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

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

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 can't speak for the first example, but you do recall what we did to the second, no? And the reaction the Christians had to those godless commies?

Actually even before the French Revolution Deism, a rejection of the deity of Christ in favor of a nameless creator was moderately popular in the early days of the US. A number of the leading figures in the revolution, Franklin, Jefferson, Payne, were deists. After the revolution the Freemasons, which at that time were largely avowedly deist, became a growing influence in American society. In the 1820s and 1830s growing suspicion of the secret nature of the society, and some unsolved murders of its critics led to its decline until after the Civil War it resurfaced as no longer anti- (Protestant) christian.

[onodera]

Well, 80% *say* they're Christian.
And something makes me suspect that 15% *say* they're Muslim. I'm quitó sure a lot of them enjoy beer and bacon.

[Arrian]

Simple answer to the OP is of course not, he or she would be crucified (figuratively, of course).

Hell, that comment would most likely cost the candidate MY vote, because AFAIK it has no basis.

-Arrian

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Arrian
Simple answer to the OP is of course not, he or she would be crucified (figuratively, of course).

Hell, that comment would most likely cost the candidate MY vote, because AFAIK it has no basis.

-Arrian

You don't vote for politicians who say things that might not be true?

[Arrian]

I generally prefer if their statements at least have some plausible basis.

But that's not all of it. How about:

Trolling the majority of registered voters is stupid for a politician and I don't like to elect stupid people.

-Arrian

[Guynemer]

If he just said, "I'm an atheist," he'd never get elected and I'd vote for him (depending on his policies).

If he said, "I'm an atheist, and Jesus was a drunk," he'd never get elected and I wouldn't vote for him, because that's a stupid and baseless comment.

[Arrian]

edit: DanSed by Guy.

I'd appreciate the guts it would take to say such a thing, but if the guy was a raging looney on policies I care about... no thanks.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Best estimates are that 75-80% of Americans identify themselves as Christian (and more than half of those identify themselves as born-again or evangelical). That's makes America even more Christian than it is white. Exactly how much do they have to dominate society before they stop whining?

If youre a White, rural, evangelical who considers the "moral standards" wrt sexuality that in the not so distant past were shared by Deists and some Commies as well to be dissolving in a "new Babylon", then the fact that 30% of Americans belong to Christian churches that ordain gay ministers or support choice on abortion is not particularly comforting, and the fact that close to 10% of the US population is african americans whose churches share your values, but who routinenly vote for politicians who dont, is not much greater comfort.

As for Bush, what has he actually DONE that assuaged the deep fears of people like that? Very little beyond rhetoric, and some SCOTUS appointments whose substantive implications are far from clear.

Rufus is missing the point. Evangelicals have never dominated our society, and they probably DO have more raw power today than at any point earlier. But the past STILL looks better to them, the past when the govt and society were dominated by mainstream Protestants. Because in that halcyon era, the mainstream Protestants were not advocating social policies deeply threatening to evangicals. So the Evangelicals mainly voted on economic issues. The social changes that occurred from the mid -60s to the late 90s challenged the evangelicals view of the world and the country in ways that led to their current paranoia.

[Shrapnel12]

Is it paranoia if they really are out to get you?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Rufus is missing the point. Evangelicals have never dominated our society, and they probably DO have more raw power today than at any point earlier. But the past STILL looks better to them, the past when the govt and society were dominated by mainstream Protestants. Because in that halcyon era, the mainstream Protestants were not advocating social policies deeply threatening to evangicals. So the Evangelicals mainly voted on economic issues. The social changes that occurred from the mid -60s to the late 90s challenged the evangelicals view of the world and the country in ways that led to their current paranoia.

I'm not missing the point; that's the point I made: Christianity is secure, Christians aren't.

And I was pithy about it.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
Is it paranoia if they really are out to get you?

Oh yes, the poor persecuted evangelicals. My heart bleeds.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
So Christians are just punishing themselves with all these stupid decisions like punishing a child for praying in school or firing a teacher for wearing a cross? Not the kind of discrimination you'd expect a majority group to suffer.

If you're suggesting that ONLY Christians are subject to the separation of church and state in the United States, then you're wrong.

The impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical...

Thomas Jefferson: 'Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom', 1786

[jkp1187]

I feel like I should get some sort of distance education credit for winding my way through the various options in the poll.

I come to bury Jesus, not praise him. Still, sounds rather unfair to refer to him as a "Lie", "drunkard", or "evil racist imperialist". I'd challenge you to provide some sort of support for your statements if you were making them in a non-hypothetical way.

I personally make it a point to not support anyone running for office who is openly religious, but alas, there are many who take the opposite view, both here in the States and elsewhere.

[Arlborn]

Why insult something that you don't believe on? Won't it make you a believer?

I don't see why he should insult religion, and that is why he wouldn't be elected in most places. But a lot of people wouldn't see a problem if he was atheist without insults.