Our Godless Constitution

[shanek]

Lurker,

Every now and then, I have an author who really, really wants to have his/her article published in SkepticReport, but prefers not to have his/her name publicised with it. They simply don't want their friends, colleagues and neighbors to know that they don't believe in God, or even are skeptical of, say, creationism.

And I can understand that, having lived in the US as well.

About a year ago, I and another Danish skeptic had a brief, but pleasant meeting with a skeptic from the US on visit to Scandinavia. She was seriously considering emigrating from the US, simply because she was fed up with the harrassment she got from her colleagues and neighbors. They were even dumping garbage on her lawn!

And why? Because she, in a careless moment, let on that she was an atheist.

Sure, it's anecdotes. Shanek can feel free to dismiss them. That would only prove that his anecdotes are evidence, but others' aren't.

Claus, how does that in any way go to support your claim that "If you don't [have a religious faith of some sort], you can't win" or "that the US is invariably interconnected with a supernatural being"?

 

[CFLarsen]

A person can get elected President with a vote total less than 20% of registered voters.

If unopposed, yes. Tell the whole story, please.

I've made my influences and experience clear. No one has refuted them.

Oh, yes. With evidence, no less. However, your opinion is not the final say on this.

 

[Lurker]

A person can get elected President with a vote total less than 20% of registered voters.

Sure. Let's cut through the BS here. Do you, Shanek, think an atheist would stand a reasonable chance of being elected in a Presidential race against any candidate that was not a total disaster?

Me? As I mentioned before, I don't think so. There is a strong anti-athiest bias out there. Need I remind you that Bush Sr said atheists are not patriotic and perhaps should not even be considered citizens? Did he get excoriated for such a silly remark? Not that I recall. I wonder why not...

Lurker

 

[Thanz]

Of course, and I have no doubt that some of the people who answered that it wouldn't make any difference really would consider it a problem. But it seems equally obvious to me that many people who honestly think it's a problem (and maybe don't even think about it being prejudiced or bigoted) might very well vote for an atheist if everything else about him matched what they want in a candidate.

But you have nothing to back this up. Their answer to the question makes your statement here false. The question is designed as - if the candidate from YOUR PARTY was otherwise qualified, but an athiest, would you vote for them? And about half say "No". It sure makes it look like atheism is a tipping point kind of issue - especially considering the numbers for the other categories on the same question.

Yes, but again, people often say one thing in a hypothetical, completely meaning it, and yet do something else when faced with the reality of the situation.

In the abstract, yes. But you haven't given me anything in terms of facts or argument that would indicate any sort of significant deviation from the poll numbers. Possible? yes. Probable? There is nothing to indicate that it is. I think we should start from the premise that people will do as they say they will unless there is a good reason to doubt it. I haven't seen what that good reason could be from you - again, either in facts or in argument.

In one situation, we have a hypothetical candidate and the only thing we're told about him is that he's an atheist (other than the vague "otherwise qualified" thing). We're told nothing else about him, and nothing whatsoever about his opponent(s).

Not quite. We are also told that they are the candidate for YOUR party, whatever that may be. So, the assumption is that as a democrat (for example), the democratic candidate is qualified and happens to be an athiest. Do you vote for him? and half the people say "no"

In another situation, we have a real-life atheist candidate where the person in question may not even realize he's an atheist because it might not even come up, but who may have all sorts of other things in common with the voter, such as political philosophy, party affiliation, similar background, etc. Here, the person is given a lot more information about the candidate than his religious affiliation (and no one may even be making a big deal about that), and of course they also know about his opponent(s) and, even if they are prejudiced against atheists, may consider him the lesser of two evils. How many people vote on exactly that criteria?

I think that you are ignoring the essence of the question. It is immaterial who the other guy is for the question. Elections are not just "vote for A, or vote for B". Unfortunately, too many people just don't vote. Which may be the case for an athiest candidate - not that supporters vote for the other guy, they just don't vote for you.

I see it as being the same issue as makes economists evoke ceteris paribus. This effect will take place, as long as all other things are equal. If all other things are equal, the person will vote for a religious person over an atheist. But how often are all other things equal?

