Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

How long untill an Athiest president of the USA !?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 83,352 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Wasnt FDR the first Catholic elected to office?

    In fairness these things are just a matter of time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Deism is not atheism. Deists believe in a God, albeit one who is not interventionist is any way shape or form, which makes them distinct category from both atheists and theists. Now that I think of it, I've never actually met a self-confessed deist.

    All of which means that deists are atheists, ie they are not theists.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Passenger wrote: »
    Did Obama publicly reference any inclinations of religious faith during his campaign speeches?



    Frequently. For example, from a speech in Zanesville, Ohio on July 1st 2008

    Now, I didn’t grow up in a particularly religious household. But my experience in Chicago showed me how faith and values could be an anchor in my life. And in time, I came to see my faith as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community; that while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn’t be fulfilling God’s will unless I went out and did the Lord’s work

    As regards the OP, I think it would be possible for an openly atheist Republican to get elected as a President, but not an openly atheist Democrat. This is because the African-American political machine has always been centred on black churches.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,141 ✭✭✭eoin5


    Deism is not atheism. Deists believe in a God, albeit one who is not interventionist is any way shape or form, which makes them distinct category from both atheists and theists. Now that I think of it, I've never actually met a self-confessed deist.

    You are an atheist, no? I'm not having a go at you, but it would be wise to bone-up on your belief that there are no supernatural agents and then compare this against atheism, theism and agnosticism.

    Yes deism is not atheism but nearly all deists fall into the atheist category by default, except for the possibility of someone who believes in both sort of gods.

    Theism is a yes or no question, you either believe in a personal god or you dont.

    Deism is a yes or no question, you either believe in a god who created and abandoned you or you dont.

    To be a part of both sets would require a fairly creative set of beliefs, a dual creatorship maybe.


  • Registered Users Posts: 891 ✭✭✭redfacedbear


    Overheal wrote: »
    Wasnt FDR the first Catholic elected to office?

    In fairness these things are just a matter of time.

    Not FDR but JFK tbh :p


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    eoin5 wrote: »
    Yes deism is not atheism but nearly all deists fall into the atheist category by default, except for the possibility of someone who believes in both sort of gods.

    Theism is a yes or no question, you either believe in a personal god or you dont.

    Deism is a yes or no question, you either believe in a god who created and abandoned you or you dont.

    To be a part of both sets would require a fairly creative set of beliefs, a dual creatorship maybe.

    I'm sorry eoin5, but you are changing your position. Initially you stated that Deism = Atheism. Now you say thats not true but atheists can clam them as their own.

    Fundamentally I think you either misunderstand your own faith or the faith of Deists.

    *Deists believe in a God. That deists believe (S)he/ It/ They are completely uninterested in our existence is of no significance to this debate.
    *Atheist don't believe in a God.

    I don't see why there is any confusion here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    If I was ever running for political office I'd express my deep faith, love of Christ and commitment to God.

    And try very very very hard to make sure no one ever associated this user account with me personally.


  • Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    PDN wrote: »

    As regards the OP, I think it would be possible for an openly atheist Republican to get elected as a President, but not an openly atheist Democrat. This is because the African-American political machine has always been centred on black churches.

    You really think? Somehow I doubt the Republican hardliners would react too well to a Godless candidate.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Galvasean wrote: »
    You really think? Somehow I doubt the Republican hardliners would react too well to a Godless candidate.

    That's because you've heard the lazy media stereotypes too often.

    The evangelical right voted for McCain even though he rarely speaks of his religious beliefs, cheated on his wife (disfigured in a car accident) and hooked up instead with a 'Rodeo Queen' (the mind boggles) who was also heiress to a brewery. They rejected a candidate (Obama) who has apparently been faithful to his wife. Many of them also voted in the primaries for someone who is part of what they believe to be a false religious cult (Mitt Romney).

    The evangelical right votes on issues, not the personal faith of a candidate. They hated Clinton (an evangelical Southern Baptist) yet loved Nixon (a nominal Quaker, definitely not evangelical). If an atheist promised to fight abortion, outlaw gay marriages, and protect gun ownership then they would vote for him/her en bloc.

    No Democrat could be elected without working the black church circuit. An open atheist couldn't do that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,141 ✭✭✭eoin5


    I'm sorry eoin5, but you are changing your position. Initially you stated that Deism = Atheism. Now you say thats not true but atheists can clam them as their own.

    Fundamentally I think you either misunderstand your own faith or the faith of Deists.

    *Deists believe in a God. That deists believe (S)he/ It/ They are completely uninterested in our existence is of no significance to this debate.
    *Atheist don't believe in a God.

    I don't see why there is any confusion here.

    Deism = Atheism is not what I wrote, the equals sign is very ambiguous in the english language. What I said is:
    me wrote:
    Deists are atheists, that is unless they believe in both a personal god and an otherwise sort of god. I doubt jefferson believed in both.

    Saying "Micras are Cars" is very different to "Micras = Cars" in the level of ambiguity. I havent changed my story, I only elaborated on it.

