When will America be ready for a non-religious...

[justfollowingtheelections]

Senator?

[John Dibble]

Maybe in a couple decades, depending on the state. I don't think the candidate could be too openly atheist though - they would have to be openly respectful of the religious to have a chance.

[Daniel Z]

Right now, or within a decade at the latest.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

It depends on the state.  I think you could have one very soon, as long they aren't insulting religious people.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     VT could easily elect one right now given the opportunity.

[© tweed]

Alaska/Hawaii would also be possibilities within a decade or two

of course we probably already have a handful, but I assume you mean 'openly' non-religious

[Joe Biden 2020]

Hopefully, never.  I mean that not to put down the non-religious amongst us, but I just feel everybody needs some driving force behind them, a higher-being of sorts.  I hope its the Lord Jesus Christ, but as long as they have some positive driving force behind them.

[John Dibble]

Hopefully, never.  I mean that not to put down the non-religious amongst us, but I just feel everybody needs some driving force behind them, a higher-being of sorts.  I hope its the Lord Jesus Christ, but as long as they have some positive driving force behind them.

Just because someone doesn't believe in a higher power does not mean they can't be driven. Lots of secular people want to improve the state of the world before they die, and the driving force behind that could be as simple as a love for one's children or a desire to have mankind live up to its potential.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Hopefully, never.  I mean that not to put down the non-religious amongst us, but I just feel everybody needs some driving force behind them, a higher-being of sorts.  I hope its the Lord Jesus Christ, but as long as they have some positive driving force behind them.

Just because someone doesn't believe in a higher power does not mean they can't be driven. Lots of secular people want to improve the state of the world before they die, and the driving force behind that could be as simple as a love for one's children or a desire to have mankind live up to its potential.

     In the basest possible sense, one could be driven by a purely secular desire to rise above the rest & push themselves be the best that they can be.

[Torie]

Hopefully, never.  I mean that not to put down the non-religious amongst us, but I just feel everybody needs some driving force behind them, a higher-being of sorts.  I hope its the Lord Jesus Christ, but as long as they have some positive driving force behind them.

It's E-G-O baby. I was quite driven to beat the competition until well, I found a secure niche in my professional life at least,  and S-L-0-W-L-Y,  oh so slowly, mellowed out. The Torie you "see" today is a mere shell of his former self in many ways.

[Matt Damon™]

When the baby boomers begin dying off.

[Alcon]

Alaska/Hawaii would also be possibilities within a decade or two

of course we probably already have a handful, but I assume you mean 'openly' non-religious

Hawai'i is probably one of the more religion-centered states in the country.  Alaska has a lot of non-religiouses, but their Christians can get pretty out there.

I would say Vermont is most likely, followed by New Hampshire and the Pacific Northwest, and then Maine close behind.

But really I don't think that this couldn't well happen now.  That town in Oregon elected a transsexual, although I don't expect that to be copied on the state level.  I think the days of litmus tests are mostly over.  I think the main worry is that it is an automatic "no" for some voters, which can matter in a close state election, not that it is an insta-disqualifier.

edit: made last sentence make sense.

[Aizen]

Hopefully, never.  I mean that not to put down the non-religious amongst us, but I just feel everybody needs some driving force behind them, a higher-being of sorts.  I hope its the Lord Jesus Christ, but as long as they have some positive driving force behind them.

thats the stupidest thing i have ever heard in my entrie life. congratulations.

[Psychic Octopus]

twenty years

[bgwah]

Now. There are certainly some states where it wouldn't be a big deal...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bernie Sanders could be a non-religious Jew, and I don't think it would make any difference. That's really up to Bernie Sanders.

[Franzl]

Hopefully, never.  I mean that not to put down the non-religious amongst us, but I just feel everybody needs some driving force behind them, a higher-being of sorts.  I hope its the Lord Jesus Christ, but as long as they have some positive driving force behind them.

Nice to see that you discriminate against atheists.

[John Dibble]

Hopefully, never.  I mean that not to put down the non-religious amongst us, but I just feel everybody needs some driving force behind them, a higher-being of sorts.  I hope its the Lord Jesus Christ, but as long as they have some positive driving force behind them.

thats the stupidest thing i have ever heard in my entrie life. congratulations.

