<snark>
What can you possibly mean? Why, that godless Kay Hagan was elected to the Senate just last week!
</snark>

Ventura would have won the MN Senate seat if he had run this year. Barkley pulled 15%, Ventura could have cleared 30 without even campaigning. Everyone hated both candidates.

Probably the only difference between Stark and a lot of other elected atheists is that he's out of the closet.

Obama laid the god-talk on pretty thick during the campaign, but I doubt much of it was genuine or that he would have been elected without it.

Anyway, it is a data point for the "America is center-right" position.

I'm betting we've already had an atheist president or two, though none have been willing to declare it publicly.

So you think Zoroastrians are too "smack" to be elected? I would expect that kind of bigotry from one of the right-wing nut-jobs, but not here. Zoroastrians are decent people, and no more smack than anyone else.

Oh, maybe you meant "small"?

The original Oppenheimer piece has "small" instead of "smack." What would "smack" mean, anyway? That they're like heroin (shows you what decade my cultural references come from)?

The Lord giveth

More than anything, fear of otherness drives such wild fantacies! Oppenheimer needs to look in the mirror and offer us a clear definition of what he is, especially since he seems so capable to define what otherness is be to himself! -Kevo

I don't think Oppenheimer understands prejudice (though it might be me). Even the worst bigots acknowledge that there are exceptions to the rule. Had Michael Steele run for president, there would have been far less talk of race, though certainly a small number would vote against him for only that reason. Mass voted for Romney, though I doubt being a Mormon was an asset, and I suspect many people there would have answered the survey saying they wouldn't vote for one. Most atheists I know have a moral system that is quite closely aligned with Christianity. If you had one that found gay marriage and abortion to be immoral for some social, rather than religious, reason, I doubt many Republicans would protest. A liberal atheist, on the other hand, would be far more vulnerable, because he would play into the stereotype. But it's that stereotype that these small-minded people respond to in these surveys.

For what it's worth, one of the most pragmatic and intelligent people I have ever worked with is a Zoroastrian. But I must confess that I don't get the preoccupation behind this post, at all. What's the point?

What a contrast with Britain, where Tony Blair went out of his way to keep his religious convictions a secret because he was afraid that over Christianity might make him unelectable...

God I hate this post.

Our economy is in a godforsaken place and you're asking us to discuss the political viability of a
nongod-fearing person versus a typical pontificating politician!

Anyway, it is a data point for the "America is center-right" position.

Meh. A fairly large majority of liberals also hold to theistic views, as I understand it. Nevertheless, I think this trend is liable to change, though not as fast as some others. My dearest hope is that genuinely religious people will embrace the reality that the religious right wing is the real threat to their religious freedom. When that happens, the public would rather take a chance on a liberal atheist than on a theocrat.

Re: Atheists: Here's some irony for you. Several hyper religious conservatives have in private admitted they are agnostic, but believe in religion because the common people need it to make them behave. So it is quite likely that many voters have and will continue to vote for hypocritical atheists. They get what they vote for, too. Hypocrisy.

We should also be aware of a possible Bradley type effect: how many respondents might vote for an Athiest but not admit it?

I imagine atheists would have a better chance than, say, convicted child rapists.

So there's that to keep their spirits (oops) up.

Now granted, I'm not sure how it is in other countries (I imagine it's much the same), but the fact that this country makes such a big deal out of it -

"The United States Constitution addresses the issue of religion in two places: in the First Amendment, and the Article VI prohibition on religious tests as a condition for holding public office. The First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making a law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" This provision was later expanded to state and local governments, through the Incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Religion_in_the_United_States

To me I would expect someone who doesn't subscribe to any religion would be pretty neutral to them all.

That the public at-large wouldn't vote for them due to not sharing their believes is itself a form of relgious bigotry.

It's sad that continues to exist.

A 2007 Gallup poll found that 53 percent of Americans would not vote for an atheist for president.

I don't really trust polling like that to be much more than a soft indicator of how people feel about the group in question; if there were any evidence that there was any close connection between abstract questions like that asked without a publicly visible likely candidate that is associated with the question in people's minds and actual voting behavior for real candidates that fit the label, I might give them more weight.

"Nevertheless, I think this trend is liable to change, though not as fast as some others."

I don't know that there's any reason to think so. Garry Wills' "Head and Heart" has a chart showing religious adherence in the U.S. going up over time, not down (unfortunately the chart is removed from Google books.

Perhaps atheists should not be permitted to marry?

An atheist president will be a long time coming for the simple reason that it is exceedingly easy to fake belief in a way that faking e.g. sexual orientation isn't. And of course faking your race or gender is just about impossible.

