Will there be an Atheist, Female, or Homosexual President in our lifetime?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

female-20 years
atheist-50-60 years
gay-120 years

outsiders perspective

Hilary Clinton could have possibly president, I think she was defeated more because she was a Clinton than she was a woman, that said, Republicans will not nominate a female candidate in the next 50 years and if you follow the normal american political cycle, Republicans will probably be in power till 2020/2024 at least

Atheists come next because they although they are a huge minority, they are geographically spread out and Humanism seems to have a growing voice in american culture and politics.

Homosexual comes far last for three reasons.
1. The vocal gay public in america is limited to a couple of urban areas, even with 100% of these areas supporting a gay candidate he would not win
2. Unlike atheism/humanism or feminism gay rights movements seem to have a shrinking representation in American culture. Think how many films/tv shows) have had a "strong female lead"(or at least a stab at one) in the last twenty years. Now think of ALL the compelling gay protagonists...I can think of...two that gained huge success: Philadelphia and Milk. Both were commentaries on homophobia not stories that happened to have gay protagonists.
3. Homosexualilty is more polarising than feminism or atheism, especially among the young, and the 18-25 are an incredibly important demographic in elections (they are easy to motivate emotionally, they are less likely to be set in their ways politically). The image of american young men, especially from outside america (jump on this point if you want), is consisatantly homophobic, even violently so (Brandon McInerny, consistant anti-gay marriage movements, rick perry, rick santorum).

It doesn't matter, they are all tyrants that lie to the people. (leaders)

And we need to stop categorizing people like someone on the first page said. all kinds of ism's are bad, all kind of hatred is bad... obviously...

/sigh, it will never happen. People will always have fear so they will always point at others and say "you look different, I hate you"

There won't be a homosexual (GLBT) president. Nor an openly, and unambiguously, atheist one. In America. Within our lifetime.

So long as ignorance and bigotry remain easier to acquire, than knowledge and education.

Female: Probably, yes. Depending on the candidates of course.

Atheist or homosexual: Doubt it.

I agree with an earlier poster about how it isn't an accomplishment if you have to rave about it. Like with Obama being black etc. etc. the truth is it shouldn't matter in the 1st place compared to 1 critical question. Can they do the job? I always remember a friend of mine saying "Whoa there's a black president in America now." My response was "And whats your point? he's black big deal." So there you have it when asked how long till an atheist/female/homosexual president comes about the answer should be that it shouldn't be an issue in the 1st place and can that person do the job after all we've got enough 'approved' politicians who are absolutely useless anyway.

I don't think that the US will have too much of a problem with a female president, so 10-15 years?

Atheist and/or Homosexual will be a long way off, because they both have the same problem, the religious voting bloc. I could see a religious, homosexual president getting in before an atheist president.

You are more likely to not-vote for someone, because you don't like something about them, than vote for them because you like them, which is why politicians are so hard to tie-down when you ask them their view on something. Being someone as easy to label as atheist or gay can put off more people than it attracts. (Sorry if that isn't clear).

@Frostbyte666
It shouldn't be an accomplishment to have a black president, but unfortunately it is. I see no similar political up-and-comer here in the UK.

Suicidejim:
In America? Maybe a little longer than some other countries, no offence meant. I don't think a female President would actually be much of a stretch, I can see that happening pretty soon actually. We might have to wait a few generations for an openly atheist President though, given the way religion has become deeply political in the US (just look at the supposed 'War on Religion' happening at the moment). I don't know how homosexuality compares to atheism in terms of acceptance in the US, but I don't see that one happening too soon either.

Still, why set the targets so low? Let's try and get us a polygamous family in the White House. Or a President that practices Wicca. Or Satanism.

Hell, let's get us a gamer President. Replace wars with COD death matches. Iran threatening to acquire nuclear weapons? My killstreak helicopter says otherwise.

I hope you're kidding about trying to get oddjobs for presidents. The voters should vote for the person with similar political views as the voter, right?

