It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

People With No Religion Underrepresented...in New Congress

page: 7
11
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: 3n19m470


How about people with no money? Are they being equally represented? Seeing as how they make up the majority of our nation...

No, they aren't. Not proportionally.




posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I'd rather vote for an average Joe than these connected people who are born into wealth and power. Most of us know at least 1 or 2 people who have an admirable sense of integrity and a firm grasp on moral values who would be great for our country if they studied a little political science. The only thing is, these are the type of people who would be the most reluctant to "seize power" due to the very traits that would make them a good candidate...



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   


the one who tells me our basic rights are not to be infringed on because they are ours from an agency beyond man and thus not man's to tamper with is getting a leg up


I find this to be a strange argument for several reasons. One, it sounds like it came from a think tank somewhere in DC, two no can agree on what their deity believes in the first place, thirdly, most religious people are only concerned about what or who god doesn't like, fourth, I've never heard of a religion that talks about human rights, and lastly, religious people use their beliefs to take away peoples' rights every day. I can't believe anyone could be ignorant enough to believe the religion protects human rights.

Atheists generally don't persecute people but religious people do, or try to, every day so I can't see how you can trust them in that regard, and I say this as a former christian.


edit on 31-1-2015 by CB328 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: 3n19m470


The only thing is, these are the type of people who would be the most reluctant to "seize power" due to the very traits that would make them a good candidate...


EXACTLY!

Like Plato said - the ones who are truly worthy of leadership would not want it.
Philosophers......
that's such an important thing to keep in mind.

I think that many 'elected reps' have no business running things. It's the people who would refuse it unless 'drafted' that have the integrity.

Given that only philosophers can have knowledge, they are clearly the ones best able to grasp what is good for the city, and so are in the best position to know how to run and govern the city. If we only knew that they were virtuous—or at least not inferior to others in virtue—then, Socrates’s friends agree, we could be sure that they are the ones most fit to rule.

Luckily, we do know that philosophers are superior in virtue to everyone else. A philosopher loves truth more than anything else (“philosopher” means “lover of truth or wisdom”); his entire soul strives after truth. This means that the rational part of his soul must rule, which means that his soul is just.

www.sparknotes.com...



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   

edit on 2/6/2015 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics
 
11
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join