Nonreligious Americans Remain Far Underrepresented In Congress

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

One in five Americans is religiously unaffiliated. Yet just one of 535 members of the new Congress is......

Only Arizona Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema admits to being "unaffiliated," which Pew defines as people who are atheist, agnostic or who describe their religion as "nothing in particular.".......

Why the massive gap? For one, religiously unaffiliated people tend to be young, and Congress just isn't that young.

To read more:

https://www.npr.org/2017/01/03/508037656/non-religious-americans-remain-far-underrepresented-in-congress

And even using Pew's own definition, unaffiliated can mean "nothing in particular", which could mean spiritual but not a member of an organized religion.

[trotsky]

1. We can always count on you to punch down on atheists, gil.

Thanks.

[guillaumeb]

17. If you read the article,

how did you arrive at your conclusion?

It said nothing negative about atheists.

An article is more than the sum of the words in the title.

[trotsky]

29. I'm not talking about the article.

I'm talking about YOU.

[guillaumeb]

41. Well, you are talking about your impression,

based on your own rather unique interpretation of what my words mean and what you feel that they reveal.

[trotsky]

58. I'm talking about your editorializing.

And your need to punch down.

It's pretty transparent to everyone, you know.

[guillaumeb]

62. And your own constant editorializing?

What does that reveal about you to others?

[trotsky]

63. That I criticize bigots who try and justify their bigotry because they're in the majority.

Pretty simple.

[guillaumeb]

64. Simple, yes.

And the underlying motivation is quite obvious. Perhaps too obvious.

[trotsky]

65. The underlying motivation is to make all bigots uncomfortable and invite/absorb their attacks.

It works, too.

[guillaumeb]

66. There are stated motives,

and there are underlying motives. Just as their is a person's self-image, and the image that others see.

Many times these images and motivations are very different, agreed?

[trotsky]

67. And then there are imagined motives that reveal one's biases and prejudices.

Thank you for providing good examples of motives.

[guillaumeb]

75. And you also.

[SCantiGOP]

2. Not sure what point you are trying to make

but your signature line is a doozy.
Tyson's area of expertise is the universe and its origins and functioning. So what field would you have him stay out of? Are you more qualified than he is to use your blind faith to explain things?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

3. Just wait until you hear the explanation.

It makes it even worse. I'll let him give it to you.

[AtheistCrusader]

5. I highly doubt he's going to risk even discussing it.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

9. Seemed pretty damn proud of it last time.

[guillaumeb]

18. Glad you liked it.

[Lordquinton]

36. In other words

[Irish_Dem]

53. Guillaume, maybe it is your sig line that makes everyone crazy and want to bar fight

with you. How about a sig line makeover?

I think you said you had Jesuit training, how about something really nice from a famous Jesuit? Lots of nice quotes.

J'essaye de t'aider. Vous êtes attaqué tout le temps.

[guillaumeb]

60. If my sig line stated that Neal deGrasse Tyson was my hero,

my defense of theism from the various attacks here would mean that nothing would change.

Et je comprends l'objectif.

It is the defense of theism that motivates some few here, and it is a very few, who obviously feel that this group should only focus on the negatives of theism.

[marylandblue]

69. Your sig line should not attack Tyson

If you want to defend religion against atheists, it should have a positive quote from a religious figure, not make an absurd attack on Tyson, who is agnostic. Won't solve all your problems, but it would be a small, tiny, little baby step towards more positive interactions, in accordance with your stated goal.

[trotsky]

72. It certainly reveals what his true priorities are. n/t

[guillaumeb]

77. A tiny step toward positivity?

In the interest of positivity, and as a test, I shall follow your advice and change the line.

[marylandblue]

81. Ok, thanks for that, but

What are you testing for?

[Irish_Dem]

70. I hear you, wouldn't make a difference.

The religion group seems to be a place where bullies come to have some fun.
They don't seem interested in discussion, or the content.
Just want to have drunken bar fights.

Maybe you should start a Fight Group.
Probably would be nice and peaceful compared to the Religion Group.

[marylandblue]

71. It's not just the sig line

Gil has his own agenda that makes it seem he doesn't want real discussion, but would rather just score points with his own unseen choir.

[Irish_Dem]

76. I had not noticed that, maybe I missed it. What is his agenda do you think?

Is he pushing Christianity?

[MineralMan]

4. Do we? I don't think so.

Nonreligious Americans do not represent any particular political position. We vote for our representation, not based on the religious beliefs of candidates, but on what they tell us about their position on issues.

I'm a Democrat. I vote for Democrats. Their religion has nothing to do with my vote. In fact, I've never even inquired into the religious beliefs of a candidate.

I'm an atheist, but I don't insist that anyone else be an atheist.

