726Views177Replies

Author Options:

Would you vote for a president who happens to be an atheist? Answered

Would anybody here absolutely avoid voting for an atheist president just because he is an atheist? Why? Polls show most Americans prefer a gay / black / female president over an atheist

Discussions

Of course. People shouldn't vote based on religion, sex, creed, or color. They should vote based on what is going to be best for the country, and that has absolutely nothing to do with any of those things.

I really don't care about their religious affiliation as long as they have good standpoints on other issues.

0
user
Patrik

10 years ago

You mean - someone like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, or Abe Lincoln?

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."

- Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President, author, scientist, architect, educator, and diplomat

"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."

- Abraham Lincoln, American president (1809-1865).

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."

-John Adams, U.S. President, Founding Father of the United States

(Disclaimer - not all of these would call themselves atheists per se - perhaps agnostics or deists. But let's not quibble the finer points...)

More quotes from famous atheists.

*bump!*
I'm going to assume that people think that atheist = moral-less = anti-christian.

Damn, this is really old... I saw it on the most-commented-forums thing...

Yes, that seems to be the main thought in this topic, which is a shame really D:

0
user
MDude

10 years ago

I would support an athiest president as much as any other, and wouldn't mind a gay/black/female head of the executive branch either. However, I think the ability of the president to pass executive orders and control the military outside of war should be much more limited no matter who holds office.

I would prefer an aethiest/black/female president WAY more than a gay one. An aethiest would be fine, who says you gotta be religeous to be good? I don't have any problems with a black president, what's wrong with black people? I would avidly support Collin Powell if he were to run. A lady president would be perfectly allright as well, however I would have some serious problems with Hillary Clinton as president. I would avoid voting for a gay president, because come on, isn't that just a little weird?

IMO, gay people are just gross. Kind of like how pedophiles and zoophiles are gross. But not lesbians... lesbians are hot.

what about bdsm, coprophilia, necrophilia, and stuff? lol would you vote for those people?

Well I wasn't going to post the entire list of odd fetishes, but you can pretend I did if it helps clarify the point.

oodalumps, perhaps you're not old enough, or have not worked in the correct field to become aware of... But almost every human has some affinity to what you're calling "odd fetishes." As far as sexuality is concerned, there really is no "normal" or "odd" or "gross." Perhaps to you it is, because it's too niche for you -- but believe me when I say this -- there are a LOT of people that are embarrassed to say anything because they fear they are not "normal." Really, anyone that can answer the "what's the sexiest body part to you" question is self admitting to an anatomical fetish. If crappy MTV stats mean anything to you -- ewww! Belly Buttons :p

I would expect one to know that anything I say is mere opinion. To assume that I believe my opinions are facts is somewhat insulting. So excuse me for not being politically correct with everything I say, so would you rather I said "Some may argue that these fetishes are different from the norm"? It's not like I'm giving a damn speech to the country, this is simply an internet forum. Are you denying that you have opinions on certain fetishes? Sorry for not being "embarrassed to say anything", sorry for not being "normal" and keeping my mouth shut about such controversial topics.

cool down, bro. its okay to make mistakes. It's not a controversial topic, though, unless you are making it controversial. Are you stepping up to the plate on this one? Do you really feel a sexual "fetish" is controversial? Sounds like your the one endorsing being politically correct. Is there something you seriously think is wrong with a fetish? " BDSM " is very inate to sex anyway. Its not a fetish at all but just employs a way to get the strict top/bottom male/female roles in order. You'll find that all fetishes are really exactly the same thing. Necrophilia makes sense, with the dead corpse (submissive) being completely under the control of the living(dominant). Its so annoying when people don't understand sex. Now love-making, that's another story. and apparently a rather gay one at that. And internet forums are a great place to be at the top of your game on correct information, whereas a speech to the country is usually manipulative. Expecting children to understand BDSM parenting, now that is controversial. Never hit a kid, please.

