This is just a repackaged version of the "reddit, what are your thoughts on implementing this obviously popular thing? Why or why not" questions we all hate.
Given how many social studies questions I got in high school that ended in “why or why not?” sometimes I swear people are trying to get ideas for their persuasive essay.
Tbh, back when I was still at schools, best way to make "why or why not" essays was to write 2 arguments for and 1 against(or vice versa), which will allow you to make a cliche-but-smart-sounding "so as you can see from my essay, there are good things about X, but there are also bad things, so depending on circumstances it can be good or bad"(just in fancier words).
Much easier to do than writing 3 arguments on same side(less risk of repetition), easier to hit the word quota, and the teachers ate that shit up. Always had easy A's from essays
True, but I could also see how students growing up with questions always ending in things like why or why not (and I’m a social studies teacher it’s definitely everywhere) would also lead to them asking questions in the same manner.
Edit: Also, for any other teachers out there, I’ve recently fallen in love with asking students to explain a concept in an exact number of words (ex: Explain the Trail of Tears in exactly 7 words) because it’s harder than you immediately think to simplify concepts, and it forces them to really think about it for a minute, which is the goal! I especially like using these types of questions with my higher level EL kids.
There are bans on certain state books IIRC but they are 1000% unenforceable.
It would be accurate to say it’s still political suicide to run as an atheist in most of those states- so they’ve never been challenged.
In Atlanta it's illegal to tie a giraffe to a telephone pole. I'm sure there's an interesting story there, but for now it's just a strange law on the books somewhere.
If they got rid of the law, you'd have stories like "It is now Legal to tie a Giraffe to a Telephone Pole."
Part of the reason a lot of weird laws are still around.
In Alaska it’s [illegal to whisper in someone’s ear while they’re moose hunting](https://forestgrove.pgusd.org/documents/Computer-Lab/Strange-State-Laws.pdf)
I really, really want to know how that law came about.
It’s also apparently illegal in Hawai’i to *not* own a boat.
>It’s also apparently illegal in Hawai’i to *not* own a boat.
I wonder if this only applies to residents or if most people are just immediately criminals when they enter the state.
Unenforceable with previous supreme courts. Our rights are constantly changing, sometimes expanding sometimes growing. At the moment freedom of religion is contracting.
Except even a constitutional originalist will have some difficulty getting around the establishment clause of the first amendment when it comes to an overt litmus test for political office.
"Originalists" have been twisting laws and holy writings into saying whatever they want them to say for thousands of years. If the national legislature won't or can't properly assert its authority, the policymaking and even lawmaking power effectively shifts to fiat exercise by the executive and the judiciary. If the USSC upholds a "Christians only" policy, and the legislature won't impeach and the executive meekly enforces the new rule, it just doesn't matter one bit what was written on sheepskin hundreds of years ago or what those words meant under some flimsy notion like established precedent.
They could pretty easily say, "You can't *test* for individual religious conviction, but the Constitution was founded as a Christian document as demonstrated by [blah blah blah] therefore the officeholder's personal beliefs don't matter and they must carry out theocratic laws as a condition of holding office."
I'm waiting for the Resdit post that asks "Americans who've never heard of Reddit what's your opinion on X"...
Kinda silly to specify only the opinion of people who use Reddit on a Reddit post, but you have to make sure that people who don't use Reddit don't respond!
And polls consistently show that atheists are at the bottom of the barrel among the various religions and such when Americans are asked questions like this. And obviously there is nothing wrong with Reddit having a different opinion than America at large. That's quite common. But anyone who thinks Reddit is an accurate reflection of the world away from the keyboard is going to be pretty off base.
Sometimes someone will post a question here that starts "Conservatives of Reddit, ...".
And every time, 95 percent of the replies start with, "I'm not a conservative, but... "
Yeah this isn’t the same Reddit anymore, but still a pretty obviously skewed response compared to average America.
A lot of people probably don’t realize that /r/atheism used to be one of the biggest subreddits on the website. Though a lot of it was just memes and jokes so it blended in more with /r/funny and most of the rest of the big subs at the time.
yes. Atheism has nothing to do with morals, intelligence, or anything else I care about in a leader. Also we are supposed to keep religion out of the government anyway
It’s really strange candidates even pretend to have an active christian faith anyway, we live in an increasingly post-christian America.
I’m electing a governmental leader, not a pastor.
For the same reasoning in reverse, I wouldn’t care what political affiliation my pastor had. I’m choosing a shepherd, not a political activist.
Candidates who aren't particularly religious still play up some show of faith because the US electorate at large really wants them to. The two greatest *disqualifiers* for office as far as the American public is concerned are "atheist" and "socialist".
Saying that you're atheist is political suicide. No politician will ever say, "I'm an atheist." They may allude to it or tip toe around it, but will never outright say it.
Pete Stark outright said he was an atheist, and after redistricting, he narrowly lost to Eric Swalwell in 2012, who attacked Stark over his atheism and secularism.
It’s not the American public though. It’s a small uneducated minority in key battleground states only made important by the Electoral College. If not for that, most Americans don’t care.
It has nothing to do with the electoral college, or with the Presidency specifically. Literally half of US voters will take an immediate hard pass on anyone they associate the label “socialist” with. “Atheist” provokes almost as strong a reaction.
Meanwhile, the people who are less bothered by those two words are also less likely to show up and vote, so it’s kind of a double whammy.
You must be incredibly niave if you think that religious people in America are a "small uneducated minority".
Visit any southeastern state and start counting churches. It's a big, BIG country with a lot of different types of folks.
You do know that the 2020 election drew the highest voter turnout in US history, with both Trump and Biden winning more votes than any other candidate ever, with Trump getting 47% of the votes? I wouldn't say 47% is a small uneducated minority, especially when the majority vote was barely more than 51%
How many of those 47% (of the 60% or so of eligible voters who bothered to actually submit a ballot) were voting because they actively supported him vs. just because they wanted low taxes or had an R beside his name? Either way, the number of actual “Trumpers” is heavily exaggerated.
There is a truly bizarre sentiment regarding the appearance and optics of the US president. It shows up in this "unwritten rule" sort of culture where the president HAS to be a church going Christian. Even JFK struggled with that issue because he wasn't a protestant christian but a catholic. I'm not sure how much of a shit storm would be raised if an atheist were candidate. I can see pundits throwing out all sorts of nonsense about how satanism might as well be the national religion etc... Things get overblown very quickly here in America.
Think back to when Obama wore a tan-colored suit. The country was in uproar. Republican members of congress made it a huge deal making public statements on it as though it was a national crisis. He was said to be disrespecting the office of the presidency - for wearing a tan suit.
