Will there be an Atheist, Female, or Homosexual President in our lifetime?

[Something Amyss]

2) An Atheist president- I don't really think religion is that much of an issue in politics (then again, I'm not American)

And there's the problem.

Religion is a serious issue in this country. We have people riled up because Obama is a secret muslim. Religion is assumed for one party and scoffed at for t'other. We are a country where it's still largely unthinkable that a Mormon can win the Presidency, even though Mitt keeps trying.

Well, the U.S. is supposed to be built on Christian ideals.

Citation needed.

There is nothing Christian about the founding principles of the US. The only indication of religiosity is the single mention of a "Creator" in the Declaration, and a Creator need not even be a divine being, let alone the Christian God.

If you believe the US is a "Christian nation" built on "Christian ideals", you've been sold a bill of goods.

Unfortunately, it's a very widely held belief. Ever get those e-mails/Facebook/chain posts that talk about "One Nation Under God" as though it was in the Constitution?

Only by people who didn't live under her.

Hey, kinda like Reagan!

 

[Jazoni89]

Female one in the next 10-15 years
Atheist in the next 50-60

Probably wont be a homosexual one in my lifetime.

see i think homosexuality is more accepted in america than athiesm. At least in the way i have been treated out there.

Here in the Uk we have already had a woman prime minister and possibly an athiest one (i dont know the full religous history of my countries rulership).

As for homosexual prime minister, i dont know, its not that i couldn't see people getting behind one, its just most that i have met have little to no interest in politics (in a serious enough of a degree for even local elections)

We as British people do not speak of the evil that is the milk snatcher...

You should know that by now...

as bad as it was it was a big point in british history which need to be acknowledged good and bad.

Well...

It was also a history of hard scrimping my mother had to endure being a single young mum bringing me up on hardly anything, while living in the Later/Post Thatcher years of a broken Britain.

How about that for some British history.

[small]...I'm only messing with ya, but seriously...[/small]

 

[Arluza]

Answering the question in order.

1. Female president of US- It could happen in 2016. Hillary Clinton had a good and strong running for democrat nominee for a while. Sarah Palin/Michelle Bachman (help us all if that were to happen) had a serious running for a bit too. It is highly likely to have a female president soon.

2. Atheist president of the US- Not likely to happen. The US electorate is too stupid to vote for someone like this. It would almost definitely be the best scenario I could imagine ot keep the first amendment rights protected.

3. Gay president of the US- as unlikely as Atheist president for similar reasons. Also, bigots represent about 60% of the voting population.

4. non R/D president- Never. Too much money (probably in the number of 2 billion) is needed for a winning campaign. A non R/D president WON'T make it into the locked states (states who vote for the same party each time) for electoral college votes, and swing states still won't put them it for the same reason.

5. Any non-christian religious president of the US- Will NEVER happen as long as 80% of the population claims Christian and 60% of people in the US are bigots.

 

[Phaerim]

Well you guys elected a black man roughly 50 years after the climax of the civil rights movement. Homosexuals, atheists and women were never victims as much as black people, so it's entirely possible.

We've had atheists and women in the top position in several big name countries. Hell, Margaret Thatcher is often considered one of the greatest prime ministers ever.

I disagree on the homosexual part. Homosexuals have had a rough time since the early gay rights movements from the 1930'ies was utterly crushed by a wave of fascism in europe, and the conservatism era in USA after WW2. Homosexuals were denied basic rights in many western countries until the late 70'ies, and the fact that the SS Allegmeine executed up to 50.000 gays in work camps, was denied by historians until the gay rights movement gained momentum in the 70'ies. Historians knew it had happened, but refused to acknowledge, that gays were in fact victims - so good ol' conservative well educated gay bashing was common until the 80'ies.

Homosexuality wasn't removed as a mental disease until late 80'ies or early 90'ies in many Western countries.

So get your facts straight before saying, homosexuals didn't have it "rough". We only need to go a few years back, when young gay people has been shot or beaten to death because of their sexuality - in the United States of America.

So no, I don't think we will see a gay president before our grandparents generation has died out, and our generaton and our offspring is dominant on the votes. We will maybe see it before we die of old age, but sadly not before that.