Can I remind you of this the next time you use ceteris paribus in an economic argument? Just say that it invalidates the argument because the real world is different?

Also given the fact that we haven't actually seen the issue come up to know what would happen. Now, I'm not saying there's a good chance we'll have an atheist President in 2008 or anything, just that I'm not comfortable assuming what will happen based on this one poll.

I think that the poll is much more interesting as an indicator of prejudice than as a predictor of electoral behaviour. And as an indicator of prejudice, it shows a significant prejudice against athiests. Just the fact that they answer in that manner, regardless of what may happen if it ever came to pass, indicates that prejudice.

 

[Thanz]

As reported on skeptic.com, 49% said "Yes"...but there's a third option, "Don't know." How many people responded with "Don't know"? The implication here is being made that 51% would not vote for an atheist, but that assumes facts not in evidence. If even 2% answered "Don't know," then it's possible that 51% might vote for an atheist President.

From your second link:

Between now and the 2000 political conventions, there will be discussion about the qualifications of presidential candidates -- their education, age, religion, race, and so on. If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be...An atheist...would you vote for that person? (1014 answered question)
Yes, would vote for that person (48.39%), No, would not (48.24%), DON'T KNOW/REFUSED (3.36%)

So, the yes and no factions are pretty even, with about 3% in the middle.

Please don't forget that this is being asked for people of their own party. It is saying that an athiest would lose about half of the support from people registered in his own party. If you think that an athiest (or for that matter, anyone) could get elected after losing the support of half of the people registered for your party, you are dreaming.

Let's say the democrats nominate an athiest. Given the latest election results, I think it is fair to say that the Democrats may be a little more tolerant to athiests - less bible thumpers. So, let's put the loss at a third rather than half the voters. The GOP puts up another Bush like dude. They lose very little, and gain some from the democrats. They go into the election, and Athiest has 66% support from his party. Bush clone has 95% from his party, and 10% from the lost democrats. Don't you think it would be an absolute landslide?

 

[shanek]

If unopposed, yes. Tell the whole story, please.

No, Claus, not necessarily unopposed. Bush won with this percentage in 2000.

 

[shanek]

Sure. Let's cut through the BS here. Do you, Shanek, think an atheist would stand a reasonable chance of being elected in a Presidential race against any candidate that was not a total disaster?

Depends on what you mean by "reasonable." Was John Kerry's chances "reasonable"? And he was a Christian. If an atheist had no better chance than Kerry, it would still be comparable to what he had achieved.

Did Mondale have a reasonable chance in 1984? Same point as above.

There is a strong anti-athiest bias out there.

Sure, there is.

Need I remind you that Bush Sr said atheists are not patriotic and perhaps should not even be considered citizens?

Nope.

But I think that most people have priorities other than religion when selecting a candidate. In fact, the only issue that mattered in last year's election was what party the candidate belonged to.

 

[shanek]

But you have nothing to back this up.

I have presented precisely as much as you have.

And about half say "No".

Again, we don't know that. We just know that 49% said "Yes." We don't know how many people said "Don't know." What if that were 15%? Then it would only be 36% who said "No."

Besides, 49% saying a definitive "Yes" in a country where 90%+ proclaim to be Christian? That should tell you something...

In the abstract, yes. But you haven't given me anything in terms of facts or argument that would indicate any sort of significant deviation from the poll numbers.

Neither have you. We're both just pointing out effects typical to polls. Neither one of us knows how that plays out in this particular one.

Also, assuming a 5% confidence interval, that means that there's a 1 in 20 chance that the numbers are completely and absurdly wrong.

I think we should start from the premise that people will do as they say they will unless there is a good reason to doubt it.

Fine. Then don't allow for an exception one way while not allowing for an exception the other way.

I think that you are ignoring the essence of the question. It is immaterial who the other guy is for the question. Elections are not just "vote for A, or vote for B". Unfortunately, too many people just don't vote. Which may be the case for an athiest candidate - not that supporters vote for the other guy, they just don't vote for you.

Well, that weakens your position. Because if that's the case, they won't register a vote for either candidate, while those who are left vote for you.