OT: I guess you're talking about USA, since no other country in the world really matters.
Since I don't live in the country, I don't really know for sure, but if I would base my thoughts of what I know of the US, then I would like to say that a woman for president could happen really soon actually, but atheist and homosexual? An atheist president will most likely get elected in like 30 years, a homosexual president will most likely be elected in 50 years, based on what I know.

Female: Yes I think there will be a female president within the next ~60 years.
Atheist: Not likely, but possible depending on how views shift over the years.
Homosexual: Again, not likely at the moment but possible if views shifts.

Currently Atheism has more ground to cover than the other two groups. Both females and homosexuals have/do openly serve as members of congress. This is something that is a good indicator of general electability. However nobody has ever been elected to congress who was openly atheist or agnostic at the time. Only one person (that I know of) has admitted to being atheist after their term. This is despite somewhere around ~20% of the population being non-religious and ~3% being atheists.

how about you ask yourselves who might be more fit for the job.

i am afraid that gender, skin colour, religious believe or the lack of it and/or sexuality is more important to people than competence.

also:

Pimppeter2:
Female one in the next 10-15 years
Atheist in the next 50-60

Probably wont be a homosexual one in my lifetime.

Atheists are the most hated... I'd go for 100-150 years there tbh.

Female one I think you've probably got spot on. Or atleast it'll be more likely within that time.

Devil's Due:

1) A female president
2) An Atheist president
3) A homosexual president
4) An independent (non-Republican or Democratic) president

Sadly I can't say that I believe we will elect a Woman, an Atheist or a Homosexual in my lifetime. America is just too dug in on both sides of the aisle and its highly unlikely either party will offer such a candidate unless they are a sacrifice to a powerful incumbent. As for Independent, well we couldn't get Teddy and the Bull Moose Party elected and if Teddy can't do it.....

Can't get my head around the animosity towards atheists in the US? Anyone able to explain it to me? I mean in the UK we sort of keep up this pretence of being Christian, but very few people are practicing Christians; and religion is firmly kept out of politics - politicians are reluctant to specify how religious they are and to what denomination etc. even the Prime Minister.

1) A female president- I doubt it will be that long, given that Hilary Clinton came close to running for the Democrats
2) An Atheist president- I don't really think religion is that much of an issue in politics (then again, I'm not American), so, just like with women, we just need one to run. We'll probably see an atheist, or at least non-Christian, president in this lifetime.
3) A homosexual president- from what I've heard about America and gay people, it doesn't look good (then again, you never hear news like 'American Man Doesn't Abuse Gays'). It's still a possibility, but very slim.
4) An independent (non-Republican or Democratic) president- I thought those were the only two parties. How can you be independent?

Et3rnalLegend64:
Well, the U.S. is supposed to be built on Christian ideals.

Citation needed.

There is nothing Christian about the founding principles of the US. The only indication of religiosity is the single mention of a "Creator" in the Declaration, and a Creator need not even be a divine being, let alone the Christian God.

If you believe the US is a "Christian nation" built on "Christian ideals", you've been sold a bill of goods.

Regnes:
Hell, Margaret Thatcher is often considered one of the greatest prime ministers ever.

Only by people who didn't live under her.

By all accounts she was a vile toxin on this country that shattered public services to build her own powerbase.

How about we get a President that can take America out of the nosediving inflation first and then we'll try and find a Honest president before we get out the other ticklists.

Jegsimmons:

nah, he'd just have to play his cards right, its totally possible, conservatives dont hate atheist....just the dawkinologist.

Atheists are one of the most hated groups in the country. Conservatives pretty much do hate them, and especially the Republican base. You think the same party that has leader trying to put prayer into schools and ban gays "because GOD" and don't think we can trust atheists and muslims are going to vet an atheist for a potential run?

Come now.

