AHC: openly atheist POTUS

[sloreck]

Agnostic perhaps even now, atheist more difficult. In the future certainly possible as the religious right is demographically shrinking. A lot of recent studies show young "Conservative Christians" more tolerant of LGBT folks, more "personal" in religiosity rather than the more typical expectation to be driving their cultural/religious strictures down everyone else's throats. Religion was ALWAYS on the map in American politics, the reason it might appear so now was that what we might consider "religious right" cultural aspects were so normative they were taken for granted. Things like abortion restrictions (mostly starting in mid-1800s), Sunday closing laws, extremely restrictive divorce laws, even the temperance movement were everywhere and so much part of the "background" they were unexceptional. "Blue" laws continued well in to the 1970s everywhere for a large number of activities, and still in many places sales of alcoholic beverages are limited or prohibited on Sunday (the specific CHRISTIAN sabbath).

In many ways what the "religious right" is trying to do, and why it is so obvious and appears new is not to impose "new" strictures but rather to reimpose those norms which had existed for a very long time. FWIW not so long ago it was considered a "breakthrough" that the blue law in NYC was changed to allow Jewish businesses to be open on Sunday, but only if they closed for Sabbath observance on Saturday.

At the risk of being too political, it is obvious that if an agnostic/atheist candidate was willing to impose the rules/strictures/laws the religious right wants, then they would support him no matter what their "personal" morality in terms of belief in a higher being. Hypocritical, cynical? Of course, but after all such support is very out front for a serial adulterer (open not secret) who never attends church among other issues...

 

[Geon]

I think this could work as an accidental Nixon Goes To China.

A REPUBLICAN congressman with a sterling conservative record on culture-war issues runs for president, and gets exposed as an atheist, eg. during the GOP primary, someone leaks e-mails in which he casually mentions his skepticism to a close relative, the leaker obviously hoping that this will knock the candidate out of the race.

Instead, the candidate gives a speech in which he admits, yes, I am an atheist, and I'm sorry if some of my statements have misled anyone into thinking otherwise. Furthermore, I believe that I am a servant of the people, and if elected, I will continue to support the rights on the unborn, the traditional family, prayer in schools etc, because that''s what the country will have elected me to do, and you all know my record so far.

Religious voters would eat it up, with comparisons to sinners in the Bible who nevertheless advanced the will of God(and I'm not making this up, in 2016, evangelicals dismissed Trump's sexual misdeeds with comparisons to King David). But this ONLY works with the two criteria laid out in my opening paragraph, ie. the candidate is GOP, and fire-and-brimstone conservative.

Even a Republican candidate making this sort of claim would be in trouble.

First, he hid his atheism until it finally leaked out. That is going to send up warning signs throughout the evangelical community. Secondly, most evangelicals (myself included) are savvy enough to know how to separate fluff from substance. It's one thing to make claims and promises on the campaign trail, it's entirely another to fulfill those promises once in office.

Make no mistake, many in the evangelical community will be campaigning against such a candidate once the truth comes out. Many in said community are already very jumpy about various issues which have arisen over the last few years (no crosses on public property, removal of the ten commandments from courthouses and other locations, public funding for abortion, the list goes on). An atheist presidential candidate will only exacerbate these issues and many more. Many will fear what kind of Supreme Court justices he would appoint and whether he will openly oppose religious expression in public. An atheist president will cause many evangelicals to turn to a third party candidate or stage a voter boycott and stay home.

I would even say there would be those equating an atheistic president with none other then the antichrist himself and a sign of the final moral collapse of America. Many on the more militant end of things might take to the hills with their families quite literally convinced that a time of great persecution is coming if this man or woman is elected.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

I'd say it was most important 1976-2012.

 

[jb3]

In recent years there's been a lot heard about sexual abuse by priests, a grave shortage of priests, closing churches etc while polls have shown atheists slowly gaining ground. I think future leadership will be atheistic but probably not until midcentury at best.

The things you mention only cover the Catholic Church. America is still majority Protestant.

The GOP only nominates an atheist in "West Wing" liberal fantasies (see Alan Alda as Arnold Vinick) and for the Democrats, while secular progressives on the coasts (of the kind who tried - and failed - to get the mention of "God" out of the Democratic platform in the last convention) dominate the conversation, church-going African-Americans and Hispanics (and usually white midwestern union workers) make up the backbone of the Democratic party still.

And there is a huge difference in nominating an agnostic who has his doubts (which is doable, and in the case of someone like Lincoln probably already happened) to an overt atheist, especially if that atheist is the anti-religious type aka Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris (Gary Oldman once said the most unbelievable thing in his movie "The Contender" was that Joan Allen's Democratic VP candidate was supposedly an ex-Republican Senator from Ohio (of all places)who was also an outspoken atheist who spoke out against religion - he said it could never happen in America).

