Hi Allen and thank you for your final post in the debate.

I’d first like to say it has been an enjoyable and rewarding experience to be able to engage in my first formal debate with someone as gracious, skilled and knowledgeable as you and I thank you for that.

I will confess that I am a bit disappointed that it has come to an end so soon but the rules are the rules and I fully respect that. I think that having to abide by a code of conduct when debating has been helpful to me in many ways and has forced me to curb the more mischievous side of my nature when it comes to some of my posts (and I think that’s a good thing). Hopefully, I will learn a lot from it – but knowing me as I do, I probably won’t!

Perhaps a finite number of posts would be good to see in any future debates on the forum. I imagine this would suit your style of debating rather better than mine, which favours a more ‘brief flourish of exchanges’ type of approach.

OK, so let’s get going with my final post….
…and deal firstly with this statement in your final post:
I was really looking forward to exploring this in more detail as I find the above slightly confusing. This comment, perhaps more than any others you’ve made, appears to cast a shadow over your original proposal.

Let me dissect your comment:
You first say “Absolutely you may cast your vote dependent on their religion, if you so choose.”

I have no problem with this.

You then go on to say “I have never suggested any curtailment of an individual's right to vote for whichever candidate, and for whatever reason(s), she or he chooses.

It is this comment that I find puzzling. Now maybe I’m missing something here but this seems to be something of a contradiction. To support the restriction (legal or otherwise) of an individual’s right to know a candidate’s religion, certainly seems like “curtailment” to me.

Similarly, you said earlier that:You say this also applies to any religious beliefs I/they may have.

Now....and this is my point....it does seem strange that you “fully support” my right to vote on this basis whilst, at the same time, support (legal or otherwise) the suppression of my right to know….

(On a humorous note, it reminds me of the film Life of Brian when Reg asks “what’s the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can’t have babies?…”)

In other words, what's the point of supporting my right to vote based on my beliefs whilst at the same time trying to stop me from finding out what a candidate's beliefs actually are?...


On a different note, I’d also like to talk a little about the whole concept of what’s pertinent in an election campaign……

One of the themes running through your posts in this debate concerns the matter of what issues you see as appropriate or relevant to an election campaign.

Going back to your first post in which you said:


I would have liked to question this in more detail but never mind....

You say Mr. Huckabee beat candidates with ‘much better qualifications’.
I think this is highly subjective. I assume you mean qualifications of the academic and/or experiential kind. Whatever they are, if you view these as better, then that’s fine with me. Other’s however, may see a belief in Jesus as Lord as a far superior qualification. Now, I admit, it’s not my cup of tea but that’s also fine with me if they want to do so.

I’m sure you’ll agree that success in politics isn’t only about one or two types of qualifications. It is holistic and relates to the person as a whole – including their "folksiness", as you call it (nice, I like that word!) and most probably their entire belief system – including any religious ones. People want to know ‘what maketh the man’ (or woman of course!) and why on earth shouldn’t they?

What we view as ‘better qualified’ is a personal thing I think, and thus, highly subjective. I may not choose to follow and support a football team based solely on their qualifications or ability to do the job well. I may choose to support them (even though they continue to get thrashed every week) based on my own perceived loyalties. They may not be the best team in the world, but perhaps I just love them and want to continue supporting them come rain or shine despite the fact that they’re, quite frankly, not very good.

So, what constitutes ‘better qualifications’ to you? We may never know…

You also say: I think the comments you make here are interesting and I’d like to explore them in a bit more detail here.

You say that if one were an atheist and the other a scientologist, you would then have sufficient reason to make a selection based on 'non-issues'.

Let’s take a look at the phrase ‘non-issues’ and what it means to us both.
Firstly, for me, there are no non-issues. Every word a candidate speaks, everything I see them doing, the way in which they conduct themselves and everything I perceive them to believe are all part of the issue.

Your posts appear to indicate that you have some sort of hierarchical system when it comes to issues – some you regard as relevant issues whilst others are non-issues. I can only assume that the relevant ones relate to social and economic matters whist most of the others are less important.

This is fine with me and it seems a fair enough way to think when trying to choose one candidate over another - I’m sure it’s something we all do in our own way, in fact must do in order to choose one thing over another in life whatever it may be (shall I put an apple in my lunch box today or a banana?).

The trouble I have with your comments is that you seem to have decided that, as a society, your particular way of prioritising issues is probably more pertinent than another. You see what you regard as the ‘issues’ as more correct than what you regard as the ‘non-issues’. Not everyone thinks this way.

Now, from what I can see, the majority of people when forced to choose one candidate / political party over another often make their selection based upon which issues they think best serves them. If I am a mother with a young family, a candidate who says they want to tax the business sector more and put the extra money into education will most likely get my vote.

If however, I am a businessman who hears a candidate say that there will be tax cuts in industry in order to stimulate the economy, whilst putting a freeze on public spending then it is quite likely this candidate will get my vote instead.

So, which policy is the best one? Which is the most correct?
Well that depends on what’s more important to the individual. I can see no right or wrong answer in this. In the same way, I can see no right or wrong way of prioritising (or making more important) one issue over another when it comes to what is in mine or another’s best interest. Not all voters have an in-depth understanding of economics or other national and global political affairs. To many, what matters to them is…well, quite simply…what matters to them.
It is their choice and they are their issues. What you dismiss as the non-issues, to others may well be very important to them and extremely relevant.

