In light of this new information, I propose that the LP nominate a light skinned black jewish christian muslim buddist hindu with mixed race heritage consisting of american indian, euro, african, chinese, Indonesian, Alaskan, with a great grand mother from Iceland and a hermaphrodite with big boobs.

WE will take the Presidency with 97.2% of he vote.

jonny6

As an atheist I find it all the more disturbing that this country is more willing to be lead, overall, by a class of people it actively persecutes than it is to be lead by someone who is a disbeliever.

... it also further justifies my position that the American public, in fact, DOES persecute atheist beliefs to the point where it is essentially impossible to live a viably, wholly irreligious lifestyle in this country without facing the spite and scorn of others around us.

... sorry for the screed there, folks. Just annoyed.

We forgive you. ;)

The answer is definitely option A.

The timing here was somewhat ironic. Just today I had the pleasure of being "taken aside" at my workplace because I had the *audacity* to *OFFEND* someone by saying -- and I quote the statement in its entirety, "I believe that modern physics is correct." (This was in response to the question, "I know you're an atheist, but *why* do you believe what you believe? I mean, what lead you to that conclusion?")

Eh. That's not even relevant to this conversation. But then again, maybe it is.

WHAT?! IanC, that really happened? How is someone's offense level (I don't really even know what to call it) your problem when you make such a benign statement? I hope you gave it to 'em good and defended yourself. I happen to agree it is a sad state when being a non-believer means more than the issues you might propose to help our country.

Were they merely offended because they couldn't successfully argue against your position? It either means they are not good at discussion or argument, or there is no logical defense for their own position, neither of which should make them offended by YOUR statement. They should be offended personally by their own inadequacies.

I still don't know who the mysterious "Offendee" is. I *do* know that they complained that I made "offensive religious remarks in the workplace" to others, and of course this circulated its way back to myself via my supervisor.

Good stuff.

So much for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and facing your accuser. You have to love policital correctnes. Everyone is so touchy.

I do have to be fair in all of this and remember that "freedom of speech" is something that can be contractually waivered -- such as, by, say, TOS contracts or Employee Handbooks when receiving remuneration.

But still. I can't tell you how many times I've heard (not at work mind you) that "Those damned atheists are ruining the country!" ... and had to bide my tongue. Then again, I *DO* live in Arizona.

Freedom of speech is one thing.

Communication is another.

Neither side will get anywhere by putting the other side on the defensive (where they cover their ears or shout back).

Taking or causing a defensive position doesn't work very well. If you find someone willing to discuss the issue, invite them to lunch and talk about it. That's my advice.

I don't know why anyone has a problem with atheists (isn't that where converts come from?) although I do think taking a DONATED Ten Commandments plaque off the courthouse wall is a little silly. It has historical significance in that arena so as long as it wasn't paid for with tax dollars it's no big deal.

Some of my best friends are atheists and some of the cruelest (if not irrational) people I've ever met are very religious. And yes, I agree with your assessment of workplace contracts, but your statement, if that was all you said, doesn't seem to cross any boundary that would be enforced by any workplace contract I've ever seen.

Personally, as an agnostic, I have seen the horror some people exhibit when they hear you don't believe in their God. Is it that threatening? Aren't most world leaders, military personnel, and police monotheists of some variety? Who is really to fear here? Again, it boils down to how are we going to fix this country's problems.

Recently, some jerk in a political chatroom managed to have me hit with a T.O.S. violation because I made some smart-mouthed remarks to him after he attacked me for saying that every war we fought after the War of 1812 (excluding the war in Afghanistan) was pointless and unnecessary.

He referred to me as an idiot. And, I responded by saying that he had a lousy understanding of history and that he should get his head out of his a**.

Communication skills don't help if the person offended isn't a party to the conversation in the first place.

Nick -- "taken aside" isn't "disciplined"; in terms of corporate policies it wasn't a "verbal warning" -- I'd still have to receive paperwork indicating it was, and this was days ago.

Stan, deciding not to support Japan with materiel in WWII because you have other interests does not justify their attack on Hawaii, and even if FDR knew about it causing him to move the fleet that still does not justify an attack. That's like me saying "I'm not going to sell you my gun, I'm going to move my car out of my driveway so you don't vanadalize it, and as a result you now have every right to blow up my house."

But you can call me whatever you want, I won't report you.