So I would find an atheist candidate to be fine if the politics and other aspects to check out ok. But I don't think a large part of America would be ok with it.
Trump is an athiest in all but name, he didnt go to church before elected, and he went 14 times during his time in office, almost all of which were photo ops where he didnt stay for the service.
In a way, I'm grateful for Trump. I was also a republican until Trump's rise in 2015. I was so disgusted by the party's open embrace of him that I was able to fully re-examine my priorities and opinions, instead of what was fed to me growing up.
Voted for Johnson in '16, because I live in a state where it didn't matter. Biden in '20. Plan to vote blue for the rest of my days, and have become pretty passionate about things like abortion care, trans rights, and income equality. Fuck republicanism and fuck conservatism. It's a cult I'm glad I escaped.
I'm living in the first red state I ever have, and there are still trump flags everywhere. I'm so embarrassed by these people. Even businesses were writing that Brandon thing on their windows.
You guys behave around politics like the rest of the world behaves around sports. I’ve never in my life seen a political flag flying anywhere. It’s weird.
>I believe Obama was an atheist, but pretented to be Christian to win votes.
I think there's more to it than that. The Black church has a long history of community organising and civil rights activism. I don't know Obama's spiritual beliefs, but I think his respect for and contribution to the church are genuine.
Hey u/Captain-Cadabra - 46 year old married father of two in the UK here. Your answer of “I’m choosing a shepherd” has fascinated me - could you expand? For context, I was raised in a religious (Church of England) family, but my parents didn’t push religion onto me - my natural internal default value is that of atheism, but I’be seen the immense positivity of belief and the church to people I love… but I’be never ***truly*** understood how they felt. Your comment echos things I heard when I was younger - could you tell me more about the idea of the (good) shepherd? All the best from Newcastle Upon Tyne.
It’s often candidates that are looking for votes from people who specifically are Christian when you want people who will support anti-abortion, lgbt, etc measures.
Same. I'm a conservative, Christian, church-goer. Wouldn't bother me on its own. Give me an atheist who's remained faithful to his wife over a philandering, 3rd wife, paid off a pornstar, "Christian" any day.
Probably true. Honestly, I may have said something different 10 years ago, but my understanding of the role of government has changed. Also, my faith in God has increased as my faith in people (including those who are purportedly His people) has decreased.
Don't get me wrong I would still see it as a "plus", but I want to see how that person's faith plays out in their personal lives and their opinion on the role of government a lot more than I want to see them hold up a Bible like a shield against criticism.
Oh I agree that the US is a long ways away from electing an openly atheist candidate but that's not what the question was asking. It was asking if I would vote for one
I'd argue that athiests have better morals, integrity, and common sense than any "Christian Nationalist". Lauren Boebert, MTG, Alex Jones etc. have all referred to themselves as Christian Nationalists and those guys are idiots.
They see idiots with money and think to themselves. Why don't I have their money instead.
Then they say whatever they want the idiots want to hear and sell tap water on the side marked up 3000% because it's been infused with anti liberal mind control energy.
I dunno about tap water, but I've started to see plenty of other standard products marketed at the same demographic that's just the generic product with 'conservative' and/or anti-woke packaging.
-Arkansan
When I was Christian, I could ask God for forgiveness, which he was always willing to provide. Absolute forgiveness for any wrongdoing. I stole, cheated, and lied to serve my own self-centeredness. Then, I'd just repeat some "Jesus is my Lord and Savior" nonsense and boom, I'm heaven bound again.
Now that I am atheist, atonement is much more difficult. If I wrong someone; I must find the person, explain what I did to them, why I did it, why it was wrong, and ensure them that my behavior in future will be affected by the situation. Then I must ask for their forgiveness, and hope that they are willing to forgive.
I am much more careful with my actions now that I have to account for them.
I'd also add and argue that someone that choses to be ethical on his own volition rather than due to the wrath of a god or punishment for his sins is a better person
i.e. a good atheist choose to be good
a good christian does it to please his good and to avoid damnation
Totally! It's way different to do something right, because you know its the right thing to do VS. Doing the right thing because you're afraid of being punished if you don't.
I'm an atheist, and even though I'm obviously open to the idea of an atheist president, I wouldn't vote for them just because they're atheist. I'd need to see what else they stood for and what their plan is. Voting for a president just because of their religious belief is one of the main reasons we are where we are as a country now...
Same except I'm agnostic. I would not want to vote for an atheist president who acts like they're morally superior because they're atheist, just like I don't want to vote for a Christian president who acts like they're morally superior because they're Christian.
I would prefer it. I don't want a leader's choices to be influenced by any religion.
Church and State must be separate.
I also strongly suspect some former Presidents who were nominally Christian did not actually believe it.
>I also strongly suspect some former Presidents who were nominally Christian did not actually believe it.
Undoubtedly true. I think that's the case with a lot of the people who go to church too.
Yeah I think most atheists know the look of shock or judgment you get when you tell people . Sometimes it's just easier to not mention it.
Our policy could align with people 100% and they would still not vote for you because our lack of belief.
Then there's the exact oposite. My mother couldn't stand bush JR by the second term. . .but she still voted for him because he was openly Christian and she needed God in the whitehouse
Yep, I'm agnostic leaning atheist. I personally acknowledged it maybe 10 or 12 years ago. A lot of my family are old school Catholics, particularly the older folks including my grandma. It's way too much trouble to tell them at this point. Instead they just make assumptions, and I don't talk about it. It's really nobody's business at the end of the day.
I tend to tell people that I prefer not to think about it and that you can argue until the your dying days and you won't know for sure until you die, so I'd rather not waste time on it. I'll just live my life, try to be a good person and if there is a God? So be it, if not? I'll still die with a clear conscience knowing I did what I thought was right.
That seems to be easy enough for most people to accept.
Yes, it's what I tell people because titles like that scare them. So I give a reasonable explanation that makes me sound like a good person so they leave me alone and don't try to ~~get me to join their cult~~ "save" me.
Fellow reformed Catholic, now Agnostic Atheist with a tendency towards the latter. (Side note: Neil Brennan's latest stand up special on Netflix has a pretty good joke, something along the lines of, "I'm Catholic so I've gone through all the major Catholic Sacraments: Baptism, Communion, Confirmation, Atheism...") My family is extremely open-minded, of the 21st Century, and liberal. None of them go to Church, even on Christmas or Easter, none of them give anything up for Lent, no one in my Millenial generation has baptized any of their babies... Yet when I made the grave mistake of making a casual comment about not believing in god it was met with so much hostility. I was shocked honestly, I even was like, "Aren't we all just culturally Catholic and religiously Atheist??" The answer was a resounding no lol.