Can we please make clear the distinction between S&M; and bondage? I'm just saying, that "B" in BDSM stands for bondage. "BDSM" is a pretty complex acronym, you can take it as "Bondage and Discipline," "Discipline and Submission," "Domination and Submission," or "Sadism and Masochism," etc.

So excuse me for not being politically correct with everything I say'

As the Harvard Republican Society says, "Why be politically correct, when you can be right?"

It's not like I'm giving a damn speech to the country, this is simply an internet forum.'

Exactly, anything you say can quickly turn into a speech to the entire world.'

don't try and define "normal", and don't listen to others about what "normal" is. simply judge based on your opinion of what is good and what is bad, don't look for a "normal"

Did I say I was striving for normal? I said they're gross.

Oh heck no. Not if it was public knowledge. Those acts are signs of SERIOUS mental health issues.

Can we please not lump BDSM in with necrophilia? For one thing, BDSM probably isn't what you think it is. In every community there are people that take things to sick, extreme levels, and I think that you are associating them with the mainstream BDSM community.

Also: There are bondage enthusiasts, and there are S&M enthusiasts. There's a huge difference between the two. You can be one, and not the other.



On another note:

Damn, I can't believe I missed out on this thread! :P

Uhh yea, very very bad, I am A little annoyed he would even mention such things...necrophilia? Sick, you can get maggots in your penis from that apparently, how's that for your daily FF (Fun Fact).

. Oh dear. This worries me. I know what all those words mean. Yikes! . Oh, and BDSM is usually capitalized. :)

You can't desriminate just because you like to watch tnem at it.

Its "weird" right now...But I don't know why having a gay leader would be weird. I would not support collin powell if he were to run. And he is a republican, isn't he? Yuck. Don't be fooled by republicans, they all suck. Their team sucks, and I don't want another four years of stupid. Collin Powell seems VERY conservative. He appealed to my racist remarking grandparents down in FL. It would definately depend on the atheist black female president, wouldn't it? I mean, come on. Choosing on that rationale. I happen to be gay, doesn't mean I would ever vote for a gay president. If he/she doesn't like my policies they aren't getting my vote. If they do, then, yeah, I'll push even harder for them cause they're gay, but only if. I find most gay people clueless about politics anyway, well the whole country to be fair. But I just figure gay people might feel they have something to lose/win a little more. Of course gay people are abused in society (majority are sensative you know ) so a lot are probably too busy contemplating suicide, cutting their wrists, or doing drugs, oh and working crap jobs. Or too busy looking for a "strong man" who will abuse the whole country. Yikes I'm cynical. oh and single. No, I like Hillary for President. She's my top pick. Just wish she hadn't voted for the war. How did I find the bologna through the claims of WMD and nobody else did? Sad when people don't listen to the inspectors we hire to inspect. I support humanitarianism when it's spelled out in the policy. All other claims for the war need were bogus.

Always knew it was unusual people who support Hilary, you just confirmed it;) Bush is stupid, and he's guided by Cheney and Runsfield, who are evil, of course it's a bad combination. You would need to read Powell's autobiography, My American Journey (excellent read), and watch some Frontline episodes to extract my reasons for supporting him. This the first time I've conversed with a gay dude (I think), why do seem to want to have rights to marry? Isn't living together good enough? Oh yah, are you all ditzes like on Will and Grace? Sorry for the questions, I have an inquisitive mind.