Can I remind you of this the next time you use ceteris paribus in an economic argument?

Absolutely. That's why I point it out.

Just say that it invalidates the argument because the real world is different?

No, it doesn't invalidate the argument. It just puts it into perspective.

There is a mountain of evidence that says that the minimum wage laws cause unemployment. It's not even a controversy in economic circles. But that means that ceteris paribus you will have increased unemployment when you raise the minimum wage. If, for example, you're entering a period of prosperity, unemployment is going to drop at a rate faster than the increased minimum wage can pull it up. So you'll see a minimum wage with decreasing unemployment. It doesn't mean that the minimum wage doesn't cause unemployment; it just means that there are other factors at stake.

I think that the poll is much more interesting as an indicator of prejudice than as a predictor of electoral behaviour.

I agree. But it is being presented here as a predictor.

And as an indicator of prejudice, it shows a significant prejudice against athiests.

I have never denied that such exists.

 

[shanek]

From your second link:

Interesting. I only see asterisks:

Yes, would vote for that person ( *%), No, would not ( *%), DON'T KNOW/REFUSED (*%)

So, the yes and no factions are pretty even, with about 3% in the middle.

What's interesting is that the percentage saying "No" is less (albeit slightly) than the percentage saying "Yes." So then, ceteris paribus, being an atheist would help more than hurt.

(By the way, I'm ignoring the points about the "same party" because it's a bogus point for this question; they're referring specifically to the nominating conventions. So of course you want to ask about only one's own party, and in that you have significantly more than one candidate to choose from!)

 

[Beerina]

I cringe everytime I hear the words "founded on Christian principles." I have no problem with someone suggesting that the Constitution and Christianity share similar principals, but going beyond that is inaccurate, contradictory, and retrograde thinking.

Ironically, if they truly followed the important principles people see as the good side of Christianity, then we'd arguably be in a freer society. Isn't one such principle turning the other cheek? (Of course, it would break down as you couldn't imprison even murderers.)

Another such would be wondering where, oh where, did Jesus say to take money from the rich at the point of a gun and give it to the poor. Or even the middle class. Or anybody, and give it to anybody else, for any reason, at the point of a gun?

Methinks if a Christian God truly exists, far, far, far fewer Christians are going to Heaven than they think.

 

[Earthborn]

Another such would be wondering where, oh where, did Jesus say to take money from the rich at the point of a gun and give it to the poor. Or even the middle class. Or anybody, and give it to anybody else, for any reason, at the point of a gun?

Of course there were no guns at Jesus time, so it's a bit strange to expect this.

The words atrributed to Jesus leave no doubt however about how he felt about rich people. Instead of taking money from the rich at the point of a gun, he expresses himself more strongly in favour of forcing rich people give to the poor. If the rich don't give all their possessions to the poor, they risk eternal damnation: "It is more likely for a camel to crawl through the eye of a needle, than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God."

Make of that what you want, but it sounds to me like he argues that rich people do not have any moral rights to their property at all.

 

[DavidJames]

In fact, the only issue that mattered in last year's election was what party the candidate belonged to.

Really? Care to share those facts which led you to this unequivocal, no wiggle room assertion.

Of course there are people who will blindly choose based on party, but to claim it's the only reason you sure must have some dandy evidence to back that up.

 

[shanek]

Another such would be wondering where, oh where, did Jesus say to take money from the rich at the point of a gun and give it to the poor. Or even the middle class. Or anybody, and give it to anybody else, for any reason, at the point of a gun?

For that matter, when did Jesus go to the government, either the Romans or the Pharisees, to help out with anything???

 

[shanek]

Of course there were no guns at Jesus time, so it's a bit strange to expect this.

There were so! Didn't you see Jesus Christ Superstar?

The words atrributed to Jesus leave no doubt however about how he felt about rich people. Instead of taking money from the rich at the point of a gun, he expresses himself more strongly in favour of forcing rich people give to the poor.

When did Jesus ever use or condone the use of force to accomplish this?

If the rich don't give all their possessions to the poor, they risk eternal damnation: "It is more likely for a camel to crawl through the eye of a needle, than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God."

