I mostly base this on the Republican party, George W. Bush , and the documentary 'Jesus Camp'. I mean, it could'nt hurt. I don't think that this Atheist president would focus on changing the country religion to Atheism, I just think with all topics: schools,taxes, abortion, health care...he would have a clean slate about all the issues.I dunno...Makes sense to me.
2007-08-05 11:21:25 · 15 answers · asked by phoenix70157015 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I'm not saying make the first Atheist person you see a presidential candidate.But if you met someone who said they were thinking about running for office, and you talked about politics and issues and all your views lined up perfectly, you had already made your mind up that you were going to vote for them, then they told you they were Atheist... That should NOT change your mind (according to the constitution).
2007-08-05 12:14:44 · update #1
Dream On.... That may be difficult now.
In the past some prez were atheist. Abe Lincoln, Taft and two others whos names I can't think of.
2007-08-06 05:31:17 · answer #1 · answered by mysticathiest 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Although I see your point and somewhat agree, I don't think that it's necessary to elect an Atheist of Agnostic to get the job done. All it really takes is for a politician to practice their religion and use it as a guide in their personal life, but resist the temptation to use religion as a justification in restricting the rights of other to do (or not do) the same.
Like him or not, Jimmy Carter was a prime example of this way of thinking. The fundamentalist religious groups were very angry that he wouldn't bow to their agenda, so they flocked to the Republican party instead. Just my opinion.
In reply to your additional details: No, the candidate being an Atheist would not change my opinion at all! You're right about the Constitution AND it's my personal opinion too.
2007-08-05 18:39:47 · answer #2 · answered by sagacious_ness 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes the President should be Atheist. That way he or she would have a clear mind and not all the make believe stuff. Religious people are easy to lead and believe and will follow a person just because the say they believe. The current politicians all are saying they believe because they want the vote.Religion is a business that you use mind control and no warranty and don't need proof and make a lot of money and no return items.
2007-08-05 18:41:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
There is no separation of church and state, nor should there be.
Here's the origin of that exaggeration:
"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.."
In 230 years, congress has made no such law establishing an official state religion and no such law has been proposed by any Republican leaders today. No reading of this Amendment could infer that the government is barred from being friendly to the Christian faith which was so precious to 95% of our nation's founders.
2007-08-05 18:35:21 · answer #4 · answered by Tommy B 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There shouldn't be any reason why a presidential candidate's religion should preclude him or her from being president.
Having said that, I think that Bush 43's religious beliefs have contributed to his disastrous performance as president--he believes that he is God's instrument for bringing freedom, democracy, and other American values to the rest of the world. I'd feel more comfortable with an atheist who didn't have religious delusions justifying him.
2007-08-05 18:39:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
the government made church and state separate.. but they pray before meetings.. and how do you think bush made it again as president? he got the church goers.. he brought church into his boring lying campaign..he could`t do it again without his brother in Florida rigging the votes for him so he chose a different route.. Christianity.. that will get them every time..
2007-08-09 18:20:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
An atheist would not distinguish between any of the religions and would NOT infringe on any of the religions. He/she would not bring ANY religion into the government and would give America freedom from religion, just as our forefathers intended for us.
2007-08-05 18:56:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
An atheist leading the country? Why don't we all just kill ourselves? And the "seperation of church and state" is a fraud anyway. Never mentioned are the words right after it that say "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof." And it only says "Congress shall pass no law.." Exactly when did Congress become STATE?????
2007-08-05 18:42:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
No.
Someone can be religious, and its' perfectly valid to support someone because you like their religion.
The only thing that the Constitution prohibits is testing for that religious belief (Article VI) or imposing that religious belief as a matter of law by elevating one religion above all others.
And an atheist doing what you suggest would still be asserting a religious (or anti-religious) position., which is equally prohibited as asserting one religion as dominant.
2007-08-05 18:26:43 · answer #9 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
that's like saying would you rather be shot with a 12 gauge or a 44 mag. it shouldn't be a choice we have to make. neither should influence a religious change or belief.
2007-08-05 18:36:29 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