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.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by nixie_nox
To me, Santorum answered this question perfectly in the debate last night.
The only thing that matters about one's faith, is that they have one. I don't care what flavor of religion it is, so long as they have a religion, and they make decisions based off a moral code that we can agree with. I could never trust someone to make the right decisions if they had no faith whatsoever, and I could never trust someone that seems fanatical about their faith.
The perfect candidate needs to be intelligent, educated, and spiritual, and we need to be able to predict how they will respond in certain circumstances based off their declared morality.
Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by MentalGiant
This debate might be too long for this thread, but to me, there is no such thing as a moral compass without a belief in a higher being, or a spiritual connection. A "true atheist" that believes a person is a cosmic accident, and the physical existence is solitary and finite, cannot possibly have a moral compass. In my opinion of course.
I don't think one has to subscribe to any particular religion, but they do have to believe in some pervasive spirituality that connects all living things and exists beyond our physical representation in this body.
Why would any living being, thinking it only had a limited time of existence and nothing more, limit itself to the laws of civilization? It should be strictly the law of the jungle for such a person. Consume and experience as much as possible in the limited time allotted. Pro-create for the species (and fun) as much as possible. Take what you can without regard for civility.
I cannot reconcile that there would be people that would truly believe they have nothing whatsoever after this physical existence, and then still willingly choose to work a mundane job, commit to one woman, follow the laws of society, and make very few waves. It seems illogical to me.
ETA:
And God doesn't "talk" to me, but it does communicate. God isn't a personified being, and it is beyond comprehension by a person, and the biggest mistakes all religions make is in trying to define God in a way the people can understand. That is a major short-coming of religion. We cannot understand.
And, I don't support Santorum, I just like that answer. Ron Paul is the only logical candidate to fix the woes of the US and the World, and he can only be successful with a landslide victory and a majority in Congress.edit on 19-10-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by MentalGiant
Why would any living being, thinking it only had a limited time of existence and nothing more, limit itself to the laws of civilization? It should be strictly the law of the jungle for such a person. Consume and experience as much as possible in the limited time allotted. Pro-create for the species (and fun) as much as possible. Take what you can without regard for civility.
I cannot reconcile that there would be people that would truly believe they have nothing whatsoever after this physical existence, and then still willingly choose to work a mundane job, commit to one woman, follow the laws of society, and make very few waves. It seems illogical to me.