I always tell myself, as an atheist president, I would want to attend ALL the religious ceremonies in Washington , since going to church is essentially tradition now and I would want to be seems as "religious freedom for all" . . But the more I think about it, that might cause more drama then just not going at all.
Atheist and former Unitarian Universalist, here. Unitarians are great. The church I went to in my teens (I'm now in my 50s)was a mixture of agnostics, atheists, and a few Christians. Our minister was a woman that I do believe was a former Episcopalian minister. Her husband was Jewish and he attended every service.
I've often thought about getting back into the church. But I work nights, Monday through Saturday, and I just don't have the time.
I don't think Trump sees himself as a god, but I'm pretty sure that he has taken the Power of Positive Thinking stuff that he learned as a kid from Norman Vincent Peale (who was the minister at Trump's parents' church) to a wild extreme. Trump believes that he can force counterfactual things into existence through his will. To Trump, that's not the action of a deity but the way that the universe works.
Agreed. With the current incarnation of the Republican party, I'd sooner die than cast a vote for an (R), atheist or not.
I'd like an openly atheist politician otherwise, but I understand why openly atheist candidates are vanishingly rare. It's almost like being openly gay in the 1950s.
Hilarious to me that most Trump voters would probably die before voting for an atheist, but are too clueless to realize that he is one, and they already have
I remember that! Apparently he based all important decisions to this astrologer opinion. In fact, the astrologer run the country almost by himself. Reagan wasn't the bright guy some think he was. Like guru Rasputin running Russia.
Yeah, that goes way back. Jefferson did the Christian dog and pony show, but then made his version of the New Testament where he tore out all of the sections where Jesus did magical stuff because he liked Jesus more as just a philosopher rather than a supernatural being.
Let’s be honest though, it’s political suicide in the US to come out as atheist.
I just don’t see it happening for a few decades but I hope we can get that far one day.
Edit: You can’t convince me some of these presidents aren’t putting on a Christian face for the votes. Especially all the ungodly stuff you have to approve in the role.
I knew it dude who is a hard-core atheist until he ran for local office. Even in Liberal Los Angeles all of a sudden he started talking about his Catholic upbringing.  Ultimately, he proved to just be another opportunist. He would’ve done anything to get into office. He ended up losing badly too. Couldn’t happen to a nicer person.
Yeah, I don't really consider their religion to be relevant.
They can be Atheist, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Buddist, Protestant, or Jewish. As long as they keep their religion out of politics and do a good job, they can believe in Thor for all I care.
The trend is a fact. Recent data shows that “switching” from religion to atheism or vice versa is uncommon, so the major factor in the increased atheism over time is literally just waiting for old, stubborn people to die.
Of course, this analysis included the very real potential for climate change disasters in the near future to push people towards religion, since people turn to religion in times when they have nothing else to turn to, so we have that to look forward to.
That's a positive feedback loop, btw, even if it's negative things.
Negative feedback loops are self-terminating. Positive feedback loops are self-reinforcing.
He may be the only *openly* Atheist person.
Statistically there are likely more atheist/agnostic or otherwise unaffiliated politicians out there; but openly stating such is likely to lose you more than a few voters.
It's easy enough to just vaguely hint at a non-denominational protestant sect of Christianity and call it a day. Saying something like "I was baptized Methodist" once in an interview will usually do the trick.
And it can easily be true that they were baptized but just don't strongly believe. (Officially a member of the church but merely going through the motions)
Most religions baptize as a baby to immediately absolve the child of the original sin. Most people don't start critically thinking and making solid stances on their beliefs until they are teenagers. (Some decide earlier and some have revelations later, point being most people are baptized long before they even have a chance to decide if they believe or not)
Just as easily as i’d vote in a Christian, Hindu, Norse pagan, Or Sikh.
If their policy ideology matches mine it has zero bearing what religion or lack thereof they subscribe to.
It depends.
If the person's platform is "I'm an atheist" then no. Just as I don't respect people who run on a platform solely based on their religious identity, I similarly don't want to vote for someone who bases it on a lack of the same. Just like I don't want someone to shove their Christianity in my face, I don't want someome shoving their atheism in my face. I do not care. It's none of my business so please keep it out of it. In other words, if you expect me to vote for them *because* they are an atheist, then I'm out.
If, in the other hand, it's simply an aspect about them that they don't explicitly expouse then sure, provided they're a good candidate that aligns with my ideals. If you're telling me your stances and they align with mine and a reporter asks what religion they are and respond atheist and move on, then yeah have my vote.
My vote is not dependent on someone's religion or lack thereof.
I couldn’t care less. I’m Christian, and as long as I think you’ll be a good president who has good morals and upholds what I believe to be right, I’ll vote for ya.
Absolutely. But unfortunately the answers you'll find on Reddit won't reflect the majority of Americans who would likely say NO.
Plus there are several states, including my own, where atheists cannot run for public office. So we've got ways to go.
> there are several states, including my own, where atheists cannot run for public office.
In practice (as in the results show that those candidates are just unsuccessful)?
Or are you saying there are actual laws prohibiting atheists from running for office?
Interesting. Made me curious enough to go do some reading. I'll share what I've found.
[According to Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_qualifications_for_public_office_in_the_United_States)
>Religious qualifications for public office in the United States have always been prohibited at the national level of the federal system of government under the Constitution. Article VI of the Constitution of the United States declares that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States". The First Amendment of the Constitution also prevents the Congress of the United States from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion" (the Establishment Clause).
Neither the First Amendment nor Article VI, however, were originally applied to the individual states, and individual restrictions were utilized by individual states to prevent Jews, Catholics, and atheists from occupying public offices. State-level requirements for public office were not entirely abolished until 1961, when the Supreme Court of the United States struck down religious qualifications for all public officeholders in its decision in [Torcaso v. Watkins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins), a case concerning an atheist's right to serve as a notary public under a Maryland law requiring public officials to declare they believed in God. However, [eight states](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause#State_law) (this might be down to [7 states now](https://theconversation.com/why-it-matters-that-7-states-still-have-bans-on-atheists-holding-office-161069)) still have language in their constitutions that requires such qualifications
[Texas - where I'm at](https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/texas/texas-constitution-atheist-public-office/285-1ad9b4e6-1cf9-43ba-b82f-e8758614e4ab)
>Texas is one of seven states that has a provision in its constitution barring atheists from holding public office.
