Yeah, I’m with you, Valteron. With any luck that atheist association will be on the same street as a Catholic church, Pentacostal church and a synagogue.
I’m not exactly holding my breath on that one.
Listing yourself as Unitarian or “unaffiliated” is not quite the same as having the balls to say “I do not believe in God”. Many millions of Americans do not really know what Unitarians are, and besides, many Unitarians DO believe in a diety. “Unaffiliated” is similarly not quite an admission of atheism.
Pete Stark is a valid example, thank you. I also note that California Gov. Culbert Olson, a Democrat who served from 1939 to 1943 – and though born of Mormon parents – said he was an atheist. But unless there are a few more, let’s admit that TWO declared atheists out of a group of thousands of people is pretty thin gruel, even if they are valid examples.
If you read this article about Stark, you will note that his out-and-out declaration that he does not believe in a supreme being makes him a very rare duck indeed. I hate to use the expression “the exception that proves the rule” since it does not mean what people think it does. But in this case, the high level of publicity over Stark (we have yet to see if he will be re-elected, don’t we?) indicates how courageous and unusual such an admission is.
In fact, the article notes that anti-atheist prejudice is fairly high among the American voters.
"But such a declaration carries plenty of political risk. Last month, a USA Today/Gallup poll noted that fewer than half of Americans said they would vote for an atheist candidate for president even if he were “well qualified.” In the same poll, 95 percent said they would vote for a similarly qualified Catholic candidate, 92 percent for a Jewish candidate and 72 percent for a Mormon candidate.
Newman says the poll shows that "anti-atheism remains the last remaining prejudice that a majority of Americans don’t mind fessing up to,‘’ at least to a pollster. And he says the comments by Stark belie "the recent trend which has been in the direction of candidates increasingly wearing their religion on their sleeve.‘’
So we agree that elected officials admitting to atheism is not 100% unknown, but that it is still a powerful taboo and source of religious discrimination among American voters.
Did you miss the part where he’s been in Congress since the '70s?
It’s a fair point. He only recently admitted his atheism, or came to it.
That said, Pete Stark comes from one of the most liberal districts of the country, one that seems to like him despite many unorthodox positions he has taken over the years (to put it extremely mildly). He will face no electoral problems from this.
As for the election results you’re looking at, Valteron, I still think you can’t tell too much from them. About 80% of the country is Christian, with a significant proportion of the remainder nonpracticing believers. Actual agnostics and atheists are rare not so much because they are discriminated against, but because the culture promotes faith and many people seem receptive to this message anyway.
A close friend of mine spent many years as a hard atheist with scientific training - indeed he has a doctorate degree in a biological field. He still has this education, but he is now an observant Catholic.
So observations about better education tending to produce more atheists may be true as far as it goes, but it does not change the fact that there remain many intelligent and educated people of faith. And in a community that chooses its own leaders, these folks will tend to win elections. It isn’t terribly sinister or discriminatory, but it is a fact.
I think we agree, OneCent. I am not saying there HAS to be more than one Catholic President. But ask yourself why there was no RC president until Kennedy. Because many people in past centuries were very prejudced against RCs?And because many continue to be so (see Bob Jones U. for example).
That is precisely the point I am making about atheists. I am not saying you HAVE to elect a certain proportion. The fact that atheists are spread all over the country is not relevant. I am not saying that atheists should be elected as “atheist respresentatives”. Nor was John Kennedy the representative of American Catholics, for that matter.
The fact is that people should NOT care whether a person believes in God or not when they vote, nor should they care if he is Catholic or Black.
But when a group is under-represented among elected representatives out of all proportion to its occurrence in the population, you have to admit that something is working somewhere.
Take something that voters genuinely do not care about: whether you are left-handed or right-handed. Now, if I told you that 10% of Americans are left-handed, but that out of thousands of governors, senators and congressmen elected over 40 years, I can come up with only one or two who were (or admitted they were) left-handed, would you not agree that some social dynamic is working against them in American society?
But his admission of atheism seems to be recent, according to the article.
And I think you are misunderstanding us.
I don’t think any of us will dispute that discrimination against atheists is a problem to some degree. My contention in this thread was that the lack of mention of atheists in the report you cited wasn’t particular proof of anything, since the problems cited in that report were far and away worse than those faced by atheists here and in other parts of the West.
