Atheists have chance of becoming president

[cbayer]

http://www.examiner.com/article/atheists-have-chance-of-becoming-president

June 23, 2012
Atheists have chance of becoming president

Michael McGuire
Elections Examiner

Most Americans would vote for an atheist for president of the United States, according to a Gallup Poll released Thursday.

When the question was first asked in 1958, Gallup reported, only 18 percent said they would be willing to vote for an atheist; but the number stands at 54 percent today.

The polls show a growing acceptance of a non-believing "leader of the free world," with the number rising to 40 percent in 1978 and 49 percent in 1999.

Democrats would be most likely to vote for an atheist, at 58 percent. Independents follow at 56 percent and Republicans lagging with 48 percent.

more at link

[Bjorn Against]

1. That number would go up if there were a good atheist candidate as well

I don't think the religion or lack of religion of a candidate is really that important to most people unless the candidate bases their policy on their religious beliefs. There are certainly some out there who want a theocracy and for those people religion is extremely important, but they are in the minority. If an atheist candidate actually ran I think that the 54% number would rise significantly as even many who did not support the candidate would say the atheism is not the reason for their opposition.

[longship]

2. Encouraging, but there is still a danger

The "Christian Country" claimers have an interpretation of the First Amendment that is counter to every interpretation from when it was debated in that early congress to the current day. The interpretation the right wing prefers is that one religion cannot be preferred over another but that religion itself can be preferred over non-religion.

You can see this argument behind all of these religious freedom bills at the state level. To then, the Lemon test goes out the door and a law may benefit religion as long as it doesn't benefit a specific one. Of course, this argument fails even their loose interpretations by the facts that these bills are so draconian that it is clear that they favor only the strictest and fundementalist sects over the liberal ones.

I worry for us if Rmoney gets into power and we lose one or two SCOTUS judges due to retirement. If the Supremes adopt the right wing interpretation, good-bye First Amendment religious freedoms as we know them.

To us atheists, this is a very scary and real danger.

Thanks for posting this.

[ZombieHorde]

3. Good news. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. You'd need a minimum of 70% among Democrats and Independents

(assuming it will be a Democrat). You'd have to assume that Republicans wouldn't vote for the candidate because of politics rather than religion. At best, Democrats+Independents=70%, and 70% of 70% is 49% - about enough to get elected.

[cbayer]

5. I think it's the trend that is most notable.

Muslims and atheists are still way down the list of acceptable candidates, but atheists have been making significant progress.

[2ndAmForComputers]

10. I credit the "Gnu Atheists" (especially the Out Campaign) putting us in the radar for that.

Announcing your existence does wonders.

[cbayer]

11. There is also some recent data that the voting population cares less

about the religious beliefs (or non-beliefs) of those on the ballot.

Hence, Romney.

[2ndAmForComputers]

12. I'll happily take Romney becoming viable if that means Atheists becoming viable too.

Alas, there's still lot of people who can only extend their non-bigotry so far. "Well, he has sum weerd releeshun, but at least it's sum releeshun. He beleevs in GAWD. Not like them damn athiests."

[rug]

13. There is no circumstance under which I would happily take a viable Romney.

[2ndAmForComputers]

14. If not him, it would be another, Protestant Republican, who would be just as much of a threat.

So, no real increase in danger.

Maybe it's the OTHER mentioned part of the change you don't like?

[rug]

16. Let me rephrase: there is no circumstance under which I would happily take a viable republican.

As to the other, I'm indifferent. A candidate who states he or she is an atheist is simply a candidate who states he or she has no belief in a god. Who cares? Being an atheist is not synonymous with being a progressive. In fact the only atheist I know who has held public office, apart from Stark, is Jesse Ventura, who supports Ron Paul. Fuck Ron Paul.

[cbayer]

15. Interestingly, the data leading to this article indicates that Mormons have made the least progress

of any other group.

[rrneck]

6. Just what I was waiting to hear.

I'd like to my announce my candidacy for the office of President of the United States.

I've got the atheist, artist, redneck, gun owner vote all wrapped up.

[eqfan592]

8. As an atheist gun owner progressive, you'd get my vote! :D (nt)

[daaron]

7. Yeah, a snowball's chance -->

in a hell they don't even believe in.

[dmallind]

9. Sure ...and ALL they have to do is persuade 92.8% of those who "might" vote for them to do so

Anybody remember a candidate who got 93% of any independent persuadable voting bloc?