|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:55 pm Post subject: American Voters Prefer Muslims to Atheists |
 |
|
| Quote: |
WASHINGTON - One in four people in the U.S. said in a recent poll that they would be less likely to support a presidential candidate who is Mormon, an ominous sign for Republican contender Mitt Romney.
ADVERTISEMENT
Yet the survey found two groups, atheists and Muslims, were even less likely to win votes.
Sixty-one percent of those questioned said they would be less likely to support a presidential candidate who did not believe in God. Forty-five percent said the same for a Muslim contender.
Only 5 percent or fewer said they would be likelier to support candidates who were atheists, Muslims or Mormons, according to the poll by two nonpartisan research groups, the Pew Research Center and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. |
http://news.yahoo.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
only 5 % said they'd vote for someone who didn't believe in a god? 
gawd, america is a land of hypocrites and fanatics, spread unevenly |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dome Vans
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
only 5 % said they'd vote for someone who didn't believe in a god? Shocked
gawd, america is a land of hypocrites and fanatics, spread unevenly |
Eeeeep! Well put. Any policy making that isn't fuelled and based on a non existent deity, anyone! Anyone who doesn't believe that adam and eve were the first people, you're not going to get any votes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| VanIslander wrote: |
only 5 % said they'd vote for someone who didn't believe in a god?
gawd, america is a land of hypocrites and fanatics, spread unevenly |
No, it said
| Quote: |
Only 5 percent or fewer said they would be likelier to support candidates who were atheists... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dome Vans wrote: |
| Quote: |
only 5 % said they'd vote for someone who didn't believe in a god? Shocked
gawd, america is a land of hypocrites and fanatics, spread unevenly |
Eeeeep! Well put. Any policy making that isn't fuelled and based on a non existent deity, anyone! Anyone who doesn't believe that adam and eve were the first people, you're not going to get any votes. |
What sound does it make when a vinegar truck and a water truck collide?
Do you even read posts? Or, do you see an insult against the U.S. and jump at the chance to agree like one of Pavlov's dogs? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| VanIslander wrote: |
| gawd, america is a land of hypocrites and fanatics, spread unevenly |
That's a funny line. I like the "[comma] spread unevenly" addition. Did you write that? Wanna know who to give credit to when I steal it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dome Vans
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Do you even read posts? Or, do you see an insult against the U.S. and jump at the chance to agree like one of Pavlov's dogs? |
dead on Pligganease, you are as intelligent and thoughtful as your avatar suggests. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dome Vans wrote: |
| dead on Pligganease, you are as intelligent and thoughtful as your avatar suggests. |
By the way, the answer was "Douche!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Funny to see all this Yank-bashing from the Commonwealth types...
| Quote: |
Buckingham Palace recently announced that Queen Elizabeth's eldest grandson is engaged to be married. Peter Phillips, 29, is the son of Anne, "the Princess Royal," who, for a time, was second in the line of succession for the British Crown.
Now Princess Anne, after her brothers and their children, is ninth in succession. Her son Peter is 10th, a standing which means, for all practical purposes, he will never be king. But to be in the line of succession at all is itself a source of identity, a key element of membership in a royal family.
Peter Phillips's bride-to-be is Autumn Kelly, 31, a Canadian. But there is a problem: The otherwise lucky woman is a baptized Roman Catholic. Press reports suggest that she takes her religious identity seriously.
The British royal family functions as the organizing center of universal distraction, yet serious questions are occasionally surfaced by its standing at the intersection of culture, tradition and power. The engagement of Peter Phillips and Autumn Kelly is at issue because, according to British law, one of them is going to be required to make a painful decision. Either Phillips must renounce his place in the line of succession or Kelly must renounce her religion.
|
| Quote: |
Every so often, reformers have introduced parliamentary legislation to repeal this discriminatory provision. As recently as last year, such efforts were beaten back. The restriction's defenders argue that, because the British monarch is simultaneously the head of the Church of England, it is appropriate to protect the succession from Roman Catholics. The narrow issue of anti-Catholicism quickly becomes the larger one of protecting the Established Church from disestablishment.