And please don't pull a "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Frostbyte666:
I agree with an earlier poster about how it isn't an accomplishment if you have to rave about it. Like with Obama being black etc. etc. the truth is it shouldn't matter in the 1st place compared to 1 critical question. Can they do the job? I always remember a friend of mine saying "Whoa there's a black president in America now." My response was "And whats your point? he's black big deal." So there you have it when asked how long till an atheist/female/homosexual president comes about the answer should be that it shouldn't be an issue in the 1st place and can that person do the job after all we've got enough 'approved' politicians who are absolutely useless anyway.

That's exactly what I was thinking during this entire thread. Does it really matter?

I'm pretty sure a lot of your founding fathers were Atheist. So it stands to reason some of your earlier Presidents could have been atheist.

However, with your country being as it is now. I don't think you'll have another atheist President in my lifetime. Or a homosexual one.

You'll probably have a female one at some point, providing the right woman runs. I think the public might swing for that.

Not the other two options at the minute though.

Jazoni89:

bahumat42:

Pimppeter2:
Female one in the next 10-15 years
Atheist in the next 50-60

Probably wont be a homosexual one in my lifetime.

see i think homosexuality is more accepted in america than athiesm. At least in the way i have been treated out there.

Here in the Uk we have already had a woman prime minister and possibly an athiest one (i dont know the full religous history of my countries rulership).

As for homosexual prime minister, i dont know, its not that i couldn't see people getting behind one, its just most that i have met have little to no interest in politics (in a serious enough of a degree for even local elections)

We as British people do not speak of the evil that is the milk snatcher...

You should know that by now...

as bad as it was it was a big point in british history which need to be acknowledged good and bad.

Female, probably, whenever a female candidate that doesn't suck comes along. Homosexual, maybe someday, not for quite some time though. Atheist... not in my lifetime.

TrilbyWill:

2) An Atheist president- I don't really think religion is that much of an issue in politics (then again, I'm not American)

And there's the problem.

Religion is a serious issue in this country. We have people riled up because Obama is a secret muslim. Religion is assumed for one party and scoffed at for t'other. We are a country where it's still largely unthinkable that a Mormon can win the Presidency, even though Mitt keeps trying.

krellen:

Et3rnalLegend64:
Well, the U.S. is supposed to be built on Christian ideals.

Citation needed.

There is nothing Christian about the founding principles of the US. The only indication of religiosity is the single mention of a "Creator" in the Declaration, and a Creator need not even be a divine being, let alone the Christian God.

If you believe the US is a "Christian nation" built on "Christian ideals", you've been sold a bill of goods.

Unfortunately, it's a very widely held belief. Ever get those e-mails/Facebook/chain posts that talk about "One Nation Under God" as though it was in the Constitution?

The_root_of_all_evil:

Only by people who didn't live under her.

Hey, kinda like Reagan!

The_root_of_all_evil:

Regnes:
Hell, Margaret Thatcher is often considered one of the greatest prime ministers ever.

Only by people who didn't live under her.

By all accounts she was a vile toxin on this country that shattered public services to build her own powerbase.

I've noticed a lot of people who've only read about her think she was just some amazing no nonsense woman, when in fact she was pretty much the personification of the 1% idea.

Her policies could be summed up in three words.

Privatisation, privatisation, privatisation.

Also unfair tax brackets, yea. That too.

bahumat42:

Jazoni89:

bahumat42:

see i think homosexuality is more accepted in america than athiesm. At least in the way i have been treated out there.

Here in the Uk we have already had a woman prime minister and possibly an athiest one (i dont know the full religous history of my countries rulership).

As for homosexual prime minister, i dont know, its not that i couldn't see people getting behind one, its just most that i have met have little to no interest in politics (in a serious enough of a degree for even local elections)

We as British people do not speak of the evil that is the milk snatcher...

You should know that by now...

as bad as it was it was a big point in british history which need to be acknowledged good and bad.

Well...

It was also a history of hard scrimping my mother had to endure being a single young mum bringing me up on hardly anything, while living in the Later/Post Thatcher years of a broken Britain.

