The New York Times Room for Debate Forum has an interesting symposium on the role of religion in presidential elections. In his contribution, polling expert Andrew Kohut cites a 2007 Pew survey showing that atheism is viewed more negatively by voters than virtually any other possible trait of a presidential candidate. A whopping 63% of respondents said they would be “less likely” to vote for a presidential candidate who “doesn’t believe in God” (3% said they would be more likely_. This easily exceeds the percentages who say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who never held elected office (56), a Muslim (46), a homosexual (46), a person who had “used drugs in the past” (45), or a Mormon (30). Opposition to female, black and Hispanic candidates is several times lower (ranging from 4 to 14 percent, though some racists and sexists probably hid their true attitudes from the pollster). A more recent 2011 version of the same survey gets very similar results when it comes to atheists (61%), though there is less hostility towards gays (33%).
By contrast, 39% in the 2007 survey said they would be more likely to vote for a Christian candidate, compared to only 4% who said they would be less likely. However, many voters apparently don’t want a candidate who seems too closely associated with religion. The same poll found that 25% would be less likely to vote for a candidate who has been a minister, while only 15% said they would be more likely to support him. The questions about Christians and ministers were not repeated in the 2011 study.
The data cited by Kohut reinforce other evidence showing that atheists are by far the most widely hated religious or ethnic minority in modern America. The evidence suggests that hostility to atheist candidates is primarily the result of bigotry rather than information shortcuts (e.g. – opposing an atheist candidate because one assumes that he’s probably a liberal), though the latter is certainly a factor for some voters. In this 2006 article, I explored some of the reasons for that hostility and also explained why it isn’t justified.
captcrisis says:
Depressing.
Shows the immaturity of the average voter.
With the exception of Jimmy Carter, NO politician who claims to have a strong religious devotion has ever put that devotion into practice. To me, anytime someone talks about his “faith in God”, it is a huge red flag.
October 31, 2011, 9:53 pmMaximus Aurelius says:
The link to your 2006 article seems to be dead.
October 31, 2011, 10:09 pmjustcurious says:
This is absurd. How and when did we arrive at the point where it is apparently unacceptable for a candidate for president to say that his or her religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are nobody’s damn business?
October 31, 2011, 10:16 pmBL1Y says:
Interestingly, if people knew what Deism was, they’d identify it as much closer to atheism than theism, and yet, we have all those Deist presidents in our past, …some really good ones, too.
I also think this polling is completely ridiculous. Have we even had a mainstream atheist candidate? Not that I can think of. Our predictions about how we’re likely to respond to a situation are notoriously bad, and this sort of polling is nothing more than auto-erotic empty calories.
October 31, 2011, 10:26 pmTenth Justice says:
Is it really fair to say that just because atheists are the group Americans are least likely to vote for president that they are the “the most widely hated religious or ethnic minority in modern America”? That seems to be quite the logical leap to me. I for one never hear about the rash of teenage atheist suicides or hate crimes targeting atheists.
October 31, 2011, 10:35 pmElSuerte says:
The link to your 2006 article is dead.
I don’t really buy your central thesis though, that it is mainly the result of irrational bigotry.
Personally, I think it’s because the intersection of politics and atheism is held primarily by prominent atheists who happen to be rampaging asses when it comes to religion and religious belief in general. This is especially the case when atheism is a political issue rather then biographical datum.
For example, take a look at the prominent causes atheists pursue now days. Engaging in expensive law suits so students can’t mention or thank god/jesus/buddah/allah in graduation speeches, suing for removal of innocuous symbols in governmental seals, suing so people can’t put up crosses at accident sites in memorium of the dead.
Look at the Mojave Dessert cross case, when the atheists finally lost in the Supreme Court, they decided to vandalize the cross, and tear it down. Sound like a hate crime?
The one issue where I think they have a legitimate issue, the teaching of evolution, they still manage to alienate people by belittling and denigrating their beliefs.
We should even examine atheist pundits. Even the relatively polite Christopher Hitchens seems to lose himself when it comes to religion. I read his recent Slate article on Rommney and Mormonism. By reading it, you’d get the impression that Mitt was a member of some sort of extreme polygamous-childmolesting-racist cult. When you’re writing about mainstream Mormonism like Geller writes about Islam, you can’t claim to be a rational commentator on religion.
October 31, 2011, 10:48 pmElSuerte says:
I kind of wonder if the rate of suicides among atheists would be higher then among the religious.
The religious stigma and afterlife penalty for suicides is a pretty powerful motivator against suicide.
Also, I think that atheists might be more likely to subscribe to a system of ethics where there is a less of a stigma, or even a duty to commit suicide (eg when terminally ill to avoid excess cost and emotional pain to family members)
October 31, 2011, 10:54 pmunhyphenatedconservative says:
Could it not be that in a nation in which we view our rights as inalienable because they were endowed upon us by our creator that having our nation presided over by one who does not recognize that Creator would be somewhat problematic?
October 31, 2011, 10:56 pmMaximus Aurelius says:
Both Deism and Theism imply an affirmative belief, and differ only in degree. Atheism indicates a lack of any such belief.
Although the Deist is probably more apt to accept conclusions based on the scientific method, see the folly in praying for rain, and won’t claim that God told them to run for president.
October 31, 2011, 10:56 pmFifth-rate miler says:
Disagree. I know what deism is and it ain’t atheism.
Being “closer to atheism” is like being closer to being pregnant than not. No such thing.
October 31, 2011, 10:56 pmFifth-rate miler says:
True dat. As the young people say.
October 31, 2011, 10:59 pmTenth Justice says:
Postscript to my previous post; if you accept the idea that atheists are the most hated group in America because they are the group Americans are least likely to elect president, it seems the second most hated group in America are those who have never been elected to office before.
October 31, 2011, 11:09 pmMaximus Aurelius says:
You’ve mischaracterized the constitutional objections in each of these actions.
October 31, 2011, 11:23 pmbill says:
People would not vote for atheists because many think they must be immoral or amoral. This, of course, is wildly inaccurate.
October 31, 2011, 11:23 pmStrict says:
Drugs? I don’t believe it. In America, the majority of people have used drugs in the past.
And it’s generally accepted that our last three Presidents – Clinton, Bush, and Obama, are all recovered cocaine addicts, and all three have admitted to smoking marijuana and drinking alcohol.
October 31, 2011, 11:26 pmJohn Herbison says:
I would like to see some question the current passel of candidates for the Republican nomination for president as to whether he or she believes literally some of the more, shall we say, supernatural stories in the Bible, such as Jonah and the great fish (scripture does not call it a whale), multiple generations of patriarchs from Adam to Noah living longer than 900 years, and Balaam’s talking donkey. I would also like to see Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich (and for that matter, Vice-President Biden as well) asked whether he believes the doctrine of transubstantiation.
Of course, the candidates’ theological views neither qualify nor disqualify them from serving as president, but the answers would speak volumes about how gullible each candidate is or is not.
October 31, 2011, 11:27 pmJohn Doe says:
If you asked the average person whether they would classify “the belief of the existence of a God who essentially only acted to set off the Big Bang” as closer to Christianity, theism in general, or atheism, I wouldn’t be surprised if a fair percentage of people selected the last option.
October 31, 2011, 11:42 pmMark Field says:
It was a gradual process after the Civil War. Before that, candidates for higher office, particularly Democrats, regularly criticized overt expressions of religion in politics. They particularly, of course, criticized anti-slavery ministers, but expressions of faith by candidates of any party were essentially non-existent.
It’s hard to say exactly when this changed after the War, but candidates like Bryan and Wilson were overtly religious, while TR was famous for promoting “muscular Christianity”.
October 31, 2011, 11:48 pmAnthony says:
It’s a reasonable proxy for the width of bias; doesn’t tell us much about the depth of the bias. Other than that, atheists aren’t a particularly convenient target for hate crimes, as we have no places of worship and mostly are not convenient to visually ID. It’s hard to even say how many atheists there are; maybe 1-2% self-identify as atheists, but 15% have no religion.
My experience is that religious people have trouble with the concept of non-theistic morality, and thus assume atheists must be unethical.
November 1, 2011, 12:00 amathEIst says:
the second most hated group in America are those who have never been elected to office before.
What happened to “I like Ike”
Zachary Taylor Ulysses S. Grant William Howard Taft
November 1, 2011, 12:01 amHerbert Hoover Dwight D. Eisenhower
Dave N. says:
Well, except for Andrew Jackson, who was the first Democratic President.
November 1, 2011, 12:15 amSarcastro's Little Brother says:
Wow, an endorsement for Herman Cain.
November 1, 2011, 12:16 amRicardo says:
But even plenty of religious people do not believe in inalienable rights granted by God. If you are a Christian, for one thing, you have to very creatively reinterpret Romans 13:
Antonin Scalia goes on in this article to rail against civil disobedience which, for all practical purposes, denies the existence of inalienable rights:
November 1, 2011, 12:31 amIspep Teid says:
Couching it in an analogy doesn’t make it true.
November 1, 2011, 1:23 amtwency says:
If a trait is viewed negatively as a qualification for public office, that’s evidence that persons exhibiting that trait are “hated”?
I would vote for an adult atheist for president before I would vote for my infant son given his youthful inexperience. Does that mean I hate my son and/or infants generally more than I hate atheists?
[Assuming arguendo that I hate atheists at all. Also, I am not suggesting that atheists are children or childlike.]
November 1, 2011, 1:25 amSteven Scotten says:
To a Deist, the only difference between Theism and atheism is semantic. It’s only an atheist or a Theist that would think that there is an on/off switch distinguishing the two.
November 1, 2011, 1:27 amtwency says:
I respectfully suggest that Atheism implies an affirmative belief in the absence of any deity.
A lack of belief seems closer to Agnosticism.
November 1, 2011, 1:28 amRicardo says:
One interesting trend in America has been the tendency of some religious communities to view the Constitution as divinely inspired. This is apparently a tenet of Mormonism (this is probably one of the keys to understanding where Glenn Beck is coming from) and it seems to be an idea taking hold in some evangelical communities as well.
By this view, atheism is political as well as religious heresy. On the other hand, for secularists like me, it’s tough to think of any other document that more clearly avoids even the hint of any religious overtones.
November 1, 2011, 1:47 amgecko says:
This is a great mystery to you?
1. The public face of nonbelief is completely dominated by figures who essentially make a career out of calling believers retarded and referring to religion as a mental illness day in and day out.
2. Most of the rank and file activists are less popular even more vociferous clones of the above figures, put on flamboyant displays of their hatred of theism, and engage in a constant public political fight against religious influence…
3. Most of the atheists I’ve heard on the issue, when they’ve forgotten or before they’ve heard other atheists whining about the public’s preference; make no bones about their own favoritism for secular/atheist candidates considering them more logical/intelligent.
…and then they’re SHOCKED, clutching their pearls and utterly and completely SHOCKED to find that the relatively religious American citizen is less likely to vote someone who identifies with their group in as president?
Stop the presses Watergate. Move aside Trail of Tears! Get lost victims of Genghis Khan! This is the injustice of the eons!
November 1, 2011, 1:48 amtomemos says:
WHAT secular/atheist candidates???
November 1, 2011, 1:57 amgecko says:
We don’t have very many collectors of pez dispensers running for high office either what’s your point?
November 1, 2011, 2:03 amtomemos says:
I guess my point is that your comment above was dishonest, in that you lied about what you’ve heard from atheists.
November 1, 2011, 2:07 amDoc Rampage says:
I don’t see any evidence in what you cited that shows that atheists are hated at all. Could you be specific at how you arrive at this conclusion from the given evidence?
Personally, I don’t hate atheists (in fact my favorite Myth Buster is an atheist) but I would be less likely to vote for an atheist than for a religious person. I’d be less likely to vote for a Hindu than a Christian, but I don’t hate Hindus (and I’d probably vote for a Hindu over a Unitarian). I’d be less likely to vote for a divorced person than a married person, but I don’t hate divorced people. A lot of people would be less likely to vote for a creationist but that doesn’t mean that they hate creationists. A lot of people would be less likely to vote for someone who thinks masturbation is a sin, but hopefully they don’t hate people like that.
This whole notion of connecting voting preferences with bigotry and hatred is a bit of a stretch. A voter wants the candidate who agrees with him on the most political issues, but this cannot be directly measured, especially given the reality of misinformation about these things (from either the candidate or their opponents). The voter instead relies on various indicators, among them religious beliefs. If the voter’s religious beliefs are closer to candidate A than to candidate B then this is evidence that the real, active political beliefs of candidate A are closer to the voter.
No, it’s not great evidence in many cases, but it is evidence and rationally considered –especially by a voter who remains rationally ignorant of politics and doesn’t have much else to go on.
