Could an atheist who called Jesus a "drunkard" be elected in your country?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by LordShiva


I think
that's
what he
meant

But
not
what
he
said

[Elok]

Hahahahano. No freaking way. Surveys show that we in the USA would elect a gay man president before an atheist, and we're not even talking an outspoken atheist running on an "anti-religion platform," whatever that is.

[Timexwatch]

Re: Could an atheist who called Jesus a "drunkard" be elected in your country?

Originally posted by aneeshm
A genuine question.

If there were an atheist politician (assuming such a thing can exist) in your country, and he called Jesus (or equivalent figure of reverence) a:

a) Lie,
b) Drunkard, and
c) Evil racist imperialist,

would he be electable anywhere?

More generally - would an atheist politician, running on an anti-religion platform, be electable?

Also, would it be appropriate for him (or any other politician) to make such statements, or to run on such a platform?

I'd think the politician would be retarded for criticizing a major religious figure without textual/historical evidence.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Unelectable, even in our most liberal, atheist areas.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
I would like to see this candidate run in a predominately muslim country.

Nobody but the winner is allowed to "run" in a predominately muslim country.

[Blake]

It might happen in NZ.

But insulting the good name of Jesus is kind of like bad mouthing Mother Teresa, Gandhi, Mandela or the Buddha - regardless of whether you think Jesus had any divine nature (or even existed as wrote about ), he is the very model of a good honest to god guy, so someone who goes around slandering Jesus is essentially, a big fat asshat who is full of sh*t. The only people who would vote for him would be those who fit a "rebel without a clue" archtype.

In general, Atheist is okay though, people would happily vote for someone who is openly atheist and controversial, just as long as he isn't simultaneously a total unredeemable asshat.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Blake
It might happen in NZ.

But insulting the good name of Jesus is kind of like bad mouthing Mother Teresa, Gandhi, Mandela or the Buddha - regardless of whether you think Jesus had any divine nature (or even existed as wrote about ), he is the very model of a good honest to god guy, so someone who goes around slandering Jesus is essentially, a big fat asshat who is full of sh*t. The only people who would vote for him would be those who fit a "rebel without a clue" archtype.

In general, Atheist is okay though, people would happily vote for someone who is openly atheist and controversial, just as long as he isn't simultaneously a total unredeemable asshat.

Mother Teresa deserves to be badmouthed. Withholding anesthetics from dying people is not very nice.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

In the election of 1800, Federalists did pretty much everything they could to tar Jefferson with the label "athiest," and Jefferson and his followers did almost nothing to deny it. He nevertheless beat the incumbent Adams handily.

So, basically, we've gone backwards.

[Kuciwalker]

Christianity in America was far more secure than it is now.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Christianity in America has never been more secure than it is now. It's Christians who are insecure.

[Jon Miller]

Social conservatism is losing pretty badly. That probably is the source for insecurity.

JM

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Christianity in America has never been more secure than it is now. It's Christians who are insecure.

Are you kidding? Christianity is far less universal now than it was then.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Social conservatism is losing pretty badly. That probably is the source for insecurity.

JM

Social conservativism is always losing pretty badly. I thought that was its definition.

[Jon Miller]

Really? Compare roman times, middle ages (I know, very broad), victorian, 20s/30s, 50s, and the last 50 years.

JM

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Are you kidding? Christianity is far less universal now than it was then.

Universality is irrelevant to security, if the alternatives aren't threats. In a pluralistic US, Christianity is actually less threatened, because the the things that protect Christianity (like the 1st Amendment) protect other religions as well.

By contrast, at least two earlier periods saw powerful anti-Christian ideologies with some popularity in the US, including popularity among leading social figures. In the early Republic, there was a good degree of sympathy in some quarters for the goals and tenets of the French revolution, including its aggressive secularism. In the frist half of the 20th century, Communism (including American Communism). What quarter of society, or what influential group of elites in US society, is anti-religion today?

I stand by my original statement: Christianity has never been more secure. It's Christians who are insecure, even paranoid -- but that may have more to do with their immersion in right wing politics (per Hofstadter) than with their Christianity.