Wed Jan 17, 2018, 02:38 PM

Why the dearth of atheist politicians?

Last edited Wed Jan 17, 2018, 07:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Here is what we know from surveys:
1. at least 10% of the population is atheist/agnostic
2. there is a strong correlation between level of education and not believing in god (calm down, I'm not arguing causation)

Given that there are upwards of 600 people in political positions in Washington DC, it would seem statistically that 60 of them would be atheists. And there should be more given the education levels of those people.

Yet there are fewer than a handful that openly identify as atheist. Why? I think it is political suicide to indicate that one is an atheist. So those that are (and there HAS to be that there are some) have to pass as believers. How does that add to the "see, religious people do great things" when that person may not actually be religious but just need to say they are to do the job they do?

130 replies, 6207 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

130 replies	Author	Time	Post
Why the dearth of atheist politicians? (Original post)	Cuthbert Allgood	Jan 2018	OP
It's hard to get replies when you answer your own question. Correctly, I might add. n/t	rzemanfl	Jan 2018	#1
Good point. But I could be wrong.	Cuthbert Allgood	Jan 2018	#6
Not this time IMO. I am reminded of what my long dead Bohemian immigrant	rzemanfl	Jan 2018	#10
How do we know there aren't more (atheist) politicians?	hlthe2b	Jan 2018	#2
It's very hard to count them when we don't know who they are.	Mariana	Jan 2018	#5
Amazing attempt at framing.	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#12
Yes, constant.	trotsky	Jan 2018	#13
Amazing.	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#14
And this part is the most amazing:	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#15
If they're not believers, then what are they, gil?	trotsky	Jan 2018	#16
I am still recovering from my amazement.	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#17
You take all the time you need.	trotsky	Jan 2018	#40
Please see the thread I've linked to	Mariana	Jan 2018	#37
Saying he is no Christian does not imply that he is an atheist.	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#45
You're being awfully pedantic for a guy who treats words like they have no objective meaning.	Act_of_Reparation	Jan 2018	#47
Which ignores my actual point.	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#49
My point is your point is pedantic bullshittery.	Act_of_Reparation	Jan 2018	#50
Weak attempt at deflection.	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#53
This is a web forum, not a fucking formal debate.	Act_of_Reparation	Jan 2018	#59
Maybe you should read the poster's reply to me.	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#62
Maybe you should read the poster's reply to you.	Act_of_Reparation	Jan 2018	#65
Good grief, you'd have no time to do anything else.	Mariana	Jan 2018	#89
I usually interpret it as calling them hypocrites	marylandblue	Jan 2018	#99
I've asked some of them to elaborate	Mariana	Jan 2018	#101
Heretics maybe?	marylandblue	Jan 2018	#105
I agree with you, I don't think many people do follow through on that.	trotsky	Jan 2018	#102
Here's one	Act_of_Reparation	Jan 2018	#104
Well there ya go.	trotsky	Jan 2018	#111
Here's another	Act_of_Reparation	Jan 2018	#120
There are a couple in this thread, so far.	Mariana	Jan 2018	#122
More. It's a busy day.	Mariana	Jan 2018	#123
Pseudochristians!	Mariana	Jan 2018	#124
Faux Christians who are really agents of Satan.	Mariana	Jan 2018	#125
I wonder why gil hasn't acknowledged any of these?	trotsky	Jan 2018	#126
There are several instances in this thread.	Mariana	Jan 2018	#127
These assholes are not Christian!	Mariana	Jan 2018	#128
These so-called "Christians"	Mariana	Jan 2018	#129
These fake christians 'hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil'	Mariana	Jan 2018	#130
So ignored points are correct?	Lordquinton	Jan 2018	#92
What does it imply then?	trotsky	Jan 2018	#52
Ask those who responded in that fashion.	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#57
You already claimed you know what they DIDN'T mean.	trotsky	Jan 2018	#63
And you misread my reply once again.	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#71
Oh no, I'm seeing everything perfectly clearly.	trotsky	Jan 2018	#74
Right.	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#75
I have asked some of the posters who say that.	Mariana	Jan 2018	#97
I cannot answer for them, or for that.	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#107
You might think that, but it's not true.	Mariana	Jan 2018	#109
They might feel unwilling to engage on that subject.	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#112
So if you take him at his word, then he is a Christian.	Cuthbert Allgood	Jan 2018	#55
You are reading far too much into the available evidence.	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#58
So in that thread when they say Ryan isn't a Christian, they mean he's a Jew?	Cuthbert Allgood	Jan 2018	#60
Another interesting attempt.	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#64
You tell me. What are they saying then?	Cuthbert Allgood	Jan 2018	#67
Ask those who responded in that manner.	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#73
You claimed to be, since you told us what they DIDN'T mean.	trotsky	Jan 2018	#69
Act_of_Reparation nailed it above.	trotsky	Jan 2018	#68
Certainly.	Cuthbert Allgood	Jan 2018	#7
"Some of them have to be".	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#18