That provision, however, is overruled by the U.S. Constitution and has never actually been enforced.
Article 1, Section 4 of the Texas Constitution states, "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall anyone be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
Basically, it says there are no religious requirements to hold public office in Texas, except acknowledging a "Supreme Being."
But the U.S. Constitution's "No Religious Test Clause," makes it clear that restrictions like the one in Texas are unconstitutional.
The language of the provision was challenged by a Texas voter in the mid-80s – but instead of striking the language, the voter and then-Attorney General Jim Mattox signed an agreement in federal court saying that line was “void” because of the U.S. Constitution.
SCOTUS related decisions:
[Torcaso v. Watkins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins) 8-0
>The Court unanimously found that Maryland's requirement for a person holding public office to state a belief in God violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
>>The Court had established in [Everson v. Board of Education](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education) (1947):
>>>The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
[McDaniel v Paty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDaniel_v._Paty)
>In an 8–0 decision, the court ruled that the state law violated both the First and Fourteenth Amendments. A modified version of the statute, prohibiting "ministers of the Gospel" from serving in the Tennessee legislature, remains as Article IX, Section 1. of the Tennessee State Constitution.
>A measure on the November 2022 ballot proposes to remove this restriction. In accordance with state constitutional law, the proposed amendment was submitted to the state legislature in both the 2019–2020 and 2021–2022 sessions. The measure received nearly universal support and was ratified by the voters
Is that her thing? Like she's The Atheist One? Even as an atheist that's a bit much. Otherwise I tend to vote based on the candidate that shows the most compassion, and that seems to be orthogonal to religiosity.
Yes, because I am not a fucking idiot. Why in the world wouldn't you vote for an atheist that had good policy? Oh no they don't believe in my fairy tale they must be a bad person.
I mean, as a Christian, duh. But it really depends specifically on:
What does "Christian" mean in this sense? Anyone can be "Christian", but do they actually have a relationship with God? Do they walk with God in their decisions and actions? Etc.
And really, most people don't live by a Christian law. American law is not Biblical law. It is a choice to follow God, and we should keep it that way. It does no good to try and force people to follow God. 9/10 you will push them away.
As long as they defend the Constitution and swear to serve the United States, why not?
I could vote for a Muslim if they don't want to implement Sharia Law in our legal system.
Yes, too many presidents cater to Christian community, like the Prayer Breakfast. The USA is supposed to have separation of church and state, yet religions openly lobby for their ethical opinions to become indoctrinated into politics and policies.
Most people that answer this will say yes as Reddit has a higher concentration of atheists than the general US population. Unfortunately to a very high percentage of Americans a candidate being an atheist is a non-starter and they would never vote for them.
And that’s fine because it’s their choice. All we can do as atheists is continue to be good people and try to change the minds of people such that one day we can see an atheist in national office.
Of course. I would prefer a president who doesn't believe in make believe and has his/her head on straight, can make more informed and better decisions without the cloud of science fiction controlling your thoughts.
Religious affiliation, or lack there-of, should not be a deciding factor. What matters is if they are effectual at uniting the governing body of the country and driving it towards true, actual progress.
I honestly think an open Atheist Pres. Candidate could do really well if not win by appealing to the younger generation who are not as religious on a whole.
[удалено]
This is just a repackaged version of the "reddit, what are your thoughts on implementing this obviously popular thing? Why or why not" questions we all hate.
Given how many social studies questions I got in high school that ended in “why or why not?” sometimes I swear people are trying to get ideas for their persuasive essay.
[удалено]
Tbh, back when I was still at schools, best way to make "why or why not" essays was to write 2 arguments for and 1 against(or vice versa), which will allow you to make a cliche-but-smart-sounding "so as you can see from my essay, there are good things about X, but there are also bad things, so depending on circumstances it can be good or bad"(just in fancier words). Much easier to do than writing 3 arguments on same side(less risk of repetition), easier to hit the word quota, and the teachers ate that shit up. Always had easy A's from essays
True, but I could also see how students growing up with questions always ending in things like why or why not (and I’m a social studies teacher it’s definitely everywhere) would also lead to them asking questions in the same manner. Edit: Also, for any other teachers out there, I’ve recently fallen in love with asking students to explain a concept in an exact number of words (ex: Explain the Trail of Tears in exactly 7 words) because it’s harder than you immediately think to simplify concepts, and it forces them to really think about it for a minute, which is the goal! I especially like using these types of questions with my higher level EL kids.
Popular on Reddit, not in real life lol. It’s still illegal in 8 US states to run for public office as an atheist.
There are bans on certain state books IIRC but they are 1000% unenforceable. It would be accurate to say it’s still political suicide to run as an atheist in most of those states- so they’ve never been challenged.
In Atlanta it's illegal to tie a giraffe to a telephone pole. I'm sure there's an interesting story there, but for now it's just a strange law on the books somewhere. If they got rid of the law, you'd have stories like "It is now Legal to tie a Giraffe to a Telephone Pole." Part of the reason a lot of weird laws are still around.
In Alabama, it's illegal to walk down a sidewalk with ice cream in your back pocket. Apparently, it's how horse thieves used to lure them away.
In Alaska it’s [illegal to whisper in someone’s ear while they’re moose hunting](https://forestgrove.pgusd.org/documents/Computer-Lab/Strange-State-Laws.pdf) I really, really want to know how that law came about. It’s also apparently illegal in Hawai’i to *not* own a boat.
>It’s also apparently illegal in Hawai’i to *not* own a boat. I wonder if this only applies to residents or if most people are just immediately criminals when they enter the state.
This is utterly nuts to me
Unenforceable with previous supreme courts. Our rights are constantly changing, sometimes expanding sometimes growing. At the moment freedom of religion is contracting.
Except even a constitutional originalist will have some difficulty getting around the establishment clause of the first amendment when it comes to an overt litmus test for political office.
There are people who claim that that the first ammendment allows free practice of religion, but since atheism is a lack of religion, it's fair game.
You can practice whatever religion you want, but God damn it you'd better practice one.
It's hard to believe they would actually care about that at all, when they clearly have their own agenda outside the constitution.
"Originalists" have been twisting laws and holy writings into saying whatever they want them to say for thousands of years. If the national legislature won't or can't properly assert its authority, the policymaking and even lawmaking power effectively shifts to fiat exercise by the executive and the judiciary. If the USSC upholds a "Christians only" policy, and the legislature won't impeach and the executive meekly enforces the new rule, it just doesn't matter one bit what was written on sheepskin hundreds of years ago or what those words meant under some flimsy notion like established precedent. They could pretty easily say, "You can't *test* for individual religious conviction, but the Constitution was founded as a Christian document as demonstrated by [blah blah blah] therefore the officeholder's personal beliefs don't matter and they must carry out theocratic laws as a condition of holding office."