I support your inquisitive mind. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you really are clueless about gay people... Anything you know about gay people, throw it out of your mind. Everybody searches for identity, people to identify with. If you slow it down enough, you can become aware of the process, though that's a different subject. Some people choose/maintain or are forced into a strict identity. Others are not. The rules of what makes a person male or female, which is a powerful force in societies, is different from one region to another, one class to another, one person to another. Gay people, like everybody else, are part of that. Gay people tend to identify with female, regardless of what that actually is. Physical characteristics is a stronger point to relationships in some groups than others, and some people than others. Money is a stronger point to relationships in some groups than others, and some people than others. Social status is another one ( though hard to pinpoint clearly and often changes fast and ties in money and physical characteristics). Knowledge is stronger to some than others ( and this can get very tricky ). Social Goals/Positions can also be of value and relate to people's sense of the world and how the combined relationship contends in the male/female roles. Depending on background, each person is wanting a different thing. If money is your strength, then you may want to, in effect, buy the person you want. ( though this sounds like prostitution, in a continued relationship this is more of a protective nature ). Or you may want to market to the person you want and not feel the responsibilities that come from being provider. Some want it semi-equal. Physical characteristics can be thought of the same way. Some people can "give away" their looks. Some people want to "take" someone's looks. Some people want it about equal. ( whatever the actual give and take is ) Physical characteristics used to determine sexual identity include hair, skin, height, weight, muscle, "perfectness", gender. And remember physical characteristics themselves aren't strictly male or female. Some societies have the actual female gender being everything we commonly think of as male in our present society. Gay people seek relationships with the male gender. That's all there is to say. For whatever reason, thats it. There is no way to truly categorize it. Some people seek it because they don't feel they are it. That's the stereotype you see. That's the same stereotype you see of many woman, though. I personally think those stereotypes are bad for society and not a healthy way to experience relationships. It puts a lot of pressure on both with such woeful expectations. (woeful?) I've seen it work every which way ( or not work every which way ). Societies accepting homosexual relationships tend to be a good indicator of peaceful people, however. Why the right to marry? Are you pulling my leg? Why do people want full-time over part-time? Why do people want custody? There are benefits to married couples. These are mostly financial: medical financing like insurance, tax related credits-keep in mind you don't have to have a child to get these credits. visitation and medical decision rights. Giving "us" this right? yes master, yes master...after you whip my identity every freakin' which way since I was a kid can you please give me the right to actually go through with a working relationship,help not spread HIV through responsible sex, feel like a real protected member of society. And the list goes on. whoops I said freakin, that's angry and masters don't like me to get angry. At the end of the day, sometimes none of this seems worth it. Relationships are hard for everybody. Life can be hard for every walk of life. Actually its a case of the spoiled gay person that wants rights. Society did us harm by giving us too much. We keep whining when we were genetically meant to be slaves. You've got to understand how messed up what you said sounds. I feel NORMAL being gay. I ABSOLUTELY realize a lot of people don't see it normal. I absolutely realize a lot of people feel like they are giving and giving to this perverse "group" of gay people. I absolutely realize people seek to understand this group simply to lower them even more, when they never stopped to understand themselves because they never had to. Any group can be stupid, when they are "understood". Gays are understood to be perverted. Gays are understood to be girly. Gays are understood to like BDSM. Gays are understood to have mommy issues. Gays are understood and understood and understood. Because: most don't respect gay people. A stereotypical man in our society understands, controls, conquers. The submissive are understanding of them. For whatever reason, gays are submissive. hmmm, Some are philosophically submissive, watch the f**k out. Lock and Load.

Thanks for sharing that information. I can now see that gays are negativly prtrayed in the media. This nows give me a better understanding of the world (though a girl in a bikini still turns me on).

I would avoid voting for a gay president, because come on, isn't that just a little weird?

Would you care to elaborate on exactly how that would be weird? Go ahead, just substitute a variety of other words in place of "gay" (such as married, black, female, right-handed, etc) to see exactly how well-thought-out it sounds.
Anyway, we've probably already had at least one without knowing it.

True, we probobly have. I mean weird as in unatural. It is not unatural for someone who's black, female, or aethiest to be president. These are acceptable roles in society. It is most definetly unatural to be gay. Yes, gender identity disorder is real, but LIVE WITH IT. A gay president would more than likely try to force through stuff related to their personal life, such as gay marriage. That is why I would have problems with a gay president. However, if they didn't try getting stuff through, and didn't go snogging in public, it would still be weird, but whatever, he/she is only going to be president for 8 years max. In that case, LIVE WITH IT.

