Should an atheist be allowed to be president?

This is a counter to the topic proposed on whether a religious person should be president, or a fundamentalist, since their religious views could affect policy and appointments, etc,...Doesn't that also hold true for the non-religious person?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Of course! To bar atheists from the presidency would be a violation of the Constitution.We are not a Theocracy.

I would never say that a person's religious beliefs should automatically disqualify her from being president. However, it is possible that her beliefs are an indication of the policies that she would attempt to implement, so in some instances I feel I can judge pretty well whether I would want a person as president just by her beliefs.A "fundamentalist" doesn't just have a set of religious beliefs -- "fundamentalism" also implies a set of political beliefs with which I disagree, so, yes, I would say that I feel that a fundamentalist would be a terrible president.That is different from "atheist". Atheists can be all over the political spectrum and advocate a variety of policies, and I see no more tendency for a atheist to be left than right. Hell, my father was an atheist -- he hated Christians -- yet he was quite conservative and even contributed a bit of money to the Republicans.Just like "Christian", actually. As a label, it means nothing (I used to date someone who was nominally Catholic, but had a lot of Quaker relatives -- and the whole family's politics were very liberal). There are even Christians who are Marxists. So I couldn't judge a person's political qualifications just on this label, either.

Hi randman,It's a strange question, partly why I didn't take part in the other thread. The whole point of electing somebody president is to ensure that their views (religious or otherwise) affect policy and appointments. What's the point of electing somebody otherwise? Would you bother voting for a president who isn't going to be able to implement the actions you favour?Obviously in a democracy anybody is allowed to stand for president, but whether they end up being elected is a different matter. If we're going to be serious about democracy, we should accept that citizens are allowed to elect whoever they wish, including religious people, fundamentalists, atheists and everybody else.It's pretty clear that the US government (not necessarily the US citizens) feel differently. So in Haiti they successfully ousted a democratically elected Christian, and in Venezuela they tried to oust a democratically elected atheist. I'm not sure that the American people really approve of this kind of thing, and I agree with them. For example, I hate what George Bush stands for but don't deny that he was democratically elected, so I wouldn't advocate supporting a coup against him.The old adage is, people get the politicians they deserve. Seems reasonable to me. But once you start saying that certain people should not be allowed to run for president, then democracy becomes a sham. Sometimes it seems to me that the party system and the massive amounts of money involved in electioneering in the US ensure that certain types of people can't run for political positions and ensures that democracy is a bit of a sham (obviously not always as bad as elsewhere in the world).So I do believe that a fundamentalist Christian (for example) should be allowed to be president. In fact, if he is elected by due process, a talking monkey is also legitimate.MickThis message has been edited by mick, 07-29-2005 01:12 PM

I just wanted to start the conversation by hopefully showing that any ideology belief system is just part of the package, and religious or non-religious is perfectly legal and acceptable.There seem to be some that think allowing faith to influence legislation is a violation of the concept of separation of Church and State, but that's not the case.

Faith affecting decisionmaking and legislation is government is perfectly acceptable.The only time faith becomes an issue is when religious laws are enacted. For instance, a law forcing Christian Creation to be taught in classrooms alongside mainstream science. A law against homosexuality would be similarly unacceptable. Forcing the rules of a specific faith on those who do not share that faith is immoral and unconstitutional.A President who allows his personal beliefs and religion to affect his decisions is fine, so long as that basic rule is upheld.

I don't see how it is possible to separate a person's religious beliefs from her policy making -- all policies are the implementation of moral and ethical concerns."Separation of church and state" was never meant to be a separation of a persons ethical and moral beliefs from policy -- that would be impossible in any case. It has always meant that the state should not promote (or hinder) any religious institution, and that the church should have any official say in public policy (beyond its adherents voting, of course).In fact, "separation of church and state" is not, strictly speaking, a necessary prerequisite for democracy. Most of the Western European countries, which are arguably stronger democracies than the US, have some public financing of religious denominations, and several countries even have an officially sanctioned nation church.

Of course, I cannot stand for presidency of the US since I am neither over 35 nor an American citizen.

No.Why would it? Why would a non-religious person be affected by religious views?

an atheist would make a great President. I can see no possible downside involved in an atheistic President.But I have a question. I don't remember a thread proposed on whether or not a religious person should be allowed to be President. I do remember (in fact may well have started) a thread on whether or not a literalist fundamentalist Biblical Creationist should be allowed to hold any position of authority. But that had nothing to do with their belief system but rather on whether or not they were capable of evaluating evidence and data and forming a reasonable conclusion.The issue is not one related to their beliefs but rather related to their capabilities of decision making. It was more like the question "Should a color blind person be placed incharge of sorting paint samples?"

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

is there any reason why a young non-American should not stand for president? If enough American voters take to them, that is? It would certainly be democratic.After all, we (in the non-US world) have to suffer the shitty consequences of US activities, it seems only fair we should be allowed to stand for office, and perhaps one day vote.Mick

How about a compromise? We don't allow foreigners to vote in our elections, but we require the US President to spend a portion each day without body guards in the presence of a large number of armed foreigners?

There is already a move to change that but it will require a Contitutional Amendment. Check out Demolition Man or search for the Schwarzenegger Presidential library.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hmmmn... You aren't allowed to vote if you're not American, and the president gets beaten up...sounds like haiti?This message has been edited by mick, 07-29-2005 07:56 PM