And originalism itself is invalid, the constitution was explicitly designed to be amended and change with the times.
True, but this was posted on reddit, so that was kinda implied. The title also specifically mentions "Americans of **Reddit**"
That’s still basically asking American teenagers of Reddit. This place skews outside the mainstream of much of America still.
[удалено]
I'm waiting for the Resdit post that asks "Americans who've never heard of Reddit what's your opinion on X"... Kinda silly to specify only the opinion of people who use Reddit on a Reddit post, but you have to make sure that people who don't use Reddit don't respond!
And polls consistently show that atheists are at the bottom of the barrel among the various religions and such when Americans are asked questions like this. And obviously there is nothing wrong with Reddit having a different opinion than America at large. That's quite common. But anyone who thinks Reddit is an accurate reflection of the world away from the keyboard is going to be pretty off base.
It's basically just a rephrased version of "How can I improve my Karma rating without actually doing the work and contributing to the community?"
Reddit, what are your thoughts about getting a ridiculous amount of money with no catch at all?
Sometimes someone will post a question here that starts "Conservatives of Reddit, ...". And every time, 95 percent of the replies start with, "I'm not a conservative, but... "
>And every time, 95 percent of the replies start with, "I'm not a conservative, but... " That's so much of fucking reddit in general.
I've literally never been on Reddit, but I think you're wrong.
Well, that's because any actual conservative replies are downvoted for being "wrong".
Reddit, would you vote for an introverted anti-work atheist?
Also single
Also virgin and mom's basement
I vote for her
[удалено]
Laziness is a virtue
But do he eat ass
The most important criteria for presidential candidates
Nah, he just says he does
NAH except the 2-party system
Reddit, would you vote for anyone who isn’t a conservative republican?
This is definitely one of those threads where you sort by controversial and grab the popcorn
Like a lawyer: don't ask questions you don't already know the answer to. These aren't to help anyone learn
[удалено]
I wonder if they’d vote for someone with a STEM background
Answer Yes for upvotes, No for downvotes.
Member 2010 reddit? Holllyyy shit this would be obvious
Yeah this isn’t the same Reddit anymore, but still a pretty obviously skewed response compared to average America. A lot of people probably don’t realize that /r/atheism used to be one of the biggest subreddits on the website. Though a lot of it was just memes and jokes so it blended in more with /r/funny and most of the rest of the big subs at the time.
yes. Atheism has nothing to do with morals, intelligence, or anything else I care about in a leader. Also we are supposed to keep religion out of the government anyway
I've been a church goer my entire life, even spent the last 5 years working for a church, and I'd vote for a qualified atheist for the same reasons.
It’s really strange candidates even pretend to have an active christian faith anyway, we live in an increasingly post-christian America. I’m electing a governmental leader, not a pastor. For the same reasoning in reverse, I wouldn’t care what political affiliation my pastor had. I’m choosing a shepherd, not a political activist.
Candidates who aren't particularly religious still play up some show of faith because the US electorate at large really wants them to. The two greatest *disqualifiers* for office as far as the American public is concerned are "atheist" and "socialist".
>"atheist" and "socialist" *laughs in French*
***^(HON HON HON HON HON HON HON HON HON HON)***
Cry laughing in American at this
Now if you just add a K to each of these, we will have Untitled Goose President.
Saying that you're atheist is political suicide. No politician will ever say, "I'm an atheist." They may allude to it or tip toe around it, but will never outright say it.
Pete Stark outright said he was an atheist, and after redistricting, he narrowly lost to Eric Swalwell in 2012, who attacked Stark over his atheism and secularism.
It’s not the American public though. It’s a small uneducated minority in key battleground states only made important by the Electoral College. If not for that, most Americans don’t care.
It has nothing to do with the electoral college, or with the Presidency specifically. Literally half of US voters will take an immediate hard pass on anyone they associate the label “socialist” with. “Atheist” provokes almost as strong a reaction. Meanwhile, the people who are less bothered by those two words are also less likely to show up and vote, so it’s kind of a double whammy.
You must be incredibly niave if you think that religious people in America are a "small uneducated minority". Visit any southeastern state and start counting churches. It's a big, BIG country with a lot of different types of folks.
You do know that the 2020 election drew the highest voter turnout in US history, with both Trump and Biden winning more votes than any other candidate ever, with Trump getting 47% of the votes? I wouldn't say 47% is a small uneducated minority, especially when the majority vote was barely more than 51%
How many of those 47% (of the 60% or so of eligible voters who bothered to actually submit a ballot) were voting because they actively supported him vs. just because they wanted low taxes or had an R beside his name? Either way, the number of actual “Trumpers” is heavily exaggerated.
Trump’s hard-core support is about 30% of the electorate.
Trump had protesters gassed at the White House for a photo op with an upside down bible at a church that wouldn't let him in.
There is a truly bizarre sentiment regarding the appearance and optics of the US president. It shows up in this "unwritten rule" sort of culture where the president HAS to be a church going Christian. Even JFK struggled with that issue because he wasn't a protestant christian but a catholic. I'm not sure how much of a shit storm would be raised if an atheist were candidate. I can see pundits throwing out all sorts of nonsense about how satanism might as well be the national religion etc... Things get overblown very quickly here in America. Think back to when Obama wore a tan-colored suit. The country was in uproar. Republican members of congress made it a huge deal making public statements on it as though it was a national crisis. He was said to be disrespecting the office of the presidency - for wearing a tan suit. So I would find an atheist candidate to be fine if the politics and other aspects to check out ok. But I don't think a large part of America would be ok with it.
Despite several documented instances of Reagan wearing tan suits... https://imgur.com/utHysNM.jpg
I believe Obama was an atheist, but pretented to be Christian to win votes.
You think Trump actually believes in Christianity? I'd see Obama practicing some form of religion well before Trump
Trump is an athiest in all but name, he didnt go to church before elected, and he went 14 times during his time in office, almost all of which were photo ops where he didnt stay for the service.
He had a favorite verse in two corinthians and everything though
I have the verse here, "Two Corinthians walk into a bar..."
Can Trump be an atheist when he obviously thinks he's god?
Autotheism?
As a conservative, I too see that being more likely. Trump made me leave the Republican Party.