 

[Seneschal]

Well, the U.S. is supposed to be built on Christian ideals. That likely rules out atheists for a good long while. Not to criticize it too much, but I don't know how they (officially) take homosexuals. I know not everyone dislikes them as a rule, but sometimes I get that feeling.

I though it was agreed in hindsight that the entire "America = Christian" thing was a product of Cold-War-era propaganda to create a central American identity in direct opposition to the godless communists. Sure, the majority of the US population has been Christian since the founding, but I never got the feeling that the US Constitution was "built on Christian ideals".

I don't feel comfortable speculating about US presidents seeing as I'm not American, but I'd say that most people underestimate the exponential pace at which modern society is changing. A single generation from now, things could be radically different.

We currently have an agnostic president in Croatia, and had a female premier for the last few years until this year's election. There's a huge catholic majority in the country, and a state-sponsored church, but it seems political issues take precedence over religious ones with our voting body (87% catholics, yet our liberal president, social-democratic majority in Parliament, and the EU referendum all got 60%+ support). However, LGBT rights are still a hot topic, so I'd give it about a decade or two.

 

[spartan231490]

I don't even care to guess. But I want to point out that we've already had #4 happen repeatedly. The democrats and the Republicans have not always been the major parties. "3rd" parties have risen and taken the place of the major party before them several times in the past.

 

[The Crazy Legs]

Err... Well, I'm not too sure about atheistic presidents. I'm an open atheist, and I'm denied the right to my own opinion because of it. And I live in Colorado. Bloody Colorado (South Park has really nullified people's stereotypes here.). Granted, no one breaks down my door and tries murdering me for it, but I still can't have my own opinion. Ugh.

Well, yeah. Based on that, I have to say, not very likely, fellow atheists. Homosexual and women? Sure. It's not that hard to believe. Hillary Clinton almost did it. Homosexual favor's turned around rather well in the past few years, from what I've seen.

 

[Woodsey]

Female one in the next 10-15 years
Atheist in the next 50-60

Probably wont be a homosexual one in my lifetime.

see i think homosexuality is more accepted in america than athiesm. At least in the way i have been treated out there.

Here in the Uk we have already had a woman prime minister and possibly an athiest one (i dont know the full religous history of my countries rulership).

I'm not sure if we've had one, but in any case, it's rather irrelevant. In the States, religion is a massive issue; over here, it isn't (Alastair Campbell to Blair: "We don't do God."). Ed Miliband was asked if he believed in God, he said he was an atheist, that was that. Nobody cared.

Well, the U.S. is supposed to be built on Christian ideals. That likely rules out atheists for a good long while. Not to criticize it too much, but I don't know how they (officially) take homosexuals. I know not everyone dislikes them as a rule, but sometimes I get that feeling.

It's built on secularist ideals, they just tend to not pay attention to that bit.

OT: Guess how many members of Congress identify as Atheists or Unaffiliated (non-religious theists)? None. Zero. Nada. Fuck all.

So I'll eat my own face if we see one of those any time soon (at least anyone openly atheist; some of those will be lying to help get themselves into office, almost certainly).


I don't think it's likely for a gay to get in any time soon either. A woman getting in is definitely the most likely.

 

[95spartans]

Hell, Margaret Thatcher is often considered one of the greatest prime ministers ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFzNhLRAgEU Listen to what Frankie Boyle says.

 

[Woodsey]

Female one in the next 10-15 years
Atheist in the next 50-60

Probably wont be a homosexual one in my lifetime.

see i think homosexuality is more accepted in america than athiesm. At least in the way i have been treated out there.

Here in the Uk we have already had a woman prime minister and possibly an athiest one (i dont know the full religous history of my countries rulership).

I'm not sure if we've had one, but in any case, it's rather irrelevant. In the States, religion is a massive issue; over here, it isn't (Alastair Campbell to Blair: "We don't do God."). Ed Miliband was asked if he believed in God, he said he was an atheist, that was that. Nobody cared.

OT: Guess how many members of Congress identify as Atheists or Unaffiliated (non-religious theists)? None. Zero. Nada. Fuck all.