The bottom line is that we atheists and nonbelievers are a minority, but only on a religious basis. I don't give a damn what religion my Democratic nominee follows, as long as he or she is a progressive.

Everything does not revolve around religion, Guy, despite your apparent belief that it does.

[Act_of_Reparation]

7. It matters a great deal, actually.

A more diverse legislature produces, in theory, more broadly appealing legislation. And there is a stunning lack of religious diversity in Congress.

[MineralMan]

10. I doubt very much that there will be much change.

Nones and nonbelievers are still a minority, pretty much everywhere. Until that changes, I don't expect much of an increase in open nonbelievers in office.

It is what it is, I'm afraid.

[Act_of_Reparation]

13. I don't think so.

The trouble with atheism isn't that it is in the minority, but that it is not normalized.

[MineralMan]

14. It's also not organized nor unified.

There are far right atheists, far left atheists, atheists in the middle, and atheists who, frankly, don't give a damn.

The only thing you can say about atheists in general is that they don't believe that deities and similar entities exist. Beyond that, there's nothing they all have in common, really.

[Act_of_Reparation]

38. I don't believe that's true. I also don't think it matters.

Atheists/Unaffiliated are overwhelmingly Democratic. More so than any other demographic.

But does it matter? There's nothing ideological binding LGBT+ people together, either.

[guillaumeb]

23. Could one expect that in a majority Hindu country that the majority of

elected politicians might be Hindu?

[Bradshaw3]

30. Missing the point bigly here with your India analogy

It's not that a majority of elected officials here in our "Christian" nation identify as Christian with a few other religions included. It's that very nearly all identify as religious while, what, ONE out of 535 in Congress don't, even though at least 10 percent of the population identifies as the latter. That isn't a majority/minority thing, it's a complete lack of representation of a group that is bigger than the percentage of Jewish-Americans for example, who are represented across the country.

The reason is that it is still not OK in many people's minds in our nation to be non-religious generally and atheist specifically. That is just one demonstration of how religion has come to dominate our political environment, to the detriment of our democracy.

[guillaumeb]

43. And how would you correct this imbalance?

Or what would be a start toward such a correction?

[Bradshaw3]

47. My point was about some not acknowledging the total lack of representation for millions of Americans

who are not religious. While at the same time there is an outsized influence of religion on our current politics. When that is addressed maybe I would talk about solutions.

[guillaumeb]

48. If these millions are spread among all 438 Congressional Districts,

at some point, some of them must run for office as Democrats and/or Republicans. And nothing prevents them from making no mention of their faith or lack of.

Jamie Raskin states that he is a humanist, and does not say he has religious beliefs.

And if the vast majority of people are theists, that is one reason that theists make up the majority in every category except non-theists.

[marylandblue]

54. Raskin's my rep and he says he is Jewish

and a humanist.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/05/04/the-man-billed-as-the-first-atheist-bound-for-congress-isnt-actually-an-atheist-at-all/?sw_bypass=true&utm_term=.441450d03304

[Bradshaw3]

55. Disingenuous at best to lay this situation at the feet of the non-religious

Nothing prevents them from mentioning it? How about intolerance on the part of the "religious" types who run this country and the fact that religiosity is required to even be considered a viable candidate. The reasons for that are undemocratic at best and fascistic at worst.

Again you refuse to address the basic point, which is - for the last time - that there is NO representation (oh I'm sorry ONE congressman) of the the non-religious - a fact which is obvious but you seem not to be able to address at all, except to say it's their own fault.

The vast majority as you put it does not mean ALL - if we truly have a representative democracy then we should have a number of non-religious officials in our government. Most people on this forum look at larger factors affecting Americans' lives - such as race playing a role in poverty - rather than blaming the victim as your perspective does. You seem to be endorsing this imbalance by shifting blame.

I see in thread after thread that you get accused of not debating honestly which is why I tried to give you another chance to admit the obvious. Alas, that hope died as does this sub-thread. I'm not saying you kill threads with these tactics, but you always seem to be around the corpse.

[guillaumeb]

61. I did not say ALL.

And I posted the actual article to highlight the issue, but that was ignored by every responder.

And speaking of honest debate, look at your own response with its framing.

[trotsky]

73. "nothing prevents them from making no mention of their faith or lack of."

Except the bigotry of the religious who would need to vote for them, and who in surveys have revealed that they by and large will refuse to do, regardless or party or platform.

[guillaumeb]

78. Read what I said.

If they make no mention of their beliefs, or their ideas, or their feelings on theism, your point, while correct, is moot.

[trotsky]

82. I did.

My point remains. You really need to actually try and provide some reasoning for your position.

[Act_of_Reparation]

39. We literally just explained to you how statistical representativeness works.

Were you not paying attention? Or have you already forgotten?