Clearly you must have BRTD on ignore.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Hopefully, never.  I mean that not to put down the non-religious amongst us, but I just feel everybody needs some driving force behind them, a higher-being of sorts.  I hope its the Lord Jesus Christ, but as long as they have some positive driving force behind them.

Nice to see that you discriminate against atheists.

I don't discriminate against atheists.  I respect their opinions, though I disagree with them.  I just don't want them representing me anywhere in government.

[Franzl]

Hopefully, never.  I mean that not to put down the non-religious amongst us, but I just feel everybody needs some driving force behind them, a higher-being of sorts.  I hope its the Lord Jesus Christ, but as long as they have some positive driving force behind them.

Nice to see that you discriminate against atheists.

I don't discriminate against atheists.  I respect their opinions, though I disagree with them.  I just don't want them representing me anywhere in government.

Sorry....but I consider that to be pretty discriminatory, to be honest.

How is that different from saying that you support black rights, and respect people that fight for them....but you don't want a black representing you?

(Or the same question concerning gays)

Not saying you would say that about either one, but I don't see the real differnce.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Hopefully, never.  I mean that not to put down the non-religious amongst us, but I just feel everybody needs some driving force behind them, a higher-being of sorts.  I hope its the Lord Jesus Christ, but as long as they have some positive driving force behind them.

Nice to see that you discriminate against atheists.

I don't discriminate against atheists.  I respect their opinions, though I disagree with them.  I just don't want them representing me anywhere in government.

Sorry....but I consider that to be pretty discriminatory, to be honest.

How is that different from saying that you support black rights, and respect people that fight for them....but you don't want a black representing you?

(Or the same question concerning gays)

Not saying you would say that about either one, but I don't see the real differnce.

There is a difference.  Being black is just the color of their skin, it has nothing to do with how they'll govern.

I do not want gays or atheists representing me because some of them would try to steer this government hard left and I don't want that.  They already are trying to regulate what can be preached from the pulpit by saying that any sermon against homosexuality is, in their mind, a "hate crime".

At the same time, I don't want any hard-nosed, Bible-thumpin', holier-than-thou politicians representing me as they would try to steer this government hard right.  That's just as dangerous as steering it hard left.  The people in this group would like nothing more than to stamp out all religious freedom and would fail to recognize that this country is made up of, as Barack Obama put it, and I paraphrase, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, non-believers, etc.  They are allowed to have their opinions that Christianity or their particular religion is superior, but don't force everybody to believe that.  Spread the Word with love and dignity and respect, but don't shove it down their throats.  We've seen what countries are like without any differing religious tolerance (see: the entire Middle East).  These people would also love to literally hang all homosexuals.  That's not the answer, either.  Homosexuals are human beings worthy of respect and dignity just like Heterosexuals.  I do not believe gays should be allowed to marry, but I am in favor of civil unions and full partnership rights.

So, for me, it goes both ways.  I want a centrist government insofar as possible and not pandering to either side any more than the other.  If they do pander to the left, they have to give the same consideration to the right.  If they pander to the right, they have to give the same consideration to the left.

I'm not against any of these aforementioned groups based on them as people, I just don't agree with their politics. and am really just afraid of where they would take this country.

[Alcon]

There is a difference.  Being black is just the color of their skin, it has nothing to do with how they'll govern.

I do not want gays or atheists representing me because some of them would try to steer this government hard left and I don't want that.  They already are trying to regulate what can be preached from the pulpit by saying that any sermon against homosexuality is, in their mind, a "hate crime".

So...if there were an atheist who didn't support that, and there are many (I imagine most), why is that a problem?  There are Republican, even socially conservative, atheists.  For instance I doubt our friend Torie here would exactly fall into the "hard-left" category, CARLHAYDEN notwithstanding.

Certainly there are plenty of atheists who are more conservative than the man you just elected President.  Tons.

[Franzl]

Hopefully, never.  I mean that not to put down the non-religious amongst us, but I just feel everybody needs some driving force behind them, a higher-being of sorts.  I hope its the Lord Jesus Christ, but as long as they have some positive driving force behind them.

Nice to see that you discriminate against atheists.