How about that for some British history.

...I'm only messing with ya, but seriously...

Answering the question in order.

1. Female president of US- It could happen in 2016. Hillary Clinton had a good and strong running for democrat nominee for a while. Sarah Palin/Michelle Bachman (help us all if that were to happen) had a serious running for a bit too. It is highly likely to have a female president soon.

2. Atheist president of the US- Not likely to happen. The US electorate is too stupid to vote for someone like this. It would almost definitely be the best scenario I could imagine ot keep the first amendment rights protected.

3. Gay president of the US- as unlikely as Atheist president for similar reasons. Also, bigots represent about 60% of the voting population.

4. non R/D president- Never. Too much money (probably in the number of 2 billion) is needed for a winning campaign. A non R/D president WON'T make it into the locked states (states who vote for the same party each time) for electoral college votes, and swing states still won't put them it for the same reason.

5. Any non-christian religious president of the US- Will NEVER happen as long as 80% of the population claims Christian and 60% of people in the US are bigots.

Regnes:
Well you guys elected a black man roughly 50 years after the climax of the civil rights movement. Homosexuals, atheists and women were never victims as much as black people, so it's entirely possible.

We've had atheists and women in the top position in several big name countries. Hell, Margaret Thatcher is often considered one of the greatest prime ministers ever.

I disagree on the homosexual part. Homosexuals have had a rough time since the early gay rights movements from the 1930'ies was utterly crushed by a wave of fascism in europe, and the conservatism era in USA after WW2. Homosexuals were denied basic rights in many western countries until the late 70'ies, and the fact that the SS Allegmeine executed up to 50.000 gays in work camps, was denied by historians until the gay rights movement gained momentum in the 70'ies. Historians knew it had happened, but refused to acknowledge, that gays were in fact victims - so good ol' conservative well educated gay bashing was common until the 80'ies.

Homosexuality wasn't removed as a mental disease until late 80'ies or early 90'ies in many Western countries.

So get your facts straight before saying, homosexuals didn't have it "rough". We only need to go a few years back, when young gay people has been shot or beaten to death because of their sexuality - in the United States of America.

So no, I don't think we will see a gay president before our grandparents generation has died out, and our generaton and our offspring is dominant on the votes. We will maybe see it before we die of old age, but sadly not before that.

Et3rnalLegend64:
Well, the U.S. is supposed to be built on Christian ideals. That likely rules out atheists for a good long while. Not to criticize it too much, but I don't know how they (officially) take homosexuals. I know not everyone dislikes them as a rule, but sometimes I get that feeling.

I though it was agreed in hindsight that the entire "America = Christian" thing was a product of Cold-War-era propaganda to create a central American identity in direct opposition to the godless communists. Sure, the majority of the US population has been Christian since the founding, but I never got the feeling that the US Constitution was "built on Christian ideals".

I don't feel comfortable speculating about US presidents seeing as I'm not American, but I'd say that most people underestimate the exponential pace at which modern society is changing. A single generation from now, things could be radically different.

We currently have an agnostic president in Croatia, and had a female premier for the last few years until this year's election. There's a huge catholic majority in the country, and a state-sponsored church, but it seems political issues take precedence over religious ones with our voting body (87% catholics, yet our liberal president, social-democratic majority in Parliament, and the EU referendum all got 60%+ support). However, LGBT rights are still a hot topic, so I'd give it about a decade or two.

Jazoni89:

bahumat42:

Jazoni89:

We as British people do not speak of the evil that is the milk snatcher...

You should know that by now...

as bad as it was it was a big point in british history which need to be acknowledged good and bad.

Well...

It was also a history of hard scrimping my mother had to endure being a single young mum bringing me up on hardly anything, while living in the Later/Post Thatcher years of a broken Britain.

How about that for some British history.

...I'm only messing with ya, but seriously...

Its understandable, but remembering is the only way we can stop these things from happening again.