If in a population 90% of people are right-handed and 10% of people are left handed, a random, unbiased sampling of said population should be 90% righties, and 10% lefties. If there is significant variance in one direction or the other, we have to conclude there is bias, and then determine the source of the bias.

[guillaumeb]

15. If you look at the top line in your screen,

You might have noticed this:

DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Religion (Group) » Nonreligious Americans Re... » Post a Reply

And that is why I posted this article here in the religion group.

[MineralMan]

16. Yes, and...

I posted a couple of replies in your thread. You might want to read them. I take exception to your position and what you quoted. I'm allowed to do that, I believe.

Let me get this clear: Are you saying my reply to your post is out of place in this group? Do tell...

[guillaumeb]

21. You wrote:

Everything does not revolve around religion, Guy, despite your apparent belief that it does.

And I gently reminded you that this IS the religion group. SO, one should expect the posts to have a religious overtone.

[MineralMan]

24. Oh, dear...

Your post had a religious overtone. So did my reply, where I addressed the fact that nonbelievers have little else in common other than their nonbelief. You applied religion to representation, and I explained that I am well represented, regardless of my representatives' beliefs, since I do not rely on their religion, but their positions.

I am a nonbeliever. I am an atheist. I am also very well represented by the politicians elected in my districts and state. Religion has nothing to do with their excellent representation.

Religion, in this case, is irrelevant. However, it is the topic of this thread, which I have addressed quite clearly.

So, what does religion have to do with Neil DeGrasse Tyson? He is not a believer, either. Like me, he has an opinion, and you direct a recommendation to him in every post you make.

I don't need any reminders of the topic of this Group, gentle or otherwise, thank you very much.

[guillaumeb]

25. To your last sentence, following your example.

As to my signature line, perhaps you should create a post and examine that issue if it interests you so much. I will not, however, go ahead and create one for you.

[MineralMan]

27. No, Guy. It's your signature line. It's your privilege to say

whatever you wish in your signature line. Apparently, you feel qualified to tell a prominent scientist what he should and should not write about. I can't see why you'd feel that way, but apparently you do.

Perhaps you actually are qualified in some way. I'd welcome seeing your credentials.

[trotsky]

34. It's a direct response to my sig line.

Which has bothered him IMMENSELY for as long as I've had it.

Pretty funny, actually, how much it bothers him.

[Lordquinton]

44. Would you say it's his inspiration?

Are you flattered?

[trotsky]

56. More like an obsession.

And I just find it hilarious.

[MineralMan]

45. I know. But never mind.

[guillaumeb]

49. A mind reader?

Amazing.

[trotsky]

57. Nope, just stating the obvious.

I love how much it bothers you, really.

[yallerdawg]

6. Politics is much about networking, social skills, public speaking.

I would think belonging to religious organizations hones those skills, especially if you become good at it.

This repeated exposure to an organized mission of 'service to others' could also lead to political aspirations.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

8. Well that's just insulting.

So now religion is also responsible for making you better at social skills and public speaking? I have to change the curriculum for my Intro to Public Speaking class then. Just go to church, kids. It will make you a better speaker.

[MineralMan]

11. That reminds me of some HS football coach insisting that

only participation in team sports promoted leadership, competitiveness and teamwork.

When I was in high school, there was a coach who was always going on about that. He did that spiel once at a school board meeting I attended. They were considering cutting the budget for the school band. When he was done, I got up and spent an equal amount of time detailing how being in the band taught all those same things, and gave examples of why that was so. I was the band's drum major. I even compared the band's numbers to the school's organized sports teams. We had 100 members of the band in a school with less than 500 students. Even at 17 years of age, I never could stand people who argued nonsense. I was also a better speaker than Coach was.

The band's budget didn't get cut. The coach hated my guts. Screw him.

[guillaumeb]

19. Networking definitely.

And the fact remains that theists are in the majority in the country, so it stands to reason that they will be a majority in most groupings.

The matter of trust is a different story.

And the fact is that men are far overrepresented in elected government positions as well.

[yallerdawg]

26. Just an observation.

Down here in Alabama, quite a number of campaigns - including a lot of Democrats! - very much resemble and feel like traditional Tent Camp Meetings.

Town Council, City Council, and County Commission meetings typically start off as prayer fests, and speakers are often pushing church-related issues in the meetings.

In the immortal words of some Millenial somewhere, "It is what it is."

These environments are not conducive to promoting women or the irreligious.

Merely an observation on my part.

[guillaumeb]

40. An interesting observation.

In my area of Chicago, there are group meetings of local churches. These meetings are generally equally represented as far as female/male balance.

In one of the social justice groups that I belong to, the ratio is about 1 to 1 of theists and non-theists. This might be the exception.

[Irish_Dem]

52. I really object to attending local council/county meetings and being made to listen to prayers

and what not.

I am spiritual, but I pray on my own time.
Not in public, and I for sure do not make others pray with me.

