Bring It On!

If You Don’t Love God, You Can’t Be Our President

February 21st, 2007 | by Ken Grandlund |

A recent USA/Gallup Poll asked about Americans willingness to vote for presidential candidates from a variety of different genders, religions, and other backgrounds. With several early strong Democratic contenders falling outside the traditional ’stuffy white man’ mold and early Republican candidates having ‘factors’ against them, the relevance of the poll has more meaning today than when the question was first asked in 1937.

But with one exception, voters across the country list being Athiest as a deal breaker for any presidential candidate. Even conservatives prefer a homosexual president over an athiest one, and that’s saying a lot! The exception is with liberals, who will accept an athiest candidate if the only other to choose is over 72 years old. (Sorry McCain- looks like you’ll never get a significant liberal vote if you get the nod.)

Here’s how it all breaks down:

Willingness to Vote for Non-Traditional Presidential Candidates
by Political Ideology

Liberal % Moderate % Conservative %

Catholic 97 95 94

Black 95 94 92

Jewish 93 91 91

A woman 96 89 82

Hispanic 92 87 84

Mormon 75 77 76

Married three times 74 71 60

72 years of age 59 52 63

A homosexual 81 57 36

An atheist 67 48 29

Voters of all stripes have no problem (in theory at least) with a Giuliani (Catholic) or an Obama (Black) or even a Hillary (Woman). Hispanic or Mormon candidates fared well too. Can’t hold a marriage together? Two steps from the grave? Proudly out of the closet? Well, okay, we’ll take you too in a pinch. But don’t be trolling around the polling house if you are an athiest! We may have separation between church and state (kinda-sorta) but that don’t mean we’ll put an athiest in charge of the nukes.

Apparently we’d even rather have an egocentric nincoompoop who actually believes he’s on orders from God than a completely rational athiest as the POTUS. After all, at least the former believes in God, which I guess means that he can’t be all that bad.

Of course, this news helps explain events such as this.

[tag]USA/Gallup Poll+Presidential+Candidates, Voter+Choices, Athiest, religion, Matthew+LaClair, David+Paszkiewicz[/tag]

  1. 15 Responses to “If You Don’t Love God, You Can’t Be Our President”

  2. By Rob Hathaway on Feb 21, 2007 | Reply

    I wonder if there are enough athiests, closeted or otherwise, to get an outspoken athiest elected to office. Enough athiests across America, especially in light of what’s been happening under jesus-freak bush, may see an outspoken candidate getting elected as important enough to send money - even for a smaller local campaign like City Council. Certainly with the internet, there are easy ways to target these groups and get the word out if a candidate were to emerge -  Perhaps Portland or Seattle would be good, as these are reportedly two of the ‘least religious’ cities…. 

  3. By Lazy Iguana on Feb 21, 2007 | Reply

    I would rather have an atheist in charge of the nukes than a crazy person who thinks the Bible commands them to start WWIII so the Rapture can happen. 

    And I do not believe that the numbers for those who would vote for a black person are accurate. People may SAY that to not sound like a prick, but what people say and what they do are not always the same. Same for a Jewish person or a woman.

    If the lowest percentage of people that would vote for a black president is 92%, and the lowest percentage of those who would vote for a woman is 82% - why have there been no black or female Presidents? Nobody is qualified? Unlikely.

    Look at who we have now and ask yourself what his qualifications were. Having a last name you can spell does not count as a qualification. I suppose now someone will try to tell me how GWB is way more qualified than ANY woman or black person in the entire nation.

    I call “bullshit” on this poll.


  4. By Jersey McJones on Feb 21, 2007 | Reply

    I’m with LI.  I think the “conservative” numbers in most of those catagories are too high.  What people say, even if only to make themselves feel good about themselves, let alone to make themselves look less scumbaggy to some stranger on the phone, has to be taken for what it’s worth.  If these numbers were true, even though most class and race minorities avoid the RIght, there’d still be a lot more class and race minorities representing the right.


  5. By SteveIL on Feb 21, 2007 | Reply

    Time to change that “separation of church and state” phrase.  Make it, “separation of religion and state” since not all religions require the worship of God in a church (it is only, after all, a Christian house of worship), nor do all religions require a God to worship (atheism).  The extreme atheists seem to believe that only those who do not practice the faith of a theistic religion should make determinations for everyone else; in effect, a violation of the 1st Amendment in allowing the government to establish laws beneficial to atheists over theists.  As it has existed since the 1st Amendment was drawn up, the government does not stop atheists from not worshipping a god.

    Since the CIA World Factbook shows that at most 20% of the U.S. population doesn’t believe in the god worshipped in Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, and since worship of some god in other religions may be 50% of that 20%, only 10% of the population of the U.S. acknowledge no god.  Theistic religions acknowledge a higher power than human beings, and the U.S. has declared that the rights we enjoy were given by God.  If athiets believe this is to be taken as irrational, then the idea that only atheists are rational is, in fact, irrational.  Which means that extreme atheists are just as irrational as extreme theists, and are trying to say that their “religious” values count more than the “religious” values of 90% of the American population, and as such, deserve more say.

    Yep.  I would say it is time to discuss the “separation of religion and state”, and that one of the religions is atheism, and the Establishment Clause should be enforced to prevent new laws that express atheism over any other religion.

  6. By Lazy Iguana on Feb 21, 2007 | Reply

    Atheism is a non prophet organization. There is no atheist bible, no scriptures, and no “church”. 

    Separating Church and State was done for two reasons that many like to ignore today. Correct me when I go wrong here, please. I like to be informed.

    1. The Puritans who first came to the New World were seeking the freedom to do their thing the way they wanted to. In England, the State run Church did not like them very much and therefore gave them a hard time.

