"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:E%oij.33853$Ux2.25986@attbi_s22...
To steer this back to the earlier issue, science is an effort to
understand the nature of things in order to provide working tools.
Engineering takes those tools and creates those things that support our
society and by extension our economy. So, a president that has no
understanding of science, or worse, can't tell the difference between
science and religion will only do further harm to this country than the
current anti-intellectual and his faithful followers have done. Any
candidate that claims that they can maintain anti-scientific beliefs
(such
as they're not being a primate), yet can turn the downward trend in this
country around is simply lying to us.

Well put.

Good luck finding anyone amongst the current set of presidential
candidates who passes this litmus test while also offering a workable
political platform. My preliminary research shows that this candidate
does not yet exist.

Quite! They have even more troubles when ascertaining the origins of our
secular republic. The two issues are heavily intertwined and have been for
eons.

http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/200...-chestnuts.htm

/quote

At least two presidential candidates earnestly want to recapture the land in
the name of God: Mike Huckabee, uncharismatic Baptist preacher, and Mitt
Romney, practicing Mormon, who said he wishes to banish atheists from the
country. Neither questions the morality of the secular application of his
altruist creed in any fundamental way: the welfare state. The other
presidential candidates bring God into their rhetoric only when they think
it prudent. Each wishes to subdue the kind of atheist who does not believe
in the mystical benefits of collectivism and involuntary servitude, to
indenture him to them against his will for the sake of “giving back” to the
national community, and thereby create a legacy for the candidate of being
the “savior” of the “public good” and promoter of “social justice.”

/end quote