How long untill an Athiest president of the USA !?

jackdaw

History has been made today in the USA ... I never thought I'd see such a landslide for Obama ... it's fantastic ... how long though will it take the US to
elect an athiest president ?

I'd say 100 years !!

redfacedbear

I would suspect that at least some of those already elected were Athiests - and I would have my doubts about the strength of Obama's faith too.

When an openly Atheist candidate would stand a chance is another matter - I doubt it is going to be in our lifetimes though.

jackdaw

redfacedbear wrote: »

I would suspect that at least some of those already elected were Athiests - and I would have my doubts about the strength of Obama's faith too.

When an openly Atheist candidate would stand a chance is another matter - I doubt it is going to be in our lifetimes though.

Yes sorry , that's what I meant .. an openly Athiest candidate ...

seamus

Like most other good things, it's probably something which Europe would do first. We don't tend to attribute religiousness to someone's quality as a politician in the same way that the Americans do.

I would imagine we would need at least a few openly atheist leaders in some of the major EU countries before the US at least becomes open to it. Or before they decide to attack the godless heathens of Europe. In the US, atheists are the new n*ggers. Even being associated with one can be damaging to someone's political profile.

Atheist EU leader - probably within 20 years.
Atheist US leader - definitely not within our lifetime.

(I use the term "n*gger" here to refer to the latest minority group that the american public have been convinced is the subhuman enemy)

cavedave

Many of the early presidents were deists but not strictly Christian. Thomas Jefferson was a deist for example.

Abraham Lincoln may well have been an atheist.

Gordon

May not be long, how many people would have said that no way in our lifetime would a black president be elected in Americaland ten years ago? A lot I'm sure.

Dades

Gordon wrote: »

May not be long, how many people would have said that no way in our lifetime would a black president be elected in Americaland ten years ago? A lot I'm sure.

The difference there is there are a huge percentage of blacks (or minorities in general) who once given the vote became a force to be reckoned with. And although I'm sure there are plenty of non-believers in American closets, their numbers aren't anywhere near enough to be a substantial force in the electorate.

I would also therefore say not in our lifetime!

nozzferrahhtoo

Really atheism is not important in a president.

What obama is is something even more important, he is a secularist. This to me is more important than putting someone up there who is openly atheist. Remember you do not need to be an atheist to be a secularist. There are many theist secularists and Obama is one. This can be seen in his 2006 speech.....

"Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s?

Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application?

So before we get carried away, let’s read our Bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their Bibles.

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice.

Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences.

To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.

We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.

Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God's test of devotion.

But it's fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason.

Finally, any reconciliation between faith and democratic pluralism requires some sense of proportion. This goes for both sides."

pH

Dades wrote: »

The difference there is there are a huge percentage of blacks (or minorities in general) who once given the vote became a force to be reckoned with. And although I'm sure there are plenty of non-believers in American closets, their numbers aren't anywhere near enough to be a substantial force in the electorate.

I would also therefore say not in our lifetime!

I'm not so sure, depending on where you take your stats, the black population of the US is about 13%, number of 'atheists' could be as high as 14% if you count people with 'no religion" but certainly in the 5%-10% bracket. The main difference seems to be that it's no longer acceptable in US politics to view being black as a character flaw, yet being "Godless" clearly is.

That said, this recent attack ad backfired on Elizabeth Dole who last night lost to Kay Hagan:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lf2vDk-4Ag

Galvasean

pH wrote: »

That said, this recent attack ad backfired on Elizabeth Dole who last night lost to Kay Hagan:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lf2vDk-4Ag

Hagan should have taken a leaf out of the bus' book and used the word 'probably'.
Hey, wait a minute... Hagan won.. quite easily.

Original statement retracted.

brianthebard

seamus wrote: »

Like most other good things, it's probably something which Europe would do first.

Have there been many European leaders elected that were part of a minority group?

Fanny Cradock

pH wrote: »

That said, this recent attack ad backfired on Elizabeth Dole who last night lost to Kay Hagan:

Well, in fairness, I think that a lot of Christians would (and did) take umbrage to such a tactic. I know I would. In fact, after running those ads her ratings took a considerable nose dive.

Galvasean

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, in fairness, I think that a lot of Christians would (and did) take umbrage to such a tactic. I know I would. In fact, after running those ads her ratings took a considerable nose dive.

I heard something similar on BBC last night. Apparently Dole lost ground with the religious people who found the ad to be over the top and sensationalist.

seamus

brianthebard wrote: »

Have there been many European leaders elected that were part of a minority group?

It was a tongue-in-cheek remark really. Europe has been relatively good for electing its female leaders, but there would be a good few countries who wouldn't be ready to elect a minority leader, particularly one who's non-white. I'd count ourselves in that. The UK and France, probably would.

