Electing an atheist president?

[originalglitch]

If a presidential election was held this year and a prominent candidate with enough funding to advertise his campaign happens to be an atheist, would he/she have any chance of winning the election?

I ask this because certain opponents of Obama really want people to believe he's a Muslim. Which would imply that being a Muslim would hurt his popular opinion.
Mitt Romney faced being a Mormon as hurdle during the republican primaries.
And there was some questions raised about Joe Lieberman being Jewish when he was put on the Gore ticket.

It seems if you even give off a certain vibe of not being a "normal" christian people start to get nervous. So I'm imagining an atheist(or to a lesser extent, an agnost) running for president would fire up certain people to take arms, and act as if Attila the Hun had marched toward Washington.

[phatlip]

NOPE. The United States is way too intolerant of a country.

[zeo]

NOPE. The United States is way too intolerant of a country.

If that was true then Obama would never have been elected in the first place. If Americans were intolerant then there would have been rampant Anti-muslim sentiment after 9/11, but nothing happened... If that was true then every time someone burns the flag or the bible then there would be riots, but there never are...

America is very tolerant! You couldn't have people from all over the world and all types of cultures living here so well otherwise. It's just no one listens to sane people and the media makes us all look bad by only showing the nuts but that's because they think we want to watch that nonsense. Plus there are a segment that simply want to think the worse of America...

As for people thinking Obama is a Muslim, it's a very small minority. I think one poll had it at about 7%. Most people know that isn't true. But we also know he's not a traditional Christian and that's where the confusion comes in. Not that it matters much as it's his policies we should be discussing and not his religion.

To most people personal religion is between you and your beliefs and as long as you don't try to impose those beliefs on others then it isn't that important these days. It's just the special interest groups that will make a big deal about it but people in general just want a leader who they think can do the job and seems trustworthy.

So it depends on what kind of Atheist, so long as the candidate seems morally secure and tolerant of other beliefs then I don't see the religion or lack there of being a major hindrance. We're a Republic after all and not a Theocracy.

[tokenuser]

Don't get out much do ya?

[zeo]

Don't get out much do ya?

I get out a lot, no problems there. America isn't perfect by a long shot but it's hardly the hell hole the media and politicians often portrays it as. It's just when people do good things it doesn't get on the news and lots of progressives have done a good job of re-writing history.

When people look for a leader they look for a strong moral code they can relate to. It's just been that traditionally this has been done by showing the candidate's religious beliefs, but this isn't the only way to show you have a strong moral code you live by. It just may be harder to get that message through otherwise.

But the politics of the day are economy and not religion, what people really care about is their own personal security and as both parties have become fond of saying, "it's the economy!"

[phatlip]

If that was true then Obama would never have been elected in the first place. If Americans were intolerant then there would have been rampant Anti-muslim sentiment after 9/11, but nothing happened... If that was true then every time someone burns the flag or the bible then there would be riots, but there never are...

America is very tolerant! You couldn't have people from all over the world and all types of cultures living here so well otherwise. It's just no one listens to sane people and the media makes us all look bad by only showing the nuts but that's because they think we want to watch that nonsense. Plus there are a segment that simply want to think the worse of America...

As for people thinking Obama is a Muslim, it's a very small minority. I think one poll had it at about 7%. Most people know that isn't true. But we also know he's not a traditional Christian and that's where the confusion comes in. Not that it matters much as it's his policies we should be discussing and not his religion.

To most people personal religion is between you and your beliefs and as long as you don't try to impose those beliefs on others then it isn't that important these days. It's just the special interest groups that will make a big deal about it but people in general just want a leader who they think can do the job and seems trustworthy.

So it depends on what kind of Atheist, so long as the candidate seems morally secure and tolerant of other beliefs then I don't see the religion or lack there of being a major hindrance. We're a Republic after all and not a Theocracy.

That's funny. Coming from a guy who belongs to a majority which shares the bigoted idea that there's a connection between an entire ethnic group (Islam), and the actions of a minority. After having our discussion about the "mosque at ground zero", you made it clear that you're in favor of suppressing the rights of fellow US citizens based on their religious background. Again, an opinion the majority in the country currently favors. BTW, will you be joining your friends on 9/11 in burning copies of the Qur'an?

Also, could you remind me again how many people believe the president's Muslim? Oh, that's right. 1 in 5 people- around 20%. Maybe you can also refresh my memory on the percentage of enrollment in hate groups that rose after Obama was elected? That always slips my mind.

Yeah, we're tolerant alright. We like to police the world pushing our ideals of democracy and equality on others. If only we practiced what we preached. Oh, do I wonder why the world hates us.

[zeo]

That's funny. Coming from a guy who belongs to a majority which shares the bigoted idea that there's a connection between an entire ethnic group (Islam), and the actions of a minority.

No, that's your biased interpretation that you cling to justify your position. But I guess if you think you say it enough times it might rub off.



After having our discussion about the "mosque at ground zero", you made it clear that you're in favor of suppressing the rights of fellow US citizens based on their religious background.

