Posted on 09/28/2015 10:55:58 AM PDT by mystery-ak
Poll open to guests
yes.
Religious or Christian?
Definitely a poll that needs some heavy Freeping.
No, I would write in a vote if no other option.
ag·nos·tic/aɡˈnästik/ noun 1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. adjective 1. of or relating to agnostics or agnosticism.
What you want another Jimmy Carter? That’s what I’ve been told.
Define non-religious.
I’m not Jewish. Is that the same as non-Jewish. Different than anti-Jewish?
Define the terms.
Athiest or Agnostic? It’s a difference that I believe is significant enough to consider.
Athiest is actively against the existence of a higher being or creator.
Stupid poll.
The question at the headline is different than the actual question....
Assuming somebody was your dream candidate in every way other than religion, would you vote for them?
The second poster there got it right.
Since the correct answer is not one of the options I couldn’t answer the poll.
Religion is, or should be, a private matter. Stupid poll.
Judge Bork was a non-believer when he was nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court. Eventually, he received the gift of Faith and died a Roman Catholic in his old age. WHEN God decides to give Grace is not for us to decide.
Judge Bork was a good man. An honest man. He would have made a superior Justice even before his receiving the Gift of Faith.
At very least, a man should have a good foundation in Natural Law, and at least be open to God.
Depends entirely on the candidate. If you are in a foxhole, outnumbered, taking incoming, with dead comrades all around you, is it really wise to take religious exception about who covers your flank, as long as he is willing to fight your enemy?
Right now, we are in such a perilous condition, and rigid conservatives seem unable to see past their ideals, stop wishful thinking and face the current reality. We need a leader who can at least take us off the brink of world tyranny under global elites. That’s not going to happen if people stay home if they don’t get their personal preference nominated.
Representatives for the right have failed over and over to make their case effectively and then stand up for what they say they believe in. They have let the left walk all over them, shame them and bully them since the 60s, with no respite except the Reagan years. Now they want to just blame the left instead of taking responsibility for having halfheartedly played what they failed to see as a hard, long game against tough odds, which they have therefore mostly lost — particularly in the past 3 years, when they were voted an advantage that they then squandered.
Comforting oneself with moral indignation at the preening, lying and diabolical winners is no substitute for effective solutions.
If anyone at any time gives me the positions of the anti-theists and portrays that as mere atheism, I confront them on their lie, and begin to grill them on what else they are personally dishonest about. I do not (of course) just let that go because anti-theism gave us Stalin, Mao, and Pol-pot. You can not in good conscience let something that nasty and dangerous go. Not even at a family gathering.
yes absolutely
Not a narrow enough question.
Replace religious with Christian.
I shouldnt have said narrow, better is it was not an accurate enough, or precise enough, question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.