So if you're a politician who doesn't believe in god, admitting it is all risk and no reward. For the foreseeable future anyone with such ambitions will just tell a white lie.

I'm so tired of religion. It's all such a joke.

Found another version of the chart here.

Being a culturally conservative agnostic, I tend to see growing religiosity as part of a general stupefication of the species.

The first seven Presidents were "scanty Christians", as one scholar put it, and would be considered atheists by today's media.

The problem isn't so much atheism as it is a lack of understanding about what atheists do and want. For many religious nuts, atheists are devil worshippers who drink the blood innocents. They think ahteists want to rob them of their faith by tearing down churches and killing believers. Of course, the reality is that most atheists just want people to use their brains a little more often. And that's what scares the shit out of theists. How can you control people AND encourage them to think?

Typical insider-outsider stuff. Could have called it "My God is Mightier than your God." No mention of Wiccans, although they've been called the fastest growing religion in the country. I'm inclined to doubt that, but they have their adherents. Hard to type, though, which makes them a poor subject for an article like this: classic pantheists, some literally believe in everything. Their holidays tend to look like everyone else's holidays (but different) as they themselves look like everybody else, just a little New Agier. Unlike the largest, supposedly most electable groups (Evangelical Christians and Mormons) they don't proselytize, so if you're interested you have to approach them, if you can find them. Not a bad faith for the conscience, if not something to advertise at the ballot box, at least according to this. I agree, this article just reinforces the CenterRight meme the MSM has been desperate to push since election day, and appearing on a closet right website. Leaving aside Doonesbury, all that's worth reading on Slate is Dahlia Lithwick.

I am reminded of the Sixty Minutes episode on gays in the military where they asked an openly gay captain in the Dutch army if there would ever be a gay general. He just chuckled and replied: “Oh there are lots of gay generals�.

Atheist presidents are just fine with the American public, as long as they stay in the closet. Interesting thing about Ronald Reagan; he openly professed belief but attended church only on rare occasions.

Atheists are in good company, since the Deists who founded this country would never get elected either. They were openly hostile to Christian dogma, and of course that never occurs to the bible thumpers of today as they regurgitate nonsense about the country being founded on Christian "values".

That's (another reason) why this atheist wasn't thrilled with Obama, notably his expressed desire to want to expand Bush's unconstitutional in spirit, and possibly in law, faith-based initiatives.

(Not to mention that Obama's a liar either about attending Trinity UCC every Sunday or not remembering what Jeremiah Wright preached about.)

Captcrisis, that's way overstating the case about the Founders. They would all be considered Deists and not Trinitarian Christians, to be sure, but I wouldn't consider even Jefferson to be an agnostic.

"Interesting thing about Ronald Reagan; he openly professed belief but attended church only on rare occasions." It's the same with Bush. The only safe atheist politicians are those who profess belief in rightwing religions.

You're all getting out of a hell on January 20. That includes atheists and Muslims. All our prayers have been answered. All praise God, Alla and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Atheist presidents are just fine with the American public, as long as they stay in the closet. Interesting thing about Ronald Reagan; he openly professed belief but attended church only on rare occasions.

Not attending church doesn't make you an atheist. It may make you a bad member of the church, but it doesn't make you an atheist. Somehow, I doubt that Ronald Reagan was an atheist. He may not have been a very church-going person, but he didn't seem to have the belief that there was no God. (And he was so afraid of the Godless Communists that he probably wouldn't have let the thought enter his mind anyway.)

Lincoln was NOT a "closeted gay."

Period.

The author who claimed that was grinding a gay PR ax and misinterpreting early Victorian male conversation.

Likely gay and non-closeted? His predecessor, James Buchanan. He and his apparent lover Alabama's Sen. Yancey, were even referred to -- all the way up to Andrew Jackson -- as "Miss Nancy and Sen. Yancey."

And, we still have letters between the two that make clear that, even in light of the degree of intimate conversation shared by early Victorian era males, they were more than just close friends.

Forgot to note that my above post was about Oppenheimer's claims in his column

Likely gay and non-closeted? His predecessor, James Buchanan. He and his apparent lover Alabama's Sen. Yancey, were even referred to -- all the way up to Andrew Jackson -- as "Miss Nancy and Sen. Yancey." And, we still have letters between the two that make clear that, even in light of the degree of intimate conversation shared by early Victorian era males, they were more than just close friends.