You can't count "chancers" as an ethnic minority, but that's all we seem to vote in

Daemonic

Given the poll results here its not politically prudent to admit to atheism when running for president.

Handsome Bob

redfacedbear wrote: »

I would suspect that at least some of those already elected were Athiests - and I would have my doubts about the strength of Obama's faith too.

When an openly Atheist candidate would stand a chance is another matter - I doubt it is going to be in our lifetimes though.

Are you basing this on something he actually said or are you making a generalization that since he's obviously a very intelligent and open minded man he could not possibly have strong religious beliefs?

ChocolateSauce

I suspect Hiliary Clinton is an atheist.

Goduznt Xzst

Openly? Not in our lifetime. But then there are a lot of sentimental characteristics that people seem to require in their politicians which really do not dictate how well they can lead.

That's not to say I don't think there has ever been an Atheist president. Much the same as you wouldn't assume all presidents are heterosexual or good family men, even though there campaigns would have you believe this.

eoin5

cavedave wrote: »

Many of the early presidents were deists but not strictly Christian. Thomas Jefferson was a deist for example.

Abraham Lincoln may well have been an atheist.

Deists are atheists, that is unless they believe in both a personal god and an otherwise sort of god. I doubt jefferson believed in both.

Zillah

LZ5by5 wrote: »

or are you making a generalization that since he's obviously a very intelligent and open minded man he could not possibly have strong religious beliefs?

Sounds quite reasonable to me.

cavedave

eoin5

Deists are atheists

Well that's finished that thread then. The first atheist president was in 1801.

Handsome Bob

Zillah wrote: »

Sounds quite reasonable to me.

You wouldn't be tarring every Christian with the evangelical brush by an chance? Did you read what was posted earlier? Obama views religion as something that should be a personal thing which has no place in politics. Believe it or not, that's a view shared not just by sections of Christians, but by sections in every religious creed.

PDN

Galvasean wrote: »

Hagan should have taken a leaf out of the bus' book and used the word 'probably'.
Hey, wait a minute... Hagan won.. quite easily.

Original statement retracted.

And in what context do you think Kay Hagan (a Presbyterian Sunday School teacher) should have used the word 'probably'?

redfacedbear

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Are you basing this on something he actually said or are you making a generalization that since he's obviously a very intelligent and open minded man he could not possibly have strong religious beliefs?

Neither - it's just an impression I get. I think it was PDN here who said that the church he belongs to (Rev Wright's crowd?) is very much a whatever you're having yourself type of Christianity - as close to a non-religion as it would be possible for a Presidential candidate to get.

(I'm paraphrasing from memory here so apologies to PDN if I've gotten it wrong)

He certainly doesn't invoke god as much as most American politicians while he's speechifying from what I can see.

Húrin

jackdaw wrote: »

History has been made today in the USA ... I never thought I'd see such a landslide for Obama ... it's fantastic ... how long though will it take the US to
elect an athiest president ?

I'd say 100 years !!

All atheists seem to assume that religion is on an inevitable, irreversible course to disappearance. This ignores the historical fact that the prominence of religious belief in society fluctuates with the times for many reasons.

There is little reason to assume that it will not pick up again, indeed I feel it already is.

redfacedbear wrote: »

I would suspect that at least some of those already elected were Athiests - and I would have my doubts about the strength of Obama's faith too.

Some chose not to swear on a Bible. This may indicate atheism, or an aversion to swearing on the Bible (Jesus advised his followers not to swear on anything, "let your yes be yes"). I think Teddy Roosevelt didn't.

Húrin

eoin5 wrote: »

Deists are atheists

No they aren't. Deists are theists who reject the revelations of holy books that characterise other religions, such as Christianity.

Húrin

seamus wrote: »

It was a tongue-in-cheek remark really. Europe has been relatively good for electing its female leaders, but there would be a good few countries who wouldn't be ready to elect a minority leader, particularly one who's non-white. I'd count ourselves in that. The UK and France, probably would.

Really? The two countries with the most prominent extreme right anti-immigration racist lobbies?

eoin5

Húrin wrote: »

No they aren't. Deists are theists who reject the revelations of holy books that characterise other religions, such as Christianity.

I thought theists were distinct in that they believe in a personal, interventionist sort of god.

From answers.com

Deism

n.

The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

Theism

n.

Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

You cant have youre cake and eat it, unless you have two cakes of course

Fanny Cradock

Deism is not atheism. Deists believe in a God, albeit one who is not interventionist is any way shape or form, which makes them distinct category from both atheists and theists. Now that I think of it, I've never actually met a self-confessed deist.

You are an atheist, no? I'm not having a go at you, but it would be wise to bone-up on your belief that there are no supernatural agents and then compare this against atheism, theism and agnosticism.

