I was just reading this article http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/why-an-atheist-prime-minister-is-better/ and it got me thinking about the number of times I’ve read on the Dope about the difficulties of being an atheist in the states, how inadvertently ‘outing’ oneself can lead to issues in the work place or in social circles. So what do you think the general attitude of Americans would be about our Godless PM?
That he’s a Satanist/Communist/the Antichrist/Muslim. And yes, I’ve run into people who think that atheists are Satanists.
Polls have shown that atheists are deeply distrusted in America; we are assumed to be morally corrupt, no one wants their children to marry an atheist, that sort of thing. She’d be hated and feared and despised, and I’d be surprised if she lived through her first term if she was a US politician and somehow got elected President. And most Americans would cheer her assassination.
So? Part of the freedom of belief is the freedom of others to distrust you, and the freedom of you to distrust. A freedom, I must note, you exercise quite a lot.
I have reality based reasons to do so. I’m not claiming that religious believers or Republicans should all be feared because they are, say, lizard people wearing skin masks.
The religious people I’ve known who distrusted atheists were the ones who were uneducated in a certain… way. As in, they never took it upon themselves to investigate that atheists can and frequently DO still subscribe to upstanding moral/philosophical frameworks (see: Sartre). We are just internally motivated, and don’t require fear of a father figure to do what’s right. There are religious people with degrees (see: tea party) who do not understand this. And there are people without any college at all who do. It is unfortunately possible to go through one’s entire life without exposure to basic philosophy, or even the realization that one is close-minded.
This does likely constitute a majority of religious people, though I’m not particularly concerned with their thoughts on atheism unless they’re driven to, say, kill or maim atheists. And I feel comfortable stating that a vast minority of religious people are compelled to physically harm atheists.
Since you’re asking about opinions, I’m moving this to IMHO.
twickster, MPSIMS moderator
I’d prefer an agnostic to an atheist, but that’s just me.
The recently elected Democratic Senator from Colorado has pretty much admitted that he is an atheist. It wasn’t an issue in the campaign until the last few days when things were getting really ugly.
Unfortunately, this is how many Americans view atheists. However, it is obvious to me that absolutely no thought goes into this bit of irrationality, and that it is simply knee-jerk based on what they’ve been told about atheists, rather than what atheists are or do.
Most people I know in real life believe I am a devout theist, presume I am Christian, and watch what they say and do while in my presence because of it. I don’t divulge my atheism unless asked, which I seldom am. I don’t drink, smoke, curse, have any appreciation for bawdy humor, or abide debauchery, and prefer not to be around those who do, and everyone knows this about me, which lends credence to their perceptions of a faith in their god I don’t possess. Talk about presumption, which is really an insult if you think about it.
However, the few times my position on theism has come to light among colleagues or acquaintances, after the initial disbelief that is, their esteem for me takes a slight shift. It’s not overt. It’s more subtle, like suddenly I smell or something.
Having said the above, I guess it’s only fair that I admit that I was raised in a very religious family, although I never believed myself, causing a growing sadness in my mother, and siblings who are convinced I’m wacked.
Morality is defined in different ways by different groups, so I don’t walk around projecting my moral superiority to others (upon reread, not nearly as much as I’ve done in this post) but, in my experience, in a general sense when speaking of the American variety of protestant and evangelical Christians of all flavors, the morality expressed tends to be inversely proportional to the level of faith they claim and espouse. I’ve never personally known individual members of any group who are more hateful, intolerant, and willfully ignorant than American religious Christians, and the more I interact with them, and the more power they amass in the public sphere in America, the more I am absolutely convinced that they are dangerous and their very real potential to cause near-irreparable societal damage in the name of their faith should be appreciated.
Now, Christians may say the exact same thing about atheists as I have in the paragraph above, but unlike atheists, Christians have a track record a mile long of bad acts committed in the name of their god and making decisions that affect the country based entirely on their personal mythology. How healthy can this possibly be?