Well, I spelled it out in the OP, but here it is again.	Cuthbert Allgood	Jan 2018	#23
"Should be" is merely your own wish.	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#25
You really don't understand statistics, do you?	Cuthbert Allgood	Jan 2018	#26
I understand statistics, to a degree,	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#31
The percentage of lefties is not that high.	MineralMan	Jan 2018	#36
If that group is a representative sample...	Act_of_Reparation	Jan 2018	#51
Who decided that Congress, or politicians, are a representative samle?	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#56
Are you having trouble reading the OP, or remembering the OP?	Act_of_Reparation	Jan 2018	#61
The poster is speculating that some members	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#70
Do you think it is odd that the percentage of white people in the Senate	Cuthbert Allgood	Jan 2018	#66
There is a reason that the Senate is basically a white, male, millionaires club.	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#72
Why did you omit Christian from your list?	Lordquinton	Jan 2018	#94
NO need to state what is obvious,	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#106
That's how you're going to frame it?	Lordquinton	Jan 2018	#108
Ok, so you actually don't understand statistics	Lordquinton	Jan 2018	#93
Bill Maher said it best	PJMcK	Jan 2018	#3
Agreed.	Cuthbert Allgood	Jan 2018	#8
I believe the "dirth" is of politicians being honest about being atheist. n/t	PoliticAverse	Jan 2018	#4
Yup	Cuthbert Allgood	Jan 2018	#9
Well, if you cannot avoid the many progressive theists,	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#11
We don't know.	Mariana	Jan 2018	#19
I took exception to your framing.	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#22
Jesus fuck would you knock off this ridiculous "framing" bullshit accusation you do.	trotsky	Jan 2018	#42
Certainly.	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#48
I'm sure you find people making points you can't rebut tiring	Lordquinton	Jan 2018	#95
Most of your posts are framed like you don't own a level or a t-square so pluck the telephone pole	AtheistCrusader	Jan 2018	#79
The second poster who feels qualified to answer	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#81
Let me guess	Lordquinton	Jan 2018	#84
No. But I will give you some help.	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#87
So this isn't an open forum where anyone can respond?	Lordquinton	Jan 2018	#90
You asked a question.	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#91
Anything to try to distract from the actual topic.	Mariana	Jan 2018	#96
You frame all of your OP's. All of them.	AtheistCrusader	Jan 2018	#85
Do they not teach statistics	Lordquinton	Jan 2018	#20
And logic as well. eom	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#21
We don't know.	Cuthbert Allgood	Jan 2018	#24
No, statistics do not indicate that.	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#28
Yeah, they do.	Cuthbert Allgood	Jan 2018	#32
We don't.	AtheistCrusader	Jan 2018	#80
By an amzing coincidence,	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#82
Oh, are you one of those 'hairs on your head, stamped on your heart' believers?	AtheistCrusader	Jan 2018	#86
I have never heard this expression.	guillaumeb	Jan 2018	#88
Never read the bible huh?	AtheistCrusader	Jan 2018	#98
It's just from one of the gospels.	Cuthbert Allgood	Jan 2018	#100
Yes, an imminently quotable chapter.	Act_of_Reparation	Jan 2018	#103
Ignorance. Ps, thats spelled dearth.	FreepFryer	Jan 2018	#27
Derp. Thanks. My bad.	Cuthbert Allgood	Jan 2018	#29
In law and literature, proofreading is generally more effective than prayer :) (n/t)	FreepFryer	Jan 2018	#30
That's awesome. I have to remember that.	Cuthbert Allgood	Jan 2018	#33
Made it up on the spot (it figures, as Im an historian). :D	FreepFryer	Jan 2018	#34
You can't get elected if you worship the devil and eat babies.	Binkie The Clown	Jan 2018	#35
"... it would seem statistically that 60 of them would be atheists."	Jim__	Jan 2018	#38
Not arguing it is a completely random sample.	Cuthbert Allgood	Jan 2018	#39
Yes, it is not a random sample.	Jim__	Jan 2018	#46
But they would still be atheists. Just not out of the closet.	Cuthbert Allgood	Jan 2018	#54
If anything, they'd skew toward being more likely to be nonbelievers.	trotsky	Jan 2018	#44
I think the majority in just about every constituency is religious.	Mariana	Jan 2018	#41
Sure. But does that mean that the person is religious or just knows not to admit they aren't.	Cuthbert Allgood	Jan 2018	#43
There's no way to know.	Mariana	Jan 2018	#76
They're there. They just have to lie about it. (n/t)	Iggo	Jan 2018	#77
You can support taking safety nets from the poor as a Christian and claim moral superiority	Doodley	Jan 2018	#78
Religious people need to be reinforced in their beliefs	rock	Jan 2018	#83
I find it interesting that theists have taken this subject	Lordquinton	Jan 2018	#110
Well they have to make sure to dispel any notion that the religious might be bigoted.	trotsky	Jan 2018	#115
And so it goes	Lordquinton	Jan 2018	#116
Didn't notice	Lordquinton	Jan 2018	#118
Well it's important to make sure atheists understand:	trotsky	Jan 2018	#119
There are many more than 600 political positions in DC. Perhaps you mean to refer	struggle4progress	Jan 2018	#113
I'm talking about elected officials.	Cuthbert Allgood	Jan 2018	#117
A candidate needs an easily-understood message that communicates something to voters,	struggle4progress	Jan 2018	#121
Message auto-removed	Name removed	Jan 2018	#114

