Would you rather have a president who was an Atheist or a president who was a Muslim?

Question News & Politics

Would you rather have a president who was an Atheist or a president who was a Muslim?

by Jamesy818 [Raccoon VP] Posted October 09, 2007 21:07:54

41 answers
Read all 30 comments
+6 / -1 raves

Answers
Results

Top Comment

+2 Hola October 09, 2007 22:48:01

Answered: Religion shouldn't be a play a role in electing a president.
Since there are vast of religions in our country it will be a bad move to consider someone's religion.
Basic principle: Lead and Unite =)
View thread

Sort By

Most Raves
Least Raves
Oldest
Newest

text size

Comments

Wesloco June 13, 2009 14:18:29

Answered: Religion shouldn't be a play a role in electing a president.
Just pick the best leader and thank God we did that! (-:
Comrade Kyle May 31, 2009 01:10:51

Answered: Religion shouldn't be a play a role in electing a president.
I really think that there should be no question when it comes to topics like this
petean05 April 24, 2009 17:08:27

Answered: Religion shouldn't be a play a role in electing a president.
The person's ideas should.
dzynrbob April 24, 2009 01:40:02

Answered: Religion shouldn't be a play a role in electing a president.
I think I'd consider anyone based on their positions and backed up by their actions, ie voting record, stance on issues, etc. Even an atheist will have an agenda, it's jsut what that agenda is that matters.
blueoval57 April 24, 2009 01:36:30

Answered: Religion shouldn't be a play a role in electing a president.
Actually, I wouldn't want either one. Atheists cannot acknowledge anyone higher in form than themselves - don't need that kind of ego. Muslims would declare a fatwa on me and I couldn't handle that, either.
tebearcalvary April 23, 2009 23:29:39

Answered: Religion shouldn't be a play a role in electing a president.
religion shouldnt be a part of a government
GoodbyeRick April 23, 2009 21:50:12

Answered: Religion shouldn't be a play a role in electing a president.
I'd go for smart over any particular brand of belief/non-belief. In Europe, they don't mention such things, and find our focus on it to be a little primative. I agree. It's ultimately a perosnal issue, not a public brand or something that should be used to promote yourself. That is what "taking the Lord's name in vain" truly means -- using it for your own purposes. Same reason I hate bumper-sticker religion. It puts God on a level with fart jokes and politicians. Yuck. I actually respect my particular faith too much to put it on the ass of my car.
Lovee May 03, 2008 15:10:08

Answered: Religion shouldn't be a play a role in electing a president.
We should elect on who would be best for the country. Although I agree that an atheist might be more logical and have more reason, rather han being ruled by faith.
Rose April 23, 2008 01:18:47

Answered: Religion shouldn't be a play a role in electing a president.
And whoever does get elected shouldnt let their religion dictate how the country is run. Actually for that reason an athiest might be better, but any denomination that uses logic and conscience rather than blind faith, would be fine.
-1
Sophistsstar February 12, 2008 06:44:54

Answered: Religion shouldn't be a play a role in electing a president.
Atheists are anti-christ. Muslims are not atheists. They have Allah - also a god of love.
Lovee to Sophist... May 03, 2008 15:11:09

I'm an atheist and I'm not 'anti-christ' I just don't think there is a god. Does that make me evil?
Goodbye... to Sophist... April 24, 2009 06:24:55

Anyone who doesn't worship Jesus can be labeled "antichrist," if desired. It's not particularly meaningful. It's like the Japanese term "gaijin," or the Hebrew "goyim." It just means "outside our group." So what? I personally don't think Jesus is so insecure that having 2/3 of the planet follow him just isn't enough. I think that's a position of some of his less-kind followers.
Seonag February 07, 2008 14:19:48

Answered: Religion shouldn't be a play a role in electing a president.
Key word "Shouldn't" - unfortunately it does play a part, though.
(blank) February 04, 2008 22:27:10

Answered: An Atheist is better than one of those...
At least hes funny...
DEEP November 06, 2007 21:23:11

Answered: An Atheist is better than one of those...
moderated...
Veeka October 11, 2007 15:38:20

Answered: Religion shouldn't be a play a role in electing a president.
Not at all because you are what you are so what. I just want some one who knows how to run this country right thats all i want.
whatever October 10, 2007 11:19:30

Answered: Religion shouldn't be a play a role in electing a president.
Neither
Sabrina October 10, 2007 03:04:25

Answered: Religion shouldn't be a play a role in electing a president.
i don't think anyone should base their governmental decisions on what they think god wants. i don't care what they practice at home, but leave it there.
blueoval57 to Sabrina April 24, 2009 01:38:57

Ever wonder what the basis was for our system of justice? How about the Bible? Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not lie (under oath is perjury), thou shalt not kill.....
Goodbye... to blueoval57 April 24, 2009 06:26:31

Yes, and where did they get that? The Babylonians. And where did they get that? The Sumarians... and so on. These rules are not unique to the Hebrew Bible.
blueoval57 to Goodbye... April 26, 2009 01:30:16

Because human beings realize they aren't perfect and are looking to Heaven for "some rules of the road", so to speak.
petean05 to blueoval57 April 24, 2009 17:10:52

Do you mean the Torah? That is where you can find the rules in their original language, Hebrew.
Goodbye... to petean05 April 26, 2009 18:42:57

Well, the earliest language we typically pay attention to. But really, these rules were presented by the Babylonians 1,000 years earlier, and half the Hebrews were in Babylon at that time.

Still, the rules hang around because they work, for the most part. The law is a blunt instrument, so I wouldn't get too detailed with it, but the way I see it, saying it's bad to steal and lie in court and commit adultery is just a good way to keep people from killing each other. Can't have a society if everyone is doing the Hatfield and McCoy thing.
+2
Hola October 09, 2007 22:48:01

Answered: Religion shouldn't be a play a role in electing a president.
Since there are vast of religions in our country it will be a bad move to consider someone's religion.
Basic principle: Lead and Unite =)
sluggostalker October 09, 2007 22:42:29

Answered: Religion shouldn't be a play a role in electing a president.
where they pray or if they dont pray at all means nothing!i want a person that can lead this country and try to unite this world! its funny you have kennedys picture up there another catholic who covets!
blueoval57 to sluggos... April 24, 2009 01:42:57

Yeah, watch out for those horrible Catholics! They can't be trusted! While you're at it, look out for those who paint everybody with the same broad brush, too...................
+2
Darling Biscuits October 09, 2007 22:01:53

Answered: An Atheist is better than one of those...
At least then there wouldn't be an agenda. Their decisions would hopefully be ruled by logic and reason and not blind faith.
Goodbye... to Darling... April 23, 2009 21:52:09

I don't think being an atheist means you'd have no agenda. It just means you wouldn't have a pro-faith agenda. You might be anti-faith, or pro-gun control, or whatever else. People are still people. :)
+2
<--That guy October 09, 2007 21:55:15

Answered: Religion shouldn't be a play a role in electing a president.
But I still would prefer an atheist president because he or she wouldn't let religious beliefs conflict with running the country. President is supposed to be a secular position, yet people seem to like voting for someone who is religious because they believe that believing in God is the only way to behave morally, but that isn't true.
+2 / -1
Cacheman October 09, 2007 21:34:43

Answered: An Atheist is better than one of those...
gotta keep church and state seperated