November 1, 2011, 2:07 amgecko says:
So you hypothesize I’ve run across nothing but atheists who display openminded ambivalence between atheist or religious presidents?
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=161650680552689&topic=143
there goes your theory.
You’ll have to take my word that on average atheists I’ve encountered tend to think along similar lines because proving otherwise would involve following me around living life with me. But its a pretty logical conclusion to draw from the available evidence.
November 1, 2011, 2:15 amRicardo says:
I don’t think that’s true. The point people like Hitchens are making about Mormonism is that there are aspects of the Mormon leadership that most people would find, frankly, a bit creepy. There is the posthumous baptism of Jewish Holocaust victims, past links between church’s top leaders and the John Birch Society, and Mormonism’s doctrine of “continuing revelation” where the President of the Church is literally considered a prophet to whom God directly speaks in order to update the church’s doctrine.
That isn’t to say Mormons can’t be decent and honest people — many and probably most are. I think someone can look at Romney’s track record and see that he is probably not someone who will behave irrationally if put in a position of leadership. On the other hand, I think it’s reasonable for some people to want clarification on how influenced Romney would be by his church’s leadership when he is Commander-in-Chief.
Is it rude to point out the things I cited above? Probably, at least to the extent it is almost always rude to talk about and debate other people’s religion. On the other hand, if politicians insist on bringing up their religion in public, it’s not clear why critics cannot do the same.
November 1, 2011, 2:44 amMartinned says:
Michelle Bachmann’s New Yorker profile spent quite a bit of time on that stuff.
November 1, 2011, 3:19 amAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
This criterion for voters has been endorsed by candidates. See, e.g., Newt at the LV debate: “If you don’t have faith, how do you have judgment?” (One really good reason why I’ll never vote for him.)
November 1, 2011, 3:54 amptt says:
“If you don’t have a wife, how do you have a girlfriend?”
November 1, 2011, 4:09 amGuest101 says:
Speaking as an atheist, I’d question what definition of “bigotry” Ilya is using here, and whether it fairly applies to religious beliefs at all. Voters– and people in innumerable other contexts– discriminate on the basis of all kinds of characteristics all the time; it seems like such discrimination is “bigotry” only when undertaken along the lines of some morally illegitimate criterion. But why should religious belief, or lack thereof, be deemed a morally illegitimate basis? Unlike race, or gender, or sexual orientation, religious conviction is not immutable; it’s a matter of personal choice and it therefore seems to me to be perfectly legitimate to judge a person (at least partly) on the basis of how she makes that choice. As gecko points out above, I as an atheist absolutely assert my right to negatively judge a candidate in direct proportion to that candidate’s degree of (professed) religious conviction, so it would seem hypocritical for me to complain about a religious voter’s judging an atheist candidate in the opposite way.
November 1, 2011, 5:31 amJarbidge says:
I wonder if there aren’t a lot of closeted atheist politicians. A career in politics tends to reward a bit of dissembling and taking careful note of voter preferences before adopting a position. For an atheist in that situation, finding a little faith must be easy to do – all benefit and no cost.
(On a related note, I have close friends who are born again. When they get squishy about freedom of religion, I point out that having to profess a sincere belief that Urgoth is the one true god on pain of death presents me with a smaller problem than it does them)
November 1, 2011, 6:24 amMartinned says:
Presumably that’s the story of Obama and that Wright guy. Somehow, Obama doesn’t strike me as the sincere religion type.
November 1, 2011, 6:39 amMary Lee says:
“I wonder if there aren’t a lot of closeted atheist politicians. ”
Don’t you remember Hillary Clinton declaring she “prayed a lot?” C’mon. And I have a not one, but two bridges to sell.
November 1, 2011, 6:42 amMary Lee says:
Guest101 says: “Voters– and people in innumerable other contexts– discriminate on the basis of all kinds of characteristics all the time; it seems like such discrimination is “bigotry” only when undertaken along the lines of some morally illegitimate criterion. But why should religious belief, or lack thereof, be deemed a morally illegitimate basis? Unlike race, or gender, or sexual orientation, religious conviction is not immutable;”
Sexual orientation is mutable, and so are multiple other aspects of sexuality, as well as attitudes, thoughts and feelings concerning intimate and romantic relationships.
Depending on how you define “gender above,” equally wrong to state that it is immutable. Of course, for this confusion on what the word “gender” actually refers to, we have liberals to thank for. If you were employing it to mean biological sex (and isn’t “sex” the word that should be used in most contexts where “gender” is now used?), then I would agree, male or female sex is immutable, if it wasn’t an intersex problem originally. Otherwise, there are many aspects of gender that could play a role in a person’s evaluation of a political candidate, and which are legitimate or at least, quite understandable.
November 1, 2011, 6:52 amwhit says:
again, in all these threads there is the initial failure to distinguish strong atheism from weak atheism.
deism is at least arguably closer (arguably) to weak atheism, but in no way closer to strong atheism
the poll of course did not distinguish.
but i think most people would grok a difference between
“i don’t believe in god” – iow i have no made an affirmative belief
vs.
“there is no god” – iow, i am stating what i believe to be a truth, that there is NOT a god
those are substantially different
November 1, 2011, 6:54 amwhit says:
and i have zero doubt that whatever newt’s ACTUAL belief or lack thereof, he’s smart enough to know that SAYING that may be politically astute for appealing to his base.
November 1, 2011, 6:57 amMaximus Aurelius says:
For semantic’s sake, atheism has to do with belief (or lack thereof), while agnosticism has to do with knowledge (or lack thereof). Very closely related but discrete fields of inquiry. While often put forward as a sort of middle ground between atheism and theism, agnosticism really answers a different question altogether.
My problem with the definition of atheism you put forth is that it not only needlessly shifts the burden of proof from the one asserting the claim to the one questioning it, it also in its form implies that one must prove a negative in order to satisfactorily answer the question.
Practically speaking, the poll referenced above makes no such fine distinctions and so it comes as no surprise that the 30% of Americans who believe in guardian angels watching over them and the 12% who think the Rapture isn’t a question of if but when also believe that atheists are “bad people” who “hate god” and of course could never be trusted to be elected town dog catcher, let alone run the country.
November 1, 2011, 8:15 ammike says:
Speaking as a “weak atheist” (thanks to whit above for pointing out that important – and irritatingly, usually ignored – distinction) I have to agree with the several commenters who pointed out the fact that most people publicly known to be atheists are militantly obnoxious. This is probably what most people associate with the word “atheist”. I’m surprised that only 60 – something percent of people would be less likely to vote for such persons. I wouldn’t vote for one myself.
And while we’re at it: Yes, referring to a voter’s use of a candidate’s religion to make a judgement as “bigotry” is stretching the word bigotry out towards meaninglessness. Religion is not an immutable trait, and not only is it likely to influence a candidate’s leadership judgement but it’s supposed to do so. Sorry, that’s fair game.
November 1, 2011, 8:24 amEric says:
I think the poll you cite is like the “would you vote for Obama or ‘any Republican’ a year from now” polls. Few well-known people claim to be atheists, but not many people doubt that Obama is a secular man. That didn’t stop him from trouncing McCain, who by the way was himself a pretty secular guy, his “crosses in the sand” speech shtick notwithstanding.
November 1, 2011, 9:12 amBob Roberts says:
Well, the Constitution refers to “the Year of our Lord” 1787, and declares that the President has “ten Days (Sundays excepted)” to veto bills. A more secular document would have referred to “1787 of the Common Era” and wouldn’t have given special status to Sunday.
November 1, 2011, 9:33 amgooners says:
I would at least add another category to this. There are lots of people who call themselves atheists because:
1. We have a pretty good idea of the nature of the universe
2. That knowledge is expanding in all directions very quickly
3. There hasn’t yet been a need for a supernatural presence to explain anything
Maybe that would go under your definition of “agnostic”, but then, what is really the difference between the two? If you live your life as if there is no supernatural presence in the universe it doesn’t matter which you call yourself. The only difference would be between an atheist and an agnostic who takes up Pascal’s Wager.
November 1, 2011, 9:37 amSteve says:
Maybe it’s a matter of choice whether to join a given church or engage in a particular religious practice, but I don’t see how you can say conviction is a matter of choice. If I offered you a million dollars to become a Christian, you might be willing to go to church and get baptized and say all the right Christian-y things, but I don’t think you could actually choose to believe in the Christian God any more than you could choose to find males attractive instead of females.
November 1, 2011, 9:38 amTim J. says:
I have not studied the the question in depth, but I would guess that Communism had a lot to do with it. Atheists embraced and pushed Communism and vice-versa, and were thus implicated in the mass slavery, oppression, and starvation of huge chunks of the world. Some blow-back can be expected over that kind of thing.
November 1, 2011, 9:46 amMartinned says:
You may want to go ahead and study the question in [more] depth.
November 1, 2011, 9:52 amgooners says:
The beliefs of someone running for office are a part of that person and absolutely open to scrutiny. For me personally, I would like to know how superstitious a potential candidate is and how much of that superstition will creep into policy making. I prefer my civic leaders grounded in reality.
But even for other believers it is a crucial question. We only get so long to get to know these people and we have very little information to judge them on. If a person’s religious beliefs will inform their decisions, that is just as important as their education, experience, political and economic philosophy.
November 1, 2011, 9:54 amMaximus Aurelius says:
Here we have an example of religious “proof texting”, straight from the David Barton school of historical analysis.
“Proof-texting,” is a practice where the writer extracts selected religious quotations of various figures or texts without explaining the larger context of the statements (and usually without providing a citation to authority). The writer then uses the statement as “proof” of the speaker’s or writer’s sentiments, disregarding or omitting other likely influences. It fails to account for the sincerity of the speaker’s statement (such as whether the speaker was using irony or pandering to his audience) or whether the speaker likely intended that particular statement on the subject to represent his views, as opposed to other possible statements on the subject…
The additional problem with religious proof-texting is that it fails to explain the role of religious discourse during the founding period and early nineteenth century. Religious rhetoric and imagery were ubiquitous in speeches and other writings because the Bible was one of the few generally available books. The narratives and allegories of the Bible were the stories that were most familiar to people. Unlike today, a person’s use of religious rhetoric during the eighteenth century tells little about his or her own religious devotion. That religiously heterodox figures such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine employed religious language should warn against drawing conclusions about a Founder’s personal piety from his statements.
Taking into context the time period in which is was drafted (and comparing it to similar such documents from that era) I would have to say the Constitution is a remarkably secular document, containing only minimal religious boilerplate language.
November 1, 2011, 9:59 amcaptcrisis says:
I’m not any less likely to vote for a Christian than an atheist, per se, but I’m a LOT less likely to vote for someone who talks about their faith, especially if he brings it up over and over.
“Don’t pray in public. Pray alone, in the closet if you have to.” — Jesus
November 1, 2011, 10:03 amGiant Frog says:
November 1, 2011, 10:04 amSykes Five says:
whit: “i don’t believe in god” — iow i have no made an affirmative belief
vs.
“there is no god” — iow, i am stating what i believe to be a truth, that there is NOT a god
those are substantially different
For what topic besides the existence of God does this distinction make sense?
November 1, 2011, 10:09 amdearieme says:
The only British Prime Minister of my lifetime who has made a big deal of his religious beliefs was Tony Blair. He started five wars of aggression. He proved to be a crook. Give me an atheist any time.
November 1, 2011, 10:14 amdearieme says:
The only British Prime Minister of my lifetime who has made a big deal of his religious beliefs was Tony Blair. He started five wars of aggression. He proved to be a crook. Give me an atheist any time.
November 1, 2011, 10:14 amRicardo says:
I don’t know that “Common Era” was widely in use in the late 18th century so your suggestion may be more secular but also possibly more anachronistic.
November 1, 2011, 10:17 amSykes Five says:
OP: “The same poll found that 25% would be less likely to vote for a candidate who has been a minister, while only 15% said they would be more likely to support him.”
I am not sure this statistic, by itself, proves anything. Many Christians observe doctrinal restrictions against ministers holding political office. So they may support ostentatiously devout lay candidates who make overt religious appeals, etc., but at the same time absolutely oppose a minister seeking political office.
We could imagine, for example, an intensely sectarian Catholic voter holding such a view. Catholic priests–the only persons this voter would likely recognize as “ministers”–are formally forbidden to hold office. Any “candidate who has been a minister” is thus either a Catholic priest who is breaking this rule, a Catholic priest who left the priesthood, or a non-Catholic, none of which are appealing candidates. Indeed, the voter may feel bound to oppose all of them.
So this person would respond to the poll question in exactly the same was as some kind of Christopher Hitchens “get your church out of my state” analogue would, even though they would likely disagree on almost everything else.