Again, your own biased interpretation. Wanting them to answer questions and consider a different location is not suppressing their rights. They can still build whatever they want. But people have the right also to ask questions and ask for respect of the area. I would give them the exact same consideration if the situation was reverse. People have the right to mourn and ask for respect and it's just common human decency to not force something on them that will only remind them of the tragedy.

Only extremists would make it an either or issue!


BTW, will you be joining your friends on 9/11 in burning copies of the Qur'an?

This again shows your bigoted perception. One nut wants to burn the Qur'an and you want to make it like everyone wants to do the same.

No, I'm against burning the Qur'an just as I'm against Burning a Bible. It's just disrespectful and a act of hate.


Also, could you remind me again how many people believe the president's Muslim? Maybe you can also refresh my memory on the percentage of enrollment in hate groups that rose after Obama was elected? That always slips my mind.

Do you see rampant hate groups marching down the streets? No, because that's bullshit!

Media makes a big deal out of a few extremists and you want to make it out like it's everybody. Sorry but that just shows how much you hate, not the other way around.

Yeah, we're tolerant alright. We like to police the world pushing our ideals of democracy and equality on others. If only we practiced what we preached. Oh, do I wonder why the world hates us.

Again, a opinion based on a biased view of America. Does the world hate that we stopped genocides? Does the world hate the billions of aid we send to countries around the world? Does the world hate we provide most of the UN budget and military force? Does the world hate that we've done more for Africa and fighting HIV than any other country in the world? Does the world hate that hundreds of thousands of Americans have given their lives for people around the world from civilian volunteers to soldiers?

Sure there are people who hate America but it's not all because we did something to them. It's because of what we represent!

[phatlip]

No, that's your biased interpretation that you cling to justify your position. But I guess if you think you say it enough times it might rub off.

Too bad I have 6 pages of evidence. Backtracking doesn't work on the Internet. You said the worship center should be placed elsewhere, despite them having the right to place it where they want. You constantly drew connections between all of Islam and a minority. (http://revision3.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36481)



Again, your own biased interpretation. Wanting them to answer questions and consider a different location is not suppressing their rights. They can still build whatever they want. But people have the right also to ask questions and ask for respect of the area. I would give them the exact same consideration if the situation was reverse. People have the right to mourn and ask for respect and it's just common human decency to not force something on them that will only remind them of the tragedy.

Only extremists would make it an either or issue!


Too bad I have 6 pages of evidence. Backtracking doesn't work on the Internet. You said the worship center should be placed elsewhere, despite them having the right to place it where they want. You constantly drew connections between all of Islam and a minority. (http://revision3.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36481)

Putting a worship center near ground zero has about as much to do with respect as does putting a coke machine near ground zero. Islam as a whole had as much to do with 9/11 as that coke machine. There is no correlation between Islam and ground zero as there is no correlation between ground zero and a coke machine. You know what? Now that I think about it, a lot of those terrorist had beards! It is insensitive to have a beard now ground zero!!

What exactly is there to be "respectful" of? Unless of course you *gasp*- draw a connection between Islam and 9/11. As I've proved TIME AND TIME AGAIN.



This again shows your bigoted perception.


Speaking out against bigotry = bigotry? lulz


Do you see rampant hate groups marching down the streets? No, because that's bullshit!


I also don't see rampant Islamic extremists walking down the street, but that hasn't stopped you from drawing a connection between an entire ethnic group and a minority, has it?


Media makes a big deal out of a few extremists and you want to make it out like it's everybody.

One could say the same about the connection you're making between an entire religion and the actions of 19.

Hey genius! You're the one putting the majority in the same category of a few extremists. I'm not, I simply pointed out a raise in hate groups due to the election of a black president.



Sorry but that just shows how much you hate, not the other way around.


And what exactly do I hate?


Sure there are people who hate America but it's not all because we did something to them. It's because of what we represent!

Agreed, they do hate us for what we represent. We represent a nation of hypocrites who preach messages of equality and freedom to the world. We stress the importance of these ideals on others while people like you support the restriction of equality and freedom on your fellow citizens. They do hate us for what we represent. You got that damn right.

[phatlip]

So no, I can't foresee the United States electing an atheist president. There are too many intolerant people like Zeo in this country.

[originalglitch]

Whoa, didn't realize this was gonna be a back track to the park51 debate. XD

Setting all that aside, the american people may not necessarily be intolerant but they are gullible and easily swayed by some of the stupidest arguments simply because it triggers their emotions. Unfortunately lunatics who are loud enough can get their say over issues.

Case in point, proposition 8(the one banning gay marriage)over here in California. Anti-gay marriage groups knew they couldn't by just saying "being gay is immoral". So instead all the ads focused on the complete lie of "the schools are gonna teach your children about two men grabbing each others' privates!".

Like wise if an atheist were to run, I'm pretty sure bill O'reilly, glen beck, and all fundamentalist would unite to fight against this person's campaign. I'm sure they would work days and sleepless nights in order to convince everybody that this atheist candidate(even if he/she is a republican) has no morals and is gonna bulldoze all churches and build strip clubs in their place.

[zeo]

Too bad I have 6 pages of evidence. Backtracking doesn't work on the Internet. You said the worship center should be placed elsewhere, despite them having the right to place it where they want. You constantly drew connections between all of Islam and a minority.

