Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Would we be safer with an atheist president?

SLANT's spokesdog, Rebus, wonders: All other considerations equal, would it be safer for us to have an atheist president with his finger on the button -- nuclear oblivion! -- than to have a Christian president, who truly believes in an afterlife? Wouldn't an atheist president, who couldn't hedge his bet, care more about the life we are living now on Earth?

6 comments:

Makarios said...

If you refuse to look at the empirical evidence re: who does the most to make life on earth tolerable for the most needy, I suppose one could make a case such as the one you suggest.

Brian Westley said...

"Empirical evidence" and "Makarios" don't overlap. Makarios is a psychotic atheist-hater.

Stuart said...

Bush II didn't need nukes to slaughter 150,000 people in Iraq.

Stuart said...

But yes, I'd feel safer with Pete Stark holding "the football" than Mike Huckabee.

paul_h said...

Hitler, Mao and Stalin weren't exactly believers, but managed to starve, murder or kill millions of their own citizens. Then again the Catholic Kings of Spain had kind of a spotty record too.

pigeater said...

I have no use for any of the established religions like Christianity, Islam or Climate Change but, I do believe in final judgement. It's that belief that's kept me from grabbing a rifle and heading for the local bell tower so, I'd have to say I'd feel better if the finger on the button was someone who felt likewise.