I really can't tell if anything you write is serious. I'm confused....must be because I'm gay. And let me tell you. My gay agenda is HUGE! gay marriage is HUGE! it will rock this world its so HUGE! It won't please anybody but the gays. Parents of ALL gay people want to stone them. Siblings too.(some actually do, don't get me wrong). Side note: many straight people have a huge taste of gender identity disorder as well. Some people are bisexual. is it gender identity disorder when they are homosexual and not gender identity disorder when they are heterosexual? Only members of society that procreate are worth anything. I say we should have 500 Billion people on the earth. And then the BEST one should bomb everybody else. And there once was a guy named Kinsey.... but that's just fairy - tales.

Yes my questions were serious.

There are some nice academic papers showing how a certain percentage of homosexual individuals in a population increase the likelihood of the groups gene's being passed on; ie there's an evolutionary bias towards maintaining a small gay population. It doesn't get much more natural than natural selection.

But your statement seems based on personal comfort levels alone.

My observation is those most likely to "force through stuff related to their personal life" are religious- we've gotten to watch eight painful years of that. I'd love the chance to vote for someone who would rebuild that nice wall we used to have between church and state.
Yes, that includes legalizing gay marriage- the state should not be legislating morality, and that's exactly what it tries to do by enforcing religious dicta regarding marriage instead of simply providing a civil service on an equal basis to all citizens. Massachusetts is doing quite well with that policy, I'll note, as are Canada and much of Europe.

Public snogging is just tacky, no matter who's doing it.

What has passed that's been painful to you and why do you think it was religious? I know there's a small majority of strict constructionists (I think that's the right term) on the Supreme Court at the moment, but wait, maybe you mean some laws? I'm not happy about lack of state's rights to settle these matters at this point. Abortion, gay marriage ought to be a state's right to legislate. Then we would have no more of this national debate and if you didn't like the laws of the state you lived in you could just move. It would still be the USA.

I forget who was telling us (maybe lasvegas?) but abortion is actually settled , with no way of it changing. Abortion is here for the long run.

Abortion is not settled. Lots of people still working really hard to get it outlawed and lots of people still working hard to get it settled. The charge up San Juan Hill? That's settled.

yup:

It seems every Presidential election, Abortion becomes an argument. Every wonder why? Because it's a non-issue! It's easier to argue something that can't be changed than the real issues.

Abortion became a Constitutional right, ordered by the Supreme Court. Only the Supreme Court can change it. No President will ever have the power to change the right to abortion, any more than a President could change the freedom of speech.

I particularly love the administration's policy on HIV/AIDs releif and education... If you give out contraception or inform on the subject -- you can receive no federal funding. Abstinence only education is the only form that will be appropriated any funds (204 million this year).

So, for the states to receive federal funding... or any other institution... Here's the line according to title V (built into the SS act). This is a quote mind you:
sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects

That's right -- if they even mention any form of contraception... No funding. My graduation class from high school was about 1000. Honestly, my school system is too busy trying to solve that problem (contending against a cheap housing boom) that millions are getting dumped into that -- rather than sex ed.

So... Where does that leave us? The congressionally mandated studies (federal funded) say it quite clearly... It showed that
1. Parent's aren't teaching their children about contraception when they need it most
2. Contraceptive use dropped 86% since 2002 but only 14% of that can be attributed to a decrease in sexual activity.
3. Contraceptive use between 1995 and 2002 dropped 24% -- which can be attributed to contraceptives being used better (as indicated by pregnancy rates et. al.)

