Could an Atheist Democrat ever win the Presidency of the USA?

[Fexus]

I suspect that if some of the founding fathers of the US had been atheists there'd be a lot less talk of god in their constitution, pledge of allegiance, etc

God is never mentioned in the constitution.

The pledge of allegiance was written in 1892, also with no mention of God. The phrase under God was added in 1954, almost certainly to bolster national religious identity in light of the red scare.

[Durandro]

God is never mentioned in the constitution.

The pledge of allegiance was written in 1892, also with no mention of God. The phrase under God was added in 1954, almost certainly to bolster national religious identity in light of the red scare.

It is amazing how few people do the research on that topic, yet act like they know better.

Indeed, most of the religious elements were added well after the founding fathers died - and mostly against their apparent will and intentions. America was supposed to be a place of religious freedom - which required the state to have no stance for or against any religious viewpoint.

And heck, some of them were one step away from Atheists - Deists. So the notion they were all Christians who wanted America to be a 'Christian nation' is just tosh.

- - - Updated - - -

Frankly, I'd be absolutely shocked. A few were deeply religious, many were deists, and there was generally a lot more religious diversity among our founders than modern politicians.

Finding any openly non-religious people in history is pretty tricky, considering how the non-religious have been treated in the past (or heck, anyone not part of one specific religious doctrine). I imagine most people simply didn't have time to care much one way or another, and just went with the flow.

[Mormolyce]

The "Under God" line in the Pledge of Allegiance wasn't even added until the '50s wasn't it?

Joint resolution of Congress in 1954, following a campaign led by religious and conservative organisations, eg the Knights of Columbus. The pledge is actually part of the Flag Code and is just a civil administrative thing, there's no penalty or anything for not following it.

Ironically, the original pledge was written by a Baptist minister who was a Christian socialist. Make of THAT what you will lol.

Original version:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

He made it for Columbus Day, celebrating the 400th anniversary of his landing. He also originally planned to include the words "equality" and "fraternity" (because of his socialist views) but rejected the idea because of the prevalent stance against equality for women and blacks. He didn't think they'd go for it. Ha!

And of course needless to say, it was written about a century after the "Founding Fathers".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_...22under_God.22

[Hooked]

Openly atheist? Not in the next years. Atheism is the cool thing to hate at the moment in the US (and here too, with the canonization of the last 2 popes people went nuts for religion)

Its not that atheism is the cool thing to hate, its the people who are atheists. It wouldn't matter what religion they were.

[Drekker17]

The 1st openly Atheist president will be Republican. Honestly the idea that the 1st atheist president would have to be democrat is silly... by the time the country is going to vote for a openly atheist president the Republican party would have abandoned its religious focus. Beyond the religious focus, what do democrats believe that most atheist believe?

[Mnevis]

What if I told you that agnosticism and atheism were not mutually exclusive? Many atheists, myself included, describe ourselves as agnostic atheists.

I wouldn't consider myself an agnostic, because I admit the possibility that the universe (and beyond) described to me as a child is possible. In that universe, that of Evangelical Calvinist Protestant Christians, I don't believe because beings greater than myself have control over the possibility of my accepting the evidence. There's a fundamental conflict between the wisdom of the world (including billions of years) and spiritual understanding, and it can only be resolved through divine intervention. This is the world Paul describes. In that world, absolute knowledge of God's existence and attention exists.

I rejected that conception of the universe upon meeting a few people and reading a few books outside my spiritual safe zone, but not because I became certain that it was incorrect, but because suddenly it seemed hugely implausible, and no longer the only possibility (I came up home-schooled and in a tiny private school; it took me an embarrassingly long time to realize that other conceptions of the universe could be reasonably adopted).

My parents' view of the world--young earth, angels and demons, miracles, heaven--I don't absolutely know that's wrong, but I could no longer will myself to believe it anymore than I could will myself to believe that Zeus sits atop Mt Olympus hurling lightning bolts. I personally don't know (with absolute certainty), but I don't think it's impossible to know, and that I think is the specific epistemological assertion embodied in the term "agnostic", not idfk.

That, I think is the fundamental argument with SirPiken; he's claiming that losing faith, or not having faith, is something chosen. I chose to ask questions others may not ask, and read books I "shouldn't" have, but my current state is just a state.

Holy hell, I understand the concept of a lack of belief. I just also understand that that lack of belief is based on personal choice and not on fact. It is impossible to prove the unknowable, therefore if you make a decision that claims that you know the unknowable that decision not based on fact is therefore based on personal belief.

I'm almost an Apatheist at this point, but I grew up with such a heavy dose of Biblical literalism and fundamentalism that I could only wish to discard the question entirely. Sometimes I wonder if I'd have kept on with religion if raised with a more liberal version. Jesus was pretty cool in my book. I almost wish he would come back to smack some sense into those who think his followers should own AR-15s.

:P

[Endus]

Since the thread's been mostly derailed into arguing about what "atheist" means, I'm going to lock it.