Why are there no Atheists in congress?

[Skylar1]

Or, rather, in most all of public office in the entire US?

Atheists note that few politicians have been willing to identify as non-theists, since until recently such revelations would have been "political suicide",[46][47] and welcomed Democratic California Representative Pete Stark's 2007 decision to come out as the first openly nontheistic member of Congress.[29] In 2009, City Councilman Cecil Bothwell of Asheville, North Carolina was called "unworthy of his seat" because of his open atheism.[48] Indeed, several polls have shown that about 50 percent of Americans would not vote for a well-qualified atheist for president.[49][50] A 2006 study found that 40% of respondents characterized atheists as a group that did "not at all agree with my vision of American society", and that 48% would not want their child to marry an atheist. In both studies, percentages of disapproval of atheists were above those for Muslims, African-Americans and homosexuals.[51]

???

What is so wrong with not being religious? I could understand if the person was a bad politician, but simply professing atheism makes one "unqualified" (as most of the population seem to put it) to hold public office?

what do you think?

[blueangel06661]

I think there should be. I'm not religious one bit and I'm extremely open minded towards other peoples religions. And religious people are very closed minded towards others. Ironically our country is based off of freedom of religion. So not having a religion doesn't count?

[Hanamaru Kunikida]

Honestly, religious people are as silly as you can get. v_v

Does religious faith really have anything to do with politics? O_o;;

[Shinn Kamiyra]

Honestly, religious people are as silly as you can get. v_v

Does religious faith really have anything to do with politics? O_o;;

It shouldn't, but people continue bringing matters of religion and God into it anyway; whether for a more advantageous position or just 'cause they're so darn silly. -Shrugs-

[ELR]

Look at everyone who has taken office, at those who are apart of the government. A lot of them are Christians (no offense) and those who aren't and still hold a position? Most likely hadn't named off what their religious standings are.

[Anoleis]

Look at everyone who has taken office, at those who are apart of the government. A lot of them are Christians (no offense) and those who aren't and still hold a position? Most likely hadn't named off what their religious standings are.

This sounds oddly like the OP....

[Skilero]

Religious discrimination will exist so long as religion is perverted.

 

It isn't right, but because of the majority of religion being a social institution the atheists are not the same as religious people are and don't represent them. In a lot of ways, it's akin to not being in the same church as a person.

[Forgotten Show]

I think people opining the lack of atheists in Congress are as silly as those stating atheists are unworthy of Congress.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Bad Memory

[animeyay]

Because there has never been a true separation of church and state in the US.

What do you think are the odds of people getting elected if they say they are irreligious? Very slim, unless they are from a really really leftist/liberal place. Unfortunately, no US state, not even Massachusetts, has been irreligious enough to elect an irreligious senator/representative yet. That's right, so even if they are actually irreligious, they still have to lie and say they are Christians just to get elected. Deceit? Yes. Hey, they are politicians, so it shouldn't be a surprise.

[Skylar1]

I think people opining the lack of atheists in Congress are as silly as those stating atheists are unworthy of Congress.

My point of this thread wasn't to say that there needs to be more openly non-religious members of congress. Rather, to see what could be done about why 1 in 2 Americans seem to think that not believing in a deity automatically removes any and all credit/remediable qualities a person may have.

For me, it's more than enough people to have a cause for concern, and while I have no intention of belittling societies beliefs (since that's their right), I do wish to see there be more general awareness and understanding. Maybe that's asking too much? there are still places in the US were professing atheism would likely cause one to have a rather unfortunate 'accident'...

[Forgotten Show]

Might be because most people in the U.S. identify, at least in part, with some religion, and because most people running for office are religious. Not everything in life has a deeper meaning; I don't think the lack of atheists in Congress indicates anything more than a lack of atheists running successful election campaigns. People don't want to hear that a candidate is an atheist. They want to hear about a candidate's view of issues. I'd bet that more often than not a candidate's religion is just one more box to check on the application that a noisier minority blows out of proportion.


Bad Memory

[sunnyside]

My point of this thread wasn't to say that there needs to be more openly non-religious members of congress. Rather, to see what could be done about why 1 in 2 Americans seem to think that not believing in a deity automatically removes any and all credit/remediable qualities a person may have.

First of all there are a LOT of things that probably would get a significant amount of Americans to not vote for someone. For example there are plenty of people who would never vote for a Democrat or for a Republican.

