Would you vote for an atheist president?Definition of atheism:lack of belief in the existence of god

[yortsed snacilbuper]

Last edited Sun Aug 14, 2016, 09:34 PM - Edit history (1)

Definition of atheism in English:

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

[Orrex]

1. Atheists should be publicly shamed and run out of the country

Starting with me.

[trof]

13. Yep, they should run us to the south of France or Tuscany.

[Iggo]

15. Run me to Iceland, please!

[rurallib]

54. I'll take Canada

[SammyWinstonJack]

160. So will I.

[glennward]

157. How would one really know who is an atheist? Many of the people who say they are Christian are not.

Just saying something doesn't make it so?

[Orrex]

158. True atheists have an atom-shaped birthmark on their ass

Last edited Tue Aug 16, 2016, 11:53 PM - Edit history (1)

And no, you can't see mine.


Science!

[Buckeye_Democrat]

2. YES! I doubt such a person would win in this country, unfortunately. n/t

[onecaliberal]

3. Yes

[Bernardo de La Paz]

4. Christian privilege makes this a semi-legitimate q'n. We nearly elected a Jewish Prez this year. nt

[whathehell]

30. Oh no...

not with the 'privelege meme again.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

61. Explain if you have the time. And the spelling is "privilege". . . nt

[whathehell]

101. No, it seems I don't have the time..

but thanks for the spelling lesson

[Bernardo de La Paz]

112. I'm not surprised. . . nt

[whathehell]

113. Lol..

Try again...

[Bernardo de La Paz]

114. I wrote "if you have the time" so that you could have a graceful exit from an ambiguous non-post. nt

[whathehell]

118. Really?

I neither see nor saw anything"ambiguous" about my post, and suspected you were either dense or "playing dumb' to hide an annoyance you couldn't.properly articulate.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

132. Really. Hard to know if you were being sarcastic, serious, or ironic.

If you were seriously objecting to the meme, then there is the open question of what it is about the meme that you object to. Without the explanation that you pretended to not have time for, we might imagine that you question the existence of the privilege or you might feel that invoking it is over-used as a talking point or that there is some but not much privilege. We might imagine that you took exception to it in conjunction with the jewish faith of Bernie Sanders. Or perhaps you feel that Sanders' success disproves the meme. Or that Sanders would not have been elected if he faced Trump. Maybe you feel that it somehow doesn't apply to the thread topic.

You know unambiguously what you were thinking. We can't read your thoughts.

I phrased it the way I did because I did not want to assume any one of the possible attitudes you might have had or possible perspectives you might be championing. I did not want to assume one and attack that only to find you meant something else, this being DU and all.

So I issued it as an invitation, but also politely recognizing that you might be busy or might have made it as a toss-off comment without much thought.

Hence the easy out made available to you, since I didn't want to assume you hadn't given it much thought.

But you can take it whatever way you want.

It seems you have chosen to take the personal insult route with epithets of "dense" or "couldn't properly articulate".

You can leave it there if you like.

[whathehell]

137. A little of each, maybe?

Whatever the case, I think you're taking this all WAY too seriously.

My point was that I thought the 'privilege' meme, was being a tad overworked...That's all.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

138. If that was all, just say so when invited to do so. That's simplest and best.

As to seriously, the shoe is on your foot since you took it seriously enough to attempt insults.

[whathehell]

145. Um, first, you need to know that I don't take orders from you..

I.will express myself as I wish..If you don't care for the style or substance of my posts, you're free to make use of that handy "Ignore" feature.

"You took it seriously enough to attempt insults"

My first response to you contained no insults, and was made basically in jest ..You oddly serious response called me out on my spelling, and requested an explanation for that which seemed self-explanatory..I tried responding in a light, humorous way, but that wasn't good enough for you, it seems,
and you've continued to hound me....I don't know what you're going for here,bro, but whatever it is, I'm supremely uninterested.

.Again, I'd suggest you lighten up and maybe even acquire a sense of humor. It's been real.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

149. I grant you the last word. . nt . nt . nt . nt . nt . nt . nt . nt . nt . nt . nt . nt . nt . nt

[whathehell]

156. You grant nada..

I take all.

[LanternWaste]

146. Oddly enough, I think the concept of privilege is being trivialized and minimized

Oddly enough, I think the concept of privilege is being trivialized and minimized by those who benefit the most from it. That's all, part two.

