Would you vote for an Atheist?

[kallipolis]

the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. It comes from a letter by Thomas Jefferson.

Many of the Puritans emigrated from England to the British colonies in the New England area of what today is the United States. For the first few centuries of these colonies' existence, their population was primarily Puritan, and Puritanism was the state religion, and in Connecticut and Massachusetts the state religion was Congregationalism. On Independence Day, 1776, nine of the original thirteen colonies had official state churches. And, at the time of the adoption of the First Amendment in 1791, four of the fourteen states recognized an official state church, and in spite of the First Amendment these state churches remained existent for many years before being abolished by the voluntary action of the state legislatures, so clearly our Founding Fathers did not fear a STATE religion. What they feared was the Federal Government selecting the state religion of one of the other states and making it "THE Official Church of the United States", much like England had the Church of England which was created because King Henry VIII could not get the divorce he wanted from the Roman Catholic Church, and many English citizens wanted to be free to remain Catholic.

We should recall that Messrs Jefferson, Franklin and Adams were not in a position to dictate their private understandings to the American people.

http://www.htweb.org/arlu/

 

[sabot3ur]

Aren't you an Atheist? I was asking religious people this question. I once read somewhere that atheists are the most mistrusted and hated minority in the U.S

Here is something on it.

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm

me no follow rules (except that I'm pretty much agnostic and was religious for most of my life)

and yeah, I can sort of believe that. although I'm not openly discriminated against as much for that, as I am for being a homo. but our country's leaders have said something along the lines of not considering atheists real americans more than once, it's whatever. I've experienced the distrust part more than anything else, I'd say.

 

[spiderhead]

the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. It comes from a letter by Thomas Jefferson.

Many of the Puritans emigrated from England to the British colonies in the New England area of what today is the United States. For the first few centuries of these colonies' existence, their population was primarily Puritan, and Puritanism was the state religion, and in Connecticut and Massachusetts the state religion was Congregationalism. On Independence Day, 1776, nine of the original thirteen colonies had official state churches. And, at the time of the adoption of the First Amendment in 1791, four of the fourteen states recognized an official state church, and in spite of the First Amendment these state churches remained existent for many years before being abolished by the voluntary action of the state legislatures, so clearly our Founding Fathers did not fear a STATE religion. What they feared was the Federal Government selecting the state religion of one of the other states and making it "THE Official Church of the United States", much like England had the Church of England which was created because King Henry VIII could not get the divorce he wanted from the Roman Catholic Church, and many English citizens wanted to be free to remain Catholic.

We should recall that Messrs Jefferson, Franklin and Adams were not in a position to dictate their private understandings to the American people.

http://www.htweb.org/arlu/

I bring up that point to note the mindsets of some of our founding fathers and more intelligent free thinkers.

I was just substantiating (a little) the "founding fathers not being christian" remark that was made prior to my post.

 

[kallipolis]

I bring up that point to note the mindsets of some of our founding fathers and more intelligent free thinkers.

I was just substantiating (a little) the "founding fathers not being christian" remark that was made prior to my post.


Your remark, is appreciated for its clarity.

Adding some balance does broaden our focus to appreciate that the newly established states were not founded on separation of state and religion. Also to further help us understand that intelligent thinking is not the monopoly of politicians. Even those founding fathers such as Jefferson, who was a slave owner, (around 120 slaves) some of whom he sired.

 

[Kulindahr]

Atheism= America's hope

I'd vote for an atheist, but not for anyone who held that belief -- any more than I would vote for someone who thought Buddhism was America's hope, or Scientology, or any other ideology.

Though almost all the US founding fathers were Christian - they knew that religion and politics don't mix - which is why the US constitution has a strict separation between church and state.

I heard they were deists.

It depends how one counts. If you look at which FFs had regular church pews, they were almost all Christians, but that doesn't mean much -- I could put a wooden rocking horse in a thoroughbred barn, but that doesn't make it a racehorse.

From the reading I have done that seems to be correct, especially for Thomas Jefferson, and the "Founders were Christian" schpiel is a lie systematically perpetrated by the American religious right in order to help destroy the secular principals upon which the U.S.A. was founded.

America is unique among the Western nations in the electorate's obsession with the religious beliefs of presidential (and other political) candidates. JFK must be spinning in his grave.

I don't care what my president worships, as long as he/she keeps it out of their political life. ell here in S.A. we don't even really know the religious convictions of most of our leaders.

I'd have a problem with a president who actually worshpped, but kept it out of his political life -- that would indicate a sort of schizophrenia or something, which I'd find more troubling. I just don't want to see a president who thinks his/her religion tells him how to run the country, if that means remaking it in his religion's image.

As for the systematic perpetration of a lie....

Paranoid much? And the whole reason a lot of people care about what their president believes in is the risk of the said president having a religious or anti-religious agenda and pushing it on the people.