Again, no back tracking and you're only showing your own bias by insisting on interpreting as an either/or issue. Only extremist think that way!

I drew connection between them forcing people to be reminded of a tragedy. Just like any tragedy it's just human decency to ask to not have people forced to be reminded of a tragedy.

You try to over simplify things because you don't want to accept there is any valid point of view but your own. We debated over 6 pages because there are a lot of factors involved.



Putting a worship center near ground zero has about as much to do with respect as does putting a coke machine near ground zero.

In your biased opinion, because you will not accept any point of view that disagrees with your opinion.

A coke machine will not remind people of a tragedy unless it was somehow involved. Then just like my car example, it would remind people of the tragedy and then it would fall into the same situation of respect to not force something that reminds someone of their loss.

You want to make it like there is no other point of view but there is whether you care or not. You want to be an inhuman monster who cares nothing about how tragedy can effect people that's fine but don't keep on trying to pretend that's not what you're doing.


What exactly is there to be "respectful" of? Unless of course you *gasp*- draw a connection between Islam and 9/11. As I've proved TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

You're not thinking, there's a difference between being reminded of the reasons why the Terrorists attacked us and blaming Islam for the attack. All you've proved is anything even remotely disagreeing with your point of view has to go all the way to extreme opposite of your view. Sorry but what you're doing is bigotry, not the other way around.

Facts are things aren't so simple as you're trying to make them. We're not the ones who associated Terrorism with Islam, the Terrorists did that and do that every time they try to justify their actions!

No American has stopped any Muslim building hundreds of Mosques across America since 9/11! There is no rampant anti-muslim sentiment in America. Muslims live here just like everyone else.

What you call back tracking is pointing out all the things you refused to consider. Not everything I pointed out is even what I think, I was explaining what you were clearly missing. Because to you it seems it has to be either one side or the other. For you there are no gray areas, everyone has to either be with you or against you.

Sorry but the real world is rarely that simple and whether you like it or not the NYC Mosque is not a simple either/or issue. You even wanted to make Muslims who don't think the mosque should be built there bigots as well, when it's part of their religious tenants of respect to not do this.


I'm not, I simply pointed out a raise in hate groups due to the election of a black president.

No, you are. You're putting the actions, like that nutty priest who wants to burn the Qur'an as representing all people you disagree with and thus must be on the other extreme side according to your logic.

That would be like me accusing you of wanting to Burn Bibles because you're arguing one extreme point of view that anyone who doesn't believe exactly as you do must be all the way to the opposite extreme.

The reality is that there hasn't been a rise in hate groups due to Obama election. They've been growing since 2000 and the so called rise has more to do with crime as the number of gangs and cartels have risen and increased territorial disputes. So that too is your biased distorted view. Normal people can disagree without having to hate each other. The problem you're seemingly having is you can only accept disagreement by portraying others as being the opposite extreme to you.



Agreed, they do hate us for what we represent. We represent a nation of hypocrites who preach messages of equality and freedom to the world. We stress the importance of these ideals on others while people like you support the restriction of equality and freedom on your fellow citizens. They do hate us for what we represent. You got that damn right.

People like me, is another example of your hatred of anyone who disagrees with you. You're putting me into a extreme category so you won't have to re-evaluate your own biased beliefs.

You don't know me from a hole in the wall. You're trying to do to me exactly what you're accusing people of trying to do to Feisal Abdul Rauf.

That makes you the hypocrite.

America is a nation who has sacrificed for the good of others. No, we're not a perfect nation. No country is, we're all human after all. But we strive to make things better and have done so from the beginning. It's just a continuing struggle and we stumble a lot but it's the American legacy that we always push forward for a better world.

You know why all the Amendments ever made are still included? Like the 18th for Prohibition even though it was repealed by the 21st? Because this country is founded on the principle of learning from our mistakes and all Amendment are left to remind us of past mistakes and to learn from them.

No other nation is as generous as America, we're the first to give aid when even our enemies are hit by natural disasters. By far most of that generosity comes from American citizens who give more than our Government ever has. But all you can see is the things we've done wrong without any context. Sorry but that says more about you than the country.



Back on topic, here's an example of someone already in office who is a publicly admitted Atheist...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Stark

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/08_nov_dec/Stark.html

Course it's harder to be elected as President than just a congressman or senator. But I do think it's possible a Atheist could be elected if they were appealing enough and could convince enough people he/she would do a good job.

[zeo]

Setting all that aside, the american people may not necessarily be intolerant but they are gullible and easily swayed by some of the stupidest arguments simply because it triggers their emotions. Unfortunately lunatics who are loud enough can get their say over issues.

Only to a limit, once people wake up to the fact they are lunatics then they stop listening to them.


Case in point, proposition 8(the one banning gay marriage)over here in California.

Wasn't that simple, for example many black voters voted for the prop because supporters of Gay Marriage tried to make it a Civil Rights issue and they disagreed with that. But you are right that certain topics can go to extremes and politics often gets dirty.