[whathehell]

148. With similar oddness, perhaps, I think it's

being overused and in some cases, misplaced.

[Ace Rothstein]

6. I would prefer one.

[librarylu]

7. Certainly.

I'm all in favor of freedom from religion.

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."- Article VI, Clause 3, US Constitution

[MineralMan]

8. Sure, why not?

I'm an atheist. I've voted for several Presidents who called themselves Christians. I can't see how any of it matters.

[Francis Booth]

9. I, too would prefer one. I can't see bowing and scraping before a fairy tale deity as

being particularly useful.

[LanternWaste]

147. Securing and defending fairy-tale borders is much more rational.

Securing and defending fairy-tale borders and imaginary lines on a map is much more rational.

[tazkcmo]

153. I agree!

At least I can prove the lines on the map and even the borders they represent are real.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. Yes, enthusiastically, but not for an atheist primary candidate.

I'm an atheist. I'd like to see an atheist president in the USA, but I don't think it's realistic for now.

[LongtimeAZDem]

72. My position exactly; that's why I couldn't vote for Sanders

I can't say he is an atheist (certainly he rejects the label), but he's close enough to be effectively portrayed as one.

[Moonwalk]

83. I think Sanders was viewed far more as Jewish than Atheist and, alas...

...the country is no more ready for a Jewish president than an atheist president. Or a Muslim or a Buddist for that matter. Vice President maybe.

Remember, we've only had one Catholic president and he had a hard time getting elected (Kennedy-Nixon was a super close election). My point being, it isn't just a bias against those with no religious faith, it's a bias against those who aren't part of a mainstream Christian faith.

Now we can quibble about voters saying they'd vote for a Jewish president over an Atheist, etc., but that pits a false dichotomy. You'd have to have a Jewish candidate vs. an Atheist. Unlikely. The contest would undoubtedly be between a candidate of some other faith (or no faith) and a mainstream Christian. And in that instance, a lot of voter would have trouble voting for the candidate who was of some other faith (or no faith). Even another Catholic candidate, would, I think, still make a lot of non-Cathoic voters hesitate.

[white_wolf]

85. Romney's Mormonism probably hurt him a bit too.

A lot of Christians don't consider Mormons to be Christian.

[Moonwalk]

89. Absolutely. Mormonism has always been outside of "mainstream" American Christianity....

...But the hope with the Romney/Obama election was that voters would pick the white man over the black. It was less about getting voters to vote according to their religious bias than to vote on their racial bias. Unfortunately for Romney (and luckily for Obama), the voter demographics have changed. Christianity may still dominate as a religion, but racially-bias white voters no longer are the only ones deciding who gets into the White House.

[LongtimeAZDem]

90. I don't think it hurt him early on, but once people started to really look at LDS belief

they realized that it isn't just a different "flavor" of Christianity, but rather something quite different.

[white_wolf]

96. As someone who enjoys reading about religions and philosophy

Mormonism really is quite different. I think the biggest hurdle for mainstream Christians is that Mormons are polytheists. The Trinity might be a convoluted mess of theology, but at least it lets Christians cling to monotheism.

[LongtimeAZDem]

97. Trust me, I know; I live in Mesa, AZ :D

Even the Salt Lake City Mormons think our Mormons are kind of nuts.

[white_wolf]

122. What's the difference? If you don't mind me asking.

I don't know much about the differences in location though I always assumed Salt Lake Mormons were the most devout seeing as how they're living in Mormon Vatican.

[LongtimeAZDem]

125. I'm speaking as an outsider, but you see two main types of Mormons

First you have the "Liahona" types, who are, for LDS, the more liberal ones; they see scriptural law as more open to interpretation. The name comes from the magic compass Lehi used in the BoM to leave Israel and come to the new world, and the symbolism in that of finding one's own way.

Across the aisle, you have the "Iron Rod" types, who believe in strict adherence to scripture, and the absolute authority of the "Prophets"; again, the name comes from a vision Lehi has in the BoM. The Iron Rod symbolized the path to salvation; those who "held fast" to the iron rod were saved, those who let go were lost.

The Mesa Mormons, at least those in seats of power, are predominantly highly conservative Iron Rod types.

[white_wolf]

134. That's really interesting. Thanks!

I wonder if we can persuade some of the Liahona Mormons to side with Clinton in this election.

