If Obama were an atheist, would you support him?

Should it make a difference?

especially if he was an atheist i would support him

I would support him even more. I think it's disgusting that we even have discussions of religion in politics at all.

It would be a major plus for me if Obama were an atheist. Many of the problems I have with him stem from his religion.

.

If the question is just about politicians' religious views, I would absolutely support him.

This is assuming he would no longer oppose same-sex marriage.
And that he would not feel obliged to go out of his way to pander to the religious (the way Clinton has felt obliged to be so hawkish on war).

Many of the problems I have with a lot of politicians' positions trace back to their religious convictions or their pandering to religious groups.

If he admitted to it, and didn't make up stories and crap, hell yes! And that is from someone who never goes to Church but knows what God's presence REALLY is ......... you would crap your pants.

I absolutely agree!

Yes, yes I would.

Why is religion even a justification for voting for someone? What does it have to do with one's ability to run our Great Nation? Not much really.

Oh yes, let's all vote for the wolf who dresses in sheeps clothing!

Oh wait, some of us already did.

Not me.

Support Him'

Absolutely

Never. I believe atheists have too much to say in this country, based on their miniscule number.

Of all the negatives America is now known for, religious persecution is not something I need to see added to the roster.

Q: If Obama were an atheist, would you support him?

A: Yes!

Why not

No it shouldn't.

Absofreakinlutely!

Obama's religious views don't matter to me.

It does bother me that he clearly panders to Christians (e.g. opposing gay marriage), and I doubt that would change even if he turned out to be an atheist.

I don't care if he worships the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if he's the right person for the job, elect him. I resisted this thread for so long, but I finally had to check it out. Nice to see level heads here...

Have you been touched by His Noodly Appendage?

I totally agree!
BUT, for some odd reason, religious affiliation is important to many Americans. Why is that?

Example...
Bush is a Methodist. To many Christians, Methodists are regarded as moderate, Protestants, compared to the Baptists, etc. But look what happened to our country. We're involved in... a war that based on lies and Bush showed ample apathy for the needy(Katrina victims). He called our US Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper". Bush also stated that God told him to invade Iraq.
How "Christian" was Bush's actions?

It's hard to keep a level head without ranting.

The minority party "makes Religion seem" important to polarize US on irrelevent issues.
Stem cell, abortion, homophobia ....

Thou shalt not lie us into War ...

Thou shalt not steal from the future generations ...

Thou shalt not kill for political power and corporations ...

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors "resources" ...

Against your citizens best interests ...

D'oh .......

Hell Yeah!!

I am deeply offended that you have chosen to characterize Pastafarianism as something of a "last resort" faith, a religious belief that is on a fringe of some sort.

There is no law that compels you to share the belief (yet), but you can certainly show us a modicum of respect.

I believe there is virtually universal agreement that, when ridicule of religious beliefs is called for, the belief set most appropriate for ridicule is Scientology. Your mocking statement should have been, " I don't care if he believes in Thetans and the Helatrobus..."

Be very careful, TapDuncan. Our appendages are EVERYWHERE.


In his name we pray:

I feel this question is a moot point. I will never see an atheist run for president in my lifetime. Thanks to the Republican party too many people in this nation believe it would be the end of the world if their president didn't believe in their god. It shouldn't matter but thanks to propaganda talking points it is now and will be for many moons to come.

You mean, you don't think you will ever see an avowed atheist run for president.

I would be able to stomach Obama much better although his zealous supporters would still bug the f@ck out of me b/c they can be such asses. It bothers me when politicians are always bringing up their faith or God.

Frankly, I would be happier with Obama if he was a black lesbian athiest.

As is, I will hold my nose and vote for this guy in Nov. He is better than McCain. Then I will cross my fingers and hope he will not be the one who brings Armageddon. Ha ha ha! Just kidding Obamabots.

Yes, absolutely!

Of COURSE I could support an atheist. But what I'd REALLY enjoy is a chance to consider candidates without ever having any reason to have a clue as to what their religious beliefs are, or whether they have any at all.

sillly boy, if you dont know what religion they are, how will you know if they are right in the head or not?

let me make it easy for you...

Level D all Muslims, any religion that doesnt fall into category A or B

Level C agnostics that will allow us good folks to violate the constitution because they are too busy working

Level B jews, they wont go to heaven but we tolerate them here while we are here

Level A christians, but only the ones that agree with us to hate gays, hate other religions, etc.

But it is atheists that cannot hold a public state office in at least four states. How's that for discrimination???

* Arkansas' Constitution of 1874 (Article 19, Section 1) states: "Atheists disqualified from holding office or testifying as witness. No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."[17]

* North Carolina's Constitution of 1971 (Article 6, Section 8) states: "Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God...."[18]. This was challenged and overturned by Voswinkel v. Hunt (1979).[citation needed]

* South Carolina's Constitution of 2006 (Article 6, Section 2) states: "Person denying existence of Supreme Being not to hold office. No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."[19]

* Tennessee's Constitution/Bill of Rights (Article 9, Section 2) states: "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discriminatio...s#United_States

What Rainbow said.