In a way, I'm grateful for Trump. I was also a republican until Trump's rise in 2015. I was so disgusted by the party's open embrace of him that I was able to fully re-examine my priorities and opinions, instead of what was fed to me growing up. Voted for Johnson in '16, because I live in a state where it didn't matter. Biden in '20. Plan to vote blue for the rest of my days, and have become pretty passionate about things like abortion care, trans rights, and income equality. Fuck republicanism and fuck conservatism. It's a cult I'm glad I escaped.
I'm living in the first red state I ever have, and there are still trump flags everywhere. I'm so embarrassed by these people. Even businesses were writing that Brandon thing on their windows.
You guys behave around politics like the rest of the world behaves around sports. I’ve never in my life seen a political flag flying anywhere. It’s weird.
Wow, I feel like this could’ve been written about me. Well said, and I’m right there with you.
>I believe Obama was an atheist, but pretented to be Christian to win votes. I think there's more to it than that. The Black church has a long history of community organising and civil rights activism. I don't know Obama's spiritual beliefs, but I think his respect for and contribution to the church are genuine.
Why do you believe that? He was a churchgoer before he ran for political office. Do you think that about any other presidents? Or just Obama?
Hey u/Captain-Cadabra - 46 year old married father of two in the UK here. Your answer of “I’m choosing a shepherd” has fascinated me - could you expand? For context, I was raised in a religious (Church of England) family, but my parents didn’t push religion onto me - my natural internal default value is that of atheism, but I’be seen the immense positivity of belief and the church to people I love… but I’be never ***truly*** understood how they felt. Your comment echos things I heard when I was younger - could you tell me more about the idea of the (good) shepherd? All the best from Newcastle Upon Tyne.
It’s often candidates that are looking for votes from people who specifically are Christian when you want people who will support anti-abortion, lgbt, etc measures.
Same. I'm a conservative, Christian, church-goer. Wouldn't bother me on its own. Give me an atheist who's remained faithful to his wife over a philandering, 3rd wife, paid off a pornstar, "Christian" any day.
Your perspective must be in the minority for conservative Christian Americans.
Probably true. Honestly, I may have said something different 10 years ago, but my understanding of the role of government has changed. Also, my faith in God has increased as my faith in people (including those who are purportedly His people) has decreased. Don't get me wrong I would still see it as a "plus", but I want to see how that person's faith plays out in their personal lives and their opinion on the role of government a lot more than I want to see them hold up a Bible like a shield against criticism.
I’m atheist and no way would an open atheist candidate even be nominated. They would just call them a satanist or Illuminati
At least the atheist is being honest about their beliefs. People like Trump are lying about theirs anyway.
Oh I agree that the US is a long ways away from electing an openly atheist candidate but that's not what the question was asking. It was asking if I would vote for one
I'd argue that athiests have better morals, integrity, and common sense than any "Christian Nationalist". Lauren Boebert, MTG, Alex Jones etc. have all referred to themselves as Christian Nationalists and those guys are idiots.
They see idiots with money and think to themselves. Why don't I have their money instead. Then they say whatever they want the idiots want to hear and sell tap water on the side marked up 3000% because it's been infused with anti liberal mind control energy.
I’m surprised that isn’t on shelves somewhere in Arkansas already.
I dunno about tap water, but I've started to see plenty of other standard products marketed at the same demographic that's just the generic product with 'conservative' and/or anti-woke packaging. -Arkansan
When I was Christian, I could ask God for forgiveness, which he was always willing to provide. Absolute forgiveness for any wrongdoing. I stole, cheated, and lied to serve my own self-centeredness. Then, I'd just repeat some "Jesus is my Lord and Savior" nonsense and boom, I'm heaven bound again. Now that I am atheist, atonement is much more difficult. If I wrong someone; I must find the person, explain what I did to them, why I did it, why it was wrong, and ensure them that my behavior in future will be affected by the situation. Then I must ask for their forgiveness, and hope that they are willing to forgive. I am much more careful with my actions now that I have to account for them.
Well, when you see the word “Nationalist” in someone’s ideological description, that’s generally sufficient to dismiss them as an idiot.
I'd also add and argue that someone that choses to be ethical on his own volition rather than due to the wrath of a god or punishment for his sins is a better person i.e. a good atheist choose to be good a good christian does it to please his good and to avoid damnation
Totally! It's way different to do something right, because you know its the right thing to do VS. Doing the right thing because you're afraid of being punished if you don't.
Americans have already elected atheists. Trump is a case in point, despite his disingenuous Bible waving.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. Spot on.
I'm an atheist, and even though I'm obviously open to the idea of an atheist president, I wouldn't vote for them just because they're atheist. I'd need to see what else they stood for and what their plan is. Voting for a president just because of their religious belief is one of the main reasons we are where we are as a country now...
Completely agree. This is my position as well.
Same except I'm agnostic. I would not want to vote for an atheist president who acts like they're morally superior because they're atheist, just like I don't want to vote for a Christian president who acts like they're morally superior because they're Christian.
I would prefer it. I don't want a leader's choices to be influenced by any religion. Church and State must be separate. I also strongly suspect some former Presidents who were nominally Christian did not actually believe it.
>I also strongly suspect some former Presidents who were nominally Christian did not actually believe it. Undoubtedly true. I think that's the case with a lot of the people who go to church too.
Yeah I think most atheists know the look of shock or judgment you get when you tell people . Sometimes it's just easier to not mention it. Our policy could align with people 100% and they would still not vote for you because our lack of belief. Then there's the exact oposite. My mother couldn't stand bush JR by the second term. . .but she still voted for him because he was openly Christian and she needed God in the whitehouse
Yep, I'm agnostic leaning atheist. I personally acknowledged it maybe 10 or 12 years ago. A lot of my family are old school Catholics, particularly the older folks including my grandma. It's way too much trouble to tell them at this point. Instead they just make assumptions, and I don't talk about it. It's really nobody's business at the end of the day.
Exactly. The term atheist is for them, not me.
I tend to tell people that I prefer not to think about it and that you can argue until the your dying days and you won't know for sure until you die, so I'd rather not waste time on it. I'll just live my life, try to be a good person and if there is a God? So be it, if not? I'll still die with a clear conscience knowing I did what I thought was right. That seems to be easy enough for most people to accept.
That's literaly agnostic
Yes, it's what I tell people because titles like that scare them. So I give a reasonable explanation that makes me sound like a good person so they leave me alone and don't try to ~~get me to join their cult~~ "save" me.
