Do Atheist Vote?

[rebecca]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Do Atheist Vote?

Jesse was governor of Minnesota. Michigan is a very fine state, I understand, but the voters in that state did not put him in office.

Psh, same difference.

 

[Radrook]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do Atheist Vote?

It's not a good idea to tell the truth if the truth insults those that make up the majority of voters.

Very profound!

 

[Radrook]

I think that Larry Holme's should run for president.
After all, if a wrestler who is a con artist can do it--why not genuine athlete?

 

[thaiboxerken]

While that is probably correct why can't we [atheist] even get anyone into the city cousel? Are we that unorganized or are we, as a whole, that lazy? Or is it that we just do not care?

Well, there are many that are trying to organize, but people are quibbling over the name of the group. For some reason "Bright" is too controversial of a name for many people to sign up under. I think it's a silly reason not to sign up myself, but hey.. the reason many of us are atheist and skeptical is because we think for ourselves.

 

[Johnny Pneumatic]

i believe that Thomas Paine was an out and out atheist, but i'm not sure if he would necessarily be consiered a "founder" (why do i think of changelings every time i see or hear that world? ).

While I don't know if Paine became an atheist later in life, I think this quote points to him being a deist. "Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity."-Thomas Paine

 

[Batman Jr.]

Both Lincoln and Taft were atheists, though they remained for the most part reticent about their beliefs. Thomas Jefferson once said that religion is responsible for a great deal of the pain and suffering in the world.

 

[Radrook]

The declaration of atheism is very often equated with a greater potential for amorality which makes voters feel uneasy.

 

[Kopji]

In some awful, strange, paradoxical way, atheists tend to take religion more seriously than the practitioners. ~Jonathon Miller

- from quotegarden.com

 

[neutrino_cannon]

And then what happened after them? Once the scared and unwashed masses started voting the canidates took a dive for the worse? Or is it that the original people, especially the religeous people, wanted complete separation of church and state and so an atheist or deist president seemed like a good idea (meaning a guy who wouldn't try to impliment his religious beliefs as federal law).

I honestly have no idea how long it's been that candidates loudly proclaim their unfalsifyable belief in a supreme deity, presumably one that millions of others call the smae name and go to the same orginization to communicate with.

Some would consider it evidence of divine providence that during the exact correct time in history in the precise places required, a group of extremely intelligent and capable men were able to found the nation that later became the richest and most powerful. Of course, some of these men would not believe in a being who would so interfere as to create their situation, which is only evidence that God is very good at covering His/Her tracks. It's kinda like why all fossil, biological, geological and genetic evidence is more or less consistent with the theory of evolution, but the infallible word of the noninterventionalist/psychopathic smiting God(s) say otherwise.

I digress, of course.

From what little I have read and from what less I can accurately recount, I would say that the early Federal government was much more lax about putting in references to religious motives or meaning behind laws and other such things. Certainly state and municipal governments were. The First Amendment today is interpreted much more strictly then it need be.

I should also like to point out that the phrase "seperation of church and state" doesn't appear in the US Constitution, it is an artifact of the First Amendment, Some Other Clause I can't Remember, and court precedent (yes, to all you non-Americans, we do live in one of those goofy countries where an idiot judge can screw up subsequent cases). [stereotypical right wing tip] In fact, if we wanted to, we could have children pray in schools! It's not establishing a religion it's erm... [/stereotypical right wing tip] [stereotypical left wing girly man] just another example of America's progress and understanding, moving with the times for increased political correct-ness! [stereotypical left wing girly man]

To the honorable thaiboxerken:

While the political climes of today herd atheists, agnostics and deists together, I would see them as very different animals on thier own. An atheist who by definition does not believe in a deity, or posits a distinct vacancy in that region of the universe's staff, is on paper the oppisite of someone who considers the entirety of everything around them to be the product of God.

Of course, in this world, there are folks (sometimes violent and more than a little pushy) who not only take for granted the existence of a deity, but also attribute daily occurences to that deity. They also don't think highly of (read: burn) those who think otherwise. The shear predominance of these people, as well as (as you point out) similarities between the moral beliefs of atheists, agnostics and deists is what lumps them together.

Hey, if you've got strange bedfellows, that at least means there's someone in bed with you. That doesn't happen every day, so have fun whilst it lasts!

End clairification

As far as he issue of atheist/agnostic/deist (why yes, I am often a left wing politically correct girly-man, why do you ask?) politicla solidarity and organization goes, I would suggest that the level of sentiment against these groups is low enough now (read: they don't burn us in the US) that there is not a large call for much organization. Furthermore, an atheist being someone whodoesn't believe in God (really, that's the only qualification, eating babies is secondary) there is no universal and coherant outlook on politics that is often present in other religions/non-religions/cults.

