I've seen polls such as these at gallup.com and outsidethebeltway.com.
While these are directed primarily at the election of a president, it was still a little shocking to see atheists at the bottom of the list. To me, this signifies a latent fear of that which is both foreign or unknown and since atheism is one of the easier lifestyles to hide it is also one of the easier ones to casually treat with prejudice. At the same time there is also a new aggressive atheist push by folks like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris that is similar to other successful movements of the last century. I'd really like to hear people's ideas on where the world is heading regarding the acceptance of atheism and alternative religious viewpoints in general. I'd debate the reasoning behind the polls, especially when Condoleeza Rice is listed as a candidate by one. As to the question: It does make a bit of sense, especially as we are looking for a president that represents us, and we're generally looking for someone who has conviction and passion, something that is not seen as typical of atheists. It doesn't help thatt here is the perspective that atheists are doing what they can to tear down religion in general, and Christianity specifically. Atheists have come under fire recently thanks to both the Kansas textbooks as well as the attacks on holiday displays. Throw in certain firebrands, such as Penn and Teller, and atheists do not come out of the situation smelling of roses...
HM
I feel like there is a certain stigma assoiciated with the word "atheist." What words come to mind when you think of an atheist? My Christian friends assume that atheists have no/bad morals, are going to Hell, and just don't want to assoicate with them.
Wait till I tell them that I am drifting away from religion 
You don't really need a poll to find evidence of that.
Here is a link to the 2006 South Carolina Constitution.
Article 6. Section 2.
South Carolina isn't the only one, either. It was just the most damning, seeing as this is from 2006, not 18-anything. But if you'd like, i can also link to other examples. I am truly impressed, I actually had no idea it was that bad on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. Well, I had an idea, but I sort of hoped I was wrong 
I do have some issues with Atheism, I can admit that, but believing or not in something "god-like" has barely anything to do with what kind of person you are. At least on some level. To read this just makes me sad, on the behalf of mankind. "supreme being" = self.....wow, that was easy 
Other people don't have to accept the beliefs of atheists. They must only respect them and drop the idea that they know everything about the world because they believe in some being that there isn't a shrapnel of evidence for.
I do have to say I dislike religion with a passion. While it brings many people together, it also secludes many people. Its views annoy me. The hypocrisy in religion annoys me. The people who follow Christian religions, then go and say something like the US has the right to torture people in Guantanamo makes me wanna scratch my eyes out. But it's their right to have a religion; I respect that. I simply wish they would drop the ego and hypocrisy and realize that you don't have to follow a god to have morals and be a good person.
I'd like to see that hold up in court....I wonder if it's actually come up...
HM | Quote: |
May 30, 1997
Columbia, South Carolina -- An atheist does not have to swear to a "supreme being" to hold public office in South Carolina, the state Supreme Court has ruled.
According to a report in The State, the court's five justices unanimously agreed that the requirement violates the U.S. Constitution and upheld a lower court ruling in the case of a College of Charleton professor. The professor, Herb Silverman, is an atheist whose application for notary public was turned down because he had crossed out the part of an oath that read "so help me God."
"The state Supreme Court didn't hesitate to find the religious test for public office to be a violation of religious freedom," Steven Bates, Executive Director of the ACLU of South Carolina, told the State.
The ACLU had filed the original lawsuit in 1993 on behalf of Professor Silverman.
The South Carolina high court agreed that forcing public officers to acknowledge the existence of a "supreme being" -- required by the state's constitution -- violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment that provides for religious liberty and separation of church and state.
South Carolina was one of seven states that require belief in a higher power to hold public office, the State said.
Arkansas, Maryland, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas have similar clauses, the paper said, but they don't enforce them.
|
Oops. Guess it has. And died...
HMI don't think the poll reveals any sort of discrimination or prejudice. Rather, I believe it merely reflects the beliefs of U.S. citizens. For obvious reasons, people tend to vote for others who are most like themselves politically and with regard to belief systems, because those candidates will have a better chance of voting on issues in a manner consistent with the will of the voter.
Atheists represent about 15.5% of the population of the U.S. according to the last census. That falls very closely to the Gallup poll of 14% of the people who felt ready for an atheistic president.
Respectfully,
M
| Moonspider wrote: |
I don't think the poll reveals any sort of discrimination or prejudice. Rather, I believe it merely reflects the beliefs of U.S. citizens. For obvious reasons, people tend to vote for others who are most like themselves politically and with regard to belief systems, because those candidates will have a better chance of voting on issues in a manner consistent with the will of the voter.
Atheists represent about 15.5% of the population of the U.S. according to the last census. That falls very closely to the Gallup poll of 14% of the people who felt ready for an atheistic president.
Respectfully,
M |
If you're talking about the first poll, the one with the 14%, i would tend to agree with your first statement. i don't think that poll has anything to do with discrimination. i think it has everything to do with perception of discrimination. If i were asked that poll question, i would answer that no, America is not ready for an atheist president. Does that mean i discriminate against atheists? That would be quite peculiar, to say the least.
The second poll is more telling. The question there is would you vote for an atheist - and that is certainly more indicative of discrimination than a question as nebulous as "is America ready".