November 1, 2011, 10:22 amMartinned says:
Wiki has the answer:
History of the CE/BCE notation
November 1, 2011, 10:26 amSome Jewish academics were already using the CE and BCE abbreviations by the mid-19th century, such as in 1856, when Rabbi and historian, Morris Jacob Raphall used the abbreviation in his book, Post-Biblical History of The Jews.[54] As early as 1825, a different abbreviation, VE, had already been in use among Jews to denote years on the Western calendar.
Ricardo says:
From Jeremy Paxman’s 2003 interview of Blair.
JEREMY PAXMAN: Does the fact that George Bush and you are both Christians make it easier for you to view these conflicts [over Iraq] in terms of good and evil?
TONY BLAIR: I don’t think so, no, I think that whether you’re a Christian or you’re not a Christian you can try perceive what is good and what is, is evil.
JEREMY PAXMAN: You don’t pray together for example?
TONY BLAIR: No, we don’t pray together Jeremy, no.
JEREMY PAXMAN: Why do you smile?
TONY BLAIR: Because – why do you ask me the question?
JEREMY PAXMAN: Because I’m trying to find out how you feel about it.
TONY BLAIR: Possibly.
November 1, 2011, 10:30 amTim J. says:
Is it your assertion, then, that the fight against “godless communism” had nothing to do with the desire of politicians to appear theistic? What’s your evidence?
November 1, 2011, 10:31 amSykes Five says:
“Common Era” or “Aera vulgaris” can be found in many learned writings from the late 18th century, such as scientific texts and the 1797 Encyclopaedia Brittanica. It would not be more anachronistic.
Whether it would be more secular is questionable, since “common era” was recognized as referring to exactly the same period as anno Domini dating. What is “common” about this dating is that it is international and does not depend on the reigns of national monarchs or, eventually, religious sectarianism–but the 18th century contrast was to national regnal dating; e.g., the sixth year of George III or whatever.
The idea that “common era” dating somehow takes Christ out and renders the date secular is questionable, particularly for the 18th century. It just seems then to have been a learned use emphasizing the cosmopolitian nature of the dating scheme. Of course, we see that it was underinclusive, as it assumed that readers, though owing allegiance to different national monarchs, all acknowledged Christ as lord. Jewish preference for CE/BCE seems to date to the mid-19th century, and the twentieth-century “secular” preference for CE/BCE seems to flow from this: a recognition that Jews, in particular, should not be obliged to proclaim Christ as lord when simply trying to communicate what year it is in “common” terms.
To my mind, it’s akin to suggesting that “Xmas” somehow removes Christ from Christmas, when in fact the “X” is an abbreviation for Christ, even if no longer recognized as such.
So if there is an anachronism, it may be the notion that “common era” is secular and anno Domini is religious.
November 1, 2011, 10:37 amBob Roberts says:
One of the fun things about blog comment boards is that I learn so much about what I believe – and I would never have known it if commenters hadn’t informed me.
Here is an example:
“Here we have an example of religious ‘proof texting’, straight from the David Barton school of historical analysis.”
Looking up David Barton on Wikipedia, I found that he claimed John Randolph of Roanoke was a Muslim. So you see, by quoting religious language in the U.S. Constitution, I’m just like the guy who said, without evidence, that a famous American historical figure was a Muslim!
But in fact, I was commenting on someone’s remark that he wasn’t aware of a more secular document than the U.S. Constitution – I thought this meant past or present, but if I misunderstood, I apologize. There are plenty of documents which are more secular – documents which don’t give special status to the Christian holy day, or refer to “Our Lord,” or use the Christian method of reckoning years.
“I don’t know that ‘Common Era’ was widely in use in the late 18th century so your suggestion may be more secular but also possibly more anachronistic.”
A non-anacronistic example would be the French Revolutionary period – documents from that era used a non-Christian scheme of reckoning years – that would probably make them more secular than the U.S. Constitution.
Was the Constitution the charter of a theocracy? Of course not! Was the U.S. government founded on the Christian religion? Not according to the assurances we gave the Tripolitans. But can you find documents that are more secular than the Constitution? Of course!
November 1, 2011, 10:47 amMartinned says:
1. How am I supposed to prove a negative?
November 1, 2011, 10:48 am2. As explained above, American politicians have been bragging about their religious bonae fides since long before WW II or even the October Revolution.
3. America’s problem with Communism had nothing to do with the fact that it was “godless”, just like America’s problem with godlessness today has nothing to do with Communism. The link between Communism or Fascism and atheism is just conservative horse manure of relatively recent origin. It’s an attempt at guilt by association, pure and simple.
Floridian says:
Most Americans don’t really care if their elected officials are religious, just so long as they say they are.
November 1, 2011, 10:52 amRicardo says:
What I said is, “it’s tough to think of any other document that more clearly avoids even the hint of any religious overtones.” I don’t consider the two examples you raised to be examples of religious overtones. One could cite French Revolutionary documents which were aggressively anti-religious in their nature but an aggressive rejection of religion is a different thing from mere avoidance of the question to begin with.
November 1, 2011, 10:54 amAJK says:
Note also that the Constitution does include a completely secular alternative dating system: “in the Year … of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth.”
November 1, 2011, 10:58 amMark Field says:
Dave N.: Jackson was by all accounts a believing Christian, but I don’t recall him being overt about it for electoral purposes. My main recollection is that he refused to proclaim a fast day in order to preserve separation of church and state.
In any case, I think my general description of the phenomenon as post-Civil War is correct.
November 1, 2011, 11:02 amMartinned says:
Wow, are you that old?
November 1, 2011, 11:06 amThorley Winston says:
I mostly agree with ElSuerte and Tim J. Historically, atheism was seen as intertwined with communism. In modern times, the public face of atheism has been people like Michael Newdow and Christopher Hitchens. Given how relatively rare out and out atheists are in our society, it’s not surprising that many people would rightfully or wrongly use this as an information shortcut.
November 1, 2011, 11:29 amcaptain_slow says:
Without evidence to support it, my gut feeling is that most Americans view confessions of religious belief (particularly Christian belief) as a positive trait both for themselves and for others. Sort of like a spiritual insurance policy. When you want to look good among others or feel good, then talking about God is a desirable thing to do, particularly thanking God or proffering the virtues of God onto those people or ideas you wish to extol.
This is why we see NBA players hoisting the Larry O’Brien trophy and saying, “I just want to thank God…”, or politicians rallying in the South, who suggest that “God blessed this land” or that they are appealing to the “people of God”. But this is just all self-serving rhetoric for most.
That’s because while most people prefer this type of window dressing, most people also prefer to live a life of some lawlessness and measured immorality that is completely counter to true belief in the religion that they profess. This is why we have politicians who, out of one side of their mouth will say “Lord, Lord” and then out of the other side of their mouth they will deny that the Bible contains accurate accounts of history. And this is why some person in their twenties will earnestly pray for God to bail them out of some crisis, maybe even go to a church service or two just to show God how serious they are, and then once the crisis is past they go right back to their godless lifestyle.
And the truth is that we want our leaders to be hypocrites like this as well. If we have a real, serious and righteous true believer in the White House, then that passively casts a judgment on all of us. It creates a standard that we don’t want to have to live up to. This is why we re-elected Bill Clinton. He says he’s a Christian, he’s the President after all. And even HE is a liar, a cheat, a criminal, and all those other things that we are and so that endorses our lawless and godless lifestyle.
In other words, we are a nation of brazen hypocrites.
However, since we like to think of ourselves as “good”, and we have calculated en masse that “good” is a quality consistent with religious belief, and that there is probably a moral standard out there worth following besides our own base desires, then we don’t want to vote for someone who brazenly denies this “truth” we have already accepted.
So what we want is to elect a leader of hypocrites over a nation of hypocrites.
Of course the problem with this is that it is (IMHO) impossible to be double-minded or hypocritical in one compartment of your life (morality), and somehow consistent and disciplined in the other parts of your life. So if he lies about his faith, and then we decide that lying is morally ok, then he’s lying about other things. See, we’re not just a nation of religious hypocrites. We are a nation of hypocrites in our whole lives, so we elect leaders with these traits. Then we are not exactly surprised when our elected officials and politicians turn out to be liars, crooks, cheats, etc. Of course they are. That’s why we elected them.
And BTW, that’s why we probably won’t elect Herman Cain. It’s possible he’s the real deal. And BTW, that’s one big reason GW Bush has had so much backlash. He was close to being the real deal. We didn’t know that when we first elected him, and in the fog of post-9/11 fear we re-elected him in spite of his true devotion. Who we will elect is someone more like a Kennedy: thin, meaningless veneer of religious faith overlaying a morally corrupt and inconsistent person. That’s someone we can identify with.
November 1, 2011, 11:37 amAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
FWIW, I won’t vote for Cain because he’s a fool, a bigot, inconsistent, and has no idea what he’s doing. It could be that all of those things are correlated with what you call “true belief”, but the motivation (for my vote at least) won’t directly be his supposed moral purity.
November 1, 2011, 11:44 amRicardo says:
Yeah, I read that wikipedia page, too. If you look at the primary source it cites as the first instance in the English language from 1708, the usage is “the fourth century of the common Era” — it is not referencing a specific year as in “1678, Common Era” or “1678, CE.” As far as I can tell, my doubt that the phrase was commonly used as a substitute for “AD” or “The Year of Our Lord” at the time of the writing of the America’s Constitution still stands.
November 1, 2011, 11:45 amrob bob says:
Correct.
November 1, 2011, 11:46 amMartinned says:
It would provide a nice American equivalent to the famous British line about the UK House of Lords, which states that idiots deserve to be represented in parliament too.
November 1, 2011, 11:48 amkarrde says:
You missed George Washington. How much elective experience did he have?
Washington, Taylor, Grant, and Eisenhower were all General Officers in periods of wartime, and made their name as such. That seems to have been the best non-political-career way to win the favor of American voters.
Hoover was a mining engineer and businessman. (Hoover was also a proponent of partnership between Business and Government, according to Wikipedia. Interesting…)
Taft was lawyer/judge/Governor-General-of-the-Phillipine/Secretary-of-War.
Taft was not an elected official, but he did have Executive experience as Gov-General. He also had the implicit blessing of Theodore Roosevelt (who did both the wartime-leader and political-leader route).
Do Hoover and Taft count as exceptions? Are they different enough that Hoover is an exception, and Taft isn’t…or vice versa?
November 1, 2011, 11:50 amMaximus Aurelius says:
Information shortcuts are useful only so long as they get you to the same place you would have arrived at had you put in the effort to investigate the question yourself.
Viz: medieval Catholic monks educated in Latin provided “information shortcuts” to the laity – we’ll read the bible and tell you what it means and how to think and act.
Information shortcuts break down when the people actually put in the work and come to different conclusions. Translating the bible into the respective “vulgar” languages of the people results in people coming to new conclusions and recognizing that old information shortcuts tend to serve the interests of those offering the shortcuts above all else.
Skeptical thinking favors breaking down information shortcuts to examine whether the shortcut is valid based on all the available evidence and whose interests the shortcut will tend to favor and at whose expense.
Atheists are communists, Newdow and Hitchens are vexatious nuisances, atheists are rare in our society, people who profess religion are assumed to have commendable morals, et al – I challenge you to examine your shortcuts with a critical eye.
November 1, 2011, 11:55 amcaptain_slow says:
First of all, I don’t think HC gets elected or not based solely on your vote.
I was talking about American voters on the whole, and admitted upfront that I have no evidence or data to support my pure speculation.
And secondly, what you said about HC is a mixture of both assumptions based on his faith (he’s a bigot) and also judgments that you simply choose not to make about whatever candidate you do eventually vote for.
Obama has proven he doesn’t know what he’s doing and he’s a fool. It’s not like you can quantify these things anyway. Obama’s either incompetent or malicious. Take your pick. As I pointed out, every single one of us including those running for office are mercilessly inconsistent. And there is plenty of evidence that Obama is also a bigot. Same goes for everyone else in the race, and every predecessor. So you vote for nobody? So be it. Your non-vote won’t count.
November 1, 2011, 11:58 amTed says:
I think I see your point. But remember that your point is logically wrong, as Martinned explains. The fact that many communists were atheists does not explain their actions. Consider, for instance, the absurd claim that Christianity has killed hundreds of thousands in the last decade, due to the wars in the Middle East because, according to the polls in the county primarily responsible for those wars, it is overwhelmingly Christian.
Get your cause/correlation meter checked.
November 1, 2011, 11:59 amJohn Schilling says:
Whether atheism is defined by absense of belief or by affirmative disbelief, is I believe overshadowed by the fact that it is mostly the affirmative disbelievers who will go out of their way to self-identify as atheists. Those who merely lack belief in God, will tend to define themselves as humanists, socialists, environmentalists, libertarians, progressives, or whatever else it is that they do believe in. One has to actively probe them w/re their specifically theological beliefs to understand that they are atheists or agnostics.