Tangentially, while I’m on a roll here, whether one wants to admit it or not, there’s an American Christian war against Islam being waged right now, and the arms of discrimination and marginalization are being hoisted by those who have the power to place intolerance into legislation. This is not to say that I hold any truck with Islam either, but American Christians certainly aren’t on the moral high ground. Both religions, at their core, are pretty much the same, are just as damaging to humanity, and would both provide an immeasurable boon to the world if they would simply cease to exist.
Could America do well with an Atheist leader? Not now. Not yet. But one day.
//Hops off soapbox
Agnostics **are **atheists.
What you’re distinguishing between is soft (or weak) atheism and hard (or strong) atheism. Weak atheism is lack of belief in a deity (whether due to apathy or questioning/lack of sureness). Strong atheism is belief that a deity does not or cannot exist (like Richard Dawkins).
It’s the difference between active disbelief or passive lack of belief, but either way, both viewpoints are atheistic.
Strange as it seems, from 1939 to 1943 we did have an atheist governor in California. But that’s California for you. On one hand we had an avowed atheist in high office way back then, but on the other hand we also were the birth place of Pentecostalism and the Foursquare Gospel Church (which may still be over in Echo Park).
I think we’re overstating the case here. While there’s a dedicated minority that ranks atheists as closer to Satan than the dreaded homos, for the most part being an ‘out’ atheist is not that bad and most people don’t really give a crap. There aren’t massive hate crimes against atheists, nobody is beating down our doors. I think a lot of Christian people have a mild level of surprise when meeting a calm, inoffensive, moral and compassionate atheist – and that’s dumb. But it’s always a little bit hard to handle someone with an entirely dissimilar worldview at such a core level, and there aren’t all that many people who outwardly identify as atheist. Most religiously-ambivalent people seem to claim the flavor of Christianity that they were raised in, but never actually go to church, pray, or do anything about it, at least from what I can tell.
When it comes to politics, though, people in the US get all hepped up about religion for some reason. Perhaps it’s an issue of trust, and feeling like someone who isn’t the right religion will be led astray. I don’t think an American atheist president will happen anytime soon (as in, most folks’ lifetimes) for that reason. The younger generations are getting a lot less religious, but there are those who are really ramping up religious fears in the media and atheists – like Muslims – are fairly easy to hate on without getting a lot of criticism.
Keep in mind, though, in the US, even having someone too far away from Protestantism is not likely at the Presidential level. Forget atheists, there’s no way we’re getting a Jewish or Buddhist president in the foreseeable future, and even some branches of Christianity would be problematic.
If one could distinguish atheists by sight alone, I believe the story would be different.
We recently had an atheist Governor of Minnesota, but he was such an anomaly in every way that he’s probably not a very instructive example.
Didn’t Rand Paul get accused in an ad by Democrats of commiting blasphemy in college?
How is this response in any way justified? First off, he answered the OP’s question, so a response of “so?” doesn’t make sense. He doesn’t need a further point. What he said completes the communication.
Secondly, what you said is a cop out defense that could be applied to anything. If I said I don’t trust black people, you could say pretty much the same thing. It’s not a substantive response - and really, is just an apologist defense for ignorance and intolerance.
What the hell does have to do with the topic of thread?
It’s a morality thing for the most part. Some religious people are fearful that someone who doesn’t share their beliefs will have a completely different moral compass, or even worse, none. Considering that the golden rule and most of the ten commandments are pretty universally accepted, this is a very provincial viewpoint. But that’s how it is, and I think it’s especially the case among people who have not encountered people from a lot of different backgrounds and religious viewpoints.
There was a GQ article alleging that Paul belonged to some kind of anti-Christian club in college which involved self-styled “blasphemous” acts, such as kidnapping a woman and forcing her to worship the “Aqua Budddha.” His opponent ran an ad citing the GQ story to accuse Paul of having contempt for Christianity.
You…don’t live in the rural South. In my part of the world, atheists are viewed with fear and suspicion. Many consider us on par with devil worshipers and such.