Like wise if an atheist were to run, I'm pretty sure bill O'reilly, glen beck, and all fundamentalist would unite to fight against this person's campaign. I'm sure they would work days and sleepless nights in order to convince everybody that this atheist candidate(even if he/she is a republican) has no morals and is gonna bulldoze all churches and build strip clubs in their place.

I disagree, O'Reilly probably won't like it but he hasn't publicly campaigned for or against anyone outside of just asking tough questions. I don't see that changing just because the candidate is an Atheist.

While Glenn Beck has even had Atheist on his show and pointed out even Atheists can have moral code. He's friends with Penn of Penn and Teller Fame btw, who's an Atheist and Libertarian for example and would have absolutely no problem blasting any Atheist bashing anyone. So if Glenn was intolerant like that then they wouldn't be friends. Though Penn doesn't like all the religious talk Beck gets into but that's another matter. The main point is Glenn wants someone who would be for limited Government, he'd probably prefer someone who is religious but his main thing is limited government and the core principles the country was founded on...

Kinda reminds me of how everyone assumed Glenn was going to use the Shirley Sherrod video against the Obama administration to show racism but instead he sided with Shirley Sherrod's call to have the whole video shown unedited.

Also this may surprise some people, http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-root-calls-glenn-beck-one-of-the-blackest-white-folks-we-know/

Everyone seems to forget, back before he was on Fox he also criticized Bush. Even now he repeatedly states both parties have failed. He's just mainly a libertarian like Penn and they just want smaller government.

But goes to the point that there is a tendency in todays media to portray anyone with an opposing view on any topic as going all the way to the opposite side and working for Fox News also tends to have people make assumptions about you regardless of your actual political views.

Like even the Liberals on Fox News have gotten attacked if they so much as think Obama should have done something differently. Really, anyone calling Alan Colmes, or any other of the outspokenly liberal contributors as right wing nut is nuts themselves.

Reminds me of one of Obama supporters who owned a Super Market, he was all for Obama's policies and only disagreed on the Health Care plan, wanting just a different plan. But for that one infraction he got boycotted and blasted as a right wing nut.



But it's mainly the main stream media that's nuts, they just don't know it but most Americans do and is mostly why their ratings are way down and similar extreme newspapers have started going out of business.

Not to say there won't be fundamentalists against a Atheist taking office but most Americans aren't fundamentalists and there is actually a growing number of Atheist Americans, along with a steady de-emphasis on religion over the last 40 years.

Sure, 50 years ago it would have been no way but America has changed quite a bit.
Though it just might take awhile before we get a candidate worth considering regardless of their religious or political leanings...

[boldfire]

I'm just wondering if the UK has ever had an atheist Prime Minister. I don't think we have.

Mind you David Miliband, who has a big change of becoming our next PM declares himself as an atheist.

[tokenuser]

The new Australian PM is:

Female
Not married ("living in sin")
No children
Not born in Australia
Raised Baptist, but not religious


She'd never make it in the US. Difference is that under the Westminster form of government, you vote for local constituents, and THEY nominate their leader. So, you are voting for a party, and not an individual. It means that the party needs policies that are well communicated and consistent. Something else that couldn't happen in the US where the democrats policy is 'silence', and the GOP run around yelling 'NO!'. At least the GOP cheersquad, Glenn Beck, and the teabaggers know how to read a bumper sticker -but a sound bite and a bumper sticker aren't policy ... no matter how hard it's chanted.

[normstansfield]

Some of he best American Presidents were atheists or at least opposed to the Christian definition of god (Lincoln was an all out atheist, and Jefferson is on record denouncing the Church's notions of God in no uncertain terms).

The US has been going through periods where religious puritanism is dominant, but overall it has been the only country in which, for periods of time, the Church was truly separate from the State. Unfortunately, we don't happen to live in one of those periods, though not because religion is on the rise (it is not), but because the Constitutional Republic as a whole is being replaced by democracy. In democracy, a brand of morality does not even need to be dominant to be imposed on others, its minority proponents just have to be loud and fanatical enough.

Obviously, he most blatant manifestation of the new statist culture in the US is the welfare state, where different minority groups carve out economic favors for themselves at the expense of taxpayers, but to a lesser extent religious groups have also been able to gain power over their fellow Americans.

As long as statism and collectivism in general dominate US culture, I don't foresee another rational President (be it in matters of religion or any other aspects of philosophy and politics). But a return to America's founding values is possible. In my opinion, the biggest obstacle to such a transition is still the American Left, but the Religious Right is in close second place and has some real nice growth potential in the "I put blind faith in Obama and he destroyed the country, so now I think I'm gonna turn to the next Messiah" demographic.

[phatlip]

Again, no back tracking and you're only showing your own bias by insisting on interpreting as an either/or issue. Only extremist think that way!

I seriously don't have the time or am I willing to repeat myself over and over again. So I'll say this. For some reason, unbeknownst to me, you just don't get this. You'll make a claim that I'm wrong, but in attempting to defend your point, you prove mine. Each and every time. Below are a few examples of precisely this:


I drew connection between them forcing people to be reminded of a tragedy. Just like any tragedy it's just human decency to ask to not have people forced to be reminded of a tragedy.