I don't even care to guess. But I want to point out that we've already had #4 happen repeatedly. The democrats and the Republicans have not always been the major parties. "3rd" parties have risen and taken the place of the major party before them several times in the past.

Err... Well, I'm not too sure about atheistic presidents. I'm an open atheist, and I'm denied the right to my own opinion because of it. And I live in Colorado. Bloody Colorado (South Park has really nullified people's stereotypes here.). Granted, no one breaks down my door and tries murdering me for it, but I still can't have my own opinion. Ugh.

Well, yeah. Based on that, I have to say, not very likely, fellow atheists. Homosexual and women? Sure. It's not that hard to believe. Hillary Clinton almost did it. Homosexual favor's turned around rather well in the past few years, from what I've seen.

bahumat42:

Pimppeter2:
Female one in the next 10-15 years
Atheist in the next 50-60

Probably wont be a homosexual one in my lifetime.

see i think homosexuality is more accepted in america than athiesm. At least in the way i have been treated out there.

Here in the Uk we have already had a woman prime minister and possibly an athiest one (i dont know the full religous history of my countries rulership).

I'm not sure if we've had one, but in any case, it's rather irrelevant. In the States, religion is a massive issue; over here, it isn't (Alastair Campbell to Blair: "We don't do God."). Ed Miliband was asked if he believed in God, he said he was an atheist, that was that. Nobody cared.

Et3rnalLegend64:
Well, the U.S. is supposed to be built on Christian ideals. That likely rules out atheists for a good long while. Not to criticize it too much, but I don't know how they (officially) take homosexuals. I know not everyone dislikes them as a rule, but sometimes I get that feeling.

It's built on secularist ideals, they just tend to not pay attention to that bit.

OT: Guess how many members of Congress identify as Atheists or Unaffiliated (non-religious theists)? None. Zero. Nada. Fuck all.

So I'll eat my own face if we see one of those any time soon (at least anyone openly atheist; some of those will be lying to help get themselves into office, almost certainly).

I don't think it's likely for a gay to get in any time soon either. A woman getting in is definitely the most likely.

Regnes:
Hell, Margaret Thatcher is often considered one of the greatest prime ministers ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFzNhLRAgEU Listen to what Frankie Boyle says.

Woodsey:

bahumat42:

Pimppeter2:
Female one in the next 10-15 years
Atheist in the next 50-60

Probably wont be a homosexual one in my lifetime.

see i think homosexuality is more accepted in america than athiesm. At least in the way i have been treated out there.

Here in the Uk we have already had a woman prime minister and possibly an athiest one (i dont know the full religous history of my countries rulership).

I'm not sure if we've had one, but in any case, it's rather irrelevant. In the States, religion is a massive issue; over here, it isn't (Alastair Campbell to Blair: "We don't do God."). Ed Miliband was asked if he believed in God, he said he was an atheist, that was that. Nobody cared.

OT: Guess how many members of Congress identify as Atheists or Unaffiliated (non-religious theists)? None. Zero. Nada. Fuck all.

So I'll eat my own face if we see one of those any time soon (at least anyone openly atheist; some of those will be lying to help get themselves into office, almost certainly).

I don't think it's likely for a gay to get in any time soon either. A woman getting in is definitely the most likely.

woah really zero?
that seems statistically improbable in this age, but hey its america.
And i think your right in the summation of how little religion matters over here.

bahumat42:

Woodsey:

bahumat42:

see i think homosexuality is more accepted in america than athiesm. At least in the way i have been treated out there.

Here in the Uk we have already had a woman prime minister and possibly an athiest one (i dont know the full religous history of my countries rulership).

I'm not sure if we've had one, but in any case, it's rather irrelevant. In the States, religion is a massive issue; over here, it isn't (Alastair Campbell to Blair: "We don't do God."). Ed Miliband was asked if he believed in God, he said he was an atheist, that was that. Nobody cared.

