Can An Atheist Be President.

[Abracadabra]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
I wonder which "Lord" the founders were referring to when the Constitution was written?

I guess we should take that out too...

The "Lord" is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution? I must have missed the updated version then.

 

[ErikdaRed]

Thats just how the date was said back then, it was not acknowledging the christian god beyond the fact that they were using the christian calendar.

 

[lilpritch04]

Also, just to stir things up some more...did you know that "Under God" was not originally part of the pledge of allegiance? It wasn't added until 1954 with help from our good friend Sen McCarthy.

Under God

Yeah...let's throw our support behind people like that guy... [/B]

Thanks for posting that link. I have been telling one of my friends about it for awhile and she doesn't believe me. I'll forward it to her.

 

[kpgclark]

OT-- georgeous wedding picture! Love the dress.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by ErikdaRed
Thats just how the date was said back then, it was not acknowledging the christian god beyond the fact that they were using the christian calendar.

So in other words, using the term "The year of our Lord..." was just a form of ceremonial deism, correct? Much the same way that "under God..." in the pledge is used.

And since it was and is an acknowledgement of the Christian God, why are you not calling for it to be removed as well as calling for it not to be used currently?

 

[brerrabbit]

No doubt the founding fathers believed in god, and religious freedom. Most of their families had left Europe to seek religious freedom. They wrote into the laws of the land that no one religion would be "the religion" and guarenteed religious freedom. Reading the Federalist Papers and other documents from the time strongly indicate that was their intentions. Therefore our laws are based on religious morals and principles. Fortunatly those beliefs are sound for anyone, believer or not. (don't murder, steal, covet, slander, etc.) Most religions are founded on those principles so I have no problems with people that accept and adhere to the principles regardless of religion or not. Where we get twisted off in the wind is when non believers and believers start debating the finer issues not specifically covered in the ten commandments (christians) or rules for muslims (from the Koran) as evidenced by the abortion debate. When does life begin, therefore when is it murder which, most religions specifically prohibit.

Now to answer the original question, would I support an athiest for President. Being a Christian myself probably not, however if they were the lesser of two evils and I agreed with them on the non social issues (taxes, defense, etc.) I might. But until the way we change the way we pick our leader it probably will never be an issue. Without the support of one of the two major parties you will never be elected. And that support comes at a huge price. Comprimise, comprimise, comprimise! You have to pay your dues to the party, serve your time, scratch the right backs and play the right games to even be given the chance to run.

Finally, as an interesting aside when Americans were polled as to whether or not they though they were going to heaven when they died over 90% said yes. Does that mean that over 90% of Americans are religious? Heck no it just means that over 90% of Americans think they ought to hedge their bet, just in case.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by Abracadabra
The "Lord" is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution? I must have missed the updated version then.

It's not an updated version, it's the original.

 

[Bobbles]

I may have missed it.
So far we can have a Cristian, Jewish, Taoist, Buddist president.

I haven't seen the possibility of an Islamic president. I believe Muslims also believe in God.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by MosMom
Yes, but they don't believe Jesus Christ is their savior and according to Christianity they're screwed anyway. Soooo, does it really matter if they do? According to Christians they will have no divine help in running this country.

I guess that you don't understand Christianity then, if that is the conclusion you came to.

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
It's not an updated version, it's the original.

Specifically it says:

done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

Edited to add that I didn't read the previous page to see that this had already been quoted. carry on.....

 

[LisaSt]

I would prefer to vote for an atheist as I do not believe in GOD anyhow. I do not allow my kids to say Oh my God out of respect for those around me that do believe in him but I do not and would have no problem voting for somone else that does not believe in him.

 

[Kendra17]

I wasn't able to read all the posts yet, though I'm looking forward to reading them later on.

I think that, yes, I would vote for an athiest president IF he his morals and values mirrored those of my own. The religion, or lack thereof, is of less importance to me than his value system and how he (or she) came to that value system.

I don't think people can choose to believe in God or not; it's such a fundamental belief that even if one WANTED to believe there is a God, they may not be able to believe that. Agnostics probably ponder this kind of thing often, and still question the existence of God.

That said, he or she would most likely have to be conservative in his thinking, rather than ultra-liberal. This, of course, is my opinion only, but I don't think that an ultra-liberal athiest would do well running for President any time soon. An athiest with more traditional values, I think, could be accepted.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by Bobbles
I may have missed it.
So far we can have a Cristian, Jewish, Taoist, Buddist president.