It's also far more realistic. i mean, come on. If atheists make up 15.5% of the population and only 14% would vote for an atheist... does that mean that 1.5% of Americans are atheists that would not vote for an atheist because they're an atheist. That's pretty weird. And does it also mean that every single theist in America would not vote for an atheist? Come on.
Let's figure that every atheist is comfortable enough with their atheism to vote atheist. That means we can expect a minimum of 15.5%. Let's also assume that not every theist in the country is a bigot. So we can expect a lot higher than 15.5%. That second poll gives 45%, which makes numeric sense.
But comparing it with the other numbers... the discrimination is really kinda plainly obvious. Seriously, what's the percentage of, for example, Jews, in America. Is it 92%? Hardly. It's gotta be close to like 5%. Yet 92% of Americans would vote for a Jew. Catholics are what, 30%? There are probably roughly the same number of Hispanics as atheists, or Blacks as atheists. Yet, look at the poll.
Like i said, it's stupidly obvious. Yes, discrimination against atheists is rampant in the US. It really is that bad.The United States is the most religious (industrialized?) country in the world.
There's a relevant point there. Not even close to the most religious country; we simply have a lot of people and a very large amount of religious diversity. There are still dozens of countries where the religious figurehead is also the political figurehead. To me, that's more religious.
And that poll above isn't really telling the truth. Most people would interpret that question as asking if you would base your vote specifically on the criteria of religion. Not only that, but we're seeing this year that 94% of black people would not vote for a black person just because of that. If that were the case, Clinton wouldn't be beating Obama by a pretty large margin among black voters. We also see that the majority of religious people are not basing their vote specifically on religion. If that were the case, Guiliani and Edwards would have incredibly higher ratings. You can't ask a question like that for a poll and expect realistic answers.
The 3times married choice is silly. That's the #1 thing people think of when they think of Guiliani. That's one of the biggest reasons people are choosing not to vote for him (although he is leading last time I checked...love the hypocrisy of Republicans; family values my ass).
| liljp617 wrote: |
| Not even close to the most religious country |
Maybe not the most religious country, but almost certainly the most religious first world nation.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| we simply have a lot of people and a very large amount of religious diversity. |
80% Christian, 15% no religion... that leaves 5% for every non-Christian religion.
That's diversity?
| liljp617 wrote: |
| There are still dozens of countries where the religious figurehead is also the political figurehead. To me, that's more religious. |
Aren't all of those countries third-world countries?
Furthermore, although Bush is technically not a religious figurehead (although, there is a not insignificant amount of the population that believes he is on a mission from God), one merely has to take a look at the any official aspect of the country, and you will find religious elements. The national anthem notes that Americans are heaven bound. The national motto... "in God we trust". How many times have you heard that the President was "leading the nation in prayer", how many times have you seen him in state religious functions... and so on.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| And that poll above isn't really telling the truth. Most people would interpret that question as asking if you would base your vote specifically on the criteria of religion. |
That was the point. Given an otherwise qualified candidate, would you decide not to vote for them if they were black/Catholic/gay/whatever. If you were bigoted against gay people, then you would probably never vote for a gay person, regardless of how well qualified they were.
And more than half of Americans said that if they had a candidate who was otherwise qualified, they would not vote for him because he was atheist.
So what truth is it not telling?
----------------
Honestly, if any doubt remains, one can simply take a look at the replies here to see the trends. Stripping off the original post, and my own replies, we have:
HereticMonkey: "It makes sense not to vote for an atheist because they're trying to tear down our religion."
Soulfire: No personal bigotry, but he noted that the stigma exists.
Shewolf: "Such bigotry is horrible..." and then notes that she is not American.
videoguy: "Fake it, atheists. Just pretend you have a god - make yourself into one."
liljp617: Not sure what is being said here, but it doesn't seem relevant.
HereticMonkey X2: After being given evidence of blatant bigotry against atheists at the highest levels of government, points out that atheists can take it to court and fight it... after originally accusing atheists of trying to "tear down" religion when they do just that. On top of that, posts evidence that doesn't apply (note the dates).
Moonspider: Concludes that the poll results are reasonable, but based on incorrect reasoning, so no evidence of bigotry here, just an honest mistake.
nilsmo: Just posted a graph, really, no comments.
liljp617: "The poll is lying, there's lots of religious tolerance in the US."
So... ten posts in that list.
Three are not relevant (liljp617 (1), Moonspider, nilsmo).
One does not take sides, but notes that bigotry exists (Soulfire).
Five side against the atheists, either saying they deserve it, the bigotry isn't real, or stop being atheists (HereticMonkey (all), videoguy, liljp617 (2)).
... and one and only one says that such bigotry is wrong (if it exists, because Shewolf did not actually agree that it exists)... and they're not American.
Aside from me only one response in the entire thread explicity denounced such bigotry. Half of the others supported it. And the only one that denounced it wasn't even American.
i am the only other person in the thread who has explicitly denounced the bigotry. And i am not American either.
So only two people have spoken against the bigotry... and neither one is American. Three have supported it... all American.
Not a very scientific poll... but still....
