2007-07-12 10:59:11 · 15 answers · asked by Bobby A 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
First of all, there is NO separation of church and state. Read your Constitution.
Second, it doesn't matter if the President is Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim or atheist. As long as he upholds the laws of the United States, abides by the oath he/she takes when they are sworn in, and doesn't force his/her religious beliefs on the American people that's all that matters.
2007-07-12 11:12:57 · answer #1 · answered by wildatheart70 1 · 5⤊ 1⤋
The entire world would be better off if everybody was an atheist. But an atheist president will never be elected in our lifetime. Eight five percent of US citizens are religiously delusional.
2007-07-12 12:12:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
How about an agnostic president? I see the word "atheist" thrown around so much on Yahoo! Answers as though atheism is almost a second religion to Americans; but I have never seen the word "agnostic" come up in Yahoo! Answers
2007-07-12 11:03:34 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I do not believe in God, but to me the word "Atheist" has the same connotation as a religious fanatic. Both are self-righteous opinionated lunatics going out of their way to impose their belief system on others.
I'd prefer a president for whom religion or lack of thereof was the very last thing on his mind. I do not care which religion he would associate himself with as long as it was never used as a guiding factor to make any decisions. I'd like him to use reason, logic, knowledge, commitment to laws, experience and competence instead.
2007-07-12 12:27:51 · answer #4 · answered by AJ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, as long as they are a moderate atheist who doesn't want to tear down all the churches, mosques and synagogues (China, anyone?)
To gud_spelur: Trying to prove a negative is logically impossible. Unless a postive concept is first established and proven, the negative concept cannot be defined and the negative concept cannot be subjected to analysis for verification. Thus, atheism is not a religion, as you like to say. It is a lack of belief in a positive theory that has not been established and proven.
2007-07-12 11:48:22 · answer #5 · answered by Judy L 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What the heck is the difference between an athiest president and a president that happened to be an athiest?
-----------------------------
He means he wouldnt vote for someone knowing they are atheist. But he would vote for a president he didnt know was atheist that turned out to be.
2007-07-12 11:08:33 · answer #6 · answered by Chris 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I would never vote for an atheist President. Ever.
I would vote for a President who happened to be an atheist.
There's a big difference.
2007-07-12 11:02:34 · answer #7 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Atheism is a faith. Until atheists prove there is no God then why do you want to exchange one faith for another?
(Atheism believes there is no God. In order to make this definitive statement without faith you must know all things. Humanity doesn't even know 0.1% of what can be known, so isn't it possible that God exist's in the other 99.9% of whats out there? If you say there is no God without knowing everything then you are making a faith statement.)
2007-07-12 11:44:32 · answer #8 · answered by gud_spelur 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I doubt it. Most people need a guiding voice to help them make decisions, especially if the fate of the world (cliches, lol) rests on it. I wouldn't not vote for someone because he was an atheist, but it would be a factor.
2007-07-12 11:35:42 · answer #9 · answered by Irishpyro 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
YES!
we could use a reality check
religion is fantasy, the religious are in a fantasy world
2007-07-12 11:02:01 · answer #10 · answered by anonacoup 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