Other monarchies of Europe, where royalty and denominational identity are intertwined, have analogous problems of succession. But the argument that British anti-Catholicism protects the Established Church fails because the exclusion there is so narrow. Nothing in British law prohibits an heir to the throne from marrying a Jew or a Muslim. It is only "papists" who are banned.
|
Just so it's clear: as recently as last year, the British reaffirmed their legal commitment to barring members of a particular religion from becoming head of state.
Of course, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and all other Commonwealth monarchies are beholden to these archaic absurdities as well.
http://tinyurl.com/39mceq |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
Funny to see all this Yank-bashing from the Commonwealth types...
| Quote: |
Buckingham Palace recently announced that Queen Elizabeth's eldest grandson is engaged to be married. Peter Phillips, 29, is the son of Anne, "the Princess Royal," who, for a time, was second in the line of succession for the British Crown.
Now Princess Anne, after her brothers and their children, is ninth in succession. Her son Peter is 10th, a standing which means, for all practical purposes, he will never be king. But to be in the line of succession at all is itself a source of identity, a key element of membership in a royal family.
Peter Phillips's bride-to-be is Autumn Kelly, 31, a Canadian. But there is a problem: The otherwise lucky woman is a baptized Roman Catholic. Press reports suggest that she takes her religious identity seriously.
The British royal family functions as the organizing center of universal distraction, yet serious questions are occasionally surfaced by its standing at the intersection of culture, tradition and power. The engagement of Peter Phillips and Autumn Kelly is at issue because, according to British law, one of them is going to be required to make a painful decision. Either Phillips must renounce his place in the line of succession or Kelly must renounce her religion.
|
| Quote: |
Every so often, reformers have introduced parliamentary legislation to repeal this discriminatory provision. As recently as last year, such efforts were beaten back. The restriction's defenders argue that, because the British monarch is simultaneously the head of the Church of England, it is appropriate to protect the succession from Roman Catholics. The narrow issue of anti-Catholicism quickly becomes the larger one of protecting the Established Church from disestablishment.
Other monarchies of Europe, where royalty and denominational identity are intertwined, have analogous problems of succession. But the argument that British anti-Catholicism protects the Established Church fails because the exclusion there is so narrow. Nothing in British law prohibits an heir to the throne from marrying a Jew or a Muslim. It is only "papists" who are banned.
|
Just so it's clear: as recently as last year, the British reaffirmed their legal commitment to barring members of a particular religion from becoming head of state.
Of course, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and all other Commonwealth monarchies are beholden to these archaic absurdities as well.
http://tinyurl.com/39mceq |
gawd, the British Commonwealth is a land of hypocrites and fanatics, spread unevenly |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| VanIslander wrote: |
| gawd, america is a land of hypocrites and fanatics, spread unevenly |
That's a funny line. I like the "[comma] spread unevenly" addition. Did you write that? Wanna know who to give credit to when I steal it. |
i just thought of it but dunno how original it is, after all, i read cookbooks  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Only 5 percent or fewer said they would be likelier to support candidates who were atheists... |
While a worthy attempt, I find it's usually futile to point out subtleties to people who lack that quality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Still 61% of americans would probably not support someone who doesn't believe in a God. Seems scary to me. What would a belief in God have to do with making reasoned, logical decisions for the good of the country..
Just out of curiosity does anyone know how many open athiests/agnostics there are in power? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| In England as someone brought up, people except the head of state to be an Anglican, a Protestant. The king is not supposed to marry an Englishwoman who is a Catholic. So, even relatively secular England, which is far more secular than the United States has its hang ups. Canada is somewhat more conservative than England, but less than the US when it comes to religion. Pierre Trudeau wasn't really a religious man, Harper is careful about invoking going to church and religion like a George Bush or Bill Clinton would. Would I vote for an atheist? I am not an atheist. It depends on the atheist. Will he try to remove all references of God from the state? If so, I might oppose him as one who believes in God. If he is just there to simply do his job, run the economy, protect the country, then I don't care. On the other hand, I don't like someone who goes around talking about the church or synagogue he attends like a Bush or a Lieberman. I just want to see their good actions, not what spiritual club they attend. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alias
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| God told Bush to invade Iraq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
