Would You Vote in an Atheist for President?

[Bob Crowley]

This is Australian and not American.

We had an "agnostic" prime minister once in the form of Bob Hawke. But at the time he was made Prime Minister by the Labor Party, the other main contender was a bloke by the name of Bill Hayden.

Hayden was somewhat cynical about the choice of Hawke as the prime minister, as Hayden was the one who led the Labor Party almost up to the election. He really should have been Prime Minister.

Wikipedia -

Later that afternoon at a press conference, Hayden famously said that "a drover's dog could lead the Labor Party to victory, the way the country is".

At that time he was an atheist, although not long ago he was baptised into the Catholic Church at the age of 85.

Again from Wikipedia -

In September 2018, Hayden was baptised as a Roman Catholic at St Mary's Church, Ipswich. He told The Catholic Leader that "there’s been a gnawing pain in my heart and soul about what is the meaning of life".[29] The baptismal ceremony was attended by a gathering of family, friends, and former colleagues. Hayden's siblings, Patricia Oxenham, John Hayden, and Joan Moseman, along with other members of family, were present for the event.

With some explanation here -

Bill Hayden, former governor-general and hostile atheist, explains why he decided to be baptised

When all this was going on back in the 1980's, my old Protestant pastor (who was conservative to his boot laces, and didn't have much time for Bob Hawke) was of the opinion that Hayden would have made a better PM than Hawke. He knew Hayden was atheist at the time, but his attitude was that "If that's what he believes, then so be it - as long as he's open and sincere about it."

He added a sarcastic line that "Hayden is a Queenslander, so he couldn't be PM anyway." Mind you Kevin Rudd, who is or was a Queenslander did become PM some time later.

We don't vote directly for the Prime Minister - the winning party or parties do that after an election. If an incumbent PM's party loses an election, he or she usually steps down or is rolled over anyway. So we don't have a choice in voting for or against a Prime Minister's religious beliefs. We only vote for the local member.

In the end, it all depends on an individual's integrity. That's the real test - not their stated belief.

 

[Bradskii]

This is Australian and not American.

We had an "agnostic" prime minister once in the form of Bob Hawke. But at the time he was made Prime Minister by the Labor Party, the other main contender was a bloke by the name of Bill Hayden.

Hayden was somewhat cynical about the choice of Hawke as the prime minister, as Hayden was the one who led the Labor Party almost up to the election. He really should have been Prime Minister.

Wikipedia -

At that time he was an atheist, although not long ago he was baptised into the Catholic Church at the age of 85.

Again from Wikipedia -

With some explanation here -

Bill Hayden, former governor-general and hostile atheist, explains why he decided to be baptised

When all this was going on back in the 1980's, my old Protestant pastor (who was conservative to his boot laces, and didn't have much time for Bob Hawke) was of the opinion that Hayden would have made a better PM than Hawke. He knew Hayden was atheist at the time, but his attitude was that "If that's what he believes, then so be it - as long as he's open and sincere about it."

He added a sarcastic line that "Hayden is a Queenslander, so he couldn't be PM anyway." Mind you Kevin Rudd, who is or was a Queenslander did become PM some time later.

We don't vote directly for the Prime Minister - the winning party or parties do that after an election. If an incumbent PM's party loses an election, he or she usually steps down or is rolled over anyway. So we don't have a choice in voting for or against a Prime Minister's religious beliefs. We only vote for the local member.

In the end, it all depends on an individual's integrity. That's the real test - not their stated belief.

Let's not forget Whitlam and most recently, Gillard.

It must be said that Australians could care less about their politicians' faith (or sexual preferences). If anything, a casual eyebrow may be raised if any PM shows overt signs of religiousity.

 

[Occams Barber]

Let's not forget Whitlam and most recently, Gillard.

It must be said that Australians could care less about their politicians' faith (or sexual preferences). If anything, a casual eyebrow may be raised if any PM shows overt signs of religiousity.

From Post #7
The religious beliefs of Australia's prime ministers (eurekastreet.com.au)

OB

 

[stevil]

It's nice when you have leaders that don't believe in invisible mystical undetectible creatures such angels and demons.

