Could an atheist ever be elected as the U.S. President?

[Cecilie]

It's fascinating to me why you care if there will ever be an atheist president or not. I don't think anybody in Norway cares if our prime minister believes in God or not.

[humblesmurph]

It certainly gives me more faith in the US public that Obama got elected.  I just don't interpret it as a decline in racism.

I too would hope somebody like King could be elected, just not likely in my view as long as whites are in the majority.

White people have done good things.
Some white people said to other white people slavery is wrong and slavery was ended, eventually.
I'm not aware of any society that did that before.
I think white people are getting better, not all at uniform rate it's true.
White people supported the civil rights movement.
Sam Cook heard Dylan's Blowin' In The Wind and wondered why a black person hadn't created it.
White and not so white people have convinced white people to do better.
I think we're getting there.

All great points. I don't think that racists are necessarily bad people, and they are certainly capable of doing good things. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves.  It could be argued he raped them as well. Nonetheless, I consider him a great man, a great president, and one of the people directly responsible for the freedoms I enjoy today.

It's a two way street.  I don't think the onus is on whites to get better in terms of race relations.  I think that the onus is on all of us to be more open minded.  In the US, I've seen more examples of blacks being racist against whites than the other way around.  Whites just happen to have more power.

[The Magic Pudding]

It's fascinating to me why you care if there will ever be an atheist president or not.

It shouldn't be surprising.

I don't think anybody in Norway cares if our prime minister believes in God or not.

That is a major difference.

[panflutejedi]

I've wondered this for awhile, if we would ever see an atheist president in modern times.

Hello,

I think there is a suggestive analogy for the wait time we have before us, in order to see an atheist US president.

Consider the question of health care reform. Germany enacted its first healthcare legislation in 1883, the UK in 1946, Australia in 1973, Canada in 1984, and (finally) the USA in 2010. So, if this is analogous with the possibility of an (openly) atheist US president, it is clear that the US is far behind the curve, but the reality of an atheist in the White House may not be so far in the future as some of us might suppose.

One of the largest impediments to an atheistic US presidential candidate would be the huge numbers of conservative Christian voters in the "red" states. Improved education (as in, no religious interference in the classroom), and the decline of religious observance in these states (younger generations of non-religious voters) would remove this obstacle. There are signs of this already brewing, as I have spoken with many young Americans (under 18) who are very concerned about the USA's "behind the curve" status, and no few of these have openly told me they attribute this to a "stupid religious good ole' boys mentality", as one young man put it.

I think we are likely to see an exponential growth in atheism in the USA in the next few decades, and very likely a corresponding growth of atheistic candidates. Presidential candidates, as always, will appeal to the sentiments and desires of the voters they wish to win over. I must admit, for me, it would be a very entertaining turning of the tables to see an openly atheistic candidate publicly denounce the religious candidates for clinging to Bronze Age myths and desert dogma as the "magnetism" of their moral compass, rather than availing themselves of all the advances we have made in the intervening millenia, and thus being a recognizably 21st century candidate.

On that day, folks, the drinks are on me!

[Asmodean]

(I'd bet this board would be illegal within a few years if McCain/Palin had made it to the White House)

We could then get it a nice server in Europe to run from

[Thumpalumpacus]

In order:

My mentioning US voters assumed too much.  We agree that she is not "very famous".  Not even in the same league as Whoopi or Beyonce...let alone Oprah.

Hmm, didn't know Whoopi was a theist.  But yeah.

I agree that Obama getting elected means something, I'm just not sure what that is yet.  I'll be more inclined to agree with you when Obama gets a second term.  

This first election is far more the important one, for it has established that it can be done.  Like the four-minute-mile, once Bannister broke the "wall", the record was pushed steadily beyond he had done.  Once it is known that something can be done, it will happen more often.

The relevance is that racists worked to get Obama elected.  Their support of Obama was not a product of them shunning the racist views of their elders.

Please support this section with cites.  

In my opinion they supported Obama  because they didn't consider him to be black and/or he was simply a better choice than the alternatives.  If there was an equally engaging white candidate, they likely would have supported her.

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide the basis for this opinion?

I'm not confusing anything, they are intertwined.

