How do we break down the 62%

[phrog]

This came to me from a UofU student doing a paper. He is an Atheist. I though I'd pass along his questions, and of course invite him to join gnawed.com and join in. I'll get it started until he arrives. Here's his inquiries:

Writing about the effects of open atheism on the viability of political candidates, A recent poll suggest that 62% of Americans would not vote for an atheist candidate for president, and though their are certainly more atheists in congress, only one thus far has come out of the closet because of the negative effect declaring one's atheism would certainly have.


First, what reasons can you think of to explain the 62% that would not vote for an atheist, and are any of these reasons legitimate?

What progress, if any, can you see being made toward changing public opinion about atheists?

Do you see an atheistic candidate for president ever being viable, and if so what has to change first?

[lorryfach]

In my experience, most of the voting public can't be bothered to really learn about what makes a candidate good or bad for the job. Plus a lot of people have decided that all candidates are going to suck to some degree, and it's just a matter of how much. Given that, these people pick their one or two pet issues and base all their decisions on that. Favorite pet issues include gay marriage and abortion. A religious person probably assumes (not without basis) that an atheist candidate would see issues like these differently.

This is somewhat legitimate. I guess it's possible for an atheist to be against gay marriage, for example, but it's certainly true that their reasons would be different, and their outlook on a lot of things besides that is going to be quite different.

Add to this the presumption that nearly all religious people have, that atheists can't have any morals and/or hope in the world, because they really can't see how that's possible without their god. People tend to be more understanding of people who see their god in a slightly different way than those who don't recognize their god at all. A particular Christian, for example, may not be wild about Judaism, but at least Jews have the good sense to believe in the OLD testament. They can't possibly be as bad as atheists who reject the whole darn bible.

This is, of course, not legitimate.

I don't know of any quick and easy ways to resolve these issues. We can all come out of the closet, so to speak, and if we're perceived as being otherwise "normal" people who just happen to hold this different viewpoint, people will slowly get an understanding.

I'm not sure an atheist candidate will ever be viable in the US. We're just now getting to where people are talking semi-seriously about a woman candidate and a black candidate. The pessimist in me suspects some sort of revolution or otherwise drastic political change will happen before people are talking about viable atheist candidates.

[SouthLoopAtheist]

One thing needs to happen first. We as non believers need to organize and become a political force. It has been said that there is more of us than NRA members and AARP members as far as their perspective numbers are concerned. We all know how influential both of these groups are! If people are forced to deal with us head on, I believe that number would dwindle. Perhaps ours would grow?

[phrog]

One thing needs to happen first. We as non believers need to organize and become a political force. It has been said that there is more of us than NRA members and AARP members as far as their perspective numbers are concerned. We all know how influential both of these groups are! If people are forced to deal with us head on, I believe that number would dwindle. Perhaps ours would grow?
Indeed, but such a task. There's American Atheists, Fredom from Religion Foundation, Atheists Allience, United Atheists, and the list goes on, not to mention numerous small local groups that are not affiliated with any of the national orginazations. If we could roll 'em all into one large force, just to let the socalled moral majority that we are here, and we vote.

[muichimotsu]

Am I the only one thinking the Libertarians might be a good party to allow for such a focus of freedom from religion, heh?

[minorwork]

Got mine. Though I've not been hot for them lately I got signature on petitions to enable them a spot on the ballot here in Illinois.

[phrog]

Am I the only one thinking the Libertarians might be a good party to allow for such a focus of freedom from religion, heh?
I'm not so sure. We only have a couple of Libertarians among our various groups that get together to chat. We seem to disagree on a lot of things ranging from free markets to privatization of government services. I don't see them able to organize the lot of us any better.

[minorwork]

I use to get signatures to get them on the ballot here in Illinois. It has been a while though. The strategy though not without risk is to run one as a Democrat or :eek: Republican. In Illinois, Bill Owens got on the ballot as a Republican and was two weeks from taking away Dick Durbin's last term in the US House. I even got him a tour underground. When shown ahead in the polls 2 weeks before Durbin bought all radio ads for the next 2 weeks. His being the leader of the local John Birch Society chapter was held against him. Proclaiming the society as un-american radical and he not a real Republican. The fix was in. The state Republican Party did nothing to show their endorsement. Later we heard a deal between the Republican and Democrat state parties had been agreed that he was on his own. Bill would have been one of the "young Republican" elected after Bill Clinton's first two years in office.

My point is that at the very least a viable candidate must present as either of the two Gangs to have a chance at being elected to national office. Anything less is a masturbation lesson.
</IMG>