Rephrasing the ?: Would you vote for a candidate who uses the Bible to understand the world, rejecting science

Question

Heres the more broad question,

A candidate who rejects scientific theories when they are in direct contradiction of the Bible.

This candidate does not keep these beliefs private but instead announces that (s)he rejects these modern scientific theories.

Qualification: The candidate states that (s)he does not want to force the Bible into the public schools, rather wants to keep religion out of the public schools.

The candidate doesn't want to take christmas carols out of school just doesn't want the Biblical creation story or any creation story taught in a science class,

My qualification is specific to science class

Answer 1

This is a little more extreme than the evolution example. I consider religion to be the first science; it attempted to explain the world around us. Albeit to simple means, but science clearly has been the next step, the evolution if you will, in classifying and understanding our world. I couldn't respect someone that put the bible before science, and they would not get my vote.

Answer 2

If the candidate stipulates that their personal views have nothing to do with what kind of policies they are an advocate of, I don't give a rat's behind.

If the candidate wants to talk about what should or should not be done about school policy, and if that candidate is in fact running for the state legislature or a local school board, I would want to know more about what the candidate meant by the extremely vague talk about "keeping religion out of the public schools." Religion has always been IN public schools, for example, in the choral music programs and in historical studies.

Oh, science and the evolution theory. In that case, that candidate gets my vote ............... if I were going to vote, which I'm not.

Answer 3

There are many Christians out there that are strong of faith, yet know how to respect the beliefs of another. That being said, as long as I knew he/she could legislate with that frame of mind, I would be ok.

Faith is something that should be admired, not admonished. And I think Christians get a bad reputation from the "die hards" in politics. Christianity isn't about forcing others to believe the way you do. They should spread the good word, and respect those who hear but not listen.

Any candidate who seeks to instill Christianity, or any other religion, into law will never NEVER get my vote. Thats why we have a 1st amendment, to freely decide for ourselves.

Answer 4

I would be concerned with the policies she/he wants, not his or her beliefs. Not wanting to force the bible into public schools is a good thing; forbidding students to discuss it in an atmosphere that permits discussion of alternative beliefs also would be a bad thing.

I would vote for a Presidential candidate who wants to promote development of nonlethal methods of terminating pregnancies, fighting crime, and repelling/capturing terrorists and other enemy forces. Other than that I almost don't care if she/he believes the world is flat or the moon made of cheese.

For example, there is a very liberal candidate who supports most gay rights, and is prolife (which I see as liberal), but also unfortunately talks of Divine sovereignty on some issues ( see http://www.voteforjoe.com ). As long as his idea of "Divine sovereignty" doesn't affect policy in a way that oppresses those who disagree, I would vote for him if all other candidates support either capital punishment or abortion (both Hillary and Rudy support both).

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nonlethalalternatives/

Answer 5

i'm able to assure that there's no longer something "each residing Bible pupil" concurs on. it particularly is an extremely fake assertion. in basic terms Jehovah's Witnesses evaluate their translation the superb. I incredibly have study that the superb translation is a Catholic translation because of the fact they do no longer declare to be a Bible based church. maximum of their doctrines come from traditions, that they say, predate the Bible. for this reason, they have not got an time table of translating to compare their theology (besides the indisputable fact that the extra writings in a Catholic Bible do help a number of their doctrines). the main extensively primary English translation by ability of Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants interior the U.S. is the Revised time-honored version.

Answer 6

Well, if this President considered Darwinian theory to be a "creation story", then I would have to not vote for him/her, because unlike Creationism, Darwinian theory does have evidence backing it up. Not only that, but I just don't think I could vote for a candidate who has no respect for reason or science.

Answer 7

I would never vote for a candidate that doesn't have enough intelligence to appreciate or recognize the value of science. They are such hypocrites in my eyes. They use the gifts of science every day in their lives. They're okay with it when it gives them artificial light, medicine, technology they use themselves to spread their rejection of it, etc. But when it extends beyond their layman's understanding they reject it out of hand in favor of a religious book that offers theories even more outlandish than the science they reject. I could never vote for a candidate with such a dull and constipated mind.

Answer 8

Don't get me wrong. I am a religious ( but not a fanatic) and I am also patriotic. However, I would have to look at the "big picture" I would never vote for someone based only on what their views on religion is. School is for academic learning and Sunday school is for religious learning.

Answer 9

Absolutely not, you describe a person with a Dark Ages mentality.

Answer 10

Uh, no. I like my presidents to have a brain, thanks, and be able to use it. Anyone who really believes that some god-thing created the world out of cosmic fluff in six days clearly doesn't have a good handle on his/her gray matter.