[LongtimeAZDem]

88. I think he had a better chance wile he was viewed as Jewish

Once he went on the record about his belief:

“I think everyone believes in God in their own ways,” he said. “To me, it means that all of us are connected, all of life is connected, and that we are all tied together.”

he split from the traditional notion of a creator deity, and, IMO scuttled his chances for election.

[Vinca]

11. Absolutely. I might add I think I have already voted for an atheist president.

The whole "I'm a devout Christian" thing comes across as political theatre sometimes and I'm sure many nonbelievers profess to be Christians just to get elected.

[lindysalsagal]

40. Something I told someone just last night.

When your mind is working, none of the judeo-christian myths make a lick of sense.

I actually believe that the vast majority of 21st century americans don't believe in a deity or 90% of church dogma: They're just too afraid and dependent to admit it to themselves or others.

A very smart man last night admitted to me that he really wants to believe, but with all the suffering in the world, and his wife's untimely death to cancer, he just can't listen to any of it any more. Still, the reunification in heaven deal is a tough one to let go of.

[Quackers]

12. I wouldn't vote for someone because they're atheist but

I wouldn't vote for someone because they're not atheist either. Policies matter, not ones religious beliefs.

[Iggo]

14. Of course.

Who knows? I might have already.

[Matrosov]

16. I'd vote for an atheist ahead of some Abrahamic looney

Atheists don't have imaginary friends

[sarae]

17. Yes!

That's a plus, in my book, since I'm an atheist myself.

[grubbs]

18. Yep

Many of us on both sides of the aisle likely already have.

[Auggie]

19. Hell yes!

[HDSam]

20. Yes

I would strongly consider voting for an atheist candidate, but not solely due to their professed atheism.

Slightly off-topic:

I'm fond of asking those who believe there should be more religion in government if they would like more government in their religion.

It's interesting that many who support a non-secular government believe their brand of religion is the one the government would obviously choose to observe.

[NightWatcher]

21. It'd be refreshing to have a candidate that didn't suck up to the fairy tale crowd.

[StrictlyRockers]

22. Definitely!

And almost all of the new generation would, too. These attitudes are changing quickly. Being religious is not a big plus with the Millennials.

[Orrex]

33. Well, that's a gross mischaracterization, but ok.

[Demonaut]

37. is it?, "Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2]

Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[1][2][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10][11]"

Per Wiki

and that is what I mean by a closed mind

any questions?

[Exilednight]

42. Two questions.

1. Do you consider a believer of any religion to be just as closed minded? I ask because if you believe in a Christian god then your religion automatically predisposes the belief of the Hindu gods.

2. What exactly does an open minded person believe, in your opinion?

[Demonaut]

48. as I stated in my first response, I''d prefer an agnostic president

I think an open minded person would be one that would admit they do not know if deities exist.

A atheist believes no deities exist , it's still a belief system but with no tangible or verifiable proof

[Orrex]

50. That's a lie told by a pro-religion bigot

A atheist believes no deities exist , it's still a belief system but with no tangible or verifiable proof

That's akin to saying that "A Christian believes that homosexuals should be murdered." You conveniently ignore the vast numbers of atheists who don't fit your narrow and very slanted characterization of them.

[Demonaut]

59. so now I'm a bigot...is this statement wrong?, you can't equate my statement

with the murder of homosexuals.

Orrex, try not to be so extreme or emotional in your responses.

[Orrex]

63. I'm not equating your statement to the murder of homosexuals.

Instead, I am calling out your failure (deliberate or otherwise) to distinguish between widely divergent worldviews. All atheists are not alike, and their lack of belief takes many forms, yet you would put them all in one basket for ease of dismissal. That's bigotry.

Orrex, try not to be so extreme or emotional in your responses.

I am not "extreme" nor "emotional" in my responses, and your attempt to mischaracterize them as such is an attempt to deflect from the discussion at hand.

[Demonaut]

68. calling me a "pro-religion bigot" is an emotional response.

I'm not advocating a pro-religion stance in my responses and for you to state otherwise is a falsehood

I'm neither for or against religion

[Orrex]

70. You made a bigoted statement, and I called it out.

Your statement was identical to statements made in support of religion. That's pro-religion.

You declared atheists to be closed-minded, and you failed to distinguish between a multitude of worldviews. That's bigotry.

You also declared that atheism is a belief system. That is a lie.