And I do not care for the fundamentalist/evangelical type prayers
which seem foreign to me. The prayers of other religions seem more to my
liking, but that is beside the point. Prayers don't belong in government meetings.

[MineralMan]

12. WRT your signature line:

What exactly is YOUR particular area of expertise? Seems to me that Tyson does stick to his, but I have no idea what your area of expertise might be.

I'll wait here.

BTW, here's a link to the Wikipedia article on him. Pretty impressive, I think:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson

So, can you link to some source that explains your expertise? It's not in evidence here.

[guillaumeb]

20. Tyson is fond of making pronouncements about religion.

In this, he is expressing his personal opinion. His expertise is in his field.

[MineralMan]

22. He's a cosmologist, among other things.

Religion addresses cosmology.

However, his opinion is as valid as yours or mine. I can see no reason whatsoever why he should not express his opinion, as you so often do.

He seems to me to be a very intelligent man, and a very logical thinker. That means that his opinion is one I will consider if he expresses it.

You also have opinions. I rarely find those opinions useful. You may feel the same about my opinions.

It's a bit odd that you single out this prominent scientist for your scorn, though. At least, I find it so.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

28. Still taking that quotation out of context, I see.

Even after it was clearly explained to you.

[yallerdawg]

31. I STILL get the humor and playfulness of your 'original' signature version!

I bet Mr. Tyson would have appreciated it!

He still retains HIS sense of humor!

[marylandblue]

46. I think Tyson would think it idiotic eom

[marylandblue]

33. His PhD is in astrophysics, but his profession is science education

Which includes, among other things, the historical relationship between religion and science, which he has studied as part of his career as a science educator. So in discussing the god of the gaps argument as it relates to scientific progress, he is in fact sticking to his area of expertise.

My career, too, has given me expertise in broad areas outside what I studied in school or the work I did immediately upon graduating.

What have you been doing since you graduated? Only the things you actually studied in school? That would be an unusually narrow career.

[guillaumeb]

50. It would be indeed.

Referring to your last comment.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Links/source?

For the longest time he wouldn't even say he was atheist/agnostic or in any way identify his faith or lack thereof.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

32. I think at least some people who are nonbelievers, agnostics or unaffiliated

might be afraid to admit it, since in many parts of the country candidates for office who are not practicing Christians have a hell of a time getting elected to anything. There is a huge bias against "unchurched" people in politics notwithstanding the Constitution's prohibition against a religious test for public office. You have to announce that the Bible is your favorite book and Jesus is your most admired person and you have to be seen attending church at least intermittently. In the South you had better be a Baptist (Catholics might still be suspect in some areas); elsewhere any Christian church will do, except in Utah where you have to be Mormon. Being Jewish is probably OK in most big cities, and a few Muslims have been elected in some very liberal areas. But if you let it be known that you are a nonbeliever you might as well admit to child molestation (in Alabama it appears that child molesters are actually held in higher esteem than atheists).

[guillaumeb]

42. Sadly, this does seem correct. eom

[Lordquinton]

35. Thanks for the framing

But please keep it.

[Irish_Dem]

51. I think there should be separation between church and state.

A person should not have to be a practicing Christian to hold office.
A person's religion should not be part of the equation in electing officials.

[guillaumeb]

59. True, but how can more non-theists get elected?

Even Muslims are regarded as less trustworthy, another point of the survey that no one commented on.

[Irish_Dem]

68. You miss my point. I am against voting for a person based on religion or non religion.

Religious or non religious beliefs should not be part of the voting process.
It is illegal to do religious tests for any other job selection process.
Elected officials should be the same.

Whether someone believes in God or not, should not be an issue.

I think politicians should keep their mouths shut about their religious beliefs.

[guillaumeb]

79. I agree. It should not be an issue.

I believe in separation of church and state.

[trotsky]

74. Maybe it would help if you would stop constantly having to promote one of your favorite points...

that non-believers are abnormal, different, unlike the rest of humanity. Eh?

[guillaumeb]

80. More misframing?

Non-believers are one subset of humanity. That is one of my points. Normal/abnormal does not enter the equation, unless you are accusing me of somehow denigrating non-theists.

[trotsky]

83. Nope. The only "misframing" is your own.

It is obvious to all what your agenda is.

[guillaumeb]

84. Something is obvious to many of us.

Others here deny the obvious in favor of pursuing an agenda that is also obvious.

[trotsky]

85. I wish more Christians actually spent their time showing what good Christian behavior is like.

Do you?

[guillaumeb]

86. And you?

How do you see the behavior of some non-theists here?

[Lordquinton]

87. That is not an answer to his question

More of a

[trotsky]

88. Non-theists don't all claim to follow a particular moral code.

Christians do.

Do you behave like you think a Christian should, gil?