Atheism in U.S. Politics

Originally posted by Robtard
I can't see a politician winning the oval without dropping at least few "God bless America", not in the foreseeable future. Even someone like Trump who was clearly not religious at all had to fake it with his "Two Corinthians" nonsense and waving a bible around in an awkward fashion. His voters knew he wasn't religious, but they wanted the facade that he was, so he did.

To your question: not sure if an athiest president would do better just because they're atheist, but I'd be willing to try it.

And I personally don't think atheists are inherently more moral.

What I do think though is that the critical thinking most atheists have to under go in America probably leads them to on average be better thinkers and more open to reality.

So if we start see more atheists I hope that means that we'll get more science and reality based solutions to problems.

Originally posted by Robtard
Heh, yes. Was obvious he couldn't recite a single verse, even John 3:16, which you see random bums holding cardboard signs of.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
It was a proper Alan Partridge moment

YouTube video

laughcry

Always a goodie

Originally posted by Newjak
Yeah I don't have an atheist has any real shot of winning presidency right now.

And I personally don't think atheists are inherently more moral.

What I do think though is that the critical thinking most atheists have to under go in America probably leads them to on average be better thinkers and more open to reality.

So if we start see more atheists I hope that means that we'll get more science and reality based solutions to problems.

I have to agree. Not always of course, but generally.

You know America was founded by prudes

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/76a36f82-7ba9-4953-9ec0-922a41aa2be2#M7aw0zRL.copy

Originally posted by Newjak
Do people feel that Atheism in the U.S. has become acceptable enough that we'll see a major push in Atheists taking offices in the next few decades?

I hope so.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
There is a significant difference between what an atheist thinks is morally right (which is always subjective to them) and what a person of faith (any faith) thinks is morally right or wrong which is based on objective morality. It is impossible for politicians to divorce themselves entirely from acting in a manner or supporting or opposing policies based on what they view as being morally right or wrong.

This is just as true even for any politician who happens to be an atheist/non-believer as it is for someone of a christian, jewish, or any other faith. People with Christian beliefs elect people who they think will uphold their christian values and way of life while serving in office. If that politician isn't holding up his or her end of the agreement by doing what the people elected him or her to do then he or she shouldn't be surprised when the voters who put him/her there become furious and vote him/her out next election.

Fun fact: the so-called "separation of church and state" is a myth. People base it on a misinterpretation of a private letter Thomas Jefferson wrote. The first amendment prevents the government from establishing any state religion and allows individuals to practice any religion they like. It does not prevent politicians from making decisions based solely on their faith/what they think is morally right or wrong.

If the separation of church and state was actually real, then we wouldn't have "In God We Trust" printed on our money nor would we have "... under God" in our pledge of allegiance. Nor would have the founders mentioned God/Creator like four times in the Declaration of Independence. Every inaugural address has included the word 'God'. I could give many more examples of why the separation of Church and state is not actually a thing.

I will never vote for someone who calls himself or herself an atheist. Having an atheist in a position of real power scares the shit out of me.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
You know America was founded by prudes

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/76a36f82-7ba9-4953-9ec0-922a41aa2be2#M7aw0zRL.copy

Nah, they weren't. 95% of them had Christian beliefs I don't care what the bs article in pooty's link says which I have not clicked on and never will.

People who think the founders were secularists are woefully ignorant.

America has deep Christian roots, that is an undeniable fact.

Separation of church and state come to mind?

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
So long as religion plays no part in formulating policy there's no issue with politicians following a religion.

Strongly disagree.

I don't think this ideal is realistic. Nor is it ethical.

You are effectively asking someone to submerge a part of their personal convictions. You would never ask someone who supports LGBTQ concepts to not consider those convictions when forming policy, You wouldn't ask someone who was a humanist to submerge those beliefs. Religion belief is simply another set of convictions, the same as anything else. How deep one accepts doctrine is the personal, the same as any other idealogy.

Religion is treated by a double standard, as thought the practiciners are somehow less human than other idealistic people, and can turn their convictions on and off on a whim.

It is unfair, a double standard, and I'd argue impossible. People don't work like that.

Originally posted by cdtm
Strongly disagree.

I don't think this ideal is realistic. Nor is it ethical.

You are effectively asking someone to submerge a part of their personal convictions. You would never ask someone who supports LGBTQ concepts to not consider those convictions when forming policy, You wouldn't ask someone who was a humanist to submerge those beliefs. Religion belief is simply another set of convictions, the same as anything else. How deep one accepts doctrine is the personal, the same as any other idealogy.

Religion is treated by a double standard, as thought the practiciners are somehow less human than other idealistic people, and can turn their convictions on and off on a whim.

It is unfair, a double standard, and I'd argue impossible. People don't work like that.

👆 👆

Originally posted by cdtm
Strongly disagree.

I don't think this ideal is realistic. Nor is it ethical.

You are effectively asking someone to submerge a part of their personal convictions. You would never ask someone who supports LGBTQ concepts to not consider those convictions when forming policy, You wouldn't ask someone who was a humanist to submerge those beliefs. Religion belief is simply another set of convictions, the same as anything else. How deep one accepts doctrine is the personal, the same as any other idealogy.

