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

[BurningOrchids]

I suspect that there's already a number of atheists and/or agnostics in congress, but of course they probably parade as christians to win elections.

[justfollowingtheelections]

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.

Why would an atheist or someone who is gay steer the government far-left? 
And why does a guy with an Economic score of -5.35 (which makes you a leftist) hate the idea of a far left government?  Why do you hate yourself?

[anvi]

I don't know, maybe by the middle of the century.  I certainly am ready right now and have been for a good while. 

I've taught university classes on religion for some time, and I've occasionally asked my classes this question.  My students have expressed great skepticism that a non-religious candidate will ever be president.  When I have asked them why they think this, they respond, very thoughtfully, that they would be afraid of a president who did not think there was any authority in the world more powerful than themselves.  I thought this was a good answer.  But, if I were a non-religious candidate and had to face that worry, I would simply say that, as president, there are lots of forms of authority superior to mine, such as the authority of the constitution, the authority of the voters that I am elected to represent, the authority of the other branches in many other facets of governing, and that I am furthermore subject to the natural limits to what governments and human beings can do.  I'd also point out that it has often been precisely those presidents who have arrogated God's sanction to themselves that have often done the most harm to the world (with the notable exception of Lincoln, of course).  Anyway, I did find it interesting that worries about a non-religious president had to do with concerns over the power or the presidency in the mind of the person in office.

[Verily]

2009, apparently. Michael Bennet seems to be pretty much confirmed as non-religious. Now, he hasn't been elected yet, but all indications are that he will be. And religiosity is unlikely to be a major factor in a race in a non-Mormon western state.

[The Mikado]

I think that it would definitely be possible to elect the right non-religious person in the right state right now.  Granted that's a pretty limited number of cases, but it's possible at the moment.  Just like, should (God forbid) anything happen to Teddy Kennedy, I'm confident that (should he want it) Barney Frank could grab that Senate seat even as a homosexual.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Well, if "unspecified" counts then we already have one. No, I am not talking about Michael Bennet, someone else became a senator before him.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

By the way, why does the topic say "when will America be ready for..."?