Author Topic: Another athiest question. (Read 15122 times)

griz · « **on:** February 20, 2007, 09:49:40 AM »

A couple of recent threads brought to mind a question. Really two questions.

1. COULD an atheist be elected to a national office?
2. Would the fact that a candidate was an atheist affect your vote?

Manedwolf · « **Reply #1 on:** February 20, 2007, 09:53:04 AM »

For the answer to how one would be treated, watch the movie "Contact".

cosine · « **Reply #2 on:** February 20, 2007, 09:56:36 AM »

1. No, I don't think so.

2. No, like usual, my decision would be based on the candidate's stance on issues of importance to me. Now, it is very likely that the candidate's atheistic beliefs would affect his/her stance on key issues, but I would not reject a candidate outright because he/she was an atheist.

Eleven Mike · « **Reply #3 on:** February 20, 2007, 10:19:42 AM »

I don't believe the atheist president exists.

Sergeant Bob · « **Reply #4 on:** February 20, 2007, 10:48:24 AM »

Nothin will make a person get religion faster than going to jail, hunkerin down in a foxhole, or goin into politics.

crt360 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 20, 2007, 11:43:51 AM »

1. Maybe.

2. Maybe.

grin

280plus · « **Reply #6 on:** February 20, 2007, 12:13:42 PM »

I think it's a question of would rather than could. If you campaigned and made your atheist views public, would you be able to garner the votes needed to be elected? It would be an interesting experiment to say the least.

CAnnoneer · « **Reply #7 on:** February 20, 2007, 12:20:41 PM »

1. No, alas not today.
2. Yes, and positively so.

#1 says quite a bunch about our society.

Disclaimer: a leftist is not an atheist.

wingnutx · « **Reply #8 on:** February 20, 2007, 12:21:48 PM »

Quote from: cosine on February 20, 2007, 08:56:36 AM

1. No, I don't think so.

2. No, like usual, my decision would be based on the candidate's stance on issues of importance to me. Now, it is very likely that the candidate's atheistic beliefs would affect his/her stance on key issues, but I would not reject a candidate outright because he/she was an atheist.

What he said.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #9 on:** February 20, 2007, 02:01:34 PM »

Quote from: CAnnoneer on February 20, 2007, 11:20:41 AM

1. No, alas not today.
2. Yes, and positively so.

#1 says quite a bunch about our society.

Maybe it says a bunch about atheists. Tongue

SteveS · « **Reply #10 on:** February 20, 2007, 03:28:26 PM »

1. I would say maybe, though I am not aware of an atheist candidate.

2. Makes no difference to me. I am concerned about their stance on the issues that are important to me.

Standing Wolf · « **Reply #11 on:** February 20, 2007, 03:37:48 PM »

I'm not running for national office.

onions! · « **Reply #12 on:** February 20, 2007, 03:41:55 PM »

Quote from: fistful on February 20, 2007, 01:01:34 PM

Quote from: CAnnoneer on February 20, 2007, 11:20:41 AM

1. No, alas not today.
2. Yes, and positively so.

#1 says quite a bunch about our society.

Maybe it says a bunch about atheists. Tongue

Hmm.You don't need to believe in a diety to have a brain.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #13 on:** February 20, 2007, 04:59:33 PM »

Quote from: 41mag on February 20, 2007, 02:41:55 PM

Quote from: fistful on February 20, 2007, 01:01:34 PM

Quote from: CAnnoneer on February 20, 2007, 11:20:41 AM

1. No, alas not today.
2. Yes, and positively so.

#1 says quite a bunch about our society.

Maybe it says a bunch about atheists. Tongue

Hmm.You don't need to believe in a diety to have a brain.

Hmm. You need much more than a brain to be President. In fact, it might be better if you hadn't one, if you want to get elected. cheesy

onions! · « **Reply #14 on:** February 20, 2007, 05:20:50 PM »

Quote from: fistful on February 20, 2007, 03:59:33 PM

Quote from: 41mag on February 20, 2007, 02:41:55 PM

Quote from: fistful on February 20, 2007, 01:01:34 PM

Quote from: CAnnoneer on February 20, 2007, 11:20:41 AM

1. No, alas not today.
2. Yes, and positively so.

#1 says quite a bunch about our society.

Maybe it says a bunch about atheists. Tongue

Hmm.You don't need to believe in a diety to have a brain.

