Beastie, this isn't a contradiction because there is a difference between being a legitimate citizen and a good presidential candidate. Certainly you're not suggesting all citizens would be good presidents?
A president should act in the best interest of those who elected him/her, and if this forum is any indication, an atheist president might treat the entire country with contempt. You don't seem to have much tolerance for those who choose to believe in God, and an intellectual supremacy approach is often taken. It just seems unfathomable that an atheist could become President, in such a God fearing society.
For crying out loud, American theists are even weary about electing a man who thinks abortion should be legal. How much more difficult would it be for an atheist to be elected?
You've ignored what Mitt actually said - that religion is necessary for freedom. He wasn't just saying, as you seem to portray here, that an atheist wouldn't be a good president because he wouldn't represent the majority. He's saying that atheists can't handle freedom.
And that was applauded. That is simply rank bigotry, and it was applauded.
So my point is that if this kind of bigotry can be applauded, there's no reason to think that to state that atheists should not be viewed as real citizens or patriots would be so wildly inappropriate no politician would dream of saying it.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
I think Mitt accomplished his goal as a politician and presidential candidate -- he got more of the available votes. Because of the present cross-section of religious beliefs in this country, and his republican party, I think his approach was successful. He was wise to not touch Mormon doctrine...any comment would have been challenged. Sure, he offended the atheists, but in 2007, there aren't many Republican atheists, so no loss there.
He mentioned something interesting to me. He talked about the empty cathedrals in Europe. He expressed his disappointment that they are not used much anymore for worship. He implied that this is a travesty. I disagree. Religion has had a major impact in our history as human beings. These buildings represent that. They are revered as a part of that history. One cannot enter these historical buildings and not stand in awe of the architecture, artwork, and energy that has gone into the construction and maintenance of them...despite that person possibly not believing the tenants of that religion.
Personally, I see that happening to many buildings in this country as well...as we become less controlled by the dogmas of organized religion -- but we can appreciate the history of what got us here today.
dartagnan wrote: In this sense, I believe I was right when I said neither religion nor atheism fosters reasoning.
I don't think there's any doubt about this, and I don't think anyone would (or could) seriously argue that either could. But I think you have what people are implying backwards. Atheism does not foster reasoning; reasoning fosters atheism.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.