If you yourself are not a pro-religion bigot, then I apologize for mischaracterizing you as such, but you should be aware that you're using the same language (and tactics) that they use.

[LongtimeAZDem]

74. Not really; generally, atheists simply reject deities as unproven

one need not affirmatively claim that deities do not exist to be an atheist.

[PoutrageFatigue]

133. No. Wrong. It is NOT a belief system.

Atheism is a belief system the same way 'Off' is a TV channel.

[TipTok]

159. I'm open minded enough...

... to think that there may be a teapot in orbit around Saturn, the master of the universe exclusively focused his attention on a few hundred mile radius of the middle east or that there are underwear gnomes going through my sock drawer last night.

I am not open minded enough to think that the odds of any of these things are anywhere close to approaching statisically significant or even worthy of mention.

Your line of reasoning is used by the theist crowd to push the "Maybe there is, maybe there isn't... It's like 50/50" bit.

I don't have enough time to type out all the zeros before I hit a one to describe the odds that any of this stuff exists.

Most self described atheists are technically agnostic as they haven't personally checked every rock in the universe but are de facto atheists as they have an ability to understand how massively, incredibly, totally unlikely these myths are to be true.

[Orrex]

46. Just one: have you ever met an actual atheist?

Shockingly, I don't accept Wikipedia as the definitive arbiter of all matters pertaining to science and theology, and the excerpt that you cited is incomplete because it omits a key subset of atheist. Of course, since you conveniently grabbed only the first few dozen words from the Wiki article, it's hardly surprising that the the details would be left out.

Just about every atheist I've ever met has characterized their atheism this way: "I do not believe in any deity."

That is not "the rejection of belief" nor "the position that there are no deities." It also makes no agnostic claim of inability to comprehend deities; it is simply a positive declaration about one's own lack of belief, full stop.


The insistence that atheism must equate with (or predispose one to) closed-mindedness is a statement of bigoted ignorance.

[Demonaut]

52. of course I grabbed the first lines in wiki, and a short response will not resolve

this question that has vexed mankind


"That is not "the rejection of belief" nor "the position that there are no deities." It also makes no agnostic claim of inability to comprehend deities; it is simply a positive declaration about one's own lack of belief, full stop."

so there are versions of atheism that don't agree with your interpretation?

[Orrex]

57. "so there are versions of atheism that don't agree with your interpretation?"

Of course there are, and that's their business.

Atheism has no central tenet that all atheists must obey, despite the media's endless attempts to cast Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens as the High Priest of Atheism.

[Demonaut]

60. oh, to answer your question....yes, and I call them friends

[Avalux]

69. How about opening YOUR mind before making a negative blanket statement about atheists.

This is a good read:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/01/10-facts-about-atheists/

Many self-described atheists are liberal and Democrats. Explain that if they're so "closed-minded".

Your supposition is indefensible.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

124. Definition of atheism in English:

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

129. Lol. So ridiculous.

[Eko]

154. We are only closed minded

until someone provides real proof that something exists, then we are open to that proof and possibility. Do you believe in all of the gods?, if not you are closed minded using your reasoning.

[lindysalsagal]

41. Not true at all. If you don't believe in santa, the tooth fairy, unicorns, does that

make you closed minded?

How about space alien abduction? Bigfoot? How about all of the thousands of "gods" that humans have believed in over the eons.

It's closed-minded when you have one fixed explanation for everything: That imaginary guy in the sky that no one has ever seen.

[rurallib]

58. Besides, presidents aren't supposed to be making decisions about religion

Most of our presidents as far as we know have been closed minded in favor of religion.

I would love someone who steered totally clear of any gods related issues.

[lindysalsagal]

75. A.Men. n/t.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

62. Could say agnostic pres would be wishy-washy, indecisive, fence sitter, unwilling to act. . nt

[Peacetrain]

24. If I agreed with the policies they were promoting.. ABSOLUTELY

And I am a committed Christian..

[whistler162]

25. No I won't for Trump!

[MANative]

26. Add me to the list of those who would STRONGLY prefer an atheist president.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

27. yes, gladly. nt

[GoneOffShore]

28. Sure thing - but not a lie-berterian atheist.

[Greybnk48]

29. I would bet a LOT of money

that at 67, almost 68 years old, I already have. And I definitely would not let that deter me from doing it again.

