An athiestic President?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Zooropa

Acrobat
Joined
Apr 19, 2002
Messages
421
Location
Long Island, New York, USA
I find it sad that as an acknowledged atheist, I, or any other atheist, could never be elected President of the US. Regardless of my ideas, it just would never happen. Anyone agree??
 
Last edited:
I agree that it would be impossible for an atheist to become president of the United States. To qualify you have to believe in certain things, for instance I also don't think it would be possible to be elected president if one were planning to abolish the death penalty. That's just the way it is and always has been in the US, and I don't see it changing any time soon.
 
It's similarly unlikely that the U.S. would elect a Jew, Greek Orthodox, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu...

So your point is what, exactly?

Does it take a person who fits a certain demographic profile to represent that demographic? Would it take a blind president to represent the blind? Or a former second-grade teacher to represent teachers? Or a black man to represent blacks?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you are right: at the moment, the U.S. would never elect an atheist to the White House. I see three alternatives for those who find this unacceptable:

- Do nothing, and continuing bemoaning the state of things until the day you pass away.

- Push for some way to circumvent the deomcratic process (because, after all, its the people's fault that they wouldn't elect an atheist).

- Or start working to change people's minds - not by telling them that they need to elect an atheist because he's an atheist, but by demonstrating that it's a non-issue.

After all, Colin Powell didn't become the Secretary of State by bemoaning the fact that a black was unlikely to serve such a high office: he worked to show that he was among the VERY best qualified for the position. And in the end, very few have questioned that Bush (a Republican!) chose him on the basis of the content of his character, not the color of his skin.
 
I dont think that it should matter what religion a president is, but I do realise where other people are coming from. Kind of a different topic but I wonder when there will ever be a woman or an African-American pres. I dont think that will ever happen.
 
Achtung Bubba said:
It's similarly unlikely that the U.S. would elect a Jew, Greek Orthodox, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu...

So your point is what, exactly?

Does it take a person who fits a certain demographic profile to represent that demographic? Would it take a blind president to represent the blind? Or a former second-grade teacher to represent teachers? Or a black man to represent blacks?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you are right: at the moment, the U.S. would never elect an atheist to the White House. I see three alternatives for those who find this unacceptable:

- Do nothing, and continuing bemoaning the state of things until the day you pass away.

- Push for some way to circumvent the deomcratic process (because, after all, its the people's fault that they wouldn't elect an atheist).

- Or start working to change people's minds - not by telling them that they need to elect an atheist because he's an atheist, but by demonstrating that it's a non-issue.

After all, Colin Powell didn't become the Secretary of State by bemoaning the fact that a black was unlikely to serve such a high office: he worked to show that he was among the VERY best qualified for the position. And in the end, very few have questioned that Bush (a Republican!) chose him on the basis of the content of his character, not the color of his skin.

Well we almost elected A Jew as Vice-President, so it may not be out of the question that we may one day elect a Jewish President. I was not looking for a solution, more a consensus of opinion, I'm well aware of the situations you brough forth as possible solutions. Gimme a little credit, I'm not a moron. I agree that if it were to happen, it would need to be a non-issue. However, your comparison to Powell is off base and an entirely different set of circumstances.
 
Zooropa said:
Well we almost elected A Jew as Vice-President, so it may not be out of the question that we may one day elect a Jewish President. I was not looking for a solution, more a consensus of opinion, I'm well aware of the situations you brough forth as possible solutions. Gimme a little credit, I'm not a moron. I agree that if it were to happen, it would need to be a non-issue. However, your comparison to Powell is off base and an entirely different set of circumstances.

I didn't intend my comments to be insulting; I was just disagreeing. Let us review what you said:

I find it sad that as an acknowledged atheist, I, or any other atheist, could never be elected President of the US. Regardless of my ideas, it just would never happen. Anyone agree??

First, I disagree that an acknowledged atheist could never be elected president. And second, even if it's true, I don't see how it's "sad," per se.

Would it be an indication that a predominantly theistic nation thinks the belief in the divine important enough to influence who they vote for? (Or, more specifically, that Christians believe faith in Christ is important enough to influence who they vote for?) Sure, but that's not a reason to start bemoaning how narrow-minded America is, or whatever it is that makes the fact "sad."