Even among the candidates currently running the closest we have to this challenge is Bernie Sanders, who is agnostic and classifies himself as Jewish, and not an atheist. Even in the Senate and House of Representatives I think there may be only one (two tops) out of HUNDREDS of members of Congress who openly say they are atheist, and I don't know any sitting Governor (out of 50) who is. So even "midcentury" atheist leadership is doubtful.

 

[overoceans]

I wonder if we could define what is meant by the word "agnostic" here.

There's the "Russell's Teapot" type of agnostic, ie. "I can't prove that there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun and too small to be seen by the naked eye, but I wouldn't consider it very likely at all. Same goes for the existence of God."

And then there's the type of agnosticism where you remain genuinely open to the possibility of God, even though you're not 100% sure. "Well, I don't have all the answers, but gee whiz, look around you, at all the beauty and harmony in the world, it's hard for me to think of another explanation besides a wise and loving God. But maybe there is another explanation, who knows, really."

I think an agnostic of the first type would have pretty much the same difficulties as an atheist, in winning over religious opinion. People who don't want total non-believers as POTUS aren't going to be mollified by hearing that someone would allow a 0.1% chance that God exists.

The second type might have more room to maneuver.

 

[SlideAway]

Religion in US politics played a larger role in the 1950s and postwar than before. Society was religious before, but open religiosity was partly a reaction on the part of conservatives against the New Deal, communism, and the Soviet threat. Oddly it might have been easier for an atheist to get elected before that, when atheists were seen as curiosities rather than as threatening and subversive.

One potential figure here is Gov. Culbert Olson of California (1938-1942) who was openly atheist and attracted remarkably little public backlash for that. His governorship otherwise though was a disaster, with him quarreling with the Republican legislature, the oil industry, and the Catholic Church. But maybe had some things gone differently he could have risen to become president in the 1940s, or perhaps (though seems like a stretch) being FDR's running mate in 1944.

 

[jb3]

Religion in US politics played a larger role in the 1950s and postwar than before. Society was religious before, but open religiosity was partly a reaction on the part of conservatives against the New Deal, communism, and the Soviet threat. Oddly it might have been easier for an atheist to get elected before that, when atheists were seen as curiosities rather than as threatening and subversive.

One potential figure here is Gov. Culbert Olson of California (1938-1942) who was openly atheist and attracted remarkably little public backlash for that. His governorship otherwise though was a disaster, with him quarreling with the Republican legislature, the oil industry, and the Catholic Church. But maybe had some things gone differently he could have risen to become president in the 1940s, or perhaps (though seems like a stretch) being FDR's running mate in 1944.

If Olson blamed the Catholic Church for his (overwhelming) defeat (as the Wiki states), and had a history of battling the RC in America as chronicled (even after he left office), its hard to see how FDR could justify/sell putting him on a Democratic ticket that at the time heavily relied on the urban blue-collar Catholic vote.

 

[SlideAway]

If Olson blamed the Catholic Church for his (overwhelming) defeat (as the Wiki states), and had a history of battling the RC in America as chronicled (even after he left office), its hard to see how FDR could justify/sell putting him on a Democratic ticket that at the time heavily relied on the urban blue-collar Catholic vote.

Oh totally. I am just suggesting that maybe had his governorship gone differently it could be a possibility. But that might have required a personality transplant.

 

[GeographyDude]

In recent years there's been a lot heard about sexual abuse by priests, a grave shortage of priests, closing churches etc while polls have shown atheists slowly gaining ground. I think future leadership will be atheistic but probably not until midcentury at best.

The things you mention only cover the Catholic Church. America is still majority Protestant. . .

We know sexual abuse happens in Protestant churches, too, right?

Yes, the more hierarchical the damn institution is, the more likely it is to cover up. But we know institutions of all stripes and colors, whether religion or anything else, seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to prevent embarrassment to the institution, I'm not telling you anything you don't know.

We almost need to look to find the exceptions. And the exceptional leaders who realize that of course this is a destructive path to head down, and who have the skills to do something different.

 

[Don Corleone]

Wouldn't necessarily have to be a socon. Someone with a strong libertarian bent might be viable. If their overarching principle is that government should leave people alone, religious people won't feel threatened by them. It's not as good as having a fire and brimstone type if you're a fire and brimstone type, but a libertarian atheist would do better among religious voters than an authoritarian secular progressive would.

 

[Karlmarx900]

If the president could be openly atheist he would need to do in privately and not in public

 

[Omar04]

Even in the Senate and House of Representatives I think there may be only one (two tops) out of HUNDREDS of members of Congress who openly say they are atheist, and I don't know any sitting Governor (out of 50) who is.

I think the last atheist to serve was Pete Stark who was primaried in 2012 after a very long career.