I don't discriminate against atheists.  I respect their opinions, though I disagree with them.  I just don't want them representing me anywhere in government.

Sorry....but I consider that to be pretty discriminatory, to be honest.

How is that different from saying that you support black rights, and respect people that fight for them....but you don't want a black representing you?

(Or the same question concerning gays)

Not saying you would say that about either one, but I don't see the real differnce.

There is a difference.  Being black is just the color of their skin, it has nothing to do with how they'll govern.

I do not want gays or atheists representing me because some of them would try to steer this government hard left and I don't want that.  They already are trying to regulate what can be preached from the pulpit by saying that any sermon against homosexuality is, in their mind, a "hate crime".

At the same time, I don't want any hard-nosed, Bible-thumpin', holier-than-thou politicians representing me as they would try to steer this government hard right.  That's just as dangerous as steering it hard left.  The people in this group would like nothing more than to stamp out all religious freedom and would fail to recognize that this country is made up of, as Barack Obama put it, and I paraphrase, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, non-believers, etc.  They are allowed to have their opinions that Christianity or their particular religion is superior, but don't force everybody to believe that.  Spread the Word with love and dignity and respect, but don't shove it down their throats.  We've seen what countries are like without any differing religious tolerance (see: the entire Middle East).  These people would also love to literally hang all homosexuals.  That's not the answer, either.  Homosexuals are human beings worthy of respect and dignity just like Heterosexuals.  I do not believe gays should be allowed to marry, but I am in favor of civil unions and full partnership rights.

So, for me, it goes both ways.  I want a centrist government insofar as possible and not pandering to either side any more than the other.  If they do pander to the left, they have to give the same consideration to the right.  If they pander to the right, they have to give the same consideration to the left.

I'm not against any of these aforementioned groups based on them as people, I just don't agree with their politics. and am really just afraid of where they would take this country.

But what you propose isn't centrist in any way, it's far-right, socially.

I'm not going to get into another debate about gay marriage...but I have serious problems with opposition to it.

As Alcon said, what does being atheist have to do with the style in which an elected official will govern? The example with Torie is perfect. Do you think he'd pander to the far-left?

Not voting for someone due to race, age (outside of constitutional limitations), gender, sexual orientation, religion is simply discriminatory, regardless of how you feel about individual issues. (Now, if you are certain that an atheist candidate will pass legislation which you oppose, like gay marriage rights, then it's perfectly fair to use that as justification), but the mere fact that someone doesn't have religious views is a pretty terrible reason to not vote for someone.


Another thing...I remember you said at one point that you "could never live" in a place where gay marriage is legalized. It's similar to not "ever voting" for a non-believer. Why does it affect you, I'd have to ask? If you truly believe in seperation of church and state and individual rights, how can you go on about such primative stuff?

Besides that, the assumption that all gays or all atheists think alike, in my opinion, is also pretty hateful. Now you may aknowledge that there are "some exceptions". If you do that, it's no better than being racist and saying: "There are some good blacks, I know one."

I hate populism...

[Torie]

There seems to be this assumption that most or a majority or even a substantial plurality of atheists are obsessed with religion as an baneful phenomenon. It's erroneous. And the fact one has not been blessed with the gift of faith  surely has nothing to do as to how one would govern, other than perhaps to make one a tad more cautious, because well, God or Jesus or whomever ain't there to bail you out of your F ups, or something. It's just you with a lot of flawed humans with whom you engage doing the best one can.

I might add that I come from a rather long line of Republican atheists, or near atheists. I am the third/fourth generation of the breed.   Granted my atheist brothers and nephew are all commie libs to varying degrees (well one brother actually is not affirmative hostile to market forces, but whatever), but that is due to other factors. Trust me.

I worry a bit more about hypocrites myself. You know, the folks who profess to be followers of Jesus, but beneath that disingenuous veneer lies in wait a power mad prevaricator intent on preying on the denizens of the fruited plain for his own advantage.

False advertising is a serious crime/sin/character flaw in my book, in other words.

And there you have it. 

[Associate Justice PiT]

I might add that I come from a rather long line of Republican atheists, or near atheists. I am the third/fourth generation of the breed.  

     Really. I'm the first person in my family to not be baptized & confirmed within the Roman Catholic Church.