[ulw7A8Po]

Sadly, no.

[Ferrotoral]

Originally posted by Wezil
Sadly, no.

[Chubrehege]

[pageup85]

If there were atheist politicians..... of course there are.

If he would publicly do that? Prolly not, mostly because it would most likely be some tool who would go on about an issue like that. Why would you do that?

So no, but not because of atheism, more like because he'd be a tool and a madman.

[drycleden]

Which Indian politician are you asking us to comment on, aneeshm?

[opelayday]

I would like to see this candidate run in a predominately muslim country.

[Greactbet]

I don´t think it would affect his chances there,
although Jesus is a prophet for the moslems, too,
they wouldn´t care as much for it,
as if he had insulted Muhammed or Allah

[AutoCadPhotoSHOP]

Originally posted by LordShiva


I think
that's
what he
meant But
not
what
he
said

[RotsLoado]

Originally posted by aneeshm
A genuine question.

If there were an atheist politician (assuming such a thing can exist) in your country, and he called Jesus (or equivalent figure of reverence) a:

a) Lie,
b) Drunkard, and
c) Evil racist imperialist,

would he be electable anywhere?

More generally - would an atheist politician, running on an anti-religion platform, be electable?

Also, would it be appropriate for him (or any other politician) to make such statements, or to run on such a platform? I'd think the politician would be retarded for criticizing a major religious figure without textual/historical evidence.

[Opinion_counts]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
I would like to see this candidate run in a predominately muslim country. Nobody but the winner is allowed to "run" in a predominately muslim country.

[aquadayAquaks]

Originally posted by Blake
It might happen in NZ.

But insulting the good name of Jesus is kind of like bad mouthing Mother Teresa, Gandhi, Mandela or the Buddha - regardless of whether you think Jesus had any divine nature (or even existed as wrote about ), he is the very model of a good honest to god guy, so someone who goes around slandering Jesus is essentially, a big fat asshat who is full of sh*t. The only people who would vote for him would be those who fit a "rebel without a clue" archtype.

In general, Atheist is okay though, people would happily vote for someone who is openly atheist and controversial, just as long as he isn't simultaneously a total unredeemable asshat. Mother Teresa deserves to be badmouthed. Withholding anesthetics from dying people is not very nice.

[Nundduedola]

Christianity in America was far more secure than it is now.

[Pharmaciest2007]

Social conservatism is losing pretty badly. That probably is the source for insecurity.

JM

[aaafluochugh]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Social conservatism is losing pretty badly. That probably is the source for insecurity.

JM Social conservativism is always losing pretty badly. I thought that was its definition.

[DagoIgnog]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Are you kidding? Christianity is far less universal now than it was then. Universality is irrelevant to security, if the alternatives aren't threats. In a pluralistic US, Christianity is actually less threatened, because the the things that protect Christianity (like the 1st Amendment) protect other religions as well.

By contrast, at least two earlier periods saw powerful anti-Christian ideologies with some popularity in the US, including popularity among leading social figures. In the early Republic, there was a good degree of sympathy in some quarters for the goals and tenets of the French revolution, including its aggressive secularism. In the frist half of the 20th century, Communism (including American Communism). What quarter of society, or what influential group of elites in US society, is anti-religion today?

I stand by my original statement: Christianity has never been more secure. It's Christians who are insecure, even paranoid -- but that may have more to do with their immersion in right wing politics (per Hofstadter) than with their Christianity.

[drugstore]

By contrast, at least two earlier periods saw powerful anti-Christian ideologies with some popularity in the US, including popularity among leading social figures. In the early Republic, there was a good degree of sympathy in some quarters for the goals and tenets of the French revolution, including its aggressive secularism. In the frist half of the 20th century, Communism (including American Communism). What quarter of society, or what influential group of elites in US society, is anti-religion today?

I can't speak for the first example, but you do recall what we did to the second, no? And the reaction the Christians had to those godless commies?

[Poothevokprot]

Christianity is a very competitive religion on the religion market. It is a reason why religious freedom (true freedom, not what a lot of the religious right want) is one of the best things for Christianity).

JM

[lerobudrse]

per day there are more new christians then new muslims.
The problem is that most people talk about relative numbers and not about absolute numbers.

But in absolute numbers chrisitanity grows faster. And that's what counts in the end, imho.

[Loonerisav]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Universality is irrelevant to security, if the alternatives aren't threats. In a pluralistic US, Christianity is actually less threatened, because the the things that protect Christianity (like the 1st Amendment) protect other religions as well.

But the biggest protection - you completely dominate society - is gone. Best estimates are that 75-80% of Americans identify themselves as Christian (and more than half of those identify themselves as born-again or evangelical). That's makes America even more Christian than it is white. Exactly how much do they have to dominate society before they stop whining?

[zdlupikkkdi]

80% of Russians say they're Christian, but most of them have had their communion a looong time ago.
This kind of politician could be elected here if
a) anti-religion was not the sole basis of his platform
b) our elections weren't terribly rigged
c) his attacks on religion were solidly backed with facts