Sounds like we'll get a new one of these soon, with a ton of republicans :v:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZuowNcuGsc[/media]
Mackenzie King believed he could commune with the spirits of his dead dogs, yet he was one of Canada's best prime ministers.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;38363707]Mackenzie King believed he could commune with the spirits of his dead dogs, yet he was one of Canada's best prime ministers.[/QUOTE]
I bet he didn't bring it into policy though.
[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;38364171]I bet he didn't bring it into policy though.[/QUOTE]
My point is that Richard Dawkins seems to be suggesting that people shouldn't vote for someone based on that individual's beliefs, regardless of whether their political policies reflect up on these beliefs or not, this is clearly contradictory to separation of church and state. Mackenzie King is simply an example of a politician who holds a belief system that Richard Dawkins would mostly call foolish, yet he is considered one of the greatest prime ministers.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;38363707]Mackenzie King believed he could commune with the spirits of his dead dogs, yet he was one of Canada's best prime ministers.[/QUOTE]
Well, I don't think anyone is arguing that a great leader can't have some moronics beliefs or a serious character flaw. History recognizes great men and women most any religion who held some manner of power. But the thing is, some people are great "for their TIME". I mean, Thomas Jefferson was an awesome founding father, but today? His passive attitude in regard to slavery and other races would ostracize him from anything to DO with government.
Still, I gotta admit, I'm not entirely onboard with Dawkins' sentiment here. I mean, it's a good question: does a man's beliefs being easily demonstrably debunked give them less leniency than those with beliefs just as bonkers, but far older and far more nebulous? I really can't say I know. I just feel like "don't vote Romney, because he's a Mormon: vote for that other Christian guy" leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I think there were a lot better reasons to vote for either of them, and unless we had an atheist candidate, the point is almost moot, aside from how strongly the candidates have acted upon their beliefs, or advertised them in the political theater.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;38364625]Well, I don't think anyone is arguing that a great leader can't have some moronics beliefs or a serious character flaw. History recognizes great men and women most any religion who held some manner of power. But the thing is, some people are great "for their TIME". I mean, Thomas Jefferson was an awesome founding father, but today? His passive attitude in regard to slavery and other races would ostracize him from anything to DO with government.
Still, I gotta admit, I'm not entirely onboard with Dawkins' sentiment here. I mean, it's a good question: does a man's beliefs being easily demonstrably debunked give them less leniency than those with beliefs just as bonkers, but far older and far more nebulous? I really can't say I know. I just feel like "don't vote Romney, because he's a Mormon: vote for that other Christian guy" leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I think there were a lot better reasons to vote for either of them, and unless we had an atheist candidate, the point is almost moot, aside from how strongly the candidates have acted upon their beliefs, or advertised them in the political theater.[/QUOTE]
It's the difference between hating a guy for thinking you can't go to the moon in 1979 and hating a guy for thinking you can't go to the moon while you're both on the moon.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.