No, they're not.  I know many blacks who grew up in a black household with two black parents who do not have a "stereotypically black" pattern of speech.  If you think they're intertwined, explain why black people from Jamaica have different accents that blacks from Mali or Harlem or the East End of London.  Here, I'll do it for you:  They aren't intertwined.  Speech patterns are cultural, and not genetic.  

If he was raised in a black household, and had two black parents, his physical appearance and his speech would likely be different.  As you stated, there is no way to prove our respective hypotheses.  I strongly disagree with you, I guess I have to leave it at that.

Actually, there is a way to give evidence to my hypothesis:  Go back to the Gallup/USA Today poll, and look at the previous years that the same questions were asked (second page).  The trendline shows an unbroken increase in a willingness to vote for a black candidate over the last 40 years, from 53% in 1967 to 94% in 2007.

As time moves forward, we are becoming more tolerant.

Ours is a problem of semantics.  I use Huxley's definition of the word.  His is about following evidence and not making assumptions not proven.  He coined the term in 1869.  We can split hairs if you like.  Agnostic as you and many others define it, is utterly meaningless.

The first sense listed in this definition is the formal sense of the word.  The second sense is the colloquial.  It is quite clear that this word has meaning, and no amount of calling "semantics" changes that.

Nobody has definitive proof of god's existence or non-existence.  I can claim to have it, sure, but that claim is, just like, my opinion man (sorry, just watched Lebowski).  All that really matters is what you believe.  If you believe, you are a theist, if you don't, you are an atheist.  

There you go.  

I don't view god as an idea.  God is an entity that does or does not exist.  There is no middle ground to its existence.  One's opinion about what can or can't be proven is an entirely different matter.  It doesn't make someone less of a theist if they concede that they can't prove their god.  It doesn't make someone less of an atheist if they concede that they can't prove non-existence.  It just makes them honest.

Indeed, we agree here.  However, I fail to see how this renders agnosticism meaningless.

[humblesmurph]

In order:

My mentioning US voters assumed too much.  We agree that she is not "very famous".  Not even in the same league as Whoopi or Beyonce...let alone Oprah.

Hmm, didn't know Whoopi was a theist.  But yeah.

I agree that Obama getting elected means something, I'm just not sure what that is yet.  I'll be more inclined to agree with you when Obama gets a second term.  

This first election is far more the important one, for it has established that it can be done.  Like the four-minute-mile, once Bannister broke the "wall", the record was pushed steadily beyond he had done.  Once it is known that something can be done, it will happen more often.

The relevance is that racists worked to get Obama elected.  Their support of Obama was not a product of them shunning the racist views of their elders.

Please support this section with cites.  

In my opinion they supported Obama  because they didn't consider him to be black and/or he was simply a better choice than the alternatives.  If there was an equally engaging white candidate, they likely would have supported her.

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide the basis for this opinion?

I'm not confusing anything, they are intertwined.

No, they're not.  I know many blacks who grew up in a black household with two black parents who do not have a "stereotypically black" pattern of speech.  If you think they're intertwined, explain why black people from Jamaica have different accents that blacks from Mali or Harlem or the East End of London.  Here, I'll do it for you:  They aren't intertwined.  Speech patterns are cultural, and not genetic.  

If he was raised in a black household, and had two black parents, his physical appearance and his speech would likely be different.  As you stated, there is no way to prove our respective hypotheses.  I strongly disagree with you, I guess I have to leave it at that.

Actually, there is a way to give evidence to my hypothesis:  Go back to the Gallup/USA Today poll, and look at the previous years that the same questions were asked (second page).  The trendline shows an unbroken increase in a willingness to vote for a black candidate over the last 40 years, from 53% in 1967 to 94% in 2007.

As time moves forward, we are becoming more tolerant.

Ours is a problem of semantics.  I use Huxley's definition of the word.  His is about following evidence and not making assumptions not proven.  He coined the term in 1869.  We can split hairs if you like.  Agnostic as you and many others define it, is utterly meaningless.

The first sense listed in this definition is the formal sense of the word.  The second sense is the colloquial.  It is quite clear that this word has meaning, and no amount of calling "semantics" changes that.

