It probably can't happen in the US because the US must have close to the world's highest proportion of believers. They may be weak in understanding and attendance. But the believe in.....something. As well, many American churches are well organized to be a political force.

Canada has a lower proportion of believers, and Canadian churches generally are not organized for any political role.  So I suppose it could happen here. but I can't imagine why anyone running for office would proclaim  himself an atheist. It's the sort of thing that might cost you some votes, and isn't likely to win you any.

graeme

It probably can't happen in the US because the US must have close to the world's highest proportion of believers. They may be weak in understanding and attendance. But the believe in.....something. As well, many American churches are well organized to be a political force.

Canada has a lower proportion of believers, and Canadian churches generally are not organized for any political role.  So I suppose it could happen here. but I can't imagine why anyone running for office would proclaim  himself an atheist. It's the sort of thing that might cost you some votes, and isn't likely to win you any.

graeme

 Seems you have a shaky trigger finger Graeme. You've been double posting lately. Too much coffee? 

You know - I don't even know how to do that deliberately.

graeme

I don't see why an atheist couldn't be PM.  Before Harper (BH?), faith was rarely if ever mentioned or considered relevant for Canadian politicians.  Provided he hasn't broken the system completely on this score (and I don't think he has), we ought to be able to go back to that once we are rid of him.

Faith came up only once that I can recall. that was - oh, now can I, a Canadian historian, forget the guy's name. From Nova Scotia, died on a visit to buckingham palace. He was a Catholic.). Anyway, that was the only one. Mackenzie King was probably the one who came closest to waving his religion, though even that was muted. Generally, nobody has mentioned it.

I suspect, though, t hat openly going atheist could make it an issue - though not nearly to the degree it would in the US. In Quebec, it would certainly be a non issue.

No, I don't think it would normally decide an election. Though it could make the difference in a close race.

graeme

I think it goes beyond "Religion".

I am wishing that, in the USA, Presidents could be voted in on a platform where they say that they don't know everything, aren't experts in everything, but, if voted in, they will surround themselves with experts who know what they are doing. That is is the right thing to do, I think.

I am wishing for a populace educated and mindful enough to not think that politicians  HAVE TO ALWAYS BELIEVE THE SAME THINGS (ie, the whole idiotic 'Flip-flop' debacle) and can change their minds as new evidence comes in. That is the smart, educated thing to do.

I am wishing for a populace educated enough in the media to know to take any sex scandals and other things that turn people into deodands with a HEFTY GRAIN of SALT. That way, maybe US election campaigns can will be forced to be less mudslinging and more INFO BASED.

Well, we've already got people who are atheist to something in office...I think it is only a matter of "time". I think that the Canadian character 'doesn't care' generally and that in the USA they are so passionate that they polarize issues to super essentialisms. Which is both good and bad.

I wish that things like Latin and General Semantics were taught in primary schools in the US.

It is a toughie. I think it is a part of democracy in the US that people be allowed to 'fail' --  where, generally, people seem to not like being told what to do. And the vein of anti-intellectualism, where ignorance is celebrated, is maddening. How do we teach people that rationality is warm and human again?

Rationally transcendental,

Inannawhimsey

In Canada - Yes - We see religion as an outside issue in politics.

In the U.S. - No - The last election campaign is proof. Not for another 20 - 30 years.

well then you must be just lucky then.

or having a senior moment.

graeme

Hi spockis53,

Hmmmmmmm.  How successful are candidates for the position of Prime Minister who are self-proclaimed believers?  As far as I know the Christian Heritage Party is the only openly Christian political party operating in Canada and they don't appear to pull in a lot of votes.

Other Prime-ministers have belonged to various Christian faith expressions but rarely make those affiliations part of their policy, in fact, most seem to get  in hot-water from their denominations because they don't play the faith card along party lines.

I would think that it would be a fairly even race between a theist and an atheist for party leader and from there Prime Minister provided the individuals managed to remember that the position is a political one.

If the theist is going to be all in your face preaching hell-fire and brimstone then I would expect said theist to achieve popularity levels that make Tony Clement look like a rock-star.  If the atheist is going to be all in your face claiming believers are morons and a threat to society in general then I would expect said atheist to likewise make Tony Clement look like a rock-star.

The political polarization here in Canada does not appear to lean heavily on religious rhetoric.  Canada doesn't have the notion of manifest destiny.

An Atheist becoming President of the United States would probably be more difficult but probably not impossible.

Most likely there would be an Atheist PM before there would be an Atheist President.

I know that when I vote for my MP or my MPP I do not look first at their faith affiliation.  I don't even look at their political affiliation first.  First glance is at the person I know from the community.  Are they competent?  Do they care about the community?  These are my first concerns.  When I have answers to them I go on to see how they reconcile their personal political stance with that of the party they represent.  Faith affiliation is a much later concern.

I know that being a Christian or an Atheist doesn't mean you can't be a jerk at the same time.