Is it proper that voters usually make their choice based on their own self-serving interests?
I’m not sure whether you think it is or it isn’t but the point is - they do.

So can there really be any ‘non-issues’ when it comes to voting day – whether they be economic, social, religious etc.?


OK, now I’d like to briefly touch on your comment:

This again, is highly subjective and implies (to me at least) that anyone following any kind of religious faith lacks a certain ability to think critically.

Whether your hero is Moses or L. Ron Hubbard – what’s the difference?

Do people of faith really lack the ability to think critically? I’m not sure that they do....

Moving on....
You said:
Whilst I agree that it is not really much of an issue in UK politics, perhaps our countries differ in how such questions of faith are perceived by the electorate. In the UK it is not generally considered rude to ask a candidate about their religious beliefs (as you earlier indicated that it is in Canada). Whilst faith doesn’t seem to matter nearly as much to people in the UK as it does in the US, such questions are considered ‘fair game’ and I find this quite refreshing.

Now, I suppose I really should deal with the subject you bring up in your second to last post as I think it’s a tough one. You say:


Perhaps if I can include “do you like the colour blue?” my job will be a bit easier!
In the UK, politicians are often asked personal questions such as “have you ever done drugs?” or “do you have a drink problem?” Some choose to answer whilst others refuse.

In fact the latest tally of high ranking Cabinet ministers to have admitted smoking cannabis is somewhere in the region of ten so far I think (although it may be more now)
In the end, the public are left to decide whether or not these questions are relevant or not but the important thing is that they are allowed to ask and decide what it means to them.

There was a time not so long ago that a minister would have to resign over such an admission, but today it is considered far less important and the impression I get is that the electorate now take a softer stance on these issues as the whole ‘dope smoking Cabinet’ story has been largely forgotten. In fact, I would go as far to say that the revelation by so many top Ministers is seen as progress by many voters.

Another example is Charles Kennedy who resigned as leader of the Liberal Democrats (the third largest party in the UK) not so long ago after admitting he was an alcoholic. The public had great sympathy for his plight and he is now back in frontline politics and I would say is probably regarged with more affection now than before. Many were even trying to persuade him to run for the leadership again but he declined.

To me, this goes some way to indicate that the UK is, in some ways, moving slowly towards a more open and honest style of government (although I admit it still has some way to go!) and I think this is mainly due to tough questions being allowed to be asked.

Now let me deal with your hypothetical question "are any of your children gay?" as it’s probably the most difficult point to address.

I do not object to an individual’s right to ask a politician such a question - I’ve never heard anyone ask it – and I don’t expect to any time soon. Why is that?

Perhaps, I image, because questions such as these are more likely to damage the person asking the question far more than the one who is asked.

Now, I can only speculate about this but I feel fairly confident that if someone were to publicly put this particular question to a UK politician, they would be frowned upon by the population at large in the same way that if someone asked “do you like to spend your weekend in a gimp suit with an orange in your mouth, a plastic bag over your head whist being smeared in whipped cream?”

The latter is admittedly a silly question, but I hope you get my point. The fact that in the UK, we can ask any questions we like seems to lead towards a more natural evolution about what is important to us and what isn’t – what is acceptable and what isn’t.

In fact, going back to the whole cannabis thing….the whole airing of these kind of questions seems to lead to a wider public debate about whether such question are considered relevant or not and surely that can only be a good thing.
Take a look at the BBC’s website here: to see what I mean.

I can quite easily imagine the headline "Does Smith's religious belief matter?" instead of the one you see here. I think these debates are healthy and are probably fuelled by the fact that people are allowed to ask politicians these kind of questions in the first place....

So - to conclude - it appears to me from all you've said in this debate that you see stripping a candidate of their right to express, and the voter of their right to ask about religious views as ‘progress’ whereas I’m not sure that I do.
Now, I agree that the current status quo is far from perfect but I really don’t see how more restrictions will move it any closer to anything remotely resembling utopia – In fact, I imagine it moves us further away.

Anyway, I’ll round off my post now by thanking you again for a rewarding experience and thanking the posters who took the time to contribute in the bleachers thread. And a special thanks to Lightkeeper for providing the platform for this debate in the first place.

One final thing....
I saw this posted in another thread on the forum and rather liked it.


Call me an optimist, but I think ol’ Confucius may be on to something here. I would like to think that, as we evolve socially, this will eventually come to pass. Perhaps I am being naïve and overly optimistic or just plain daft – I don’t know.

What I do know is that I would like to see the kind of government he speaks of. Would you? Do you think it’s even possible? Are you content to let the wind blow and the grass bend or will you be reaching for your fan to blow the grass in the direction you think is best?

Kind regards to all
Richard.

The formal debate between Tricky and evangelicalhumanist is now complete. Thank you both for the great debate.

Forum members are invited to post their comments, including who you think might have won (if you care to) in the Bleachers thread.

Feel free to suggest your own debate topics.

__________________
InterfaithForums.com-Where your ideas and beliefs count.