• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

An Atheist President?

An Atheist President?


  • Total voters
    46
Does it make any more sense than having religion play a role in secular policy?
No, it doesn't. That's one of the reasons your position is so stupid.
 
Wouldn't an atheist president be the ideal choice to lead the country? In fact, shouldn't we require our elected officials to forsake religion in order to better serve us and uphold the separation of Church and State?

An atheist president is not realistic. Americans are, generally, too bigoted for this to be a possibility in the foreseeable future. This is regrettable.

But your idea is wrong. Requiring a politician to forsake religion is unconstitutional, as there is no religious test permitted for office. And rightfully so.
 
Wouldn't an atheist president be the ideal choice to lead the country? In fact, shouldn't we require our elected officials to forsake religion in order to better serve us and uphold the separation of Church and State?
I don't really care, just as I don't like a religious person wearing it on their sleeve, I wouldn't want a atheist to do that either. The are many traditions based upon religion, like a national day of prayer, Christmas, Easter, etc. the president gets involved with that it would be difficult serving.
 
This thread reminds me of threads where Christians get aggressive and defensive when people criticize their religion. It's amusing when some atheists behave exactly in the ways that they condemn. I think I get the best of both worlds by being a non-religious theist.
 
No, it doesn't. That's one of the reasons your position is so stupid.

My position is that people of reason and rationality should be in positions of leadership. You find that stupid?

I'd warn against calling me names, btw. I am sensitive.
 
My position is that people of reason and rationality should be in positions of leadership. You find that stupid?

I'd warn against calling me names, btw. I am sensitive.

Many great minds throughout history have been religious.

I don't think anyone worthy of consideration would say they were not men of reason.
 
Many great minds throughout history have been religious.

Different times. Not to mention that the alternative was being burned alive.
 
My position is that people of reason and rationality should be in positions of leadership. You find that stupid?
First, you said that an atheist would be the ideal leader. Then, you said that a certain type of atheist would be an ideal leader. Now, you're saying that people of reason and rationality would be ideal leaders and then accusing me of saying that such people would be stupid when this is the first time you've mentioned that standard. You've changed the goal posts at least three times. Not a good look.

Look, I don't know you, but I answered your question assuming that you were asking it in good faith. At this point, it's fairly clear that you were not. I'm not wasting my time anymore. I really, really don't want to engage in these sorts of unhealthy, unfruitful interactions anymore. My life is going to well to screw up my happiness with nonsense like this. Good luck.
 
Wouldn't an atheist president be the ideal choice to lead the country?

No. An apatheist would be the best choice.

In fact, shouldn't we require our elected officials to forsake religion in order to better serve us and uphold the separation of Church and State?

That would be a rather flagrant violation of the First Amendment, as well as Article IV, Section 3.
 
Different times. Not to mention that the alternative was being burned alive.

I have this strange feeling that you are just making things up as you go along. Before the time of burning people alive for not believing there was great minds that were religious and after such point there was still great minds that were religious.
 
First, you said that an atheist would be the ideal leader. Then, you said that a certain type of atheist would be an ideal leader. Now, you're saying that people of reason and rationality would be ideal leaders and then accusing me of saying that such people would be stupid when this is the first time you've mentioned that standard. You've changed the goal posts at least three times. Not a good look.

All three positions are more or less the same. Not sure where your hostility originates.

Look, I don't know you, but I answered your question assuming that you were asking it in good faith. At this point, it's fairly clear that you were not. I'm not wasting my time anymore. I really, really don't want to engage in these sorts of unhealthy, unfruitful interactions anymore. My life is going to well to screw up my happiness with nonsense like this. Good luck.

You sound angry, not happy.
 
Wouldn't an atheist president be the ideal choice to lead the country? In fact, shouldn't we require our elected officials to forsake religion in order to better serve us and uphold the separation of Church and State?

Are you a moon moon?
 
I do not care what religion a president is even if he has none. What is important is where he stands on the issues that are important to me. Religion or non-religion is irrelevant. Separation of church and state is a phrase Chief Justice Warren dreamed up. It is not mentioned in the Constitution. I have no problem with a president who would come on TV lets say after 9-11 and say let's pray for those who were lost or he might say let's have a moment of silence for those who where lost or any variation of saying as long as it would start the healing process and pay respect.

Now I do not expect a president to try to force his moral values on me or a president who would try to force his non-moral values on me. I want a president who will balance the budget and get this countries back on solid financial ground.

Well said, Pero! :thumbs: Most people who are interested in religion go to the church, mosque, etc to hear about religion...they do not look to DC for that. Most of us want a POTUS who does the job he was elected to do, and that means lead the Country, with the help of Congress, and get things done! Our infrastructure is in sad shape, our debt is steadily climbing, more and more people are falling behind, so there is plenty to keep everyone busy! I suggest they get to it!
 
I have this strange feeling that you are just making things up as you go along. Before the time of burning people alive for not believing there was great minds that were religious and after such point there was still great minds that were religious.

I'm not making anything up. Throughout most of human history, atheists, infidels, and non-believers were dealt with harshly. Intellectuals often had to frame their discoveries/ideas in the context of religion in order to avoid torture or death, and often that did not save them. Many intellectuals were genuinely religious, but as I said, those were the times. The universe was much smaller.
 