Passenger

Did Obama publicly reference any inclinations of religious faith during his campaign speeches?

jill_valentine

A couple of days ago, I would have said that there's little/no chance of an atheist making office, but man, I have completely underestimated the US this time, so why not again, right?

Overheal

Wasnt FDR the first Catholic elected to office?

In fairness these things are just a matter of time.

pH

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Deism is not atheism. Deists believe in a God, albeit one who is not interventionist is any way shape or form, which makes them distinct category from both atheists and theists. Now that I think of it, I've never actually met a self-confessed deist.

All of which means that deists are atheists, ie they are not theists.

PDN

Passenger wrote: »

Did Obama publicly reference any inclinations of religious faith during his campaign speeches?

Frequently. For example, from a speech in Zanesville, Ohio on July 1st 2008

Now, I didn’t grow up in a particularly religious household. But my experience in Chicago showed me how faith and values could be an anchor in my life. And in time, I came to see my faith as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community; that while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn’t be fulfilling God’s will unless I went out and did the Lord’s work

As regards the OP, I think it would be possible for an openly atheist Republican to get elected as a President, but not an openly atheist Democrat. This is because the African-American political machine has always been centred on black churches.

eoin5

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Deism is not atheism. Deists believe in a God, albeit one who is not interventionist is any way shape or form, which makes them distinct category from both atheists and theists. Now that I think of it, I've never actually met a self-confessed deist.

You are an atheist, no? I'm not having a go at you, but it would be wise to bone-up on your belief that there are no supernatural agents and then compare this against atheism, theism and agnosticism.

Yes deism is not atheism but nearly all deists fall into the atheist category by default, except for the possibility of someone who believes in both sort of gods.

Theism is a yes or no question, you either believe in a personal god or you dont.

Deism is a yes or no question, you either believe in a god who created and abandoned you or you dont.

To be a part of both sets would require a fairly creative set of beliefs, a dual creatorship maybe.

redfacedbear

Overheal wrote: »

Wasnt FDR the first Catholic elected to office?

In fairness these things are just a matter of time.

Not FDR but JFK tbh

Fanny Cradock

eoin5 wrote: »

Yes deism is not atheism but nearly all deists fall into the atheist category by default, except for the possibility of someone who believes in both sort of gods.

Theism is a yes or no question, you either believe in a personal god or you dont.

Deism is a yes or no question, you either believe in a god who created and abandoned you or you dont.

To be a part of both sets would require a fairly creative set of beliefs, a dual creatorship maybe.

I'm sorry eoin5, but you are changing your position. Initially you stated that Deism = Atheism. Now you say thats not true but atheists can clam them as their own.

Fundamentally I think you either misunderstand your own faith or the faith of Deists.

*Deists believe in a God. That deists believe (S)he/ It/ They are completely uninterested in our existence is of no significance to this debate.
*Atheist don't believe in a God.

I don't see why there is any confusion here.

Zillah

If I was ever running for political office I'd express my deep faith, love of Christ and commitment to God.

And try very very very hard to make sure no one ever associated this user account with me personally.

Galvasean

PDN wrote: »

As regards the OP, I think it would be possible for an openly atheist Republican to get elected as a President, but not an openly atheist Democrat. This is because the African-American political machine has always been centred on black churches.

You really think? Somehow I doubt the Republican hardliners would react too well to a Godless candidate.

PDN

Galvasean wrote: »

You really think? Somehow I doubt the Republican hardliners would react too well to a Godless candidate.

That's because you've heard the lazy media stereotypes too often.

The evangelical right voted for McCain even though he rarely speaks of his religious beliefs, cheated on his wife (disfigured in a car accident) and hooked up instead with a 'Rodeo Queen' (the mind boggles) who was also heiress to a brewery. They rejected a candidate (Obama) who has apparently been faithful to his wife. Many of them also voted in the primaries for someone who is part of what they believe to be a false religious cult (Mitt Romney).

The evangelical right votes on issues, not the personal faith of a candidate. They hated Clinton (an evangelical Southern Baptist) yet loved Nixon (a nominal Quaker, definitely not evangelical). If an atheist promised to fight abortion, outlaw gay marriages, and protect gun ownership then they would vote for him/her en bloc.

No Democrat could be elected without working the black church circuit. An open atheist couldn't do that.

eoin5

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm sorry eoin5, but you are changing your position. Initially you stated that Deism = Atheism. Now you say thats not true but atheists can clam them as their own.

Fundamentally I think you either misunderstand your own faith or the faith of Deists.

*Deists believe in a God. That deists believe (S)he/ It/ They are completely uninterested in our existence is of no significance to this debate.
*Atheist don't believe in a God.

I don't see why there is any confusion here.

Deism = Atheism is not what I wrote, the equals sign is very ambiguous in the english language. What I said is:

me wrote:

Deists are atheists, that is unless they believe in both a personal god and an otherwise sort of god. I doubt jefferson believed in both.