That kind of thing is fun in fantasy books, but you don't want a leader putting considerations into their decision making.
"Well, I think my country is blessed by a god, I think the other country is led by satan, so it is my duty to god and his/her army of angels to take out a holy war and destroy our evil enemies."
or
"Well, I believe in respecting all people and letting people have their own autonomy, but I also believe my invisible undetectable god doesn't like gays and might burn my country or magically turn my wife into a pillar of salt, so I'm going to oppress all these gay people, stop them from loving, stop them from forming families so they don't anger my god(s)."

 

[Ray Glenn]

How do follow Democrats, who pretend to be Christians and God fearing, yet disregard the beginning of life when by the verse

“I knew you when you were in the womb “

That man better be prayed up when he breathes his last…..over 60 million will be screaming for redemption.

 

[Occams Barber]

How do follow Democrats, who pretend to be Christians and God fearing, yet disregard the beginning of life when by the verse

“I knew you when you were in the womb “

That man better be prayed up when he breathes his last…..over 60 million will be screaming for redemption.

Hi Ray

You're fairly new to the Forum so you may not be aware of this Forum rule:

• Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed.

OB

 

[Ray Glenn]

C

Hi Ray

You're fairly new to the Forum so you may not be aware of this Forum rule:

• Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed.

OB

i stand corrected. I could have chosen words more graciously

 

[Vap841]

One person could be a very scary idea for President because of their belief system, another person could be a great idea for President because of the very same belief system, for other people their belief system may have zero effect on how they are President (or how they live in general), etc. It all depends on the person

 

[rjs330]

The world plays by Satan's rules. That is how nations survive.

Scripture tells us to yqt government was put in place to protect us and deal with evil doers. This a president is doing Gods will. Soldiers are too. For they are part of the government, same as police. Remember when Jesus spoke to the soldiers? He told them to be satisfied with their wages, he didn't tell them to stop being soldiers.

 

[jayem]

We've had Presidents who were certainly not conventionally Christian. Thomas Jefferson, obviously. He believed in a supreme being, which he referred to as "nature's God." Which has been interpreted as evidence of deism. He admired much of Jesus's ethical teachings. But he clearly doubted Jesus was the incarnation of God. I have a copy of The Jefferson Bible. Which is his redacted version of the 4 gospels. He retains those moral pronouncements of Jesus which he approves, but eliminates all of the miracles and supernatural events. He also cuts out all the resurrection accounts. Can anyone be a Christian who denies Jesus rose from the dead?

There's also the matter of Abe Lincoln. Who's religious beliefs have always been debated. He believed in God, and at times, attended Presbyterian services. But he never formally joined a church. Nor did he ever claim any denominational affiliation. Whatever religious beliefs he had, he kept to himself.

I've read that Presidents Grant and Taft were skeptical of religion. Grant also never joined a church, and only attended to please his wife. He never admitted to any religious leanings, even when dying from throat cancer. (He was a heavy cigar smoker his entire life.) Taft was ostensibly a Unitarian. And IIRC, he stated that he didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus. Which I'd think would disqualify him as a Christian.

 

[Guinan]

I voted *No it doesn't matter the spiritual or religious beliefs of POTUS.

I'd vote for a presidential candidate who is an atheist if I thought the person was better suited for the presidency than a candidate who professed to be a Christian. Personally, I don't expect the President of the United States or any other national leader (R or D) to be a representative of my Christian faith.

In fact, I object to our national leaders publicly endorsing the Christian faith because I don't want the President or other national leaders politically pandering to Christians for their support. I don't believe Christians and other people of faith should be given precedential treatment by the government either.

Furthermore, I don't believe any religion should be endorsed by the government (federal, state, local) and that includes Christianity. We live in a free country where religious liberty is a cherished freedom and our government shouldn't endorse a specific religion over all other religions practiced in America.

 

[jamiec]

Nearly every president in the US has been a Christian. I was just wondering if that plays a major role in your decision making, or if that's just a coincidence these days...

So does your president have to be Christian? or religious..? or spiritual..? Or does that stuff not matter much compared to political views.

1. I am from the UK, but I voted anyway.

2. Regardless of what POTUSes may claim to be, their religious affiliation seems to have no particular effect on their policies, whether they are Catholic, Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, Evangelical, or any other kind of Christian. I see nothing in the historical record of the Presidents or the USA to suggest that having an atheist President would make any substantial change to the nation, its politics, or its Presidency. In fact, an atheist POTUS might be less swayed by contending religious interests (such as by Prosperity preachers) than some of his (or her) predecessors have been.