Nobody has definitive proof of god's existence or non-existence.  I can claim to have it, sure, but that claim is, just like, my opinion man (sorry, just watched Lebowski).  All that really matters is what you believe.  If you believe, you are a theist, if you don't, you are an atheist.  

There you go.  

I don't view god as an idea.  God is an entity that does or does not exist.  There is no middle ground to its existence.  One's opinion about what can or can't be proven is an entirely different matter.  It doesn't make someone less of a theist if they concede that they can't prove their god.  It doesn't make someone less of an atheist if they concede that they can't prove non-existence.  It just makes them honest.

Indeed, we agree here.  However, I fail to see how this renders agnosticism meaningless.

I don't know what Whoopi is.  I suspect she is atheist.  I haven't heard her say it yet.

Maybe you are right.  I admire your optimism even though I don't share it.

The support is above.  I work with a group of young people (24-30ish) who volunteered for to work for the Obama campaign and many of them display clear racial bias against blacks.  This is purely anecdotal.  The point is simply that one can both support Obama and hold a negative view of blacks in general.  

When I'm referring to "they" I mean my coworkers.  I didn't ask any of them why they supported Obama, my statement was pure speculation based on the obvious racial bias I noticed while working with them.  Labeling black patrons as "ghetto" before they even spoke to them.  Trying to get out of having to serve black patrons.  Failing to extend simple courtesies to black patrons that they freely extend to white ones (one coworker yelled at me for giving a black patron a glass of water).  I could go on if you wish.

Race and culture are intertwined.  You think so too. We are talking in circles.  I said Obama "likely" would speak different.  I know people who have two black parents who talk "white" too.  They are the exception not the rule.  For better or worse, blacks are generally socialized by their black parents to speak differently from whites in the US.  Black culture is an entity in the US.  Other countries have no bearing in this argument, but I'd bet in London or Jamaica blacks and whites generally sound somewhat different from each other as well.

Getting back to the point.  The thread is about whether an atheist could be elected president.  I said something like "atheism is an all or nothing proposition".  You are either a theist or atheist, there is no third option.  You offered agnostic as a third option, I reject this.  Saying you are agnostic in your sense of the word says nothing about theism or atheism, just an opinion about what can be known. Do you believe in god? only has two answers, yes or no.

Light/dark          happy/sad            cold/hot             atheism/theism                       agnostic/??????
What is a descriptive term without an opposite?  Meaningless.  Without the dark, we know not of the light.  I know gnostic, a much older term, is the opposite of the word agnostic, but the meanings don't match up thusly.  If you can find me some info on gnosticism as the direct opposite of agnosticism, I'll gladly retract my claim that  the term "agnostic" is meaningless and thank you for the education.

[Whitney]

When that day comes, i'll be laughing at the knowledge Edward the Dick, i mean, theist, will be going mental.

Karadan,

Please avoid personal insults; while Edward certainly has thrown around his fair share of insults (and has gotten reprimanded for doing so) it isn't exactly fair if I let everyone else insult him without saying something when I see it.

[i_am_i]

It's fascinating to me why you care if there will ever be an atheist president or not. I don't think anybody in Norway cares if our prime minister believes in God or not.

I think this is really important to this discussion.

Why would anyone care? But it seems that they do. And it really has nothing to do with good old American tradition. This stuff is almost primal, man.

Right now I'm thinking, "Would I vote for a Muslim? Well, would I?"

Really, I can't see any reason why I shouldn't. But then I consider this to be a nation of laws and not one of religious dogma. Silly me.

[Kylyssa]

It's fascinating to me why you care if there will ever be an atheist president or not. I don't think anybody in Norway cares if our prime minister believes in God or not.

I care if it's possible or not.  Heck, some people have a very, very weak suspicion that Obama might not be a Christian and it's an issue.  If we were in a country where no one cared what religion the president was we wouldn't care if an atheist were ever elected.  I just care whether or not an atheist could be elected president.  

Right now, no matter how qualified, an openly atheist person could not be elected president of the US.  I think we have approximately the same possibility of an atheist getting elected as president right now as we stood of getting a non-white president in the White House in the 1960s.  I don't care, really, if we never get an atheist in the White House so long as it could happen.

