Atheist or Agnostic Politician

[srbbnd]

Does anyone see a problem that there has never been a non-religious high power politician in North America? ANYONE think this is a problem? #$%#* this pisses me off.

[Huggie Smiles]

Re: Atheist or Agnostic Politician

me too - it really urks me that religion has to be a factor for ever candidate. (simple answer)

[88Mariner]

Re: Atheist or Agnostic Politician

well it should be discussed, no?

[Miroslav]

Re: Atheist or Agnostic Politician

I think major aspiring politicians to a large extent have to appear to be similar in certain key ways to their constituents if they want to be elected. Most voters in this country are probably religious to some extent, so.....

[superdave]

Re: Atheist or Agnostic Politician

I would guess that most Democratic politicians are atheists or agnostics. They may say they are believers, however they seem to vote to push values that are anti-religious. They are poltically correct and attack religion constantly. Politically correct isn't in the Bible and most Democrats are on board being anti-God.

[srbbnd]

Re: Atheist or Agnostic Politician

I would guess that most Democratic politicians are atheists or agnostics. They may say they are believers, however they seem to vote to push values that are anti-religious. They are poltically correct and attack religion constantly. Politically correct isn't in the Bible and most Democrats are on board being anti-God.

I disagree...I agree that some politicians are non-religious and say they are religious just to get votes. However, I don't believe they push values that are anti-religious. If anything pretending to be religious reinforces Americas non-secular beliefs which contributes to the de-evolution of human progress. There is no freedom of religion in America. It's believe in a certain God, just there little things you can choose not to believe in or to believe. For example, Jesus or no Jesus, or is Jesus a god.

[Miroslav]

Re: Atheist or Agnostic Politician

There is no freedom of religion in America. It's believe in a certain God, just there little things you can choose not to believe in or to believe. For example, Jesus or no Jesus, or is Jesus a god.

really? You think so?

I live in American and I haven't been to church in years. Last I checked, no one is dragging me out of bed on Sunday morning and forcing me to go and I haven't faced any negative reprecussions in jobs, at school, or just generally out and about in society. I know people who go to a mosque to pray...I'm sure it wouldn't be hard for me to find people here in town who practice all kinds of different religions without persecution...

My impression has been that on the whole, the US does a much better job with freedom of religion than many other parts of the world...

[thesightless]

Re: Atheist or Agnostic Politician

really? You think so?

I live in American and I haven't been to church in years. Last I checked, no one is dragging me out of bed on Sunday morning and forcing me to go and I haven't faced any negative reprecussions in jobs, at school, or just generally out and about in society. I know people who go to a mosque to pray...I'm sure it wouldn't be hard for me to find people here in town who practice all kinds of different religions without persecution...

My impression has been that on the whole, the US does a much better job with freedom of religion than many other parts of the world...

exactamundo. frankly, i think we, along with canada, have the highest level of religious freedoms out there. all across europe, you have restrictions on religious garb in the job and schools. the strictest religious limitations we have here is that the NYPD asks thaT muslim and hindu employees wear thier head gear in the colors of the blue uniform, and the fire departments ask that the respective parties do not wear the head garb for opbvious safety reasons.

in terms of having an athiest or agnostic president, well.... no one would elect someone who made that thier platform. everyone wants some form of representation. yeah sure all the insecure aethiests want someone like that, but too bad, majority rules here. simple as that.

and dont forget, as most of us here are far too young, but the one president who made religion a MAJOR aspect of both his campaign and reign was a DEMOCRAT> john f kennedy jr.

having someone in power who has the capacity to put all religion to the side when it comes policy time is whats needed. yes, respect them all, but do not factor in fact that bible doesnt condone homosexuality when it comes time to legalize it. allow the people to vote on it. and you know what, if the overwhelming majority oppose it, then vote that way. if the majority approve it, vote it.

[Clodius]

Re: Atheist or Agnostic Politician

the dilemma is that politicians by nature care only about themselves and doing what it takes to attain and hold on to power. so what would you do if you are an atheist politician, be honest and true to yourself and immediatly lose any chance of getting elected, or lie and get eleceted?

i'm a radical atheist (as douglas adams would say) and would go for the later myself.

[superdave]

Re: Atheist or Agnostic Politician

the dilemma is that politicians by nature care only about themselves and doing what it takes to attain and hold on to power. so what would you do if you are an atheist politician, be honest and true to yourself and immediatly lose any chance of getting elected, or lie and get eleceted?

i'm a radical atheist (as douglas adams would say) and would go for the later myself.

Of course you would do the later and lie because you have no moral base being a self proclaimed radical atheist. And there lies the problem with America and those being elected to office. If you have lying people with little or no morals running the country it's no wonder there is corruption and problems. Religious and Republican voters know this and vote Republican accordingly.