Religion is treated by a double standard, as thought the practiciners are somehow less human than other idealistic people, and can turn their convictions on and off on a whim.

It is unfair, a double standard, and I'd argue impossible. People don't work like that.

Additionally, supporting LGBT rights doesn't force you to be gay yourself. It's not the same thing as the state enforcing policies based on religion, as that does force you into the religion. You're free to believe whatever you want in your personal life of course. That said, everyone in a society makes concessions for human rights--we can't have folks stoning a woman to death for having pre-marital sex or something.

Great attempt at a troll here though. 👆

Originally posted by Newjak
Do people feel that Atheism in the U.S. has become acceptable enough that we'll see a major push in Atheists taking offices in the next few decades?

And do you believe that would be a good thing?

I think the important thing is we are tolerant of all ideologies.

Intolerance is the enemy, not Religion or Atheism.

And yeah for politicians, the policies they advocate is what's important.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Well, no. Policies should be based on logical argumentation, I agree, but that requires the government to be secular. With religion, your argument ultimately ends with "because God/Allah/Buddha/Amaterasu said so." That actually kills freedom of religion, the thing you think you're supporting, as you're forced into whatever religion your government favors.

Additionally, supporting LGBT rights doesn't force you to be gay yourself. It's not the same thing as the state enforcing policies based on religion, as that does force you into the religion. You're free to believe whatever you want in your personal life of course. That said, everyone in a society makes concessions for human rights--we can't have folks stoning a woman to death for having pre-marital sex or something.

Great attempt at a troll here though. 👆

Stopped reading after the first few lines.

Not being facetious here (Or a dick), but who ever said politics had ANYTHING to do with logic?

Politics are who gets what, when, and how. Its one of the first things we learn in Introduction to Politics 101 in college (And most high schools) 🙂

If you believe women and men are equals, you sure aren't doing do from a scientific perspective. No scientific method was applied to reach this conclusion, it is pure dogma gleaned from generations of sharp minds and personal experiences.

The blatant troll ST accusing cdtm of trolling when he just massively trolled every single person of faith with his highly offensive and ignorant post.

#projection

Originally posted by cdtm
Strongly disagree.

I don't think this ideal is realistic. Nor is it ethical.

You are effectively asking someone to submerge a part of their personal convictions. You would never ask someone who supports LGBTQ concepts to not consider those convictions when forming policy, You wouldn't ask someone who was a humanist to submerge those beliefs. Religion belief is simply another set of convictions, the same as anything else. How deep one accepts doctrine is the personal, the same as any other idealogy.

Religion is treated by a double standard, as thought the practiciners are somehow less human than other idealistic people, and can turn their convictions on and off on a whim.

It is unfair, a double standard, and I'd argue impossible. People don't work like that.

Neither LGBTQ or humanists beliefs hold standards and beliefs that treat religious people as inferior and not worthy of the same rights and protections as they do.

Religious adherents cannot say the same.

I'm just glad that America in general does not share the opinion of those in this thread who want more atheists in power rather than people of faith. Although really atheists have even more faith than those of us who are labelled people of faith do.

I mean, believing that the universe just created itself from nothing and calling it "science" is a special kind of stupid and people who believe it must have an immeasurable amount of faith to do so.

I'm sorry but I just don't have near enough faith to be an atheist. When I look around at the world and the universe and the many complex designs of life and the dna code of living things I clearly see design. That is just simple, common sense for people who have their heads screwed on straight. It is not logical to think it all got here by accident with millions, billions, or even trillions of random mutations, sorry.

Originally posted by cdtm
Stopped reading after the first few lines.

Not being facetious here (Or a dick), but who ever said politics had ANYTHING to do with logic?

Politics are who gets what, when, and how. Its one of the first things we learn in Introduction to Politics 101 in college (And most high schools) 🙂

If you believe women and men are equals, you sure aren't doing do from a scientific perspective. No scientific method was applied to reach this conclusion, it is pure dogma gleaned from generations of sharp minds and personal experiences.

With the second part, you're confusing the issue. Equal is not the same as identical. The claim, at least the only relevant one, is that men and women should have equal opportunity to participate in society. It's based on pretty sound logic, and yes, science. Women are humans, scientifically, and should be given the same rights as any other human.

The claim isn't that men and women are identical though. You're arguing against a claim that no one really makes, at least not in any meaningful numbers.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
The blatant troll ST accusing cdtm of trolling when he just massively trolled every single person of faith with his highly offensive and ignorant post.

#projection

I'm not saying religious people are stupid when I said their argument ends with "because X diety said so." I'm pointing out that religious ideas are generally informed by a divine authority, which is different from secular argumentation.

Religion has had many good ideas, but those ideas are usually good with or without a deity.

Many religions, like Shintoism, Christianity, and Hinduism, value cleanliness for example, but there are also scientific reasons why cleanliness helps promote well-being.