There is a conflict of interest - the president is supposed to protect the country, but evangelicals believe mass destruction will precede the rapture. Therefore they would be happy if a major city was destroyed or a neuclear bomb detonated. I beleive this alone is reason to ban evangelicals from the presidency. Do you agree?
2007-07-20 06:57:00 · 23 answers · asked by TheEconomist 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If you think our economy is going well you are truly foolish. Learn to read.
Saddam didn't orchestrate 9/11 so why do I care he's dead?
2007-07-20 07:01:55 · update #1
I read more than one article about Christians who felt Katrina was a sign of the impending apocalypse.
2007-07-20 07:07:14 · update #2
I don't think anyone who would put thier religious values above thier country's needs should be president.
2007-07-20 07:08:36 · update #3
Jeff M - You should convert to Islam then.
2007-07-20 07:09:38 · update #4
I gave coragryph a thumbs up to prove I can recognize a valid criticism of my question. I like it when people use facts, quotes, and evidence to support thier arguments. Everything else is just babble.
2007-07-20 07:12:01 · update #5
Yes I believe Athiests make the best rules. They don't allow scruples to stand in the way of what's best for the country. Let me ask you this: If you had a miracle invention that would end hunger, poverty, and crime for all time, and you offered to use it on the condition that President Bush renounce Christ and pee on a bible, do you think he would do it? Don't you think that he SHOULD?
2007-07-20 07:14:22 · update #6
MoltarSucks called me out so now I have to go find those old news articles. I'll be back wielding the evidetiary sword of revelation, slicing the blindfolds which render the ignorant sightless.
2007-07-20 07:18:36 · update #7
mbush40 - Bush signed a law allowing government funds to support religious charities. In my opinion this violates the constitutional provision you cited.
2007-07-20 07:20:19 · update #8
GodblassAmerica/Anti-liberal: Typical evangelical argument: a lot of adjectives, not a polysyllabic word or fact to be found.
2007-07-20 07:24:21 · update #9
NO
2007-07-20 07:01:39 · answer #1 · answered by Brian 7 · 6⤊ 2⤋
Perhaps the so-called "Christan Zionists" should try for President of Israel since they seem to be more concerned about there than the US.
Very bizarrely when you consider how many Palestinians are actually Christan.
The rapture stuff is disturbing- the idea of bringing on the world's destruction and then being 'ruptured' (sic) has absolutely NO grounds in traditional western Christianity and is a totally selfish outlook to boot.
They go hand in hand with the NWO run media which why they get an easy time!
The mainstream Churches should do more to condemn it-- not least since it represents a major heresy AND a serious threat to world peace.
2007-07-20 14:37:00 · answer #2 · answered by celvin 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. That would be religious discrimination.
As for Bible prophecy, there is debate as to which would happen first.
Some believe that God will take his followers up to heaven first. After which point, there will be period of tribulation for those left on earth, at which point event such as those you list would take place on a worldwide scale.
I can't think of any Christian who would rejoice in the destruction of a major city. I sure didn't see anyone in my church shouting with glee when Katrina hit New Orleans. I saw a call to help, and we actually built a new house for a pastor in Mississippi in the aftermath.
That you have posted this shows you truly misunderstand evangelism.
2007-07-20 14:04:40 · answer #3 · answered by MoltarRocks 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Should it be "illegal"? No.
Should the American public be smart enough to not let it happen again?
You betcha. I agree that the more Evangelical somebody is, the less capable they are of leading those who are not Evangelical. That is, the more their interests directly oppose those of the general public.
However, a law such as you propose (actually, due to its nature it would require a Consitutional amendment) directly violates the prohibition of religious litmus tests.
For better or for worse, we must depend on the voting public to make good decisions. That's why its called a Democracy.
2007-07-20 14:20:18 · answer #4 · answered by Elana 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
There is not anything wrong with having an evangelical as president. The problem comes when they start claiming to have a mandate from God to do certain things. When someone claims that God told them to do something, it automatically ends the argument without discussion. This should not be legal in politics.
2007-07-20 14:15:53 · answer #5 · answered by Cody 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
To answer your pathetic question, NO!
Terrorist today are 95% Muslim. History will tell you that Christians are the best defense against Muslims FACT!
Our constitution is set up with rules that state the qualifications to be president. It also says there is to be a separation of Church and State. Where in history has this been broken? NEVER!
God Bless!
2007-07-20 14:15:28 · answer #6 · answered by mbush40 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. But I think their opponents have the duty in the debates to ask them if they think there will still be a United States of America at the end of the term in four years, and why or why not. And, barring a satisfactory answer, the opponent then has the duty to say, "This guy is unfit for the Presidency."
If only Lieutenant Kerry had said that in 2004. Unfortunately, Senator Kerry is the one who showed up for the debates.
2007-07-20 14:00:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I don't think that any religious group should be excluded from the presidency. I do think that voters should think twice about any politician who seems to think that he's on a mission from God, as is the case for George W. Bush.
Somehow, American voters have come to believe that "doubt" is a dirty word and a trait that no leader should have. The U.S. would be in a lot less trouble if it had had a president who had entertained the possiblity that he might be wrong and listened to opinions other than those that confirmed his prejudices.
2007-07-20 14:01:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
No way! The Evangelicals are awesome choices for the presidency.
And for your info., the Constitution states that religious orientation isn't a factor for running for the presidency.
2007-07-20 14:21:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
NO.
To quote the Constitution: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Article VI.
2007-07-20 13:59:53 · answer #10 · answered by coragryph 7 · 8⤊ 2⤋
If Evangelicals practiced what they preached, then that might be a problem.
If there platform is that they would think of destruction as a good thing, chances are there not going to win.
2007-07-20 14:00:02 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