[GP6971]

31. Yes, I would

without hesitation

[Hayduke Bomgarte]

32. Yes

As long as he/she wasn't a rethug.

[TheBlackAdder]

34. Yes. Especially one that does not embrace the concept of "end times" and the rapture.

[RebelOne]

35. DEFINITELY!

[SMC22307]

36. Absolutely. (n/t)

[barbtries]

38. of course.

i'm an atheist, and i know i'm a good person.

i think a lot of people vote for atheists, you know the ones who run around touting what good christians they are

[Deuce]

39. Yes...

[Exilednight]

43. Yes, and for the record I am a Buddhist.

[Wounded Bear]

44. Of course I would

I worry far more about the religious nuts than someone who might approach problems with a little rationality and common sense.

[lindysalsagal]

45. Atheists live for now, not heaven, which makes them uniquely responsible

as society's leaders. We're not putting in these 80 years just to make a nicer bed for after our deaths.

So, wey're much more likely to work on behalf of the betterment of the planet and everyone's living standards.

I actually believe that we're faced with one simple choice between 2 realities:

1. Don't worry about the planet, get the resources now, cause god will save it later
2. Grow the hell up and deal with reality. Dump god. Stop fighting over resources in his name.

I really believe it's us or him.

[avebury]

47. Absolutely yes!!!!

By the way, just because a politician says that he or she has religious beliefs and attends church doesn't mean that he/she really is a religious person. It is called playing the game and I am cynical enough to think that any politician might be capable of trying to come across as religious publicly while privately thinking it is all hogwash.

[Throd]

49. I would because I am one.

[panader0]

51. I would prefer an atheist as POTUS.

[Person 2713]

53. Why not?

[Duckhunter935]

55. Yes indeed

[AgadorSparticus]

56. Religion, spirituality, and morality are all very different thing that are often confused

Religion is not equivalent to morality. People's religion is their business. I don't care as long as they run the country with a moral compass free of religion.

[brewens]

64. We apply a religious test even though The Constitution clearly prohibits it. But it's the voters,

not the government doing it so it goes on. Politicians pander to that, making sure they get the photo ops going to church and telling us how Christian they are.

Since they all feel obligated to do that, we end up having no clue who is really a believer and who is not. We probably have had many cases where it was the right-winger playing the rubes, while a liberal was the one that took their religion seriously. The RW would believe it was totally the opposite of course.

[jamese777]

65. Yes n/t

[doc03]

66. Yes I believe you could trust an atheist to be more honest than

the average so called Christian.

[csziggy]

67. Yes, I absolutely would!

I'm tired of having religion, no matter what sort, shoved in my face.

I hope that sometime in my lifetime we will have an atheist or at least agnostic President. With increasing numbers of young people not following a religion, I think it might be possible someday, I just hope I live long enough to see it.

[Warpy]

71. It sucks that this question is still being asked

[HereSince1628]

73. Maybe. If the person was tolerant of theists, I wouldn't hold it against a candidate

and I'd consider the rest of what they would bring to the office.

[Nye Bevan]

76. Provided that it wasn't some asshole who mocked "invisible sky monsters" or similar,

absolutely.

[shadowmayor]

77. Absofrigginlutely!

Who else could start the process for taxing the churches?

[treestar]

78. Depends on if I liked their platform

I would not vote for them simply because of it or against them simply because of it. Chances are the first one will be a Democrat as opposed to a Republican. Thus I would vote for that candidate

[broadcaster75201]

79. I would PREFER one. n/t

nt

[Motley13]

80. Yes

Religion has caused most, if not all the hate in the world from the beginning of time. The hypocrites are the worst, church on Sunday, spew hate the rest of the wk.

Probably some presidents have been atheist, they just couldn't admit it.

[Rex]

81. Of course, words do not scare me I know what they mean and fear nothing from a Godless heathen.

[CharlotteVale]

82. I would vastly prefer to.

[etherealtruth]

84. Would not impact my vote one way or another n/t

[B Calm]

86. I would be more inclined to vote for an Atheist over a Christian.

[madokie]

87. As an Atheist

You damn right I would

The hell with religion whether it be based on the bible or the Koran. MY Opinion

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

91. Yes, if the atheist is a Democrat.

I probably wouldn't care for an atheist Republican or Libertarian.

[madinmaryland]

92. Yes. I don't base my vote on the candidates religion or lack of religion. I do vote

against candidates who will base their decisions based on their religious laws rather than the laws and constitution of the United States.

