• 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
Amadeus

Amadeus

Chews the Cud
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
6,081
Reaction score
3,216
Location
Benghazi
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
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?
 
No, we don't need everybody to forsake their religion to hold public office. That would be a violation of their Constitutional rights.

I also don't think that being an atheist should disqualify someone from being President. In fact, I suspect we've kind of got one now. He's not overly religious at any rate. Judge by the man, not by whether or not he believes in God.
 
1. Since religion is neither the only nor most important issue in this country, determining whether or not someone would be "the ideal choice to lead the country" solely according to whether or not they "uphold the separation of Church and State" is not a good idea. There are many other abilities that a president needs to have.

2. Atheists are not necessarily better at dealing with religion fairly than theists. Sam Harris comes to mind as an atheist who, if president, would do as much harm to the relationship between religion and the state many Christians would. For those who don't know, Sam Harris is a very ... vocal atheist who endorses prejudice and discrimination against Muslims because he irrationality ties all Muslims to groups like al Qaeda. Richard Dawkins behaves similarly.

There are also atheists who are, in my opinion, excessively hostile towards Christianity and Christians. There are also atheists who, again in my opinion, are excessively hostile towards all religions, religious people and theists, in general. I would not want those people in any political position anymore than I want religious people in office who think government should be a theocracy.

In short, no, an atheist - simply because he or she is an atheist - would not be an ideal president. An ideal president has to have many qualities and such a president could certainly be an atheist, but their atheism, in itself, is not enough to make it so.
 
The freedom of religion is a constitutional guarantee, but holding public office is not.

Just as an atheist shouldn't be a preacher, an evangelical (for example) shouldn't be able to hold the office of president. Especially since that ideology guarantees favouritism to other nations.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
There are also atheists who are, in my opinion, excessively hostile towards Christianity and Christians.
Click to expand...

Obviously you wouldn't dig up Hitchens have him run for office, nor am I advocating that any angry atheist would make a good candidate.
 
Amadeus said:
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?
Click to expand...

Atheists are the least electable class of them all, behind gays and muslims. If there were physical signs that one were an atheist, we would be amongst the most discriminated groups.
 
Canada recently changed its policy of neutrality regarding Israel/Palestine because their PM is an Evangelical, much to the chagrin of most Canadians.
 
Amadeus said:
Obviously you wouldn't dig up Hitchens have him run for office, nor am I advocating that any angry atheist would make a good candidate.
Click to expand...
I don't know why you're claiming that that is "obvious". I have no idea what your positions are so nothing is "obvious" unless you state it. Now, you asked whether or not an atheist would be the ideal candidate. You didn't specify which "type" of atheists you would include or exclude from consideration. You just said "atheist." My answer again, is that an atheist's atheism, is not, in itself enough to qualify a person to be president. I gave my reasons already.
 
Amadeus said:
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?
Click to expand...

No. We have religious freedom in this country. It's unconstitutional to force someone to forsake their religion. It's also not a violation of separation of Church and State to have people of faith in power.

Also, the "ideal" choice is the one in my view that most closely matches my beliefs and has a good track record. Their religion is irrelevant.
 
Amadeus said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Amadeus said:
Just as an atheist shouldn't be a preacher, an evangelical (for example) shouldn't be able to hold the office of president.
Click to expand...
So you think that in order for the government to honor freedom of religion its officials should be barred from being free to practice religion.

That doesn't make any sense.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I don't know why you're claiming that that is "obvious". I have no idea what your positions are so nothing is "obvious" unless you state it. Now, you asked whether or not an atheist would be the ideal candidate. You didn't specify which "type" of atheists you would include or exclude from consideration. You just said "atheist." My answer again, is that an atheist's atheism, is not, in itself enough to qualify a person to be president. I gave my reasons already.
Click to expand...

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.
 
An Agnostic would be the best choice IMHO. Believing or not believing in invisible gods is a sign of insanity. Agnostics are realistic and logical, all the rest are either liars or fools.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
1. Since religion is neither the only nor most important issue in this country, determining whether or not someone would be "the ideal choice to lead the country" solely according to whether or not they "uphold the separation of Church and State" is not a good idea. There are many other abilities that a president needs to have.

