This social change benefits the younger winner-takes-all capitalists who can support the social change and point to their progressiveness, even delight in lavishly funding positive change, while never permitting any major positive change on class stratification and ossification threatening their position.
I never knew having an athiest for president was a goal?
I think the NYT article and the link you quoted say pretty much exactly the same thing ā it all depends on what ālegal under certain circumstancesā means.
Indeed, you link shows that more people are ok with it under ācertain circumstancesā: only 11% favor outright prohibition, while 84% favor abortion being legal under ācertain circumstancesā.
You can always be annoying too by pointing out that fiscal liberal doesnāt mean what your uncle thinks it means.
Of course, this doesnāt work if he is in favour of of having an aristocracy with most of the wealth, in which case he really is a fiscal conservative.
Sadly, āliberalā and āconservativeā are just team banners now, and have nothing to do with liberty or conservation. The idea that preventing people from engaging in self-defense, and empowering a deadly police force is āliberalā or that state-sponsored centralized power production is āconservativeā shows that these labels are no more meaningful than the Blues and Greens of Imperial Rome.
On the up side, modern liberals are at least the lesser of two evils!
Edit: I forgot to mention Robās headline is totally awesome.
I guess a liberal? goal. I wanāt aware we were supposed to try for that either.
Maybe separation of church and state has been re-characterized as wishing for an atheist president by some people working to end any separation of church and state and a bunch of liberals? bought into it?
It wasnāt that long ago that having a catholic president had people afraid the pope would run the country (see Kennedy), or even that they might be a secret Muslim.
There is a distinct reason that presidents make a public and visible effort to attend church every Sunday and use religious language, that has nothing to do with faith. The idea that a candidate could win the office that wasnāt Christian, or even outright didnāt have faith at all is a shocking development in the american social mindset and speaks volumes about how the nation is changing.
Iād like to see the poll numbers on those.
27% may well think Obama is a Muslim, but 29 percent of Americans think cloud computing involves an actual cloud.
Also, the Kennedy years were more than 50 years ago. While not FOREVER agoā¦ a few things have changed. Likeā¦ Kennedy is on the money now.
The idea that a candidate could win the office that wasnāt Christian, or even outright didnāt have faith at all is a shocking development in the american social mindset and speaks volumes about how the nation is changing.
Sure, but that (and your examples) do not make the goal a presidents āathiesmā. It makes the goal āpalatabilityā, and what comprises that has changed. I have zero shits to give which faith category the president falls under, so long as heās not a hateful divider.
[quote=āAcerPlatanoides, post:3, topic:60839, full:trueā]
I never knew having an athiest for president was a goal?
[/quote]Iād guess that question is more a bellwether for both the willingness to vote for one outside oneās own religious beliefs, and support for the separation of church and state.
Whose idea is that? It sure isnāt mine. I think youāre more right that any candidate with a real chance of winning still has to make a mockery of the idea of the separation of church and state by praising God and all that jazz.
It does appear that āathiestā - a personal belief - is being posited as the ācorrectā liberal position, right alongside a lot of -public policy- measures which are liberal leaning policies.
Belief in God/god/FSM is not a public policy position.
The ERA still hasnāt been ratified, I suspect many Americans believe that itās somehow a standing law, when it isnāt, yet.
Atheist > theist for running a secular nation in my book. But Iām a dirty social-dem with no party to vote for most of the time, what do I know?
The civil war was quite some time ago and still casts shadows over much of the country, both in terms of mindset and actions. But I agree it was a long time ago.
Yes - I donāt think (as you asserted) having an atheist as a president is a goal (although it certainly is for some people) - as much as a willingness to vote for a president that doesnāt bible thump being a bellwether for many other facets of the political zeitgeist.
[quote=āAcerPlatanoides, post:12, topic:60839, full:trueā]
[quote=āTheRizz, post:10, topic:60839ā]
Iād guess that question is more a bellwether for both the willingness to vote for one outside oneās own religious beliefs, and support for the separation of church and state.
[/quote]It does appear that āathiestā - a personal belief - is being posited as the ācorrectā liberal position, right alongside a lot of -public policy- measures which are liberal leaning policies.
Belief in God/god/FSM is not a public policy position.
[/quote]Yup. But Atheism is one of the biggest no-no religious options in many parts of the country. Iāve heard far too many times that you canāt be moral if you donāt believe in God, even if it happens to be āthe wrong godā, so even Muslims are better than Atheists. 
So, even though it should be a bad question, itās a useful indicator of the level of religious prejudice in the voting population.
CONCLUSION: Your annoying uncle who proudly declares āsocial liberal, fiscal conservativeā in his smug, nasal voice is winning.
Are there any remotely mainstream presidential candidates who are āsocial liberal, fiscal conservativeā? Politics donāt seem to split down those lines anymore with both major parties voting for secret trade pacts, continued spying on citizens, and a rubber stamp for the massive military budget.
I have a hard time holding people to any account for their beliefs.
Their behavior, entirely hold them to account for that. It just seems like preferring they be an athiest is not far off from preferring they be an evangelical.
Itās like five 21st century questions, and one 16th century question.
Ahh no sorry that is the mindset of any campaign in modern memory however, religion is often brought up - and was used against Romney, and Obama, and touted frequently by Bush. Consider (or research) the āmoral majorityā and the āChristian coalitionā which were voting blocs that made such a large and consistent part of the voting population it was a sought after and pandered to demographic.
I think the problem is (among many) for the change can be pointed to:
-
A grassroots effort to support changes to the tax code was taken over and usurped by radical religious wingnuts who made statements and actions that alienated a large portion of the party
-
The same radial religious faction was able to gain enough power to cause the main section of the party to acknowledge and treat these people as allies and equals - thus exposing many more moderate voters (the big middle section who really donāt buy any āfull partyā line of rhetoric) to the crazy side of the party, which in turn makes those people no longer want to be associated with the party. Like tribes people like to associate things they belong to with things they like to believe about themselves, and radicals make you re-examine how much of the party you can relate and be proud to associate yourself with
-
Anti-science (related to the above two points) combined with very bad educational choices, I think, are causing a slow self reflection of the American viewpoint, in which the country as a whole āknowsā something is wrong and wants to change - Anti-vaxxers fall into this crowd and as such the fact that the typical right wing talking points are loudly trumpeted by the same people that are bringing back disease like measles causes more people to want to defect and or no longer associate with that segment of society. The number of people who have had a relative or loved one (or themselves) who are saved by real medical science is staggering - this causes a much more visceral belief in science that is held deeply within, and not easily challenged.
-
related to the first two points a embrace of the racist and hateful elements which only encourages more (and scarier) racists and hateful comments/actions as people with these viewpoints have been suppressed for decades from having a āvoiceā in the country, and as such are emboldened by the embracing they are getting from one party. This adds to the fuel that drives people away from wanting to identify with these elements. The funny part about this last point is the lengths to which the party leadership has gone to try and paint these things as non-racist, as if changing the word nigger in a statement, to the word thug makes things all ok. Hatred, while easy to foster and use for political advantage, is a dangerous tool which can and will quickly turn on the wielder. Hatred used for political effect can also have a side effect of causing violence, and worse things. Hopefully sanity returns before we go down that rabbit hole any further, because scary things can happen with no ability to control them, should we continue down that path.