So... How many teens are abstaining until marriage? 5%
And those that waited until they were 20 before becoming active? 19%
If we compare them to their parents -- their parents abstinence %tage was 12%

There's another funny bit to this whole thing.... A study was done (Hannah Brückner and Peter Bearman published in the Journal of Adolescent Health 2005) on teens (grade 7-12) to take a pledge not to have sex before marriage. Well a few things were learned.... 1: It didn't work 2: Those that broke their pledge were less likely to use contraception or get tested compared to those that never took the pledge.

And what do the people say?

05/06 Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine -- they did a representative survey of adults in the US. Overall:
82% of those polled supported a comprehensive approach
68% favored instruction on how to use a condom
These numbers are consistent with results from previous years too -- it's not a new result :/

And people wonder why the Red Cross can't receive this federal funding (they give out condoms, dental dams, etc. and do comprehensive education).


That's just one bit of policy that's a bit scary....

> There are some nice academic papers showing how a certain percentage of homosexual individuals in a population increase the likelihood of the groups gene's being passed on . Please send me a reference to this. My daughter and I were discussing homosexuality (in relation to union/marriage/adoption rights, but that's not important here) and I maintain that homosexuality is a evolutionary dead-end (evidently the mutation is common as homosexuals are fairly abundant), ergo, "not quite right." I haven't found a good way to phrase that - I don't believe gays are bad or anything (or any different, really, except for one thing), just that I don't see how it could "increase the likelihood of the groups gene's being passed on." . It sure would make her day if you could prove me wrong.

Look, no one is homosexual by their DNA. Predisposition to substance is hereditary, but I'm not an alcoholic or even a recovering alcoholic. I have the gene, but I don't do the deed. DNA is a starting point. What you choose to do with it is what matters.

I have the gene, but I don't do the deed.

I have the gene... but I don't have blue eyes... I have yet to master my ability to pick what part of my genes I want to use and disregard -- if you could be so kind, please post an instructable :) Really, I'd prefer to remove the part where I go bald by 40 -- or the color blindness... That'd be great (hell, I'd be happy with just the color blindness, who needs hair :p).

Your argument is a slippery slope fallacy ;)

Some genes affect how much weight your body naturally puts on its frame. If you work hard, you can overcome that. I literally have the gene that predisposes people to alcoholism. I am not an alcoholic. If I ever started drinking, I'm sure I would be. You can't change all your genes, but you can affect them. And really nifty new studies show that the choices you've been making in your life affect certain proteins that "turn on" and "turn off" various genes, and those gene activations can be passed on. DNA and genetics is a complex subject. It's not as clear cut as some people like to think (especially for political purposes). Thus, if you are genetically predispositioned to be skinny, but through hard work have become rather built, you can pass on to your kids a predisposition to better built. You can change your lineage a bit through your choices. And you can change the activation of some of your genes. Now go do some research! :) Genetic replication and self-healing is cool! I need to find this one video I saw of a DNA chain duplicating itself--like a tiny factory, it was!

Well please share.... I really want to change my natural eye color... All the genes are there... How do I work really hard to change that without superficial contacts? Then again, perhaps I don't want to change those genes... after all, that's what I was born with. Perhaps I am just happy with the genes I have and am willing to live happily with them. "Who cares what other people think" - just like learned in kindergarten :) But I'm confused of what your argument is. Are you saying that homosexuality is genetic -- but you can choose to ignore it? Or are you saying that you can change a portion of your DNA, making one homosexual VIA choices? If the latter is true, who makes these choices?

I'm not saying either of those things. I'm saying that the genes we are given is a startin point. Some people claim to have found a gene that makes people homosexual. Ok, but homosexuality is defined by actions. Just as alcoholism is defined by actions. It doesn't sound like your giving considerate thought to my posts. As for your eyes, you can only change their color slightly, say from hazel to medium brown or from brown to very dark brown, or for blue-eyed people, from slate blue to deep azure, I'm not sure if it diet alone, but I do know that various illnesses affect the eye color. Your opthamologist would probably know more about that than I do. Anyhoo . . .