Would You Vote For An Atheist?

[rug]

Thu, Jan 29, 2015
by Peter Guthrie

As speculation about the 2016 presidential election begins to heat up, many Americans are wondering if Hillary Clinton could become the first female president of the United States. Following the election of the nation’s first African American president in 2008, this would be a powerful reminder of how old prejudices are crumbling as the country moves deeper into the twenty-first century. Given these advances, it might seem startling at first to point out that one group of Americans has no hope of seeing one of its ranks in the Oval Office in 2017: atheists.

A 2011 Gallup poll reported that, for the first time, a majority of Americans said they would vote for a “well-qualified” atheist to be president. Since only 18 percent of Americans said they would support a nonbeliever in 1958, the 2011 poll represented a major step forward in the nation’s willingness to put an atheist in the White House.

But in spite of these gains, atheists with presidential ambitions still face serious, if not impossible, challenges. A 2014 Pew Research Center survey found that atheism remained the top negative trait for American voters. In fact, atheists continue to trail every other group polled, including gays and lesbians and Muslims. According to the Pew survey, even marijuana smokers and politicians who have had extramarital affairs are viewed more favorably than nonbelievers. Ouch.

Why does the prejudice against atheists persist when so many other groups (Catholics, African Americans, gays and lesbians, women) have gained acceptance as public office holders? Most researchers point out that the United States, unlike many European nations, remains a deeply religious country. Millions of Americans identify as evangelical Christians, whose lives revolve around their churches and their faith. And many of these Americans still seem deeply suspicious of people who don’t believe in God, viewing their lack of belief as a character flaw or an act of arrogance.

http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2015/01/29/politics-religion-2016-peter-guthrie

[cbayer]

1. Things have changed dramatically over the last 50 years and I suspect

that trend will continue.

I hope I live to see the day when religious affiliation or lack thereof becomes relatively meaningless. The US seems to be lagging behind may western countries in this regard.

Of course, saying that all religious people are mentally ill or have a disease that needs to be cured isn't going to help that cause, but fortunately that is a small and increasingly marginalized minority.

What matters most in the end, surely, is not the name one attaches to one’s system of beliefs, but the content of one’s character.

[merrily]

2. Depends on the atheist.

I would not rule in or rule out anyone simply because of atheism. That, in and of itself, would probably be irrelevant to me.

If, however, a candidate were openly

That, in and of itself, would probably be irrelevant to me. If, however, a candidate were hostile to religion, that might give me pause for Constitutional reasons. However, any atheist who tried to run for President being openly hostile to religion would probably lose anyway.

I would have great difficulty voting for a member of a cult, though, including the Fellowship/Family cult. Then again, a reporter once asserted to me that all religions are cults, though society gives the older ones a pass. So, I guess someone could ask me to define cult and I might be at a loss.


Dimson made such a deal of his religion. Having attended Wright's church became such an issue in Obama's campaign. Still, neither of them attended church services regularly for very long after becoming President. I don't know what is going on in evangelical churches about that, but the rest of America hasn't seemed to care.

The real issue, it seems to me, is putting more effort into separating church and state. If we did that, asking people what their religious beliefs are would become inappropriate in the mind of the public and the issue would go away, or at least diminish greatly. Instead, we put effort in being or seeming, if not holier than thou, at least as holy. And it doesn't work for us as a Party because we are pro-GLBT and pro-choice.

[LibDemAlways]

3. It's still important that US Presidents pretend to

be religious. Jimmy Carter was probably the last man of deeply held faith to hold the office. Most give it lip service. But, there's still a sizable chunk of the American populace for whom the label is important, so I would guess there will be no avowed athiest President in my lifetime.

[rug]

4. What turns me off about politicians is the constant posing.

Doesn't matter what it is. Baseball, religion, hot dogs, flag pins. I bet if one honest politician dropped the posing, people would be astounded at her success.

[cbayer]

5. I'm not so sure.

The track record of those who have just tried to be themselves doesn't seem very good.

People want to believe that they have something in common with the people they vote for.

[LibDemAlways]

6. The insincerity of the average politician is

off the charts. Very few are straight shooters. It doesn't seem to be in their DNA, and the voters seem to expect it. Reagan was an actor playing a part and won big. I, for one, would love to see a politician willing to discard the mask and be his or her genuine self, but I don't know if the public would know what to make of it. Would be an interesting experiment, though.

[2naSalit]

7. YUP!!!

And would have if there were one on the ballot in the past.

[cbayer]

8. Would that just be an added plus for a candidate

that you liked otherwise or would that be a major factor in your choice?

[2naSalit]

9. Depends...

If an atheist were on the ballot and a fundie-type were opposing, I'd certainly see that as a factor as the fundie-type probably wouldn't be able to see past their "faith" thus illustrating to me that they weren't able to separate church from state. But that doesn't exonerate the atheist from being a total psychopath about equality either. Those being extreme examples I would prefer that one's spiritual beliefs were not a campaign component for eligibility in the first place. What I want is separation of church and state in policy... Given the choice, since "faith" does make it into criteria for fitness of electability, I would probably lean toward the atheist should they run on that as a policy issue.

I'm normally an "issue voter" and make my voting choices based on that. I'm pretty burned out on religion whether foisted upon me in my personal life or politically... I would like to see it go away as a political wedge issue.

[cbayer]

10. I agree with you for the most part.

I would like it to be a non-issue, but I am very fundy-phobic and that would weigh pretty heavily in my decision. I think I would lean towards the atheist, all other things being equal, because I want to see the glass ceiling broken.

