« Home | 9/11 Mystery Plane » | No end in sight? » | Outdated, but still hilarious » | May the best man -- or woman -- win! » | Imagini VisualDNA » | Faith? » | 9/11 news broadcasts of 2nd "plane's" impact » | Ahmadinejad » | Liars. » | Huh? »

The president is an aetheist!

[Photo: Separation of Church and State by iampeas]

I was watching The View this morning. during the Hot Topics segment, one of the panelists asserted that she could never support a president or presidential candidate who does not have faith in God or a higher power. I found her comments very intriguing, especially given the fundamental principal of the separation of church and state that our country was built on. (Not that our current president has been a great advocate of it...)

I began wondering about the following:

  • What qualities does a president who does not believe in a higher power lack that would cause him to be an ineffective leader?
  • How does a belief in a higher power better qualify you to lead a democratic nation?
  • What higher power is it acceptable for the president to believe in? The Christian God? Buddha? Allah?
  • Is a president with a strong faith more likely to deny citizens secular rights that do not agree with his/her beliefs? (*ahem* Mr. Bush)

What do you think?

This sort of thing came up in that Contact movie too.. Deciding who to send to a distant galaxy to "represent" human kind, and they made a big deal out of not wanting to send a woman that didn't believe in God, since she doesn't truly represent a base belief-system that the majority held.

I don't think it's that different here. The republicans will run a candidate that's religious, with no doubt in my mind; and the democrats, always needing to win by swaying republicans to vote for their guy are very simply forced to have someone that believes in God as well, otherwise, you'd have very little hope in ever countering the rucuss that'd get raised by the other side.

There'd be huge campaigns, all focused on the candidate not giving credit to God for the things Americans (and moreso, the world) have accomplished, and there'd suddenly be a gap in "protection(?)" for laws/ideology that have historically followed christian tradition. It isn't to say a non-religious person would immediately change those things, but I'd absolutely expect ad campaigns pointing out the risk of it happening.

Addtionally, I'm not sure people really truly all operate on the same definition(s) either. There's a difference between Freedom of Religion, and Freedom from Religion.

There's hardly a real separation of Church and State, truly. If it was separate, this wouldn't even be a thing to talk about.

America is trapped in that bipolar mindset...afterall it was founded by Providential Command. There is no way an Atheist or even an Agnostic would have a 'hope in hell' of winning. EVER!

>>>>Is a president with a strong faith more likely to deny citizens secular rights that do not agree with his/her beliefs?

Definitely. I'm not sure what secular rights are, but I think basic rights like pursuit of happiness would be denied. As soon as you believe strongly in something, you create a you-agree-with-me group, which is directly opposite of the you-don't-agree-with-me group. It gets more complicated when you want to please the agree-with-me group and see that holding a firm line against the don't-agree-with-me group gets you approval and support. Believing that the Christian God is in your agree-with-me group would make you even less tolerant of the opposite.

We do not value difference in our culture. Over and over I hear that everyone should speak English. Everyone should make similar decisions. Have the same life styles. Everyone should follow the same traditions. It's safer when we are all the same. You don't have to wonder what the guy next door is going to do or think next. He's going to be a clone of yourself.

I think the most effective President would be the one who had shown in the past that he valued and supported difference.

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link