Why should I, an atheist, care if my President believes in Jesus. (I beg you read details)?

Question

Isn't it logical for me to assume that an atheist could advise the President on the same policy decisions?

Couldn't every decision he has made be defended by an atheist?

I beg you read details please, this question is too good for you to deny yourself the fullness of it.

Answer 1

No. Being a atheist, you wouldn't believe my answer anyway. I can explain to you as why. BUT, being a nonbeliever, you don't believe in a world government or a one world currency.

Sorry.

NO, The President CAN not take your advise according to prophecy itself.

Now, even according to MAN, he can't take your advice, because it has to lead up to The end of times. And it will.

The beginning of the end of times, will start with the "Trilateral Commission, which was a cult and unbelievers to begin with.

A atheist will advise the President NOT to protect Israel, and THIS HAS to happen.

.

Answer 2

OK. let's think about this. It is important to know the religious background of the president because that is where he will make so many choices from. I would prefer an atheist be in the ear of the pres. Atleast we might get a more open agenda instead of a Christian one. An atheist would not defend every choice he has made since some where based on his belief in God. Some of the things trying to be pushed through are about religious agenda hiding behind a political ruler. The person elected to run our country should always have every persons rights and the welfare of the entire country as their first priority not just those that share in a belief of his personal God.
Love & Light
Sharon
One Planet = One People

Answer 3

I do understand where you are coming from. Under our constitution it states that any person of any religion or not of any religion can assume the Presidency or and other official position in the U.S. as LONG AS he meets a few requirements. Those being that he must be a U.S. citizen usually for the period of 7-10 years depending on the office, must be of a certain age (25-35 depending on the office), and I think that is it. No where does it say that the person must be of a certain religion, must be U.S. born, must be white, must be male. Unfortunately our country has only voted for older Protestant white men (W.A.S.P.). The exception being JFK as he was Catholic. But hopefully that all will change in 2008 comes and Hilary runs.

Answer 4

I don't understand why you make such a fuss about what Bush believes. In Cuba, fidel believes a lot of crap. Do you think I cared about what he said ? I was listening to Radio Marti at home while the comunists were on the sidewalk talking about what they were going to do. I cared nothing about that.
Besides, I don't like many of the things Bush is doing, but since I can do nothing, I shall wait until he finishes his term.
The good thing is that he will not be president forever

Answer 5

You shouldn't. Not everyone that says he is a Christian is. Yes, it is logical that an atheist could advise the President and give him real good advice. Yes, they could be defended by atheists and blindly by Chrisitans.

Answer 6

You shouldn't care. It's his belief, and you have yours. What he believes is irrelavent. He needs to focus on policy. If he brings his religion into his policy, then he should be removed from office or reprimanded.

I believe a Muslim could advise Bush on policy, as well as an atheist, Christian, Buddhist, FSMist or a secularist.

Answer 7

1. An atheist could advise.
2. Yes..go on defend.

The difference is......a Christian President would allow God to dictate his heart in the matters of the World.
A Nation is blessed who has God's people in power.
We could trust such a man and rest at night.

By the way, God says we deserve whomever is our President as we elected him. He reflects our relationship w/God.
IF we elect an evil man, we are an evil people...vise versa

Answer 8

Haven't you had enough of the brute, stupid, childish, and, otherwise, adolescent, exploitative representation of human (or, really, sub-human) existence that is played out daily (in the name, and on the lives, of each and every born human being) by competing governments, politicians, militarists, scientists, technocrats, social planners, educators, exoteric and fundamentalist religionists (who aggressively propagate the provincial, and pharisaical, religions of ego-salvation, rather than practice the universal, and ego-transcending, religion of love), and media hypers (who thrive on the invention and exaggeration of conflict, and dramatically showcase the worst of human instincts in the unending "gotcha" game that denudes and exposes and trivializes and hypocritically mocks the highs, and the inevitable lows, and even the natural ordinariness in the struggling efforts of humankind)? Isn't it evident, in your deepest feeling-psyche, that this Wisdom-renouncing world is being controlled by the worst and most superficial conceptions of existence?

It is now time for every one, and all, to understand themselves, and to reclaim the world from the dictatorship of the ego, and from all of those who play at politics (and life in general) as if it were a sporting event that is supposed to excite and entertain every one on television.

Nuclear disarmament is a relatively positive, but still too superficial and piecemeal, effort. It is not a truly curative means, but only another palliative and temporary move in the midst of mankind's traditional advance toward future trouble. There is something more fundamental than the disarmament politics whereby enemies come to a gentlemanly agreement on how to kill one another without destroying one another! What is more fundamental, necessary, and truly curative is that human beings, individually and collectively, understand and transcend that which is in them that leads them to confront one another as opponents and enemies.

It may sound naive to speak of the necessity for the present (childish, and brutishly adolescent) crowd of governments and institutions to understand themselves and renounce the self-imagery and the techniques of enemies, but the feeling that it is naive to speak in such terms is merely a reflection of egoic frustration and despair. Human beings everywhere must now transcend that very frustration and despair if they are going to prevent the enslavement and destruction of mankind.

Humanity is living in bondage now. Mankind is already, presently, globally, bound to egocentric and materialistic idealisms that are suppressing the human freedom to live by Wisdom and Realize the Truth. If human beings do not shake loose from this regime, they are going to suffer the extreme fulfillment of collective egoic destiny, in a "Narcissistic" holocaust that will either enslave mankind (via a technologically robotized political and social order) or (otherwise) destroy mankind (via technologically engineered warfare).

It is not naive to demand a new leadership when those who are led (and who could make the counter-demand for change) number in the billions. Nor is it folly to try to educate mankind when the only alternative is slavery and death. Therefore, I Say to you: All must commit themselves to understand the patterns by which they are now (and have traditionally been) living (both individually and collectively), so that they can then change those patterns and the destinies those patterns will (otherwise) inevitably inflict upon them.

Answer 9

The fact is-it matters not one ioda what the president's religion is! I wish more people would realize it. He is a fake Christian anyway-using it for political gain. This county was founded on SEPARATION of Church and State and it should stay that way. I wish it would!

Answer 10

You say it best right their, WHY SHOULD A ATHEIST care about anything that got to do with religion or presidents or even kings in other countries..