So I'll eat my own face if we see one of those any time soon (at least anyone openly atheist; some of those will be lying to help get themselves into office, almost certainly).


I don't think it's likely for a gay to get in any time soon either. A woman getting in is definitely the most likely.

woah really zero?
that seems statistically improbable in this age, but hey its america.
And i think your right in the summation of how little religion matters over here.

Yeah, I had to do some research on it for my Politics class.

0% representation when 16.1% of the country identify as being Atheists or Unaffiliated. Most other religions were relatively well-represented. Catholics and Protestants were marginally over-represented, and I think Jews were over-represented by like four times over; 1.7% of the population (I think), 7.*something*% in Congress.

In Finland, on the second round of the presidential elections (only a few weeks ago), with only the best two from the first round continuing:

The other contestant was homosexual. He didn't win though.

And we of course had a female president for two terms, 12 years, before this election.

I hear you guys act like, y'know, we're all living in the 21st Century. Lots of people in lots of countries can't cope with that.

 

[The Crazy Legs]

nah, he'd just have to play his cards right, its totally possible, conservatives dont hate atheist....just the dawkinologist.

What?

Wait

What!?

Ok, this is the conservative Wikipedia
http://conservapedia.com/Athiesm

Tell me that the WHOLE wiki page isn't anti-athiesm?

It has connections from Atheism and Communism, Atheism and mass murder, Atheism and immoral views, Atheism, pederasty and NAMBLA, Atheism and bestiality, Atheism and rape, Atheism and evolutionary racism

SERIOUSLY.
"Atheism offers no condemnation of rape and it provides no moral basis a society to attempt to prevent and deter rape."

"Although there are recent studies relating to atheism being a causal factor for suicide for some individuals"

If you believe that Conservatives have a higher chance of electing a atheist than a liberal party. You MUST be kidding yourself. Everyone, just go read how much RIDICULOUS propaganda that site has, and then compare it to wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

*Stares, mouth wide open in shock.* Holy hell, I thought I was just kidding when I said that atheists were oppressed! Wow!

 

[Natasha_LB]

That said, maybe you aren't from the US, or maybe you live in a far-north state/community where you're not surrounded by religious nuts, but much of the US is very much impossible to live in as an atheist. Socially, atheists have it the worst in normal society.

Seriously? Please don't tell me you actually believe that? As an atheist, and a member of several other minority groups (With friends in many others) I can tell you that atheists do not have it the worst. To claim so is not only absurd, but is also insensitive to the struggles that others may have gone through. Never claim that either you (Or you group) have it worse than anyone one else, it makes you look pretty silly.

It's not like people in everyday life know you're an atheist: You don't have to wear a t-shirt disclosing it to strangers on the street. But if you're black, gay (If you're with your partner), trans, disabled, disfigured, etc: Then everyone you ever pass in everyday life can see that, even going to the shops for a pint of milk can be a terrifying experience. You can hide your identity as an atheist for much of the time, many other groups cannot. As an Atheist you do not fear for your life every time you leave your house. I'm not trying to say that I've had it any harder than you have (I'd kinda defy my own point then), perhaps your experience as an atheist has been very different to mine, but I certainly find it to be the least of my worries.

I'm sure there are groups who've had it much worse than the examples I've posted here, as I can only post things that I have a knowledge of (Some of this is from personal experience, some is from friends). And in spite of how tricky I've found my life, and in spite of how un-accepted I've been by the world, I would never dare claim that I have it the worst. Because there is always someone else who has it worse than you, and you'll offend them and belittle their experiences with comments like this.

Why the need to be the one who has it the worst? We all live different lives, that are challenging in many ways, you can't measure who has the worst, and you shouldn't try. Be grateful for what you have, focus on how good you have things compared to others, not on how bad.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Dont think its that important really. As long as they do there job well why should there religion, sex or gender come into it?

 

[Colour Scientist]

I wonder what the timeline would be for an independent, lesbian atheist to become President of the US.

 

[Nimcha]

I kind of suspect America has already had an atheist president.

 

[Xenowolf]

From the perspectice of a non-American....

Female - 10-15 years, considering how many female presidnetial candidates there have been in recent years.

Homosexual - 50-65 years

Atheist - 60+ years