6 ms·

Recent announcements and actions by Zuck suggest that he's going to run for office one day. 1) Reveals he is no longer an atheist (http://nypost.com/2017/01/02

• aaron-lebo 10y ago
  “No. I was raised Jewish and then I went through a period where I questioned things, but now I believe religion is very important,” he wrote.
  • jjawssd 10y ago
    He finally realized the true value of being part of the influential Jewish diaspora/community
  • benologist 10y ago
    Looks like he's alluding to religion being a powerful tool to use.
  • rayiner 10y ago
    Zuckerberg wouldn't be the first atheist to become more religious after getting married and having a child.
• chrischen 10y ago
  It suggests he may be Buddhist. You can't really use a religion other than Christianity if you're pandering to Americans.
  • ithinkinstereo 10y ago
    I see this as baby steps... he knows that being an atheist is a non-starter, politically. Better something than nothing. Watch him get more religious and move towards Judaism/Christianity as we get closer to 2020 :)
    • logfromblammo 10y ago
      Exactly this. If you are already atheist, and people know about it, it is more tenable politically to convert to any religion that exists than to remain atheist. This includes religions that practice human sacrifice. And if you think that is too insane to be true, please remember what country we are talking about, here. That said, there are some religions that are compatible with atheism, which wouldn't necessarily be recognized by the public as a religion that could have atheists in it, or would at least provide plausible deniability if you are smart enough to keep your mouth shut about religion on the campaign trail. Unitarianism, obviously, is one of these. If I were ever to run for office, I would simply join a UU assembly and leave it at that. This would probably restrict me to running as a Democrat, though. If I wanted to run as a Republican, I would have to be more careful, and say "I was baptized in the Methodist church". If Zuckerberg wants to give it a go as a Buddhist, secular Buddhism exists, and certainly no one on the west coast would bat an eye at it, but the other regions of the country would probably either have a problem with the religion itself, or that Zuckerberg would be practicing it as a white guy.
  • dj-wonk 10y ago
    I, for one, would not put limits on the ability of politicians to pander in ways that I would find implausible. But in the case of religion (even Buddhism), I find it plausible. Demographics and expectations about religion are changing. Religious belief and alignment does appear to be softening. See: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-public-becoming-less-religious/ http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-public-becoming-less-... More broadly, I think the models of cognitive dissonance and tribal behavior are sometimes more important than arbitrary labels. If enough voters feel comfortable with a candidate (on their own terms) they can dismiss any number of externally-imposed labels about their candidate.
    • sharkweek 10y ago
      Offering an anecdote with as little commentary as possible, but having gone to a small religious high school, I have friends who argue they'd "never vote for anyone who isn't Christian" but managed to do some mental gymnastics in order to vote for Romney, who during the primaries they seemed to oppose for being Mormon.
      • rhcom2 10y ago
        Now I feel ignorant, Mormonism doesn't count as a sect of Christianity?
        • frenchy 10y ago
          There was a fair bit of established orthodox doctrine laid down between 100-400 CE. Christian groups that follow this are generally considered Christian by each by each other. Mormonism deviates significantly from orthodox doctrine, so it is considered a heretical sect by Christians. For analogy, comparing Mormonism to Christianity is sort of like comparing Chrome to Konqueror.
        • dragonwriter 10y ago
          There's a fairly common standard among mainstream Christian groups as to what constitutes the boundary of Christianity formed by adherence to certain understandings of foundational doctrines (basically encapsulated into the common Nicene and Apostle's Creed's.) This is generally held to exclude (as I recall), for different (though overlapping) reasons, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Unitarians, among others groups that describe themselves as Christian. (In contexts where the definition in question is being used, these and similarly situated groups may be referred to as "pseudo-Christian cults".) This definition isn't consistently important outside of academic theological contexts within the body of mainstream Christianity, though, as lots of regular believers use either a much broader definition in daily conversation, or a narrower one that amounts to agreement with the particular religious beliefs of the individual in question. Particularly, in US political contexts, political groups organized around politically conservative policies justified by appeals to Christianity have very often sought to appeal across traditional theological boundaries to reach politically-significant populations, and this is absolutely the case with trying to draw in LDS members; so, in terms of conservative political Christianity, Mormons are usually accepted, even if there is an academic theological standard which holds them as distinct from Christianity.
  • jessaustin 10y ago
    No atheists really are the worst. (Perhaps it would be better to say they would be considered the worst by the stereotypical stereotypical American?)