Should an atheist be allowed to be president?

I recently read about some research among american voters and i came across something that shocked me a little.

Lots of americans were asked if they would vote for a good qualified person for president if the person was:
- A woman, 95% said yes
- A catholic, 94% said yes
- A jew, 92% said yes
- A coloured person, 92% said yes
- A mormon, 79% said yes
- A homosexual, 79% said yes
- An atheist, 49% said yes.

So according to this, over half of the population of the USA would deny a good qualified person to be president because he doesnt believe in God. And I cant help but ask, why?
Why should religion and politics be mixed?

 

That is actually not true. If you are looking at these statistics, we dont know if the same woman was counted for being catholic as well when her answer was no and yes. And if you are looking at the 49% of Athiests as the base for the over half comment thats only half of athiests, so chances are, most people would not deny based on being an athiest.

However, I personally think it makes no difference and that the color of your skin, choice of religion, economic status, should not make a difference.

 

Stastics or not the question still stands.

Hmm... it seems to difficult to believe such an idea. I mean, atheism or other 'non-religious' groups have been on the rise for decades. It's difficult to believe, considering that homosexuality is still more stigmatised than those with the lack of religion.

Maybe it's old beliefs and standards. I've watched a documentry about religion in America and a few communities (albeit, from the south, I'm not trying to stereotype) who consider atheism to be the most 'sinful' state to be in.
As such, to try and convince them to convert the community provides 'obligations' to visit church every sunday, recite the Lord's prayer several times and even pray atleast once before leaving church, otherwise they have to 'contribute' towards the collection tray.
A 'punishment' for not following these and other rules, means becoming a social outcast from the community.

But if a leader was atheist, I couldn't give a damn. As long as they do a good job (for a change) I wouldn't care if they spouted utter jibberish.

 

What the hell kind of question is that?
If you're a human, have no criminal record, and you're over the age of 35, you should be able to be president.

Not wanting someone president because they don't believe in fairy tales is foolish.

 

An American, regardless of religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation, is still an American.
So in my opinion, it shouldn't matter what you are, but rather on political experience and the ability to do a good job leading our country.

To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if people don't want an atheist to be President because of the seemingly widespread "fear" of atheists in the Christian community. We may be seen as "extremists" because of our views, and yes, some are, but same goes for any religious group.
I am an atheist, but I still say the Pledge of Alliegance (sp?) with pride because it's an American tradition.

Also, Arch - not necessarily true. Obama had a ton of support and so far he's been pretty useless.

 

He's not really doing justice of the role he has undetaken. Sure, he's the first black president of the USA, winning a Noble peace prize... yet, he hasn't really changed much of anything. Not for the good anyway. Maybe the free health service could be his claim to fame, but who knows?

 

Don't get me started on the health plan please, I will most likely rage.
My main problem with him is that he is still considering to close Guantanamo Bay even after the recent terrorist attempt.
But I digress, it's a bit off topic. I still stand by my statement of any person born to in the US regardless of background should be able to be President without any bias.

 

I wonder how accepting the country would be if a president, mid-way through office, actually converted religion or became religion-less.
Though I doubt that would ever happen.

Most leaders today are so docile in there decision making, I feel corpses may commit to more active roles. They don't wish to take chances in order to obtain somethig greater. Most great things need a little leap of faith. Yet no revolution has commenced in western society for around 50 years.

And true it is off topic.
I do believe that the point should still be made, though.

 

The fault does not lie in the system, it lies in the people. If a candidate said that they were atheist they would not get voted in, it's really that simple. So any that are or were either won't mention it or will claim to be good honest Christians. It personally sickens me the way American politicians feel the need to pull out the Christian card when they are campaigning. Obama even did it, which annoys me.

As far as I can see, an atheist would almost be better suited as there wouldn't be the supernatural agenda aspect to their leadership. They would (hopefully) be basing their actions on clear thought, logic, reason and common sense as opposed to what their particular denomination tells them to think or whatever they perceive god to want.

The thing I find most interesting is is that those worst suited to lead a country are often the ones that want it to most. This being because those that want it the most tend to want the power and power corrupts. The most absolute power being the leader of a nation and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

lol; of COURSE an Athiest should be allowed to be president. It keeps from mixing government and religion for sure; you don't have that knowledge with a nonathiest; and also; THEY ARE HUMANS TOO! IF YOU'RE HUMAN AND NO CRIMINAL RECORD AND OVER 35 YOU'RE LEGALLY ELLIGABLE 8D

 

The statistics are more accurate than some people assume. The reason mainly is because of how Americans think and what words they tie together to mean things.

Good and Christian are too often used together despite the fact that a majority of criminals are Christian, let alone there are Christian terrorists, extortionists, etc. For some reason, the desire to keep insisting that anyone who is Christian is good continues to lead people astray from actually studying the person and his/her qualities.

It is why the smear campaign was done on Obama to say he was Islamic. It's so easy right now for people to see Islamic and Terrorist used synonymously. It's not always true either but prejudiced people attach it.