As someone who spent a great deal of time in religious right circles before God woke me up, I can tell you it has little to do with paranoia. The people driving that lie are part of the batch who sat down and planned out the religious takeover of the Republican Party, and continue to plan a theocratic takeover. They're quite serious about it -- and quite demented, and as I told a batch of them once, quite deceptive and deluded.
A leading member of that movement in Oregon woke up one day and announced in church that he would no longer work for political causes through the church, because he'd seen that God opposed that approach, and called us to the Gospel. The quiet yet efficient ostracism he was hit with was frightening.
They're people who are definitely concerned whether a president will have a religious agenda and work to push it on people -- because they want one who will push theirs.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kallipolis, I got a bit of a chuckle at the ARLU site, which correctly noted that the FFs would not have wanted their children educated in another faith, but blithely miss the fact that the FFs would have not wanted government-run schools in the first place.

 

[kallipolis]

that the FFs would have not wanted government-run schools in the first place.

A point that I had over looked. Thanks for drawing this important distinction, to my attention.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ It's always interested me that the inventor of government-run schools was a Prussian whose intent was to make everyone a "good citizen", which meant think alike and obey the leaders.

BTW -- how about using the QUOTE function?

 

[AsianDream]

Simple question really I'm asking religious people only. I thought it would be interesting to ask.

I don't think it is possible to only allow replies to a thread by those with a particular opinion - so I will ignore your attempt to make this a "religious believers only" thread.

It is self evidently wrong in a democracy to vote either for or against anyone based on their religious affiliation (or lack of one).

In moral terms this as prejudiced a question as asking if someone should vote for a Black or a woman or a person older than 70 - these labels simply aren't relevant to the democratic process.

 

[tonyboy]

Even though such a question is common in the United States, it is actually an absurd thought. Men and women are elected (or should be elected) to run their jurisdiction based upon the law -- NOT set moral standards.

And for that reason, I would vote for an atheist, a Baptist, a Jew, or a Muslim. But to tell you the truth, I don't wanna know what they are, because I don't think it's important when it comes to being a successful leader.

The law is based upon upon moral standards.
It's getting pretty tough in recent years though since laws have beeen written that are based on very subjective things.

The founding documents of the US were based on the the Rights of Man... The Declaration of Independence was based on the what the Founders of our coutry figured were laws given by their Creator... that is Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happniess.... Rights that were given to man by the Creator.

There were no moral standards involved with those rights.... but it was accepted at the time that morality was a given. Back then most people were members of a Chirstian Church. Didn't matter too much what denomination it was, they were pretty much based on the same principles.

Secularism has done great damage to our country in many ways.... just my opinion of course.
Laws in our country, at least the basics given in the Bill of Rights and early laws set down by Congress followed the principles of the Consitution.
Over the course of years government has eroded many of those original beliefs....
Manily the thouhts that people should govern themselves....be free of those that figure they have the right or authority to guide or tell others how they should behave and live thier lives.
I don't care if an elected person doesn't believe in God, as long as they dont' try to put a stop to those that do.
The Declaration of Independence is one of the most perfect documents ever written. It stated quite boldly that the rights of man are given to us by God.... that is the natural order of things.
The USA was the first country to set up a government following those ideas.
It's a shame that we've let our governemt get so much conrol over us.

I know I digressed from your thought here.....
I'd much rather vote for a person that still had a religious background than one that did not.
Not saying by any means that a person that doesn't believe in God is a bad person.... but seems to me that someone that is grounded in a spiritual belief would be better to lead our county.
And yeah, I know that many of our Presidents were not that way at all.
One of the worst recent Presidents was Jimmy Carter.... very religious but a disaster as President.
Well.... just my TCW..

 

[Fucker29]

Moderation is the key. I don't give a shit if you're catholic, budhist, atheist or whatever...as long as it's in moderation and you keep an open mind, it's all fine by me. Having an open mind is the trouble of many leaders...THAT'S where our concerns should be.

 

[Chalchalero]

I would actually prefer an atheist to a religious fanatic. The separation of Church and state is supposed to provide for a secular government without undue influence of ANY church on government policies. Unfortunately this has not been the case in recent years, and now candidates have to climb all over each other to prove who has the most "faith". It is ridiculous.

If a candidate can focus more of his time on the issues affecting his constituency on a daily basis (the economy, unemployment, etc) and leave the soul saving to the priests and preachers, that would be ideal, I believe.

 

[Fucker29]

I would actually prefer an atheist to a religious fanatic. The separation of Church and state is supposed to provide for a secular government without undue influence of ANY church on government policies. Unfortunately this has not been the case in recent years, and now candidates have to climb all over each other to prove who has the most "faith". It is ridiculous.

If a candidate can focus more of his time on the issues affecting his constituency on a daily basis (the economy, unemployment, etc) and leave the soul saving to the priests and preachers, that would be ideal, I believe.

Yes, I too would prefer an atheist.

 

[Críostóir]

I don't think it is possible to only allow replies to a thread by those with a particular opinion - so I will ignore your attempt to make this a "religious believers only" thread.

It is self evidently wrong in a democracy to vote either for or against anyone based on their religious affiliation (or lack of one).

In moral terms this as prejudiced a question as asking if someone should vote for a Black or a woman or a person older than 70 - these labels simply aren't relevant to the democratic process.

As usual, AsianDream, you don't know what you're talking about. It's perfectly reasonable for a person to want to know whether religious believers would vote for an atheist--that is, whether they'd be too prejudiced by that fact to vote for one.

You not being a religious believer, we can assume you wouldn't have that prejudice. Therefore your response is irrelevant to the question under discussion, not to mention rude and obnoxious.

And btw a person over 70 is probably too old to stand up to the stress of the office, unless he's planning to be a laid back, who-cares-how-many-people-die, I'm-gonna-finish-my-golf-game flaming jackhole like the bozo we have now. If he is, we still shouldn't vote for him!

Go and play. The grownups are having a conversation here.

 

[AsianDream]

As usual, AsianDream, you don't know what you're talking about. It's perfectly reasonable for a person to want to know whether religious believers would vote for an atheist--that is, whether they'd be too prejudiced by that fact to vote for one.

You not being a religious believer, we can assume you wouldn't have that prejudice. Therefore your response is irrelevant to the question under discussion, not to mention rude and obnoxious.

And btw a person over 70 is probably too old to stand up to the stress of the office, unless he's planning to be a laid back, who-cares-how-many-people-die, I'm-gonna-finish-my-golf-game flaming jackhole like the bozo we have now. If he is, we still shouldn't vote for him!

Go and play. The grownups are having a conversation here.

I guess you may be old - but I don't think you can claim to be a "Grown-up" yet.

As to your blatantly "agist" remark - while I don't agree with Jonn McCains policies - I don't think his age (72) has any relevance to his suitability for office. Just as Obamas "Blackness" should have no relevance to his electoral chances.

My point that religion should not be a factor in democratic elections is neither rude nor obnoxious - but I have to say that I would describe your ill informed and prejudiced comments as both rude and obnoxious.

 

[ronboy]

Quick reminder here to all posters that this is a NO FLAMES ZONE!

Please adhere to this....

Thanks...

 

[AsianDream]

Quick reminder here to all posters that this is a NO FLAMES ZONE!

Please adhere to this....

Thanks...

Sorry - does this mean I'm going to get yet another infraction? anyway I didn't start it!

 

[Giovanni]

I don't think it is possible to only allow replies to a thread by those with a particular opinion - so I will ignore your attempt to make this a "religious believers only" thread.

It is self evidently wrong in a democracy to vote either for or against anyone based on their religious affiliation (or lack of one).

In moral terms this as prejudiced a question as asking if someone should vote for a Black or a woman or a person older than 70 - these labels simply aren't relevant to the democratic process.

I don't know what exactly you are accusing me of, but it's pointless asking an Atheist if he/she would vote for a Atheist, because they would.

I'm asking religious people because most religious people have something against Atheists and I wanted to see if the religious people here was prejudiced to that point.

Atheists saying they would vote for an atheist is just like Catholics saying they would vote for a Catholic, Useless because I knew the answer already. I didn't need atheist input because of this fact..

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't know what exactly you are accusing me of, but it's pointless asking an Atheist if he/she would vote for a Atheist, because they would.

Unless he's convinced he's the only real, orthodox atheist, and the others aren't worthy.

I'm asking religious people because most religious people have something against Atheists and I wanted to see if the religious people here was prejudiced to that point.

Of the religious people I know and the atheists I know, a far higher portion of atheists are strongly prejudiced against religious people than is true of the reverse.

Atheists saying they would vote for an atheist is just like Catholics saying they would vote for a Catholic, Useless because I knew the answer already. I didn't need atheist input because of this fact..

Given the premises, quite definitely so!
Answers from atheists in a discussion like this are like the ones pollsters get quite commonly: people the question isn't even for go right ahead and answer anyway -- but what they're answering is puzzling, since they're already excluded. For example, a question might begin, "If you voted for Ross Perot for President...." -- but if the person didn't vote for Perot, the answer isn't even an answer, it's just a response.
And for a person wanting input to restrict responses to actual answers is certainly legitimate.

 

[Chalchalero]

Of the religious people I know and the atheists I know, a far higher portion of atheists are strongly prejudiced against religious people than is true of the reverse.

I have found this to be true particularly on these very threads.

Given the premises, quite definitely so!
Answers from atheists in a discussion like this are like the ones pollsters get quite commonly: people the question isn't even for go right ahead and answer anyway -- but what they're answering is puzzling, since they're already excluded. For example, a question might begin, "If you voted for Ross Perot for President...." -- but if the person didn't vote for Perot, the answer isn't even an answer, it's just a response.
And for a person wanting input to restrict responses to actual answers is certainly legitimate.

Quite right. It makes no sense if the respondent does not even have the necessary background or requirements to give an answer that would be fulfilling the intention of the person asking the question.