• Atheists in politics
    107 replies, posted
This is something I've been thinking about lately. In the US, the vast majority of elected officials are Christian, or religious in some way (i.e. Jewish, Muslim). There is only one member of Congress who has come out and said he is an Atheist. That person is [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Stark"]Pete Stark[/URL] who was first elected in 1973, but he didn't announce his Atheism until 2007. He is however, the first openly Atheist Congressman in the US. Some other countries have more Atheist politicians, like the Prime Minister of Australia, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Gillard#Personal_life"]Julia Gillard[/URL]. But I think overall, Western governments are still dominated by Christian politicians. In 2007, Gallup published a poll showing that only 45% of the US would vote for an Atheist, which is less than a Homosexual (55%). 95% of the US would vote for a Catholic. [URL]http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/some-americans-reluctant-vote-mormon-72yearold-presidential-candidates.aspx[/URL] The discussion topic should be along the lines of: Would you like to see Atheists begin to gain more control in government? Why do you think Atheists might be better/worse for government? Why do you think so few Atheists have been elected? In my opinion, I think Atheists would be better politicians because they are more "in-tune" with science. Anyone who denies evolution is denying something that is already proven as a fact, and who's to say they won't deny other facts like global warming or various economic theories?
I would say that apatheists would be the best politicians because they would not let religion get in the way of political matters and instead take the most practical course of action. The religiously minded will of course push for concessions to their religion, whilst atheists will push for the end of religion.
Atheism is a great way to remove one bad factor taken into political decisions, Sadly we still have a while till we get a atheist into a major political seat.
i don't think a person's religion or lack thereof affects their ability to govern a country
[QUOTE=TropicalV2;32409506]i don't think a person's religion or lack thereof affects their ability to govern a country[/QUOTE] Bush
It shouldn't matter as long as you are a rational person.
[QUOTE=The Baconator;32409518]Bush[/QUOTE] bush, a christian, said god told him to declare war on iraq that must mean every christian thinks god is telling them to declare war on other countries
[QUOTE=TropicalV2;32409506]i don't think a person's religion or lack thereof affects their ability to govern a country[/QUOTE] Then why is gay marriage still illegal in most of the US? Sure, you can have Christian politicians who support gay marriage, but the whole debate is a religious one. And like I said before, if you are a Christian who doesn't believe in evolution, you are blatantly denying facts. If you deny one fact, then there are probably other facts you deny because you've already proven yourself to be ignorant.
As long as a politician keeps his/her religious views out of government, then religion being introduced into government shouldn't be considered. The problem with any government is religion, and the people. If you introduce religion into a government by certain extremes, then we have a problem. Not everyone is going to share the same views.
I can't remember the last time I heard religion being discussed anywhere near politics in the UK. It's one of the many reasons we find politics in the USA so hilarious.
I'm sure there have been great leaders of the last that have been atheists, just not publicly. As far as I'm concerned in secular society religous belief should not affect a politician's policy making and judgement unless it is as simple as giving them a basic framework to discern right from wrong. Take as an example Naheed Nenshi ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naheed_Nenshi[/url]), the current mayor of Calgary, Alberta. Alberta is often touted in Canada as our "Texas"; socially conservative Protestant-Christian culture with primarliy small-c concervative fiscal values. Running on a platform for fiscal conservatism, Nenshi was elected mayor of Calgary regardless of his religion. Although it's not quite on topic, the comparison I'm trying to make is that if a majority of one faith can elect a mayor who does not share their same faith, then it is not a far leap to assume they could elect someone who has no faith at all (some are of the view that atheism is just another faith; I do not share this view) on the basis of other shared values; economic, social, etc.
Atheism in Politics is good because, as one smart poster suggested, it removes 1 factor from Politics. But if it's a change [B]affecting relegion[/B], then maybe it's smarter to have a religious person there.
Keep religion out of the way the country works. However... respecting the cultures is key too.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32409386]I would say that apatheists would be the best politicians because they would not let religion get in the way of political matters and instead take the most practical course of action. The religiously minded will of course push for concessions to their religion, whilst atheists will push for the end of religion.[/QUOTE] Most atheists are ok with religious people, they just think theyre ignoring the facts to comfort themselves. I dont know many who want to end religion entirely, just its misguided teachings (creationism etc)
[QUOTE=AK'z;32409690]Keep religion out of the way the country works. However... respecting the cultures is key too.[/QUOTE] This, this, and this. Putting the people on top should be a major consideration for any functional government. People come in all sorts of colors, shapes, and sizes. The important thing is for the government to be for the people, not for itself.
[QUOTE=TropicalV2;32409506]i don't think a person's religion or lack thereof affects their ability to govern a country[/QUOTE] The presence or lack of a religion itself doesn't affect their ability to govern. What does affect ability to govern is the religion itself. If my religion states that killing children if a voice in my head tells me to is alright, or that I should directly ignore overwhelming amounts of reason and scientific evidence if my religion contradicts it, then that does directly impair my mental ability to govern a large and diverse country. [QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;32409534]It shouldn't matter as long as you are a rational person.[/QUOTE] Religion (as we know it today) is explicitly irrational.
I dont care weather a politician is atheist. As long as the rights of all are protected then its fine.
If people would govern the country in a rational manner and not let religion get in the way it would be fine. Unfortunately religious people WILL include their ideas into politics, no matter what. If everyone was agnostic everything would be much more stable and no one would argue about their imaginative ideas that may or may not be true.