 

[Benguin]

The declaration of atheism is very often equated with a greater potential for amorality which makes voters feel uneasy.

Sadly, I think you a probably right in that cynical observation.

 

[neutrino_cannon]

The declaration of atheism is very often equated with a greater potential for amorality which makes voters feel uneasy.

Blast! This deals with the question in a far more concise way than I did.

Read this, you can ignore mine if you want!

 

[Gulliamo]

The declaration of atheism is very often equated with a greater potential for amorality which makes voters feel uneasy.

I think this is your most insightful contribution to date! Sadly, I think you have hit the proverbial nail directly on the head. I also feel this belief has been proliferated by the church in an effort not only to discredit atheist but also members of other religions.

 

[rebecca]

While that is probably correct why can't we [atheist] even get anyone into the city cousel? Are we that unorganized or are we, as a whole, that lazy? Or is it that we just do not care?

Is it just me? I wouldn't vote for a person just because he or she is atheist. So even if atheists did organize, stop being lazy, and start caring, it really wouldn't matter to me -- there are too many other things I consider other than religion when casting my vote.

 

[Radrook]

Is it just me? I wouldn't vote for a person just because he or she is atheist. So even if atheists did organize, stop being lazy, and start caring, it really wouldn't matter to me -- there are too many other things I consider other than religion when casting my vote.

That's like saying that as a passenger you don't care about the beliefs of an airplane pilot.

 

[Z]

Are you telling me you've asked about the faith of every airline pilot you've ever flown with?

Frankly, I don't care about anyone's religion. I never asked what faith my doctors were, nor my airline pilots, my elected leaders, my hairdresser... That's completely irrelevant. Just like their sexual orientation (so long as it's not 'pedophile', 'bestial', or 'necrophile'), gender, etc.

BIGOTS concern themselves with people's faith. BIGOTS are worried about the 'atheist vote', the 'Islamic pilot', etc.

But, Gentle Reader, you and I both know about BIGOTS, don't we?

 

[Gulliamo]

Frankly, I don't care about anyone's religion.

I do when it concerns me. For example: A judge who cannot set aside his religious preference when determining the fate of the accused.

I never asked what faith my doctors were

If the doctor believed that "faith healing" was the best method to treat my illness I would be VERY concerned.

my elected leaders

As with judges, those whom do not have the discretion to separate their religious beliefs from our political laws would not get my vote. That being said I would gladly vote for a politician or concede to a judgment from a person of most any religion if they were significantly impartial.

my hairdresser... That's completely irrelevant.

True and the beliefs of my driver, my doorman, and my masseuse are also completely irrelevant (in fact all of those people do have pretty far fetched beliefs). There are a hundred other jobs just like these where their personal beliefs have minimal impact on my life.

While it should not be the only consideration, and maybe not even the most important consideration, I think one might be a fool to discount the impact of other's religions completely in a wide range of jobs (politicians, judges, teachers, etc.).

 

[Radrook]

This is an absolutely stupid statement. You are a moron, Rad, and you prove it with every post you make.

Hi Imbecilicus!

I imagine you with an Alfred E. Newman freckled face and the same mindless smile since even such a simple statement baffles you.

Ever think of trying remedial classes?

 

[Radrook]

Are you telling me you've asked about the faith of every airline pilot you've ever flown with?

Frankly, I don't care about anyone's religion. I never asked what faith my doctors were, nor my airline pilots, my elected leaders, my hairdresser... That's completely irrelevant. Just like their sexual orientation (so long as it's not 'pedophile', 'bestial', or 'necrophile'), gender, etc.

BIGOTS concern themselves with people's faith. BIGOTS are worried about the 'atheist vote', the 'Islamic pilot', etc.

But, Gentle Reader, you and I both know about BIGOTS, don't we?

Never said anything of the sort.
That's what YOU want them to think I said so you can raise your snout at the moon and keen.

Ever try Ginko to try and jump-start your cerebral synapses?

But then again that's for people with normal brainwave patterns.

In your case it might prove fatal.

 

[Iacchus]

But, Gentle Reader, you and I both know about BIGOTS, don't we?

Actually, I think it all begins with a condescending attitude doesn't it?

 

[Iacchus]

While I don't know if Paine became an atheist later in life, I think this quote points to him being a deist. "Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity."-Thomas Paine

Sounds like he was a Deist. And maybe he's actually speaking in terms of the way it is practiced as opposed to what it entails in essence? In which case I would say he has a point.