    2. The Founding Fathers were aware of what happened when the Puritans were allowed to make law from their version of the Bible, and knew about those murdered for being a “witch” and so on.

    So the two institutions were separated to protect each from the other. The Church is protected from the State, and the State is protected from the Church. Besides, the business of politics is sleazy and icky anyway - why would ANYONE want to drag a Church they supposedly love into that mud pile?

    So the reasonable thing to do was to separate the two. This way the Church would be free to conduct its affairs without the “official” State Church getting involved. But now there are those who want to proclaim an “official” religion for the USA.

    Now what problems would this present? What flavor of Christianity is the “right” one? The Catholics? No, they have that Pope guy that we do not want to obtain the blessings of before we declare war. How about the Presbyterians? The Lutherans? The Anglicans? Baptists? Mormons? Pentecostals? Jehovah’s Witnesses? 7th Day Adventists? All basically believe the same thing, but at a party there might be a fist fight.

    Therefore I submit that it is BETTER to have a separation. This way everyone can worship however they want. Or not worship a higher power if they so choose.
    Where does atheism fit into this? Not at all really. Unless you want to attack someone with a secular view.

    Christianity is under attack. But not from external forces. It is under attack from within itself. My mother used to take me to a Baptist Church. When crazy people took it over, I left.

  7. By manapp99 on Feb 21, 2007 | Reply

    Lazy, love this line:

    “Atheism is a non prophet organization.”


  8. By Paul Watson on Feb 21, 2007 | Reply


    What is the belief system of atheists? All they have in common is: There is no God. That’s it. Apart from that, atheists are as different as any two random persons. All other religions have rather a lot of additional rules tat make it a faith. Atheism is simply a rejection of the existence of a deity and that’s it. Christianity, well, take God out of the mix and there’s stil a lot of Christia principles left. Not so with atheism.

    This doesn’t mean that extreme atheists can’t be as intolerant as extreme theists, but extreme Republicans and Democrats aren’t exactly known for their tolerance of dissenting opinion and they are certainly not religions.


  9. By Lazy Iguana on Feb 21, 2007 | Reply

    I stole that line from a bumper sticker. I get a lot of my snappy one liners from bumper stickers. 

    See? They are useful for more than covering up dents :) 

  10. By Jersey McJones on Feb 22, 2007 | Reply

    “…one of the religions is atheism…”

    “God” forbid SteveIL wouldn’t rely on the ol’ sleazy bait ‘n switch.


  11. By SteveIL on Feb 22, 2007 | Reply

    Paul Watson said:

    What is the belief system of atheists? All they have in common is: There is no God. That’s it.

    I’m not saying all atheists believe in the same thing (just like those in the various religions), but just take a look at what some of the atheists here have to say.

    1. They will say religious values have little or no place in medicine.  While the case regarding the doctor and the tatooed lady was ridiculous and that doctor was really being dumb, that is the exception, not the rule.  That survey from a couple of weeks ago showed how concerrrrned medical ethicists were regarding certain issues and how religious values “got in the way”.

    2. They will call abortion used as a form of birth control part of  woman’s “health care”, and demonize any who disagree.  There are many who believe that those who disagree with the practice of abortion should not be allowed to protest in front of an abortion clinic, a violation of this nation’s 1st Amendment.

    3. They will demonize those who go against the politicians they support when those politicians announce the debate on man-made global warming is over, so much so that those against it are equated to Holocaust-deniers, even other scientists who disagree with it.

    These are just three examples.  Like theists, there is no one religion, one belief structure, for atheists.  But many of the values of certain atheists are presented as religious values, argued zealously and with a religious fervor; they just didn’t come from a higher power, a “god”.  Therefore, I don’t want their “religion” being established by Congress in the same way I don’t want Catholicism, Methodism, Mormonism, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, or Satanism being established by Congress.

  12. By ken grandlund on Feb 22, 2007 | Reply

    Sorry SteveIL, but I’m not buying it. The three examples you provide to ‘prove’ that athiests have a ‘religious-political agenda’ are nonsense. Barring religion from preventing medical treatment or abortion, and the environmental problems of the world are political issues for both liberals and conservatives, most of whom are religious to varying degrees. That people who both believe in a god and have no belief in god take a similar position on these things does not mean that athiesm is some kind of religion that is taking over the government.

    The misperception is that athiests are immoral because they subscribe to no god beliefs. Well, morality did not spring from religion. Religion sprang from mans morality in an attempt to justify that morality.

  13. By liberal vet on Feb 22, 2007 | Reply

    It just never stops amazing how people confuse atheism with a religion. I have argued ad nauseam with people who insist despite the fact I do not believe in any deity and consider all gods mythology. Why the confusion? It does not stop many atheist from being spiritual beings, I believe nature shapes our ideas and beliefs. I believe animals are aware, sentient and suffer from emotional break downs. I believe man’s superiority complex imperils our world. LV

  14. By SteveIL on Feb 22, 2007 | Reply


    I didn’t call atheists immoral.  There are plenty of immoral theists.  I don’t even believe atheism is wrong, and respect those who do believe there is no god.  And I believe it when people say atheists are spriitual people.  My point, and I believe it to be true, is that to consider only atheists as rational is irrational.  And that the defense of the issues I brought up, whether they be by theists or atheists (although many atheists do agree with them), have taken on a religious fervor.

  15. By ken grandlund on Feb 22, 2007 | Reply

    I agree that athiests are not necessarily more or less rational ( or spiritual)  than those who believe in a god or gods.

    And using ‘religious fervor’ as a descriptive phrase for those who argue strongly for their positions (political, religious, or whatever) is frequently an apt turn of words.


  16. By dieter on Feb 25, 2007 | Reply

    is it really so hard to spell atheist?

Post a Comment