[2naSalit]

14. And I agree with that as well.

I didn't think about it too deeply when commenting earlier but I would have to agree that after some reflection I would probably weight that as a more important factor than implied earlier.

I have a hard time giving fundies the benefit of the doubt that they could actually see policy issues with regard to the lives of "others" outside their belief system.

On that point, I am definitely in agreement with you. Religion AND money out of politics is the only way for our system of governing, as written in the Constitution, is the only way it can work properly.

[cbayer]

15. I'm more optimistic about getting religion out than I am about getting money out.

Sidelining religion could happen as a process, but taking the money out would require a massive overhaul.

It's a shame, really.

When it comes to religion, I think I am more likely to not vote for someone who puts his religion on his sleeve, unless, as we said, s/he was part of an underrepresented group.

[2naSalit]

16. Indeed, the $$ part will require

some significant overhaul.

[jwirr]

11. If his/her policies were in line with mine - of course.

[rock]

12. Sure. I'm an atheist myself

But the case is all those running claim to be theists. I vote for them anyways. I assume they're lying so I've probably already voted for many atheists.

[LeftishBrit]

13. Of course. Have done several times. Will do in May.

It's not a question of voting for atheists because they're atheists, but that the party leaders I support are sometimes atheists; and the two MPs I've had in my life, whom I actually voted for (one Labour; one left-leaning LibDem) both happened to be atheists.

As you can gather, atheist politicians are much commoner in the UK than the USA.

ETA: While normally a candidate's faith or lack of it would not influence my choice, I would be particularly against anyone who was significantly linked to the political 'pro-life' movement, especially anyone who got elected wholly or in part because of vicious smears by pro-lifers against the opposition candidate (that includes my current MP!)

[Htom Sirveaux]

17. Certainly. I would also vote for a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a pagan, a Satanist, and any other

person who was qualified and had a platform I agreed with.

[NeoGreen]

18. I would postulate that every voter has already voted for an atheist...

...at some point in time upon performing their civil duty (at least those routine voters with a minimum numeric threshold of votes) whether they know it or not.

[PosterChild]

19. I would, and so should you...

...everything else being equal, admitting to being an atheist would put a candidate at such a disadvantage that only someone of exceptional courage , integrity and truthfulness would do so. And thus should qualify her over and above any others.

Vote athiest! You know what you are getting!

[rug]

20. Considerng this is the most recent politician to announce his atheism, I'd need more than that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218178581

[PosterChild]

21. Au Contraire....

he could only confess that he was an atheist because he was standing down at the next election

.

My thesis holds.

[rug]

22. Then consider an additional thesis: atheism is not synonymous with liberalism or progressivism.

[PosterChild]

23. You are absolutely right, and...

Just to give credit where credit is due, it's not really my thesis. It's Jeremy Bentham's, from his Rational of Judicial Evidence. He was arguing against prohibitions against atheists being able to give testimony in court, presumably because they are of low character and moral standards, and prone to lying and deception. Au contraire!

Bentham was a pretty clever fellow.

[rug]

24. Wow, that's an oldie.

These days, the problem is not atheists falsely testifying in court but police testilying from the witness stand.

[PosterChild]

25. An oldie, but a goodie...

Bentham's dictum was to let the light of evidence to shine in. He believed that jurors, face to face with witnesses giving testimony and being cross examined, are best able to discern truth from deception.

The defence gets to cross examine any officer who testifies.

[rug]

26. Are you from the UK and involved with law in any way?

[PosterChild]

32. No, and no...

... I'm USA, all the way. I have a degree in philosophy from the U of Chicago, with an emphasis on political philosophy. My Bachalor thesis was on the 5th amendment; my advisor was Alan Gewirth. When I went in to discuss my topic with him, he rattled off five or so books that I should pay attention to, and Rational of Judicial Evidence was one of them.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Gewirth

[rug]

35. Ah. You were fortunate to know him.

[Agnosticsherbet]

27. Being an Atheist is irreleant. If a candidate supports polices that I think are important

I will vote for the candidate.

[babylonsister]

28. I surely would. I'd also vote for a Buddhist.

I'd vote for anyone who doesn't let religion cloud their thinking, unless it's in a good way.

[Laffy Kat]

29. Are you kidding me?

Absolutely! That's not my one deciding factor, but it would sure help.

[lordsummerisle]

30. In South Carolina

and a handful of other Southern states, you can't hold public office in the state if you're (an avowed) non-believer.
Folks also like their Presidents to be family men. I believe there's only been one bachelor elected President, which should give Lindsey Graham something to think about...

[cbayer]

36. This is not accurate. The SCOTUS made all of those laws impotent many years ago.

Although they remain on the books in some states, they are completely unenforceable.

This is a meme that needs to be abandoned, as it is perpetuating a falsehood.

[lordsummerisle]

37. If they're still on the books

then what I said was technically accurate.
Being unenforceable/unconstitutional is another matter...

[cbayer]

38. There is a movement afoot to have them all removed.

Although it is merely a formality at this point, I would like to see them all go away.

I also think it's important to not let people believe that there are places where atheists are legally barred from office. The barriers are very real, but this is not one of them.

[Mike Nelson]

31. Yes, I think...

...having an atheist Pres. might be an advantage!

[DonCoquixote]

33. yes

but the person would need to stay clear of things that I would dislike regardless of any religion, such as restrictign access to abortions.

[truebluegreen]

34. For me it would be a sellling point. nt

[mmonk]

39. If I agreed with their political positions.

I don't consider a person's religion or lack of when dealing with issues of governing.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

40. Yes.