If the best (or least bad) available candidate for the Presidency is an atheist, elect the atheist. Good and just and stable government under an atheist seems far preferable to misgovernment under a Christian, Jew, or the like, if one must choose between the two.

 

[Gene2memE]

Let's not forget Whitlam and most recently, Gillard.

It must be said that Australians could care less about their politicians' faith (or sexual preferences). If anything, a casual eyebrow may be raised if any PM shows overt signs of religiousity.

I can't remember who conducted the survey, but there was a finding in about 2010 or 2011 that Australia was also the country with the least positive view/highest distrust towards public exhibition of religious convictions by politicians. The Vatican decried the fact about seven or eight years ago that we were the Western nation that was most "openly hostile" towards religion.

Australians, generally speaking, aren't moved by stories of others religious experiences, are among the most skeptical of people claiming a strong personal religious/spiritual belief and were the least friendly towards public displays of religious belief, particularly those intended to convert or proselytize.

 

[jamiec]

I can't remember who conducted the survey, but there was a finding in about 2010 or 2011 that Australia was also the country with the least positive view/highest distrust towards public exhibition of religious convictions by politicians. The Vatican decried the fact about seven or eight years ago that we were the Western nation that was most "openly hostile" towards religion.

Australians, generally speaking, aren't moved by stories of others religious experiences, are among the most skeptical of people claiming a strong personal religious/spiritual belief and were the least friendly towards public displays of religious belief, particularly those intended to convert or proselytize.

To me, that sounds like (very commendable and) prudent cautiousness toward overt religiosity - but not like hostility.

I wonder what the Vatican meant by describing Australia as "openly hostile" towards religion or Christianity or whatever it was.

If people are truly religious, they will show it by the quality of their lives; not by making a big hoo-hah about it. True religion has no enemy like the counterfeit kind of religiosity which is all externals and slogans and noise and, sometimes, thuggery. If people wish to hear about others' religious experiences, surely they will ask.

 

[rjs330]

I voted *No it doesn't matter the spiritual or religious beliefs of POTUS.

I'd vote for a presidential candidate who is an atheist if I thought the person was better suited for the presidency than a candidate who professed to be a Christian. Personally, I don't expect the President of the United States or any other national leader (R or D) to be a representative of my Christian faith.

In fact, I object to our national leaders publicly endorsing the Christian faith because I don't want the President or other national leaders politically pandering to Christians for their support. I don't believe Christians and other people of faith should be given precedential treatment by the government either.

Furthermore, I don't believe any religion should be endorsed by the government (federal, state, local) and that includes Christianity. We live in a free country where religious liberty is a cherished freedom and our government shouldn't endorse a specific religion over all other religions practiced in America.

What about leaders who would publically profess their faith? And what does endorse their faith mean to you?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Nearly every president in the US has been a Christian. I was just wondering if that plays a major role in your decision making, or if that's just a coincidence these days...

So does your president have to be Christian? or religious..? or spiritual..? Or does that stuff not matter much compared to political views.

Saying one is a Christian is not a meaningful marker, as we can see all around us.

I'm pretty sure we have already voted for unbelievers many times. But it isn't my job to make that judgment call, so I have to go on policy and the spirit of a person. Best we can do from the outside.

 

[Albion]

Saying one is a Christian is not a meaningful marker, as we can see all around us.

I'm pretty sure we have already voted for unbelievers many times. But it isn't my job to make that judgment call, so I have to go on policy and the spirit of a person. Best we can do from the outside.

I have to agree. Not that having a Christian president isn't desirable, but there is no way to know except if you are satisfied that he or she holds a membership in some religious body.

Few posters here seem willing to make that be their marker when considering who is a Christian in fact and who is not.

 

[Albion]

If people are truly religious, they will show it by the quality of their lives; not by making a big hoo-hah about it.

So Biden is "out." Okay, but we still don't have a concrete answer about all the other contenders and former occupants of the White House.

 

[Bradskii]

So Biden is "out." Okay, but we still don't have a concrete answer about all the other contenders and former occupants of the White House.

I'm pretty sure that you could come up with one more.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I'm pretty sure that you could come up with one more.

I'm sure we could, but I don't know that we should.