Response to Cuthbert Allgood (Original post)

Wed Jan 17, 2018, 02:53 PM

rzemanfl (29,126 posts)

Why the dearth of atheist politicians?

1. It's hard to get replies when you answer your own question. Correctly, I might add. n/t

6. Good point. But I could be wrong.

10. Not this time IMO. I am reminded of what my long dead Bohemian immigrant

2. How do we know there aren't more (atheist) politicians?

5. It's very hard to count them when we don't know who they are.

12. Amazing attempt at framing.

13. Yes, constant.

14. Amazing.

15. And this part is the most amazing:

16. If they're not believers, then what are they, gil?

17. I am still recovering from my amazement.

40. You take all the time you need.

37. Please see the thread I've linked to

45. Saying he is no Christian does not imply that he is an atheist.

47. You're being awfully pedantic for a guy who treats words like they have no objective meaning.

49. Which ignores my actual point.

50. My point is your point is pedantic bullshittery.

53. Weak attempt at deflection.

59. This is a web forum, not a fucking formal debate.

62. Maybe you should read the poster's reply to me.

65. Maybe you should read the poster's reply to you.

89. Good grief, you'd have no time to do anything else.

99. I usually interpret it as calling them hypocrites

101. I've asked some of them to elaborate

105. Heretics maybe?

102. I agree with you, I don't think many people do follow through on that.

104. Here's one

111. Well there ya go.

120. Here's another

122. There are a couple in this thread, so far.

123. More. It's a busy day.

124. Pseudochristians!

125. Faux Christians who are really agents of Satan.

126. I wonder why gil hasn't acknowledged any of these?

127. There are several instances in this thread.

128. These assholes are not Christian!

129. These so-called "Christians"

130. These fake christians 'hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil'

92. So ignored points are correct?

52. What does it imply then?

57. Ask those who responded in that fashion.

63. You already claimed you know what they DIDN'T mean.

71. And you misread my reply once again.

74. Oh no, I'm seeing everything perfectly clearly.

75. Right.

97. I have asked some of the posters who say that.

107. I cannot answer for them, or for that.

109. You might think that, but it's not true.

112. They might feel unwilling to engage on that subject.

55. So if you take him at his word, then he is a Christian.

58. You are reading far too much into the available evidence.

60. So in that thread when they say Ryan isn't a Christian, they mean he's a Jew?

64. Another interesting attempt.

67. You tell me. What are they saying then?

73. Ask those who responded in that manner.

69. You claimed to be, since you told us what they DIDN'T mean.

68. Act_of_Reparation nailed it above.

7. Certainly.

18. "Some of them have to be".

23. Well, I spelled it out in the OP, but here it is again.

25. "Should be" is merely your own wish.

26. You really don't understand statistics, do you?

31. I understand statistics, to a degree,

36. The percentage of lefties is not that high.

51. If that group is a representative sample...

56. Who decided that Congress, or politicians, are a representative samle?

61. Are you having trouble reading the OP, or remembering the OP?

70. The poster is speculating that some members

66. Do you think it is odd that the percentage of white people in the Senate

72. There is a reason that the Senate is basically a white, male, millionaires club.

94. Why did you omit Christian from your list?

106. NO need to state what is obvious,

108. That's how you're going to frame it?

93. Ok, so you actually don't understand statistics

3. Bill Maher said it best

8. Agreed.

4. I believe the "dirth" is of politicians being honest about being atheist. n/t

9. Yup

11. Well, if you cannot avoid the many progressive theists,