[Mike Nelson]

93. Of course...

...I would. It'd be nice. I suspect we've had a few over the years - but it's not wise to admit atheism.

[frogmarch]

94. Of course, but not just because

they're an atheist. I wouldn't vote for an atheist who's a republican, if there is such a thing as an atheist republican. Or for a libertarian, or for anyone who isn't a Democrat, regardless of their religious views. If two Dems were running against each other in the primaries and one was an atheist and the other a Christian or whatever, I'd vote for the candidate whose platform appealed to me more.

[kpete]

95. YES

[Pyrzqxgl]

98. It's not a problem with me.

I figure ones religion or lack thereoff has nothing to do with how they might act as President. I figure most politicians religion is a bit of an act anyway.

[roamer65]

99. Yes, if I liked their proposed policies.

[many a good man]

100. Atheists no longer the least electable

Gallup survey shows record number of Americans willing to consider an atheist

The percentage of Americans who would vote for a qualified atheist candidate for president has reached 58%, which is 4 points better than it was in 2012, and a whopping 40 point jump from when the question was first asked in 1958. In that year, a mere 18% of Americans could abide the idea of an atheist president.

The number of those who would refuse to vote for an atheist candidate has also dropped from where it was in 2012, from 43% to 40%.

And as for being the least-electable group in the survey, nonbelievers have finally moved up a rung. Now claiming the space at the bottom of this particular barrel are socialists, with half of all voters ruling them out entirely. Sen. Bernie Sanders will have his work cut out for him. (Despite his very secular politics, he doesn't identify as an atheist.)
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/25/living/atheist-president-gallup/

Pew released in depth study last January that also shows more openness to an atheist candidate.

[relayerbob]

102. Depends.

Some are as ram-it-down-your-throat-evangelical as believers. One's religious beliefs or non-beliefs should be irrelevant and not used to make decisions that affect the people of the nation. As long as that's how they run their offices, I couldn't care less about someone's religious beliefs

[egduj]

103. The person could be fornicating with barnyard animals...

The only thing that matters if there is a (D) or an (R) after the name.

[whathehell]

104. Only if..

He or she wasn't as assholish as some of the DU persuasion.

[cherokeeprogressive]

105. From either party?

[bananakabob]

106. Depends;

Most mainstream atheists are asshole Islamophobic libertarians, so probably not.

[Calculating]

107. Why is there such opposition anyway?

You'd think people would be more concerned with the issues. I guess people are afraid of electing somebody who doesn't believe we will be held accountable for what we do in this life.

[rock]

108. Would I, would I, would I!?

Peg leg! Peg leg! Peg leg!

[spanone]

109. wouldn't be a consideration

so, yes, in a heartbeat.

[Alkene]

110. Absolutely.

While I'm fine with a candidate's spiritual philosophy informing their political perspective, I'm turned off by the use of it as a personal attribute.

Why the hell am I even made aware of the religious status of someone applying for a civil service position?

Whatever is appropriate to discuss in a job interview is all I need to know- because that's what it is.

[think]

111. Not an atheist but yes, I'd vote for one. Love trumps hate...

[get the red out]

115. It is a sad truth

We need to grow up in this country.

[deathrind]

116. Claiming a belief to...

...be fact is dubious for both sides of the debate.

Also that there needs to be a label or category for not believing in something is ridiculous. We don't do this for other mystical beliefs like astrology or superstitions.

[LWolf]

117. Yes.

As long as a candidate's belief system does not cross over into public interaction or public policy, I'm not interested one way or another. That includes a lack of a belief system, although I'd argue that atheists still have a system that they follow.

[struggle4progress]

119. For primaries, I juggle candidate electability, energy, experience, policies, and political skill

For general elections, I usually focus on policies

I generally don't care about a candidate's religious views. But when candidates blather much about their religious views, I'm inclined to regard it as a distraction from issues of experience, policy, and political skill -- so those candidates typically don't get my support

As a rule, candidates don't make much noise about being atheists, so the question really doesn't arise much, but a candidate's quiet atheism wouldn't keep me from voting for the candidate in a primary. But if a candidate made a big deal about being an atheist, I'd certainly be inclined to regard it as a distraction from issues of experience, policy, and political skill -- so the candidate might not get my support in a primary

But again: in general elections, I usually focus on policies

[Loki]

120. Yes.

[MrScorpio]

121. I don't care about religion...

I care about competence, intelligence, intent, thoughtfulness, integrity, compassion and ability.