The only reason the Islamic center would remind them of the tragedy is if people like you draw the bigoted connection between an entire ethnic group and the actions of a minority. I've said this time and time again. You JUST agreed that you're drawing a connection between an entire ethnic group and the actions of a minority. Yet, you STILL won't admit I'm right.


In your biased opinion, because you will not accept any point of view that disagrees with your opinion.

Not if it's bigoted. And please, don't say that you're point of view isn't bigoted. As I pointed out above, you admitted you're drawing the connection between Islam and terrorist that I've argued this whole time.


A coke machine will not remind people of a tragedy unless it was somehow involved. Then just like my car example, it would remind people of the tragedy and then it would fall into the same situation of respect to not force something that reminds someone of their loss.

You want to make it like there is no other point of view but there is whether you care or not. You want to be an inhuman monster who cares nothing about how tragedy can effect people that's fine but don't keep on trying to pretend that's not what you're doing.

Oh, so you're saying that Islam was involved in the 9/11 attacks then. Yet again, you prove the point I made about you drawing a connection between an ethnic group and a minority.



Sorry but what you're doing is bigotry, not the other way around.

This is funny, but it's a key point in why you don't understand you're being bigoted. You don't understand what the word means. I'd love to hear how I'm being bigoted.

[tokenuser]

I'd love to hear how I'm being bigoted.Phatty, when will you accept that white America is what God wanted?

Geez, until you get that through your head, you are going to burn at the gates of hell for eternity with the other non white, non born again christian heathens.

<yes, sarcasm ... just in case you (not PHatty, he get's it) dont get it>

[phatlip]

Setting all that aside, the american people may not necessarily be intolerant but they are gullible and easily swayed by some of the stupidest arguments simply because it triggers their emotions. Unfortunately lunatics who are loud enough can get their say over issues..

I don't think I want to go as far as saying religion preaches intolerance, but I do believe it walks a thin line. This is one of the things that pushed me over the edge from being Christian to agnostic. I just have a hard time saying that religion preaches tolerance when it's preached that those who go against the bible are living their lives wrong, and are going to hell.



Like wise if an atheist were to run, I'm pretty sure bill O'reilly, glen beck, and all fundamentalist would unite to fight against this person's campaign. I'm sure they would work days and sleepless nights in order to convince everybody that this atheist candidate(even if he/she is a republican) has no morals and is gonna bulldoze all churches and build strip clubs in their place.

I think you would be surprised. Most people in the United States are Christian. Anyone true to their own beliefs would believe that an Atheist is living his/her life the wrong way. I think it would be difficult for an individual to vote for someone who they think is living their life wrong, and is destine for hell. If I believed in such a thing as heaven/hell, I sure as hell (heh) wouldn't vote for someone who were going to hell. I think a lot of people who are otherwise considered moderates wouldn't support an atheist. I'm more liberal than my mother, but we still see eye to eye on various issues and I would consider her a moderate. With that said, if an atheist ran for president, I know my mother wouldn't vote for him/her. I can say the same for many others too. It's an unfortunate reality.

[zeo]

I seriously don't have the time or am I willing to repeat myself over and over again. So I'll say this. For some reason, unbeknownst to me, you just don't get this. You'll make a claim that I'm wrong, but in attempting to defend your point, you prove mine. Each and every time. Below are a few examples of precisely this:

No, I've proven you're the one with the bias, you're the one who can't let go. Remember it was you who distracted this conversation with the NY topic. Not me, because you want to keep a biased view of those who disagree with.

Btw, I'm Eurasian (not white), I was born overseas, and I'm also agnostic.


The only reason the Islamic center would remind them of the tragedy is if people like you draw the bigoted connection between an entire ethnic group and the actions of a minority.

For one thing being Islamic is not a race/ethnic group. It's a religion, anyone can be a Muslim. You're basic premise is just wrong and you're blaming the victims for what the terrorists did.

Americans didn't draw a connection between terrorism and Islam, that's what the terrorists have done. You just don't get that part! You want to blame the victims for that association. To you the only way to draw an association is if one is doing so in a bigoted way.

But most Americans aren't attacking Islam, most Americans aren't calling for preventing Muslims to build Mosques, Most Americans aren't doing anything wrong!

But ground zero is like a burial ground to many Americans. There is a difference between wanting space and being bigoted. Bigoted not only means intolerance, it also means animosity and irrational.

Many Americans don't hold animosity toward Islam, many of the reasons stated for questioning the NY Mosque location were based on reason and not irrationality, and wanting them to build at a different location is just a call for compromise and not intolerance.

I also pointed out in that discussion that many Americans would be okay with the Mosque if the questions and fears raised could be answered and if the Center was truly to heal wounds. But again to you it has to be absolutes, either for or against and nothing in between and that's why you don't get it!

What is bigoted though is using terms like "ethnic" because you want to make it a race issue, you try to be clever by trying to make a discussion of ideals into a discussion about the people who hold those ideals. But all you're doing is trying to impose animosity where there is none and just showing your own personal bias.

Now I think you've wasted enough of our time and I'll stick to the topic at hand...