I'm interested in avoiding sending a Jerk to Queen's Park or Parliament Hill.  Whether that jerk believes in God or not doesn't sway my vote.

Unless of course they are all jerks.  Then it is a race for them to prove who is less of a jerk more often.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Why does that sound so familiar...

YES, as long as they're not Irish!

(This comment is just for fun.  My mother was Irish, my dad was French.  I'm a bartenders delight!  Except I don't drink.)

there was recently a study described that showed that Alabama had the highest rates of religious people, tied with an fundamentalist Muslim area (can't remember where - maybe Iran??) (Boy, I'm full of useful reliable info eh?)  It was on CNN buried somewhere a week or 2 ago.

I do think though, that Obama was a choice that showed moderates trumping the too-familiar Christian Right juggernaut.  He was religious enough to be elected but it wasn't ever about faith.  That is my guess.

Tangent!  Remember The West Wing, with President Bartlett.  He was religious, and moderate, and could separate both, though he had wonderful moral dilemmas about it.  The best examples: Bartlett having his fight with God, when his secretary died?  Remember the cigarette smoked in defiance on the floor of the cathedral?  Remember him dropping it and squashing it out with his foot? 

Or go back to season 1 - weighing the choice to  execute  a man, possibly innocent, possibly not?  and as the exectution was finally carried out, Bartlett spent the time in prayer with 2 advisors - a rabbi & a priest.  It was confession, looking for forgiveness, but the show left an awful gloom over it.

(Sorry- I am sighing with good memories of a great show.)

Hi RevMatt,

Because that is the choice the Canadian Voter typically has to make?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hah! Too true, Revjohn...

In the U.S. they have "In God We Trust" on the effin' bills! What are the chances of an atheist President in that climate?

As for "proclaimed" atheist leader in Canada, I think it would depend on how "proclaimed" it was. Someone who gets really heated up about people believing in God a la Dawkins, COULD conceivably alienate voters who felt their freedom to practice religion might be infringed upon (I know it's in the Charter of Rights & Freedoms, but still people would likely frown on this as an apparent attack on the beliefs of the majority).

well, I like to think that canadians expect a certain discretion in their leaders about anything, and an importance placed on political things rather than faith/non-faith things.  I dont' think an atheist fundamentalist would get any further than a religious one. 

Discretion, meaning to keep passions & personal ideals in check, private enough, but in the context of understanding how it relates to the public needs/directions.

I agree with Kappa on this one.  If someone like Dawkins were to try and for say British Prime Minister (acountry that is supposed to have a rather large non-believing population), he would lose by a huge amount and just for that reason.  But I don't find Dawkins that contoversial.  Look at Christopher Hitchens...  That guy is a nutter.

As the vast majority of the voting public in North America claim to be affiliated with a religion, and since moraility and ethics, in their eyes, are derived from religious principles, then no;  a proclaimed atheist, no matter what his or her qualifications, will never be voted in as a leader.

Who would vote for someone that lacked perceived moral guidance?

And this is my personal concern. Power in public office is biased towards faith-based decisions, or at least decisions that satisfy that segment. It's irrational, but that's politics.

But again spockis, you are assuming that the mainstream religious folks think a proclaimed atheist has no morals.  Most of us don't feel that way.  Sure, there would be a big loud response in the Christian fundamentalist pulpits, but that doesn't mean anymore than "Love Guru" being proclaimed "The funniest Movie of the Year" on the back page of the paper.

What matters is the mainstream electoral response, and my sense is that in Canada, people would mostly be relieved to have someone who wasn't dragging their proclaimed religion into it.  Unless the atheist politician is trying to harm their religious rights, or their cultural ones, they'd be happy he was focusing on state matters.

My guess is that Birthstone is right. the factor, though, that prevents an atheist politician from publicly proclaiming his religious views - or lack of them - is that he would gain few votes by it, and would certainly lose some. So better to keep quiet about it, and hope the issue doesn't come up.

We have certainly had some pretty immoral and self serving and cynical politicians who either gave a public appearance of religious beliefs or actually did hold them. Start with John A. Macdonald, Mackenzie King, Maurice Duplessis, Ralph Klein, and the list could be a long one.

To actually win votes on the basis of being an atheist, you would need an electorate with a strong, anti-religious bent. The one province where that might be true is Quebec - and I'm really not sure even about that one.

graeme

agreed- the key is that the politician needs to be proclaiming the right stuff- the issues that are important to the political circle.  If they go too far in any other direction (cultural, religious, special interest), it will undercut their relevant voice.

it is the reason Canada has elected officials who are gay, female, visible minorities, suffering from cancer, in wheelchairs and so on - they carry a banner, but they don't hold it higher than the work they do for others.  I don't think atheism is a farther frontier than any of those.

Are there actually voters left in either the US or Canada who believe any politician operates with moral guidiance?

LB - convinced I live on another planet

Instead of giving a politician the keys to the city, it might be better to change the locks.      Doug Larson
 

LB - I'm sure there are some.  Just not ones with decision making power.

In reading through this thread I have come to believe that the answer lies in what you mean by "proclaimed".  Do you simply mean that the person is an athiest - that If asked for his or her religious afiliation he/she would say "athiest" or "no religion"?  Or do you mean 'proclaimed' as in having it up-front, big bold letters on the front of his/her advertisements, one of the first and foremost statements about what he/she considers important?  Is this going to be part of the party's election platform?

Or is he/she going to promote the issue that he/she considers important - the economy, the environment, peace (or war) and tell us how he/she thinks they can best be handled, and keep religion (or lack of it) a private matter - or something to be mentioned briefly on the back page along with things like  'active in . . . club', 'avid skier', 'coach of son's hockey team' and 'member of the home & school association'.

Actually, that's a good point.  I think it would be obvious if the main thing in this person's life is being an atheist, well, then he/she obviously would appear as crazy as their religious counterpart like say.....  ie.  Sarah Palin.

But if they stood up for all sorts of important issues, and in a interview or other type of setting they would say they were an atheist on just as simple as being a non-believer, in Canada it would be okay, but in the states.....

I don't know about Canada but in the US, the media if not the electorate would crucify an Atheist if He / She were running for President. It wouldn't matter what platform was put forth or how upstanding this person was. No God - No President.  My opinion only.

I really wonder why we would even have to ask or why our Prime Minister would even consider bringing it up ??.. I know in the US they demand it, so no, they won't for a few generations anyway but in Canada it doesn't seem to even be an issue with most people. What is most important is the candidate, what he thinks is good, fair and democractic for everyone. From what I've seen of some "non-atheist" politicians in both countried, their religious convictions (or lack thereof) are no guarantee of anything. 

So , yes for Canada, no for the US (not yet).

a good read http://www.atheistmissionary.com/

If you want to see what a "proclaimed" atheist politican looks like

Congressman Pete Stark, representing California's Thirteenth District

and, oh my, no horns but he is a Democrat

I think in Canada we don't get in a snit about religion of politicians.  I have never been at a candidates meeting and heard any one asked the question.

I think most are expected to be respectful of various religions and do so.  Certainly I remember comments about Martin and Cretienne and their being catholic related to the abortion discussions but I doubt many voters feel that a politician should vote along religious lines.

I used to look at the religious affiliation and that was all that was important.  Now I think all our politicians are jokes and liars so I don't bother voting.

You are all going to jump down my throat for this one but Stockwell Day was persecuted for his religion in what is supposed to be a country with freedom of religion in the bill of rights.

Stockwell Day was not persecuted, he was unseated, and it was for his incompetence, not for his religion.

If there was an issue with his religion, it was because he was making decisions for hius constituents based mnore on his religion than on the will of the people. That is not what politicians are supposed to be doing with my vote.

Stockwell Day was worshipped and adored by Harper.  He was lambasted by normal people because he is a gigantic moron.  It wouldn't matter whether he was an atheist, he would still be a world class moron.

It didn't help his case that he said humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, but the wetsuit did more damage.

That whole personal watercraft scene was his political downfall.  Really, what PR fool thought that one up????

LB - it made sweater vests look sophisticated

Only a fool tests the depth of the water with both feet.    

African Proverb

I remember the wetsuit and the waverunner (and the Air Farce parody).  I didn't know he was a young earth creationist.  If he is, that doesn't make him an idiot - it just makes him more of an idiot.

I mostly remember the petition to change his name to Doris.  Ahh, good times.

Why not ?

Ten years ago, whether someone running for public office was an atheist or not would have been a non-issue with me.  I would not have voted for someone who made a big deal out of their religion, and feel the same way now.   If a candidate was a very religiou person, that would be ok, as long that did not play into how they presented themselves as a candidate.  But atheists were pretty much under my radar. 

Not so anymore.  The new atheism is very, very aggressive, strident and often downright nasty.  They remind me of the most extreme of fundamentalists.  Before I would vote for an atheist now, I would take a very close look at who they were and what they had to say to me.

I tell my kids that all the time (used to ride me dinosaur to school, you know).  All 3 are under 8 and are still smart enough to call me on that one.

alta, perhaps you should go with the wetsuit thing instead.

ooooooo me in wetsuit?  not good......not good at all

There have been at least 4 Unitarian US Presidents. Not believing in the Trinity did not stop them. (Both Adams, Filmore and Taft... Jefferson is put in there by some). There are a couple deists too. Maybe we move backwards and not forwards on some things...

Jefferson, Lincoln and Johnson claimed no particular religious affiliation.

Dwight Eisenhower's childhood background was River Brethren (Mennonite) and Russelites(Jehovah Witnesses). He became a Presbyterian in office (The only president to join a faith while in office) The words "under God" were added to the Pledge of Allegiance under Ike.