Nick -- I have to say that insofar as Japan & Germany goes, from a *national sovereignty* position, we DID in fact goad Japan & Germany both into making attacks against us. And I'm not just talking about failing to sell them materials.

Doesn't justify the fact that THEY took the bait, but still. There were other ways to go about things that weren't ever given a chance.

After clicking unto the link in Stephen Gordon's initial posting, I discovered this poll didn't mention Iraq, the economy, or civil liberties.
Therefore, the poll didn't address the question Stephen claims:
"A black female Catholic candidate probably has a better chance of winning than someone who might end the war in Iraq while restoring the economy and our civil liberties."

Stephen, if you want to address war issues, please do so directly and clearly. You keep on referring to the Iraq threater in this world war, while on the surface addressing another issue, and assuming libertarians agree on foreign policy.

Not all people are as rational as libertarians; so what else is new? I'm beginning to wonder about the rationality of some libertarian leaders...

Not all people are as rational as libertarians

thank god.

Ian is atheist and Nick is agnostic. I knew I liked you guys. Not that I don't like the rest of you. Just by being here we all have very much in common.

Running for City Council puts my atheism in a precarious position. I KNOW I won't get elected if I am frank about my views. I have concocted a slippery politician way out of the question "what religion are you?" My answer is "I was raised Catholic and baptised at St. Sylvester." The statement itself is true, but does NOT answer the question. It is a moral struggle with me to be overtly misleading in order to acheive my goal of Libertarian representation on Council.

If you really get pressed further on the issue, Coach, you could always say "What does religion have to do with lowering taxes in this town, which is my goal." You could add, "I am in favor of private charity which churches are also in favor of." And, "I am in favor of strong businesses with low taxes which many churchgoers are also in favor of." Turn the question into a political discussion and you might just make more friends than enemies. Don't let them railroad you.

Personal charisma, poise, and the ability to think on his or her feet and speak in terms that matter to voters are, it seems to me, the most important characteristics of a candidate. Beyond that, a thick skin and a stubborn determination to win help a lot. And finally, it would be nice if a candidate actually shared one's ideology, principles, and point of view.

People who incorporate all of the necessary personal qualities are rare; those who understand libertarian ideology and adhere to libertarian principles are even rarer. But they do exist. When we find such people, we need to support them to the hilt. Those who have lesser amounts of such qualities should aim for lower office, because incumbency (even when you are trying to move up the latter) is an important advantage, which can mitigate a candidate's weaknesses.

Jim why are you running for office if you just want to mislead the voters? People should know who they are voting for and what their views are. If you feel that the people of that area don't welcome or share your view point, then why do you think that you are the right person to represent them?

Jim; here's a better phrasing for you:

"I was raised catholic but I am not religious. I support the freedom of religion."

It answers the question and avoids the "A-word" that is such a catalyst for unthinking response.

Sarah -- it might just be that Jim believes that there are views that ought to be vastly more important in government than what religion one is, and he also knows that there are too many people out there who won't think with the right part of the brain when it comes to the "religion question."

My intention is not to mislead voters. Which is why I said I struggle with it. If I answer directly, I won't get elected, it's that simple. If you have advice on how to overcome this obstacle, I'm open to ideas. But if your intent is just to bash me because I haven't found a way around my conundrum, you need not waste your time.

It is also important to note that my religions opinions have NO relevance to the responsibilities of the office I am running for. However, taking the stance that "my religous view are irrelevant" is likewise condemning.

One thing in my favor is that I HAVE studied the Bible in some depth. I probably have more knowledge of Catholocism than most people that will ask me about it. I just don't BELIEVE it.

In my previous post, it should have been

"(even when you are trying to move up the LADDER, and not just get re-elected to the same office)"

I hit "post" before I fixed that. Oops. :-)

After having read, almost all of the comments, my question is: How do you separate; Culture, Heritage,Religion? All of these words are very overlapping. Which came first? How does one impact the other?

No one sees anyone for what they say they are; you see someone for what you see. I too believe in the Laws of Physics. The Laws of Physics do not deny a God, they merely explain how God creates.

In 1979 my daughter had a Heart Transplant at Stanford. She was never conscious (sp) inside the operating room. Yet she described the operation exactly. Who brought the ice checst in with the new myocardium, what color the chest was, what door they came in, when she (my daugher) left the table and hovered in the corner, the make and brand of the saw that was used, when nurses left the room and came back.

Now, my dear atheists, please explain.