Finally, I wonder how my comparison to Powell is off-base. Sure, that brings up the issue of race (something that OUGHT to be less important than it really is) and it's a matter of an appointment rather than an election. But most people either DO approve of the guy or disagree with him on strictly the issues; race really doesn't matter with the guy. AND, polls back in the early 90's (when Powell was supposedly considering a presidential bid) showed he had WIDE support, despite/due to the fact that nobody knew his position on ANYTHING.

It seems to me your first post is pointing at the assumption that this nation is essentially narrow-minded. Sure, Powell is a different matter than an atheist running for president, but it at least indicates that this nation may not be as narrow-minded as the comment suggests.
 
Achtung Bubba said:
It's similarly unlikely that the U.S. would elect a Hindu...




so your saying my hopes of being president....aren't going to happen???
 
Food for thought ... (an interesting table comparing the religious affiliation of the Presidents to the general US Population; further down on the page there are links to similar info for Vice Presidents, Congress, Governors and Supreme Court).

http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html

I am Catholic, and

On the other end of the scale, the most under-represented religious group is Catholicism, which has had only one U.S. president (John F. Kennedy), despite making up 26% of the current U.S. population.

Religious affiliation (or lack thereof) is not all that important to me ... where tehy stand on the issues is what matters (if their stance is motivated by religion, great, if not, that's fine too).
 
I find it improbable that the U.S. will ever elect anyone who isn't a white Protestant male nowadays. We have to deal with the bigot vote bloc you know...

Melon
 
adamswildhoney said:
I wonder when there will ever be a woman or an African-American pres. I dont think that will ever happen.

did you even read bubba's first post?

look at alan keyes. i think he has come as close as any black male to becoming president as any others who have run. i mean this in the sense that we know his name, which means he is leaps and bounds ahead of many others. but i think that if colin powel ran for the presidency, he would give his opponent a run for (pardon this pun) money. he hasn't gone through his political career pointing out the fact that he is african american. and look where he is now, that is amazing.

as for women. are you familiar with condolezza rice? not only is she female AND african american, but she is basically the most high-powered woman in the united states.
 
melon said:
I find it improbable that the U.S. will ever elect anyone who isn't a white Protestant male nowadays. We have to deal with the bigot vote bloc you know...

Melon

Um...

I grew up in Michigan as well.
I'm Korean.
The only bigots I ever met were kids.
Kids don't vote.
 
speedracer said:
The only bigots I ever met were kids.
Kids don't vote.

yeah, because 18 year old males are SO mature....it's ok though, because we can ship them off to war, so we might as well make 18 year olds feel like they can do something by giving them the right to vote for people who don't do anything for them but take away from their social security and then raise tuition and don't even bother representing us...but hey, get out there and vote kids!
 
Last edited:
Lilly said:


yeah, because 18 year old males are SO mature....it's ok though, because we can ship them off to war, so we might as well make 18 year olds feel like they can do something by giving them the right to vote for people who don't do anything for them but take away from their social security and then raise tuition and don't even bother representing us...but hey, get out there and vote kids!

Um...you might want to loosen your headphones and turn down the volume a bit. Rage Against The Machine isn't good for you if you're injecting it that deep into your ear canal.
 
speedracer said:


Um...you might want to loosen your headphones and turn down the volume a bit. Rage Against The Machine isn't good for you if you're injecting it that deep into your ear canal.

sorry about the rage (emotion, not the band) induced post i made. i had been called three times that day by candidates looking for money. they were, of course, looking for my parents, and when i said i was of legal age, they didn't really care anymore. but i hit them with questions, issues i'm looking at securing (i.e. "hey! where's my social security!!") and they got confused and of course didn't give me a straight answer. one representative even went so far as to say the the subject was "too complicated" for such a "young mind." :mad: that's why i was mad.
 
Part of me wishes to remind the forum that I mentioned "Greek Orthodox" (a denomination very similar to Roman Catholicism), not Greeks as an ethinic group.

The other part of me wants to hold up Michael Dukakis as a shining example of exactly what I was talking about. ;)

To quote NROnline:

...Dukakis, translated from the Greek, means "worst conceivable candidate not found with a live boy or a dead girl in his hotel room." (Yes, it is amazing how the Greeks can say so much in so few words.) Bush?s opponent was terrible in so many ways that ? after twelve years ? the Library of Congress has only managed to catalogue "Dukakis Presidential Campaign Foul-ups, A thru L." Dukakis was a left-wing ideologue from Boston who smugly boasted of his Carteresque "competence" without displaying a fraction of Carter?s charm. Governor Dukakis tried to opt Massachusetts out of the national-security infrastructure ? something Harvard-bred, liberal, Northeastern ethnics should probably avoid if they want to win in the South. He let Bush seize the mantles of environmentalism, responsibility, patriotism, economic optimism, and all around good guy. This left Dukakis with the arrogant-professor-who-gave-you-an-undeserved-C-minus-in-college mantle, along with the Greek vote.

