• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Record 60% of Americans Say They Could Vote for an Atheist President

shmogie

shmogie

Well-Known Member
joe1776 said:
The problem is that "preserving religious liberty" has a different meaning for most Christians than it does for Atheists. The Christian majority historically has had the upper hand at the ballot box. Atheists and agnostics have to depend on the courts for fairness and that often comes down to the Supreme Court and a 5-4 vote that could go either way.
Click to expand...
The Constitution is clear, the free exercise of religion is not to be impinged. The same for a Buddhist as well as me.

¨ fairness¨ is a relative term. The establishment clause is clearly about an an officially adopted state religion, as England has. It isn´t about crosses in government maintained cemeteries, or Christian T shirts on kids in school.

I live in the West, and my home town began as a Catholic mission extension. The city seal reflected this historical fact with a representation of an adobe wall with a cross on it.

An out of state atheist group went nuts over the seal, which had existed for well over a hundred years. Of course they sued, and the city had to spend precious resources defending itself.

This is ludicrous, and has nothing to do with an officially adopted state religion.

It is simply hostility, nothing more
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Jollybear said:
Ok, ill give one exampke for now, and then others later, so posts dont get too long.

Lets go with the typical intelligent design.

Design in the universe, world, earth, our bodies, ect.

Why is that not evidence of a designer?
Click to expand...
"The world/universe/bodies looks designed to me," is not evidence of anything other than your opinion. It's a claim.
 
Evangelicalhumanist

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
shmogie said:
Wait. Hate and vitriol is primarily by Christians ? That is nonsense.

Who beats up conservative college students, not Christians. Who destroys university property when their is a Conservative speaker on college campuses, not Christians. Who shoots up schools, Synagogues, and mosques, , not Christians. Who calls for confrontations and harassment of Conservatives, not Christian Conservative politicians.


You have decided on a narrative based upon your own subjective view, and make outlandish, unsupported statements as a result.

Perhaps you ought to take the time to find out what is going on, and who is responsible for it.

I agree that many alleged Christians certainly do not represent well what they say they believe, that has been a problem in the church from the very beginning.

However, don´t let that blind you to the fact that millions of Christians not only talk the talk, but walk the walk.
Click to expand...
I don't think you read what I wrote. First of all, I said "look at the hate, the vitriol in the US these days, mostly by those who call themselves Christian." I did not speak of violence. And since the majority in the US call themselves Christian, then my statement is accurate. I ask you to look only at the Hater-in-Chief himself, Donald Trump. What are some of the things that this so-called Christian has said about other people? What names has he called them, and what lies has he told about them?

Apparently lots of people don't like Hillary Clinton, but since when is it right for millions of "Christians" to scream "lock her up," when she's never been convicted of a crime? The whole country is fracturing and political debate no longer consists of honest give and take.

And this is true in other places around the world now, too, as the far right becomes more and more consumed with their fear and loathing of the immigrants among them, and want them all to go away, or worse.

And what I'm saying is that these emotions, these expressions of hatred for others, are not what the great religions teach. And therefore, I contend that many who profess those religions do not really believe what they say, deep down inside themselves.
 
sooda

sooda

Veteran Member
Skwim said:
.

"Every few years, Gallup asks Americans a version of this question: “If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be _____, would you vote for that person?”

Just about every time they’ve asked that question, “atheist” has been at the bottom of the list. (Atheists are unelectable! the headlines always say.)

In 2012, there was cause for celebration simply because more than half of those surveyed said they wouldn’t hold atheism against a politician. Then, in 2015, for the first time ever, “atheist” wasn’t the worst trait in a presidential candidate. A “Socialist” performed slightly worse. (Thanks, Bernie Sanders!)

In a poll released today, there’s been no change in the unpopularity of “Socialist” — only 47% of Americans would support that candidate — but “atheist” received another tiny jump. A record 60% of Americans say they would now consider voting for an atheist. It’s still next to last on the list. But it’s clearly becoming less of a stigma.


GallupAtheist2019Sq.png
While just about every category Gallup asked about saw an increase in support — suggesting Americans are becoming comfortable with a more diverse group of candidates — “atheist” saw the smallest increase, an uptick of only 2%. But that may be because we just don’t hear that conversation discussed very much in the media. Without an atheist candidate to talk about, there’s no reason to bring it up.


Eighty percent of U.S. adults would vote for an evangelical Christian for president — up from 73% in 2015. Meanwhile, the percentage of Americans who would vote for a Muslim has grown from 58% in 2012 to 66% today.

Atheist presidential candidates would face more resistance from voters than candidates of other religious backgrounds. But Americans have warmed to the idea of an atheist candidate over the past several decades. The current 60% who would vote for an atheist is more than three times the 18% Gallup recorded in its first measure on atheist candidates in 1958.

​
But what I find particularly interesting are the strides atheism has made since 1959: A 230% increase in willingness.


GallupAtheist2019Trend.png

source

.​
Click to expand...

I would prefer a truly good person.. a patriot with brains and an education than some wormy hypocrite..
 
joe1776

joe1776

Well-Known Member
shmogie said:
The Constitution is clear, the free exercise of religion is not to be impinged.
Click to expand...
Nothing is clear. All legal language is subject to interpretation. That's why the courts exist.

You think that a cross in a public place is just fine because it's been there for years. Your non-Christian neighbors think the fact that it's been there for years only means that its high time the symbol of your religion's dominance of the governing of the community be taken down because it wouldn't be allowed to be erected under the current interpretation of Constitutional law. You are, in effect, arguing that your cross should be "grandfathered in" but that legal concept would defeat the correcting of old injustices as the courts now see it.

Grandfathered in Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

This is ludicrous, and has nothing to do with an officially adopted state religion. It is simply hostility, nothing more
Click to expand...
If you feel that way, I'd suggest you rethink your idea about voting for an atheist.
 
Last edited:
joe1776

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Last edited:
joe1776

joe1776

Well-Known Member
SkepticThinker said:
I would say the same thing to him I would say to anybody else, which is, what is the evidence?
Click to expand...
I thought ID was complete nonsense but if a Nobel physicist is taking it seriously, maybe I was wrong. I haven't tried to find his explanation because I wouldn't understand it anyway. Quantum physics baffles me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top