Invisible space daddies don't reside in the Oval Office.

[Philly-Union-Man]

123. Of course, I'm pretty sure we already have.

But if your question is about an "open" atheist the. Again my my answer is yes.

I'd prefer a rationalist.

[True Dough]

126. An atheist president would be a plus

But let me ask 2 related questions:

1) What if the atheist president moved to eliminate "under God" from the pledge of allegiance. Would you support that?

2) Would you vote for a Muslim presidential candidate? There's lots of possible position issues that arise, but can you say absolutely or absolutely not right off the bat?

[Stinky The Clown]

127. Yes

[Warren DeMontague]

128. yes

[jamese777]

130. The U.S. Is a theistic country

The share of Americans who identify as atheists has roughly doubled in the past several years. Pew Research Center’s 2014 Religious Landscape Study found that 3.1% of American adults say they are atheists when asked about their religious identity, up from 1.6% in a similarly large survey in 2007. An additional 4.0% of Americans call themselves agnostics, up from 2.4% in 2007.

Whether a majority of theists will vote for an atheist or not is unknown.

[thucythucy]

131. As long as he or she swore to uphold the Constitution

and demonstrated he or she was capable of doing the job, then yes, I absolutely would cast such a vote, though I am by nature at least someone religious in my outlook on life.

Edited to add: then too, his or her agenda would have to be progressive, that is, left of center.

[Jarqui]

135. In a heartbeat

I'm agnostic. I have no problem with religious people having their beliefs - nor with atheists not sharing those beliefs.

I do not think the job of president is one that has to rely heavily on religion itself. The president has to understand religion and be very tolerant of it .. and very tolerant of those who are not religious too. Nearly all religions offer many things in common on how to live decently, treat one another, etc. I think the president has to share those kinds of values but like anyone, including me, can do so without having to believe in God.

[Liberal_in_LA]

136. why not?

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

139. Absolutely, if I agreed with the politically n/t

[mfcorey1]

140. Yes

[Bonx]

141. Of course.

[MohRokTah]

142. I don't believe in atheists and I'm not too sure about agnostics. eom

[yortsed snacilbuper]

143. Yes.

[TipTok]

144. I suspect we have one now...

... and quite a few in the past as well.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful"

[melman]

162. Maybe

but doesn't count if they had to pretend not to be to get elected.

[Native]

150. On the whole, the atheists I've know in my life have had more of a moral compass than

the Christians I've known. I know that's anecdotal, but it's what I've experienced.

[RKP5637]

151. Absolutely!!! n/t

[tazkcmo]

152. Yes.

Twice!

[Bluzmann57]

155. Can he or she govern?

If so, then yes. If a person can make sound decisions without any personal beliefs entering into it, and I'll vote for that person, atheist or not.

[LeftishBrit]

161. Of course (or Prime Minister/ MP in my case)

Last edited Wed Aug 17, 2016, 04:23 AM - Edit history (1)

In fact, my two former MPs, whom I voted for, were both openly atheist.

Religion isn't a big deal for most British voters, though there are some places where it is - certainly it's a big deal in Northern Ireland. And religious-right nutters have sometimes had influence on elections in places where you'd never imagine it to be possible (e.g. my own apparently liberal constituency in 2010). But I don't think most voters would care too much about how religious a Prime Minister is. We've had one or two openly atheist Prime Ministers, and several who were so religiously indifferent that they probably didn't know themselves whether they were Christian or atheist.

ETA: I wouldn't vote for someone just because they were atheist. It's their policies and competence that matter.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

164. It seems Tony Blair is a religous-right nutter, but he hid it while in office,

he helped dubya get us into Iraq. When something that doesn't exist is telling you to go to war, you need psychiatric help.


A spokesperson for the Tony Blair Faith Foundation said: “The Foundation’s projects, including a global schools programme, malaria prevention work and analysis of the role religion is playing in conflicts around the world are important, urgent and needed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blairs-faith-foundation-operates-like-a-government-in-waiting-with-spin-doctors-employed-to-say-as-9645035.html

[Taitertots]

163. America is extremely bigoted against the non-religious

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5353524

It's the last socially acceptable group to express extreme bigotry toward.