Page 2 of 2 [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

jimservo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,964
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs

14 May 2007, 3:20 pm

Cyanide wrote:
I would rather vote for an Atheist, but sadly there are never any frontrunning Atheists. Every main candidate is SOME sort of Christian.


Sopho wrote:
An atheist president would be better.


That point has come up before, however there are issues with it. One is that there is no evidence that atheists as a group make "better" leaders then non-atheists. Furthermore, atheists themselves, while certainly trending leftward in the United States, do not hold to one single "default" position or value on any one issue except rejection of religion. In fact, I have seen certain conservative atheists bloggers in the past somewhat positive views on organized religion (although I would certainly guess such people are in the sharp minority).

In regards to Mitt Romney, other then objections to his religion (which apparently many non-atheists share), it can hardly be stated the man is not an accomplished, and intelligent person. I personally don't see the need to focus on his religion unless people think it will seriously effect his ability to be President.

TheMachine1 wrote:
Since all religion is illogical and only a religious persons likely can be elected in most of the US I doubt it makes much difference if they are followers of a modern fake or an old fashion fake religion. We assume some how a person must be more nutty to follow the modern religions but that may not be true at all.


Oh course, it is statements such as these that make it less likely for Atheists to get elected to high office in the first place. Keep in mind more then 90% off Americans claim to believe in God. The people who are identified in the press are atheist intellectuals essentially say many of the same things. When this occurs, this causes even many moderately religious people to react negatively, and, once again, question whether atheists in general are willing to respect America's religious institution.

For the record, not all American presidents have equally religious. Indeed, Woodrow Wilson was more public with his religiosity then George W. Bush, although I would suppose it was more accepted then. Ronald Reagan didn't attend services weekly while he was at the White House. Richard Nixon certainly didn't abide by the exact tenants of the traditions of his Quaker faith.

The press has made this more of an issue in recent elections, although in certain past elections (1960, 1928) it played a part.

ADDENDUM: Oh, 1976, as well. Jimmy Carter was, largely, hailed by new Christian Conservative movement. Carter, of course, was a born again Christian and ran a conservative campaign against, among other things, "corrupt Washington officials." In 1980 the mostly turned against him and backed Reagan.

ADDENDUM II: I don't want to seem as if I am spouting party line stuff or something. There are lots of religious individuals that have objectionable beliefs. Most of the rejection of Mitt Romney, and this is just a guess, comes from fundamentalists Christians. I also think that some Christians saying they won't vote for Rudy Guiliani solely because he was had affairs, and may well have been a terrible husband doesn't make allot of sense (I also think it is questionable from a Christian standpoint).



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

15 May 2007, 12:48 am

Cyanide wrote:
I would rather vote for an Atheist, but sadly there are never any frontrunning Atheists. Every main candidate is SOME sort of Christian.

I do agree that Mormonism is a farce though. It was proven that there weren't Jews in South America....Scientology is even worse though. Better a Mormon than a Scientologist in my opinion...



IT'S A FACT!:



people feel more comfortable voting for: a woman; a black person; a jewish person; someone of any ethnicity other than white; or a gay person all above voting for an atheist.


we live in a f****d up country with f****d up ideas about government.


IT'S A FACT!


(it's also a fact that mormonism is a farce and so is scientology)



ahayes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,506

15 May 2007, 12:53 am

skafather84 wrote:
ooop i've gone and offended a mormon.


I'm no mormon. But that shît is offending to any Christian, even one that isn't very committed.



Todd489
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 997

15 May 2007, 5:39 am

Sopho wrote:
I think they should have a black, gay, autistic, atheist president.


A black gay autistic atheist female president. I'd vote for that.



JonnyBGoode
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 820
Location: Long Beach, CA

15 May 2007, 4:58 pm

skafather84 wrote:
and yes, i know freedom of religion.....doesn't mean freedom to implement religion in government. but yes, it does mean freedom FROM religion if the individual so chooses.

Then you must unlearn what you have learned. Because "freedom of religion" - as outlined in the first amendment - means nothing of the sort. It means that the government does not have the right to declare a state religion (or, more precisely, by the Founding Fathers' meaning of the term, a state denomination).

And what nonsense is it to say that just because a man of a particular religion is elected to office, that he will be "free to implement religion in government"? The President is not a dictator (no matter what conspiracy whackjobs will have you believe of Bush); he does not have the power to institute whatever religious tenets he believes in, into law.


_________________
18:33. Press 'Return'


Last edited by JonnyBGoode on 16 May 2007, 1:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

jimservo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,964
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs

15 May 2007, 6:33 pm

JonnyBGood wrote:
Then you must unlearn what you have learned. Because "freedom of religion" - as outlined in the first amendment - means nothing of the sort. It means that the government does not have the right to declare a state religion (or, more precisely, by the Founding Fathers' meaning of the term, a state denomination).


Actually, not state denomination specifically, there were several states (the last, I believe being Massachusetts) that maintained official state religions until the early 19th century. It is now generally accepted by constitutional scholars (with some exceptions) that the Bill of Rights supersedes (by a later amendment) state constitutions and hence there can no longer be state level religions.

In regards to a religious test, as applied it merely means there is no bar to any person of any religion (or lack of it) from running. If the people want to decide not to vote for someone because they don't like the fact they are a Mormon, or they are an Atheist, or they are a Catholic (which figured more in 1928 then in 1960), then there is nothing in the Constitution says about it; nor as a practicable matter really can there be.



Last edited by jimservo on 15 May 2007, 6:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

15 May 2007, 6:33 pm

JonnyBGoode wrote:
he does not have the power to institute whatever religious tenets he believes in, into law.




see: faith based initiatives and their distribution of money.



headphase
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 709
Location: NC, USA

15 May 2007, 10:25 pm

Taft is the closest president we have had to atheism



jimservo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,964
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs

15 May 2007, 11:09 pm

headphase wrote:
Taft is the closest president we have had to atheism


I'm not so sure about that. Taft seems pretty confident in his faith (his beliefs seemed vaguely similar to fellow Unitarian Adams presidents), at least based on what I now. I would go with Madison, Jefferson, or maybe even Theodore Roosevelt. But still, it's debatable.

From The Complete Guide of U.S. Presidents by DeGregorio

Quote:
"I am a Unitarian," Taft declared in a private letter written in 1899 but not made public until after he was made president. "I believe in God. I do not believe in the divinity of Christ, but there are many other of the postulates of the orthodox creed to which I cannot subscribe. I am not however a scoffer at religion but on the contrary recognize, in the fullest manner, the elevating influence it has had and always will have in the history of mankind."



Aysmptotes
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 227

16 May 2007, 1:04 pm

People seem to forget that quiet a few of our founding fathers were atheist. Thomas Jefferson for example.

But I don't think people can get out of the mindset of a monarchy, since humans naturally are inclined towards that type of rule. That your salvation is dependent upon your ruler. That if an atheist is president then god will no longer bless us. oh poo. haha. When I found out that this guy in my class supported Bush because he goes to church, I was appauled. Also I think that religion is just a cheap way to convince people that you have values and morals. "See I go to church, therefore I have morals and believe and honor what ever the church stands for." But for an atheist, people would just say because he doesn't believe in god or christ that he can't be as compassionate or have the values they think god can only give or that jesus can only give. So they have to work ten times as hard to prove they are just as moral when a religion person just has to say they go to church or believe in god.



ahayes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,506

16 May 2007, 8:43 pm

Aysmptotes wrote:
People seem to forget that quiet a few of our founding fathers were atheist. Thomas Jefferson for example.


They were deists not atheists. They believed that God should be found through nature.