Saying "Micras are Cars" is very different to "Micras = Cars" in the level of ambiguity. I havent changed my story, I only elaborated on it.

The only useful definition of theism is the belief in a personal, interventionist type of god. To say that theism is simply a belief in a god without qualifing the type of god in some way then youre at the mercy of the definition of god which according to answers.com could mean that god could even be a very handsome man .

So for the third time the only way a deist can be a theist is if he/she believes in both sort of gods.

I'm certainly not confused on this one :cool:

Overheal

redfacedbear wrote: »

Not FDR but JFK tbh

oic tyvm

condra

Does it count if they "come out" as an atheist later in their lives, after their presidency?

In my opinion, Barack Obama absolutely REEKS of the sweet smell of reason and logic.

Would it be that surprising if he came out as an atheist in ten or twenty years time?

Jesus Wept

jackdaw wrote: »

History has been made today in the USA ... I never thought I'd see such a landslide for Obama ... it's fantastic ... how long though will it take the US to
elect an athiest president ?

I'd say 100 years !!

I really don't understand this 'landslide' claim.
Obama won 53% of the popular vote vs 46% for McCain. (source)

Ok, Obama won the electoral college with ease (which is an terrible system to decide the presidency imo).

On the BBC election night coverage, they stated that it is considered a landslide when one candidate gets 55% of the popular vote.

If 11/20 people want one candidate, and the other 9/20 people want a different candidate, how on earth can that be called a landslide?!

Daemonic

The-Rigger wrote: »

If 11/20 people want one candidate, and the other 9/20 people want a different candidate, how on earth can that be called a landslide?!

Probably because there is no grey area in news headlines anymore. Everything has to have a touch of the dramatic about it.

DanCorb

Dades wrote: »

The difference there is there are a huge percentage of blacks (or minorities in general) who once given the vote became a force to be reckoned with. And although I'm sure there are plenty of non-believers in American closets, their numbers aren't anywhere near enough to be a substantial force in the electorate.

I would also therefore say not in our lifetime!

From the United States Census Bureau:
Percentage of Blacks in America: 12.4%
Percentage of Non-Religious: 14%

Atheists are the largest minority in America. Their numbers clearly are enough.

Dades

That's fair enough, before pH posted I was under the impression the coloured population was larger.

I wonder though would the same proportion of "non-religious" vote for a candidate because of his beliefs, as blacks would vote for one because of their colour? I don't know the answer - I'm only posing the question.

robindch

The-Rigger wrote: »

I really don't understand this 'landslide' claim.

I think it refers to the results of the electoral college system.

The-Rigger wrote: »

which is an terrible system to decide the presidency imo.

Short history lesson:

The electoral college (EC) system is a product of the 18th century when the USA had no national media to speak of, and a nation-wide election was costly, dangerous and difficult to organize. Originally, each state nominated a number of men (roughly proportional to the state population) each of whom had one vote in a country-wide election from a short list of candidates. The guy with the greatest number of electoral college votes became president.

The members of the EC were, I believe, typically drawn from a group which contained a high proportion of land owners, with a small number from academia. The object of the EC was to create an electoral system which was likely to elect a candidate who had a fair chance of being smart, and who would respect wealth and land rights (except injun land of course). I believe the membership requirements for the EC were based very roughly on those for the UK's House of Lords, which also acts as a moderating influence against the results of another popular election (the House of Commons instead of the Senate + Congress).

In the early days, the EC members voted without reference to any popular vote -- I believe they still can in some states. However, as time passed, it became politically necessary to shoe-horn some democracy into the system. Hence, the popular vote now directs the EC in who to vote for. Most states (like Florida, notoriously) require the EC to vote unanimously one way or the other, while a minority of states require their EC to split the votes as per the popular votes. The guy with the greatest number of EC votes still wins the election, and unlike France and some French colonial countries, there's no runoff if the highest-scoring candidate fails to win less than 50% (a useful adaption which avoids Ralph Nader-style f*ckups in which minority candidates like Bush II acquire power).

Like the UK's first-past-the-post system, the EC system has evolved to be unstable -- small input changes causing large output changes. It wasn't always like that, but it's become like that over time, so perhaps it's time for a change. But that will require a change to the constitution, which will require the agreement of two-thirds of the states, and historically, that's been difficult to achieve, so it probably won't happen.

BTW, if you think the EC system is messy then have a look at the medieval voting system which elected the Doge of Venice. This clever and subtle protocol was developed in the 13th century and lasted for longer than any other democratic system. The full, and intriguing, details are here.

End of history lesson.

.

Jesus Wept

robindch wrote: »

I think it refers to the results of the electoral college system.

Nah, they were refering to the popular vote.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Anyone read audacity of hope?

I think Obama is also the first Atheist president.

A better question might have been the first openly-atheistic president