Could an atheist ever be elected for President of the United States?

Isnt that what just happened?

I dont think so , but they did not think a divorced one could be.

Do you think?

Nixon was a Quaker

Obama identifies with the Christian religion.

Not in our lifetime. It's possible though. Of course they would have to change the country's motto.

Well they changed it once to add the in G-d we trust part, as well as, the pledge of allegiance to add one nation under g-d.

Why should it matter?

There have already been a number of Presidents that were, at the very least, non-religious. Unfortunately, because of the brainwashing that religion has done, we will not see an atheist President in office anytime soon, unless that President were to feign religious belief until they were in office, and once they came out as Atheist, it would guarantee that term would be their only one.

Isn't it sad, that something that is supposed to be separated from the State, can keep someone from holding office?

So many laws are made in deference of and in the interest of religion (mostly the christian variety) that step on the feet of non religious or even those of minority religions. A religious president would act in defense of their religion over doing what us best for the country. An atheist would be more likely to do what is best for the country regardless of any religious implications of that action.

Yes he does, and I think he sees it for exactly what it is too.

I think Obama is most likely a "TRUE" Christian. He's swept the God of Abraham neatly under the carpet and has used the resulting lump as a podium to stand on to preach the TRUE moral values of Jesus. (which is the same message that had been taught by Buddha)

It's doubtul you'll see Obama supporting any hard-core hateful fundamentalism.

I heard that he refused to allow government money to be used for proselytzing. I also heard that he's all for stem-cell research. He's also all for education at a "World Standard" which would certainly support evolution over creationism.

Obama is more Christ-like than most people who proselytize the religion and denounce brotherly love, medical research, and the teaching scientific TRUTH in our schools.

One thing we need to realize is that the voicifierous proselytizers of "Christianity" that we read on these forums do not speak for Jesus, nor to do they speak for the vast majority of "Christians". Most Christians think like Obama actually.

Most "TRUE" Christians actually believe in the TEACHINGS of Jesus and aren't all that concerned about whether or not he was the son of a jealous male chaunvinist bigot.

So Obama is actually representative of JESUS. Maybe not so much "Christianity". After all, fundamental "Christianity" has indeed become the anti-thesis of Jesus. Even Jesus denounced the Pharisees.

for the country...I believe there should be separation of church and state simply because not every american is of one belief. i have no problem with an athiest president as long as they are qualified for the job...just as any president (regardless of race, gender, beliefs, etc) should be

Look at your history, this country was CREATED to allow differances in "RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS".
The word GOD, is special to any ONE faith.
Believe as you chose & allow the same of others.

To my eternal disappointment, no.

This isn't the original motto to begin with. The only two original mottos are E Pluribus Unum and Novo Ordo Seculorum.

What motto?

When the idea of belief in a personal miracle working god becomes as ridiculous as belief that Elvis lives, and the same looks of ridicule are illicited from that statement of belief THEN, we will have many leaders that lack beliefs in personal gods.

Its coming.

You didn't answer the question, or even respond to anyone else. All you said here is don't persecute you, this thread is not about religious persecution, if anything its about irreligious persecution.

Get over yourself.

Qualifications for President (or any position that requires serving the public) should be limited in both expectation and scope to those things expressly outlined in our governing documents. I think that the Founders went out of their way to ensure that dogmatic belief was NOT a factor when it came to considering someone fit for office. Since religion was rather compulsory in England at the time the Colonies were formed and thriving (both with and without religion) it seems rather obvious that what a person practices as it relates to spiritual matters is a private matter as it directly relates to attending to the business of the people.

But those who practice faith (and here I'll use Christianity as an example) will likely never see this as true. Because scripture teaches people that man is born in a fallen state, that he is without grace unless and until he/she receives the word and message of the risen savior it seems highly unlikely that base voters who consider themselves religious would ever consider electing a non-believing heathen to the position of city dog catcher let alone severing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Such a fact is quite sad in many ways but it is not likely to change; at least not anytime soon. Then again, I never thought I'd see a man as thoroughly unqualified as Barack Obama elected, and so I guess it froze in hell that day, didn't it?

;)

Drew