If so, how soon before it’s possible? Could it happen in, say, any of the next five presidential elections? How about the prospects for an atheist (or even an agnostic) running for any other office like the Senate, the House of Representatives, or Governor?
For president, I believe it’s extremely unlikely but not altogether impossible. For the majority of voters to overlook a candidate’s atheism and elect him or her president, I think the candidate would almost have to be a conservative Republican.
Probably not, but I should point out that when Jefferson was elected president the first time, there were rumors that he was an atheist. Of course they weren’t true, and he wasn’t (although he was more of a deist.) But of course, these are totally different circumstances.
Blue Sky wrote: There’ll continue to be hypocrites in the Oval Office for many terms to come.
Agreed, a logically consistant president would clean up corruption instantly. If they managed to make it; they would have the distinct honor of having the shortest presidential term in world history. I’d guess that our 100th president could be an Atheist; assuming America survives.
I think it’s entirely possible that an atheist could be elected, but it would have to be a Barney Frank situation, i.e., the person had progressed up the political ladder through so many elections that the issue had been raised and resolved, raised and resolved, and raised and resolved again until there was no slur that hadn’t already been thrown a couple of times.
My totally uneducated guess is that someone with a political career of about 30 years could do it, so if we started today, I would expect to see an African-American, woman and/or Hispanic elected first.
I’d guess that an Athiest could get elected, if they weren’t too vehement about it. Just like a Christian who went foaming at the mouth preaching hellfire would have trouble getting elected. (I hope)
Ranchoth
What the hell are you talking about? Clean up corruption instantly? First off, there isn’t much corruption…second, how would a logically consistent president make a difference? And how does this relate to the OP? Unless you are saying that atheists are logically consistent and therefore above corruption, which makes no sense whatsoever.
Lastly, what’s this about the shortest presidential term in world history? Are you saying that an atheist would be assassinated first thing? Or that someone who succeeded in cleaning up what little corruption exists?
I seem to recall (not personally, but have read about) some fuss over electing a Catholic (Kennedy) as well, and whether he’d be subject to the Pope’s authority, etc. Tony Blair’s Catholicism, however, is pretty much of a non-issue these days.
I’d expect to see a Jew in the White House (although probably not Lieberman) long before an open atheist.
If we elected one, would we notice much of a difference? Most Presidents seem to settle comfortably into that “Paid for by special interests” mode after six months.
While I don’t claim to feel the persecution that other atheists often do, I think the bridge is yet too long for a viable presidential candidate to cross.
kunilou’s made a good observation of how this may eventually come to pass.
I think both about how few of my seemingly otherwise similarly minded friends share my cosmology as well as how much of the present day strife in the world is theologically driven, and I can only conclude that the godless are as yet far from power.
Admittedly, though, when change comes, it often comes quickly.
AAAAAAAAR! I accidentally deleted something I worked really hard on. Here we go again.
Jefferson was a deist, not an atheist.
I have the Congressional Directory in front of me, and the following Congressmen didn’t state their religion:
Neil Abercrombie (D-HI01)
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI02)
Earl Blumenauer (D-OR03)
Harold Ford (D-TN09)
Doc Hastings (R-WA04)
Barbara Lee (D-CA09)
John Olver (D-MA01)
Hilda Solis (D-CA31)
John Tierney (D-MA06)
Nydia Velazquez (D-NY12)
Barring Hastings (whose designation was probably a gaffe by an intern or something), these are Democrats who are all from urban or college-based districts (save Tierney, whose district is in the Northern Boston suburbs) who are fairly liberal (with the exception of Ford, who’s positioning himself for a statewide run). I think there may be more atheists than we think because there could be a person who doesn’t personally believe in God but might say he is a Protestant because he was raised that way, and saying you’re an atheist can cost you votes. The above Congressmen (again, save Tierney, as well as Baldwin) are in safe districts and don’t really have to worry about people criticizing them for not believing in God. There could be some presidents who privately didn’t believe in God, but publically said they were part of some organized religion.
Mark Udall (D-CO02) is listed as not affiliated. He comes from a famous Mormon political family, my guess is that he thought they were too far to the right for him, even though two other Democratic politicians in his family, cousins Steve and Tom, are both stated Mormons.
Will an atheist ever be elected president? I bet around the same time we elect a gay president.
