And how many Jewish people are there in Germany today? Around 50 000 or so. That’s 0,06 % of the population. Why do you expect a large number of high ranking Jewish politicians, exactly? A large number of muslim politicians would make way more sense…
But only if she were following on the coat tails of a highly successful, black, lesbian male president.
So here’s the current White House, in my view, according to these criteria:
-
If I agree with the politics of the candidate - further than hell
-
I can trust the candidate - nope
-
I believe the candidate could get things done - not without leaning all his weight on the cabinet, nope
-
I can trust the candidate to compromise when is necessary, but not when convenient - compromise? Given, wasn’t in the country for the past year, but I don’t have the feeling he’s all the accomodating of other’s world views.
-
The candidate will be respected in the international realm - that’s the worst joke, I mean the guy couldn’t even name the major leaders (and I’m not talking China or Australia or other places you don’t hear about as much…I’m talking Britain, France, etc) during the campaign. He’s just an uninternational as they come.
But I didn’t vote for the guy, so I guy my opinion doesn’t matter as far as the OP goes, since we’re talking about electing, and half the country thought differently. Just thought I’d put my two cents in about the current administration.
I think an atheist might have a shot if they don’t flaunt their atheism. Not in the next couple elections, of course, but maybe in a few years, if an atheist qualifies themselves as “being brought up” such and such, rather than just outright stating they are an atheist, they might have a shot.
You’re more likely to see Anna Nicole Smith & Paul Reubens form a presidential team… Before an athiest.
Our money might read: “In Lapdance Masturbation We Trust”
But at least it would be something.
Come up with something more compelling than that to slap on a $1 bill, and you may have a snowballs chance in hell of seeing it happen. 
This is definitely Great Debates material.
Ah, but what about a half-black, half-hispanic, lesbian single mother??? Would she be president before an atheist? It is through such questions that we distill understanding.
Of course, the only openly atheist governor I’m aware of is in Minnesota.
Actually recent immigration from mainly Russia has brought the Jewish population in Germany to somewhere between 100.000 and 120.000, roughly doubling the numbers since 1995.
Just a nitpick, carry on…
Sparc
Well, technically, Disraeli was, by religion, an Episcopalian, having converted as a boy. There was a Jewish MP by that point, Lionel de Rothschild, who was elected in 1858, who was allowed to take the oath of office without the line “by the true faith of a Christian”.
The atheist Olson was elected Governor of California in 1938:
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/roots/olson/
I would say that an atheist President is unlikely but by no means impossible. For instance a socially-conservative Republican atheist with a military background could pull it off.
Another interesting question is whether a non-Christian Deist like Jefferson could get elected today and I would guess it would be quite unlikely(though obviously less so than an atheist). Which seems to suggest that the US has become less tolreant about the religious background of its President than 200 years ago. (though of course you could argue that this is balanced out by the greater acceptability of Catholics and Jews in the top job)
Well, it came up two years ago in this thread, where we discussed Franklin Pierce’s affirmation rather than swearing. Is there a more recent discussion?
Pierce had himself sworn in on a copy of the Constitution, rather than the Bible, IIRC.
An atheist would make the greatest President we ever had. He would have only one loyalty, to his country. Christian presidents think all too often about whether what they do will also serve their god. The interests of “god” and of our country are not in conjunction. A President who worked solely for our nation’s benefit, developing secular humanist positions that forced “god” to the backburner, would be doing the best he could for all of us, rather than keeping “what would Jesus do” in the back of his mind.
Of course, as has been noted, there have probably been plenty of atheist presidents. After all, we choose presidents from among highly educated people, people who have been exposed to more progressive ideas about philosophy than evangelical Protestantism. Surely some number of them had rejected theism, especially since “god” has subsided entirely from higher educational institutions in the last 40 years.
We may indeed, as elsewhere noted, have a Jewish president before we have an out-of-the-closet athiest. After the terrorist reply to our election of a Jewish president, we may never have another again.
—An atheist would make the greatest President we ever had. He would have only one loyalty, to his country.—
That’s laying it on a pretty thick. There’s no reason to think that an atheist would be any less or more loyal to his country, and indeed, that mere “loyalty” would make one a great president in the first place, especially considering the vast range of policies and decisions that fit within simple loyalty.
—The interests of “god” and of our country are not in conjunction.—
Says who? Who’s god? Many people only have a very vague idea of what god’s interests are in respect to American politics.
Oi, negative play from the bench!
Dammit, we even ran a big sports carnival just a month before those elections to try and lift our profile and prevent this occurring.
—Religion = logical inconsistancy (hypocrisy).—
No.
—The odds of a logically consistant atheist are statistically better than a deist.—
How can that be, when we’ve had many more deist presidents (several) than atheists (none, unless perhaps you think Lincoln was one: though it’s pretty much an unresolveable question)
—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.—
It’s also not to say that the atheist couldn’t be be logically inconsistent and hypocritical about just about ANYTHING.
—The problem is that religion is still generating so much wealth,—
Good for it. As with any other thing: good as long as it doesn’t do so on the back of government favoritism.
—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.—
Who: Bill Gates? (Who has contributed more to charity than I will ever ever be able to?)
Why would an atheist be less likely to be moneygrubbing?
If memory serves, it was Franklin Pierce (the 14th President) who chose to affirm rather than swear, and the recent death of his son (trainwreck?) was cited as the cause.
Not to nitpick, but whenever subjects like this come up, it’s really two debates going on at once:
- “What does this person believe in his/her heart?”; and
- “What is this person’s publicly-declared affiliation?”
I have no doubt that many elected officials would give different answers to the above questions.
Many people disagree with me on this – in my experience, they are very often religiously observant (and, I think, wishful that everyone else is).
IMO, it’s certainly plausible an “open” atheist could be elected president, and at any time. It all depends upon the person, how the subject is disclosed and dealt with, and the situation at the time.
Prior to Reagan, it was generally thought a man who was divorced could not become president, but the subject hardly came up when Reagan ran.
Over a hundred years ago, Grover Cleveland openly admitted fathering a child out of wedlock. Many people understood Clinton’s denials as admissions to adultery, pot smoking and avoiding the draft.
But for 600 votes a Jew would now be Vice President–where was the anti-sematism in the last election?
Who would have thunk a pro wrestler would become governor running as a third party candidate?
Sometimes such things lead to defeat, sometimes a person overcomes it and sometimes such issues don’t even matter. It all depends.
That’s interesting.
I don’t know Pierce’s motivation, but there are many Protestant denominations for whom oath-taking is considered bad form, if not an outright sin. Their distaste for oaths is based on the Biblical proscription found in James 5:12:
In fact, I would guess that this passage is the reason the “swear or affirm” option is presented in the Constitution.
As for the OP, I suspect that a number of presidents have been closet atheists.
However, I am quite certain that not in the lifetime of anyone on this board will we have an open atheist as President. An atheistic candidate would not carry a single state in the Bible Belt. Just as matter of electoral practicality, you pretty much have to carry at least one Bible Belt state to win.