Second it doesn't mean they think being an athiest "removes any and all credit/remediable qualities a person may have." While there are some fundamentalists and hardcore individuals out there, I'm sure most would hire an Atheist, or if you got to vote for Quarterbacks, they'd probably vote for an atheist for a team they're a fan of.

But these are politicians. What they do is make laws, the vast majority of which relate to social issues either directly or indirectly through budgets and the like. Therefore a politicans stance on social issues is what they are elected on primarily.

Honestly, religious people are as silly as you can get. v_v

Does religious faith really have anything to do with politics? O_o;;

Since you're stuck with them once they get into office, electing a politician is a whole lot about trust. Americans don't seem to have an especially big problem electing people of different faiths as they all have a vested interest in maintaining religeous freedoms.

Most religeous people have had some issues with athiets trying to crimp their first Amendment rights, and so are leery of them. Also, some atheists think we're silly.


Now I suppose I'd be willing to elect an atheist, but it's easy to understand why others wouldn't.

[miniPhil]

To be fair when the spokesmen for atheism in America are Bill Maher and George Carlin you can't really blame the population for not wanting them in office.

[Gjallarhorn]

To be fair when the spokesmen for atheism in America are Bill Maher and George Carlin you can't really blame the population for not wanting them in office.

Don't forget Dawkins. How one gets to be the unofficial spokesperson for a group of people that are not a formal group and are simply bound by their lack of belief in something is beyond me.


As for why there are no atheists in congress:

We are the least socially accept minority in America (that is within the public eye). To the majority of Americans, being religious qualifies one as being "good", and morality are an extension of this. This is why we commonly here phrases such as "he's a good Christian" or "he's a god-fearing man". Thereby, it is commonly assumed that by not believing in a god, one cannot have strong morals or a strong, just ideology.

Add into this that many religious folk see atheism as something threatening - as a force that wishes to forcefully suppress religious thought. We see this every year when the "War on Christmas" nonsense explodes back into the media, and atheists and atheism organizations are made out to actively waging a war of "political correctness" and keeping people from expressing their religious views in public or openly celebrating a religious holiday. And the occasional militant atheist organization does something that the people who promote this sort of image can use as "evidence"; last year we saw all the hub-bub when the American Atheists put up a billboard that said "You know it's just a myth" over an image of the nativity scene. Fox News and CNN had their respective runs with it, bloggers got their panties in a bunch, and some Christian organization put of a sign across the street promoting faith, and were treated as heroes. These same people believe atheists in public office would begin a legal assault on religion should they ever get into office, the same way Republicans think Democrats would go after gun rights, and the same way Democrats think Republicans would go after women's rights or gay rights.

It simply comes down to most Americans equating goodness with religion.

I think people opining the lack of atheists in Congress are as silly as those stating atheists are unworthy of Congress.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Bad Memory.

Legally administering a religious qualification cannot be done, but social condemnation is not only possible, but a reality.

[Forgotten Show]

Legally administering a religious qualification cannot be done, but social condemnation is not only possible, but a reality.

That wasn't my point. Without the subtlety, that litmus test goes both ways: someone can no more be excluded from holding political office for their lack of faith as for their specific stated faith. It's something the folks offended at the number of Christians in Congress, and/or lack of atheists in Congress, ought to remember.

Voting on the basis of faith, whatever that faith may be, is a cop out so the voter doesn't have to learn about the name on the ballot. One can draw a number of conclusions about this (among them how we in the U.S. have ended up with the mess we have), but it's a legally-protected privilege to vote however the hell you want. We've got to think long and hard before thinking about curtailing that (a thought these discussions often come to).


Bad Memory

[Cless Alvein]

Ignorance, plain and simple.

Buddhists are atheists (or at least "nontheist") yet you won't see quite the same discrimination here because they are "spiritual" and believe *something*. Therefore they receive the same religious protection against criticism that rises up from the prevailing "belief in belief" that most mainstream Christians actually practice. Gjallarhorn illustrates well that people are brainwashed into thinking that morals and goodness depend on religion and God, despite all evidence being to the contrary. Maher, Carlin and Dawkins do/did nothing but make good point after good point, yet you would think the spokesman for atheism was Usama bin Laden when you look at the discrimination atheists face.