OT: Guess how many members of Congress identify as Atheists or Unaffiliated (non-religious theists)? None. Zero. Nada. Fuck all.

So I'll eat my own face if we see one of those any time soon (at least anyone openly atheist; some of those will be lying to help get themselves into office, almost certainly).

I don't think it's likely for a gay to get in any time soon either. A woman getting in is definitely the most likely.

woah really zero?
that seems statistically improbable in this age, but hey its america.
And i think your right in the summation of how little religion matters over here.

Yeah, I had to do some research on it for my Politics class.

0% representation when 16.1% of the country identify as being Atheists or Unaffiliated. Most other religions were relatively well-represented. Catholics and Protestants were marginally over-represented, and I think Jews were over-represented by like four times over; 1.7% of the population (I think), 7.*something*% in Congress.

BENZOOKA:
In Finland, on the second round of the presidential elections (only a few weeks ago), with only the best two from the first round continuing:

The other contestant was homosexual. He didn't win though.

And we of course had a female president for two terms, 12 years, before this election.

I hear you guys act like, y'know, we're all living in the 21st Century. Lots of people in lots of countries can't cope with that.

dartkun:

Jegsimmons:
nah, he'd just have to play his cards right, its totally possible, conservatives dont hate atheist....just the dawkinologist.

What?

Wait

What!?

Ok, this is the conservative Wikipedia
http://conservapedia.com/Athiesm

Tell me that the WHOLE wiki page isn't anti-athiesm?

It has connections from Atheism and Communism, Atheism and mass murder, Atheism and immoral views, Atheism, pederasty and NAMBLA, Atheism and bestiality, Atheism and rape, Atheism and evolutionary racism

SERIOUSLY.
"Atheism offers no condemnation of rape and it provides no moral basis a society to attempt to prevent and deter rape."

"Although there are recent studies relating to atheism being a causal factor for suicide for some individuals"

If you believe that Conservatives have a higher chance of electing a atheist than a liberal party. You MUST be kidding yourself. Everyone, just go read how much RIDICULOUS propaganda that site has, and then compare it to wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

*Stares, mouth wide open in shock.* Holy hell, I thought I was just kidding when I said that atheists were oppressed! Wow!

chadachada123:

That said, maybe you aren't from the US, or maybe you live in a far-north state/community where you're not surrounded by religious nuts, but much of the US is very much impossible to live in as an atheist. Socially, atheists have it the worst in normal society.

Seriously? Please don't tell me you actually believe that? As an atheist, and a member of several other minority groups (With friends in many others) I can tell you that atheists do not have it the worst. To claim so is not only absurd, but is also insensitive to the struggles that others may have gone through. Never claim that either you (Or you group) have it worse than anyone one else, it makes you look pretty silly.

It's not like people in everyday life know you're an atheist: You don't have to wear a t-shirt disclosing it to strangers on the street. But if you're black, gay (If you're with your partner), trans, disabled, disfigured, etc: Then everyone you ever pass in everyday life can see that, even going to the shops for a pint of milk can be a terrifying experience. You can hide your identity as an atheist for much of the time, many other groups cannot. As an Atheist you do not fear for your life every time you leave your house. I'm not trying to say that I've had it any harder than you have (I'd kinda defy my own point then), perhaps your experience as an atheist has been very different to mine, but I certainly find it to be the least of my worries.

I'm sure there are groups who've had it much worse than the examples I've posted here, as I can only post things that I have a knowledge of (Some of this is from personal experience, some is from friends). And in spite of how tricky I've found my life, and in spite of how un-accepted I've been by the world, I would never dare claim that I have it the worst. Because there is always someone else who has it worse than you, and you'll offend them and belittle their experiences with comments like this.

Why the need to be the one who has it the worst? We all live different lives, that are challenging in many ways, you can't measure who has the worst, and you shouldn't try. Be grateful for what you have, focus on how good you have things compared to others, not on how bad.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked