis (at a University in France after he chose French citizenship over Canada) and THEN became a Canadian Federalist and was appointed the un-elected Unity Minister and THEN switched his allegience from Marxism to the worship of the Kyoto one world POnzi global wealth distribution God created by Maurice Strong -welll, sort of proves my point. This man WILL fall for anything.
ebolablue





Joined: 02 Mar 2007
Posts: 139
Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6

PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

believing in myself, humanity, and the rational minds of human beings is the same as believing in nothing? As Thomas Paine said "My mind is my own church."
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 10:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ebolablue wrote

Quote:
I'd rather someone who bases their views on rational discourse than on inane fiction.


Mein Kampf was a rational discourse.
So was the communist manifesto
But I guess you prefer atheist such as Hitler, Nietzsch,. Stalin, Mao, Paul Pot to men such as Gandhi, Wilberforce and Stephen Harper

How can you be so presumptious to assume that religion is an inane fiction when brilliant men like Stephen Harper have thought through and accepted these beliefs.

How rational is Stephane Dion. All he cares about is getting into power. Wheres the rational discourse with this man.

If men like Wilberforce had not brought his private religious views into the public (political) sphere there would still be slavery.

A person can base their views on rational discourse even if they are religious. Religion is very harmful when a person does not truly understand it but so can atheism be.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well said, mrsocko. For the record, I'm probably agnostic... but I'm very comfortable with religious people, and have no qualms voting for them. Ditto with atheists. I'm more concerned with policy and leadership qualities than religous (or secular) convictions.
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote
Quote:
but I'm very comfortable with religious people, and have no qualms voting for them. Ditto with atheists. I'm more concerned with policy and leadership qualities than religous (or secular) convictions.


Exactly. There are alot of good athesists, agnostic, Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc. and I'd vote for them too.

People who go against the tenents of their supposed beliefs are hippocrates. Supposed Christains who kill abortion doctors and Muslims who fly planes into buildings are probably not really Christian or Muslim as these religions preach against these things.

The media is to blame somewhat for ebolablue's opinion of religion. All the media shows is the bad stuff. They don't show all the millions of people in these religions who actually care and make life better for people.
ebolablue





Joined: 02 Mar 2007
Posts: 139
Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6

PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tell me, exactly, how were Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto rational discourses?

and no, the media isn't to blame for my view of religion. Amazingly enough, I've experienced enough of religion, and enough of actual real life, to realize that religion, though a fine personal view, has no rational meaning to secular government.

and to expect Mr. Harper's government to approach religion as a governing strategy is entirely inane, the Prime Minister is a politician first and foremost, why would he work with unpopular socially conservative views?


Last edited by ebolablue on Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:09 am; edited 1 time in total
winchry





Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 115
Reputation: 16.5Reputation: 16.5
Location: Sarnia, Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:08 am    Post subject: religion small factor Reply with quote

Religion is only one factor in policy making. Just because someone is a specific religion, they can still hold vary ideas. Religion affects policy but doesnt control it completely. Therfore it is up to ones morals and values to decide what is right and wrong. An Athiest could be just as against same sex marriage as, for example a Catholic, but for different reasons. Only when religion is taken to the extreme should it be a deciding factor in policy. If religion dictates a candidates life then it is a valid issue.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As an agnostic I would hope that most people would not base their voting habbits on religion. That being said; I base my votes on policy. If an atheist had anti-religion policies like so many self-identified atheists support, no I would not vote for them.

I think that remarks like Ebola's

Quote:
I'd rather someone who bases their views on rational discourse than on inane fiction.


Underline a seemingly militant attitude that many self-identified atheists take. I would have to argue that atheism in itself is not any more logical or "rational" than any religion. And I think that the assertion that it is shows nothing more than pure arrogance and lack of consideration(and respect) for another's thoughts, feelings, and religion. When you trample on someone's core beliefs (and in many cases value system) you should expect a hostile reaction.

Now, if an atheist leaves religion(or lack thereof) out of policy and discussion; I'd vote for them.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
But I guess you prefer atheist such as Hitler, Nietzsch,. Stalin, Mao, Paul Pot to men such as Gandhi, Wilberforce and Stephen Harper


This seems a little unfair. Mikhail Gorbachev, Richard Branson, Denis Diderot, Richard Feynman are also examples of atheists...

Depending on whether you consider more agnostic types atheists; Albert Einstein is often considered to fall within this realm.

There have certainly been a fair share of good and evil people on both sides of the fence; let's not debase a thought process simply because some of it's members might have been bad people.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ebolablue wrote:
tell me, exactly, how were Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto rational discourses?


Well, Mein Kampf certainly is not - but I see nothing particularly "irrational" about the Communist Manifesto. I may not agree with it, but one can definitely make the argument that the communist manifesto is very rational.
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ebolablue wrote:

Quote:
religion, though a fine personal view, has no rational meaning to secular government.


Inane fiction, no rational meaning.

INANE - Lacking sense or meaning

RATIONAL - characterized by truth or logic

So in your words religious people have no sense are liars and are illogical. Are you sure you shouldn't be on a Liberal board where these views are the norm.

Mein Kampf WAS a rational discourse for 50 million Germans in the 30's and 40's. Just because it makes no sense to our elightened minds doesn't mean it did not make sense and have meaning to the German people who thought it was logical and was the truth
ebolablue





Joined: 02 Mar 2007
Posts: 139
Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6

PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Since we arn't all living in 1934 Germany, please, tell me how Mein Kampf is rational right now. Rationality includes learning from history, and we learn from history that both communism and fascism are failed doctrines, so throwing out "omghilterandstalinandpolpot" as examples of what happens when we turn our back on spirituality....How about we look at the Enlightenment, at equality and liberty, as an example of what happens when the church's hegemony is broken.

And I'd classify myself as agnostic, I have no proof that a God doesn't exist, just as I have no proof that he does exist. Until proven otherwise, I don't see much of a reason to personally believe in fictional stories. I believe in myself, in the power of the human mind, and in humanity.

The relativist idea that all beliefs are created equally, that a belief of blind faith is just as credible and respectable as a belief of rational empiricism, is doomed to failure in a secular, pluralistic society.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 12

Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Who would vote for a Conervative Atheist?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB