03 Nov 11
Most people seem to think an atheist cannot be elected in this day and age because people who believe in god will not vote for him/her.
I am assuming this is correct. Why is it correct? Do people distrust atheists? Why do spiritual people discriminate against atheists?
03 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainAustralia has an atheist head of state, but you must realise that America is, well
Most people seem to think an atheist cannot be elected in this day and age because people who believe in god will not vote for him/her.
I am assuming this is correct. Why is it correct? Do people distrust atheists? Why do spiritual people discriminate against atheists?
America, and not representative of the rest of the world. I think it will be a long time
before such a thing happens in America where those silly evangelical Christians,
foaming with hatred for everything not of their own ilk, decry such as satanic. Even as
a theist i dont distrust atheists, in fact i find them more reasonable than many theists.
In what way are spiritual people discriminating against atheists?
03 Nov 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieshe might be an atheist on paper, but she followed (as did all other PM's here) America into all "God blessed" wars. Politically speaking Australia is just another U.S. state, so any religionist point of view here is mute because out hands are tied.
Australia has an atheist head of state, but you must realise that America is, well
America, and not representative of the rest of the world. I think it will be a long time
before such a thing happens in America where those silly evangelical Christians,
foaming with hatred for everything not of their own ilk, decry such as satanic. Even as
a ...[text shortened]... asonable than many theists.
In what way are spiritual people discriminating against atheists?
(Remember that we are only one of three of the "coallition of the willing", including UK and the U.S. The rest of europe opposed that action. )
Australian politics is rotten to the core ...
03 Nov 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainAtheists I thought were about 3 or 4% of the population in the US.
Most people seem to think an atheist cannot be elected in this day and age because people who believe in god will not vote for him/her.
I am assuming this is correct. Why is it correct? Do people distrust atheists? Why do spiritual people discriminate against atheists?
Anyhew, what makes you think the US has not already had one? I think you will find what they say and do are two entirely different things indeed, or do you not follow politics that much?
So the question begs, why would an atheist admit he is an atheist when running for the highest position in the land, unless the population increases dramatically in terms of atheists?
03 Nov 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf a person avoids voting for an atheist just because he is an atheist it is a type of discrimination. I became curious about this when I watched the McLaughlin Group last week. Someone on the panel suggested people want someone with the same beliefs as themselves, but I don't see how believing in god is going to help a person make decisions. If anything, I would think it would have the opposite effect.
Australia has an atheist head of state, but you must realise that America is, well
America, and not representative of the rest of the world. I think it will be a long time
before such a thing happens in America where those silly evangelical Christians,
foaming with hatred for everything not of their own ilk, decry such as satanic. Even as
a ...[text shortened]... asonable than many theists.
In what way are spiritual people discriminating against atheists?
03 Nov 11
Originally posted by whodeyValid point. When I watched the McLaughlin Group last weekend Eleanor Clift said the same thing.
Atheists I thought were about 3 or 4% of the population in the US.
Anyhew, what makes you think the US has not already had one? I think you will find what they say and do are two entirely different things indeed, or do you not follow politics that much?
So the question begs, why would an atheist admit he is an atheist when running for the highest position in the land, unless the population increases dramatically in terms of atheists?
GWB could be a closet atheist. It would not surprise me.
03 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelAustralian politics is rotten to the core, correction, ALL politics is rotten to the core,
she might be an atheist on paper, but she followed (as did all other PM's here) America into all "God blessed" wars. Politically speaking Australia is just another U.S. state, so any religionist point of view here is mute because out hands are tied.
(Remember that we are only one of three of the "coallition of the willing", including UK and the U.S. The rest of europe opposed that action. )
Australian politics is rotten to the core ...
why? self interest.
03 Nov 11
Originally posted by whodeyAtheists are 10% to 15% of the US population.
Atheists I thought were about 3 or 4% of the population in the US.
Anyhew, what makes you think the US has not already had one? I think you will find what they say and do are two entirely different things indeed, or do you not follow politics that much?
So the question begs, why would an atheist admit he is an atheist when running for the highest position in the land, unless the population increases dramatically in terms of atheists?
03 Nov 11
2 edits
Originally posted by Metal Braini thought that in politics policy mattered, that is the actual content of what a particular
If a person avoids voting for an atheist just because he is an atheist it is a type of discrimination. I became curious about this when I watched the McLaughlin Group last week. Someone on the panel suggested people want someone with the same beliefs as themselves, but I don't see how believing in god is going to help a person make decisions. If anything, I would think it would have the opposite effect.
candidate is promising to deliver irrespective of their personal beliefs. Why a persons
personal beliefs should have a bearing on either their ability to make decisions or to
form a governing body you have not stated although without a doubt i suspect that
some kinds of bias may exist. I have no idea what the McLaughlin group is.
There were and are many religious groups which have fomented great social change
from hospital and prison reform to the abolition of slavery. Are you willing to deny
that they were motivated to a lesser or greater degree by their religious convictions?