The Pierces were devoutly religious, for one thing, and Pierce’s wife didn’t want him to become president. She hated Washington, thought it was sinful, and was convinced that G-d would punish him if he became president, but he eventually convinced her she was being silly, and that the prestige from being the son of a former president would help their young son, Benny, when he grew up. He got elected, but in January of 1853, the Pierces were taking a train trip, when it disrailed, and Benny was killed. I think that event had a lot to do with it.
Captain Amazing,
Did Pierce ever give his reason for taking the oath in that fashion? When you say that the death of his son was the reason, are you speculating? And what exactly do you mean to say? That Pierce was angry at God? Or what?
If the Pierces were devoutly religious, it seems to me that the Biblical injunction against oath-taking may have been on Pierce’s mind. He may have simply considered it sacrilegious to use the Bible in a civil ceremony.
—She hated Washington, thought it was sinful, and was convinced that G-d would punish him if he became president He got elected, but in January of 1853, the Pierces were taking a train trip, when it disrailed, and Benny was killed.—
Wow: now that’s convincing proof of God’s spiteful, murderours existence right there!
—She hated Washington, thought it was sinful, and was convinced that G-d would punish him if he became president He got elected, but in January of 1853, the Pierces were taking a train trip, when it disrailed, and Benny was killed.—
Wow: now that’s convincing proof of God’s spiteful, murderours existence right there!
Captain Amazing,
Did Pierce ever give his reason for taking the oath in that fashion? When you say that the death of his son was the reason, are you speculating? And what exactly do you mean to say? That Pierce was angry at God? Or what?
If the Pierces were devoutly religious, it seems to me that the Biblical injunction against oath-taking may have been on Pierce’s mind. He may have simply considered it sacrilegious to use the Bible in a civil ceremony.
I don’t think that the USA will have an atheist for a president until issues of inequality, poverty and lack of education are addressed. An apt analogy might ask the likelihood of Pakistan having an atheist president…
I think it is fairly well understood that religion, particularly fundamentalist religion, is largely a product of ignorance. The reason that religion is not a political issue in most developed countries (northern Europe, Canada, Australia, Scandinavia) is because there is effective public education. In contrast, students in the USA often have difficulty accessing even basic texts.
USA policymakers, if they were interested in separating state and religion, could start by effectively funding public schools and universities, and by restricting pervasive theistic influences on the curricula.
From Big Kahuna Burger’s post, we see that Congressmen that did not specify their religious affiliation were all (somewhat) liberal Democrats.
lurkernomore suggests here that such a (locally elected) politician would be “from a more liberal area.”
Evil One suggests here that “Republicans would never nominate an Athiest. It would alienate their base. Democrats wouldn’t do it either, because it reenforces a political negative.”
capacitor adds here that, “The atheist has to be a flaming, hard-line, bleeding heart moderate.” (although I don’t claim to have any clue as to what the point was)
dqa points out here that, “the only openly atheist governor I’m aware of is in Minnesota.” And IIRC, Ventura ran with the Reform party.
So, some feel that an atheist would have to come up from the conservative side, probably Republican. Others, with at least the little real-life examples of elected Congressmen, tend to believe they would come from the liberal wing, probably Democrats.
I would think that any atheist presidential candidate with a real chance of winning the election in the near term would have to be a Democrat. I don’t see ANY Republican candidate winning the nomination without the support of the “moral” minority.
For those that believe such a candidate would mostly likely be a conservative, particularly a Republican, why do you think that would be true?
[/quote]
Originally posted by AZCowboy
For those that believe such a candidate would mostly likely be a conservative, particularly a Republican, why do you think that would be true?
[/quote]
My thought was that conservatives would vote for an atheist Republican before a Christian Democrat. Also, some Democrats would be temped over to the more “progressive” Republican candidate.
However, if its atheist Democrat versus Christian Republican, then conservatives flock to the Republican, whereas the Democrat recieves the same votes he would have if he’d been Christian, minus the religious but socially liberal ones.
Jesse Ventura has never claimed to be an atheist, therefore he is not “open.” And based on other statements he’s made (“a crutch for the weak-minded” notwithstanding), he is at least nominally religious. That he refuses to kowtow to conservative Christianity does not make him an atheist.
—whereas the Democrat recieves the same votes he would have if he’d been Christian, minus the religious but socially liberal ones.—
That’s a pretty big minus. You wouldn’t know it from conservative commentators that try to label the left as being atheists, but a huge portion of the left is very religious.
There’s also something wrong, I think with the idea that religious people would reflexively avoid a non-religious candidate. Many very religious people have pretty open minds about people with different (or no) faith, while some very marginally religious people will still have knee-jerk negative reactions to the very idea of atheists. I would even wager a guess that the more thoughtful and devoted religious people are actually probably more likely to have thought about the issue, and so are more likely to include a section that has no problem with atheists as people or leaders.
I’m not so sure of that.
Oops: that “I’m not so sure of that.” was an unintended leftover that is now something of a non-sequitur to what I was saying before.
For the same reason that only Nixon could go to China. Another good analogy is the one aahala cited: Reagan as the first divorced person who was elected president. One reason why his divorce was not issue was because he was a conservative Republican and not a liberal Democrat like Adlai Stevenson (who was the unsuccessful Democratic nominee in 1952 and 1956).
Also, I don’t think much of the religious right will not vote for an otherwise conservative (and personally moral) candidate just because he or she is an atheist–especially if the other nominee is a Democrat whose politics are politics are far to the left and/or whose personal life is suspect (e.g., Bill Clinton). I seem to recall even Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson saying that they’d have no problem supporting a candidate who was an atheist if he or she was also socially conservative. (Still, I don’t know if such a combination exists in real life.)
He did not. It’s possible that he was just devout and didn’t want to take an oath, but he had been a senator, and I believe they usually get sworn in on a bible, also, and I haven’t found any evidence either way for Pierce.
I do think the death of his son had an impact. It was a combination of Pierce being angry with G-d and feeling that G-d was angry with him. I sort of get the impression that he felt like he paid for the presidency with the death of his son, and he didn’t feel right being sworn in on a bible after that.
**God forbid, NO! **
[sup]Someone had to say it![/sup]