Religion
Related: About this forumAtheism doesn't poll well. That begs the question of....... why?
From the article:
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
(12,344 posts)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
(42,641 posts)And there is, to date, a total of 1 self-identified unaffiliated Congressperson.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Then issues of trust and perceived electability become more important.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)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
(16,104 posts)Which party most closely aligns with the biblical teachings of Christ?
There's something else going on here.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)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
(42,641 posts)Many theists vote for Democrats. Probably most Democratic voters are theists.
walkingman
(7,660 posts)to claim to be religious. This is a meaningless question.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)It is a question about why people feel as they do.
walkingman
(7,660 posts)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
(7,886 posts)Glad you found it on your own.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)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
(42,641 posts)Others prefer co-operation and alliance based on common goals.
longship
(40,416 posts)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
(7,886 posts)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
(33,982 posts)don't absolutely HAVE to carry across the finish line. That's why. Basic fucking math.
Mariana
(14,860 posts)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 Gods 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
(16,104 posts)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
(14,860 posts)Is it sinful to vote for an atheist?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)"Quoting" the Book and all.
Mariana
(14,860 posts)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
(16,104 posts)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
(14,860 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)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
(14,860 posts)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
(16,104 posts)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
(7,886 posts)And then they pontificate and lament that discussion can't happen.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Nothing about unbelief.
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,965 posts)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
(12,344 posts)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
(16,104 posts)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
(12,344 posts)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
(16,104 posts)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
(12,344 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Not a return to Soviet-era political control as in the title of the article?
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Proving what exactly?
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Related to tribalism.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)"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
(12,344 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)...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
(42,641 posts)Or are you suggesting that atheists do not run for office because they feel that they will not be supported?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Even when one option leaves you supporting nazis, so your paragraphs must have sent people for a loop!
applegrove
(118,778 posts)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
(42,641 posts)To a degree, we all project when dealing with others. We cannot truly escape our own biases and background.
applegrove
(118,778 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)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
(7,886 posts)Which you again omitted when making a rather extensive list.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)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
(6,105 posts)To think atheists are evil.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your premise, simply asking why you think this is true.
Lunabell
(6,105 posts)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
(42,641 posts)An either/or mindset.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)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" , it's not really a "non-factor".
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)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
(101,361 posts)and so his 1970s "evangelical" identification may well not apply now.
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:
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 wouldnt 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.