Not that I'm a big James Buchanan apologist (if such people even exist), but I have a few notes about this. First off, the Alabama senator was named William King, not Yancey. Second, King was the only bachelor Vice President, but he died before he could take office. Third, Buchanan had been engaged earlier in life to a mentally unstable woman who committed suicide after they broke off the engagement, and used that as the explanation for his lack of marriage later in life (he kept a picture of her on his mantle for the rest of his life). Fourth, the surviving letters between King and Buchanan aren't as salacious as you make them out to be, and they seem very one-sided: King expresses a lot more affection than Buchanan does. But, other letters bewteen the two were destroyed after Buchanan's death. There's enough evidence to say that Buchanan was gay if you want to, but my guess is that he was either bisexual or asexual.

Re Oppenheimer's comments about Mormons: the fact that he mentions Mike Leavitt, one of the least charismatic people in the history of American politics, as a presidential possibility makes me question his judgment. Leavitt didn't even win Salt Lake County in his last couple go-rounds as Utah governor, and SLCo is still conservative enough to have (barely) gone for McCain. I'd say current Utah gov Jon Hunstman Jr is a more likely possibility than either Romney or Leavitt. Oh, and Glenn Beck, wildly popular? HA!

This is so true. I have been asked many times after a political discussion why I don't run for office. The answer has brought some very interesting replies.

I'm an atheist.

Most telling reply: "But you are such a spiritual person!"

The ignorance and myths about atheists and athiesm are only rivaled by those about sex. As someone pointed out above, my morals,values and virtues are solidly based in Jeus' basic teachings. Ayn Rand is the other major contributor. Plus Gandhi, MLK, Lincoln and Jefferson.

I think it was Ralph W Emerson, the great Unitarian teacher, who said "Write your own bible." I had forgotten it until I shared mine with another UU friend. I read it regularly to refocus on my values, etc. add quotes, poetry and lyrics that more accurately articulate my beliefs. I usually revise it about every 5 years. Go through many of the things I have believed and new additions to redistill the whole. The basis for this is taken from my annual birthday ritual. It falls near the Jewish fall holy days. I take the day as a holiday, spend it reviewing the year, what I had wanted to do, did do, did right, did wrong. And in the Jewish tradition, ask myself if I am right with the world and with my beliefs. I usually write a 1 page summary of the exercize which includes the goals for my 'new year'.

Now that we have elected an AA to the presidency, I am cautiously hopeful (not optimistic) that an atheist might be elected to VP in my life time. I'm 56.

Perhaps atheists should not be permitted to marry?

Don't be silly. You and mrs. craigie go ahead and enjoy your pretend marriage which is unblessed by any deity. It's less embarrassing for your kids that way. You should have to pay the single supplement while traveling, though, even if you're sharing a room in sin.

"Not that I'm a big James Buchanan apologist (if such people even exist)"

I'm pretty sure there are no James Buchanan fans. At least none who would publicly admit it. I searched for an online fan club, with no luck.

one of my favorite exchanges from gore vidal's the best man:

hockstader (nods): i've often pretended i thought there was a god, for political purposes.

russell: (smiles) so far i haven't told a lie in this campaign. i've never used the word 'god' in a speech.

hockstader: well, the world's changed since i was politickin'. in those days you had to pour god over everything, like ketchup.

hell of a flick. suspense and some very funny lines.

your pal,
blake

Third, Buchanan had been engaged earlier in life to a mentally unstable woman who committed suicide after they broke off the engagement, and used that as the explanation for his lack of marriage later in life (he kept a picture of her on his mantle for the rest of his life).

Sounds like a classic f*g-h*g scenario. He was her best gay friend, he just wasn't that comfortable being gay (but still was gay, a lot), & eventually she lost it.

My atheism wouldn't keep me out of public office if I were running.

But my dope smoking would.

Ventura may have called religion a crutch, but in a later interview with Tim Russert, he acknowledged the divinity of Christ.

What astounds me is that you can have US presidential candidates who genuinely believe the Earth is 7000 years old and thinks this should be taught to children. To me that should automatically disqualify someone from high office.

Atheism is not "the belief that there is no god." It is the lack of belief in anything for which there is no convincing evidence.

However, this common misunderstanding of the term atheist is why I prefer not to use it. I descibe myself as a "secularist" or "non-theist."

I do not use "agnostic" since this term seems to imply that there is about a fifty-fifty chance of the biblical god existing. In fact, I find the probability of this to be vanishingly small and I therefore choose to live my life on the assumption that such a being does not exist. This is not the same as "believing that there is no God," an impossiblity since it is impossible to prove a negative.

As far as politicians go, the main point is that there is nothing to be gained by "coming out" as a non-theist. Like the death penalty and gun control, this is an issue that liberal politicians have decided is just not worth losing elections over.

There is something wrong if a nation cannot elect an atheist President. I'm not one due to fundamental arguments about WITSION etc. and not revelations, but I can be OK with them and am not prejudiced (I expect that to go both ways.)