That isn't what he was talking about. He was talking about the corrupting influence money has, not that they'll be punished for refusing to give to the poor.

And remember that Jesus rebuked Judas after he got on Mary's case for buying expensive oils instead of saving the money for the poor. He told them to appreciate what they had. So it was hardly an absolute.

 

[shanek]

Really? Care to share those facts which led you to this unequivocal, no wiggle room assertion.

Just look at the vote totals, combined with the turnout figures. Republicans showed up in droves. Do you really think the people whose presence constituted that additional turnout were ones that had studied the issues?

I saw a lot of people go in to the polls when I was stumping. It was a steady flow throughout the day. But I'm unaware of anyone who waited more than 10 minutes in that long line, except for the exceptionally long ones at breakfast and lunch time. They didn't have time to do anything other than vote straight party.

 

[Earthborn]

When did Jesus ever use or condone the use of force to accomplish this?

Saying that someone will be excluded from the Kingdom of God, which means ending up in the 'furnace' where there is 'wailing and gnashing of teeth' does not strike you as a threat of force by God himself?

Jesus himself has used force against the money changers in the temple. You can interpret it anyway you like, but to me it looks like he was no friend of the rich.

That isn't what he was talking about. He was talking about the corrupting influence money has, not that they'll be punished for refusing to give to the poor.

Uhm, no. A rich man asked him what he had to do to get eternal life, and Jesus told him that it wasn't enough to follow the commandments, he also had to give away everything he had to poor.

And remember that Jesus rebuked Judas after he got on Mary's case for buying expensive oils instead of saving the money for the poor. He told them to appreciate what they had. So it was hardly an absolute.

Demanding that the rich give everything to the poor does not mean the poor are not allowed save up money to buy expensive oil to anoint their loved ones who are about to die.

 

[Earthborn]

They didn't have time to do anything other than vote straight party.

I'm not too familiar with voting in the US. Can you explain why it would have taken people more time to vote for the candidate they wanted instead of a party?

In a party list democracy as we have around here, people vote for a specific candidate as part of party list. Whether someone votes for that person because s/he is belongs to a specific party, or whether someone votes specifically for that person is irrelevant and can't be determined.

 

[CFLarsen]

Just look at the vote totals, combined with the turnout figures. Republicans showed up in droves. Do you really think the people whose presence constituted that additional turnout were ones that had studied the issues?

No, because modern politics isn't about the issues. It's all about personality.

I saw a lot of people go in to the polls when I was stumping. It was a steady flow throughout the day. But I'm unaware of anyone who waited more than 10 minutes in that long line, except for the exceptionally long ones at breakfast and lunch time. They didn't have time to do anything other than vote straight party.

Rubbish. You believe that people only think about the election when they stand in line? People (well, not Libertarians, of course) are simply mindless sheep?

How condescending.

You forget the incessant media focus on the candidates' persons. Lives, families, values. Not a lot of politics, all about character.

Which is why Americans wouldn't want to see a Godless atheist as their president. Atheists are seen as immoral, lower-class citizens in the US.

You really want to dispute that? Go ahead.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, Claus, not necessarily unopposed. Bush won with this percentage in 2000.

Wrong. Again.

Presidential Candidate: George W. BUSH
Party: The Republican Party
Electoral Votes Received: 271
Valid Votes Received: 50,461,080

Number of registered voters: 141,850,558 (From 1998 elections, figure excludes North Dakota and Wisconsin)

Source: CNN

Which means Bush won with 36% of the registered voters. Not 20%, like you claimed.

Don't you ever check anything??

 

[Lurker]

What's interesting is that the percentage saying "No" is less (albeit slightly) than the percentage saying "Yes." So then, ceteris paribus, being an atheist would help more than hurt.

No, you don't know how to properly apply the poll results. If it is split 50/50 that DOES NOT mean 50% will vote for the atheist. It certainly does lok like 50% WILL NOT though as they have already said they would not. Of the 50% who may, they may be swayed by party association and issues.

The point is, THE BEST the atehist could get is 50%. The best the Christian could get is 100%. You do not see the difference there?

Lurker