Atheist is often used with words like 'No Morality' or 'Heathen' or 'Blasphemer' etc. Since the majority of the U.S. are Christian, there are people that just in the end do not understand what Atheists are and they are not willing to look beyond a label, same as the two above examples. We may be ready for a president of ethnic background difference or gender, but we are apparently not ready for someone of different belief besides being Christian or possibly Jewish. We even had a Mormon candidate running this last time. However, people did bash that person too, though I can say I did not want the person either. Atheists won't want to run on their platform of 'religious stance' because they won't feel it important, but other people will make it important. People have made religious views of candidates important whether candidates want it brought forward or not because some people really are intimidated by someone who just does not believe as they do. Until we have more understanding that what makes a person a good person has little to do with what deity or lack of deity the person believes in, we're going to face these problems. It is something that has been brought up lately and I am glad to see it is gaining some attention. It is these kinds of attentions that are brought forward which have made people think about how to treat homosexuals, those of different ethnic backgrounds and of gender differences. Hopefully it will also teach people here to be more comprehensive and to examine a person as a person first as issues forced forward often make us do the same for the other things we need to learn to accept better.

I'd vote on someone regardless of gender, sexual orientation or religious views so long as the person isn't an extremist idiot at this point. That's the one thing I cannot stand is an extremist.

 

This is the entire reason of the seperation of church and state in which
If your
jewish
agnostic
athiest
christain
or hell even buddest you can be presedent

So yes i do beleive it would be just fine

But then again i also am atheist and i think that "one nation under god" shouldent be in the pledge of aligence and you shouldent have to pray in school

 

"under god" isn't even supposed to be in the pledge. If you see footage from around the 40's or 50's, it was just "One nation, indivisible..." the "under god" crap wasn't there.

And I'm pretty sure the whole praying thing is banned in Public Schools.
If you're in a public school and they make students do praying, then I'm pretty sure you could bust them for it.

 

You are absolutely right. The person who created the pledge even wanted instead to put in something to the effects of people being 'equal' instead and people in the 50s changed it to 'under God'. The reason the equality measure was not added was because at the time there was still a division of race and gender so it was removed before it was presented. The 'under God' took the place of it by people later. Many people do not know this and it is rather sad because I'd think the message of equality far outweighs 'under God' any day. The ironic part about it is a man of the cloth wrote the pledge of allegiance and did not seek any reference to God to be in it. He knew what this country stood for. It's a shame later Christians did not.

 

A lot of this has already been said, but whatever.

America's been hijacked by fundamentalism and bigotry for a long time. Christians love to go on and on about how the country was founded by christians, on christian principles, blissfully unaware that a great of the founding fathers were deists and would find America's current state of affairs repulsive; even assuming they were correct, the country was also founded on slavery, so what the hell is their point? We shouldn't keep things around simply because they're old. As many have already stated, the "under god" part of the pledge wasn't even there originally, and as it stands, should not have been added at all.

I understand that people want a candidate that caters to their interests and views, and a religion is an important part of a person's background and mindset; that a truly secular government is impossible simply because of how much a religion dictates a culture, and therefore, the kind of person you are, even if you later adhere to none.

Regardless, you simply shouldn't write off a candidate because their religious views don't match your own. People should consider the candidate as a whole rather than just write him off because he doesn't believe in their deity.

 

Of course an atheist should be allowed to run for president. A candidate's beliefs should have nothing to do with whether they they deserve to be president. I will admit there would be problems, like if one person was atheist and one was Christian, people would vote based solely on the beliefs of whoever they voted for. And I would be a little worried if they were especially hardcore, that they would completely get rid of religion, particularly Christianity (I have seen people who feel Christians have no right to their beliefs). But if I agreed with most of the principles of an atheist candidate, I would certainly vote for him.

 

Yes

I dont see any reason that someones "religion" should be brought into politics in this day and age. In many parts of the world (Europe is most recent, i think) the leader is chosen by a religious leader or claims to have been chosen by "god". We claim to separate church and state in america and go to great lengths to make that happen in schools, local office, and places like that. so why not in the presidential office? does it make the church scared? the parents? i just dont know.

 

A real question that should trouble people is, whether those who hold the title of President actually abide the tasks that are placed upon them.
It is true that many Atheists are misrepresented as immoral are made to be sometimes outcasts and Un-american.
I do believe the general public take religion as an important requirement for their President. As such misrepresented and unknown religions, create fear and ignorance in people, even if the canditate could very well be an effective leader, parts of the population are unable to look past any irrelevant 'fault' they perceive.

Ahh, it's like a great wave of light and realisation has come. I miss the mmoth posts of enlightenment you do bring.
Wouldn't it be a better life if Repliku simply ran for President? :D

 

I too have had a problem with the pledge ever since I embraced atheism. I would have no problem with it if those two words weren't added in there. I mean it is very annoying that you have to stand, for a deity you don't believe in, but no where as annoying as seeing those billboards proclaiming "Jesus is real!†It seems a little forceful don't you think? After all believing in any kind of Deity or mythical creature requires no proof only a leap of faith. I might laugh at a billboard that said “Have you seen Jesus today?" then reply to someone “Yes, he was behind my sofa with the remote!â€. You have every right to express your opinion, but none to enforce it upon unwilling subjects.

Only two words, for you.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3ALwKeSEYs