Would you vote for an Atheist?

Pal said:

Are you a social conservative or just a fiscal one? I for one can't think of a how an atheist could rationalize social conservative opinions without being able to reference the bible or some religious authority.

Click to expand...

Fiscal conservative and social moderate somewhat leaning conservative. All of the ridiculous things that the religious right believes based solely on religion, obviously, I do not support, but there are lots of things that I think can be justified entirely on a rational basis.

alms said:

A good point, but we're talking about a public figure that's an atheist. That type of atheist is, in my mind, more likely to be the militant type that I dislike. As an agnostic, I dislike any kind of religious or non-religious extremism.

Click to expand...

But given the number of atheists in the United States and the number of elected officials, there are bound to be elected atheists in office now and probably have been for years. I don't think you can assume that they're all the militant type, because otherwise they would have said so. The militant type aren't too likely to get elected after all.

However anti-religion I am, it doesn't really sway me for/ against someone when it comes to the world of politics.

My father's a minister - yet he's quite logical and reasonable, very solid and has a good sense of values, direction, understands debt, the value or order and law and respects other people's opinions but asserts his own . . . thus, while I feel his beliefs are ridiculous and sometimes akin to brainwashing - these other qualities override the nature of his religious beliefs.

I think it's dangerous to suggest, also, that someone who's atheist might automatically be more worthy of a Presidential-type position.

the only politician who is overtly religious - who disturbs me BECAUSE of this - is Mike Huckabee. He's excessively religious and the majority of his views ALL err on the side of religion in a "WWJD?" type way - which does NOT a good politician make.

So - I did vote "yes" but only because religious-beliefs aren't a factor unless they're excessive.

roughdraft274 said:

This is just my opinion of course, but I would think that moral absolutism is pretty low on most conservatives lists.

Fiscal conservatism, low tax policy, frugality, pro-life, strong defense, states rights, etc etc. Most of the things that I see conservatives list off when you ask them what it means to be conservative have nothing to do with religion, besides maybe pro-life, which one can reach that conclusion without any religion.

I think my main argument here is that if you alter what being conservative means into what the religious right has, essentially then requiring the person be religious, then yes, atheism would be very opposed to that view in most or all cases. But the religious right certainly doesn't own conservatism.

Click to expand...

I do make apologies for this abnormally long post. I have to elaborate on things often because people don’t understand my political thinking for one reason or other. What was suppose to be a simple answer became complex. Again I am sorry for such a long winded response maybe someone will find it entertaining at least.

Of course moral absolutism is low on the list for many republicans. The republican party has a wide net and is supported by a variety of groups. The larger and more influential groups under that net are the hard religious right and libertarians. These two groups have separate but common goals including less government intervention in the social as well as the financial. The hard religious right has a social steak in small government they want creationism taught in schools as though it was a legitimate science. Control over sex education and a greater focus on “traditional families” .. no sex before marriage on and on, social intervention on behalf of the religious aspect of the republicans. This is all achievable with weak federal government intervention they don’t care so much about the libertarian aspect as long as they can foster growth of their faith. They really shouldn’t have common ground with libertarian politics though but they don’t have any other way to preserve themselves and roll back the clock on social evolution. Really the religious right and libertarians share the philosophy of self governing individuals. But for entirely deferent reasons.

Fiscal conservatism, low taxation, frugality and decentralization of federal powers are centrist in general even deregulation has been a bi partisan effort but they are libertarian. These policies though have really not served the public well you can see a weaker hand with regards to the center left particularly on deregulation. Ironically many republicans are calling for regulation and government intervention. I find many politicians are not familiar with the political spectrum and republicans and democrats are bouncing around the center unknowingly supporting policies that are actually diametrically opposed to party lines. Again I’ve spent time with very liberal minded people.. who vote for republicans just because that is what everyone else is doing or that’s what dad voted. It’s the same with the right. Most of the time, they really haven’t looked into news coverage etc to even know what this party is implementing.

The right and the left can flesh out their political bias using the collectivism vs individualism debate. This philosophical debate is not settled one side cancels out the other, you can’t have one without the other. Sometimes what is appropriate at a given time and place is no longer appropriate at another time and place whether it is collectivist or individualist it does not matter what matters is a positive outcome. This is a real tricky balancing act to be on the right side of the argument depending on time and place. The far right is represented in actuality by anarchy. The far left is communism. The religious right is interested in collective morality etc and it is ironic that they support libertarianism which is basically summed up with “live and let live”. Libertarianism is also supported by big business that does not want political pressure, regulation, taxes and so on. So you can see that indeed the democratic party is a real centrist party while the republican party is supported by extremes.

I personally think that when 10% of the American population owns 50% of the wealth I see it as individualism gone to far. It is gross and disgusting accumulation of wealth in the hands of so few and lends your nation to oligarchy. With a debt climbing to insane levels your going to be forced someday to pay that deficit down. Taxes are coming regardless of who is in power. The problem for the left is that the money has been spent on foreign wars which beef up weapons manufacturing business and welfaring out wall street and tax cuts for the rich and not on positive collective social programs like healthcare. I do find it ironic that libertarians support military spending.

