Atheism doesn't poll well. That begs the question of....... why?

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

It's true that Americans remain at least somewhat open to atheist officeholders. In one regular polling question, Gallup asks Americans what types of people they would (or would not) vote for as president. For example, 91 percent of Americans say they would vote for a Jew and 81 percent say a Mormon. Fifty-eight percent of Americans would vote for an atheist. That's not only a majority but a record high for atheists.

To read more:

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

NOTE: As some may have noted, this is the same article that I cited in a previous post about the under representation of atheists among politicians. But I felt it deserved its own stand alone post.


According to the survey, 58% of voters would vote for an atheist. Obviously 58% is a majority so assuming that the respondents were being reasonably honest, why do the other 42% even care that a candidate might not be a theist?

Again, according to some surveys, most atheists identify as Democrats. So what would stop an open atheist from running in a Democratic primary? Among presumably more liberal voters, this should be a non-factor.

[marylandblue]

1. Most atheists are Democrats, but most Democrats are not atheists

So I'd imagine an atheist candidate would have a disadvantage among a significant portion of liberal voters. Also, it might be a point of attack in a general election, where the opponent might use atheist stereotypes against the atheist.

[guillaumeb]

2. But in a Democratic primary, if 58% of voters

trust atheists, and I italicize trust because in 2018 it astounds me that trust would even be an issue, presumably that means that a more liberal electorate would be willing to vote for an atheist, or agnostic, or an unaffiliated candidate.

And there is, to date, a total of 1 self-identified unaffiliated Congressperson.

[marylandblue]

10. In a dem primary, the difference on issues will be relatively small

Then issues of trust and perceived electability become more important.

[yallerdawg]

3. From Pew Research.

U.S. evangelical Christians are chilly toward atheists – and the feeling is mutual

[guillaumeb]

5. And many, if not most, evangelical Christians

are reliable GOP voters.

This survey is at variance from the other, but talking of Democratic voters, a more liberal voter should be expected to be more open to voting for the best candidate regardless of any position on faith.

Barack Obama and John McCain both identified as Christians, but Obama's positions on the issues were the deciding factor in my vote.

[yallerdawg]

9. And does that make any sense at all?

Which party most closely aligns with the biblical teachings of Christ?

There's something else going on here.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. Says you.

[guillaumeb]

31. Like racism?

[yallerdawg]

38. There is that.

Black congregation A.M.E. churches are virtually the very base of the Democratic Party in plenty of places without a doubt.

They had taken issue in the recent past with more "liberal" positions regarding abortion and homosexuality, another aspect of "socially conservative" Democrats.

But it didn't stop them from identifying as Democrats!

[guillaumeb]

40. Excellent observation.

Many theists vote for Democrats. Probably most Democratic voters are theists.

[walkingman]

4. What's the difference between an atheist and a phony religious person? It's easy

to claim to be religious. This is a meaningless question.

[guillaumeb]

6. In your opinion, what is a "phony religious person"?

It is a question about why people feel as they do.

[walkingman]

8. IMO - It is anyone that uses religion to advance their own interests without any adherence to

religious dogma. If you can speak you can say anything. That doesn't make it true. I personally think that a large number of people that claim to be religious are simply following the crowd.

[Lordquinton]

49. Here's an example you asked for in another thread

Glad you found it on your own.

[guillaumeb]

57. It found me. eom

[longship]

7. Because theists have portrayed non-believers as evil for centuries.

Atheists are reviled more than any other public segment. Apparently that's what theists want.

Of course, theists should know better than "beg this question". This result is by design.

There ya go, my friend.

[guillaumeb]

32. Some people need enemies.

Others prefer co-operation and alliance based on common goals.

[longship]

47. Who said anything about enemies?

One must first exhibit tolerance before one deserves cooperation. Theists have a rather horrible history of non-tolerance of non-believers. Blasphemy laws, for instance, are still extant in many countries, penalties for such too often include death.

Those types of people I choose not to ally with. More progressive theists, okay, the extent that they aren't always trying to bait me.

So, there you go.

[Lordquinton]

50. So are you totally ignoring what was just said to you?

You posted a question and now you turn it into some meaningless comment about some people being better than others. Who are the people that need enemies?

If you didn't speak in riddles we wouldn't need to ask so many clarifying questions.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. When races are in the 5X/4X% range, you don't take on a single extra scrap of baggage you

don't absolutely HAVE to carry across the finish line. That's why. Basic fucking math.

[Mariana]

12. The Bible says atheists are evil, many times, in the Old and the New Testaments.

Here are a just few examples, from the New Testament:

Romans 1 : 28-30 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done. They are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice. They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless. Although they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them.

Revelation 21 : 8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.

Titus 1 : 15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled.

[yallerdawg]

14. The Book also says we are all sinners.

I'm pretty sure if someone voted for an Atheist they'd be forgiven!