Wouldn't an atheist president be the ideal choice to lead the country? In fact, shouldn't we require our elected officials to forsake religion in order to better serve us and uphold the separation of Church and State?

Should we require it? No. Does it make any difference to me personally? No. As long as they can abide by constitutional law, I don't care if they believe in green Martians.
 
I reckon national leaders should have some tact when it comes to their religion or lack thereof. Keep it somewhat personal, don't make it part of your campaign and take the high road if people try to challenge you on it.
 
I'm not making anything up. Throughout most of human history, atheists, infidels, and non-believers were dealt with harshly. Intellectuals often had to frame their discoveries/ideas in the context of religion in order to avoid torture or death, and often that did not save them. Many intellectuals were genuinely religious, but as I said, those were the times. The universe was much smaller.

I don't see how someones personal beliefs affects their social beliefs, unless you can't separate them? Besides you only know what someone tells you they believe, not what they may actually believe. I wonder how many Presidents professed belief in God and religion but weren't actually sure?
 
Well said, Pero! :thumbs: Most people who are interested in religion go to the church, mosque, etc to hear about religion...they do not look to DC for that. Most of us want a POTUS who does the job he was elected to do, and that means lead the Country, with the help of Congress, and get things done! Our infrastructure is in sad shape, our debt is steadily climbing, more and more people are falling behind, so there is plenty to keep everyone busy! I suggest they get to it!

Write or right or rite or what ever as rain. Go get em girl.
 
I thought it was obvious that, since we're dealing with an elected office, the candidate would have to be electable. That is not obvious? Sorry, sometimes I overestimate what is obvious.

To be clear, you want to bar Christians from holding public office?
 
Exactly, what the first amendment does is give us the freedom of religion, any religion, not freedom from religion which so many seem to think that is what it says. Congress or the government can't establish an official state sponsored religion, neither can government make the united states a religious free zone which at time I would swear the SCOTUS and others are trying to do so.

It cannot make the US a religious free zone, but it does guarantee that religious laws cannot be imposed on non-believers. The establishment clause also means a lot more than simply disallowing the state from endorsing a single state religion. The establishment that it prohibits can also include effective and constructive establishment.

Should we require it? No. Does it make any difference to me personally? No. As long as they can abide by constitutional law, I don't care if they believe in green Martians.

See, that's not right. If they believe in Martians, then they're probably dumb or nuts. We've examined Mars in great detail, and there's no one there. And that's why I certainly would respect the intelligence of an atheist over a theist, because the evidence against deities is tremendous. Someone who made real decisions about policy based on what he or she perceived as god handing out orders would bother me immensely, because that's kinda nuts to me. Bush defended the war in Iraq, back in 2004, by saying that he thought god had told him to bring freedom to Middle Eastern nations. Several of the Republican candidates in 2008 said that they believed that god had commanded them to run. Sure, some of them were just using religious rhetoric to pander for votes, but the ones that actually believe that there's a bearded old man up there who is taking an active part in our politics is scary. Paul Broun, a Georgia congressman, is on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, and condemns a lot of modern biology as "lies from the pit of hell". That scares me, a lot. I don't see how a person who thinks that science is a tool by an evil satyr to trick people is qualified to make decisions about laws pertaining to science. Just like I don't see how a person who thinks that god maintains the world in a constant state is qualified to make decisions about the environment or climate change. I don't see how a person who thinks that their religion requires them to conduct a holy war on Islam is qualified to be commander in chief, either.

Leaders who actually think this stuff is true are very dangerous and should not be elected into office. Obviously, I'm not saying they should be legally prevented from running because of it, but they should be laughed out of the race, because they are nuts and are dangerous. And so we should care what they believe. We shouldn't elect conspiracy theorists either. Or lots of people who believe crazy things.
 
What is religion anyway? I consider myself to have faith but I reject the notion that I'm 'religious.' I find this to be a difficult concept for atheists, agnostics and even some believers to grasp.

To me faith is about a direct relationship with God foremostly. It can include but does not require associations with others of faith but absent associations there is likely to be a spiritual health problem.

To me religion is all about associations with others through a culture of piety that can include but does not require a relationship with God. Devotion to the religious institution is in reality often the 'god' religious people serve and maintaining extra-Biblical traditions of the religious culture where diviation from the non-Biblical traditions are held out as disobedience to God.

To answer the question, I would consider the faith or lack thereof of any candidate for any office. It's depends on who they're running against, platform, etc. I wouldn't be surprised and in fact think its likely we've had Presidents who did not believe in God but belonged to a religious group. In the deception that often accompanies politics I also think its likely we've had Presidents who only pretended to be people of faith in order to garner votes from people of faith.
 
To be clear, you want to bar Christians from holding public office?

I want that, in an ideal world, but that's not what my poll is referring to.
 
I'm not making anything up. Throughout most of human history, atheists, infidels, and non-believers were dealt with harshly. Intellectuals often had to frame their discoveries/ideas in the context of religion in order to avoid torture or death, and often that did not save them. Many intellectuals were genuinely religious, but as I said, those were the times. The universe was much smaller.

That appears to be a goalpost change. Your original position was that a great mind couldn't be religious, and now it seems that after you realize the folly of your argument you simply state that many intellectuals were genuinely religious. Sorry, but you appear to be merely trying to not drown in your erroneous argument by shifting towards mine. I have no reason to consider your post here worthy of my efforts.
 
Back
Top Bottom