[parrotpirate]

Yes, unless we stop the tide of atheism, an atheist president may well be elected. Probably not in the next thirty years, but surely within the next 100 years. I would rather not live to see that day. Because just as Hitler was elected on nationalism and antisemitic sentiments, so it would be that if an atheist president was elected, it would be because a large majority of the population were atheist.

But look at England. The Church of England has been spiritually bankrupt since Henry the VIII and yet all the prime ministers are "Christian."

But atheism is spreading fast among young people, and if we don't stop it somehow, it will devour civilization.

I know I'm going to do my part. :shake:

[Sophus]

Yes, unless we stop the tide of atheism, an atheist president may well be elected. Probably not in the next thirty years, but surely within the next 100 years. I would rather not live to see that day. Because just as Hitler was elected on nationalism and antisemitic sentiments, so it would be that if an atheist president was elected, it would be because a large majority of the population were atheist.

But look at England. The Church of England has been spiritually bankrupt since Henry the VIII and yet all the prime ministers are "Christian."

But atheism is spreading fast among young people, and if we don't stop it somehow, it will devour civilization.

I know I'm going to do my part.

Seriously, I don't think there's any doubt now that you didn't come here for a civil discussion, but only to spit out whacky preachy insults.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Getting back to the point.  The thread is about whether an atheist could be elected president.  I said something like "atheism is an all or nothing proposition".  You are either a theist or atheist, there is no third option.  You offered agnostic as a third option, I reject this.  Saying you are agnostic in your sense of the word says nothing about theism or atheism, just an opinion about what can be known. Do you believe in god? only has two answers, yes or no.

Again, you're making a category error.  "Gnosis" is the root for knowledge, not belief.  The two are different things:  

A gnostic "knows" there is a god.
A colloquial agnostic doesn't "know" one way or the other whether there is a god, or not, but awaits evidence.
A formal agnostic holds that humans cannot know whether or not god exists, either because evidence is not and will not be forthcoming, or because a finite mind cannot get a grip on an infinite entity.

A theist believes that god exists.
An atheist does not.

An apatheist regards the entire question as irrelevant.

One can be, colloquially, an agnostic, yet still believe in god(s), in the same way that one can say, "I think my Uncle Alfred is alive" even though one has not seen him in fourteen years, and therefore cannot know.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's fascinating to me why you care if there will ever be an atheist president or not. I don't think anybody in Norway cares if our prime minister believes in God or not.

Hey, catch a sodomy conviction because of laws based on religious stricture.  Might make you think about it.

[humblesmurph]

Getting back to the point.  The thread is about whether an atheist could be elected president.  I said something like "atheism is an all or nothing proposition".  You are either a theist or atheist, there is no third option.  You offered agnostic as a third option, I reject this.  Saying you are agnostic in your sense of the word says nothing about theism or atheism, just an opinion about what can be known. Do you believe in god? only has two answers, yes or no.

Again, you're making a category error.  "Gnosis" is the root for knowledge, not belief.  The two are different things:  

A gnostic "knows" there is a god.
A colloquial agnostic doesn't "know" one way or the other whether there is a god, or not, but awaits evidence.
A formal agnostic holds that humans cannot know whether or not god exists, either because evidence is not and will not be forthcoming, or because a finite mind cannot get a grip on an infinite entity.

A theist believes that god exists.
An atheist does not.

An apatheist regards the entire question as irrelevant.

One can be, colloquially, an agnostic, yet still believe in god(s), in the same way that one can say, "I think my Uncle Alfred is alive" even though one has not seen him in fourteen years, and therefore cannot know.

humble-Atheism is an-all in proposition, one can't be half atheist. Atheism will likely have to wait it's turn behind the race/gender/sexual orientation/religious breakthroughs to the presidency. My guess: 200 years.

Thump-I'm not so sure about this first sentence. Pure agnostics might argue with it.

This is where you brought agnostics into the discussion.  Peep the underlined. I'm talking about belief when I reference atheism.  You are talking about knowledge in suggesting that agnostics may disagree.  If I'm not mistaken, you are the one who made a category error.