Which means the public perception of what an atheist is, will be disproportionately influenced by the strong atheists who go out of their way to tell everyone around them what it is they don’t believe in. And yes, if expressing opposition to what you don’t believe is more important than expressing support for what you do believe, you are likely to be percieved as an asshole who spends a lot of time picking fights most people don’t want to be a part of.
It would be helpful if there were a reliable way for weak-atheist candidates, and the occasional polite strong-atheist candidate, to reliably signal that they aren’t like those other assholes. I fear that polite strong atheist candidates are rare enough, and weak atheist candidates willing enough to stay in the closet, that it would not be rational for the average voter to bother learning the atheist-but-not-an-asshole signals.
November 1, 2011, 12:00 pmBob Roberts says:
Then I’m afraid I misunderstood your point. 1,000 pardons. I still don’t think the Constitution “avoided the issue.” The term they used – “our Lord” – is, according to many posters above – offensive to lots of non-Christians. I would likewise assume that singling out Sunday as a day of rest (at least for Presidents considering vetoes) would be offensive to those whose days of rest are on Friday or Saturday.
“Note also that the Constitution does include a completely secular alternative dating system: ‘in the Year … of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth.’”
They used *both* systems, so they clearly didn’t see any conflict between the two. It wasn’t an alternative system – that would suggest they replaced one with the other, as the French later did by starting their entire calendar with Year One of the Revolution.
Nor was this the first time that the Framers linked national with God. The Declaration of Independence is full of God-talk, what with “endowed by their Creator” and so forth.
November 1, 2011, 12:01 pmAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
Maximus: Information shortcuts/proxies break down when more careful examination gives an answer that is *enough* better to justify the added costs. Not just when the proxy isn’t perfect.
November 1, 2011, 12:04 pmtomemos says:
This is the umpteenth comment describing atheists as rude (“assholes,” in fact) for, as far as I can tell, telling others what they believe and why they believe it. This is in the context, of course, of an America in which every Presidential candidate has to at least pay lip service to religious faith, and many go substantially farther than that. (Not to mention that Dawkins et al aren’t running for President; public figures who primarily profess their faith, like Pat Robertson, are far more vociferous.)
Are these atheists who are supposedly so rude, aggressive, etc. really doing something different than the religious figures who openly tell us what they believe and why we should believe it too? Because right now this seems like another version of “I don’t care what they do as long as they do it in the privacy of their homes.”
November 1, 2011, 12:18 pmAdam says:
It’s fascinating, but obvious hypocrisy on religious issues doesn’t seem to bother voters, but god (pun intended) forbid that a candidate be honest about his lack of faith.
Does anyone believe that Obams is a true believer (I mean of Christianity, but if you prefer Islam, feel free to ask yourself the same question). Romney? Clinton (either one)? Its hardly uncommon to have successful politician for whom faith does not seem to be important, and most people seem fine with that as long as they pay it lip service.
As I said, fascinating.
November 1, 2011, 12:19 pmcalmom says:
Militant atheists do nothing but complain about things that most people find to be trivial.
And unlike most religious organizations, they do no charity work at all. While religious charitable groups always come out in disasters like Hurricane Katrina, tornadoes, floods, etc., there are no charitable groups associated with atheism at all. From a PR standpoint, some atheist group needs to start focusing on good works instead of filing lawsuits.
November 1, 2011, 12:20 pmtomemos says:
Yes, Jefferson was such a religious fanatic that the Texas school board downplayed his importance for the Revolution in textbooks, as a punishment for coining the term “separation of church and state.”
November 1, 2011, 12:23 pmgooners says:
Pseudoscience and superstition are not trivial problems, and if militant atheists (or whatever you want to call them) did nothing but complain I don’t think the promoters and profiteers of woo would care. It’s that militant atheists have a habit of debunking their nonsense publicly and without apology that gets the believers worked up.
November 1, 2011, 12:32 pmBob Roberts says:
I’m not quite sure what this means, except that you don’t like the Texas School Board.
November 1, 2011, 12:39 pmTim J. says:
This is wholly beside the point, which is to figure out why American politicians make sure to pay lip service to God. In this case, only the general perception is important, not the validity of that perception. Rightly or wrongly, Communism and atheism were perceived as tightly linked (and this is not, as Martinned claimed, a recent phenomenon). Given that perception, it’s no surprise that politicians would want to distance themselves from it.
November 1, 2011, 12:39 pmA. Cooper says:
. . . this beggars credulity. Are we to gather from the fact that they used the name “March” that they believed in the god Mars, or from “Tuesday” that they believed in the god Tiw?
After all, they could have said “the third month” or “the third day”. Of course if they’d said “the third day” you’d be on about how Christ was raised on the third day.
November 1, 2011, 12:40 pmtomemos says:
It means that you’ll cite Jefferson as a religious believer (“endowed by the creator” and all that) when it serves your purposes, even though his religiosity would be decried, and is in fact decried, as wholly inadequate by contemporary members of the Religious Right.
November 1, 2011, 12:42 pmAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
Why do you assume that my evaluation of Cain’s bigotry is based on his religion? It’s based on the statements he’s made. Honestly, I don’t have that clear a picture of his religious faith and as far as I can tell he just pays it lip servic like anyone else. The difference being, perhaps, that he’s more simple-minded in his proposals and relies more on platitudes (including religious ones) than other candidates.
Anyways: maybe I’m atypical. Or maybe you have more insight into my motivations than I do. But I don’t buy your amateur-psychological explanation that we vote for hypocrites to enable our own hypocrisy.
November 1, 2011, 12:43 pmA. Cooper says:
That’s because many atheists give to secular organisations like Medicins sans Frontieres or UNICEF or the like. Atheists, generally speaking, don’t feel the need to associate their good works with their atheism (unlike religious charities, who seem to need to add in an prosyletising touch to everything they do).
And as a matter of fact, there *are* atheist organisations that make large charitable contributions to secular charities, only to have those contributions declined or downplayed because the secular charity is afraid of the PR hit it might take for accepting atheist money.
In any case, I doubt your strategy would help the public image much. Hizballah, after all, runs a lot of hospitals, orphanages, and social welfare programs. Doesn’t seem to do them much good among those who are already inclined to dislike them.
November 1, 2011, 12:50 pmcaptain_slow says:
No, actually it’s the general attitude that many public atheists have exhibited that religions people (particularly Christians) are dumb, weak, gullible, stupid, uneducated, ignorant, or otherwise intellectually inferior to atheists.
And this is one big reason those professing atheism are unlikely to get elected. You don’t get elected by insulting most voters. You don’t get elected by associating yourself with those who habitually insult most voters even if you yourself do not engage in the insults actively.
And by the way, one’s faith or religious beliefs are a significant predictor of behavior and decision patterns that are perfectly valid to consider when choosing who to vote for. One is not a bigot for choosing not to vote for someone who professes a belief system that does not agree with the moral framework of the voter.
Furthermore, women make decisions differently than men, so it’s not sexist to vote for men rather than women. And regardless of their race, blacks, immigrants, and other ethnic minorities in America have a longstanding tradition of broad voting and ideological patterns, so if one presumes a black candidate is more likely to be liberal or a hispanic candidate is going to be overly friendly towards illegal immigration then this is not a bigoted decision, it is a probabilities question based on historical patterns. If these ethnic groups did not engage in bloc-aligned voting and ideological patterns then it would make no sense to make assumptions about how they might behave once in office.
Similarly, if a candidate professes to be an atheist, then they are identifying themselves with a group who has a reputation and pattern of activity. Now, either the candidate needs to overcome the overwhelmingly negative image that has been forwarded by infamous public atheists, or they are going to have to submit to the public’s opinion of this association. This is not bigotry. It’s decision-making based on patterns, and it is completely rational.
November 1, 2011, 12:55 pmkarrde says:
On that front, you may not be aware that the Pope carries such authority in the Catholic Church. (It is not defined/described as prophet speaking directly for God, but the position of the Pope includes the ability to speak new Doctrine with the same authority as if it were Scripture or Tradition.
The Pope hasn’t used that authority more than once (to my knowledge), but it does exist.
And your comments sound remarkably similar to comments about John Kennedy’s status as a Catholic.
The American public is capable of accepting candidates of a non-majority religion with such strange beliefs, though the acceptance isn’t always easy or non-controversial.
Whether that ability will extend to agnostics or atheists is a different question. I suspect that change will come within a century, but not much sooner than that.
November 1, 2011, 12:55 pmtomemos says:
Uh, as a fellow atheist I loved your comment up to this point, but your big finish here inclines me to agree that we need to work on our PR a little bit. :)
November 1, 2011, 12:57 pmThorley Winston says:
I think that we might be talking past each other. I was agreeing with El Suerte and Tim J as to their theories on why some Americans might be inclined not to vote for an atheist, i.e. they use atheism as an information short cut because atheism is associated with other views or behaviors that they view as disagreeable (hence my use of the phrase “rightfully or wrongly”). I make no statement as to whether or not I would vote for an atheist but given their relative scarcity in public life and that the most publicly outspoken ones tend to be on the other side, it’s unlikely that I would ever have to make that decision.
That being said, as far as information shortcuts go, I tend to agree with Andrew MacKie-Mason as to their relative value. While I consider myself to be a pretty high information/wonkish voter, largely because I enjoy learning about and discussing public policy, more often than not I find that I land on the same choices as some of my acquaintances who are more likely to use information shortcuts.
November 1, 2011, 12:59 pmAdam says:
We haven’t had one because of this type of data.
Most of which were added in the 1950s expressly in response to the atheism of the Soviets and thus expressly for religious purposes…
No. Because there’s this thing called symbolism, you see. And, well, never mind. Either you get it or you won’t.
Addicts? Use and addiction are not the same thing.
W was allegedly an recovering alcoholic, and thus addicted, but he never admitted that to my recollection.
In all seriousness, why? Why would you be less likely to vote for an atheist, a Hindu, a Unitarian or a divorced person? What possible relevance do those particular traits have?
As Dan Savage has recently challenged Herman Cain, I’d invite you do demonstrate this by having sex with a person of whichever sex you do not typically favor.
Speaking only anecdotally (although I’d wager that there is neuroscience out there to back this up), I have certainly seen myself and others that I have worked with come to believe very strongly that our client’s position is obviously right. Is that because we’ve made a dispassionate evaluation of the situation? Or does the fact that we are being paid to take that position come into it?
I’m 100% certain that the financial incentive comes into it, and that “belief” can be influenced, reinforced and become ingrained, even if not initially adopted because of sincere faith.
The vice-versa is true, but I don’t think the initial statement is. That is, the communist governments of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union were officially atheist. But that doesn’t mean that atheists as a group were uniformly communist.
Which isn’t to say that the majority of people polled would understand that logical fallacy.
That’s not quite true. We inserted “under God” into the pledge of allegiance and adopted the motto “In God We Trust” at the height of the cold war, so I think it’s pretty obvious that we enhanced our religiosity as a means of contrast with the godless communists.
November 1, 2011, 1:00 pmThorley Winston says:
LOL
November 1, 2011, 1:01 pmyankee says:
I think there’s a decided double standard here. If someone told me they were a Christian, and I responded by asking if they found it depressing to live under threat of hellfire, or how morality was possible when it consisted of adherence to arbitrary edicts under threat of punishment, I would rightly be considered extremely rude. But if I tell someone I am an atheist, and they ask if I find it depressing to believe there is no life after death, or how I can be moral without god, then it is I and not they who are being rude.
It reminds me of complaints about gays “flaunting” their sexuality, where it turns out that “flaunting” means completely ordinary displays of affection like holding hands, not just walking around in a t-shirt that says “Sorry chicks, I suck dick.”
November 1, 2011, 1:01 pmThorley Winston says:
LOL
November 1, 2011, 1:02 pmtomemos says:
Maybe I wasn’t clear earlier, but I was asking for evidence that this is the case. What are atheists saying that is different from the public professions of faith made by the political religious in this country? They don’t seem to be concerned about saying that their beliefs mean that the beliefs of others are wrong. Even Romney, when he gave his speech on faith, took pains to say that, while all religious believers are right in their own way, the important thing is that religion be put front and center in the public sphere.
If atheists are really being more obnoxious I’d like to see evidence. Otherwise what you seem to be saying is, “It’s okay to say that atheists are wrong, because there aren’t as many of them. But it’s not okay for them to say the same thing, because there aren’t as many of them!”
http://www.theonion.com/articles/stereotypes-are-a-real-timesaver,10696/
November 1, 2011, 1:06 pmAdam says:
You do understand that for the most part, there are no “atheist groups” and that people don’t generally feel the need to come together to not pray to a man who isn’t in the sky? It’s not a substitute religion.
