Amazon.com Widgets
  • Truly, honestly, completly

    I mean why not, it might do this country some good to not have a president with clouded judgement because of some old book written thousands of years ago. The world is changing and people in america need to be more open minded about the people that may run our country.

  • Yes we should

    Mainly because nigger love niggers cunts are fucking faggors cancer autism fuck fuck nigger hitler did nothing wrong he is my lord and saviour and boiled for our sins reeee fucking normies ahhhh cancer autism is what i suffer from on the daily i love sucking big black penises i am only 1300000 years oldddd

  • Yes-vast swaths of the electorate and unaffiliated.

    25% of people today are unaffiliated. 35% of millenials are unaffiliated. By 2035, about a third of the electorate will be unaffiliated. By 2050, half of our country will be unafffiliated. And as much as I hate to say it, many of those people will vote for an athiest. America is going to hell.

  • Why wouldn't we?

    The constitution states that the government and religions should be kept separate. So that right there provides the reasoning why it could happen. And, contrary to popular belief, atheists have morals. Just not religious ones. I am an atheist and I am perfectly aware that launching a nuke because someone looked at me wrong is a very bad thing to do. I am perfectly aware of how killing people is a bad thing. I am very much so capable of knowing what is and and what is good. All atheists are able to do such things. Also, look at religions track record, Hitler, Hussein, Bin Laden, Pope Urban II, and many more. All religious nut cases. Had an atheist run their countries, all those wars in the name of religion would have never happened. They would have looked for the cold facts. Not what they think a wizard in the clouds wants them to do.

  • Why wouldn't we?

    The constitution states that the government and religions should be kept separate. So that right there provides the reasoning why it could happen. And, contrary to popular belief, atheists have morals. Just not religious ones. I am an atheist and I am perfectly aware that launching a nuke because someone looked at me wrong is a very bad thing to do. I am perfectly aware of how killing people is a bad thing. I am very much so capable of knowing what is and and what is good. All atheists are able to do such things. Also, look at religions track record, Hitler, Hussein, Bin Laden, Pope Urban II, and many more. All religious nut cases. Had an atheist run their countries, all those wars in the name of religion would have never happened. They would have looked for the cold facts. Not what they think a wizard in the clouds wants them to do.

  • Sure, why not?

    Since our first president, we've had theist president after theist president. I'm not saying that being atheist should be the reason you are elected but not having a believer as Chief can be a nice change. Btw I'm atheist but that shouldn't matter. Even having another religious person be Commander in Chief for example are Buddhist, Jewish, Pagan, or someone who even believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster should be possible. Yes, someone has the "opportunity" to be president but no actual chance, excluding popularity and ideology, in winning.

  • Don't we live in a Democracy?

    As an open-minded atheist, I can understand why their is much resentment against atheism; many of my fellow non-believers try to impose their non-religion upon the general population and assert that they are superior because of their choice not to adhere to religion. This type of atheism is a fundamentalist backwash that I strongly denounce, and hope that many of my fellow atheists will one day accept that they are not exempt from abiding by this country's 1st Amenedment Freedom of Religion.

    That being said, if a statesman has the best wishes of the populace in mind, is willing to obey the Constitution, and is amiable in dealing with other countries on strategic issues, then what does it matter which religion they follow. There is a reason that religion is considered part of an individual's "private life"; One's race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion/creed, and other personal interests should very likely not impede one's ability to govern efficiently. To vote for/against someone on the basis of their private life is an act of poor citizenship on part of such voters.

    (If anything, atheists are more likely to be able to deal more equitably with individuals of all creeds, as they are less likely to take one's religious beliefs into account, and are more likely to view each person as a human instead of a proxy.)

  • Someday, just not today

    I think an atheist president would do wonders for our country in the following ways:
    -If our president elected this 2016 election was not clouded by religion, they would not make the war on ISIS a war on all muslims, and help prevent radicalization in the US
    -They would target the fossil fuel companies, and not only acknowledge, but attack climate change. The Democrats have been better at this for the longest time now, mainly because they accept science as fact, instead of a bulls*** book from 2000 years ago. Even if they do believe in god to an extent, it doesn't really seem to blind them to this issue. While being an all-out atheist is not necessarily a requirement to fix this issue, being open-minded is. And I would imagine crazy evangelical Christians who believe god has chosen him as our president(I'm talking to you, Ted Cruz) probably wouldn't fit this bill.
    -They would truly separate church and state, and they would definitely win the LGBT vote. Christians, protestants in particular, seem to have quite a problem with the LGBT community, "Marriage is a bond of holy matrimony, between a man and a woman." This is not a Christian State! If your god does exist, he'd probably send you to hell for ever comparing yourselves to the founding fathers, whom by the way, Wanted religion to have ZERO role in politics. It's evem in the first amendment!
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Everything before the first semicolon makes it pretty clear: Separation of church and state. Every president has violated that law before even sitting in the oval office, just by swearing on the Bible, a religious text, to uphold the Constitution. Just by doing that, you already f***ed up.
    -Also, being an athiest(well, agnostic) myself, this is to any paranoid intolerant christians out there: Why the f*** would we want anything to do with ISIS? Being atheist/agnostic doesn't just mean we don't like Christianity, we don't like ANY religion, and last time I checked, Islam is a recognized religion. I've seen plenty of this bulls*** all over the Internet and it needs to stop! That's the difference between Religions and Atheists/Agnostics. Atheists/Agnostics try to resolve these issues logically, and reasonably. Religions just blow s*** up and start wars. And I don't WWIII. I like my life, and I don't like getting radiation poisoning from nukes dropped by religious wars bred only by ignorance and hatred!!!