Especially if that Atheist promoted tolerant and inclusive values for ALL sinners as the Book also teaches!

[Mariana]

15. You're sure they'd be forgiven.

Is it sinful to vote for an atheist?

[yallerdawg]

16. I'm just following your lead.

"Quoting" the Book and all.

[Mariana]

17. Those really are quotes from the book.

The Bible has nothing good to say about atheists, to my knowledge, and plenty to say that is hateful. You may ignore those verses, but many Christians take them literally. That's just a fact.

Is it sinful to vote for an atheist?

[yallerdawg]

20. You're the authority.

All I was referencing is that same Book offers salvation for each and every sin we may commit if we are truly repentant.

That's what it also says in the Book you were "quoting" from.

[Mariana]

24. Is it sinful to vote for an atheist? nt.

[yallerdawg]

25. I understand your comment and citations to mean it is sinful.

The OP is about how few Atheists are in office.

You are proposing it is a sin to vote for an Atheist.

I am pointing out sin has never stopped anyone from "sinning."

[Mariana]

41. You are lying outright now. I didn't propose any such thing.

I asked you a very simple yes or no question.

Quote from yallerdawg in post #14: " I'm pretty sure if someone voted for an Atheist they'd be forgiven!"

My question to you: Is it sinful to vote for an atheist?

[yallerdawg]

43. I explained where my observation came from.

You posted about Atheists as identified in the Bible in an OP about why there are so few in office.

Calling me a liar is not conducive to a productive dialogue.

[Lordquinton]

51. Interesting how these simple yes/no questions can never be answered

And then they pontificate and lament that discussion can't happen.

[guillaumeb]

33. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Nothing about unbelief.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

55. "if we are truly repentant." Meaning we believe in god.

And the bible makes it clear that denying the holy spirit is the one unforgivable sin (Matthew 12:31). So an atheist that denies the existence of the holy spirit (so, every atheist) is going to hell.

And the Catholic Church makes it clear that even if you are a good person, if you had the ability to believe in Jesus and did not, you're in hell.

[marylandblue]

19. Unfortunately for the unbelievers, there is one sin that can't be forgiven

And that's the sin of not believing. Which I am not so worried about in the next world, but can cause believers to do horrible things to unbelievers in this world.

[yallerdawg]

21. Well, that's what you believe, anyway.

It's not the belief of every believer, though.

Most of the cruelties in the world are more political ideology than religious, people just confuse the two (deliberately).

[marylandblue]

22. I do not confuse them deliberately

Tell this man he is suffering for political rather than religious beliefs.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/saudi-court-sentences-man-to-10-years-2000-lashes-for-atheist-tweets

[yallerdawg]

23. And you don't see this as political control?

One of the most prominent features of Islam is its projection into the daily life of its believers as a compelling aspect of faith.

At the extreme end of it in the hardline Sunni country known as the Kingdom, it can be quite cruel as a political force.

[marylandblue]

26. You can find persecution of atheists in Christian countries too

http://iheu.org/psychiatric-detention-and-charges-against-atheist-show-soviet-era-abuse-of-psychiatry-apparently-alive-and-well-in-russia-today/

[yallerdawg]

27. And you see this as The State prosecuting Atheists as religious intolerance?

Not a return to Soviet-era political control as in the title of the article?

[marylandblue]

29. I think I'll put my answer in a new OP, because it really is a topic to itself.

[yallerdawg]

30. And I promise not to step all over your post.

[guillaumeb]

34. And persecution of theists in N. Korea.

Proving what exactly?

[marylandblue]

45. Persecution by religion is still persecution

[guillaumeb]

46. Persecution is a human behavior.

Related to tribalism.

[guillaumeb]

42. Master, how many times should we forgive?

"7 times 70" was the response.

The Koran also talks of the essentiality of forgiveness, even if some who follow it forget it. A very human reaction.

[marylandblue]

44. Religion often speaks out of both sides of its mouth

[Act_of_Reparation]

18. The poll has two serious experimental flaws...

...anyone with any training in social or behavioral sciences should be able to quickly identify.

First, the poll is asking people to self-report their attitudes. When asked, people will invariably present their ideal selves, their selves as they see them, or how they would like to be seen by others. This confounds the accuracy of the test.

Ideally, you'd test people implicit biases, the attitudes they aren't consciously aware of. Racism tests, for example, that ask people to self-report their racial attitudes invariably show a miraculous dearth of racism among respondents. Racism tests that prod at peoples' racial attitudes without them knowing it tend to present different results.

This isn't a jab at Gallup. Their polls are well-designed and generally useful. However, there are limitations to their usefulness that should be recognized when discussing these topics.

Second, there is the context of the question. It asks if voters would vote to elect an atheist candidate nominated by their party. The question assumes the party has put forth an atheist candidate, and that candidate is running against the opposition party. Because party identification is so strong, this is virtually a meaningless question. Of course party-affiliated voters are going to to vote for their party over the opposition.

