User Log On
Fruhead.Com
Talk
PowerWall
Messenger
Forums
User Directory

About
Member Map
What's New?
Fruvous Dot Com
FHDC FAQ

Welcome, guest!
Create an account for a personalized experience,
or log on if you have one.

Poll: Would you vote for an otherwise qualified candidtate if he or she were an atheist?

Yes 77 (93%)
No 2 (2%)
I'm not sure 4 (5%)
   Discussion: Would you vote for an otherwise qualified candidtate if he or she were an atheist?
*joolee* · 15 years, 10 months ago
Yay atheist!
Andrea Krause · 15 years, 10 months ago
Why wouldn't I?
Talcott Back · 15 years, 10 months ago
that's pretty much my reaction.

Although I'd be even more interested in a candidtate who refused to answer any questions about their religion/lack-of-religion.
Gordondon son of Ethelred Back · 15 years, 10 months ago
The majority of Americans wouldn't, which is what inspired me to submit this poll.

I guess my only hope for getting elected is that they would vote for an unqualifed atheist.
Rachel Marie aka RAI · 15 years, 10 months ago
If the person was one of those atheists who condemned people who were theists, I would say no. Why? That would affect their decisions just as much as the right winged Christians allow their evangelical ways to effect their jobs and put "moral" issues in place of REAL issues.

I personally think that if you're theist or no, you should keep your personal religion out of your job. It really shouldn't matter, and yet, to so many people, it does. If the candidate was an atheist, but was like, "Whatever, I don't believe in a god, let's talk about social security," I'd be okay with that. As long as they don't rub it in our faces.
A girl named Becca Back · 15 years, 10 months ago
Hmm....I counted "non-condemning of others" under "qualified"...but I guess that might have been overly optimistic.
nate... Back · 15 years, 10 months ago
No, I did as well.

I mean, I would think if the person could be called "qualified" their values would be acceptable to you.

lawrence Back · 15 years, 10 months ago
yeah, I considered it that, too.

but I also have a slight bias, and I don't know that I wouldn't overlook the condemnation of others coming from someone who shared my basic views on the subject, if they were otherwise otherwise qualified.

True, I dislike zealots of any persuasion, but it's entirely possible that I just wouldn't notice in this case. Much the same way some Christians probably don't notice that the candidates they're voting for are extremists, because they otherwise agree with the person's faith and other values.
Rachel Marie aka RAI Back · 15 years, 10 months ago
I dunno, I just thought qualified was one of those things that was very objective (had the right experience, etc) as opposed to subjective.
A girl named Becca Back · 15 years, 10 months ago
I guess it's hard to be objective about what makes a candidate qualified. Because the actual objective qualifications are usually just being old enough and being a citizen and such...most of the rest is up to the voter.
Starfox · 15 years, 10 months ago
Because of the qualifying statement "otherwise qualified". Everyone knows my political views, so it wouldn't matter if the person I found qualified for the position worshiped a bag of nuts.

Besides, Article VI specifically states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." So why should it be required for my vote?

Now, if an atheist were running who did not agree with my basic moral principles (not necessarily religious based), I would vote against that person because of the morals, not their religious views.
Doktor Pepski, kommie · 15 years, 10 months ago
I don't believe that the ruler of the "free world" should use his/her beliefs in an afterlife or a diety as a tool in making their decisions. What is it saying to the populace that either 1: believe in another religion, or 2. are offendwe by the whole sepertaion between church and state?
at least with an atheist, you have someone making decisions based on moral laws and whatnot.
A.J. · 15 years, 10 months ago
If I vote for people who are practitioners of other religions that I don't believe in (and indeed I suspect that is true of practically everyone I've ever voted for) why would I have a problem voting for an atheist?

I don't think I'd vote for a satanist, but that is merely because of what that choice says about their ideas. Just like I wouldn't vote for a bible thumping born again christian. Religion isn't a problem, but I don't vote for whackos!
Michael (foof) Maki Back · 15 years, 10 months ago
Satanist? Is there some recognized Satanic church?

(Yeah, there was Anton LaVey's Church of Satan, but they were more humanists than anything)
Brian Dinsky · 15 years, 10 months ago

just because nobody did else has.

i would like to vote yes, but SOMEONE has to represent the Ignorant Party!

caroline: tired. · 15 years, 10 months ago
i would, if i could vote. here's why:
religion has no part of it, obviously. i mean, it does if it gets in the way of them doing their job correctly, but as someone said, that would go under qualified.
example- i don't care what religion, george w. bush is, for example. i just don't trust him, period.
Gordondon son of Ethelred · 15 years, 10 months ago
I think I should run for president of Frudonia.
oO All hail Frudonia Oo
sheryls Back · 15 years, 10 months ago

Is it Population: Tire?

Misch Back · 15 years, 10 months ago
No, that's Strongbadia.

We are at war with Slambovia. We have always been at war with Slambovia.
Jºnªthªn Back · 15 years, 10 months ago
Isn't that a Marx Brothers routine?
Gordondon son of Ethelred Back · 15 years, 10 months ago
Yes it is,well almost, in Duck Soup the country is Freedonia.
Misch Back · 15 years, 10 months ago
SUNY Freeeeeeeedonia

You must first create an account to post.



©1999-2020 · Acceptable Use
Website for Creative Commons Music?