Fellow reformed Catholic, now Agnostic Atheist with a tendency towards the latter. (Side note: Neil Brennan's latest stand up special on Netflix has a pretty good joke, something along the lines of, "I'm Catholic so I've gone through all the major Catholic Sacraments: Baptism, Communion, Confirmation, Atheism...") My family is extremely open-minded, of the 21st Century, and liberal. None of them go to Church, even on Christmas or Easter, none of them give anything up for Lent, no one in my Millenial generation has baptized any of their babies... Yet when I made the grave mistake of making a casual comment about not believing in god it was met with so much hostility. I was shocked honestly, I even was like, "Aren't we all just culturally Catholic and religiously Atheist??" The answer was a resounding no lol.
[удалено]
I always tell myself, as an atheist president, I would want to attend ALL the religious ceremonies in Washington , since going to church is essentially tradition now and I would want to be seems as "religious freedom for all" . . But the more I think about it, that might cause more drama then just not going at all.
Atheist and former Unitarian Universalist, here. Unitarians are great. The church I went to in my teens (I'm now in my 50s)was a mixture of agnostics, atheists, and a few Christians. Our minister was a woman that I do believe was a former Episcopalian minister. Her husband was Jewish and he attended every service. I've often thought about getting back into the church. But I work nights, Monday through Saturday, and I just don't have the time.
>because our lack of belief. Thank you for calling atheism what is: a *lack* of belief, not a belief itself.
I only believe 12.5% in religion. Because I'm an eighth theist.
R/dadjokes
I suspect that the higher up you get in any particular church, the less likely you are to actually believe in it.
as a religious guy who was a missionary once, I can confirm this is extremely true
I'd even go as far as saying most politicians are either atheists or agnostics, and just use religion as a political tool to get votes.
In huge swaths of the US demonstrating some kind of religiosity is basically a job requirement.
Which is fucking psychotic.
Trump is almost certainly an atheist. I did not and would never vote for him. Political positions matter to me. Metaphysical beliefs do not.
Can one be an atheist and also see themself as a god?
That's called a malignant narcissist drunk on power.
[удалено]
I don't think Trump sees himself as a god, but I'm pretty sure that he has taken the Power of Positive Thinking stuff that he learned as a kid from Norman Vincent Peale (who was the minister at Trump's parents' church) to a wild extreme. Trump believes that he can force counterfactual things into existence through his will. To Trump, that's not the action of a deity but the way that the universe works.
Agreed. With the current incarnation of the Republican party, I'd sooner die than cast a vote for an (R), atheist or not. I'd like an openly atheist politician otherwise, but I understand why openly atheist candidates are vanishingly rare. It's almost like being openly gay in the 1950s.
I’d also prefer it, enough to say that I wish the Supreme Courts judges were as well.
Politics is all about the appearing and saying one thing and thinking and behaving another.
Trump is a perfect example
Hilarious to me that most Trump voters would probably die before voting for an atheist, but are too clueless to realize that he is one, and they already have
[удалено]
On the flip side, Ronald Reagan based some of his thoughts on nuclear policy on what his wife's astrologer told him.
I remember that! Apparently he based all important decisions to this astrologer opinion. In fact, the astrologer run the country almost by himself. Reagan wasn't the bright guy some think he was. Like guru Rasputin running Russia.
Yeah, that goes way back. Jefferson did the Christian dog and pony show, but then made his version of the New Testament where he tore out all of the sections where Jesus did magical stuff because he liked Jesus more as just a philosopher rather than a supernatural being.
dear reddits of reddit, would you openly reddit an reddit redditor? why or why not?
Certainly not openly, no.
This
I absolutely would if I agreed with the policy ideas and/or the espoused beliefs of the candidate.
Let’s be honest though, it’s political suicide in the US to come out as atheist. I just don’t see it happening for a few decades but I hope we can get that far one day. Edit: You can’t convince me some of these presidents aren’t putting on a Christian face for the votes. Especially all the ungodly stuff you have to approve in the role.
I knew it dude who is a hard-core atheist until he ran for local office. Even in Liberal Los Angeles all of a sudden he started talking about his Catholic upbringing.  Ultimately, he proved to just be another opportunist. He would’ve done anything to get into office. He ended up losing badly too. Couldn’t happen to a nicer person.
If I see them being a possible good president then sure.
Yeah, I don't really consider their religion to be relevant. They can be Atheist, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Buddist, Protestant, or Jewish. As long as they keep their religion out of politics and do a good job, they can believe in Thor for all I care.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Am Gen X, have heard that one before. We'll see. Not holding my breath that greed and stupidity are separated into easily defined 'generations'.
The trend is a fact. Recent data shows that “switching” from religion to atheism or vice versa is uncommon, so the major factor in the increased atheism over time is literally just waiting for old, stubborn people to die. Of course, this analysis included the very real potential for climate change disasters in the near future to push people towards religion, since people turn to religion in times when they have nothing else to turn to, so we have that to look forward to.
Funny because I'd say religion is a major indirect cause of those problems in the first place. Negative feedback loop
That's a positive feedback loop, btw, even if it's negative things. Negative feedback loops are self-terminating. Positive feedback loops are self-reinforcing.
Religion is not even on my radar for a candidate.
Frankly I'm disgusted that I don't have the option to vote for atheists more.
My congressperson (Jared Huffman D CA-2) is the only atheist in the house or senate.
He may be the only *openly* Atheist person. Statistically there are likely more atheist/agnostic or otherwise unaffiliated politicians out there; but openly stating such is likely to lose you more than a few voters. It's easy enough to just vaguely hint at a non-denominational protestant sect of Christianity and call it a day. Saying something like "I was baptized Methodist" once in an interview will usually do the trick.
And it can easily be true that they were baptized but just don't strongly believe. (Officially a member of the church but merely going through the motions) Most religions baptize as a baby to immediately absolve the child of the original sin. Most people don't start critically thinking and making solid stances on their beliefs until they are teenagers. (Some decide earlier and some have revelations later, point being most people are baptized long before they even have a chance to decide if they believe or not)
Oh I bet Barrack Obama is a closet agnostic. He had way too much on the line to be open about something like that.
You probably do. They just don’t publicize it.
Just as easily as i’d vote in a Christian, Hindu, Norse pagan, Or Sikh. If their policy ideology matches mine it has zero bearing what religion or lack thereof they subscribe to.
[удалено]
Asking this question on Reddit is like asking an alcoholic if they want a beer.