I'm kind of torn on this one, on one hand I believe to some degree that other people's religious belief should be tolerated, but on the other hand they clearly show a lack of logic, which should be essential when governing a country. So I think that it would be nice if religion was completely banned when dealing with politics.
In the UK a lot of politicians are Christians, but it almost never intrudes with policy. Tony Blair was a devout Catholic but was prevented from ever speaking publicly about it by his party. [quote=Alistair Campbell]I'm sorry; we don't do God.[/quote] I also think that the OP is biased towards Western, particularly American perceptions of religion in politics. [quote]In my opinion, I think Atheists would be better politicians because they are more "in-tune" with science. Anyone who denies evolution is denying something that is already proven as a fact, and who's to say they won't deny other facts like global warming or various economic theories?[/quote] A person being religious doesn't necessarily disagree with evolution, or even hold religious beliefs that threaten to be impinged upon by evolution. The Pope [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution#Pope_Benedict_XVI_and_today]has stated[/url] that evolution does not conflict with Catholic doctrine, and the [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/2910447/Charles-Darwin-to-receive-apology-from-the-Church-of-England-for-rejecting-evolution.html]Church of England[/url] and the [url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/21/archbishop_backs_evolution/]Archbishop of Canterbury[/url] in particular have made similar statements. I can't comment on on other monotheistic religions or sects because I'm unfamiliar with them. However I do know that some Eastern religions are equally compatible with evolution, because they do not have a creator God(s) in their mythos. As such they are Athestic religions. Atheists are not "more 'in-tune' with science". Lack of belief in deities does not correspond to greater rationality. It's entirely possible (and indeed I even suspect this of many Facepunchers) that the atheistic stance they hold is derived from entirely irrational reasons. I think that for you to make that false connection implies that you're simply biased towards anybody who is atheist, regardless of their actual ability to govern. Therefore there is no reason that politics necessarily needs atheistic politicians, just politicians that can put aside their personal beliefs about the Universe when it comes to making decisions - a separation of Church and State in both mind and action. As for [i]climate change[/i] (it's not "global warming") and various economic theories, I don't really know what you're trying to say. Could you elaborate?
Personally I view religion as a terrible thing. People pick and choose what they want to believe from different parts of whatever holy book corresponds to their religion, breeding biased views and in the worst cases, extremism. Even generally peaceful religions such as Christianity aren't exempt from this. We live in a modern age where freedom is considered one of our most basic rights. Religious leaders' views are generally very rigid and they will attempt to constrain us and shape us towards whatever doctrine they believe to be correct.
FUN FACT: Pete Stark is my congressman. Nobody here seems to give a crap that he's an atheist, then again, most people here don't give a crap about politics
[QUOTE=Rolond Returns;32410179]Personally I view religion as a terrible thing. People pick and choose what they want to believe from different parts of whatever holy book corresponds to their religion, breeding biased views and in the worst cases, extremism. Even generally peaceful religions such as Christianity aren't exempt from this. We live in a modern age where freedom is considered one of our most basic rights. Religious leaders' views are generally very rigid and they will attempt to constrain us and shape us towards whatever doctrine they believe to be correct.[/QUOTE] Surely forcing politicians to relinquish their religion is just as draconian?
[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;32409534]It shouldn't matter as long as you are a rational person.[/QUOTE]Agreed. People shouldn't jump so quickly towards someone's convictions when choosing politicians.
I don't actually know if we have any religious politician in our Parliament, they're really rare here.
Bill Maher is convinced Obama is a secret atheist, if that counts.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;32410351]Bill Maher is convinced Obama is a secret atheist, if that counts.[/QUOTE] bill maher is also a vaccine denialist
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;32409560]Then why is gay marriage still illegal in most of the US? Sure, you can have Christian politicians who support gay marriage, but the whole debate is a religious one. And like I said before, if you are a Christian who doesn't believe in evolution, you are blatantly denying facts. If you deny one fact, then there are probably other facts you deny because you've already proven yourself to be ignorant.[/QUOTE] It's not as much the views of the politicians as it is the views of their voting bloc. Gay marriage is largely illegal because a majority of consistent voters in that state wish it to remain illegal.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;32410351]Bill Maher is convinced Obama is a secret atheist, if that counts.[/QUOTE]Bill Maher is also a pretentioues, pessimistic asshole who believes everything that spews out of his mouth is the undeniable truth.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;32410173] It's entirely possible (and indeed I even suspect this of many Facepunchers) that the atheistic stance they hold is derived from entirely irrational reasons.[/QUOTE] I became an atheist after a very very very very long time. I held to my original Christian beliefs (which were given to me by my parents, against my will) for as long as I could, but I eventually came up with way to many problems with it and was forced to recognize that Christianity is just stupid. In a way I became a deist. I hadn't heard of Deism, but since I was so firmly Christian, I couldn't give up all of it right away. After having long debates with some close friends who are atheists, I eventually gave up full deism for a sort of Deistic-Atheism in which I don't think there is a god, but if there is one, he certainly doesn't give two shits about some pathetic species of creature running around on one planet. [QUOTE]As for [i]climate change[/i] (it's not "global warming") and various economic theories, I don't really know what you're trying to say. Could you elaborate?[/QUOTE] What the hell you talking 'bout bro? Are you saying that humans aren't lending a great deal of a hand to what you call climate change?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.