Progressive Christian or Avaricious Atheist

[micatala]

This is a take off of the Apocalypse or Atheist thread.

I do not intend for this to be a debate about to our current administration.
Here is the scenario:
There are 2 candidates:
One is an atheist who has promised strong action in regards to pollution and global warming. He favors gay marriage, abortion rights and keeping prayer out of public schools. He does not attend church and has promised to block any attempt to teach the creationism in public schools. He is single and comes from Oregon.
The other candidate is a Christian. He has always gone to church, has a beautiful wife and children. He is from North Dakota. He also believes that Pastor John Hagee and other major fundamentalist Christian leaders are correct: The apocalypse is upon us and the 2nd coming of Jesus is eminent so we must prepare at all costs.

Who gets your vote?

I responded that I would pick the guy from Oregon, and then posed my own question, which is the debate question for this thread.

I'll pose another question:

Who would you pick?:

Candidate A: Christian, against abortion but does not favor a total ban but rather a regulatory process involving an application (something like licensing a gun), very pro-environmental and anti-war. Against the death penalty. Ambivalent on gay marriage. Honest as the day is long.

Candidate B: An atheist. Backed by big oil. Has changed views on a number of big issues for political expediency. Also touts his environmental views, but her votes show a tendency to forget these when oil is involved.

[Chem]

micatala wrote:
I'll pose another question:

Who would you pick?:

Candidate A: Christian, against abortion but does not favor a total ban but rather a regulatory process involving an application (something like licensing a gun), very pro-environmental and anti-war. Against the death penalty. Ambivalent on gay marriage. Honest as the day is long.

Candidate B: An atheist. Backed by big oil. Has changed views on a number of big issues for political expediency. Also touts his environmental views, but her votes show a tendency to forget these when oil is involved.

Whatever about the bias in Cmass's question, I don't think Big Oil would back any candidate no matter how wishy washy their environmental beliefs were, especially a woman ! (Is it Hillary perhaps?)

With regards to supporting either, I'll take the 5th on this one .

[micatala]

Whatever about the bias in Cmass's question, I don't think Big Oil would back any candidate no matter how wishy washy their environmental beliefs were, especially a woman

You don't think Big Oil backs Bush? Frank Murkowski and others from Alaska? Maybe we could dig up some campaign contribution info.

Certainly Bush's position on global warming is in line with the disinformation put out by Exxon funded scientists.

ALso, the candidates are entirely hypothetical. I can't say I even know what Hilary's positions on many issues are.

[Chem]

You don't think Big Oil backs Bush? Frank Murkowski and others from Alaska? Maybe we could dig up some campaign contribution info.

Certainly Bush's position on global warming is in line with the disinformation put out by Exxon funded scientists.

You have misunderstood my reply. I might not live in America but I'm well aware of Bush's backers and his stance on the environment, his distaste for Kyoto etc.

However, I'm also not aware that his has had any environmental agenda no matter how poorly thought out, which is what your theoretical candidate had.

The comment regarding Hilary Clinton was due to how you ended your post on your second candidate (ie her)

[Cephus]

Candidate A: Christian, against abortion but does not favor a total ban but rather a regulatory process involving an application (something like licensing a gun), very pro-environmental and anti-war. Against the death penalty. Ambivalent on gay marriage. Honest as the day is long.

Candidate B: An atheist. Backed by big oil. Has changed views on a number of big issues for political expediency. Also touts his environmental views, but her votes show a tendency to forget these when oil is involved.

Assuming you must vote for one of the above (there is no Candidate C) and you cannot choose not to vote or vote for "none of the above", I'd vote for candidate B. Of course, you've stacked the deck, trying to make Candidate A the good guy and Candidate B the bad guy.

[doomguard]

Given the parameters of the question, I would vote for the christian and hope this candidate was able to stay strong in the face of the opposition he would face from others of faith.

[doomguard]

Assuming you must vote for one of the above (there is no Candidate C) and you cannot choose not to vote or vote for "none of the above", I'd vote for candidate B. Of course, you've stacked the deck, trying to make Candidate A the good guy and Candidate B the bad guy.

Might I ask why? Shouldn't a candidates platform have more influence than their religious views. Voting only on religious views is one of my complaints with the vast christian voting block. There are more subjects than god in the world of politics. In addition, candidates who have strong ties to big oil (Bush & Co.) have in no way helped prepare the nation for the day when oil prices will reach the point of being truly unaffordable for the common worker.

Personally I like the idea of a Candidate C as well, but my vote for the various libertarian candidates over the years have not helped to make them strong enough to face down either of the two major parties. No matter how many times I vote for the other guy, A or B wins. I personally don't like the stark dichotomy of the system, but this is not going to change very soon, unless one of the two parties is dismantled fully from within.

Just curious.

[micatala]

Assuming you must vote for one of the above (there is no Candidate C) and you cannot choose not to vote or vote for "none of the above", I'd vote for candidate B. Of course, you've stacked the deck, trying to make Candidate A the good guy and Candidate B the bad guy.

