To expand, your final category contains according to my preferred definition a-purple-pangolinists. They are people who have no belief in purple pangolins.
It is not necessary for them to be anti-purple-pangolinists for them to be a-purple-pangolinists.
Princhester, I’m not claiming that the definition you’re talking about isn’t a possible definition. It may or may not be the standard definition. I just want to say that perhaps it would be better to have four terms for all situations like this, so that the set of possible positions on this or any similar issue would be more precisely separated.
I believe that a small minority of each group are the troublemakers. Most of us just want to get along with each other, beliefsets notwithstanding. In christian circles, the troublemakers often tend to hold a lot of sway, so the more indifferent of the faithful support them, because they will get along easier that way. Attitudes seems to be shaped and defined by a few people, not really by the majority. In atheist circles, the troublemakers ultimately get marginalized, because most other atheists find them annoying, and there is not analogous-to-religion mechanism through which they can readily draw support. For instance, I tend to agree with a lot of what Sam Harris says, but I am more interested in getting along with other people than being right, so he gets short shrift from me, because he appears to be interested in being divisive.
They ran openly as atheists?
Culbert Olson, who was elected in 1938, seems to have been at least a little open about his views. Awesome example below. Practically nobody who voted for Olson is still alive, so I think it’s reasonable to say it was a different time and U.S. religion and politics weren’t quite the same at the time. Olson served one term, had some clashes with the Catholic Church, and was trounced in the next election by Republican Earl Warren, who as Attorney General was the driving force behind the internment of Japanese-Americans. So there’s some room to argue about how relevant he is as an example. But I hadn’t heard of the guy before, and this deserves to be mentioned:
Straight ballin’.
It’s hardly news that if you keep your unpopular views secret then you won’t be punished for them. Gays in the closet aren’t punished for being gay either.
I’m very skeptical of this claim, not only because I’ve heard nothing to support it, but mainly because he would have been constantly hammered with accusations of atheism during the elections. In a country where atheists are as distrusted as rapists, that would have been solid gold to McCain and Romney (and Hillary Clinton).
In his first book he’s open about being nonreligious before the start of his political career and he says his parents were the same way. And you might remember there was just a little debate about Obama’s Christianity and whether he was, say, something else.
There will be a lesbian socialist dope-smoking president before there will be an atheist.
If my redneck relatives are to be believed, that could be in a mere two years.
Which is why they would jumped on the atheism accusation if there was anything to it. Atheists are trusted less than Muslims. “Consistent with this prediction, the predominantly Christian samples in the aforementioned polls tend to prefer Muslims, Mormons, and Jews to atheists” (pdf)
Yes, I’ve seen those stats. But Christians can’t really attack someone for being an atheist until 15 years ago. Christianity places a huge experience on personal experience and conversions, which is what Obama write about. He doesn’t call himself an atheist in Dreams from My Father, but he said his father was one and was open about his family being non-religious and non-practicing. Since he said the whole thing was in the past, it had less bite than a conspiracy theory that played up his purported foreignness and implied he had some kind of link to terrorism.
Even if there was clear evidence that he was an atheist, he found Jesus. Redemption in that way is a common Christian story, and would make him immune.
Plus it appears that even Republicans wouldn’t think you can attack someone for being an atheist and having the wrong type of preacher at the same time.
Though don’t hold me to that.
There are plenty of elected officials who are essentially non-religious. Al Franken has talked about his religious beliefs, or lack thereof. Mazie Hirono describes herself as a non-practicing Buddhist. There are three U.S. senators not affiliated with any church.
The more useful thing is to look at the percentages: who is overrepresented or underrepresented?
Christians are slightly over-represented, Jews significantly so. It is true that unaffiliated people are underrepresented.
There’s also the messy question, in congress and in the rest of the world, as to what makes a jew a jew? Or in this case: What makes a Hindu a Hindu?
If they are atheist the label “unspecified” is indicative of the bias that still exists, it is very similar to being gay in the 80’s. You could be gay with minimal issue as long as people didn’t find out “what you really are” A.K.A. in the closet.
The burden of secrecy and the knowledge of disapproval(particularly when uncalled for) is still punishing.
Except that most non-believers spend very little, if any, time dwelling on nothingness. Not being able to express their lack of belief is mostly not a burden, because it has little impact on their lives. It really is pretty easy to be an atheist and not feel the need to discuss or express that fact. It is not who one is, it is a null thing.
It’s part of who one is, and since atheism is usually a component of a larger set of opinions, that seems like a technical point at best.
No, atheism in a non-part of what I am. It is purely a factual description of my non-belief.
None of those “larger set of opinions” necessarily come from atheism. It doesn’t do anything in and of itself. It is entirely uninteresting. There are myriad things as yet unnamed and unthought of that I have no belief in and those unbeliefs equally have absolutely no bearing on the sort of person that I am.
So ignore the atheism and instead quiz people on what their worldview actually is and how they act on the views they hold.
You may find that they are agnostic, fine…deal with that. They may also be anti-theist…OK, deal with that. You may find they are humanist, buddhist or think Christ had some really neat ideas, they may fall left or right of the political spectrum. All of which are of far greater interest and are more informative.
That’s nonsense. Keeping an unpopular belief secret takes effort, especially in a society where everyone is constantly pushing the opposing belief on you and thinks you are evil. It means that you have to watch what you say, that you have to lie or carefully evade questioning. It means you have to worry about being caught and retaliated against.