I haven't seen the possibility of an Islamic president. I believe Muslims also believe in God.

History as shown us that Islam and representative Democracy don't do well together. The value system of Islam and the value system of our country--which is, in fact, of a Judeo-Christian origin--is, in my opinion, not a good match.

 

[GoldenGate]

Originally posted by Kendra17
History as shown us that Islam and representative Democracy don't do well together. The value system of Islam and the value system of our country--which is, in fact, of a Judeo-Christian origin--is, in my opinion, not a good match.

Then what the heck are we doing in Iraq? Isn't your President's ever-changing mission now to spread democracy throughout the Middle East?

 

[ErikdaRed]

The phrase "year of our lord" has been removed far enough from its roots that it is no longer seen as religious.

As far as "under God" in the pledge, and "in God we trust" on the money, I would like to see them removed under the first amendment. (And no, I'm not an Athiest, I just don't think the government should be regulating morality/religion in any way).

Also, the laws of our country are not based on any one religious morality, but on whats good for society. The roots of modern law can be traced back to ancient codes that are far older than Judaism and Christianity.

 

[WDWHound]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Faith, in the end, is the denial of reason. Period. So long as that faith must, at it's very heart, contain an ounce of belief in something unprovable, it will NEVER be called "rational" by anyone not trying to make it into more than it is.

Faith is not the denial of reason.

You are speaking of blind faith. Faith sometimes begins as blind faith, but that state rarely last for long. Faith at its very heart is not unprovable, its only scientifically unprovable. By that standard, love is unprovable. The evidence of our faith is easily proven by our own experiences (you'd have to encounter God to understand this, but let me assure you the experience is real and leaves no doubt in the mind of those who have had such an encounter). Faith is rational because the God we have faith in proves himself again and again when we place our faith in him.

When you have a stomach ache, but a doctor can not find the problem, does that mean your stomach ache is not real? Perhaps you only have faith in the stomach ache and its not rational to say the stomach ache exists. The person with the stomach ache would beg to differ, But, like religion, the proof is purely internal to person experiencing it, so he could have a hard time being beleived.

You speak in absolutes about something you do not seem to fully understand. I normally ignore the sarcastioc, disrespectful tone of your posts aimed at those who disagree with you, but in this case I feel compelled to speak up. Please consider that perhaps the evidence for faith which makes it rational is something you might not have experienced yet and try to be a bit more respectful to those of us with a different understanding on this topic. Thanks.

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by GoldenGate
Then what the heck are we doing in Iraq? Isn't your President's ever-changing mission now to spread democracy throughout the Middle East?

Excellent point!

 

[caitycaity]

Originally posted by GoldenGate
Then what the heck are we doing in Iraq? Isn't your President's ever-changing mission now to spread democracy throughout the Middle East?

very good question.

i also agree with wvrevy that faith and rationality don't work together, by their very definitions. i might not agree with the way he said it, but faith isn't rational. doesn't mean faith is bad or good, but by the definitions, it's not.

faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

ra·tion·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rsh-nl)
adj.
Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior. See Synonyms at logical.

 

[Sirius]

To the original question:

Yes, an Atheist could be president.

So could a a Jew, a Buddist, a Hindu, a Muslim, an African-American, a Chinese-American, an Arab-American, a vegetarian, a Proletarian...

None of this matters

 

[jimmiej]

I presume you mean "Under God" was never part of the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954. There are indeed, no references to God in the Constitution. There are, however, a few references in the Declaration of Independence to God.

Did you know God is mentioned in the fourth verse of our national anthem?

http://www.bcpl.net/~etowner/anthem.html



OP, I don't see an atheist being elected president any time soon. I think we're much more likely to elect a Jewish person or an African-American or a woman. BTW, ITA with the previous poster who said the Republicans are more likely to nominate a minority or a woman.

I don't see myself ever voting for an atheist. My Christianity is the root of all my opinions & beliefs about society & how our country should be run. I just don't see how I could agree with an atheist on much.

As difficult as I believe it would be for an atheist to be elected president, it would be even more difficult for that person to be nominated by the Republican party...and I don't vote for Democrats!

That being said, I certainly believe that every American is entitled to their own beliefs & should vote their conscience.