[88Mariner]

Re: Atheist or Agnostic Politician

this isn't part of the discussion, but George Bush is an atheist. He doesn't believe in Mithras, Vishnu, Baal, Zeus, or...ahem....the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Atheists tend to go one god further.

I think a candidate who wears his religion on his shoulder to get votes from the religious is giving the religious exactly what they deserve: more deception.

that being said, here's a new question: could a 'deist' be elected president? We did though have a few deists elected way back, but in the political climate we have today, could this happen, and would you vote for that person if there was another candidate with equal qualifications, yet only more fundamentalist in thier beliefs?

[Miroslav]

Re: Atheist or Agnostic Politician

this isn't part of the discussion, but George Bush is an atheist. He doesn't believe in Mithras, Vishnu, Baal, Zeus, or...ahem....the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Atheists tend to go one god further.

um...I may just be ill informed, but I am really not following you here Where exactly did you get this from, that Bush is an atheist? And what in the world does it mean for an atheist to go "one god further"?

Of course you would do the later and lie because you have no moral base being a self proclaimed radical atheist. And there lies the problem with America and those being elected to office. If you have lying people with little or no morals running the country it's no wonder there is corruption and problems. Religious and Republican voters know this and vote Republican accordingly.

Nice way to stir the pot! Free Blackwater??

[Clodius]

Re: Atheist or Agnostic Politician

Of course you would do the later and lie because you have no moral base being a self proclaimed radical atheist. And there lies the problem with America and those being elected to office. If you have lying people with little or no morals running the country it's no wonder there is corruption and problems. Religious and Republican voters know this and vote Republican accordingly.

that is such an ignorant way to look at things ... atheist => no morals ... not exactly. what your basically saying is that the only way to get a moral base is to follow a religion. we gain our morals by society, not by going to church. you act moral not because if you don't your going to hell, but because you're raised to from an early age and because in general thats how society works.

religous voters would never vote for an atheist because religous voters can't begin to fathom the idea of their faith being misplaced. and if your saying voting republican is the more moral choice, then i think you need to take a look at the last few years/decades/centuries.

i would argue that to actually attain power as a politician you need to throw your moral convictions to side (except for the rare few ... very rare few), whether they be dem, rep, green, or any other party or country.

[subterFUSE]

Re: Atheist or Agnostic Politician

um...I may just be ill informed, but I am really not following you here Where exactly did you get this from, that Bush is an atheist? And what in the world does it mean for an atheist to go "one god further"?

He is taking it from a quote in "The God Delusion"... a book on atheism by Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins point is that there have been many, many different gods of different religions for all of human history.... and that each religion often forces its followers to denounce all other versions of "god" except for the one they uphold.
So a "christian" is an atheist with respect to ancient Greek gods like Zeus, for example.

His funny conclusion to this point is that a christian thinks that they are the polar opposite from an atheist. But, in truth, they are not that different than the atheist. A christian denies the existence of every single god from every religion except their own. A true athiest is not that different from a christian.... he only takes his disbelief one god further.

[subterFUSE]

Re: Atheist or Agnostic Politician

that is such an ignorant way to look at things ... atheist => no morals ... not exactly. what your basically saying is that the only way to get a moral base is to follow a religion. we gain our morals by society, not by going to church. you act moral not because if you don't your going to hell, but because you're raised to from an early age and because in general thats how society works.

religous voters would never vote for an atheist because religous voters can't begin to fathom the idea of their faith being misplaced. and if your saying voting republican is the more moral choice, then i think you need to take a look at the last few years/decades/centuries.

i would argue that to actually attain power as a politician you need to throw your moral convictions to side (except for the rare few ... very rare few), whether they be dem, rep, green, or any other party or country.

Morals absolutely do NOT come from religion. Many religious people like to think they do... but they do not. This is one of the points made in Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion".

In fact, if anything, religion allows people to ignore good morals. Religion leads people to justify horrible moral attrocities.

One example he uses to illustrate this point is a study which was done where young children (I think they were Jewish) were separated into 2 groups and each group was told a story.

One group was told the story of Joshua at the Walls of Jericho. God gave Joshua the battle plan, and Joshua carried forth. They breached the walls and burned the city, killing everyone.

The other group of children was told the same story, but instead of Joshua receiving the battle plan from God... they were told that Captain "someone" was given the battle plan by General "someone". Basically they turned the story of Joshua into a modern military situation.


After the story was told, they asked each group of children if the actions were moral. The responses were remarkably different. Children who heard the story of Joshua receiving word from God to destroy the city and kill everyone said that he was justified. He was doing God's will. The people deserved to die because they were not of his religion. etc...
The other children who got the same story but with modern military characters said that it was immoral to kill all the people. He should not have killed them all. It was murder, genocide, a new holocaust, etc...

Same story, just a different perspective based on the religious aspect.