  • Yes, but it should not be the only reason we vote for said president.

    Unlike religious people, atheists do good because they believe it is right and that is all. Religion teaches you to do good for a reward after death, for some supposed better outcome, but if there was no wrath of God to fear, and no reward for these men, most sheep- I mean religious individuals, would not attempt to do any good. I for one, think Atheists will do better for any country, as they will not force a primary religion down everyone's throat. Live and let live. If you want to be a Christian, a Jehovah witness, etc. - it is up to you, not for the federal government to mandate or regulate.

  • Yes of course

    Fuck just being christians, idgaf. You can't prove that there is a god so stop drilling it into our heads and shut the fuck up. Blah . A a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

  • Could we? Yes. Should we? No.

    It is physically possible, yes. Should we have an atheist president? No. Atheists do not believe in God, God is the cause of morality. Therefore, atheists don't believe in morality. Morality is important if you are, you know, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. No one would vote for an atheist in office.

  • No way man

    Sure, maybe an atheist wouldn't let religious beliefs cloud his descisions, but most atheists have low moral codes. If we want to keep this country on the straight and narrow, we probably shouldn't allow atheists to run for president. Just saying. My opinion doesn't matter, but I just feel that way.

  • Sadly we will not

    I am an atheist my self, but we must realize how religious America is. The motion is not if an atheist would make a good president. I am sure an atheist would make a terrific president; our domestic policies would be great. It is possible some presidents have been atheist, but we don't start with the notion they were lying, we believe something unless there is a reason not to. I think the motion actually means "could we have an openly atheist president?" In our current state of religious based politics, and hate we can not have an openly atheist president. However if a lot of changes are made, and we become more secular like Norway, Denmark, and Australia(which does have atheist politicians) I bet it could happen.

  • We should but we won't

    I think having a atheist president would make an amazing president it would surely change the view that people have on atheists. But the people here a way too religious to ever vote for one, most people in the country are theist and most people wouldn't trust any of his choices just because he doesn't share their beliefs

  • It would be great, but America would never elect one

    Now, as an atheist myself, i think it would be absolutely amazing to have an atheist president. However, it would be impossible, with america largely as a theist nation. The amount of backlash would be campaign ruining. The thing is, i think an atheist would be great for our county. He would remove religious persecution(whats left of it) and probably be a great president. Its just.... Fox news....

  • No they won't

    It's become too engrained in the culture and way of life. People will not elect someone to run their beloved country that doesn't share the same beliefs that they have lived their life by. Americans believe their country is part of them, their family, their home. In their homes they believe in God. They teach their children it. For the country to be run by an atheist would shatter their whole universe and throw their whole existence into doubt. They do not like change. They would not like to think that their whole life and that of their ancestors has been created by a fabrication. I am an atheist and I would like it, but no. Not until the brainwashing stops.

  • Not because I don't believe we should, but because it is simply not happening.

    I do believe that it is legal and certainly ethical to have a President that is an atheist, but I don't believe for one minute that the people of this country will ever elect one. There's myriad reasons for this, but I'll just touch on two.
    First, people trust religious people more, even if they don't agree with them. Here's a link to the results of a study done by the University of British Columbia (http://www.Ncbi.Nlm.Nih.Gov/pubmed/22059841) about why people tend to dislike Atheists. What they found across the board was that people are less likely to trust them. They are significantly more likely to trust a religious person because of "the belief that people behave better if they feel that God is watching them". As an atheist myself, despite all logic and rationale, I do find this to be true. I would more willingly trust my life to a Priest than another atheist because I like to believe the Priest won't dare do me harm with consequences like eternal damnation on the line. I'm sure that's not true of all people everywhere, but the study clearly shows it is at least generally true.
    On the other side, this is a very religious country from a monetary standpoint. If you understand American Politics at all, you must understand that it all boils down to who can buy more air time. An ad buy in the billions is what it takes to become President these days, with the most recent election of Barack Obama coming at a price tag of over a billion dollars per side. We've all heard about the One Percent and income inequality on the news lately, but have you seen the income distribution of this country by religion? Here is a link to some statistical information showing how wealth is distributed far more toward religious people than Atheists(http://floatingpath.Wpengine.Netdna-cdn.Com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Wealth-by-Religion.Jpg). Funny enough, it shows that Hindu and Jewish households hold the majority of the wealth, with 43% and 46% (respectively) making over 100k annually. Now these may not be the biggest donors to political campaigns, but let's have a look at them. Based on data collected and published by the Center for Responsive Politics (http://www.Opensecrets.Org/outsidespending/summ.Php?Cycle=2012&disp=D&type=V&superonly=N) Sheldon Adelson, Jewish, has donated $92,796,625 dollars to Republican PAC funds. Harold Simmons, Baptist Christian, donated $26,865,000 to conservative PACS. In the 2006 the late Robert J. Perry was the largest contributor to conservative PACS in the entire state of Texas, boasting a total $23,450,000 in campaign donations in the 2012 period. Mr. Perry was Christian. These are only the top three, and if you Google all the names on the list, almost all are religious. If religious people are funding Presidential candidates, it is only reasonable to assume they will strengthen candidates who share their beliefs.
    If an Atheist ever runs for President, it will be generations from now that he or she will have even a slight chance of winning.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.