Whilst this is none of my beeswax, somehow I find this a bit depressing. I’ve gone through a solid cross section of biographies of both Houses of the Australian Federal Parliament and haven’t found any that mention their religion. We of course have many practicing and some rather fundamentalist Christians in Parliament. We have had agnostic Prime Ministers (e.g. Bob Hawke) and I’m not sure how you’d categorise Gough Whitlam ecumenically speaking.
Blue sky, whom I was addressing was the first to state this articulation. Religion = logical inconsistancy (hypocrisy). The odds of a logically consistant atheist are statistically better than a deist. That’s not to say that an atheist won’t be religious about topics ranging from socialism, communism and capitolism to name a few; but it’s a step up at least. The problem is that religion is still generating so much wealth, that an atheist president would at this point, still be counter-productive to a capitolistic society; particularly casting a spot-light on those whose righteousness of wealth hording, centers around deistic rhetoric. Since the avenue is so exploitable in America; you’re looking at a lot of people with extended tentacles who prefer to live their lives out before this mode of thinking explodes. Then you have the generational cycles of validation through logical corruption…
You’re looking at some pretty vast turnouts of generations before knowledge manages to perculate through the paranoid reality of “might makes right”. or “It’s right because I can do it and get away with it.” We seriously need a more consistant outlook in accordance with the observation of reality in a broad scope, if humans plan to progress towards their general goal of desire fulfillment for the species (the most fundamental being knowledge of meaning). You can basically select logically corrupt people from this metaphor:
If they have the ability to resurrect the past and provide them with the tools to rest in peace or the option to return; and yet do not; then you have a person who is so attatched to their superiority, that anything even hinting subconsciously at equality must be eliminated or ignored - at least until they die. To do otherwise would risk existential collapse; something that must not be processed on a conscious level in order to succeed in a capitolist society. Having built their entire primary system of indenture off of capitalist rhetoric, would most likely cause suicide before the conscious mind gained command level access.
They’re basically the walking dead and just don’t know it yet…
Everyone else is watching the clock until people croak and their weapons are dismantled through shards of logical consistancy.
Oh, and BTW… Ranchoth - Isn’t our current president, a fire-and brimstone-eternal-hell president?
I’ll go out on a limb here and say it’s actually possible, but improbable.
The candidate would have to forego any attempt at winning nationwide and instead focus on edging out his oponent in key states which could get him enough electoral votes to put him through. And then campaign in those states on the issues and only the issues and have people understand why Texas or Alabama are being ignored/conceeded. Even so a few major surprises would be necessary.
Maybe if he was a war hero who had been extremely dedicated to his community as well as generous. And be personable both in public and on TV. As well as being both handsome and intelligent. In otherwards if atheism was his only downside he might be able to get the ball rolling. Oh and his V.P. choice would have to be seen as brilliant as well.
I stressed the gender because I think for the US being a woman is still a negative in elections. Less and less of one, but still a negative.
I think this is pretty true. Atheism would be a problem in some areas of the country. This is similar to the race issue: It would be very hard for a black man to be elected, but I think Powell could do it. Most elections are too close to throw 5 or 10% of the vote to the other guy - if you lose 10%, and beat him in the other 90% 49-41, you lose.
More locally? Yes, I think you could have them. Certainly in Congress, from a more liberal area. I don’t think Frank is the only gay. Running in some NYC or MA areas it wouldn’t hurt you too badly.
Statewide, only CA or the Northeast, I’d say. Wasn’t there a Socialist senator or gov from VT or NH recently? A handicap here, but not insurmountable.
Lesbian black woman athiest? Maybe the year 100,000
None of the following have a shot at the presidency:
Neil Abercrombie (D-HI01)
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI02)
Earl Blumenauer (D-OR03)
Harold Ford (D-TN09)
Doc Hastings (R-WA04)
Barbara Lee (D-CA09)
John Olver (D-MA01)
Hilda Solis (D-CA31)
John Tierney (D-MA06)
Nydia Velazquez (D-NY12
Ford may be the closest, but being african-american will hurt him nationally. Being an Athiest in Tennessee would hurt even more. These days, you have to be much closer to the center than either extreme to win. In our two-party system, people choose the lesser of two evils. Republicans would never nominate an Athiest. It would alienate their base. Democrats wouldn’t do it either, because it reenforces a political negative.
