Comments on: Al Gore on an Atheist President

By: x

Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:39:44 +0000

There have almost certainly already been atheist presidents, and certainly presidents who were at least not Christian.

But of course, it was for them as it always has been and still is for members of congress; they could not and cannot be openly atheistic, or they would be committing career suicide.

Such a lovely country of idiots we have here!

By: Larry Carter Center

Larry Carter Center — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:52:13 +0000

American Atheists have our heroic forebears.
Thomas Paine, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lincoln, Ingersoll, Edison, Carnegie, Ford, Sanger, Governor Culbert Olsen of California, DR O’Hair & now Congressmember Pete Stark has come out of the closet.
Politicians do not necessarily equal theocrats. President Grant fought for separating church from state, taxing church property equally with all other businesses.
Winning politicians convince people of the necessity of their ideas.
Atheism is such a broad subject, applicable to so many venues. When one is free from theism, one is free to think & work without alleged deities haunting one’s thoughts.
The Atheist politician of the future will be a strong advocate for science. Be a better Atheist than Alan Greenspan, who managed the previous corrupt economy.
The Atheist politician of the future will command the evidence of a broken past for a mended future.
The Atheist politician of the future will represent both faiths and facts with the full love of their best intentions and work.
The Atheist politician will not need to battle theocrats from the White House, because s/he will have earned the way from the start with competence, Constitutional principles and reforming progress.
Yes it is possible an Atheist will leave a religious background to become a “stealth” incumbent.
But a safer & saner path will be the school board candidate fighting for science not creationism. The state house candidate fighting for full funding of sex education and health care for all.
The Senatorial candidate with ecological and foreign relations experience gained right now inside the State Department.
The gubenatorial candidate to clean up the mess of a state like Arkansas or South Carolina.
Our final victory as American Atheists will not be measured by the White House or the removal of In god We Trust from our coins. Our future is in making peace of the world from religious violence, local corruptions and sustainable industries.
Our victory will be measured in ethics practiced universally, by believers & Atheists alike. And taxes shared equally by all businesses, no favors to any group through exemptions or the dole.

By: Carol

Carol — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 21:30:49 +0000

I didn’t bother listening to Al Gore’s answer about an atheist being President one day because although there should be…separation between church and state, there isn’t and never will be. Freedom of religion is a democratic right while freedom from religion isn’t. At least, not in the White House.

By: Drew

Drew — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:12:07 +0000

Politicians don’t lead, they respond. They govern by opinion poll. In all other western nations, being non-religious is not going to stop a politician, because in those countries atheists are already a CRITICAL MASS, and the degree of non-religiosity by the so-called religious is much lower than in the US. The US lags behind; but they are shifting the same direction. What Europe has already done Canada and Australia are now doing, and the US will do tomorrow. It’s inevitable – but it will only happen when both atheism and secularism reach the minimum levels to make religious bigotry towards atheism as socially tabboo as bigotry based on gender, race, or ethnicity.

By: Jay Ballou

Jay Ballou — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:16:32 +0000

So you think Obama isn’t going to represent the majority of the American populace because few of us are half-white/half-black?

All I can imagine for an atheist president is someone who sets up a blog and churns out puerile rants against the hegemony of the post-colonial baby eating Christians.

That says something about the limits of your imagination but nothing about atheists.

By: ATL-Apostate

ATL-Apostate — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:43:26 +0000

Question:
Why bother with all that nuance and not offer a clear, honest answer…

Answer:
Because he’s Algore. Has he ever given a straight answer?

By: Max

Max — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:26:39 +0000

You have to look at the big picture here: He can’t say “I hope that soon it will be easy for an atheist to run for office” because he has too much at stake in his environmental work to be labeled as an atheist or in league with atheists. He can’t say what might be the truth that America won’t be ready for an atheist president until all of us are long dead because if you’ll notice he’s getting questions from digg users who are mostly non-religious and he doesn’t want to alienate his audience. So he did something really smart, he didn’t discount the possibility but still made it seem remote while at the same time sympathizing with non believers by offering up the idea leaders are less religious than we realize.

By: kharne

kharne — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:29:20 +0000

How many Americans are atheists? Given the small percentage of atheists, relative to the non-atheist populace, why should we elect someone who isn’t going to represent the majority of the American populace? All I can imagine for an atheist president is someone who sets up a blog and churns out puerile rants against the hegemony of the post-colonial baby eating Christians. In the end, it doesn’t matter what the president believes in; what matters is the kind of people he surrounds himself with.

By: James Cape

James Cape — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 02:32:57 +0000

“Anybody would be foolish to try to lay down some label or category, and say for all time that people in that particular category are forever prohibited from being elected.”

Al Gore didn’t endorse anyone in the primaries until it was obvious Obama was going to be the victor, because he wanted to play it safe. The reason for playing it safe was because endorsing the wrong person would make it that much tougher to get what he wants in the area he is concerned about: carbon policy.

By: HollywoodBob

HollywoodBob — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:41:30 +0000

Honestly I’d settle for a president that wasn’t required to wear their religion on their sleeve.

It’s like this time around, I was so annoyed with the questions and answers thing with that baptist preacher. It disgusts me that we’ve gone from a country that was so worried about Kennedy’s faith, to one that basically insists that if you don’t go to church every sunday and say your prayers every morning and night that you’re not fit to do the job. Am I correct that I’m not the only one that considers evangelical christianity a disqualification?

More and more it bothers me that as the US becomes more and more obsessed with religion, and let’s be honest, with evangelical christianity; the rest of the industrialized world is leaving religion behind? In much of Europe atheism/agnosticism/non-theism are becoming the majority. Some countries have census reports showing less than 10% of the populace believe in a deity. Yet in the US it’s still 80-90%.

And while I begrudge no one their beliefs, I do have a problem when they seem to think that their superstition gives them the right to legislate the lives of my friends and I.