Tumblin Tumbleweed
Gold Member
- Mar 16, 2015
- 20,861
- 7,185
- 265
Every few election cycles, an article like the following is written, which I find interesting:
Itās time for us to have an unapologetic atheist in the Oval Office (Opinion: WaPo)
From the link: Among the 21 candidates seeking the Democratic nomination, virtually every ethnic, religious and sexual identity is represented. Thereās a gay man, six women, three African Americans, a Chinese American, multiple Catholics and Protestants, even a Hindu. (Hindus are 0.7 percent of the population.) But there is one conspicuous absence: Not a single candidate publicly identifies as an atheist. Thatās not to say they are all religious believers. But if they arenāt, they are keeping it to themselves.
I believe a presidential candidate that is an unapologetic atheist would be an interesting pick. The people that would be trying to rip apart the candidateās credibility would likely consist of devout theocrats, but they tend to be liars and hypocrites anyway, especially those currently supporting a 3-time adulterer and habitual liar currently occupying the White House, so their credibility is already compromised.
A candidate focused on the Constitution without any added distraction of kowtowing to the pious would be a well needed relief. A truly secular government could place traditionally religious ceremonies like marriage squarely on the shoulders of the church. The government would continue to provide legal civil unions indiscriminately based on law. Federal faith based programs could be de-funded by the government and relegated to the private sector, freeing up those monies to go towards necessary programs benefiting all Americans. By not favoring one certain religion, all other organized religions would be put on a level playing field.
According to Pew Research, people who profess no religious identity (ānonesā) are one of the largest and fastest-growing demographic groups in the United States, so theyāre definitely not going away anytime soon.
Some Theists have claimed that individuals canāt have any moral compass without religion. This is a purely philosophical argument predicated on the concept of a divine punishment. āBe good or god will spank youā isn't going to be very compelling to a non-believer. Yet, according to a 2009 article using census data, states with the highest religious participation also have the highest murder rates. Non-belief also tends to correlate with less divorce rates and higher education.
So, what do you think? Are the shackles of religion a necessary requirement to lead the United States, or would a secular government based solely on the Constitution and Constitutional law allow us to see things with clearer heads?
Itās time for us to have an unapologetic atheist in the Oval Office (Opinion: WaPo)
From the link: Among the 21 candidates seeking the Democratic nomination, virtually every ethnic, religious and sexual identity is represented. Thereās a gay man, six women, three African Americans, a Chinese American, multiple Catholics and Protestants, even a Hindu. (Hindus are 0.7 percent of the population.) But there is one conspicuous absence: Not a single candidate publicly identifies as an atheist. Thatās not to say they are all religious believers. But if they arenāt, they are keeping it to themselves.
I believe a presidential candidate that is an unapologetic atheist would be an interesting pick. The people that would be trying to rip apart the candidateās credibility would likely consist of devout theocrats, but they tend to be liars and hypocrites anyway, especially those currently supporting a 3-time adulterer and habitual liar currently occupying the White House, so their credibility is already compromised.
A candidate focused on the Constitution without any added distraction of kowtowing to the pious would be a well needed relief. A truly secular government could place traditionally religious ceremonies like marriage squarely on the shoulders of the church. The government would continue to provide legal civil unions indiscriminately based on law. Federal faith based programs could be de-funded by the government and relegated to the private sector, freeing up those monies to go towards necessary programs benefiting all Americans. By not favoring one certain religion, all other organized religions would be put on a level playing field.
According to Pew Research, people who profess no religious identity (ānonesā) are one of the largest and fastest-growing demographic groups in the United States, so theyāre definitely not going away anytime soon.
Some Theists have claimed that individuals canāt have any moral compass without religion. This is a purely philosophical argument predicated on the concept of a divine punishment. āBe good or god will spank youā isn't going to be very compelling to a non-believer. Yet, according to a 2009 article using census data, states with the highest religious participation also have the highest murder rates. Non-belief also tends to correlate with less divorce rates and higher education.
So, what do you think? Are the shackles of religion a necessary requirement to lead the United States, or would a secular government based solely on the Constitution and Constitutional law allow us to see things with clearer heads?