Libertarians should be socially liberal (live and let live)and they should indeed have major infighting within the republican party when the christians implement social agenda but they don’t. So instead of a bastion for individualism they only boost the religious rights social agenda by giving them a political philosophy that enables them to be active in government. As it is libertarians only protect the wealthy and the religious. I have thought in the last couple years libertarianism should be removed from the table as something legitimate in terms of current government policy. The complete failure of the markets due to unregulated banking, the miserable state of privatized healthcare and unregulated big business spilling hundreds of millions of barrels of oil into the gulf.. thousands of unregulated and unknown chemicals used in the consumer market on and on. Clearly deregulation has not been an unmitigated success, which is a knock out punch to libertarianism from a philosophical perspective. However the right has nothing else to cling to.. I suppose they could start going to them fringe groups in the tent.. and the religious right waving the bible. But libertarianism is quite nearly indefensible in light of recent events.

My definition of what it means to be republican is more then religious but you should realize that this party panders to religion for easy votes and when they win power they throw the religious a few social policy bones meanwhile libertarians are taking over. The fact that libertarianism has recently failed in such massive ways has yet to be realized it seems. But big business and big money can buy ignorance. Democrats are going to have to differentiate themselves in some way, err they should. I don’t stand for communism or anarchy. But both ideals have legitimate policy that depending on time and place is more appropriate. For example it maybe that deregulation of the oil industry in deep sea drilling would be appropriate.. after they have shown themselves to be able to deal with potential ecological disasters such as in the gulf. Or maybe the banking industry be allowed to trade derivatives when they show it can be done without destroying the global economy. The dogmatic mentality that no government leads to a utopia is insanity.. look at Somalia no government over there must be a libertarian and religious dream land. . Imagine libertarians hooking up with Islam, theocracy anyone? Libertarians are mostly concerned with the fiscal aspect of government since that the branch that taxes and regulates business. If they can get a government that controls society via religion that’s just fine by them it appears. With the libertarian glass jaw exposed.. dems should go for it.

Essentially it does not matter that religion doesn’t “own conservatism” anymore only that it is allowed to operate from within the ranks of libertarianism. These are two unlikely partners and strange bedfellows without a doubt. The enemy of my enemy is my friend should be the republican party motto.

Regicollis said:

I would have no problem voting for an atheist, a Christian,

Click to expand...

Love me now or burn later.

a Muslim

Click to expand...

Submit or die.

or a Buddhist.

Click to expand...

Life is suffering and the only way to overcome suffering is engage in actions which are sure to bring about exponentially more suffering IE abolition of killing any living thing including animals for food and disease spreading insects and rodents.

I don't care about the religious views of politicians as long as they don't mess them up with their politics.

Click to expand...

That's like saying that you don't care that a politician still believes in Santa Claus. A persons religious philosophy(especially a person who chooses their own religion) tells you pretty much everything you need to know about the person, for example Obama is a liberation theologian which tells me he is a radical leftist who believes in class warfare, Bush was a member of the evangelical right which tells me that he will be against equal rights for gay people, and promote a greater influence for Christianity in government.

Your Star said:

Simple question, would you vote for a candidate if they were an atheist? Or would their atheism be a deal-breaker for you?

Click to expand...

It depends on their level of Atheism.
If they are the militant "I AM AN ATHIEST AND YOU WILL BE ONE TOO!" type of person, then not just no, but hell no.

If they are a, "I am an Athiest..... now moving on to **** that matters..." type of person, then yes I would vote for them if I agreed with the other **** they believed in.

some documents show Thomas Jefferson was likely at least agnostic. So how can a non-believer get elected 200 years ago but now a days it is virtually impossible. Imagine the founding fathers dismay if they saw this.

I'd prefer to vote for an atheist over someone who believes fairy tales are real and sets foreign policy accordingly. You think that's not a problem, look at Iran, which is pursuing nuclear weapons in hopes of killing infidels for their imaginary deity.

BCR said:

some documents show Thomas Jefferson was likely at least agnostic.

Click to expand...

You've clearly never studied the life and writings of Thomas Jefferson. Please do so before you make a fool of yourself again.

Mellie said:

You've clearly never studied the life and writings of Thomas Jefferson. Please do so before you make a fool of yourself again.

Click to expand...

Right, he was a deist.

Anarcho-fascist said:

Right, he was a deist.

Click to expand...

Yes, there are indications in his writings that he doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ and views God as an entity that is more removed from humantiy than fundamental Christians believe. That's a far cry from agnostic.

Your Star said:

Simple question, would you vote for a candidate if they were an atheist? Or would their atheism be a deal-breaker for you?

Click to expand...

Just to self-identify, I am a conservative Christian.

If the choice was between a person who self-identified as Christian, but whose policy positions were contrary to my wishes; and a person who was a self-avowed atheist whose policy positions were largely in agreement with my own, I would vote for the atheist.