2. Atheists are not necessarily better at dealing with religion fairly than theists. Sam Harris comes to mind as an atheist who, if president, would do as much harm to the relationship between religion and the state many Christians would. For those who don't know, Sam Harris is a very ... vocal atheist who endorses prejudice and discrimination against Muslims because he irrationality ties all Muslims to groups like al Qaeda. Richard Dawkins behaves similarly.

There are also atheists who are, in my opinion, excessively hostile towards Christianity and Christians. There are also atheists who, again in my opinion, are excessively hostile towards all religions, religious people and theists, in general. I would not want those people in any political position anymore than I want religious people in office who think government should be a theocracy.

In short, no, an atheist - simply because he or she is an atheist - would not be an ideal president. An ideal president has to have many qualities and such a president could certainly be an atheist, but their atheism, in itself, is not enough to make it so.
Click to expand...

Sam Harris is an extremely intelligent person who sheds light on the nature of Islamic radical beliefs and people who observe them. He is always respectful. If you think disrespect is challenging religion in public discourse then you are just the type of person who he is trying to reach.

Would you rather have George W. Bush in office than an atheist?

Every quality you need to have as a president, you can have outside of religion.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I don't know why you're claiming that that is "obvious". I have no idea what your positions are so nothing is "obvious" unless you state it. Now, you asked whether or not an atheist would be the ideal candidate. You didn't specify which "type" of atheists you would include or exclude from consideration. You just said "atheist." My answer again, is that an atheist's atheism, is not, in itself enough to qualify a person to be president. I gave my reasons already.
Click to expand...

And yet, simply because we are atheists, we are the most unelectable people in the country. So all those are arguments that you gave are rather moot, and I must ask that if you believe the reverse is true as well; for there is most certainly symmetry breaking in the dealing of theists and atheists in this country and I wonder if y'all have ever even given that any mind.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
So you think that in order for the government to honor freedom of religion its officials should be barred from being free to practice religion.

That doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

Does it make any more sense than having religion play a role in secular policy?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
So you think that in order for the government to honor freedom of religion its officials should be barred from being free to practice religion.

That doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Amadeus said:
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?
Click to expand...

Wasn't Jefferson basically an atheist?
 
There is no doubt going to come a time when a atheist president gets elected if the current trend of religious decline continues.
 
specklebang said:
An Agnostic would be the best choice IMHO. Believing or not believing in invisible gods is a sign of insanity. Agnostics are realistic and logical, all the rest are either liars or fools.
Click to expand...

Don't you worship cats?
 
Ikari said:
And yet, simply because we are atheists, we are the most unelectable people in the country. So all those are arguments that you gave are rather moot, and I must ask that if you believe the reverse is true as well; for there is most certainly symmetry breaking in the dealing of theists and atheists in this country and I wonder if y'all have ever even given that any mind.
Click to expand...
That most Americans don't want to elect atheists doesn't make my arguments moot, it makes the question in the OP moot because it presumes that atheists are electable at all. I gave my answers simply with the context of this thread and its question. Since my arguments are direct answers to the OP's question, they are far from moot in that context. With that in mind, please take out your angst on someone who cares about it. I don't.
 
The question wasn't whether or not atheists are electable, TPD. You've mooted yourself.
 
Knowledge=power said:
Sam Harris is an extremely intelligent person who sheds light on the nature of Islamic radical beliefs and people who observe them. He is always respectful. If you think disrespect is challenging religion in public discourse then you are just the type of person who he is trying to reach.

Would you rather have George W. Bush in office than an atheist?

Every quality you need to have as a president, you can have outside of religion.
Click to expand...
I never said he wasn't intelligent. However, I don't consider Sam Harris any more respectful of Islam than I consider Peter King respectful of Islam. He is prejudiced and favors discrimination. That is as impermissible to me as prejudice and discrimination against gays by many Christians. And no, I don't think challenging religion in public discourse is, in itself, disrespectful. As someone who rejects much of religion and finds devout belief in it to be nonsensical for a variety of reasons, such a characterization of me is laughable and reflects only upon your own sensitivities towards criticism of atheists.
 
Amadeus said:
The question wasn't whether or not atheists are electable, TPD. You've mooted yourself.
Click to expand...
Take that up with Ikari. He is the one who brought up electability. I just answered his criticism of my post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom