Would you vote for an Atheist?

[Hellhathnofury]

Yes. Separation of Church and state. There is simply no reason to base a vote on religion. Those who are athiest or of a faith other than yours are not "immoral" as many fundamentalists would have you believe.

I think religion should be a private thing-it is between you and whomever you pray to at night. If Barack Obama were muslim I would have still voted for him.

 

[Boyz615]

Yes , I would vote for an atheist. To me Republican Party is so out of touch with the people. Tactic like homosexual and terrorist is coming after us is getting old.

I would like to know if there is a "God,"Which side is he on? All religion mock each other and thinking God on there side, so who's right?

 

[MauiGuy]

If he were running against a Republican.

 

[hotatlboi]

This is one of the really strange things about the USA as seen from the rest of the world. atheists are stigmatized there – even though the country has a totally secular constitution.

Most of the ultra religious people here do not understand our constitution very well. Most think that the USA was founded as a Christian country, when the reality couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[TX-Beau]

This is one of the really strange things about the USA as seen from the rest of the world. atheists are stigmatized there – even though the country has a totally secular constitution.

We have plenty of religious people like everyone else, but the oft repeated claim that the US is really, really religious is a manipulation of statistical data. As in, all those polls asking if people are religious, or believe in god, etc. which Americans love to say yes to; because in America, we equate church going with respectability, and that has nothing to do with god. This is also one of the factors in the perception of atheism.

The reality is that the number of Americans who actually are religious starts shrinking fast as soon as you start inquiring how much time Americans spend practicing a religion.

Most Americans just like the appearance of being religious, without all the hassle of actually following the rules.

 

[Caaake]

Of course! Why are we judging people based on religion?!

 

[pe_gay89]

I definitely would vote for an atheist. A politician's religious views won't matter to me, it's their policies. If they try shoving their views down my throat, I won't vote for them, true. But that applies as much to theists as atheists.

 

[bankside]

I am a Catholic, I will not vote for an athiest. Why? Look at what used to be known as the Soviet Union (Union of Soviet Socialist Republic). Look at the history behind Lenin. An Athiestic government killed more Catholic, Orthodox, and jewish people than Adolf Hitler, and yet, Hitler was a Catholic, educated by the Benedictine Monks in Austria. We don't want another King George III, Lenin, nor another Hitler. Athiests are more likely to shove their idealogy down our throats as the absolute, as we have seen in Soviet Russia. America has to maintain Vigil. This is one of the reasons that the federal Government has a balance of power check system in place, so that we never have a dictatorship! I agree that there isn't the so-called Seperation of Church and State in the Constitution. The Constitution is being destroyed by the United States Supreme Court's misinterpretations of the Constitution in the last 30-40 years. This Country was founded on sincere Christian Principles and Morals. And one of the signers of the Declaration of Independance is a Catholic from Baltimore Maryland at the time, and Maryland was predominantly Catholic, in the infant stages of becoming the first Archdiocese in the United States. I don't remember his name.

Your country was most certainly not founded on sincere christian principles and morals. It was founded specifically (by sincere christians, deists, alike) for the purpose of having everyone keep their religious principles and morals to themselves and their friends and to make sure that nobody would use the government to shove their sincere principles down anyone else's throat.

 

[TX-Beau]

I am a Catholic, I will not vote for an athiest. Why? Look at what used to be known as the Soviet Union (Union of Soviet Socialist Republic). Look at the history behind Lenin. An Athiestic government killed more Catholic, Orthodox, and jewish people than Adolf Hitler, and yet, Hitler was a Catholic, educated by the Benedictine Monks in Austria. We don't want another King George III, Lenin, nor another Hitler. Athiests are more likely to shove their idealogy down our throats as the absolute, as we have seen in Soviet Russia. America has to maintain Vigil. This is one of the reasons that the federal Government has a balance of power check system in place, so that we never have a dictatorship! I agree that there isn't the so-called Seperation of Church and State in the Constitution. The Constitution is being destroyed by the United States Supreme Court's misinterpretations of the Constitution in the last 30-40 years. This Country was founded on sincere Christian Principles and Morals. And one of the signers of the Declaration of Independance is a Catholic from Baltimore Maryland at the time, and Maryland was predominantly Catholic, in the infant stages of becoming the first Archdiocese in the United States. I don't remember his name.

Yeah, that's all over the place and not really coherent. The US constitution was not founded on Christian anything. It's core philosophies come from liberal humanism. There is separation of church and state, it was meant to be amended and interpreted, and frankly, only a religious person would see any value in a document that remained a static artifact of history. The founding fathers knew quite well that they weren't divinely inspired, and that some men with power would try to abuse it.

It's interesting that you place the blame for Stalin (who's the one who killed all those people, Lenin (who didn't), and maybe Hitler, that part is not really clear, on atheism.

So why don't you point our to us all where any of these guys stated they were acting in the name of atheism?

I can think of several points in history where Christians were slaughtering explicitly in the name of Christ.

 

[LoveIsNow]

I am a Catholic, I will not vote for an athiest. Why? Look at what used to be known as the Soviet Union (Union of Soviet Socialist Republic). Look at the history behind Lenin. An Athiestic government killed more Catholic, Orthodox, and jewish people than Adolf Hitler, and yet, Hitler was a Catholic, educated by the Benedictine Monks in Austria. We don't want another King George III, Lenin, nor another Hitler. Athiests are more likely to shove their idealogy down our throats as the absolute, as we have seen in Soviet Russia. America has to maintain Vigil. This is one of the reasons that the federal Government has a balance of power check system in place, so that we never have a dictatorship! I agree that there isn't the so-called Seperation of Church and State in the Constitution. The Constitution is being destroyed by the United States Supreme Court's misinterpretations of the Constitution in the last 30-40 years. This Country was founded on sincere Christian Principles and Morals. And one of the signers of the Declaration of Independance is a Catholic from Baltimore Maryland at the time, and Maryland was predominantly Catholic, in the infant stages of becoming the first Archdiocese in the United States. I don't remember his name.

It sounds like someone's history class involved licking those little postage stamp thingies. There is most certainly a separation of church and state in the constitution, it's the first part of the First Amendment, even before freedom of religion, comes that the government won't make laws about religion. Many of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence were not Catholics (indeed Charles Carroll of Carrollton was the only one). Many of them were Deists or Congregationalists. John Adams, the key force behind it, was a relatively secular Unitarian, and Thomas Jefferson, its author, was also mostly indifferent about religion, and overjoyed at the "wall of separation" of church and state that the First Amendment provided. Furthermore, if the Soviet Union was so prone to murder, why did Khrushchev close most of the GULAG camps? Stalin was a unique figure, and mass murder was not commonplace in Soviet history. George III was an Anglican, not an atheist, and suffered from porphyria - he was literally "mad". The blood on Lenin's hand was due to White Russian uprisings, and he promoted religious tolerance and fought against anti-Semitism. He also decriminalized homosexuality. Your argument involving Hitler being a Catholic seems to be arguing against your point, so I'll leave it be. A secular government was also instituted in France, after the Revolution (to the point that only designated civic officials, not religious leaders, can conduct legal civil marriages), one of the first in the world, and they have not committed any such atrocities. The closest they've come was when the Republic was temporarily over thrown by Napoleon Bonaparte, who was crowned by Pope Pius VII.

 

[pe_gay89]

I am a Catholic, I will not vote for an athiest. Why? Look at what used to be known as the Soviet Union (Union of Soviet Socialist Republic). Look at the history behind Lenin. An Athiestic government killed more Catholic, Orthodox, and jewish people than Adolf Hitler, and yet, Hitler was a Catholic, educated by the Benedictine Monks in Austria. We don't want another King George III, Lenin, nor another Hitler. Athiests are more likely to shove their idealogy down our throats as the absolute, as we have seen in Soviet Russia. America has to maintain Vigil. This is one of the reasons that the federal Government has a balance of power check system in place, so that we never have a dictatorship!

Karl Marx wrote that religion is the 'opiate' of the masses, invented purely to give people something to believe in, and therefore make control easier. To cut a long story short, religion would not be necessary in a communist society, because people would not need to find solace in a God in order to endure their own subjugation.

I'd also like to point out that it was, in fact, Stalin (not Lenin) who was responsible for a greater number of deaths than Hitler. However, I would like to point out that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of his opponents, who were just as likely to be atheists as religious. Hitler was similarly responsible for the deaths of opponents of differing beliefs. [EDIT: I realise upon re-reading that this was poorly phrased. Hitler was certainly responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews. I was merely attempting to point out that he was also responsible for the deaths of people of differing beliefs purely because they opposed him.]

An atheist government would not be any more likely to shove its beliefs down our throats than a deeply religious one. In my opinion, religion and politics should remain apart. I also believe that religion and science should both be taught in schools. People should be taught all existential theories, and be allowed to choose for themselves. I dread to think that children can be taught creationism, but not the Big Bang or Darwinism in schools, but I'd also hate for kids to not learn about religion, as it played a huge role in our past, plays a huge role in our present, and is likely to play a huge role in the forseeable future.

Anyway, I'm straying from the topic here. I would certainly vote for an atheist, and I would certainly vote for any religious person. The religious beliefs of a politician do not matter to me, as long as they don't try to force them upon us through their policies. If a politician sought to remove creationism or religion from the NC, I wouldn't vote for him/her. I would also not vote for a politician who sought to have creationism be the only theory taught.

(However, if a politician sought to have both taught equally in schools, I would certainly support that. I feel people should know both sides of the argument, so that at least I can have a damn good debate about it!)

 

[volumee]

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

Why wouldn't I ?
The world isn't a church. - I'm Christian btw.

 

[NineOfClubs]

I doubt that we'll get that choice for the next hundred years, at least.

But the atheist gets my vote.

 

[Mitri T]

No. If you canot see a better place you canot find a better person in you. This is politics. See the better way to be.

 

[bankside]

It is so insulting to suggest that atheists are not interested in being better people, or that atheists can't imagine a better place.

 

[LoveIsNow]

No. If you canot see a better place you canot find a better person in you. This is politics. See the better way to be.

What about the world said politician wants to create right here, right now; that's a better place. Everyone wants to be a better person, and there are many ways to better yourself other than through religion, like striving for compassion and other core humanistic values. Yours is a very backward point of view.

 

[Mitri T]

past is no more. Future is idea. Now is the only real. It is a big and strange place.

If I canot imagine the unknown than I canot imagine an unknown solution. My view is not forward or backward. It is mine. Not better than other views not worse. I see a world of people helping not hurting.

compasion and value yu mention. I see tis... If you think you are the center of the world then there is no space for anyone else.

Donot asume I am religious. I am not. If God exist then he will hear my anger. I just see tat I am no t center of this world.

 

[rickdboy]

Interestingly I have no answer to this question because in a very real way the question is not on nor has ever been on any of the pages of my life. I have lived in my country (Australia) for 62 years and I have actually never met anyone who would think of asking such a question about voting for or not voting for an atheist. Many , if not most, Australians vote on party lines, it is by and large the most sensible way to proceed. When practised by a majority of voters it brings some certainty and predictability to the electoral process.

I, however, find out what I can about the candidates in my electorate and vote for the person who I think might do the best job regardless of their party politics. I find it difficult to imagine why someone's religious on non-religious views would be a significant factor in my analysis of their capability.

Nevertheless, not having answered the original question I find it fascinating to be a voyeur looking at the machinations of another culture different to my own such as appears to exist in the United States.

As an after-thought I would have to say that it appears that there are religious people in Australia who seem to have looked with some envy of the political power of some religious people in the Unites States and unfortunately are seeing that cultural value system as a worthy import to the Australian political scene, with some recent success with our current and former Prime Ministers.

The massive urbanisation of Australia and the draining of our population toward the major east coast cities is tipping our original value systems on their head with the pressures of large urban environments giving power hungry people an opportunity to promote controlling and authoritarian religious value systems.

This to me is sad or even shocking as in my view religious scruples have never been part of the fundamental value system of Australians of my generation. Up until recently these values have been formed by the egalitarian world view of many in the "bush" during the formative years of the Australian psyche in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries . A fundamental value then was distrust of authority, especially centralised authority and a preference for self reliance and neighbourly mutual support, born of hardship and adversity and the need to cooperate to cope with a hostile physical environment and a simple and resource poor social environment. Religion of any kind never has been able to find a firm footing in such a value base.

Asking an urbanised and young Australian city dweller whether they would vote for an atheist may one day soon just compute enough to elicit the sort of discussion in this thread. For this older non-city dweller the question is still shocking, dislocating and close to non-sensical.

No doubt I have voted for an atheist at some time in my life. But how would I know?

 

[bankside]

past is no more. Future is idea. Now is the only real. It is a big and strange place.

If I canot imagine the unknown than I canot imagine an unknown solution. My view is not forward or backward. It is mine. Not better than other views not worse. I see a world of people helping not hurting.

compasion and value yu mention. I see tis... If you think you are the center of the world then there is no space for anyone else.

Donot asume I am religious. I am not. If God exist then he will hear my anger. I just see tat I am no t center of this world.

It is religion that tells stories about the creation of the universe being centred around the creation of man. It is religion that pretends to have answers to all the questions the universe. I'm glad that you are not religious. But for the last several thousand years, the only people who have been telling us about god, are the same people who have been telling us about religion....the same people demanding obedience, the same people hunting down every donation to their cause... The same people pretending in their arrogance that they know all the answers for all times. No one can tell the story of god without also telling the story of religion. People are curious about the universe, and religious leaders have taken advantage of that good human curiosity by pretending to know the answers. I think we have had enough.

Atheists do not put man at the centre of the universe. Atheists are not angry with god. Atheists have the humility to say "I don't know." Atheists are only people who don't think there are any kinds of gods, because there has never been any good evidence for it.

I think that is the kind of person who should have political office.

 

[Mitri T]

I disagree that we should have that person in office. All athiest I see are extemely unaccepting of others that have diferent ideas tan them. But I also tink that half of religions fall into the same category.

If you canot see someone else ideas, no matter what they are, as an individual right to choose for self then you should not be in place to decide others fate.

athiest and religious BOTH.