Hmm. You need much more than a brain to be President. In fact, it might be better if you hadn't one, if you want to get elected. cheesy

Antibubba · « **Reply #15 on:** February 20, 2007, 08:03:44 PM »

Remember what happened to the candidate in the commercial who told the little girl he didn't like cheese. And that's just a dairy product! The atheist would have it even worse.

lee n. field · « **Reply #16 on:** February 21, 2007, 03:32:47 AM »

If the candidate was a ranting, wear-it-on-my-sleeve, bring it up in casual conversation type atheist, like this Richard Dawkins guy, then I would suspect psychological "issues" that would mean he probably shouldn't have any authority higher than meter maid.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #17 on:** February 21, 2007, 03:55:35 AM »

Quote from: lee n. field on February 21, 2007, 02:32:47 AM

If the candidate was a ranting, wear-it-on-my-sleeve, bring it up in casual conversation type atheist, like this Richard Dawkins guy, then I would suspect psychological "issues" that would mean he probably shouldn't have any authority higher than meter maid.

Yeah, but do guys like that ever get anywhere in politics?

griz · « **Reply #18 on:** February 21, 2007, 04:09:57 AM »

Quote from: lee n. field on February 21, 2007, 02:32:47 AM

If the candidate was a ranting, wear-it-on-my-sleeve, bring it up in casual conversation type atheist, like this Richard Dawkins guy, then I would suspect psychological "issues" that would mean he probably shouldn't have any authority higher than meter maid.

Does fire & brimstone atheist sound better than flaming atheist? grin

I'm thinking more along the lines of someone who merely confirms that he is an atheist. I agree that someone who wanted to make it a big issue of it would indicate some other problem. What I had in mind is the flap over the guy who is gearing up for a presidential bid and is a Mormon. If people (voters, not media) are concerned over his LDS status, it seems that atheism would be a no go for them.

SteveS · « **Reply #19 on:** February 21, 2007, 04:55:16 AM »

Quote from: griz on February 21, 2007, 03:09:57 AM

If people (voters, not media) are concerned over his LDS status, it seems that atheism would be a no go for them.

It seems that most of the flap is in the media. I guess time will tell.

Manedwolf · « **Reply #20 on:** February 21, 2007, 05:33:14 AM »

I think a logical, ethical atheist with a strong sense of personal morals would be a hell of a lot better than a hypocritical bible-thumper that uses religiousity as an excuse for their depravity and lack of morals. The sort that complains of "failings" and asks for "forgiveness" when they get caught with their hand in the money...or their pants around their ankles.

Character should be the first measure of a person.

And the leader of the free world should be listening to the voices of the people, not voices in their head that they attribute to a higher power of some sort.

SteveS · « **Reply #21 on:** February 21, 2007, 09:08:04 AM »

Quote from: Manedwolf on February 21, 2007, 04:33:14 AM

And the leader of the free world should be listening to the voices of the people, not voices in their head that they attribute to a higher power of some sort.

I'm supposed to be hearing voices?!? Must have picked the wrong religion.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #22 on:** February 21, 2007, 10:00:06 AM »

Quote from: Manedwolf on February 21, 2007, 04:33:14 AM

I think a logical, ethical atheist with a strong sense of personal morals would be a hell of a lot better than a hypocritical bible-thumper that uses religiousity as an excuse for their depravity and lack of morals. The sort that complains of "failings" and asks for "forgiveness" when they get caught with their hand in the money...or their pants around their ankles.

Character should be the first measure of a person.

And the leader of the free world should be listening to the voices of the people, not voices in their head that they attribute to a higher power of some sort.

Agreed.

I was brought up with all of that "God gave me a word of knowledge" charismatic stuff (voices in their heads). Glad I got out.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #23 on:** February 21, 2007, 10:02:40 AM »

Quote from: SteveS on February 21, 2007, 03:55:16 AM

Quote from: griz on February 21, 2007, 03:09:57 AM

If people (voters, not media) are concerned over his LDS status, it seems that atheism would be a no go for them.

It seems that most of the flap is in the media. I guess time will tell.

I think so, too - the media just wants to drive a wedge between Romney and some likely supporters. It also fits with the elitist view of us scary, conservative evangelicals being all close-minded and theocratic. Not that there isn't some truth to that. My own pastor had some qualms until he thought it out some. I think he's over that now.

Manedwolf · « **Reply #24 on:** February 21, 2007, 10:07:32 AM »

Quote from: fistful on February 21, 2007, 09:02:40 AM

Quote from: SteveS on February 21, 2007, 03:55:16 AM

Quote from: griz on February 21, 2007, 03:09:57 AM

If people (voters, not media) are concerned over his LDS status, it seems that atheism would be a no go for them.

It seems that most of the flap is in the media. I guess time will tell.

I think so, too - the media just wants to drive a wedge between Romney and some likely supporters. It also fits with the elitist view of us scary, conservative evangelicals being all close-minded and theocratic. Not that there isn't some truth to that. My own pastor had some qualms until he thought it out some. I think he's over that now.

Romney is doing enough wedging of his own. Did you see the other thread I put up about his position against guns?

News:

Author Topic: Another athiest question. (Read 15122 times)

onions!

onions!