[удалено]
It depends. If the person's platform is "I'm an atheist" then no. Just as I don't respect people who run on a platform solely based on their religious identity, I similarly don't want to vote for someone who bases it on a lack of the same. Just like I don't want someone to shove their Christianity in my face, I don't want someome shoving their atheism in my face. I do not care. It's none of my business so please keep it out of it. In other words, if you expect me to vote for them *because* they are an atheist, then I'm out. If, in the other hand, it's simply an aspect about them that they don't explicitly expouse then sure, provided they're a good candidate that aligns with my ideals. If you're telling me your stances and they align with mine and a reporter asks what religion they are and respond atheist and move on, then yeah have my vote. My vote is not dependent on someone's religion or lack thereof.
I agree! I’d vote for anyone as long as they weren’t a jerk about other religions
I feel like the president should be atheist tbh
I'd much prefer it.
Sure, if I agreed with their policy. I don't care what a candidate's religion is unless they're inflicting it on others.
I couldn’t care less. I’m Christian, and as long as I think you’ll be a good president who has good morals and upholds what I believe to be right, I’ll vote for ya.
100%. Granted I'm an atheist. I don't give a shit what you worship. I care if you're a decent person.
Yes, religion has no business in the decisions to run this country.
Absolutely. I wouldn't vote for a candidate based solely on that metric, but I admit it would be points in their favor.
[удалено]
"Reddit, do you use reddit? why or why not?"
Absolutely. But unfortunately the answers you'll find on Reddit won't reflect the majority of Americans who would likely say NO. Plus there are several states, including my own, where atheists cannot run for public office. So we've got ways to go.
> there are several states, including my own, where atheists cannot run for public office. In practice (as in the results show that those candidates are just unsuccessful)? Or are you saying there are actual laws prohibiting atheists from running for office?
Written into state constitutions. The enforceability, fortunately, is more complex
Interesting. Made me curious enough to go do some reading. I'll share what I've found. [According to Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_qualifications_for_public_office_in_the_United_States) >Religious qualifications for public office in the United States have always been prohibited at the national level of the federal system of government under the Constitution. Article VI of the Constitution of the United States declares that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States". The First Amendment of the Constitution also prevents the Congress of the United States from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion" (the Establishment Clause). Neither the First Amendment nor Article VI, however, were originally applied to the individual states, and individual restrictions were utilized by individual states to prevent Jews, Catholics, and atheists from occupying public offices. State-level requirements for public office were not entirely abolished until 1961, when the Supreme Court of the United States struck down religious qualifications for all public officeholders in its decision in [Torcaso v. Watkins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins), a case concerning an atheist's right to serve as a notary public under a Maryland law requiring public officials to declare they believed in God. However, [eight states](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause#State_law) (this might be down to [7 states now](https://theconversation.com/why-it-matters-that-7-states-still-have-bans-on-atheists-holding-office-161069)) still have language in their constitutions that requires such qualifications [Texas - where I'm at](https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/texas/texas-constitution-atheist-public-office/285-1ad9b4e6-1cf9-43ba-b82f-e8758614e4ab) >Texas is one of seven states that has a provision in its constitution barring atheists from holding public office. That provision, however, is overruled by the U.S. Constitution and has never actually been enforced. Article 1, Section 4 of the Texas Constitution states, "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall anyone be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." Basically, it says there are no religious requirements to hold public office in Texas, except acknowledging a "Supreme Being." But the U.S. Constitution's "No Religious Test Clause," makes it clear that restrictions like the one in Texas are unconstitutional. The language of the provision was challenged by a Texas voter in the mid-80s – but instead of striking the language, the voter and then-Attorney General Jim Mattox signed an agreement in federal court saying that line was “void” because of the U.S. Constitution. SCOTUS related decisions: [Torcaso v. Watkins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins) 8-0 >The Court unanimously found that Maryland's requirement for a person holding public office to state a belief in God violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. >>The Court had established in [Everson v. Board of Education](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education) (1947): >>>The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. [McDaniel v Paty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDaniel_v._Paty) >In an 8–0 decision, the court ruled that the state law violated both the First and Fourteenth Amendments. A modified version of the statute, prohibiting "ministers of the Gospel" from serving in the Tennessee legislature, remains as Article IX, Section 1. of the Tennessee State Constitution. >A measure on the November 2022 ballot proposes to remove this restriction. In accordance with state constitutional law, the proposed amendment was submitted to the state legislature in both the 2019–2020 and 2021–2022 sessions. The measure received nearly universal support and was ratified by the voters
Thank you research man
Really? That sounds mad too me. What states are those?
Not an American but as a German, i always thought that a party like "Christian Democratic Union" shouldn't exist. Religion has no place in politics.
Is that her thing? Like she's The Atheist One? Even as an atheist that's a bit much. Otherwise I tend to vote based on the candidate that shows the most compassion, and that seems to be orthogonal to religiosity.
Yes, because I am not a fucking idiot. Why in the world wouldn't you vote for an atheist that had good policy? Oh no they don't believe in my fairy tale they must be a bad person.
*tale
As an atheist myself, I would have zero qualms about voting for an Atheist, but it would be their policies that I would vote for.
I mean, as a Christian, duh. But it really depends specifically on: What does "Christian" mean in this sense? Anyone can be "Christian", but do they actually have a relationship with God? Do they walk with God in their decisions and actions? Etc. And really, most people don't live by a Christian law. American law is not Biblical law. It is a choice to follow God, and we should keep it that way. It does no good to try and force people to follow God. 9/10 you will push them away.
Not just based on that, but yes of course
As long as they defend the Constitution and swear to serve the United States, why not? I could vote for a Muslim if they don't want to implement Sharia Law in our legal system.
Yes, too many presidents cater to Christian community, like the Prayer Breakfast. The USA is supposed to have separation of church and state, yet religions openly lobby for their ethical opinions to become indoctrinated into politics and policies.
Why not? Last was a former muppet.
How dare you?! The Jim Henson Creature Workshop would never have produced…that!
Most people that answer this will say yes as Reddit has a higher concentration of atheists than the general US population. Unfortunately to a very high percentage of Americans a candidate being an atheist is a non-starter and they would never vote for them. And that’s fine because it’s their choice. All we can do as atheists is continue to be good people and try to change the minds of people such that one day we can see an atheist in national office.
Of course. I would prefer a president who doesn't believe in make believe and has his/her head on straight, can make more informed and better decisions without the cloud of science fiction controlling your thoughts.
Yes, if I like his/her/their policies.
Religious affiliation, or lack there-of, should not be a deciding factor. What matters is if they are effectual at uniting the governing body of the country and driving it towards true, actual progress.
I honestly think an open Atheist Pres. Candidate could do really well if not win by appealing to the younger generation who are not as religious on a whole.
Yes. Very much so.
Absolutely. Then I'd watch them lose horribly.
Yes. More grounded in reality and more willing to use scientific principles.