Originally posted by jaden_2.0
So long as religion plays no part in formulating policy there's no issue with politicians following a religion.
There is a significant difference between what an atheist thinks is morally right (which is always subjective to them) and what a person of faith (any faith) thinks is morally right or wrong which is based on objective morality. It is impossible for politicians to divorce themselves entirely from acting in a manner or supporting or opposing policies based on what they view as being morally right or wrong.
This is just as true even for any politician who happens to be an atheist/non-believer as it is for someone of a christian, jewish, or any other faith. People with Christian beliefs elect people who they think will uphold their christian values and way of life while serving in office. If that politician isn't holding up his or her end of the agreement by doing what the people elected him or her to do then he or she shouldn't be surprised when the voters who put him/her there become furious and vote him/her out next election.
Fun fact: the so-called "separation of church and state" is a myth. People base it on a misinterpretation of a private letter Thomas Jefferson wrote. The first amendment prevents the government from establishing any state religion and allows individuals to practice any religion they like. It does not prevent politicians from making decisions based solely on their faith/what they think is morally right or wrong.
If the separation of church and state was actually real, then we wouldn't have "In God We Trust" printed on our money nor would we have "... under God" in our pledge of allegiance. Nor would have the founders mentioned God/Creator like four times in the Declaration of Independence. Every inaugural address has included the word 'God'. I could give many more examples of why the separation of Church and state is not actually a thing.
I will never vote for someone who calls himself or herself an atheist. Having an atheist in a position of real power scares the shit out of me.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnaeOh come on man
There is a significant difference between what an atheist thinks is morally right (which is always subjective to them) and what a person of faith (any faith) thinks is morally right or wrong which is based on objective morality. It is impossible for politicians to divorce themselves entirely from acting in a manner or supporting or opposing policies based on what they view as being morally right or wrong.This is just as true even for any politician who happens to be an atheist/non-believer as it is for someone of a christian, jewish, or any other faith. People with Christian beliefs elect people who they think will uphold their christian values and way of life while serving in office. If that politician isn't holding up his or her end of the agreement by doing what the people elected him or her to do then he or she shouldn't be surprised when the voters who put him/her there become furious and vote him/her out next election.
Fun fact: the so-called "separation of church and state" is a myth. People base it on a misinterpretation of a private letter Thomas Jefferson wrote. The first amendment prevents the government from establishing any state religion and allows individuals to practice any religion they like. It does not prevent politicians from making decisions based solely on their faith/what they think is morally right or wrong.
If the separation of church and state was actually real, then we wouldn't have "In God We Trust" printed on our money nor would we have "... under God" in our pledge of allegiance. Nor would have the founders mentioned God/Creator like four times in the Declaration of Independence. Every inaugural address has included the word 'God'. I could give many more examples of why the separation of Church and state is not actually a thing.
I will never vote for someone who calls himself or herself an atheist. Having an atheist in a position of real power scares the shit out of me.
Don't be ridiculous
Even if God exists and has a moral code, that would still be subjective.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
There is a significant difference between what an atheist thinks is morally right (which is always subjective to them) and what a person of faith (any faith) thinks is morally right or wrong which is based on objective morality. It is impossible for politicians to divorce themselves entirely from acting in a manner or supporting or opposing policies based on what they view as being morally right or wrong.This is just as true even for any politician who happens to be an atheist/non-believer as it is for someone of a christian, jewish, or any other faith. People with Christian beliefs elect people who they think will uphold their christian values and way of life while serving in office. If that politician isn't holding up his or her end of the agreement by doing what the people elected him or her to do then he or she shouldn't be surprised when the voters who put him/her there become furious and vote him/her out next election.
Fun fact: the so-called "separation of church and state" is a myth. People base it on a misinterpretation of a private letter Thomas Jefferson wrote. The first amendment prevents the government from establishing any state religion and allows individuals to practice any religion they like. It does not prevent politicians from making decisions based solely on their faith/what they think is morally right or wrong.
If the separation of church and state was actually real, then we wouldn't have "In God We Trust" printed on our money nor would we have "... under God" in our pledge of allegiance. Nor would have the founders mentioned God/Creator like four times in the Declaration of Independence. Every inaugural address has included the word 'God'. I could give many more examples of why the separation of Church and state is not actually a thing.
I will never vote for someone who calls himself or herself an atheist. Having an atheist in a position of real power scares the shit out of me.
Yet you clearly support Donald Trump who has demonstrated throughout his entire life that he is neither moral or religious, let alone fundamentalist baptist Christian.
Re: Atheism in U.S. Politics
Originally posted by Newjak
Do people feel that Atheism in the U.S. has become acceptable enough that we'll see a major push in Atheists taking offices in the next few decades?And do you believe that would be a good thing?
I can't see a politician winning the oval without dropping at least few "God bless America", not in the foreseeable future. Even someone like Trump who was clearly not religious at all had to fake it with his "Two Corinthians" nonsense and waving a bible around in an awkward fashion. His voters knew he wasn't religious, but they wanted the facade that he was, so he did.
To your question: not sure if an athiest president would do better just because they're atheist, but I'd be willing to try it.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Yet you clearly support Donald Trump who has demonstrated throughout his entire life that he is neither moral or religious, let alone fundamentalist baptist Christian.
They know Trump wasn't and still isn't, they just needed the illusion that he is so they coluld feel good about it and themselves. eg Michele Bachmann went out on a crusade to paint Trump as 'the most Christian president America will ever see', but she knew that was 100% bullshit.
Michele Bachmann praises Trump: Americans will 'never see a more godly, biblical president'
Originally posted by Robtard
They know Trump wasn't and still isn't, they just needed the illusion that he is so they coluld feel good about it and themselves. eg Michele Bachmann went out on a crusade to paint Trump as 'the most Christian president America will ever see', but she knew that was 100% bullshit.Michele Bachmann praises Trump: Americans will 'never see a more godly, biblical president'
I think back to the interview when he was asked if he preferred the old or the new testament and he was like "I like them both equally" and when asked to recite his favourite verses he refused to saying that was personal. When it was clearly obvious that he just didn't know any.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I think back to the interview when he was asked if he preferred the old or the new testament and he was like "I like them both equally" and when asked to recite his favourite verses he refused to saying that was personal. When it was clearly obvious that he just didn't know any.
Heh, yes. Was obvious he couldn't recite a single verse, even John 3:16, which you see random bums holding cardboard signs of.
It was a proper Alan Partridge moment