USA a black president, Iceland a gay Premier. What's next?
 

This is a good thing for the gay interest groups. It helps them even if they aren't in Iceland because it's a progressive nation. It is only an interim but not elected, still, it is a step in the right direction.

What progressive thing be next for world leaders????

The next thing? I don't know.

But this conversation is over once the U.S. elects an atheist Hispanic lesbian as president.

i would have thought that it would be harder for a muslim than an athiest to get in as President of the USA.

i know people would be more at ease if an athiest rather than a muslim was Commander in Chief.

Since Rev Warren isn't here, let me answer for him: What's next? Somebody is going to elect, as their leader, a man married to multiple dead underage farm animals.

Good point. So what are we up to now? A Muslim Hispanic lesbian?

How about a leader who still respects things like sovereignty and doesn't bow down to the private fractional reserve bankers. Really don't care what race or religion or gender they are.

you're dreaming!

Michael Jackson will become pope!

Isn't the Icelandic Premier actually bisexual? She was previously married to a man and has a couple of kids.

new zealand had a female prime minister. so it doesnt really strike me the fact that shes leader of a country. its been done before. the big deal is the fact that shes lesbian? big deal! as long as she can run the country properly, then thats my main concern.

theres a lot of fixing up to do in iceland. if she can do it, she'll earn my respect.

the world is full of leaders who are murderers and despots. a lesbian is the least of my worries

Wait, i thought we had a muslim president.

A Nation of Islam muslim could make a case for being All-American in a way that an atheist perhaps could not. But who knows?

I suspect that maybe one or two of our past Presidents were closet gays, and that probably quite a few of them were closet atheists.

This has been a long time coming. Homosexual rights are a lot farther along in Europe. A gay US president? That would be quite a thing. It won't happen until it's more widely understood that hatred of homosexuals is bigotry and not holy, but it might happen in my lifetime (assuming I meet or exceed my life expectancy of 85).

And I do suspect that President Obama is agnostic, which is nice. It takes humility to understand that you don't know everything.

There are many people who have nothing to do with religion, and yet still view homosexuals as deviants and thus they can't stand them. Just as there are many people who are atheists (or at least, agnostics) and who view homosexuals as deviants and thus they can't stand them, and yet they use religion because it supports their view.
-----Added 30/1/2009 at 01 : 15 : 55-----
Whatever, I find Obama's spirituality to be more earnest and deeper-thinking, and thus far more profound and trustworthy, than I did Bush's.

are you saying what i think you're saying?

Louis Farrakhan for President?

murderer, racist, whack-job, religious freak - Bingo i think we have a winner! oh wait hang on a sec, Dubya could be all those too!

No, not many. The reason I know this is because I've been involved in the gay rights movement for several years and I've had the opportunity to meet a lot of people from the other side. Not one of them has ever, ever been an atheist. There are people out there that believe that homosexuality is unnatural for other than religious reasons, but they generally aren't the kind that will vote against someone for the single reason that he or she is gay. They certainly aren't the vocal ones.

The thing with most atheists, in my experience, is that there might be an "ick factor", but that doesn't speak to a personal philosophy but a personal preference. It's like beets. I hate beets, I think they're gross, but the idea of voting against someone who likes beets is stupid. If a beet-loving beet farmer wearing a beet t-shirt ran for president and I found his or her positions to be in line with my own, their beet love wouldn't color my decisions in voting for or against in any way.

You don't like beets? That is so gay.

For the record, Obama went to a UCC church, which means that he is just a touch more dogmatic than a Unitarian Universalist.

I went to an LCMS church until I didn't have to anymore. It doesn't get a whole lot more repressed and conservative than LCMS.

Look at it this way, at least 1/10th of the US is nonreligious. More nonreligious people are located in jobs that require more education (attorneys, medical doctors, etc.). Wouldn't that suggest that statistically at least a few members of the Senate were nonreligious and as many as 40 or more in the House? Since there's only one known atheist in either of those places (Pete Stark), wouldn't that suggest it's probable people are quiet about their disbelief? It's no secret that atheists are a lot less likely to be elected.

I imagine that it's a lot easier to lie about being an atheist than it is to lie about being a homosexual. Given the fact that 47% of all social conservatives serving in Congress are, in fact, closeted homosexuals, it can virtually be guaranteed via statistical analysis that there are atheists lurking cravenly in the halls of power as we speak.

Be afraid.

You do realize that, historically, there have been closet atheists who have been patrons of religion, and some who were even religion leaders? Especially in Europe before the 18th Century and the so called Age of Enlightenment.

So, it would not be surprising (to me, at least) to find that many of the seeming proponents of religion, particularly those proponents of Fundamentalist Christianity and those who are involved in corporate and/or political power, are secretly agnostic or even atheistic. All the more probable for those who have been active and gained power amidst the fear-mongering that followed 9/11.

Say what?!

It's a fact. There is a direct correlation to the level of a person's social conservatism and the likelihood that they are a closeted homosexual.

How about a black guy for RNC chairman?

Now that's Progressive! :lol:

Feel free to name names, cite sources. I'm always up for some new information. And knowing particulars would make this more than just a cryptic conversation about nothing.
Ah, so now we jump from "some pragmatic atheists aren't being outspoken about their beliefs" to "oh, and they're probably neocons"? That's a rather bold, and unsupportable position to take.

Also, considering that the atheist population in prisons is proportionally lower than average, it seems an even more unfounded.

What next? I dont understand the meaning of stating "what next"?

People who are, by the democratic judgment of their people, are fit for the job have been elected or are about to be elected in these two nations... in what sense should we find this remarkable?

Should the fact that Obama is half black be what we define him by?

What I hope we see next if a world where the best man or woman should be selected without anyone finding the case being remarkable or astonishing because of their ethnicity, sexuality, or any other factor which has no baring on their fitness to serve.

I supported Obama (not that it matters much since I am not American) but if Obama had been white and McCain had been black then the world would and the American people still be behind Obama overwhelmingly.

Agreed with SF, he took the words out of my mouth. Something truly grand, the next step of evolution would be for us not give 3 shits what race, sex, religion he/she is.
Unless they're arab, of course.
Kidding.

I've got 10-1 odds on a Jewish Ayatollah.

Any takers...?

Well, of course, very few people were openly atheistic in 16th to 18th Century Europe, and even fewer still in Medieval to Renaissance Europe. Heck, it really wasn't until the French Revolution that it became permissible to be openly atheistic, and that was only in France. Because, to be openly atheistic, otherwise, was a sure way to become persecuted, tortured, beheaded, burnt at the stake, hung from the gallows, etc.

Many modern-day historians support that it's more than likely that Leonardo da Vinci (as one example) was a closet atheist (and more than likely a closet homosexual, too). Likewise, it is supported that Niccolo Machiavelli (as another example) was more than likely an atheist.

But, of course, there is no irrefutable evidence to support either of those examples. In either of those examples, you have to consider the entire biography of the person in question, along with that person's deeds and tendencies throughout their life. Historians and biographers can't rely on hard, irrefutable evidence when they seek to determine the likelihood of a historical figure being a closet atheist (or even the likelihood of a historical figure being a closet homosexual, for that matter). Myself, I was referring more to overall human nature and to the tendencies of societies, throughout history, than I was to any specific and known historical examples of a closet atheist.

Whatever. :rolleyes:

I don't know why you bring this up. Anyway, you should read more information about that subject, before you present us with your supposition of the data you cited. For example...

Prison Incarceration and Religious Preference

K. I mean I've heard that Da Vinci was an atheist, but I've never seen anything other than disagreements with the Catholic Church. Same thing with Niccolo Machiavelli. I'm not sure disagreement with the current incarnation of the church demonstrates atheism; I just see dissent.
Oh comon. You posted some very melodramatic stuff:
You said that it's probable that those who have been active and gained power amidst the fear-mongering that followed 9/11 are atheists. You're going to need to back that up. Or don't and let it sit there unaddressed.
You accused atheists of fear-mongering following 9/11, suggesting that atheists can be connected with unethical or immoral behavior. Bringing up the fact that statistically there are less atheists per capita in prison demonstrates at least a correlative link between lawfulness and atheism.
The link assumes some great amount of "unknown" are atheists, which is a baseless assumption. There's no reason to think that based on the information available.

If you'd like, we can go visit a few prisons and test this. Until then, the verifiable studies available stand.

We could vote a dead guy into office. Didn't this happen in El Congresso not too long ago?

Ah, yes, this. That more than a homosexual woman begs the question as to what might be next.

The only problem with that was that it left John Ashcroft open for, um, another government position...:p

Isn't there a comedian that does a bit about electing a dead guy President? I can hear it in my mind, but I can't remember who it was. Lewis Black, maybe.

lmao...ok, time to dry off the keyboard and get a beverage refill...

I believe that Brezhnev was by most definitions technically dead for the last year of his premiership of the Soviet Union

There must be some miscommunication here. And looking back at what I wrote, it looks like the fault is mine.

What I meant to say is, it's probable that some of those politicians and corporate leaders who are self-proclaimed Christians, and who have been active and gained power amidst the fear-mongering that followed 9/11, are closet atheists.

And why not? We know that some self-proclaimed heterosexual Christian leaders who preached against homosexuality, have been found out to be closet homosexuals; and while these two-faced preachers were spewing persecution and damnation against homosexuals with one face, they were sucking some secret male lover's dick with their other face. (The most recent and widely known example of this is Ted Haggard, a man who was an outspoken and rallying leader of the 30-million strong National Association of Evangelicals, and who Time magazine reported in 2005 as one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in American politics, and who was a big supporter of the Bush administration.)

However, I think it's much easier for a closet atheist to keep his secret, than it is for a closet homosexual. Especially so in these modern times, with investigative reporting and mass media, and with virtually instantaneous communication. But until a mind-reading machine or something like that is invented, it will continue to be hard to discover, let alone prove, that a person is a closet atheist.

Again, that's not what I meant to say. What I meant was, it's possible – probable, even – that a person who happens to be an atheist, can be so manipulative and power-seeking (not necessarily because he's an atheist, mind you), that he operates behind a mask of religion because he sees religion to be such a powerful force, and because he finds himself in the right place, at the right time to take advantage of that.

Sounds about right. I was a closet atheist from age 14 to age maybe 23. Believe me when I tell you that absolutely no one had a clue until I spoke up.

You're still playing this game? You're still not very good at it.

But then, perhaps it's more likely that this and the 47% stat are tongue-in-cheek. Should I be giving you the benefit of the doubt?

As for the topic at hand, I'm more concerned with electing the next good politician (relatively speaking), rather than the next black or female or woman or atheist politician. Especially when my views tend to be at odds with the group in question. For instance, I don't think the symbolic victory against racism is worth the cost of many of Obama's policies.

...So what's the big deal again?

Why does that statement, along with your signature, remind me of Emery in Full Metal Jacket? hehe