Wait now, what?? What’s your basis for the factual claim that women make decisions differently than men?
And yeah, sure sounds sexist to vote for men rather than women.
Yes, that is the very definition of a bigoted decision. You are making an assumption about someone based on your belief about the group to which they belong. You could, you know, instead make a decision about a candidate based on that candidates record and statements instead, you know.
November 1, 2011, 1:11 pmAnthony says:
Which is not significantly different from the general attitude expressed by many religious figures; I’ve never seen an atheist on a corner with a bullhorn telling people god is a lie, and I have seen people on a corner with a bullhorn telling people that they’re going to go to hell. Strong believers in anything tend to be seen as obnoxious by those who disagree with them, and sometimes also by those who agree with them.
November 1, 2011, 1:12 pmtomemos says:
Exactly. People lose their objectivity when confronted with a behavior with an unfamiliar context, even though they accept that behavior as ordinary in most other contexts.
November 1, 2011, 1:12 pmRicardo says:
Framing this in the context of 20th and 21st century era culture wars is anachronistic. The framers were not trying to write some politically correct document that respected religious diversity to avoid “offending” anyone — they were trying to write the foundational text of the United States of America and did so in a way that makes absolutely no mention of any divine warrant and explicitly rejects the notion of official religion twice. That’s a rather glaring omission for its time.
And as I pointed out above, orthodox Christians have always had to grapple with Romans 13 — the Constitution and Declaration of Independence act like this verse never even existed.
November 1, 2011, 1:13 pmtomemos says:
I’ve seen people cite, as an example of obnoxious atheism, the bus ads in Britain that read “There’s Probably No God.” Probably!! Why must we be so aggressive?! I’ll let you know when I see a billboard that says “Unbelievers Probably Go to Hell,” “Jesus is Probably Lord,” or the equivalent.
November 1, 2011, 1:17 pmwgwii says:
I think that this is really an artifact of just how unpopular atheism is in America today. The word is, in my view, charged more by the disapprobation of believers than it is by the actions of a few, vocal “strong atheists”. As a weak atheist myself I find it takes quite a bit of will power to identify myself as an atheist when the matter comes up, knowing that at least half the time my response will generate a fairly substantial reaction.
November 1, 2011, 1:19 pmMark Field says:
Heh. I’m entirely too old.
November 1, 2011, 1:24 pmRicardo says:
I’m quite aware of that. As for the JFK business, one thing I’ve found about claims of so-called anti-Catholic prejudice when it comes to politicians in modern times is that some of the very people who are quick to make these kinds of claims will then express outrage when Nancy Pelosi calls herself a believing Catholic and then votes against bills prohibiting abortion.
The very fact that actual Catholics are relatively secularized is the very reason why no reasonable person worries about the influence of church officials on political matters — at least in the U.S. If you demand that people like Pelosi consult church doctrine before casting votes, then you cannot complain when voters in a democracy start asking questions about the role that very doctrine will play in their elected officials’ votes.
November 1, 2011, 1:25 pmAnthony says:
Only in part. For your average weak atheist, their atheism just isn’t particularly important to their lives, and thus they feel no need to talk about it.
November 1, 2011, 1:32 pmThorley Winston says:
I think that the line between using an information shortcut and just bigotry may be more blurry than some would like to admit. I won’t pretend that I’ve never used an information short cut when I’ve had to make decision based on very little information* but it’s usually** based on an extrapolation from the subject’s actions or professed beliefs – not just an assumption that because of their religion/race/gender/ethnicity that they must believe the same disagreeable thing as someone else who shares their religion/race/gender/ethnicity. Regardless of whether you think it’s rational, it’s still bigotry. Much like affirmative action, once you allow this to be an accepted part of your decision-making process, you can’t ever be sure that that’s the real reason for your decision.
* By which I mean for non-partisan local races where I download a ballot with the candidate’s names before the election and do an exhaustive internet search to find out everything that I can about the candidates and their backgrounds. I usually tend to vote for candidates who seem come from a business background and against any who seem to be of the professional activist variety.
** The exception is for non-partisan judicial races where if I know nothing else about the candidates (which is more often the case), I vote against the incumbent unless I find out something disagreeable about the challenger.
November 1, 2011, 1:36 pmA. Cooper says:
I wasn’t trying to draw a parallel between Hizballah and atheists.
Rather, I was trying to say that doing good works and flaunting it as a PR tool (as opposed to good works for their own sake, done without undue fanfare) is kind of a dick move.
This is probably what so infuriated my high school history teacher when we discussed the Marshall Plan.
November 1, 2011, 1:37 pmSteve says:
As compared with, say, Christians who sponsor massive campaigns and boycotts targeting retailers where someone says “Happy Holidays.”
November 1, 2011, 1:43 pmDilan Esper says:
Of course there are. Politicians are drawn from the educated class and there are plenty of nonbelievers in that class.
Further, while there are definitely well-educated believers, actual overt religious practice (going to church weekly, etc.) goes way down as you go up the educational ladder; a lot of even professed belief tends to be closer to Pascal’s Wager and vague spiritualism than it does to actually thinking that the events described in Scripture occurred as recounted.
November 1, 2011, 1:58 pmDilan Esper says:
I detect a bias towards the belief that conservative politicians are religious and liberals are not. This is wrong.
Jimmy Carter was and is pretty religious, and there are many on the right, such as Newt Gingrich, who seem like phonies when it comes to religion. I think closet nonbelief is a bipartisan phenomenon.
November 1, 2011, 2:39 pmAnthony says:
Professed faith is actually a pretty poor predictor, it’s quite routinely used to enable fraud. Someone who makes a big deal about his faith (instead of his actions) may be doing so because he doesn’t actually have any actions he wants to point to.
November 1, 2011, 2:41 pmAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
Or Christians who are up in arms about the idea of two people marrying.
November 1, 2011, 2:42 pmyankee says:
There’s an annual campaign of whining about an imagined “war on Christmas,” as though the entire retail industry didn’t inundate us with Christmas from the day after Halloween, and I’m sure there’s somebody advocating a boycott somewhere, but “massive campaigns”?
November 1, 2011, 2:44 pmNeil S says:
Oddly similar to my reasons for not voting for Obama.
Regards,
November 1, 2011, 2:47 pmNeil
John Schilling says:
But how often does the matter come up?
Roughly speaking, to a strong atheist the matter comes up whenever someone asks, “what do you believe?”. To a weak atheist, the matter comes up whenever someone asks, “what do you believe about theology?”, or the like.
Strong atheists face at least as much social pressure as weak atheists to stay in the closet. The difference, I believe, is in the frequency with which they are invited to do otherwise. Since most Americans (including most American journalists) are quite interested in what people believe but consider it somewhat rude to directly inquire as to someone else’s religion, the public perception of atheism is disproportionately influenced by strong atheists. Particularly by strong atheists who don’t have any other strong beliefs.
That last group, even I would think unlikely to hold many promising Presidential candidates.
November 1, 2011, 2:56 pmtim says:
“our Lord” wasn’t even in the version of the document the delegates voted on. Its theorized it was added later by a clerk as he was drafting the final version for signature. It was just common practice. Furthermore – the ‘evangelicals’ (of whatever stripe) of the era were ticked off that the Constitution was a ‘godless’ document and argued against ratification. History simply doesn’t support you here.
November 1, 2011, 3:03 pmgecko says:
I don’t know, I usually don’t go more than two or three days without hearing/seeing someone ranting about how religion is teh sukxors and its not the sort of thing I seek out.
As for comparisons, I honestly think from an objective standpoint atheists devote a much greater proportion of their discourse (as in almost all) to attacking the the other side than most religious groups. And my observations seem to bear this out.
For one thing you can only get so jazzed talking about how wonderful it is to have no god and how awesome an eternity in oblivion will be. Oops, looks like I indirectly brought up the other side again.
For better or for worse atheism as is popularly practiced today defines itself mostly through its opposition to religion.
November 1, 2011, 3:04 pmDave N. says:
I think for many voters, atheism to them is “strong atheism” of the kind seen by Christopher Hitchens, and the late Madalyn Murray O’Hair. They are not thinking of people like Ilya Somin.
They are also thinking that the Communists were virulently anti-religious in their atheism, so that becomes another point of reference.
When people feel like they are being attacked, they tend to push back. Most Americans have some belief in God, however superficial it might be. They self-identify with the church they attended Sunday School in as a child, even if they otherwise only darken its door for weddings, funerals, and occassional religious holidays.
So these people think, “If they want to attack my religious views (however weak), then to hell with them” (pun partially intended).
The average American could not tell you what Unitarians believe, just that they are vaguely OK. Likewise, to them Quakers are Lutherans who wear funny hats and talk like tour guides in Colonial Williamsburg.
Mormons, on the other hand, are trying to convert, so there is pushback. “You leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone.” This also causes some people to say, “I won’t vote for a Mormon candidate.”
Likewise, atheists are personified by Hitchens and O’Hair — and if someone is calling you uninformed and stupid, you have little reason to want to listen to what they otherwise say.
November 1, 2011, 3:06 pmChris Green says:
I’m not sure how you are interpreting Romans 13, but the gist of it seems to be that there are not powers or rights, except those ordained of God. This is not at all inconsistent with inalienable rights being granted by God to men. Remember that when reading scripture and then applying that scripture to believers in a particular religion, you have to interpret the scripture as they would, not as you would.
Of course, that begs the question, what is an inalienable right and how is it enforced. I haven’t read a lot of Locke and other originators of such ideas in the modern era, but I think that most of them base the idea of inalienable rights on the existence of some sort of good willed supreme being that desired that humans (his direct or indirect creations) should have certain rights, subject to certain restrictions. Obviously God doesn’t shoot fireballs at those who ignore such desired behavior. However, if as a supreme being, he approves of certain rights, than they are inalienable in a certain sense.
In the context of atheism, there is not such thing as a right that ‘ought’ to be granted because there is no higher good, only that which we invent and define as good for our own purposes. This is essentially, “I help other people because helping others makes me happy.” An atheist who was altruistic, even as his altruism made him unhappy, is an irrational, perhaps insane person. This applies only to true atheists, however.
I doesn’t explain the moral motivations of a sub-class of atheists who don’t believe in God and, at the same time, are angry at him for not existing and for letting all the horrible that that happen in the world come to pass. I’m not trying to sound condescending, and the sentiment has a quality of nobility to it, since the person is reacting with indignation against all the perceived injustice and pain in the world.
November 1, 2011, 3:15 pmjukeboxgrad says:
cooper:
Good point. More on this here:
November 1, 2011, 3:19 pmAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
You might want to try applying this sentiment:
To this:
November 1, 2011, 3:20 pmTed says:
What a coincidence that your observations support your, ummm, observations.
November 1, 2011, 3:21 pmrb1971 says:
Whoa – this is exactly the same as my approach. If you’re in San Francisco as well, it’s good to know that we’re both doing this so we can double our effect (what’s two times zero again)?
November 1, 2011, 3:24 pmcaptain_slow says:
In an interpersonal relationship, maybe stereotyping is not productive as a long-term strategy.
For political candidates, stereotyping is a natural and fundamental starting point.
In Texas, we have politicians who go to church and go hunting. These guys don’t typically support the Brady campaign or Federally-funded abortions. They don’t often oppose the death penalty or promote state-recognized gay marriage. Don’t tell me that nearly every voter in the USA is not stereotyping Rick Perry, figuring him to be just as I described. Absent anything obvious in his record to counter these stereotypes, they are perfectly safe to assume. That doesn’t mean he can’t run counter to type (he doesn’t), but the probability is that he will not.
Since he happens to be a natural-born white male heterosexual American, a Republican, and a Texan, it is PC to stereotype him and everyone does it. However if he were a Muslim gay black woman former anchor baby from LA, well you’d be a bigot or a homophobe or racist or whatever if you were to engage in stereotyping, even if that candidate did conform to the stereotype.
November 1, 2011, 3:29 pmyankee says:
What sub-class of atheists? Are you referring to the Argument from Evil? I think “angry with [it] for not existing” is hardly an accurate description of the argument.
November 1, 2011, 3:35 pmyankee says:
I’m “stereotyping” him that way because he’s a major Republican Presidential candidate. It would be extraordinary for someone to oppose the death penalty, support federal funding of abortions, support gun control laws, support same-sex marriage, or not make a great show of religiosity, and still be taken seriously as a Republican Presidential candidate in today’s America. (As for hunting, I have no idea. I’m sure he poses with a gun for the cameras every so often, but whether he has any personal interest in hunting is beyond me.)
