A debate topic suggested by outlierrn here:
Assume that both candidates are generally seen by voters as equally smart, experienced, and scandal-free, and that neither, in that election cycle, otherwise has an advantage over the other.
Personally, I think snake-handling is just so bizarre and dangerous a religious practice and would be seen as so freaky that, all things being equal, an atheist would be preferred by most American voters.
And you?
You obviously are not in the South. In my part of the world, atheists rank barely above devil worshipers in terms of electability. I see no chance of an “out” atheist winning a contested election against pretty much any flavor of Christian. Even snake handlers.
A member of just about any group you can think of outside of pedophiles and rapists has a better chance of winning the presidency than an atheist.
Even in liberal Seattle it is common for the “conservative” radio network to have call in segments about how they could never trust an atheist.
Quirky religious beliefs are far more palatable to most people, many even liberal Christians think that the entirety of their moral will is based on their belief in a deity with the ability to punish.
They simply do not believe humans are capable of being good on their own, they would never vote for someone like that to carry the football.
Lincoln had to invoke references to his non-personal agnostic higher power to fight off rumors he was an atheist and Taft had to recant earlier statements that he didn’t believe the divinity of Jesus.
But in another few decades, as the old guard dies off, we may gain a non-christian POTUS again but I think it will take several popular “agnostic” ones before an Atheist could be elected.
I think a pedophile or rapist would have a better chance as long as they praised God often enough.
Lincoln, in his youth, wrote a book debunking Christianity – and then burned the manuscript when friends pointed out that its publication would kill his political prospects. What Lincoln Believed, by Michael Lind.
Nonsense, by that logic Stalin could be elected over Ayn Rand since Stalin occasionally expressed religious sentiments during World War II.
Stalin was a Communist, which is equated with atheism in the eyes of believers. And “occasional religious sentiments” aren’t enough.
Well which one ended up as a politician?
Actually, I was thinking about a debate between two such candidates.
However, I’d be likely to vote for an atheist of the other party more than a snake handler of my own. I see myself voting for a gay, married, atheist, recovering alcoholic before a snake handler.
That’s why they call me the outlier
Not that I disagree, but it is silly since gnosticism is a completely separate theological axis from theism and most self-described agnostics are agnostic weak atheists (which is what MOST “atheists” are) that refuse to call themselves that because… well, we ARE sitting here talking about whether an atheist could be POTUS.
Snake handling isn’t really more bizarre or freaky to me than other religions.
Technically correct. Objectively, handling snakes isn’t any more bizarre than believing that you’re eating the flesh of a dead god every Sunday. Probably much less so, actually.
But in fact, people with mainstream beliefs, regardless how objectively absurd, tend to be much saner than people with really fringe beliefs (by definition, most “normal” people have mainstream beliefs). I’m not American so it isn’t very relevant, but I would vote almost anytime for someone believing in, say, astrology, homeopathy and Islam, over someone with really strange beliefs or very unusual religious practices, suspecting that the later might be seriously disturbed.
Sounds like atheism has made some significant inroads down South, if it now ranks *above *Devil Worship (which, after all, is at least some kind of worship…) 
Not just the South; I recall growing up in California reading in the local newspaper a bishop talking about how it was better to kill for a “false” religion (“better to kill for Kali”) than to be a nice person & an atheist; because at least the person killing for religion is upholding Faith.
As an aside, when I tried to google a cite for this I got a huge amount of religious ranting about how atheists are murderers.
My experience is saying you’re an atheist means losing 90% of your friends, losing 90% of the vote will not get you elected. RMV
neoClinton: I held the Holy Spirit in my mouth but did not exhale.
nuevoObama: I exhaled. I exhaled deeply. That was the point.
I can’t get over the mental image of the Secret Service tensely watching the President handle venomous snakes. 
I’ll join you. Toss in holding a bong to that gay married atheist recovering alcoholic and you would pick up the grass city vote as well … 
I would actually prefer an atheist because they are good without being threatened by a diety with punishment. If you are only good because there is a threat of punishment, it makes me wonder what action you are suppressing yourself from doing. :dubious:
Considering the insistence of some that the Christian Right would never, ever go for a Mormon, I am inclined to take the idea that they would go for a snake-handler over an atheist who otherwise agreed with them with about three and a half buckets of salt.
Regards,
Shodan