I'm just wondering if the UK has ever had an atheist Prime Minister. I don't think we have.

Mind you David Miliband, who has a big change of becoming our next PM declares himself as an atheist.

Here's some polling data the percentages of Atheist/Agnostics in different nations...

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

You'll note in some countries the numbers are pretty high.

And there is additional data showing the decline of religion in the US, http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

You can also factor the distrust the American people are developing for the traditional politician and the growing ideal that the government should be separate from religion and atheism doesn't quite have the stigma that it use to.


She'd never make it in the US. Difference is that under the Westminster form of government, you vote for local constituents, and THEY nominate their leader. So, you are voting for a party, and not an individual. It means that the party needs policies that are well communicated and consistent. Something else that couldn't happen in the US where the democrats policy is 'silence', and the GOP run around yelling 'NO!'.

You're forgetting people can also run as Independent! It all depends how popular the politician can make themselves. It's of course a lot harder but hardly impossible.


At least the GOP cheersquad, Glenn Beck, and the teabaggers know how to read a bumper sticker -but a sound bite and a bumper sticker aren't policy ... no matter how hard it's chanted.

It's interesting you harp on Glenn Beck when he's bashed both parties, calling them two sides of the same coin. But I guess lumping everyone who disagrees in one big lump is easier to deal with...


but because the Constitutional Republic as a whole is being replaced by democracy. In democracy, a brand of morality does not even need to be dominant to be imposed on others, its minority proponents just have to be loud and fanatical enough.

This is true, there have been an ever increasing trend of pushing this Republic to become a democracy.


Obviously, he most blatant manifestation of the new statist culture in the US is the welfare state, where different minority groups carve out economic favors for themselves at the expense of taxpayers, but to a lesser extent religious groups have also been able to gain power over their fellow Americans.

As long as statism and collectivism in general dominate US culture, I don't foresee another rational President (be it in matters of religion or any other aspects of philosophy and politics). But a return to America's founding values is possible. In my opinion, the biggest obstacle to such a transition is still the American Left, but the Religious Right is in close second place and has some real nice growth potential in the "I put blind faith in Obama and he destroyed the country, so now I think I'm gonna turn to the next Messiah" demographic.

I mostly agree, politics has become almost like a new religion... everyone has to be viewed as either on one side or the other and no one is allowed to be in between. While entitlements cripples the American will to do the right thing.


I don't think I want to go as far as saying religion preaches intolerance, but I do believe it walks a thin line. This is one of the things that pushed me over the edge from being Christian to agnostic. I just have a hard time saying that religion preaches tolerance when it's preached that those who go against the bible are living their lives wrong, and are going to hell.

Strangely enough that's something we can agree on...



I think you would be surprised. Most people in the United States are Christian. Anyone true to their own beliefs would believe that an Atheist is living his/her life the wrong way. I think it would be difficult for an individual to vote for someone who they think is living their life wrong, and is destine for hell. If I believed in such a thing as heaven/hell, I sure as hell (heh) wouldn't vote for someone who were going to hell.

True but then most people think politicians are corrupt and are going to hell anyway :P

It all depends on the issue of the day dominating the minds of Americans... Like right now it's jobs and the economy. Whether you're religious or not there is a practical side to the motivation for people to vote. People want their lives to be better and usually the best salespersons candidate who can convince us they will do exactly that wins.

And as normstansfield pointed out, not all our previous leaders have been all that religious. Sometimes it just never comes up as a topic of debate and it could be possible an Atheist gets elected before anyone even realizes he/she is an atheist.

[phatlip]

No, I've proven you're the one with the bias, you're the one who can't let go. Remember it was you who distracted this conversation with the NY topic. Not me, because you want to keep a biased view of those who disagree with.

I brought up the NY topic because it's relevant to the argument I made regarding the United States being intolerant. It was an example.


Btw, I'm Eurasian (not white), I was born overseas, and I'm also agnostic.

Your point?




For one thing being Islamic is not a race/ethnic group. It's a religion, anyone can be a Muslim. You're basic premise is just wrong and you're blaming the victims for what the terrorists did.

Ethnic group- pertaining to or characteristic of a people, esp. a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.

You're wrong. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethnic+group)

Also, how am I blaming victims? For once, could you back up what you say?


What is bigoted though is using terms like "ethnic" because you want to make it a race issue, you try to be clever by trying to make a discussion of ideals into a discussion about the people who hold those ideals. But all you're doing is trying to impose animosity where there is none and just showing your own personal bias.


No, I'm not making it a race issue. That's not what ethnic group means. Please purchase a dictionary. This is becoming a problem. You're using the terms bigoted and ethnic group without knowing what they are. You wouldn't know if you're being bigoted as you don't even know what these words mean. I provided a definition for you. But please, purchase a dictionary. I'm getting tired of teaching you stuff you should already know.

[zeo]

I brought up the NY topic because it's relevant to the argument I made regarding the United States being intolerant. It was an example.

In that we disagree.



Your point?

That those who don't agree with you aren't all white, religious, fear mongers.




Ethnic group- pertaining to or characteristic of a people, esp. a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.

