Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Congressman Pete Stark, democrat from my district, is making some news in that he confirmed that he is an atheist. He's represented this district since 1973. <a href="http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2947322" target="_blank">http://www.abcnews.go.com/Poli tics/wireStory?id=2947322</a> My question for the panel is: Would you vote for someone who admits to being an atheist? Why or why not? PLEASE NOTE: This isn't a thread to debate whether or not God exists, or which religion has it right/wrong, so I kindly request that we not get into all that here.
Originally Posted By jonvn Why not? At least he's being honest. I see a lot of blatantly false piety in many elected officials.
Originally Posted By alexbook It's sad that this is news. Is it really any of the public's business whether an elected official is a member of one religion or another, or none at all? Does it have anything to do with his policies or his ability to do his job?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 In the latest poll of its type, people were asked if they would vote for a (fill in the blank) for president. Nearly everyone says they'd have no problem voting for a black person or a woman. Larger numbers were found for Jews, Mormons, gay people... and the largest number I saw was for athiests. More than half said "no."
Originally Posted By gadzuux A generation ago, it would have been political suicide to say you were an atheist. Now - in some districts anyway - it's not a problem at all. So an important shift has occured. I believe it would be a bigger problem for a republican candidate, or a candidate from a red state. As for K2M's question, I would have no qualms about voting for an atheist - I WOULD have concerns about voting for someone who's devoutly religious. Why? Let's look at bush - again. In his six years in office, he's had one veto - funding for stem cell research. It doesn't matter to bush what the arguments are, his mind is made up based upon his narrow perceptions of right and right, moral and immoral. He's inflexible and righteous about it. Let's look at general pace - who says that homosexuality is "immoral" and the military shouldn't be condoning immorality. Perhaps he doesn't realize that there are untold thousands of gay US military personnel serving under his command at this very moment, risking their lives. And he's busy condemning them as immoral at press conferences. Now he states that he will not apologize for his bigoted remarks, because "he was brought up that way". This may pass for a valid excuse among religious sorts, but not among clear thinking individuals. These leaders believe that they answer to a higher power than the people that they are supposed to serve. An athiest doesn't have such conflicts and are more likely to keep their priorities where they belong.
Originally Posted By FaMulan I would vote for an atheist. At least the person wouldn't be swayed by one religious doctrine or another.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>At least the person wouldn't be swayed by one religious doctrine or another.<< Atheism is a religious belief.
Originally Posted By ecdc I would vote for an Atheist, with one caveat. I wouldn't want that person to be overbearing about their Atheism or make it a large issue of their service or public life, just as I don't want people of faith in politics to do the same thing. Reagan was much more private about his faith than someone like Bush, who I believe goes too far with making his faith public. I don't care what your belief are, just keep them out of the legislation you work on.
Originally Posted By DlandJB My question for the panel is: Would you vote for someone who admits to being an atheist? Why or why not? >>>>>>>>>>> I'd vote for anyone I thought was the best person for the job. If their being an atheist was incidental to their political skill and they had the chops in other areas, I would probably vote for them. (and then I'd pray for them, hoping they might get to know God in the world and their lives down the road). At the same time, I wouldn't vote for anyone who was all about pushing their religious beliefs or their atheism down the throats of their constituency. If they want to make an issue of their beliefs, then I'll consider what it means. I don't want a zealot of any stripe representing my interests.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper One thing that might keep me from voting for an athiest is that the Declaration of Independence itself states that men are endowed by their creator certain unalienable rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). Thus, the rights of American citizens are based on the belief that they come to us from God, and we are obligated by a higher power to uphold such rights in government. Can athiests believe likewise that individuals should have such rights? Absolutely. But without a higher moral authority demanding it, such belief doesn't come out of obligation, but rather political expediency or maybe personal preference. I'd like my president to feel, to the core of his being, that he will be held accountable by someone, eventually, for any abuse of his power, even if that accountability doesn't happen in this life. Certainly, my religious belief has directed my choices when my own personal preference would have led me to choose differently on many occasions. I feel that my sense of duty and loyalty to the Almighty has saved my bacon more than once, when my own leanings would have caused me and others more problems than I care to think about. Of course, a mere declaration of religious belief doesn't necessarily mean a candidate would actually be any better, more moral or more qualified for the demands of the presidency. (I would suggest that a "religious" candidate who does not act morally is not truly religious anyway.) I also believe the presidency is perhaps the most demanding, draining and frightening job in the world. I'd sure like the person who holds it to have help from God. No one needs it more. It kind of facilitates things if the one in the Oval Office actually believes divine assistance is available. In the end, though, while I would much prefer a candidate to hold a sincere belief in God, I would make my final choice based on his or her character, not on whether he or she is a card-carrying believer in God. As with everything, it all depends on who the actual choices are.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> ... the Declaration of Independence itself states that men are endowed by their creator certain unalienable rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). << And yet, our current evangelical president has done more to trammel the constitutional protections and reduce our 'unalienable rights' than anyone ever before in our history. Ironic, huh.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>>> ... the Declaration of Independence itself states that men are endowed by their creator certain unalienable rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). << And yet, our current evangelical president has done more to trammel the constitutional protections and reduce our 'unalienable rights' than anyone ever before in our history. Ironic, huh.<< That's because, based on his fruits we can determine that this President isn't much of a Christian. He uses the name of Christ and Christianity to do his wicked and evil deeds. His god is Mammon (aka money).
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> I'd like my president to feel, to the core of his being, that he will be held accountable by someone, eventually, for any abuse of his power << Yeah - me too.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>"President isn't much of a Christian" That is not for you to judge.<< I would be to differ. Christ said that "by your fruits you will know them." What are the fruits of Bush's presidency? Death, destruction, pain and misery, except, of course, for the very wealthy. That doesn't sound like something God (who loves the poor) is all about. It's more like satan's work.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I would be to differ" I love this. Such a specific case of picking whatever section of the bible you want and applying that, while ignoring other parts. Judge not, lest ye be judged, buddy. Go look up that quote.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And yet, our current evangelical president has done more to trammel the constitutional protections and reduce our 'unalienable rights' than anyone ever before in our history.> No, he hasn't.