    The only useful definition of theism is the belief in a personal, interventionist type of god. To say that theism is simply a belief in a god without qualifing the type of god in some way then youre at the mercy of the definition of god which according to answers.com could mean that god could even be a very handsome man :D.

    So for the third time the only way a deist can be a theist is if he/she believes in both sort of gods.

    I'm certainly not confused on this one :cool:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 83,352 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Not FDR but JFK tbh :p
    oic tyvm


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,849 ✭✭✭condra


    Does it count if they "come out" as an atheist later in their lives, after their presidency?

    In my opinion, Barack Obama absolutely REEKS of the sweet smell of reason and logic.

    Would it be that surprising if he came out as an atheist in ten or twenty years time?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,243 ✭✭✭✭Jesus Wept


    jackdaw wrote: »
    History has been made today in the USA ... I never thought I'd see such a landslide for Obama ... it's fantastic ... how long though will it take the US to
    elect an athiest president ?

    I'd say 100 years !!

    I really don't understand this 'landslide' claim.
    Obama won 53% of the popular vote vs 46% for McCain. (source)

    Ok, Obama won the electoral college with ease (which is an terrible system to decide the presidency imo).

    On the BBC election night coverage, they stated that it is considered a landslide when one candidate gets 55% of the popular vote.

    If 11/20 people want one candidate, and the other 9/20 people want a different candidate, how on earth can that be called a landslide?!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,504 ✭✭✭Daemonic


    The-Rigger wrote: »
    If 11/20 people want one candidate, and the other 9/20 people want a different candidate, how on earth can that be called a landslide?!
    Probably because there is no grey area in news headlines anymore. Everything has to have a touch of the dramatic about it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 58 ✭✭DanCorb


    Dades wrote: »
    The difference there is there are a huge percentage of blacks (or minorities in general) who once given the vote became a force to be reckoned with. And although I'm sure there are plenty of non-believers in American closets, their numbers aren't anywhere near enough to be a substantial force in the electorate.

    I would also therefore say not in our lifetime!

    From the United States Census Bureau:
    Percentage of Blacks in America: 12.4%
    Percentage of Non-Religious: 14%

    Atheists are the largest minority in America. Their numbers clearly are enough.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    That's fair enough, before pH posted I was under the impression the coloured population was larger.

    I wonder though would the same proportion of "non-religious" vote for a candidate because of his beliefs, as blacks would vote for one because of their colour? I don't know the answer - I'm only posing the question.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    The-Rigger wrote: »
    I really don't understand this 'landslide' claim.
    I think it refers to the results of the electoral college system.
    The-Rigger wrote: »
    which is an terrible system to decide the presidency imo.
    Short history lesson:

    The electoral college (EC) system is a product of the 18th century when the USA had no national media to speak of, and a nation-wide election was costly, dangerous and difficult to organize. Originally, each state nominated a number of men (roughly proportional to the state population) each of whom had one vote in a country-wide election from a short list of candidates. The guy with the greatest number of electoral college votes became president.

    The members of the EC were, I believe, typically drawn from a group which contained a high proportion of land owners, with a small number from academia. The object of the EC was to create an electoral system which was likely to elect a candidate who had a fair chance of being smart, and who would respect wealth and land rights (except injun land of course). I believe the membership requirements for the EC were based very roughly on those for the UK's House of Lords, which also acts as a moderating influence against the results of another popular election (the House of Commons instead of the Senate + Congress).

    In the early days, the EC members voted without reference to any popular vote -- I believe they still can in some states. However, as time passed, it became politically necessary to shoe-horn some democracy into the system. Hence, the popular vote now directs the EC in who to vote for. Most states (like Florida, notoriously) require the EC to vote unanimously one way or the other, while a minority of states require their EC to split the votes as per the popular votes. The guy with the greatest number of EC votes still wins the election, and unlike France and some French colonial countries, there's no runoff if the highest-scoring candidate fails to win less than 50% (a useful adaption which avoids Ralph Nader-style f*ckups in which minority candidates like Bush II acquire power).

    Like the UK's first-past-the-post system, the EC system has evolved to be unstable -- small input changes causing large output changes. It wasn't always like that, but it's become like that over time, so perhaps it's time for a change. But that will require a change to the constitution, which will require the agreement of two-thirds of the states, and historically, that's been difficult to achieve, so it probably won't happen.

    BTW, if you think the EC system is messy then have a look at the medieval voting system which elected the Doge of Venice. This clever and subtle protocol was developed in the 13th century and lasted for longer than any other democratic system. The full, and intriguing, details are here.

    End of history lesson.

    .


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,243 ✭✭✭✭Jesus Wept


    robindch wrote: »
    I think it refers to the results of the electoral college system.

    Nah, they were refering to the popular vote.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Anyone read audacity of hope?

    I think Obama is also the first Atheist president.

    A better question might have been the first openly-atheistic president


Advertisement