You're wrong. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethnic+group)

Nope, correct, you tried to imply it as being a people. A religion is not an Ethnic group! Anyone can become a Muslim without having any common culture, common heritage, language, or race.


Also, how am I blaming victims. For once, you could you back what you say?

I did back it up, you just don't want to accept it. You're blaming Americans for the association created by the terrorists. It wasn't New Yorker's who wanted to name the Mosque Cordoba, a name associated by Muslims with conquest. It wasn't New Yorkers who made controversial statements that brought up many of these questions. It wasn't New Yorkers who refused to answer questions of funding, which brought up even more questions. It wasn't New Yorkers who want the Mosque to symbolize a victory against us.

There are lots of factors you just refuse to accept because you want to blame us for the association. It has even been pointed out that there wasn't immediate opposition to the Mosque until questionable details arose. Even now when most just want a compromise you only want to blame America. Sorry but that's all on you.

Btw, congratulations for again taking this off topic.

[tokenuser]

It wasn't New Yorker's who wanted to name the Mosque Cordoba, a name associated by Muslims with conquest. It wasn't New Yorkers who made controversial statements that brought up many of these questions. It wasn't New Yorkers who refused to answer questions of funding, which brought up even more questions. It wasn't New Yorkers who want the Mosque to symbolize a victory against us.Umm. Actually, I think they WERE New Yorkers, who happened to be Muslim. And the only people holding the Mosque up as being a symbol of Victory are the one who are opposing it.

Before returning to our regularly schedule debate on electing an atheist president ...

If Ground Zero is to be treated as sanctified ground (ie a burial ground), then why are the christians not up in arms (alms?) about rebuilding the trade centre there??

Think about it ...

And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

Back to an atheist president ... who cares. Separation of church and state.

And please please please ditch the "one nation under God" crap.

[zeo]

Umm. Actually, I think they WERE New Yorkers, who happened to be Muslim.

Not what I meant and you know that! The New Yorkers you're blaming for the Association aren't the ones who created it.


And the only people holding the Mosque up as being a symbol of Victory are the one who are opposing it.

No, the terrorists are. Another example of you refusing to see any factors but what you think it should be.


If Ground Zero is to be treated as sanctified ground (ie a burial ground), then why are the christians not up in arms (alms?) about rebuilding the trade centre there??

Because it's rebuilding what was there before and symbolizes a defiance against the terrorists.


Think about it ...

Yes, think about it!



Back to an atheist president ... who cares. Separation of church and state.

And please please please ditch the "one nation under God" crap.

Well, obviously you care otherwise you wouldn't be involved in this discussion. Being cynical is still holding a belief and the Topic is more just a question on whether it's possible and I think it's pretty clear that it is possible, just not easy.

[phatlip]

In that we disagree.

Disagree? WTF are you talking about? There's nothing to disagree with here. It's a fact that I brought up NY to support my argument that the US is intolerant. You're being idiotic.


That those who don't agree with you aren't all white, religious, fear mongers.


Never said that. Whats your point?

A religion is not an Ethnic group! Anyone can become a Muslim without having any common culture, common heritage, language, or race.

Did you NOT see the definition I posted which explained a religion can be an ethnic group. Again, you're being completely idiotic. You're attempting to dispute an irrefutable fact. That's cute. FAIL.


Everyone should just ignore Zeo at this point. There's no point in discussing anything with him. Back to the atheist president.

[zeo]

Disagree? WTF are you talking about? There's nothing to disagree with here. It's a fact that I brought up NY to support my argument that the US is intolerant. You're being idiotic.

No you're being belligerent. You think all people are being intolerant but that's your opinion and not a fact.



Never said that. Whats your point?

It's part of the implication, don't pretend it isn't. You tried to lump me with everyone.



Did you NOT see the definition I posted which explained a religion can be an ethnic group. Again, you're being completely idiotic. You're attempting to dispute an irrefutable fact. That's cute. FAIL.

No, your interpretation is FAIL. My stance is to point out the mistake in your use of the term. Generically, yes, but Islam, like Christianity, doesn't all fall into the exact same interpretation for all. And ethnicity doesn't just always include one factor. Don't try to pretend your intent isn't to try to portray any and all who disagree on this issue are doing so solely based on your contention on the idea of lumping all together. You said it many times that's your conclusion and your use of ethnic clearly tries to portray all of Islam as being the same people, which they are not. You're too caught up with your own bias to discern the difference between an association of a common religion and a association linked to all people.

Just like you tried to associate all opponents with the nutty Priest who wants to burn the Qur'an. You don't realize you're imposing reverse discrimination.

The fact is the majority of Americans are not attacking the whole of Islam or associating the whole with the acts of individuals, we're dealing with individuals who have made questionable comments and choices.

This intended Mosque doesn't represent all Muslims!


Everyone should just ignore Zeo at this point. There's no point in discussing anything with him. Back to the atheist president.

You're the one bringing it up. So it's you everyone should ignore, with your hateful rhetoric and insistence on viewing America cynically.