Incidentally, it sounds like you are the one who is stereotyping politicians from Texas. I’m sure there are lots of Texan politicians who don’t match your description: Texas is a big place.
November 1, 2011, 3:43 pmAdam says:
Your religion (whatever it is) sucks and you’re dumb.
Is that now a majority of my time? If it more than those who have repeatedly commented that atheists are all a-holes (just look at Hitch!)?
See, that’s the thing. It’s not “practiced.” Again, it’s not an alternate religion.
It’s fascinating how the religious often can’t get their head around this idea.
It’s not a stereotype when it’s based on his actions and statements.
I’m sure there are people there that know nothing about Perry except that he’s from Texas and thus they assume that he’s for guns and against abortion. That’s stereotyping. Others know these things because of the things he has said and done. That’s not stereotyping.
Yeah, you’d be stereotyping, and be a bigot, if you believed that you knew something about this hypothetical person’s beliefs and opinions simple because she is “a Muslim gay black woman former anchor baby from LA.” Instead, maybe you should try to find out what this person thinks and believes, based on what she has said and done.
And this is different from a religious person how? Because they can add, “because I’ll get rewarded in heaven” to the end of that sentence?
November 1, 2011, 3:51 pmAdam says:
You missed the bit about his familial hunting camp?
November 1, 2011, 3:58 pmyankee says:
This is a great example of the double standard I referenced above. People will complain about how angry atheists are and how they keep insulting religious people, but calling us “irrational” and “insane” is A-OK.
November 1, 2011, 4:00 pmyankee says:
I remember the bit about his family going on vacation at “N*****head Ranch,” but I don’t remember it being a hunting camp specifically.
November 1, 2011, 4:06 pmAnthony says:
Pretty sure “you’re going to Hell if you don’t believe as I do” is an attack on other belief systems. However, an atheist, speaking as an atheist, cannot avoid negative discourse, because atheism is fundamentally a negative statement (there is no God); atheists do not practice atheism, they reject the practice of religion. For example, an Objectivist is also an atheist, but when making positive statements they’ll speak as an Objectivist.
November 1, 2011, 4:21 pmJimbino says:
Deism is indeed close to Atheism, as anybody who reads Thomas Paine’s bestseller Age of Reason could hardly fail to see.
Though he states:
his Deism elevates natural law above the God-Creator, totally consistent with the agnostic posture of the scientist, rejects the risen savior/redemption bit and the bible as a holy book, and condemns religious practice and all organized religion, including Christianity.
href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Reason”
The full text is available on-line:
href=”http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/intro.htm”
November 1, 2011, 4:23 pmAdam says:
It was.
November 1, 2011, 4:41 pmdht says:
So by this theory, Herman Cain should only be voted for by liberals, because, you know, he is Black.
November 1, 2011, 4:44 pmChris Green says:
Perhaps, but you will have to point out to me where I’m wrong. Eric S Raymon, a fairly prominent and extremely bright atheist describes all his moral impulses in terms of evolutionary biology. Essentially, he makes the argument that, without any God or ‘higher force’, all impulses, including ones we attribute to altruism, can be explained by evolutionary biology. That is a short way of saying that every impulse is designed to spread your genetic material and much and as widely as possible. It is a characterization that in harmony with science (as we understand it now).
The characterization I made was certainly softer than Eric’s (and avowed atheist) so please help me to understand how my characterization is terribly wrong, from a philosophical and scientific point of view.
November 1, 2011, 4:46 pmChris Green says:
Which atheist did I insult? You are insinuating that all or most atheist are doing things that make them unhappy (the premise of my characterization). If that is not true, than my characterization doesn’t apply. I was making a philosophical point. I was trying to point out that if, for an atheist, being altruist made him fundamentally unhappy, than he has no rational reason to be altruistic. The same applies to a Christian or any other theist if the ‘fundamental’ goes far enough.
For some religions, however, there is an out. If altruism makes him unhappy, but he senses that there is still some nobility to it, he can appeal to a higher power to change his/her fundamental nature. This tenant if very appealing to some people, especially to those who find themselves fundamentally unhappy no matter what they do.
November 1, 2011, 4:54 pmAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
Making a rather simplistic philosophical claim that leads to the conclusion that someone is “irrational” and “insane” is no less insulting (and probably more so) than most of the things atheists do that religious people object to. Especially since that claim dismisses (or, possibly, isn’t aware of) the significant amount of theorizing on moral systems that aren’t based either in personal happiness or a supermoral being. Of course, you can’t be expected to actually engage with such a rich philosophical tradition in a blog comment thread, but ignoring it to get to the “atheists are either self-centered or insane” conclusion does come across as insulting.
November 1, 2011, 5:01 pmAnthony says:
There we go, error already found. Atheism is not unified belief system, there are no authorities you can point at to say what atheists believe. In terms of your earlier comment, In the context of atheism, there is not such thing as a right that ‘ought’ to be granted because there is no higher good, only that which we invent and define as good for our own purposes. that describes some atheists but by no means all.
November 1, 2011, 5:06 pmChris Green says:
You are right, this isn’t different from many religious views, particularly ones that believe human nature is more or less fixed. However, we are talking about rights and where they come from. I was arguing out that there is no such thing as inalienable rights from an atheist point of view unless you redefine the word ‘inalienable’ to mean something agreed upon by a consensus of carbon based biological organisms.
November 1, 2011, 5:11 pmDoc Rampage says:
As I said, a person’s religious convictions give me some evidence about how they think and what they consider good. Someone who shares more of my religious beliefs is more likely to think as I do. Of course this doesn’t overrule other considerations; for example, political party is much more important than religion because it correlates better to a persons politics.
As to divorce, that’s slightly different. Once you vote someone into office, you are committed. If they turn out to be unfaithful to their campaign promises, there is nothing you can do about it. If a man has a history that shows that he is not faithful to his most solemn oaths and responsibilities, what kind of fool would trust him to be faithful to mere campaign rhetoric?
November 1, 2011, 5:14 pmTed says:
Assuming, for just a harrowing second, that altruism exists, what does happiness have to do with it?
November 1, 2011, 5:16 pmdht says:
Does this mean you did not vote for Ronald Reagan because he had been divorced?
November 1, 2011, 5:17 pmChris Green says:
It seems like you are suggesting that there are some atheists who, while not believing in God, believe in some higher something or some higher ideal that exists independent of human beings. Is this what you are saying?
November 1, 2011, 5:17 pmAnthony says:
Religious convictions might reveal something of the sort, but statements about religion do not; it is extremely easy to pay lip service to a religion. This is particularly true where it is advantageous to be a member of that religion. Basically, a statement of faith is a way of sounding good without actually saying anything, which will always be popular with politicians.
November 1, 2011, 5:21 pmTed says:
How else would you define it? If they come from God, and every man denies the “inalienability” of them, that’s a pretty empty comfort, no? “Inalienable” in name only, so to speak.
IMO, the only thing that makes rights inalienable, is the tacit agreement, and subsequent action, of men that such rights are, in fact, inalienable.
November 1, 2011, 5:21 pmBob Roberts says:
You appear to believe that the Religious Right has a monopoly on God, which ironically enough is a Religious Right talking point.
Most of the Framers were not what we’d call “religious right” – this was the Eighteenth Century after all. But sentiments which today are associated with the “extremist religious right” were bandied around by Anglican squires, Unitarians and others who in their own day were considered less than fully orthodox.
The “moderate center” has moved a lot since then, if even the references to God-given rights in the Declaration of Independence are considered extremist – or at least so impolite that only a fundamentalist would be rude enough to mention them.
November 1, 2011, 5:27 pmChris Green says:
Altruism is the state of being such that other people’s (or living creature’s) happiness defines one’s own happiness. What it is not, is a sense of self-satisfaction of the knowledge that one has done a good deed. In the context of some religious systems, the definition goes a little further. In these beliefs systems, even if one is surrounded by suffering (which under the basic definition above, would cause someone to be unhappy), if one is devoted other people’s happiness, one can attain a sense of peace (if not cheerful happiness) even while surrounded by bad things. The idea is that being altruistic, and not just acting altruistic, is a human beings most fundamental nature and when other, more superficial natures take precedent, the happiness will always be limited, even transitory. (I’m describing an ideal which I’m am nowhere close to obtaining, but which is interesting.)
November 1, 2011, 5:28 pmAdam says:
So there is a meaning, then?
And a Unitarian doesn’t think the right stuff is good? Is that because you know what a Unitarian thinks is good, and you disagree? Or because you can’t be bothered to find out what the particular Unitarian in question believes is good?
You must have lived a life blessed by only the most placid of human relationships.
Also, a Hindu, Unitarian, or atheist that runs for office as such is showing tremendous strength of conviction, no? There is vast political advantage converting or simply pretending to convert to Christianity.
As an aside, there is biological evidence that suggests that it may, and that is may have a genetic basis.
November 1, 2011, 5:31 pmyankee says:
QFT. If I made a one-paragraph philosophical argument about some problem with Christian theism (say, the problem of evil) and then concluded that Christians are “irrational” and “insane,” my comments would rightly be viewed as dismissive and insulting.
November 1, 2011, 5:31 pmAnthony says:
There are also a variety of game theory arguments for why limited altruism is an evolutionary advantage, and in many cases even an individual advantage.
November 1, 2011, 5:34 pmAdam says:
Absolutely.
November 1, 2011, 5:34 pmBob Roberts says:
If they had said, “the day of our lord Mars,” that would be closer to the situation at hand.
I know that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were, *by the standards of the time,* remarkably secular. (And of course, much of this secularism was *religiously* motivated, because religious minorities with experience of persecution didn’t want to be hassled by the feds).
But going by *modern standards,* the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence look highly theocratic. If you say that “in those days such language wasn’t in the least controversial,” you’re supporting the point that we’ve moved in a secularist direction since the Founding era.
Here’s a hypothesis to consider: Maybe some people don’t like atheists because the atheists pose such a binary choice: “either you’re with us or you’re with the fundamentalists!” When prominent atheists denounce even mainline religious groups as a sort of gateway drug to fundamentalism, then I can see how some voters might get the idea that atheists were, well, radical.
Having said that, I know that there are many atheists who are committed to good government and have no wish to force their personal beliefs on the country. I certainly wouldn’t want an atheist candidate to humiliate himself, JFK-style, by suggesting that he would totally subordinate his religious identity to the desire to hold federal office. It would be sufficient if (s)he acknowledged certain fundamental rights and principles, even if (s)he disagrees with religious people about where these rights/principles come from.
November 1, 2011, 5:50 pmgecko says:
Atheism itself is not a religion just like theism in itself is not a religion. The practice of it however can go to the point where the distinction becomes academic. It’s fascinating how the irreligious often can’t get their head around this idea.
Thank you for making my point…atheism particularly strong atheism is inextricably linked with negative discourse. For better or for worse they’re disliked more because of their fundamental character. Adam are you taking notes?
November 1, 2011, 5:53 pmDilan Esper says:
I don’t think you were insulting nonbelievers. I think you just were uttering an idiotic statement. Somehow, despite all the claims of believers that this is impossible, there are many, many moral nonbelievers, as well as secular philosophical stances that can generate a workable system of morality without belief in a deity.
I suspect most people who make this claim about religion being necessary for ethics have never even taken a class in basic moral philosophy.
November 1, 2011, 5:58 pmDilan Esper says:
By the way, I don’t think whether one believes in “inalienable” rights is a particularly good indicator that one has a correct moral philosophy. A lot of people who espouse such “inalienable” rights end up advocating moral monstrosities, such as the Catholic leaders who for years took the position that African women could not insist that their HIV-positive husbands wear condoms.
The Declaration of Independence is all well and good, but in actuality, the only thing that can create an enforceable right is a government and most rights are contingent and limited anyway.
November 1, 2011, 6:01 pmAdam says:
Again, with the exception of a few people who are trying to convert others, there is no “practice of it.” It’s not something that is practiced, it’s something that just is and then you go on with your day.
November 1, 2011, 6:07 pmcaptain_slow says:
No.
By this theory, absent any other evidence to the contrary, you would expect Herman Cain to conform to the political and voting norms established for decades by blacks in this country, because, you know, he is black.
However, there is plenty of other evidence to indicate that he does not conform to the political norms that are well-established in the USA.
And for that, Herman Cain is often considered to be non-serious, an “Uncle Tom”, or just a puppet for a bunch of racist white guys, a token that illustrates that they are not racists. And this, which is the ultimate in stereotyping, is present in the mainstream media all the time.