If the choice was between two candidates whose policy positions were essentially identical, whose ONLY distinguishing characteristics were that one was atheist and one was a Christian, I would vote for the Christian. Reason? Absent any differences in policy positions, I would assume a co-religionist of mine would represent my intrests a little better than someone of no religion.

If one candidate was an atheist and the other was a Sunni fundamentalist who wanted to institute Sharia, I'd vote for the atheist. :mrgreen: Why? Because I would consider policy based on promoting Sharia to be contrary to my intrests.

That answer the question?

Mellie said:

You've clearly never studied the life and writings of Thomas Jefferson. Please do so before you make a fool of yourself again.

Click to expand...

I am not familiar with the life and times of Thomas Jefferson. I know he was responsible for the clause of separation of church and state. I am pretty sure I read before he was atheist? Your welcome to correct me on any of that. Not embarrassed to admit I don't know something.

Gabriel said:

I am not familiar with the life and times of Thomas Jefferson. I know he was responsible for the clause of separation of church and state. I am pretty sure I read before he was atheist? Your welcome to correct me on any of that. Not embarrassed to admit I don't know something.

Click to expand...

He wasn't an atheist, he was a deist.
He even wrote his own version of the bible, called the Jefferson Bible.

If anyone is interested here is the wiki article.

Jefferson Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gabriel said:

I am not familiar with the life and times of Thomas Jefferson. I know he was responsible for the clause of separation of church and state. I am pretty sure I read before he was atheist? Your welcome to correct me on any of that. Not embarrassed to admit I don't know something.

Click to expand...

He was definitely not an atheist. He wrote the words "seperation of church and state" in a letter. He didn't think government should have anything to do with religion.

In a letter to Benjamin Rush he said...."T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. "

He wanted to prevent the establishment of a certain denomination of Christianity in our country. Therefore, he wrote to the Danbury Baptists to assure them that their freedom of religion would never been interfered with by government....

"Gentlemen, – The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Here's what he said about the Bible.

"In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurges, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of … or, shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines."

Thanks very much. I learned something.

Gabriel said:

Thanks very much. I learned something.

Click to expand...

It's always good to be open minded.
Remember though that my comment wasn't advocating for Christian only politicians, merely pointing out Jefferson's beliefs.

Goshin said:

Absent any differences in policy positions, I would assume a co-religionist of mine would represent my intrests a little better than someone of no religion.

If one candidate was an atheist and the other was a Sunni fundamentalist who wanted to institute Sharia, I'd vote for the atheist. :mrgreen: Why? Because I would consider policy based on promoting Sharia to be contrary to my intrests.

That answer the question?

Click to expand...

It does to me, and I am in agreement. I am a spiritual Christian (meaning I am not religious, I don't attend church, but I believe Jesus was who he said he was and did what he came to do). Problems occur when people stop thinking critically and just go "Right then! He's a Christian, I'm a Christian, I'm voting for him". And it happens a lot more often than people would probably wish to believe.

Harry Guerrilla said:

It's always good to be open minded.
Remember though that my comment wasn't advocating for Christian only politicians, merely pointing out Jefferson's beliefs.

Click to expand...

Right well I find some debate from what I read that he was athiestic.. Not saying or caring so much ether way he certainly was a wise man to make acception for church and state, quite unusual.

Here I see a lot of quotes that certainly would make one question he was not athiest. He was very sympathetic to the cause of atheism. It certainly is an intreging debate none the less.
Thomas Jefferson quotes

Gabriel said:

Right well I find some debate from what I read that he was athiestic.. Not saying or caring so much ether way he certainly was a wise man to make acception for church and state, quite unusual.

Here I see a lot of quotes that certainly would make one question he was not athiest. He was very sympathetic to the cause of atheism. It certainly is an intreging debate none the less.
Thomas Jefferson quotes

Click to expand...

No doubt at all, he was an interesting man.

Better than most I say because he wasn't a pretentious ass, like a majority of politicians.

Gabriel said:

Right well I find some debate from what I read that he was athiestic.. Not saying or caring so much ether way he certainly was a wise man to make acception for church and state, quite unusual.

Here I see a lot of quotes that certainly would make one question he was not athiest. He was very sympathetic to the cause of atheism. It certainly is an intreging debate none the less.
Thomas Jefferson quotes

Click to expand...

He was sympathetic to all religions. He said "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." That doesn't mean he believed in 20 gods or no god, he just didn't care what his neighbor believed. Sounds like a modern-day libertarian to me.

And to continue to think he was an atheist is just factually incorrect. We have overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Mellie said:

He was sympathetic to all religions. He said "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." That doesn't mean he believed in 20 gods or no god, he just didn't care what his neighbor believed. Sounds like a modern-day libertarian to me.

And to continue to think he was an atheist is just factually incorrect. We have overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Click to expand...

Yes I read that in some of the quotes. I think many of them are taken out of context.

EDIT: like this for example it does not mean he was atheist.

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Click to expand...

My biggest concern with an atheist candidate would be if he was one of those militant anti-religious types. Assuming that he wasn't one of those guys and the rest of his positions were largely in line with my views, I'd vote for an athiest without batting an eye.