[bobv13]

There are many people on both sides of the isle who vote on one issue, take "choice" or "gun legalization". Today there may be more people who would not vote for an atheist than who would not vote a non-christian/jew. But as far as saying Americans in general are too intolerant is BS. I ask, have you forgotten Obama? You don't need to be a weather man to know which way the wind blows.

[bobv13]

Everyone should just ignore Zeo at this point. There's no point in discussing anything with him. Back to the atheist president.

There we have it. The "All Tolerant One" has spoken. (as long as those ideas put forth fit his liberal agenda)

[phatlip]

I ask, have you forgotten Obama? You don't need to be a weather man to know which way the wind blows.

Forgot what about Obama? Forgot about the ridiculous rise in hate groups after he was elected? Stupid barometer.

There we have it. The "All Tolerant One" has spoken. (as long as those ideas put forth fit his liberal agenda)

That has absolutely nothing to do with tolerance. At all. But hey, it sounded good! Maybe you could put that on a bumper sticker. I'm sure its in line with your other political views.

[originalglitch]

There we have it. The "All Tolerant One" has spoken. (as long as those ideas put forth fit his liberal agenda)

Because as we all know, using facts and logic instead of made up sources and whining is completely a liberal thing.

[masherscf]

This will never happen. In a country where more that 50% of all elected officials will not openly admit they believe in evolution, being openly atheist is a political death sentence.

[computoman]

Obama has moon in Gemini. I never put much credence in such people as they tend to say one thing and do another.

[tokenuser]

Obama has moon in Gemini. I never put much credence in such people as they tend to say one thing and do another.I never put much credence in people who believe that lives are governed by positions of celestial bodies.

[ariastar]

As I told my mother-in-law-to-be, I think we'll see a gay black woman as president before we'll see an atheist. Look at the fire Obama's come under because some idiots decided that because he shares the same first name as Bin Laden that it must mean he's really a Muslim. With that type of reasoning, every Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, in the world MUST be Christian. Doesn't work that way, but plenty of Americans aren't exactly very bright.

Despite this being a country founded on religious freedom, out politicians aren't yet safe expressing anything other than Christian beliefs. Banning mandated prayer in school is still controversial. An atheist president? Maybe in another 500 years.

[masherscf]

As I told my mother-in-law-to-be, I think we'll see a gay black woman as president before we'll see an atheist. Look at the fire Obama's come under because some idiots decided that because he shares the same first name as Bin Laden that it must mean he's really a Muslim. With that type of reasoning, every Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, in the world MUST be Christian. Doesn't work that way, but plenty of Americans aren't exactly very bright.

Despite this being a country founded on religious freedom, out politicians aren't yet safe expressing anything other than Christian beliefs. Banning mandated prayer in school is still controversial. An atheist president? Maybe in another 500 years.

Actually, I think the woman thing is worse. We'll probably never have an obese president or physically handicapped again either.

[robalister]

All they'd have to do is pretend and then during their lame duck session they hold a press conference and reveal that they're an atheist. No one can really complain if they did a good job plus it's near the end of their term.

[loug002]

As a transgender, I would rather have an atheist or even Pagan (but I'm biased there too) in office than a "Christian" especially of the Republican variety.

Why? Well, I don't want to be treated as a second class citizen...well, anymore than I already am.

I personally believe that beyond the home, or church, religion serves NO place in society. And if a politician votes based on his religion/heart instead of based on the legality of something, he might as well not vote at all.

[alaskalonewolf]

Wow.... now that makes me want to move to New Zealand.

[loug002]

Wow.... now that makes me want to move to New Zealand.

My comment?

Why?

[tokenuser]

My comment?

Why?What do you have against New Zealand? It would be a great place to live ... not as good as Australia, but close. Even as a fairly conservative country, it understands that religion and politics are not linked, and demonstrates that it is possible to have a non christian conservative living in nation that (while not socialist) looks after all people in an egalitarian fashion.

And it would have to be better than staying in Alaska - especially with Winter looming fast.

[loug002]

What do you have against New Zealand? It would be a great place to live ... not as good as Australia, but close. Even as a fairly conservative country, it understands that religion and politics are not linked, and demonstrates that it is possible to have a non christian conservative living in nation that (while not socialist) looks after all people in an egalitarian fashion.

And it would have to be better than staying in Alaska - especially with Winter looming fast.

..I just wanted to know if it was my comment he was referring to.

Plus, unless I'm mistaken, 'conservative' means something different in most other countries than the US. Like their right is our left and their left is our Nazi or something is how I think a friend explained it once.

[tokenuser]

The US has a conservative party ...








... And an even more conservative party.

[danserna11]

There would never be an atheist president. Maybe if his atheist identity was surreptitious. Then yea, but people don' t want one.

[loug002]

There would never be an atheist president. Maybe if his atheist identity was surreptitious. Then yea, but people don' t want one.

There should never be a Christian/Muslism/Jewish/Hindu/Buddhist president. Maybe if his Christian/Muslism/Jewish/Hindu/Buddhist identity were surreptitious. Then yea, but people don' t want one.

oh..wait..we have this little thing called the First Amendment, which is not only freedom of religion but also from. There's also a lack of testing to be a government official for such things as religion.