It’s the American public who can’t seem to handle a black man who does not conform to the stereotype, not some bunch of racist white Republicans. There are a bunch of Republicans, white, black and otherwise, who want Herman Cain to get elected for no reason having at all to do with his race. But that’s apparently not allowed. Once Republicans and Tea Party members have been labeled by the media and the Democrats as being racists, then they are only allowed to support angry white men or blacks who are puppets and uncle toms.
Anyway, this is way off from atheists, but it is a similar problem. Atheists running for political office have the same problem as black men running for political office. They are stereotyped by voters as being O’Hair-alikes or wanting to go sue every county to take down the 10 Commandments or keep schools from allowing children to put up pictures in December with the word “Christmas” in them. If they do not conform to this stereotype, then they are not credible.
So if an atheist seeking public office does not conform to the stereotype hyped up atheist ideology, and also wants to win, then he is better off not professing to being an atheist in the first place. Americans have demonstrated they are quite happy to elect hypocrites and even expect their elected officials to be hypocrites.
FWIW, I truly believe those seeking political office are merely playing a part. Rarely do they truly believe in anything they actually are doing. Maybe when they are running for mayor of a town of 3,000 people, they truly believe something. Once they get to a national or state-wide position, a consistent and genuine belief system or core character is going to spell defeat. Just ask Ron Paul.
This is, of course, purely my opinion. I don’t believe in the Democratic process. Fools elect fools, hypocrites elect hypocrites, and we have the government we have now because we let everyone vote. This may be the best system out there, but it is still not very good.
November 1, 2011, 6:11 pmMaximus Aurelius says:
Deism is only close to atheism in the sense that neither atheists nor deists claim to have a voice in their heads or a written work compelling them to do things such as (but not limited to):
- fire-bomb abortion clinics,
- fly hijacked airliners into skyscrapers,
- raise $10 million on a TV program (lest god strike me down),
- help decipher hieroglyphics written on gold plates (through my hat, of course),
- eat/not eat pork/shellfish/beef,
- keep women as property,
- convert or kill the natives,
- not speak of Xenu (oops!),
- deny observable truths,
- and of course my favorite, run for president.
However, despite all that, deists believe in a god (the kind of god who moved to Florida after he got your mom pregnant but before you were born and doesn’t even send a card on your birthday) , and atheists do not.
November 1, 2011, 6:15 pmTed says:
What if I offered a couple of books, or an entire library, or an entire 2000+ years of contrary evidence? Still insulting?
November 1, 2011, 6:25 pmarch1 says:
“I as an atheist absolutely assert my right to negatively judge a candidate in direct proportion to that candidate’s degree of (professed) religious conviction, so it would seem hypocritical for me to complain about a religious voter’s judging an atheist candidate in the opposite way.”
How about a really far-out approach:
1) Evaluate beliefs on their merits in light of evidence and reason (which I think is the mode to which most of us, however reluctantly and ineffectually, ultimately attempt to revert when the consequences of being wrong are so immediate and so serious that they overwhelm all of the usual perverse incentives);
November 1, 2011, 6:38 pm2) Judge people-as-believers based on the extent to which they do the above.
rilkefan says:
It seems like you are suggesting that the existence of a god or gods has anything to do with morality, but everyone who has read Plato’s Euthyphro knows that’s obviously false.
November 1, 2011, 7:05 pmChris Green says:
Dilan, I wasn’t talking about an entire moral system. I was citing a very specific example. Here is the question: If being altruistic makes you unhappy, and you don’t believe in God, should you continue to be altruistic? When I say unhappy, I’m not talking about stressed out, or uncomfortable, I mean, truly, fundamentally, unhappy. Nobody taking exception to my comments and calling my statements idiotic is explaining why. They are simply referring to complex, too difficult to summarize in a few paragraphs, presumably esoteric systems that they don’t want to talk about. That is not very convincing. I once read Terry Pratchet (an atheist as far as I can tell from his latest works) summarize existentialism quite eloquently in one or two paragraphs at the end of his book Hogfather, which wasn’t even a book of philosophy.
I’m not an idiot and presumably a class on moral philosophy would talk about different systems for creating moral values, like ‘The greatest good for the most people’ system, or the ‘Don’t hurt anybody else but otherwise do what you like system’. Why is it so hard for any atheists out there to actually say, “Hey, this is the system I use, and it is based on this, and that is why I your analogy about altruism doesn’t apply to me’. It shouldn’t take a 100 page essay to communicate that.
November 1, 2011, 7:10 pmAJK says:
I think it’s obviously false that anyone today would consider using the A.D./B.C. dating system or treating Sunday as part of the weekend to be “highly theocratic”.
November 1, 2011, 7:16 pmTed says:
This is not a definition that I have ever encountered.
Consider Webster:
Your apparent insertion of happiness is contradictory in the case of various secular philosophies that attempt to explain altruism. For instance, some versions of ethical egoism suggest that altruism doesn’t “really” exist because everything is for one’s perceived self-interest, nothing is done without self-interest. Your definition would result in some kind of circular, semantic death-spiral.
I am aware, but that’s not “really” altrusim, is it?
November 1, 2011, 7:17 pmChrisTS says:
captain slow:
Really? There is some evidence that women of a certain class-profile in our country are more likely to, for example, ask for directions when lost or to look again in a cabinet when they cannot see quickly what they wanted to find. There is some evidence that women of a certain class-profile in our country are more likely to be ‘forgiving’ or ‘sympathetic’ in their attitudes towards other persons.
I am not aware of any evidence that women, as a sex, generally “make decisions differently than [sic] men.” Maybe you have a wiki citation?
November 1, 2011, 7:18 pmJohn Herbison says:
Mr. Cain’s actions in the wake of the “Niggerhead” hunting camp revelations about Governor Perry speak volumes about him. Cain–a black man old enough to remember when Jim Crow was the law of the land–initially made the (wholly unremarkable) observation that “For him to leave it there as long as he did before, I hear, they finally painted over it, is just insensitive to a lot of people in this country.”
For that relatively innocuous comment, Mr. Cain drew harsher criticism from his fellow Republicans than Perry did for having visited the camp itself. Cain next did some serious backpedaling: “I really don’t care about that story! They painted over it. End of story.”
That, folks, represents some heavy duty toadying to (mostly white) Republican Primary voters.
If nominated, will Mr. Cain put his dignity in a blind trust?
November 1, 2011, 7:18 pmChris Green says:
As you well, know, it all comes down to definition. If you want to take to a more fundamental level, fine. Let’s define morality as living in accordance with your most fundamental nature, such that you are happy. However, what if your fundamental nature can be changed, or evolved. What if we have conflicting fundamental natures and giving in to some of those natures results in more happiness than others? Bringing up Plato doesn’t answer the question or even address the issues I was trying to raise. I suppose I am talking about ways of achieving happiness. I happen to believe in a God who understands me better than I do and whose fundamental nature is to help me. If god has nothing to do with morality, fine, but then, neither do men (my new definition) in which case is it pointless to talk about morality. However, there is still the problem of living a happy life, which again begs the question, if you are an atheist, and helping other people makes you unhappy, is there any rational to be help people anyway?
November 1, 2011, 7:24 pmTed says:
If you, as opposed to Dilan, believe in God, how could Dilan be unhappy if he is altruistic?
November 1, 2011, 7:27 pmChrisTS says:
Chris Green:
Oh thank No-One. For a moment, I thought I might be a Scotsman.
I get that you do not realize that this is a farrago of generalizations, falsehoods, and nonsense. But, let’s try to communicate, if only for the sake of the Golden Rule:
There is no logical connection between objectivism in moral theory/belief and theism. (Check the history of moral theory, if you cannot find an objectivist atheist around.)
There is no logical connection between moral relativism and atheism. (Ditto. )
There is no logical connection between egoism and atheism. (Check Ancient Greek philosophy.)
There is no logical connection between non-egoism and theism. (No comment)
There is no logical connection between rights-theories and theism.
Well, you get the idea.
Of course, you have given yourself a nice ‘out’ with the ‘no True Atheist’ qualifier. However, that does commit you to asserting that other people believe in some god/gods even though they don’t know it.
November 1, 2011, 7:35 pmTed says:
What’s you obsession with happiness? What if our fundamental nature is geared toward effective gene-replication? And nothing else?
November 1, 2011, 7:35 pmChris Green says:
My happiness is your happiness. Your happiness is my happiness. It is only a death spiral if I focus on you being happy by making you being happy by making me being happy and on and on. Fortunately, we, as human beings don’t have the capacity to think in ever deepening spirals like that. We normally just limit it to one iteration. I don’t live in a realm of pure ideas. The definition may not be perfect, but it is a good working definition (kind of like Newton’s laws to describe physics).
November 1, 2011, 7:37 pmAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
Chris: I can’t speak for everyone, but I haven’t attempted to define my moral system in the way you seem to want because it’s (a) not pulled verbatim from some holy text, and (b) a work in progress, as it will be, I hope, for the rest of my life. But Kant’s categorical imperative together with Plato’s notion of the just soul is a decent first approximation of my views.
I’m disinclined to put more effort than that into explaining it here, since your dismissal of a rich philosophical tradition in a few sentences suggests that you’re not actually interested in good faith discussion.
By the way, if you want your happiness objection to be meaningful, you’re going to need to define happiness, a very ambiguous term, much more precisely.
November 1, 2011, 7:43 pmChris Green says:
When I brought that up as the logical conclusion of atheism, everybody jumped on my back and started saying things like, “Not all atheists have that point of view” If you are an atheist, what other point of view is their to describe human actions other than evolutionary biology. I reject that notion personally, but way should an atheist reject it and take offense at it? It is not a very cheerful world view to some people, so I’m sorry if bringing it up made people upset. That was not my inention.
November 1, 2011, 7:43 pmTed says:
All is one? We are god? I do often wonder if Thales was correct, and the 2500 years following is just one long footnote.
But then I snap back to reality.
November 1, 2011, 7:45 pmChris Green says:
Cool, thanks. My cousin is into Kant. I’ll ask him what he suggests I read.
November 1, 2011, 7:50 pmChrisTS says:
@Chris Green:
So, I am a philosopher and ‘do’ ethics, as we say. I find it difficult to summarize my moral perspective in a blog comment, but you have asked for a brief statement of a non-theistic, objectivist moral view. Here is one:
We are rational beings who can understand what is conducive to human flourishing and what is not. We can also understand that certain kinds of distinctions among persons are rational and, so, morally relevant, and which are not. We are, as well, beings capable of comprehending the subjectivity of others. Given these abilities, we can – imperfectly, no doubt – come to recognize that there are kinds of conduct that impede flourishing, that are not rationally defensible, and/or that inflict unnecessary suffering.
This particular view does much to explain moral progress (e.g., increasing recognition of the wrongness of racial discrimination). However, there are others that are quite available to those who do not believe that morality must be grounded in the determinations of supernatural beings.
By the way, ‘egoism’ was at the core of some of the greatest moral views in western thought – Plato, as Andrew mentions, and Aristotle among the theorists who did not think that being moral required being unhappy.
Right now, I am going to go watch a movie with my husband. I regard this as morally good insofar as it will make him feel loved; it might very well make me ‘happy,’ as well.
November 1, 2011, 7:51 pmA. Cooper says:
I think the burden is on you to show that having evolutionary origins and being “truly altruistic” are at odds with one another. I think that’s probably an unquestioned assumption on your part.
November 1, 2011, 7:53 pmTed says:
Many points of view. How about reason? How about variation? How about quantum mechanics and string theory? How about ALIENS?
I have wondered whether religion would be worth if it made me happy, all the time. I mean, if I was happy being a anti-gay, pro-life, closed-minded, bigoted, hypocrite, is that a good thing? What if I add Christian to that list? Does that make it any better? I tend to think not.
November 1, 2011, 7:54 pmA. Cooper says:
I fail to see how “Tiw’s Day” is all that much different from “the day of our lord Mars”.
And really, if we’re being as literal about this as you are, how do we know which “Lord” the dating system under consideration refers to?
Seriously, if you honestly think that “the year of our Lord” (or AD, the abbreviation of its Latin translation) is theocratic, something is bad-wrong with your sense of perspective.
November 1, 2011, 7:58 pmAnthony says:
Why is belief in God relevant to answering that question, except to the extent that you think you’ll be given rewards for your behavior? A good action does not become more (or less) good because God is bribing you to do it.
November 1, 2011, 8:32 pmBobVB says:
As far a charitable atheists, I think the generosity of Bill Gates puts that to rest. And deism being a religion – well maybe but only in the vaguest of senses. If physicists are right inmthat:
– only one out of a trillion or more universes would support the juggling act required for life, and
- creating universes is something we might ourselves be able to do in a thousand or so years, and
- supposing we would want to creat ones biased towards life,
It’s not unreasonable to assume that most universes that sustain life were intentionally made by intelligent life in a living universe.
