I think we can all agree here that we need more neutral views in Politics though, right?
I think I'll run for office one day, I think i could do some good there. granted, at the expense of my sanity.
I think UK figure for atheism is slightly unreliable because parents just put down their children as CofE for the hell of it.
Atheism is as valid as being Religious in a democracy.
The problem with athiests in general is that they often say "i don't want religion to be forced onto me / people" but they do exactly the same thing by pushing for a more athiest agenda.
The issue with America is that it is a society built on religion for the most part, so that is kind of ingrained into the political system.
[QUOTE=Benf199105;32456249]The problem with atheists in general is that they often say "i don't want religion to be forced onto me / people" but they do exactly the same thing by pushing for a more atheist agenda.[/Quote] If my "atheist agenda" is to spread secular ideas and pressure people to question their illogical beliefs for social progress (Gay marriage for example) I couldn't care less what you call it. Why would I willingly stand by and let someone believe in something that I view as detrimental to the progress of humanity? You may argue that their views are irrelevant and that I should focus on politicians who impose their dogma, but I disagree. They are merely the symptoms of a much greater problem that exist in America. I don't just blame the elected, the illogical and belligerent electorate are the real issue in America and I am not content to just stand by and watch society degrade because of their stupid, ancient beliefs.
[QUOTE=Benf199105;32456249]The issue with America is that it is a society built on religion for the most part, so that is kind of ingrained into the political system.[/QUOTE]
America society mostly religious, however I would not say built on religion because that implies America is founded on religion which it is not. ( see: [url]http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html[/url])
[quote] As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion [/quote]
In Texas, you can't get into public office of any kind without believing in God. I find that pretty unfair, and it integrates church and state.
a lot of the atheists i know are the kind of people who hold grudges and have very strong beliefs
that's just my experience; not sure if that would make a good politician really
Being atheist doesn't automatically make you a level-headed decision maker.
You are still capable of being ignorant/incompetent.
[QUOTE=-Chief-;32466226]Being atheist doesn't automatically make you a level-headed decision maker.
You are still capable of being ignorant/incompetent.[/QUOTE]
Or like that any politician can be: corrupt.
Anyone can be coerced by any degree of authority and influence, no atheist or person of faith is 100 percent reliable in this aspect.
I myself dont let my religion cloud my judgement, I believe that the world is older than what the bible claims, I believe in Evolution. A persons faith shouldnt brand them as illogical or stupid as some have claimed. But a person of faith should never make policy based on faith. All mindsets should be protected but not elevated in government.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;32409364]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?[/QUOTE]
Too bad Julia Gilliard is a conservative and is aganist gay marriage and has same policies as the bloody conservatives do. Also it is fine that people are Atheists in politics but people see them as "immoral" so there aren't many around.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;32411591]This isn't true.
Just because you're an atheist it doesn't mean you're more logical or open-minded.
I'd go so far to say as it's a passive-aggressive way to insult theists.[/QUOTE]
Religion is an explicitly irrational set of beliefs. Someone who holds a set of irrational beliefs is prone to making irrational choices (whether or not it affects politics is entirely context dependent). Sure, an atheist might hold his lack of belief for irrational reasons, but there isn't anything explicitly irrational in atheism itself.
[editline]26th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;32412743]That argument is very Christian- and American-centric. Not all religions are like that, and not all political arenas are like that.
In fact I'd go so far as to say that [b]you[/b] are the close-minded one here, as you're unwilling to consider that some religions might not be so opposed to critical thinking.[/QUOTE]
Why wouldn't he be talking about Christian/American centric politics? That's clearly the one most relevant to him. You can't just deflect and say "that's not the big picture!" when it's clearly an issue. He's not saying they're necessarily of lesser intelligence, but rather that they hold at least one set of irrational beliefs.
Let's say you have to trust either person A or person B. You don't know anything about either of them, except person A holds one clearly irrational belief. Obviously you'll trust person B every time. Sure, person B could hold loads of other irrational beliefs, but based on what you know, B is more trustworthy.
[QUOTE=SNNS-SEAN;32466049]In Texas, you can't get into public office of any kind without believing in God. I find that pretty unfair, and it integrates church and state.[/QUOTE]
This is what pisses me off. I don't care what the hell the person believes, as long has he is a good, rational leader. But stuff like that, that just wrong and against the law to even impose on everyone.
[QUOTE=-Chief-;32466226]Being atheist doesn't automatically make you a level-headed decision maker.
You are still capable of being ignorant/incompetent.[/QUOTE]Yet the core of western religion is to encourage blindness and being gullible. "Come to me as a child or fuck off". It is also a fact that people in power that believe in a religion tend to go badshit crazy on the populace or as a minimum steers the policies towards his own religious agenda rather than what's best for the majority. Of course egotistical persons do that too and American politics is riddled with both of these.
[editline]26th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;32486700]This is what pisses me off. I don't care what the hell the person believes, as long has he is a good, rational leader. But stuff like that, that just wrong and against the law to even impose on everyone.[/QUOTE]Lolamerica. Any other country would be in deep shit for imposing that. AFAIK that's why the UN hates so hard on half of Africa and a ton of the Middle-East.
Stopping someone from holding a public office of their religion (or lack thereof,) is incredibly stupid in my opinion.
[QUOTE=kaine123;32507727]Stopping someone from holding a public office of their religion (or lack thereof,) is incredibly stupid in my opinion.[/QUOTE]Letting them cater exclusively to their "flock" is fucking insane too. Again something that is true for America as a country. Be Christian or shut the fuck up about it. That's a rather fucked view from a governmental entity.
The problem isn't with the politician, it's the population. They'll vote in opposition to a particular candidate simply because of their religious views, or lack thereof.
[QUOTE=Bomimo;32508250]Letting them cater exclusively to their "flock" is fucking insane too. Again something that is true for America as a country. Be Christian or shut the fuck up about it. That's a rather fucked view from a governmental entity.[/QUOTE] Though if someone is being held to a high office of power, maybe their needs to be some sort of rule that mandates that they can't pass favorable legislation over their religious group or lack of another. How about we elect politicians to run the country and not have them let religion or lack thereof get in the way of their decisions.
[QUOTE=kaine123;32515421]Though if someone is being held to a high office of power, maybe their needs to be some sort of rule that mandates that they can't pass favorable legislation over their religious group or lack of another. How about we elect politicians to run the country and not have them let religion or lack thereof get in the way of their decisions.[/QUOTE]The rest of us have been practising that these past 250 years and you USED to.
I like the way religion is discussed in french politics : it isn't.
Voting for a candidate is about the choices they wish to make and the policies they put forward. I believe our current president is catholic, but his religion is irrelevant, his politics had no basis on his religious views.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.