• 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
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?


Our Constitution specifically forbids any "religious test" for office. That would include a test of not having any religion, so this is a non-starter.

In brief, hell no.
 
This is funny Pasch. You're trying to convince me that atheists would not seek to pass laws antagonistic to religion all while saying I'd totally deserve it and have it coming if they did. You can't tell me that someone with that much hostility wouldn't take the opportunity every so often to "stick it" to those of us you refer to as evil (I didn't know atheists believed in the concept of "evil"). The OP of this very thread would bar Christians from holding public office. Wonder what other jobs he'd keep us out of.

You would deserve it. But I'm the "take the moral high road" type. I also know that I would fight to protect intellectual liberty, even for people who think that I deserve to burn forever in a lake of fire for refusing to join their club. I don't believe that two wrongs make a right. I don't think that a cure for violence and oppression is more violence and oppression. The constitution absolutely prohibits what the OP is calling for and I have stressed the important of intellectual freedom many many many times. But I will also say, loudly, that theists and wrong and why they are wrong. My commitment to truth and justice demands nothing less.

Yes, because everything you've ever said about religion and the religious has been nothing but reasoned criticism. Tell me again how delusional and insane I am. It's funny you bring up global warming. I think that's as much of a religion as anything and it's believers sure as hell do want to pass laws enforcing their own morality. For some reason though, that's ok with you.

Except, you know... facts. There are facts that inform laws about environmentalism, and none that inform laws enforcing religious morality. Since you didn't answer the question or seem to be able to talk about climate change as an example, let's use biology. Religious Christians try to require that religion be taught in science classrooms. No atheist has ever tried to force a Sunday school bible class to include atheism. Is that hostility to point that out? Is it hostility to require that only science be taught in a science classroom?

Let's go even more basic. "I oppose Christianity* because the bible condones slavery." Hostility or criticism? Cuz I'm pretty sure there is no sentence that includes "I oppose Christianity because..." that will be viewed as criticism and not hostility.

*And Judaism and Islam.
 
Any position where my rights are subject to your faith.

People have belief in all sorts of things, not just religion, and are always trying to pass laws imposing those beliefs on others. Religion is no different and no worse.
 
Our Constitution specifically forbids any "religious test" for office. That would include a test of not having any religion, so this is a non-starter.

In brief, hell no.

And yet Christians insist on this very test.
 
Bah, I misunderstood the poll. Must have skimmed the OP too quickly. I voted "Indifferent" because I don't care about a president's religious beliefs or lack thereof. However, if the poll is about forcing the president or any other elected official to be an atheist, that's clearly unconstitutional and ridiculous at it's core.
 
People have belief in all sorts of things, not just religion, and are always trying to pass laws imposing those beliefs on others. Religion is no different and no worse.

As long as you can back up your reasoning with a coherent argument, and not a supernatural one, I welcome people with differing viewpoints to participate in government. That's real democracy, and not wink-and-a-nod theocracy.
 
And yet Christians insist on this very test.


What people vote for, and what is required to run for or hold office officially, is two different things.


There is no written requirement to be Christian to be Prez.... and I'm reasonably certain many of them who claimed to be, were not.
 
As long as you can back up your reasoning with a coherent argument, and not a supernatural one, I welcome people with differing viewpoints to participate in government. That's real democracy, and not wink-and-a-nod theocracy.

Lol, yes, you do seem perfectly welcoming of different views in politics just not for people who have religious views. You are, indeed, the picture of tolerance.

Should Christians be barred from voting as well?
 
What people vote for, and what is required to run for or hold office officially, is two different things.

Wink and a nod, my friend.
 
Lol, yes, you do seem perfectly welcoming of different views in politics just not for people who have religious views. You are, indeed, the picture of tolerance.

Should Christians be barred from voting as well?

That would be silly. Christians should be able to vote for the same secular candidates as everyone else.
 
That would be silly. Christians should be able to vote for the same secular candidates as everyone else.

How about eating in restaurants? Would that be ok? Could we sit at the front of the bus?
 
We've probably already had Presidents who are basically atheist, but they go through all the rituals and services to pander to the religious right. I have a particularly low opinion of politicians as a career. Just because someone is practicing religion on the surface doesn't mean they actually believe in any of it.

There is also the matter of freemasons being Presidents, of which we've had several but the media never make mention of it. The past 3 Presidents all have connections to masonry.

Obama is a freemason. Bush and his father are members of the Masonic Order of the Skull and Bones, and W. Bush's inauguration was done on a George Washington Bible which belongs to St. Johns Masonic Lodge in New York City. Clinton supposedly wasn't a mason, but as a young man he was part of the youth Order of DeMolay, sponsored by the freemasons. Reagan was not a freemason, but he was given several honorary titles in a ceremony held in the oval office of the White House on February 11th, 1988, when a group of freemasons presented him with a certificate of honor from the Grand Lodge of Washington, D.C., then he was made an Honourary Scottish Rite mason.

Most of our Presidents have links to the occult, even our founding fathers Franklin and Hancock were freemasons. Why does the media never talk about this? I find that highly suspect.
 
How about eating in restaurants? Would that be ok? Could we sit at the front of the bus?

I see the point you're trying to make. Unfortunately you're in the wrong position to make it.
 
Evangelicals believe in a literal reading of the Bible. Unless you're an EINO.

That's all you had to say?

Not all evangelicals think the same, you'd do well to keep that in mind. Not all evangelicals take the bible 100% literally, and there's other things evangelicals argue with one another about.

What is an EINO? I don't get the acronym.
 
I saw on an interview that Jesse Ventura "atheist" should be running next time. Though, I'm not sure how religious favoritisms play into the president's effective leadership?
 
Voted no in accordance with the OP's beliefs.

The President is still a citizen of the United States and has the right to freedom of religion.

I, however, would prefer to vote for a non-religious President. The "god told me so" justification has been used a disturbing amount by Presidents in our short history.
 
Voted no in accordance with the OP's beliefs.

The President is still a citizen of the United States and has the right to freedom of religion.

I, however, would prefer to vote for a non-religious President. The "god told me so" justification has been used a disturbing amount by Presidents in our short history.

Not sure why you voted no to an atheist president if you prefer an atheist or non-religious president. However, it's your dime, as they say.
 
"Agnostic" is a weasel word. Most atheists are "agnostics" in this sense: of course believing that there's no gods is a mental disorder, not any kind of -ism.

Um. No. Agnostics wonder if there's a god. They aren't sure. Atheists are sure.
 
Not sure why you voted no to an atheist president if you prefer an atheist or non-religious president. However, it's your dime, as they say.

Do you have reading comprehension problems?

You had two questions in your OP, I answered this one because it's much more important:
Amadeus said:
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?

If you want a straight answer then make a straight question.
 
From Wikipedia:

1. Agnosticism is the view that the existence or non-existence of any deity is unknown and possibly unknowable.

2. Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

3. Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is active opposition to theism. The term has had a range of applications; in secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to organized religion or to the belief in any deity, while in a theistic context, it sometimes refers to opposition to a specific god or gods.
 
And yet Christians insist on this very test.

If I, an apatheist, ever had a serious shot (and had any desire to hold a public office, which I don't), I would respond when asked about my religion that it's nobody's business and that the question itself is unConstitutional.
 
Do you have reading comprehension problems?

You had two questions in your OP, I answered this one because it's much more important:

If you want a straight answer then make a straight question.

I did make it a straight question ("An Atheist President?"). You answered my poll question in a post, and my non-poll question(s) with a vote. No worries, I welcome all participation.
 
Back
Top Bottom