The Office of POTUS: No Atheists Need Apply?

[Torie]

[Edit: the fourth option should read, "No, and it is a big positive," rather than "Yes, and it is a big positive," and should be interpreted as such.]

Pastor Rick Warren said on Larry King last night that he would not vote for a person he knew to be an atheist as President, because no person can do the job "alone," and needs "help."  Michael Medved said he would not vote for an out-of-the-closet atheist because the United States is suffused with religion, and has public ceremonies with religious overtones, and the Presidency of the United States has ceremonial functions, that a known atheist would simply not be fit to conduct.

Do you agree with Rick and Michael that an atheist is unfit to serve as the President of the United States (each for slightly different reasons you will note), or believe that it is at least  a big huge demerit on his or her resume?  Or do you swing the other way, and prefer someone freed from the "surly bonds of God," to a person of professed faith as President? 

[Keystone Phil]

Uh, no and this is coming from a devoutly religious Roman Catholic.

[Verily]

I look forward to BushOklahoma's response.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Of course not; but they probably would never get elected in the first place.

[Chief Justice PiT]

     I misread the question & voted yes, but ultimately, I would probably consider being an Atheist to be a huge positive. Given the choice, I don't want a president who is shackled by the chains of religion.

[bgwah]

I voted for #3 but meant to vote for #2.

Did you perhaps mix up the words "positive" and "negative" in your poll questions?

[Chief Justice PiT]

I voted for #3 but meant to vote for #2.

Did you perhaps mix up the words "positive" and "negative" in your poll questions?

     Same here. That's what confused me into voting for #4.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Even if you think that atheists aren't fit to be President (an opinon that I don't share) it should make no difference whether they're open about it or not.

[Torie]

Even if you think that atheists aren't fit to be President (an opinion that I don't share) it should make no difference whether they're open about it or not.

That is an odd sentiment of Medved's isn't it? If is sort of like gays: they are OK as long as they stay in the closet and remain out of sight, and  out of mind. It is as if admitting that you are an atheist is akin to spitting persons of faith in the eye.

[Cubby]

Torie did you mean "it would be a big negative to me as a voter" or "it would be a big negative for them as a candidate"?

I voted no of course.

Rick Warren is a bear. But I did watch part of the debate the other night.

[Torie]

Torie did you mean "it would be a big negative to me as a voter" or "it would be a big negative for them as a candidate"?

I voted no of course.

Rick Warren is a bear. But I did watch part of the debate the other night.

The former. It is about your personal choice, not what you think  the fate of an atheist would be electorally. We know at the moment, as to the latter, that it is the kiss of death, even worse than being a Muslim, or in about the same place.

[MODU]

No, since the Constitution makes no reference for the President to being religious.

[JSojourner]

No!

There are millions of highly moral, ethical and patriotic Atheists.  I think it's a shame anyone would offer anything but an emphatic "no".

[Sbane]

Of course not and being an atheist is a positive imho.

[Eraserhead]

I would love to be able to vote for a fellow non-religious type. They could never be nominated by the haters in either major party though, let alone be elected President.

[Chief Justice PiT]

[Edit: the fourth option should read, "No, and it is a big positive," rather than "Yes, and it is a big positive," and should be interpreted as such.]

     Yay! That means I voted for the option I intended to vote for.

I would love to be able to vote for a fellow non-religious type. They could never be nominated by the haters in either major party though, let alone be elected President.

     Indeed. I try to be fair to religious people, though I have a harder time trusting someone who professes belief in God because Theists have been responsible for many of the difficulties that people like me face.

[dead0man]

No.

[Ebowed]

It's a non-issue to me.  More concerned with their political views.

[12th Doctor]

Unfit to serve, no, not at all.  I would be lying if I said I wouldn't have trouble voting for one, though.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

I look forward to BushOklahoma's response.

^^^^^^^^^^^

For me, a complete non-issue both ways.

[opebo]

I voted 'NO!', but would have voted 'no it is a big plus', obviously, had it not be misworded.

Alas, reasonables are not welcomed by the public.

[exopolitician]

no.

[Lunar]

Isn't there only one openly atheist Congressman and no Senators?  Let's start small first.

[dead0man]

Yeah, I think only one (Pete Stark) has the balls to admit it publicly.

It's our fault so many fake it.  They think (possibly correctly) that they have to claim to be Christian (notice I didn't say act Christian) just to get elected and we play ball by winking back at them, nodding and then voting for the guy we know just lied to us about something.  Well, I don't, but most do.

[Lunar]

Guiliani wasn't faking it, how dare you suggest that!