Would a snake-handler be more electable as POTUS than an atheist?

[Chronos]

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.

To be fair, many theists are also good for reasons independent of divine punishment. A theist can quite comfortably say “We have an inherent sense of right and wrong because God made us to have such a sense”. Now, that specific subset of theists who think that atheists can’t be moral, those people scare me, because in order to be able to believe such things, they must have gotten very good at ignoring their own consciences.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

Here’s an incomplete list of folks, in order, who would be elected POTUS before an atheist We can quibble about the order:

Female Christian
Latino Christian
Black Female Christian
Jewish Male
Jewish Female
Snake Handler Christian
Devil Worshipper
Artificial Intellilgence
Intelligent Dolphin
Convicted Fraud Artist
Convicted Rapist
Atheist

[Der_Trihs]

@Sailboat

I can’t get over the mental image of the Secret Service tensely watching the President handle venomous snakes.

Now I have an image of an irritated President looking on as the Secret Service handles snakes for him.

“You know guys, this really misses the point.”

[BrainGlutton]

A snake-handler would, at any rate, make a good WH intern. [rimshot]

[NDP]

As a variant to the thread topic, would an atheist be more electable as POTUS if he or she was a non-Libertarian conservative Republican who ran against a Christian liberal Democrat?

[Marley23]

A great many people have serious and unfounded moral qualms about atheists, but I think almost every non-snake handler thinks snake handlers are completely insane. And they are. So I think the OP is probably right, and in the interest of getting society to accept atheists, we need to found a conspiracy that will get one party to nominate a snake handler and the other to nominate an atheist. It will take a few cycles to get off the ground, but elections are already such a circus that it’ll be one of those “Fox turned into a hardcore sex channel so gradually, I didn’t even notice” situations.

[outlierrn]

@aruvqan

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:

Well, ya lost me there. If they’re doin bong hits, they’re not really in recovery, but the bong hits aren’t a deal breaker in and of themselves.

[BrainGlutton]

@NDP

As a variant to the thread topic, would an atheist be more electable as POTUS if he or she was a non-Libertarian conservative Republican . . .

Og, that’s a rare breed. Clothahump is the only one I’ve ever even heard of, and I’m not entirely sure about “non-Libertarian.”

[Guinastasia]

@BrainGlutton

A snake-handler would, at any rate, make a good WH intern. [rimshot]

Only if they’re working for Clinton.

[Der_Trihs]

@BrainGlutton

A snake-handler would, at any rate, make a good WH intern. [rimshot]

@Guinastasia

Only if they’re working for Clinton.

Michelle Obama: “Excuse me, that’s my snake and I’ll take care of any handling of it, if you please.”

[dropzone]

@Der_Trihs

Michelle Obama: “Excuse me, that’s my snake and I’ll take care of any handling of it, if you please.”

(Avoiding continuing this hijack with my Mo’Nique impression.)

Ahem. As for the OP, I would like the snake-handling president to demonstrate his mad skillz at every State of the Union Address. There could be office pools.

[outlierrn]

What kind of limits can be imposed on a presidents risk taking? I know Bush used to mtn bike, but I don’t know how aggressively. Can the POTUS skydive? Base jump? Would a religious activity be different?

[foolsguinea]

@Shodan

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.

This. An adherent of an exclusivist religion may well prefer someone who agrees with him that all other gods are false and certain other sects are wacky, over someone who follows the “wrong” religion.

[Guinastasia]

Snakehandling is also illegal, is it not?

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@Guinastasia

Snakehandling is also illegal, is it not?

In some states. It’s not a Federal offense, though. POTUS might just want to do it at the White House, on his plane (new hit mashup movie: Snakes on Air Force One!) or in national parks.

[Der_Trihs]

@Guinastasia

Snakehandling is also illegal, is it not?

According to Wikipedia:

The states of Alabama, Kentucky and Tennessee have passed laws against the use of venomous snakes and/or other reptiles in a place that endangers the lives of others, or without a permit. The Kentucky law specifically mentions religious services; in Kentucky snake handling is a misdemeanor and punishable by a $50 to $250 fine.

<snip>

The practice is legal in the state of West Virginia.

Snake handling was made a felony punishable by death under Georgia law in 1941, following the death of a seven-year-old girl from a rattlesnake bite. However, the punishment was so severe that juries would refuse to convict, and the law was repealed in 1968.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@rat_avatar

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.

A problem with “trusting an atheist”—if by that you mean trusting an abstract, hypothetical atheist, as opposed to trusting a particular person who happens to be an atheist—is that you have no idea what he does believe in, only what he doesn’t.

If I were advising an atheist who wanted to run for president, I would advise him to publically and clearly explain what he does believe—especially in terms of the moral or ethical code he lives by—and why. That, I think, would at least increase the chances that voters would trust him.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@Thudlow_Boink

…If I were advising an atheist who wanted to run for president, I would advise him to publically and clearly explain what he does believe—especially in terms of the moral or ethical code he lives by—and why. That, I think, would at least increase the chances that voters would trust him.

Oh, definitely. He or she would simply have to, in order to have any chance at all of being elected.

[outlierrn]

Well, I’ve said before that I don’t care what a POTUS believes, religion wise, as much as I care how hard they believe. Realistically, no ones going to be elected anytime soon that isn’t at least nominally a christian, so all of our politians are. OK, so be it, but a snake handler, by definition, believes hard, and that worries me. Truth be told, though, the fundathiest who’s screaming that the non-existence is proven fact (Dio, are you lurkin?) worries me almost as much.

[Imago]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Nonsense, by that logic Stalin could be elected over Ayn Rand since Stalin occasionally expressed religious sentiments during World War II.

Stalin caused millions to starve while he got drunk and watched Disney movies. All in all, a very good far-right-wing American.