One can, of course, always not vote. I did not include a C since, although I myself often vote for 'third party' candidates, very rarely does one ever get elected or even get taken very seriously here in the U.S.

Assuming you must vote for one of the above (there is no Candidate C) and you cannot choose not to vote or vote for "none of the above", I'd vote for candidate B. Of course, you've stacked the deck, trying to make Candidate A the good guy and Candidate B the bad guy.

It is fair to say I 'stacked the deck' to make candidate B look bad to those with certain viewpoints.

One of the questions, that no one has addressed to date, is the extent to which personal characteristics should trump political views in making a decision. My personal view is that personal characteristics matter a lot. Unfortunately, it is also sometimes difficult to impossible to accurately determine these, although many times we do have ample clues.

Honesty is a pretty basic characteristic to me. I did not vote for Clinton in 1996 (going with Dole) mainly because I had concerns about his honesty and integrity, even though I had profound differences with some of Dole's positions. I should also note I occasionally vote 'to send a message', especially if the situation seems to be a foregone conclusion. Clinton was going to win anyway, so there was not much chance I was going to have to live with a Dole Presidency (not that I think it would have been awful).

I did not vote for the first Bush because I did not buy his contention that he was 'out of the loop' when it came to the Iran-contra scandal (pardon me dating myself with this somewhat ancient history).

ANother characteristic of concern is the extent to which the candidate seems motivated by or excessively associated with money and/or power.

A third characteristic is the candidate's ability or tendency to be able to see the merits in 'both sides' or 'multiple sides' of an issue.

A fourth is intellectual ability and integrity. Does the candidate take into account all the information relevant to a given issue, or does he or she cherry-pick? George W is a classic cherry-picker. He doesn't care about information counter to his viewpoint, he only cares about his convictions.

Are these types of characteristics irrelevant? Would you never consider these, and always go with the particular political views (pro-environement, etc.)? or is the 'identity' of the candidate the most important thing (Christian, minority, etc.)

[Chem]

Are these types of characteristics irrelevant? Would you never consider these, and always go with the particular political views (pro-environement, etc.)? or is the 'identity' of the candidate the most important thing (Christian, minority, etc.)

All these characteristics are important in a candidate but unfortunately intelligence and certain other characteristics seem to take a back seat in the Presidential elections in the US. It seems to be the candidate with the more backing, TV slots and backing from some of the "voting blocks" (Christian Right, women etc.) that has the better chance of winning no matter what their personal outlook on issues are. This is a serious problem for Democracy in the US.

The other unfortunate thing for all voters is how good a liar the candidate is- when Clinton lied, no one died is a perfect example that covers the last two Presidents of the US.

It's an artform that politicians have learned over time (that and the ability to turn the spotlight on something completely different). We as voters have to try and sort out the actual message and unfortunately we all have a tendency to follow our heart when voting.

[Cephus]

One can, of course, always not vote. I did not include a C since, although I myself often vote for 'third party' candidates, very rarely does one ever get elected or even get taken very seriously here in the U.S.

That kind of invalidates the question in your hypothetical though if people don't vote, doesn't it?

One of the questions, that no one has addressed to date, is the extent to which personal characteristics should trump political views in making a decision. My personal view is that personal characteristics matter a lot. Unfortunately, it is also sometimes difficult to impossible to accurately determine these, although many times we do have ample clues.

If those personal characteristics are likely to color how they do their job, then absolutely they need to be taken into account. Unfortunately, we've seen a lot of cases, especially in recent history, where Christian politicians have really gone overboard with their faith on matters of policy, from the White House down.

Honesty is a pretty basic characteristic to me. I did not vote for Clinton in 1996 (going with Dole) mainly because I had concerns about his honesty and integrity, even though I had profound differences with some of Dole's positions. I should also note I occasionally vote 'to send a message', especially if the situation seems to be a foregone conclusion. Clinton was going to win anyway, so there was not much chance I was going to have to live with a Dole Presidency (not that I think it would have been awful).

Messages really don't make a difference, it's only who wins and who loses. By "sending a message", you still have to live under the winner, you don't get any points by voting for some oddball candidate who will never get 2% of the vote.

I did not vote for the first Bush because I did not buy his contention that he was 'out of the loop' when it came to the Iran-contra scandal (pardon me dating myself with this somewhat ancient history).

I didn't vote for him either. In fact, the last Republican I voted for in the Presidential race was Reagan, thereby dating myself even more.

ANother characteristic of concern is the extent to which the candidate seems motivated by or excessively associated with money and/or power.

Which is *ALL* politicians, especially in the Presidential race. You have little chance of becoming president in this country unless you're filthy stinking rich to begin with. I think this needs to change.

Are these types of characteristics irrelevant? Would you never consider these, and always go with the particular political views (pro-environement, etc.)? or is the 'identity' of the candidate the most important thing (Christian, minority, etc.)

Of course I consider them all. Unfortunately, we have a system where you can promise anything you want to get elected, but never be held accountable for any of it. Lying, cheating and stealing is expected from our candidates. Smear campaigns are the norm. Anyone who doesn't engage in these doesn't win.

It's a sad fact, but it is the truth of the modern world.