If a president you liked a lot came out to be an Atheist, would you still support them?Posted by: imabench
33 Total Votes
If he lied about it during his political campaign then I would have an issue (stating that he was Christian and was actually an atheist).
I would understand that, because no atheist will ever be elected. Nor will any Muslim or Jew or Hindu. Christianity is the de facto state religion in the US, no matter how much we deny it.
Atheist-Independent: Things can change. People thought no black person would be elected, ever.
There are atheists in congress. More will be elected. A president will someday. Just time. Http://www.Patheos.Com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011/10/01/28-members-of-congress-dont-believe-in-god/
Peter it would be probable that the person did lie about being an atheist during his campaign since there's no way in sh** that the US would openly elect an atheist as president. Hell we could barely handle electing a black guy as president, and we STILL havent even elected a woman as president.
Imabench: If he lies then openly reveals it, then there's going to be a huge issue.
It should also be noted that a number of our first presidents were deists. Now, Christians would hate any deists, but at the time, deists were even closer to atheists than now. That is to say, they very well may have been atheists and self-described as deists.
Yes i know that, and this poll is asking would you still side with the president if exactly that happened.
He or she would have to disagree with part of the Constitution since it says that our inalienable rights were given to us by our Creator.
@Varrack - Well you have some issues there. First the "creator" bit is in the Declaration of Independence NOT in the constitution. Two, it says "their creator". My creator was my mother and father.
And it should be understood that the Declaration of Independence was NOT a legal document. It holds NO legal status. It is not part of law. It was/is a declaration.
There is nothing wrong about Atheists..
@Varrack - it should point out the ONLY place religion is even mentioned is to EXCLUDE it from consideration. Article. VI. "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." So.... Want to be a "strict constitutional conservative". Read it. Its short and easy.
@TBR, you may be right about that, but John Adams said "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
@varraack - and funny enough, same guy said this "The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." - John Adams
One can be religious and moral w/o being a Christian.
Very true @Varrack. But so to can someone be moral without religion or Christianity specifically. A person can certainly be elected without religious belief too.
Since there are 535 members of congress (100 Senators, 435 congresspeople) plus one president, and with atheist/agnostics currently running ~20%, well a distribution would be ~107 representatives. So, that we have really only ONE that is admittedly atheist, and half a dozen others that may be, is very low. The black population of the US is ~15%. We have 43 black reps, and one president. Still short by about half of what would be normal distribution, but the atheist population in government should be HIGHER.
Why does it need to be higher? You can't count on 535 congressmen and women to perfectly represent the 320 million Americans.
"Why does it need to be higher? You can't count on 535 congressmen and women to perfectly represent the 320 million Americans." That is true, however, belief influences decisions. Many religious reps insist that their belief is central to their decision making process. Atheists need more representation to provide balance. I'm not suggesting that government must maintain representational balance on all points of demography, but I individual wish for more balance on this subject. Religious representatives are demonstrably biases to enact laws that emphasis religious goals, over goals of the non-religious.
Well, I'm an atheist, but I'm also an anarchist, so I don't support any president anyway. Haha
What flavor of anarchism Dusty118? Years back in college I had a long debate with a friend about how equating anarchism with lack of responsibility to engage is comic. Its like saying "I've tried nothing, and its still not working". Anarchists have to engage in the political process to eliminate the political process or its simply apathy.