When will we have the first openly Atheist presidential candidate

[UndertheOcean]

That would be a milestone. Instead of witnessing the current set whoring themselves for the sake of electability

sigh

[bigwillq]

1. I am beyond ready

for that to happen.

[derby378]

2. Are you at a Vegas casino?

I think a lot of bookies would actively try to talk you out of placing a wager on that...

[Mooney]

3. Not in my lifetime.

I say that as an atheist too.

[DesertFlower]

16. i agree. nt

[msallied]

4. Wouldn't that be fantastic? I'd be thrilled...

But it'll never happen... Atheists are so far in the minority in this country and throughout the world. As secular as we claim to be, religion is threaded all through this country and I don't think we'll ever be able to really escape it. The RW would have a field day and he/she would be chewed up and spit out after the first dozen or so news cycles. I hate to be pessimistic about it, but seeing as how only in the last 40 years did we see fit to elect our first Catholic, I think we'll need to have a Mormon, a Jew, and perhaps even a Muslim before we start electing Atheists.

[Lucky 13]

5. When hell freezes over?

:rofl:

Couldn't pass that one up. Sorry, but our country is in the firm grasp of religious nutcases. They will never relinquish it.

[Cali_Democrat]

6. In bible thumping America?

never.

[oviedodem]

7. Never

[HockeyMom]

8. They debate who is more Christian than the other?

Not any time soon.

[Ron Green]

9. Not gonna happen, and I don't think it should.

What we need is not NO religion or spirituality, we need GOOD religion and spirituality. A President who knows how to articulate and honor spiritual traditions that are open and charitable, while rejecting religion that is exclusive and divisive, is a powerful agent for peace and understanding.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

17. And an atheist wouldn't provide that?

Your insinuation is that an atheist President would not honor spiritual traditions and would not be a powerful agent for peace and understanding.

[Zhade]

23. How inclusive of you.

:sarcasm:

Here's a clue, free of charge: atheists are good people who are open and charitable, too.

What you're saying is that we NEED religion to have peace and understanding. Respectfully, that's complete horseshit.

[Genevieve]

27. it's no only

horseshit.

I find the statement bigoted.

[Ron Green]

41. I'm not saying we need religion to have peace and understanding.

I'm saying we HAVE religion, we've always had religion, and we always will. It's a part of the social psyche, just as much as government and a market. To acknowledge a "higher power," however that may be understood, is to be part of the vast majority of humans. An atheist president, as good and just and loving as he or she may be, will never share a spiritual bond with other humans of this country or the world - unless I misunderstand the nature of atheism and there is indeed a spiritual component therein.

My point is that, since most people believe in God, a leader of the stature of the U.S. President can make considerable progress toward acknowledging worldwide spiritual unity and decrying sectarianism and division.

[Genevieve]

24. all i have to say to that is ---

:spank:

[Solon]

34. My, how bigoted of you...

What a fucking disgusting post! :puke:

[Warren DeMontague]

35. Excuse me? Do you realize what a bigoted fucking thing that is to say?

Would you say that about a Jewish President? A Muslim one?

Oh, but somehow it's okay to discriminate against those who don't believe. Let me guess- because we're inherently "less moral", right?

[mtnsnake]

10. I wonder how many candidates are really closet atheists

"Well, I better make sure they see me going to church every Sunday if I want to continue being a public servant. Can't get elected or re-elected unless I go to church and pray"

[kath]

15. I've often wondered how much of the general population are closet agnostics or atheists who play

along with the whole church thing just because it's the thing to do, or in order to "fit in".

[ColbertWatcher]

11. It's gonna be a long time...

...we can't even have a politician admit to having had an affair (like David Paterson) without the GOP-controlled media giggling like a bunch of gossiping school girls.

America has a lot of problems seeing beyond the superficial in people in the public eye.

[tekisui]

12. After the first openly gay President.

No time soon...

[kath]

13. probably never.

:-(
Murka is too much in the grip of bigoted theist assholes, especially of the xtian persuasion.

[SoonerPride]

14. We had closer to atheist 200 years ago. Now it is sickening.

Maybe another 50 years or so.

[westerebus]

18. As soon as

they find the missing link.

[dansolo]

19. Why should it matter?

I'm an agnostic, but I don't mind electing someone who is religious for president, provided they meet two basic things:

1. They respect religions other than their own
2. They are not hypocritical regarding their own religion

The problem with the more vocal atheists is that they don't satisfy #1 above.

[Zhade]

26. False premise, as atheism is not a religion but the LACK of any.

NT!

[davidpdx]

37. Well put Dan

I'm not a deeply religious person, but I think it is important for the person leading the country to realize the broad spectrum of religions in the US and the fact that some don't have any religion. One of the main reasons for this country being created was to escape religious persecution. Therefore, that is one of the tenets of our country any president should up hold.

[kwenu]

20. I won't vote for someone on the basis of being atheist but there's nothing stopping one from running

[bunnies]

21. Never, But I wish it were now, nt

[MarjorieG]

22. You're missing Obama's inclusion of all religions, including Muslim, and mentioning Atheists.

Did you not catch the Compassion Forum? We are all so divided and disrespectful, we need a first step on many issues that Obama offers.

[Zhade]

28. Did he call atheism a religion? Because if he did, he's wrong and needs to know.

We *lack* any religion or belief in gods.

[Solon]

33. That was just a forum to pander to Christian rightists...

and was disgusting in its own right. Laudable that Obama tries to include everyone, but the choice of forum was a mistake.

[TheDonkey]

25. Maybe around 2100

[Indenturedebtor]

29. Good luck with that

Probably after the Zargon invasion of 2435 is defeated and the Sarlackian treaty of Bjorgon Five is ratified. At least that's how it happens in my imagination.

[Nicole]

30. Never n/t

[bullwinkle428]

31. In THIS country? Try the twelfth of never...

:banghead:

[JoFerret]

32. When we do......it will be a sign from god

that we have grown up.

[Beregond2]

36. There have probably been lots of them

if you look at parties beyond the Big Two.

[Jamastiene]

38. Probably never, unfortunately.

Hey, it's not my choice. I'd MUCH rather have an atheist as president than someone pandering to the ex-gay bunch, the right wing, and the Rapture Ready nuts. :silly:

[LSK]

39. WHEN WILL WE STOP ASKING EVERYONE ABOUT THEIR RELIGION

ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

[mtnsnake]

40. as soon as the religious fanatics stop making religion a requirement to get elected

and when they stop force feeding it down everyone's throat