I say yes! Why? Because then there would be more scientific progress instead of repression of stem cell research, lack of proper birth control, and scientific facts solving our problems instead of voodoo and Evangelists' prayers! And there would be no more wars started on Bush's religious belief!
2007-10-24 09:18:17 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Get the ignorant fundies out of our government.
2007-10-24 09:21:04 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 7⤋
I don't like the tone of your question, so as not to agree with that part, I'll answer like so: I don't think just any atheist would make a good president, but I do think that having an atheist for president would help to preserve "separation of church and state" as it is understood and might prevent wars that might otherwise be fought for religious purposes. I agree that Stem Cell research is needed and someone's religious beliefs shouldn't interfere with science. I'm not sure what you mean by "proper birth control". There are plenty of Birth Control options available, it's the persons personal choice that determines if they use them or not....If you are going for the excuse of "my insurance won't cover it or the pharmacist won't prepare it due to their beliefs" that has nothing to do with the president and those aren't valid excuses... go buy a box of condoms!
2007-10-24 09:23:22 · answer #2 · answered by I, Sapient 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You are not asking a question. You are seeking reinforcement of your own beliefs which you just stated in asking your question..
Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler were avowed atheists but seemed to have no qualms about killing others or starting wars.
Bush's religious beliefs?? That is a right wing religious nut, etc??? You apply no logic to anything you just stated but base your beliefs on science? You must be able to read George Bush's mind, but wouldn't that be voodoo.
2007-10-24 09:39:04 · answer #3 · answered by jimmiv 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Theistic beliefs do not define a person. Though I definitely support science over the popular voodoo going around these days, an atheist could be just as bad as anyone on important issues.
That being said...the atheists I've had experience with are much more honest with themselves than the theists I've had experience with...atheists are more honorable.
2007-10-24 09:31:51 · answer #4 · answered by dissolute_chemical 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
to not %. nits, yet ... i think of you're misreading the responses to the two those questions. in the 1st one, maximum persons of respondents stated they could have no issue vote casting for an atheist, presented that they agreed on the subject concerns and the form. form of the comparable way they choose for who to vote for now. basically a pair (not "many Christians") indicated they concept a Christian candidate could be inherently greater in good shape. in the 2d, you probably did not ask what people concept the President could desire to do, basically how they observed themselves. And returned, maximum did not say that the Bible could desire to take priority over the form. basically that if there have been a conflict between the government and their non secular liberties, that the government could have already violated the form, and could desire to consequently be justifiably defied. None of them stated they could % a president who could supplant the form with the Bible. Please study them returned.
2016-10-07 13:02:40 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You show your ignorance. Do you think president Bush is or only Christian president? Are we to believe that athiest are the only ones who have knowledge and understanding of science? Do you question the creator who invented the earth you stand on?
Isaiah 57:4
Whom are you mocking? At whom do you sneer and stick out your tongue? Are you not a brood of rebels, the offspring of liars?
2007-10-24 09:32:42 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Possibly, but not because he or she was an atheist. He or she would also have to have climbed the political ladder without owing any favors to outside parties. George Bush the man probably couldnt give a rats backside for the issues you have mentioned here, but he gets involved in them because he owes money and favors to the fanatics who support him
2007-10-24 09:35:34 · answer #7 · answered by Peter A 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Umm, how many declared atheists have held the presidency? That would be none. How many of the candidates today have declared themselves to be atheists? That would also be none. How many are catering to the tiny atheist minority? None again. Now, some of our former presidents may have been deists or "practical atheists" (calling themselves Christian, but living like an atheist), but you won't find one president nor any of the candidates today say, "I am an atheist and proud of it!" They know they would lose, badly.
2007-10-24 09:27:37 · answer #8 · answered by BrotherMichael 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Well, lack of religious belief is a definite plus, but there are of course bad and incompetent atheists.
And anyway, fat chance given the nature of American politics at the present time. The best we can hope for is a hypocritical Christian.
2007-10-24 09:22:29 · answer #9 · answered by cosmo 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
maybe, maybe not, it all depends on whether the individual is qualified for the job and is able to make decisions without letting personal beliefs cloud those decisions, it's not so much about religious beliefs as it is about the ability to govern impartially
2007-10-24 09:26:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
So you basically answered your own question. There is no point in anyone answering this question because you're obviously going to pick the answer that you most agree with.
2007-10-24 09:30:28 · answer #11 · answered by Hope 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