Is it not about time for that considering how all these godbelieving world leaders are seriously screwing up the world.
CAN'T BLAME THE COMMIES NOW!!!!
2006-09-20 06:52:03 · 27 answers · asked by theagitator@sbcglobal.net 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Yes, of course. Atheism promotes peace and education, not holy wars and religion-based laws. I am offended by the lack of respect for non-believers in this country, we have done nothing to deserve any person's distrust.
2006-09-20 07:01:02 · answer #1 · answered by reverenceofme 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would vote for the person who best represents the direction that I want to see the country go. Isn't that what you do?
As for your other comments, it seems that your answer to your question would be that you would never vote for a believer. How closed minded and hypocritical.
In addition, to those who operate under the illusion that any political system is free from religious influence, open your eyes. Religion is a system of beliefs which a person uses to govern their life. Therefore, how can any person participate in politics without their own personal religious beliefs influencing what they do or how they think? It doesn't matter if they are Muslim, Buddhists, Christians, Atheists, Humanists or any other religion.
The person who enters into politics must represent his/her constituents without prejudice to religion. That is the heart of a republic which is what the United States is.
2006-09-20 07:34:06 · answer #2 · answered by Bud 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I most definately would vote for a non-believer!
They would not be governed by the rules of their particular religion, and maybe look at everyone, and all the issues! There are a lot of different people in this country, and not everyone shares the same belief system!!!
2006-09-20 07:00:59 · answer #3 · answered by butterfliesbrown 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
By non-believer you mean a non-Christian? or a non-Jew? or a non-Hindu?, or a non-Muslim? Don't tell me that you are advocating the old separation of Church and State?
I vote for the person who I think can best get the job done. Religion "SHOULD" have nothing to do with it.
That said, I see major problems if a Jewish American, like Joe Leberman, is ever elected President
2006-09-20 06:58:17 · answer #4 · answered by whidd2003 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No. the reason being i've got self belief a guy ( or lady ) could know they answer to a greater robust point. This, no longer in trouble-free terms is what this united states of america replaced into outfitted on, yet whilst a individual is conscious they are going to be held in charge for their very own strikes and judgements, they'll make judgements for the reliable of all vs the potential of in trouble-free terms what makes me happy, usual, or re-electable. regrettably, we see this throughout politics. incredibly much ever area of project expressed in immediately's climate shows ( by using polls ) the overpowering majority of voters do no longer help the selections made by using politicians. So, are the reps doing what they have been elected to do and actual voice the needs of their components? Why no longer? and look on the persons who answer in this internet site. what share communicate without postpone occasion communicate vs what's suitable for the country? Why? it is perplexing for any baby-kisser to speak out for what they actual have self belief whilst it is going against their occasion line. Why? Are they dedicated to serving the persons ( that's God's will )? Why no longer? optimistically you already know my element. once you serve God first you serve all of his people. in case you haven't any longer any faith different than for your self or occasion, their is not any merely precise accountability.
2016-12-12 11:45:29 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes I would. I would rather a leader who views things rationally than a leader who plunges the world into war because his invisible friend is guiding foreign policy.
2006-09-20 06:53:39 · answer #6 · answered by Blackacre 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If candidates supports personal freedom, I will vote for them. In other words, they are pro-choice, support the right for everyone to marry whomever they wish, disdain the idea of church and state interlacing, support free speech, and are willing to take care of DOMESTIC ISSUES before conquering the world, they have my vote.
2006-09-20 07:11:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, Because we are supposed to have separation of church and state which means that religion has no part in politics. You cannot rule a country that has freedom of religion impartially if your ruling by your religion. That is not fair and equal. Not that are country is fair and equal, But it should be.
2006-09-20 07:23:15 · answer #8 · answered by Belladonna 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have a theory about that...I just really don't believe that Jesus' disciples would actually get involved in politics in the first place. Problem is, people tend to judge one another by their own standards...and let's face it...most people really aren't terribly honest...especially when there is power and/or money involved.
It's a shame, but yes, people do use their "faith" to advance in politics and in business.
On the other hand, would you really want to see a Jew or a Muslim in the White House??
2006-09-20 07:14:04 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
President Bush is as much a Christian as Saddam was a Muslim. The both use whatever means they can find to justify their actions and rally people behind them.
Bless them both anyway.
2006-09-20 06:54:57 · answer #10 · answered by Love Shepherd 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