The Founding Fathers would turn in their graves if they could hear Americans saying today that we are a Christian Nation. By and large they thought the doctrines of the Christian church were a joke, if only they weren't too malicious and poisonous to be laughed at. So here's your somber thought for the day - none of the founding fathers of America could get elected to political office in America if they were alive today. That's how far we've come (fallen?).

The terrible irony of the prejudice against atheism is that the more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to be atheist.

[OminousCloud]

How does one go to war for God when one does not believe in Him?

[-GAZKUL-]

How does one go to war for God when one does not believe in Him?

you could go to war out of love of your country or because you believe in the cause for which you are fighting.

I'm an Agnosto-Atheist in that i have sat down and decided that if there is a god then they wouldn't let the various injustices and tragedies happen. If a god can let millions of innocent people starve to death or die in earthquakes/floods etc then he/she either dislikes life or isn't powerful enough to change things, either way i don't think it's right. But i'd like to think there's a god so haven't totally ruled out the possibility.

Atheism merely looks at the evidence for and against and draws a logical conclusion. On the congress issue it's probably residue from the Cold War, the association of Atheism with Communism can stereotype the older generation into stigmatizing against it.

[ELR]

Religion is just an excuse to think you're better than others.

Atheism merely looks at the evidence for and against and draws a logical conclusion. On the congress issue it's probably residue from the Cold War, the association of Atheism with Communism can stereotype the older generation into stigmatizing against it.

Not all people who have a religion believe in their god and not everyone believes they are better than others. Rethink that for a bit.

Logical outlooks are not specified towards just Atheism but for those who seek something more. And stereotyping for the future is like thinking a card can predict who you marry. I enjoy reading the cards but that doesn't mean they speak the truth.

The Cold War is a good place to begin with the religious aspect we all see in the congress, and in the government. Of course, it could also begin while the everything was beginning to come around, with George Washington and the others during that time period, it was built around the idea of God blessing them with such a place and land.

[Senjou_Akira]

I think it is could because of the usual image of a religious person being so good and ideal. well, it is true, but i've seen a lot of politicians who is said and claimed to be religious but has a lot of dirty stuff under their sleeves

[under the rain]

Because separation of church and state is no longer as important as it once was, and because religious people make up the majority of the population.

[-GAZKUL-]

This interested me and so i did a little research which revealed that 45.7% of Brits have no religion or are undecided, compared to the USA's 15%. As a whole Europe came in at 18%. The Highest percentage of population not believing in god was highest in Estonia with 84% not believing in a god compared to the lowest in Turkey with only 5% not believing in a God. The total non-religious population form 14.09% of the worlds total population, with the highest density's of religious belief in Africa, The Middle East and Northern South America with the lowest being in Europe, Northern Asia and Southern Oceania.

All statistics courtesy of Wikipedia

[Cless Alvein]

This interested me and so i did a little research which revealed that 45.7% of Brits have no religion or are undecided, compared to the USA's 15%.

I'm sure all the numbers are more complicated but I'll focus on America. That 15% number is actually a combination of what is first counted as 7 different groups: None, No religion, Humanistic, Ethical Culture, Agnostic, Atheist, Secular. Personally this amuses me from the very beginning, because it shows that religious belief is so muddled that a large number of people don't even know how to self-identify. (I consider myself an agnostic atheist secular humanist - do I count four times?). This is furthered by the example that only about 1% self-identify as Agnostic, but about 10% give an Agnostic answer (5.7% "soft" and 4.3% "hard") when asked to actually explain their beliefs.

Consider further that Americans are about 76% Christian but only 69.5% believe in a personal God, and that's counting other religions. This implies that there are millions of self-professed American Christians who don't adhere to their own doctrine and are Christian in name only. There's additionally a very large number of self-identified generic Christians with no denomination or sect. This is also indicative of what I said earlier about a "belief in belief" as Christians are starting to ignore the teachings of the Bible in favor of a fuzzy, abstract idea of "salvation" instead. A startling 12% of Americans demonstrate Deist beliefs (this is widely accepted to be what most of the "big name" founding fathers of America were) which is basically belief in a higher power but not a personal God (this is what Wiccans believe, by the way).

http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/A...eport_2008.pdf

It's worth noting that America is a novelty in terms of being a developed nation with such a high number of people claiming religious ties, and some of these statistics suggest that may be as much a social difference as it is a belief one.