If he were an atheist I'd contribute more than I am now.

Guy.

I can relate to what you and Rainbow2005 are saying. I just try to focus on the political side of Obama. I'm fairly confident his political (not personal)decisions will not be swayed by his religious stance. At least, that is my hope.

His religious views have no impact on me. If he continued to behave as he does, it'd all be the same, no matter his metaphysical beliefs.

His religious views have an impact on me and my partner. He has stated that he rejects marriage equality on religious grounds. His metaphysical beliefs are one thing, how he puts them into practice is another. He can believe that marriage between people of the same sex should not be sanctioned by his church and I would totally back him and his church on that if that's what his church believed. But as a scholar of the Constitution he should know that neither his personal religious beliefs nor the practices and teachings of any church are in and of themselves a sufficient basis for the creation of civil law.

We've kind of had this discussion before. First, can you provide a link to where he rejects marriage equality on religious grounds, so that we can agree on interpretation?

Second, being a politician is funny business. If you say what you believe without regard for how it is heard, and don't take office, then I guess your honesty is high and effectiveness is low. I suspect that there are candidates who were running on exactly the position you liked, but they didn't make it to nomination. That they didn't had more to do with how people heard the position than the position itself. At the other extreme are people who say whatever they think people want to hear, can manage the dissonance somehow, but are perhaps lying about their actual beliefs, dishonest. If they have success, I suspect it'd be short lived. In the middle are those who are true to themselves and are perhaps trying to lead a following not yet ready to accept those beliefs in sufficient numbers to elect. So that position would have to be more nuanced, and would evolve with readiness of people to accept.

Third, the point we've debated before is just about naming of the nature of the civil relationship. If in the left hand, we have whatever "marriage" implies (to the state), and in the right hand we have an equivalent notion of "civil union", then I am satisfied. When the debate devolves to an insistence that the word "marriage" belongs solely to the religionists, or to the secularists, then I lose all interest in the debate. I don't know if I "should", but I do.

I am sorry that this isn't solved for you and your partner. Personally, I don't care about form of marriage - looks like a business partnership to me from a secular perspective - until children are involved. Then what seems to matter most is enough longevity in the relationship to provide for the child's care, and enough of a healthy relationship to teach him/her how to relate. And I'm not sure pinning down genders in relationships really helps that longevity anyhow.

Floor Statement of Senator Barack Obama on the Federal Marriage Amendment
Monday, June 5, 2006


Today, we take up the valuable time of the U.S. Senate with a proposed amendment to our Constitution that has absolutely no chance of passing.

We do this, allegedly, in an attempt to uphold the institution of marriage in this country. We do this despite the fact that for over two hundred years, Americans have been defining and defending marriage on the state and local level without any help from the U.S. Constitution at all.

And yet, we're here anyway because it's an election year - because the party in power has decided that the best way to get voters to the polls is not by talking about Iraq or health care or energy or education, but about a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage that they have no chance of passing.

Now, I realize that for some Americans, this is an important issue. And I should say that personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

But let's be honest. That's not what this debate is about....

This is about winning an election. That's why the issue was last raised in July of 2004, and that's why we haven't heard about it again until now. And while this is supposedly a measure that the other party raised to appeal to some of its core supporters, I don't know how happy I'd be if my party only talked about an issue I cared about right around election time - especially if they knew it had no chance of passing.

I agree with most Americans, with Democrats and Republicans, with Vice President Cheney, with over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage, as they always have, should be left to the states.

Today, we should take this amendment only for what it is - a political ploy designed to rally a few supporters and draw the country's attention away from this leadership's past failures and America's future challenges....


Barack Obama Senate website

The Associated Press State & Local Wire

September 24, 2004, Friday, BC cycle

Obama says religious beliefs shape opposition to gay marriage

BYLINE: By NICOLE ZIEGLER DIZON, Associated Press Writer
...

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama said Friday that his Christian beliefs dictate that marriage should be between a man and a woman, although he supports civil unions that give legal rights to gay and lesbian couples.
Republican candidate Alan Keyes accused Obama of trying to have it both ways on the issue.
"I think what we are seeing on this issue is deceit," said Keyes, who has made his opposition to gay marriage a cornerstone of his campaign. "He is deceiving the voters."


Throughout the campaign, Obama has said that he opposes gay marriage but is in favor of civil unions. During a taping of WBBM-AM's "At Issue," he was asked his personal views on gay marriage.
"I'm a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman," Obama said.
But the Democratic state senator added that he does not understand people who say gay marriage somehow threatens the sanctity of marriage as an institution....

Obama said decisions on gay marriage should be left to the states, and he opposes a constitutional amendment barring the act.
Rick Garcia, political director for the gay rights group Equality Illinois, said it is disturbing that Obama gives such nuanced responses when he's far enough ahead in the polls that he could take a stand for gay marriage....

Interesting, but ultimately a moot question.

If he were an atheist, he would never say so publicly. No American politican ever would, unless they were OK with ending their political career. Yes, there may be a very few localities where one could "get away" with being an atheist as a politican...but at the national level, especially for President? Forget it.

Essentially he would either have to be "in the closet" and thus we would not know he is an atheist and he would never be able to truly act like he was one anyways - making his atheism moot - or he would have to commit political suicide and be honest about it at which time he would be finished - thus making his atheism moot.

Like I said, no matter what happens, under the current political realities in America, this point is moot.

But just for the sake of argument...yes, I would still support him.

Obama Repeats Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage
by The Associated Press

Posted: February 13, 2007 - 12:01 am ET

(Durham, New Hampshire) Sen. Barack Obama's first trip to New Hampshire as an official Democratic presidential candidate came Monday with packed audiences, enthusiastic crowds - and scant scrutiny....


Obama did outline an energy plan - a reduction in emissions, cap-and-trade plans for polluting industries, and development of biofuels including ethanol. He also repeated his stance on gay marriage - that civil unions are fine, but marriage is a religious bond.

"I believe that every American has basic rights that have to be respected," said Obama, who noted that his parents perhaps broke the law when they entered into a biracial marriage in the 1960s.

A member of the university audience asked about his appeal to social conservatives. Obama said one of the best lessons he learned in politics was that he couldn't make 100 percent of voters happy. He then noted his friendship with the Rev. Rick Warren, who leads one of the nation's largest megachurches.

365gay.com

Windy City Times: Do you have a position on marriage vs. civil unions?

Obama: I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that’s true in the African-American community, for example. And if you asked people, ‘should gay and lesbian people have the same rights to transfer property, and visit hospitals, and et cetera,’ they would say, ‘absolutely.’ And then if you talk about, ‘should they get married?’, then suddenly ...

WCT: There are more than 1,000 federal benefits that come with marriage. Looking back in the 1960s and inter-racial marriage, the polls showed people against that as well.

Obama: Since I’m a product of an interracial marriage, I’m very keenly aware of ...

WCT: But you think, strategically, gay marriage isn’t going to happen so you won’t support it at this time?

Obama: What I’m saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. I think we can get SB 101 passed. I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I’m less concerned about the name. And I think that is my No. 1 priority, is an environment in which the Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don’t want to play their game.

WCT: If Massachusetts gets marriage and this gives momentum to the proposed federal Constitutional amendment against gay marriage?

Obama: I would oppose that.

Windy City Times 2/04/2004

I would rather have an atheist or an agnostic, rather than a Quaker, Satanist, or any of the religious zealots that would be an extremist. I am not just a Christian, I am a total piece of crap sinner that knows what God's spirit feels like, knows what it is like first hand. I have no problem with a good man that is in charge with OUR INTERESTS FIRST! That way, we all benefit, along with the President. I am sick of this bible waving lying cheating Constitution shitting law breaking criminal.

Thank you visionari for doing the digging on this one.

All I can add is that I don't think it is right to leave anyone's civil rights as an American up to the individual states. That's how we got Jim Crow. Moreover, why should my partner and I suddenly become unmarried when we cross the border from California into Oregon or from Canada into the US?

And speaking of Canada, the Canadians just said okay, rather than try to reinvent the wheel with some sort of parallel civil unions system that mirrors marriage, why not just make what we already have in place available to same-sex couples? They did. There has been no evidence so far that heterosexual marriages are in any more trouble than they were before and Canada is still in one piece.

They already have to an extent as evidenced by his stand on marriage equality. Separate but equal is not equal. That being said, I don't think that in practical terms Hillary was much better on this issue. Their positions seem about identical to me and both are miles ahead of those of Old Grumpybutt. As always, we will take what we can get. Unless you're one of those people (and I am occasionally) who feels that things can only really get better if they get quite a bit worse first then you have to vote democratic no matter how many times you have found yourself flat on your back looking up at the underside of the Democratic bus.

No you don't.
If there are indications just prior to the vote that the Democrat is strongly leading, you can hold your vote, vote for the Republican, or vote for a third party. If enough people do that, it will cut down on the margin by which the Democrat wins, and s/he won't be able to claim "landslide victory."

You can also split your vote and choose only those individuals on the ballot who support gay rights, while ignoring the others.

Not if he was an asshole.

I guess that depends one's definition of asshole.

Yes and no....didn't even have to think about it

How does this work for you;

An atheist who proselytizes for atheism and makes life miserable for Christians, Jews, Muslims and Baha'is who just want to be left alone to follow their own light.

I've been thinking about this topic for a long time without responding. I think I can formulate an answer now.
A person is the sum of their experiences. A major part of Obama's experiences have to do with his religion, it helped formulate who he is. It helped create his inspirational style of speaking.
Since I do not know what Obama would be like or believe as an atheist, I have to say my answer is no. I cannot help but believe that he would be a very different man and I don't think I would vote for him.
However, that is different then asking would I ever vote for an atheist. That answer is yes.

Yeah..I guess not too many Americans would be too keen on reality, science or facts.

Still... 48% of Americans Reject Evolution and

34% of college graduates said they accept the Biblical story of creation as fact.

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid...14&from=rss