Naturally, I'm joking, so please, no flak from the Dukakis fans.

Either of ya. :D
 
I think it is a high probability that we've already had a President(s) who were atheistic; obviously none of them went on record as such, because it would be political suicide. So yes, I do think we will have atheist Presidents, if we haven't had them already, but only on the stipulation that they don't disclose this to anyone.
 
Is the State and religion is separated in your country ?

A sermon to God is obsolete anyways, I'd rather make a sermon to citizenship.

Atheist president or not, if he/she don't do the job, get out, if she/he isn't responsible in a national and international view, what's the point of being atheist or not.

Is religion important in your country ?
 
I think that is wishful thinking on your part wanderer.
 
The Wanderer said:
I think it is a high probability that we've already had a President(s) who were atheistic; obviously none of them went on record as such, because it would be political suicide. So yes, I do think we will have atheist Presidents, if we haven't had them already, but only on the stipulation that they don't disclose this to anyone.

That kinda ties in to my original post, an acknowledged atheist wouldn't be elected. I agree with you Wanderer, I do believe we have had atheistic Presidents before, they just didn't publicize it.
 
how is it "wishful thinking" on my part, sting2?

I think people are fooling themselves if they believe that all these politicians who claim to be spiritual and/or "good, devout christians" are being completely honest

I'm not saying that all politicians who lie, blur or stretch the truth about their religious convictions are neceassarily atheists, but I think many are laying down some serious *b.s.* when they suddenly start making their religious beliefs a campaign issue because they've checked the polls or found a perceived weakness in their oppenents character
 
The fact is that 95% of people in the USA believe in God. Politicians are not aliens, they come from the population. Just look at the voting on the whole "Under God" issue. It is very reasonable that a person who believes in God would vote with the 9th circuit, but I highly doubt someone who did not believe would vote against it, even if he was as you say living a lie. Of course what you say is not impossible, but there is nothing to indicate that it is so or might be true in any particular instance. If you think otherwise, name the president.
 
where did you get your 95% statistic, out of curiosity

you're probably right about there being no atheist presidents, though I am sure more than one where perhaps, skeptics, but I'll concede here and say you're probably right about presidents, but I think there have probably been too numerous cases to count in regards to Congress and the Senate -- I'm sure there are probably members in there right now who keep up the facade of having religion/faith because they know they can't be elected otherwise
 
Do some politicians say they believe in God and don't really mean it? Sure. Does that include American Presidents? Probably. Does that mean they're atheists? No, I don't think so.

There are many people who go to church and who (theoretically) believe in God but don't believe the fact in their hearts: when it comes down to brass tacks, their behavior doesn't coincide with the behavior of a God-fearing individual.

What I'm saying is that there are those whose belief in God is sincere - that they're not closet atheists - but that the sincere belief is shallow.

The really interesting thing is that everyone else - the conscious atheist who claims to believe in God and the deeply religious - probably feel similar pangs of guilt when they say they believe in God: the atheist knows he's lying, and the believer recalls those times he hasn't acted like a believer.
 
I have seen the 95% statistic published numerous times from publications like, Time, Newsweek, US News and World Report, Economist and other magazines and news papers in addition to CNN and other TV. Sorry I'm not siting a specific source on the web. Personally though from my experience, I have found it to be more like 99.99%+. Of course here at interference, the number of people that have participated in the poll has produced a result of around 85%. The mere fact that any politician would have to keep up a facade clearly shows that the percentage number is extremely high. The "Pledge" vote in the senate was 99 to 0, would have been 100 to 0 if Jesse had been there to vote. In the House the vote on the "Pledge" was 432 to 3. The 3 who voted differently noted they believed in God.
 
the vote on the "Pledge" means nothing, no politician in their right mind would do something that made them an outcast, the reason I asked your sources is beccause I thought I remeber seeing the number in the mid-80 percentile range, but I might be wrong, I'm sure there are a number of different polls floating around out there, all seem to be in the 85 - 95% range
 
Back
Top Bottom