So ‘The Creator’ was most likely a geek with a pocket protector or the other universal equivalent. I’ve said ‘thank you very much’ and figure that’s the end of my obligation.
Am I a Deist or an atheist?
November 1, 2011, 8:42 pmCommon Sense says:
El Suerte is spot on. An atheist myself, the intolerance, self-righteousness, and sheer hatred exhibited by some atheists is shocking. That’s not the way for a minority to convince the majority to change views.
November 1, 2011, 9:18 pmdht says:
Or as a man I know once said, “I am not surprised by the quality of Congress, after all it is a representative government.”
November 1, 2011, 9:39 pmMaximus Aurelius says:
Well, since staying on topic is frakked, let’s pull up a chair and dig in.
Is this a serious question? A riddle? Do ants worship us as gods? In their own little antlike way?
To paraphrase somebody, the technology you describe would currently be indistinguishable from magic or a miracle. So … an Atheist?
November 1, 2011, 10:32 pmathEIst says:
November 1, 2011, 11:51 pmathEIst says:
November 2, 2011, 12:07 amBobVB says:
No we pretty much know how to make universes now (if the physicists are right) , we just don’t have the scale of technology to do it right now.
November 2, 2011, 12:49 amrilkefan says:
Guess I missed this class in grad school.
Plenty of folks think that there are new universes being formed all the time without any help or possible hindrance.
November 2, 2011, 1:22 amPerseus says:
“All philosophers are tyrannized by logic.”
November 2, 2011, 3:26 amAlan K. Henderson says:
Do atheists skew toward any particular economic philosophies?
November 2, 2011, 3:47 amBob Roberts says:
I would prefer to take a holistic view – not only the Constitution but the Declaration of Independence.
Taking these two founding documents together, don’t they show a country which acknowledges God? That’s not the same as being fundamentalist (though rhetoric on both sides seems to carry this implication). You can be a Deist, Unitarian, follower of Judaism or Islam, etc. and still acknowledge God (Jefferson, a Unitarian, certainly did this).
At the time, the references to God were only controversial for two reasons. For one thing the Declaration of Independence invoked God to justify a war with Great Britain – King George III saw the Revolution as a rebellion by Protestant dissenters. For another thing, these acknowledgments were controversial for not going far enough – for not specifically saying that Jesus is Lord and God.
It is only (comparatively) recently that the mere mention of God has become controversial. That’s why the God-talk in the Declaration and Constitution are embarrassing to anyone who wants to remove references to God from state papers and other official statements.
Think of it this way: If a group of modern secularists – responsible to a secularist constituency – had the chance to write the founding documents of a new nation, would they refer to the “Creator,” “Nature’s God,” or “Our Lord?” Would they think such references were OK by pretending that these were innocuous throwaway lines, or that they were merely Deist or Unitarian?
November 2, 2011, 8:51 amA. Cooper says:
I think churches are hit by this argument, too, aren’t they? So what you’re saying is *nobody* is truly charitable.
November 2, 2011, 10:21 amA. Cooper says:
I’ll agree that the “by their Creator” bit I could do without. It just seems unnecessary to me: we have inalienable rights, and their source is irrelevant.
But I use BC and AD without blushing. In the company of my historian and anthropologist friends I say BCE and CE because that’s what they’re used to, but it doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue. I say “my God!” and “good Lord!” as interjections, too.
I’d find an inference that I’m insufficiently secular based on this to be just as laughable as the inference that you’re insufficiently non-Norse-God-worshipping because you celebrate Thor’s Day and Freija’s Day every week seems to you.
I’d reject “in the year of Our Lord” as archaic, not as too religious.
November 2, 2011, 10:30 amBob Roberts says:
First let me quickly return to the term “theocratic” – If the public believed that acknowledging God in public, or bringing religious values into the public square, was “theocratic,” then I suppose more people would proclaim themselves theocrats. So would many people throughout American history, such as the abolitionists, the Social Gospellers, the Southern *Christian* Leadership Congress, etc.
My own definition of theocracy is an ideology like that of the Dominionists, or a governing system like the old Caliphate in the Ottoman empire, or for that matter the old monk-state in Tibet. To paraphrase Potter Stewart, I know theocracy when I see it, and the Declaration of Independence isn’t it.
November 2, 2011, 11:20 amAdam says:
I don’t think there is “really” such a thing as altruism. People do good deeds because it makes them feel good or satisfied or less guilty. And there is a biological basis for that.
November 2, 2011, 12:18 pmDilan Esper says:
I don’t think I have to demonstrate something a million times just because there are a million religious believers who have chosen to remain ignorant about the secular bases of moral philosophy.
If you don’t believe it is possible to justify altruism in a secular context, why don’t you do some googling or pick up a beginning Ethics textbook and familiarize yourself with the relevant approaches?
November 2, 2011, 12:19 pmzuch says:
Possibly because atheists don’t rely as much on external validation and think they can decide for themselves what’s good and what’s bad….
Cheers,
November 2, 2011, 12:24 pmcaptain_slow says:
You see, another passive-agressive dig implying atheists to somehow be better than non-atheists. Hard to get elected when you say these kinds of things.
Or you could say, the majority are just too stupid to vote for atheists. That way you can still be an intellectual elitist and also make an excuse for losing.
November 2, 2011, 1:11 pmAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
Religious people say similar things all the time. So what it comes down to isn’t that atheists are “ruder”, but that there’s fewer of them.
November 2, 2011, 1:19 pmyankee says:
People are too prejudced to vote for atheists (as is well-documented by the polls cited in the OP), not too stupid.
Also, taking a specific example of poor behavior and making a conclusion about an entire group is a classic form of prejudiced stereotyping. This is particularly true when the behavior comes in the form of an anonymous blog comment, which tends to bring out the worst in people, as evidenced, e.g., by the commenter who called atheists “irrational” and “insane” upthread.
November 2, 2011, 1:32 pmyankee says:
It’s not just that there are fewer of us, it’s that there’s a double standard as to what counts as “rude”:
A completely normal and understandable response. Not rude.
Extremely rude.
(FWIW, I think both should be considered rude unless the context is some sort of philosophical debate.)
November 2, 2011, 1:39 pmAdam says:
Except that believers say these things about non-believers all the time and still get elected.
Um. I don’t think that’s what he said.
November 2, 2011, 2:55 pmzuch says:
Protecting and defending the Constitution is such a bother. Let’s just let it erode.
BTW, you don’t need any imagination at all to hear all the hysterical screaming that would go on if only a single school allowed a graduation speaker to give “thanks to Allah”…. FauxSnooze would cover it 24/7 with commentary from John Bolton, Sean Hannity would have on Pam Gellar, and Bill O’Reilly would be on it like flies on sh*te….
Cheers,
November 2, 2011, 3:59 pmzuch says:
… if the creator endowed us these rights, no one would have to explain them to everyone else in some polemic, and the creator would be nice enough to enforce said rights so they wouldn’t need constitutional protection.
Cheers,
November 2, 2011, 4:04 pmzuch says:
I respectfully suggest that you are wrong. The subcategory “strong atheism” usually has that affirmative belief (or at least tentative hypothesis or theory). Weak atheists don’t.
No. Agnosticism says that one can’t know (for sure, at least). Ask the guy who coined the word, Thomas Huxley.
Cheers,
November 2, 2011, 4:19 pmJohn Schilling says:
There are approximately 18,000 high schools in the United States, and approximately 0.6% of the US population is Muslim. This suggests on the order of 100 Islamic valedictorians or other graduation speakers per year, a thousand since 9/11. I am fairly certain that the US secondary education system is not 99.9% effective in censorning controversial statements from its graduation speeches.
So, I find it suspicious that your pontification about what would happen in such a case, is not accompanied by examples of what actually did happen.
Just in case, you know, you wanted to illustrate an evidence-based rather than faith-based world view in action.
November 2, 2011, 5:26 pmAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
And every single Muslim valedictorian talks about Allah in their speech. Just like every single Christian valedictorian talks about God.
November 2, 2011, 5:31 pmtomemos says:
You notice that none of the people you mentioned are or were part of the government, right? That’s what the “crat” suffix means. It’s theocratic when it’s the government talks about God, which is why the Constitution forbids it.
November 2, 2011, 7:55 pmBob Roberts says:
Citing the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional? And the when First Congress re-enacted the Northwest Ordinance, with its specific endorsement of religion, the First Amendment rendered that statute unconstitutional?
These groups
November 2, 2011, 8:10 pmtomemos says:
Well, right, because it has no religious content to speak of. That’s the point. You’re trying to square the circle: “The Declaration of Independence clearly isn’t theocratic, and it clearly lays down a strong precedent of making God part of our laws, therefore it’s not theocratic to make God part of our laws.” Doesn’t fly.
November 2, 2011, 8:26 pmzuch says:
Well, yes, much success was also to be had burning the witches out of those possessed….
Cheers,
November 2, 2011, 8:56 pmDoc Rampage says:
Is it really that hard for you to grasp the difference between general preferences and absolute requirements?
November 3, 2011, 12:21 amzuch says:
We had that with Republican Senator Roman Hruska insisting, for the Carswell Supreme Court nomination, that the mediocre needed representation.
Cheers,
November 3, 2011, 4:14 pmzuch says:
Way to miss the point. And talk about thin-skinned…. I said nothing about what’s “better”. What I said, and you seem to either ignore or not comprehend, is that atheists are possibly less likely to get depressed about not meeting up to a standard imposed from outside. They’re more likely to have worked standards through for themselves and to feel comfortable with them, even if they don’t meet them all the time. This is an observation on my part, not an opinion. If you want an opinion, here goes: You’re fat too. ;-)
I don’t know about the majority, but I’d venture that you seem to live up to your nom de plume. But once again, that’s an observation. Sorry if it makes you uncomfortable, but don’t sweat it; if you get depressed and kill yourself, there’s a paradise that awaits you. Hell, why not go now, eh? Whatcha waiting for?
Cheers,
November 3, 2011, 10:29 pmzuch says:
Could it be because such doesn’t happen? The number of prominent legal cases concerning Christian prayers can be counted on a couple of hands at most, so why would you expect that a religion with only a hundredth the adherents (assuming your numbers) would have even a single case? Not to mention, any assumption that the frequency of such is linearly related to the preponderance of adherents is probably false for a number of reasons. Minority voices tend to get squelched for more than one reason, and it may be that Muslims have no inclination to get themselves in trouble, or even no desire to violate rules in the first place.
But you want evidence, just consider the brouhaha about just having mosques, period. And about the supposed invasion of Sharia law. And just listen to Pam Gellar, John Bolton, and the rest of the Islamophobes…. Hell, they’re protesting the “sooper-sekret” embedded Islamic symbology of the Shanksville Flight 93 Memorial. They’d scream their fool heads off if graduating students had to sit still and listen to an Islamic prayer. And these screaming harpies are on FauxSnooze all the time….
Cheers,
November 3, 2011, 10:42 pmBarb says:
I agree with you. Atheists in America seem to have an agenda, claiming personal offense and violation of church-state separation in these cases you cite. They have seemed hostile to Christianity in particular. And yes, they tend to be liberal. So I wouldn’t vote for a liberal. I would vote for a Mormon, Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran (MO synod), Methodist, Jew and Presbyterian. But probably not an episcopalian because their liberal branch is just that –too liberal for my vote. I’d be leery of a Muslim candidate. I believe their religion has no problem with deceit where their agenda of ultimate global domination is concerned.
November 6, 2011, 10:15 pmBarb says:
It is atheists who lead the charge that we are being theocrats if we speak of our faith in the public square or apply our values to our policy advocacy. The government is not to be run by a church –nor interfere with the running of the church–but that doesn’t mean that elected officials and private citizens don’t have free speech and freedom of conscience –and can’t bring their faith to bear on public speech and policy. After all, public policy is supposed to be fair and good, just, and promoting societal well-being. Some of us believe religious values held by many groups who came to America for religious freedom ought still be welcome in the public square –and be welcome as influences on public policy. We think it’s fine that a gov’t would ask someone to pray at their public ceremonies –or erect public crosses for people who died in service to their country or allow such memorials for those who died on the highways when those people are Christian. The same freedoms have to be accorded to people of other faiths, also, so no crosses for the atheists who died –honoring their preference. But the atheists shouldn’t have the power to dictate their atheism over the majority of believers of some kind. A completely secular public square is pleasing to atheists. The Christmas-free USA pleases the atheist.
November 6, 2011, 10:31 pmJudaism, Democracy, and Public Reason ► Jewneric says:
[...] people – then it’s fair game. Law professor Ilya Somin, on the other hand, argues that reluctance among Americans to vote for atheists stems from [...]
November 14, 2011, 8:32 am