The problem here is that the parties don't nominate atheist candidates. A more meaningful question would ask if affiliated voters would cast their votes for an atheist versus a person of faith in the primary election. It would help demonstrate what voters would do once the party identification variable-- a strongly confounding variable--was removed from the equation.

[guillaumeb]

35. But is it not necessary first that atheists run for office?

Or are you suggesting that atheists do not run for office because they feel that they will not be supported?

[Act_of_Reparation]

48. Was my post unclear?

[Lordquinton]

52. Yes or no questions are unclear

Even when one option leaves you supporting nazis, so your paragraphs must have sent people for a loop!

[applegrove]

28. Cause so many evangelicals and right wing Christians vote in racist snakes

Last edited Fri Jan 19, 2018, 10:20 PM - Edit history (1)

and are dependant on religion to make them feel good. Then they project who they would be without religion on atheists. And they would be racist snake voters: the wretched of the song 'Amazing Grace'. So they assume atheists would be the same. They are projecting who they would be without religion on people.

[guillaumeb]

36. An interesting observation.

To a degree, we all project when dealing with others. We cannot truly escape our own biases and background.

[applegrove]

37. Yes. Most people do. But the GOP weaponizes it.

[guillaumeb]

39. Weaponizes it very well.

The essence of the GOP pattern is to divide and weaken voters based on whatever will appeal.

And part of that weaponization is former advertising people like Karl Rove and Frank Luntz crafting messages that work. Combine that with computer driven gerrymandering and systematic voter suppression and it makes for a strong force.

[Lordquinton]

56. And Religion

Which you again omitted when making a rather extensive list.

[Binkie The Clown]

53. Cause if you're not FOR god you're AGAINST him, and only Satin is against god.

Or similar blindingly stupid "logic" along those lines.

These people see the world as divided into two kinds of people. Those who believe like they believe, and those who are evil, soulless, minions of the devil.

[Lunabell]

54. Because people are brainwashed

To think atheists are evil.

[guillaumeb]

59. Why do you think this is so?

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your premise, simply asking why you think this is true.

[Lunabell]

62. I'm on many facebook religion discussion groups

The hate and misconception is evident there. A lot think we're Satan worshippers and we don't even believe in Satan, lol. I try to talk to these people, but most of the religious people in the group's just don't get it.

[guillaumeb]

63. I understand.

An either/or mindset.

[muriel_volestrangler]

58. In that Gallup survey, only 64% of Democrats said they'd vote for an atheist as president

http://news.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

So if you've lost a third of your potential primary voters just by saying "I'm an atheist", and you may lose them in the general election too (and they may bring that up in the primary, making other Democrats think "well, it's OK with me, but they may be "unelectable&quot , it's not really a "non-factor".

[guillaumeb]

60. Nearly an identical number for evangelical Christians.

So if this survey is correct, a Jimmy Carter would also be virtually unelectable by Democrats.

But this assumes that the issue would come up, or should come up.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. Yes and no - remember Carter left the Southern Baptists because of their misogyny

and so his 1970s "evangelical" identification may well not apply now.

Losing my religion for equality

I HAVE been a practising Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years. My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world. So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service.

This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths. Nor, tragically, does its influence stop at the walls of the church, mosque, synagogue or temple. This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women's equal rights across the world for centuries.
...
I understand, however, why many political leaders can be reluctant about stepping into this minefield. Religion, and tradition, are powerful and sensitive areas to challenge. But my fellow Elders and I, who come from many faiths and backgrounds, no longer need to worry about winning votes or avoiding controversy - and we are deeply committed to challenging injustice wherever we see it.
...
The truth is that male religious leaders have had - and still have - an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter. Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world. This is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions - all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all the children of God. It is time we had the courage to challenge these views.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/losing-my-religion-for-equality-20090714-dk0v.html

Say something that during an election, and not many people will apply the "evangelical" label to you in the USA, even if he still has the literal meaning of wanted to "spread the good news".

The Pew poll also linked from the NPR report indicates atheism is still a bigger problems for Democratic primaries than being evangelical:

There is a sizable partisan divide in views of a candidate’s religion. For Republicans, a candidate being an evangelical Christian is a net positive (36% more likely, 5% less likely); for Democrats, more say it would decrease (27%) than increase (12%) their chances of supporting a candidate.

And while 70% of Republicans say they would be less likely to support a candidate who does not believe in God, Democrats are more ambivalent: 42% say they would be less likely to support an atheist, while 49% say it wouldn’t matter to them.

http://www.people-press.org/2014/05/19/for-2016-hopefuls-washington-experience-could-do-more-harm-than-good/

(so that's at most 9% of Democrats saying atheism would increase their chances of support).

Well, the issue may not come up; but that's the point of this thread, isn't it? That atheist candidates wouldn't want it to come up, because with significant numbers of potential voters, there's a big downside, but little upside.