Barrack Hussein Obama

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Buchanan was never married, several presidents (I think) were widowers.

Jefferson and Lincoln were not Christians, AFAICT, and Adams pere and fils were not trinitarians.

I was actually just about to point these things out to LordShiva. I didn't say such people couldn't get elected, only that Americans don't seem to like these people as much; I don't think you can disagree with that.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


Please tell me, this isn't seriously Ned's profession, or is is it?

Yes, he is (he's a patent lawer something like that IIRC).

[Aeson]

It's relatively straightforward why: D v R

When you give people 2 choices, and get them to believe those are the only 2 viable choices, they pick one. From then on, the choices only have to remain within a certain tolerance of each other, and they can sink as low as they want.

Until people stop voting based on what party their voter registration card says, it's what we'll have.

[Odin]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Buchanan was never married, several presidents (I think) were widowers.

Jefferson and Lincoln were not Christians, AFAICT, and Adams pere and fils were not trinitarians.

Ferraro was nominated for VEEP (a heartbeat away) and Lieberman was almost elected VEEP.

Pelosi is third in line (after the VEEP) and Rice (female AND black) is 5th in line.

I rember hearing some speculation that Lincoln was a closet Atheist.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Odin


I rember hearing some speculation that Lincoln was a closet Atheist.

well it was pretty well closeted then. Lincoln's speeches are chock full of references to divine providence and all that. Whats missing is reference to Jesus Christ.

Jefferson, by contrast, liked to talk about Christs ethics, but doesnt seem to have believed in divine providence.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Lorizael


I was actually just about to point these things out to LordShiva. I didn't say such people couldn't get elected, only that Americans don't seem to like these people as much; I don't think you can disagree with that.

I didn't know those things. But could they be repeated today? Could one of the 08 candidates declare himself to be atheist, and still be in the running? It seems that voters worry more about the symbolic nature of the office of the President (not so much the VP or speaker of the house or whatever) than is warranted, given that it's an office with very real powers and duties (one in which traits such as intelligence and statesmanship are important).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by LordShiva


I didn't know those things. But could they be repeated today? Could one of the 08 candidates declare himself to be atheist, and still be in the running? It seems that voters worry more about the symbolic nature of the office of the President (not so much the VP or speaker of the house or whatever) than is warranted, given that it's an office with very real powers and duties (one in which traits such as intelligence and statesmanship are important).

well the leading Dem candidate in the polls is a woman, the second is Black, and a black woman who isnt even running gets decent numbers in Republican polls.

So youre pretty much down to the atheist thing. The reality is there are plenty of Americans who would think being an atheist would mean being so out of synch with their values, that it would lead someone to use power in ways they dont trust. OTOH the number who would FOR someone cause hes an atheists would be very small. So theres no real reason to be an avowed atheist.

none of which means you have to be a Christian.

Try googling on American civil religion.

[Arrian]

Yeah, I think a Jew or a Muslim would have a much better shot than an atheist. Dunno about non-abramic faiths, but there too, the candidate would probably still be better off.

In a perfect world, an atheist who stuck to the line of "religion, or lack thereof is a private matter" would be viable... but we're not in that world. Heck, a religious candidate who said that would probably take a hit for it, at least in some quarters (and receive some bounce from atheists/agnostics/others who are big on seperation between church and state - whether these effects would cancel out is another matter).

-Arrian

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Arrian
Yeah, I think a ... a Muslim would have a much better shot than an atheist.

I would like the get Ned's take on this question

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by LordShiva
I didn't know those things. But could they be repeated today? Could one of the 08 candidates declare himself to be atheist, and still be in the running? It seems that voters worry more about the symbolic nature of the office of the President (not so much the VP or speaker of the house or whatever) than is warranted, given that it's an office with very real powers and duties (one in which traits such as intelligence and statesmanship are important).

It seems that a number of the founding fathers were probably Deists and not strongly religious at all, but Deism as a movement seems to be pretty inert nowadays. So no, I don't think an atheist candidate could win in '08.

The fundieness of America has become too strong over the last century, in no small part due to the right's support of it. I won't speculate any further than that, though, as I'd probably stick my foot in my mouth.

[Jon Miller]

A lot of people I know are deists or something similiar today. They just don't talk much about it.

JM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lorizael


It seems that a number of the founding fathers were probably Deists and not strongly religious at all, but Deism as a movement seems to be pretty inert nowadays. So no, I don't think an atheist candidate could win in '08.

The fundieness of America has become too strong over the last century, in no small part due to the right's support of it. I won't speculate any further than that, though, as I'd probably stick my foot in my mouth.

do you think an avowed atheist could have won in 1930? In 1950? In 1970?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Arrian
Yeah, the name will be a problem with the morons of the country.

-Arrian

It kind of reminds of the 1960 Presidential Campaign. The Republicans kept doing hit jobs on Kennedy for being a Catholic claiming that a Catholic President would have to do what the Pope tells him to do thus only a Protestant could be trusted to be President. Later on the same sorts of folks whined endlessly about "the lose of American values" when a Jew got appointed to the President's Cabinet and again when a Jew got elected to Congress. Now they're going ape **** over a muslim being elected to Congress.

Just the same ignorant bastards doing the same old song and dance.

[Arrian]

And he's not even Muslim.

-Arrian

[Lorizael]

I'm not sure that an avowed atheist could have ever been elected, especially once Communism came around. But I'm willing to bet that very quiet deists or simply unreligious folks could have been elected up until the turn of the 20th century.