It is right to note the lack of atheists in American public life, provided you draw the proper lessons from this. In my opinion, this disparity points not only to a relative shortage of atheists in American society in general, but also discrimination faced by them in the past that is a good bit less now. After all, to a large extent congressmen, senators and governors tend to be more seasoned politicians - and just a generation ago, I think an open atheist wouldn’t have had a prayer (ha) getting elected.
Perhaps. The US is 1.4% Jewish, but Congress is 6.9% Jewish. Does that mean that people vote specifically for Jews?
Well if the following is not discrimination, what is it?
"Last month, a USA Today/Gallup poll noted that fewer than half of Americans said they would vote for an atheist candidate for president even if he were “well qualified.”
Let’s take that sentence and recast it as : ""Last month, a USA Today/Gallup poll noted that fewer than half of Americans said they would vote for a **Roman Catholic ** candidate for president even if he were “well qualified.”
Does that second sentence betoken discrimination to you? Then why not the first sentence?
It proves that many Americans are not anti-semitic and I say good for them. No, it does not mean Americans voted specifically for Jews.
Now turn it around. If I told you that while 1.4% of Americans are Jews there are **only one or two ** since 1939, **out of thousands ** of governors, senators, congressmen, etc. elected over those decades who were known to be Jews or at least were willing to admit they were, would you not think there was a heavy strain of anti-seminitsm among American voters?
I’d say it indicates prejudice, but not discrimination. It can’t be discrimination unless some actual living human being is discriminated against.
Your thread has kind of wandered, V – unable to find persecution of atheists in the report you cited, you’re taking a logical leap that atheists are undercounted, which ipso facto implies they’re being discriminated against. it appears you’re hell-bent to prove that atheists are an oppressed minority, but hard-pressed to find any relevant facts.
You’re trying to grind an axe here, and I appreciate that, but your brush is too broad and your bases for discussion do not support what you want them to support.
I’m barely sure what your POINT even is.
I think it’s “Atheists are the targets of discrimination and they should not be.”
Well, sure. I would like to state, for the record, that I agree with this statement.
However, where are you going with that?
Do people not trust atheists? Perhaps. A good number of people who don’t have a strong religious affiliation tend to think of religious people as having a moral code of some sort, as a fundamental part of the religion. An atheist, on the other hand, does NOT have this code, and is therefore mistrusted by the general public.
Is that statement true? It’s as true as the belief that Kennedy would have a direct line to the Vatican installed so that he could get the Pope’s orders immediately.
However, when people vote, there’s no discrimination there. While religious congruence is far from the first thing I’d pick as a defining characteristic of my elected representatives, if there were two candidates who were identical in every way save that one was Catholic and one was an atheist, I’d vote for the Catholic, because I’d have at least some assurances that he and I saw eye to eye. That’s not discrimination. That’s candidate selection. You vote for the person who’s going to do the things you want and for the reasons you want (if possible).
So your anti-atheist discrimination point has been refuted on the grounds that the study (which you neglected to read) does not compile the data the way you want. Your point has also been refuted with regard to electoral politics.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but I want to know just WHY you’re on the soapbox today.
Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan.
Look them up on Wikipedia.
Well, in Kazakhstan, they worship a hawk. 
Valteron, please tell us what exactly we are supposed to be debating.
Resolved: what, exactly?
The dismissive and patronizing comments I am getting from people on this thread perhaps illustrate more eloquently than I could the point I am trying to make.
Just saying that my point about electroral politics has been refuted don’t make it so, buddy!
All I ask is that you recognize that anti-atheist prejudice is strong and plays a role in explaining why practically nobody who admits to atheism gets elected. The fact that one Democrat from SF has admitted it and made headlines proves that that prejudice is there.
But it is not taken seriously.
Let me take a small example. If I ask why the US currency says that God exists, I am dismissively and patronizingly told to stop whining about an unimportant point and that since the vast, vast majority of people believe in God, I should just shut up about it.
Okay, but please tell me: How small a minority does a group have to be before it can be told to fuck off?
If it is true that the vast majority of American blieve in God, it is alo true that the vast majority believe Jesus was his son.
So why not add to the currency the following slogan: “In God and His Son Jesus we trust.” The Jews, Muslims and Hindus would object? So what? If we can tell the atheists to stop whining, why can’t we tell them the same?
But their right to freedom OF religion is taken seriously. It is the right to freedom FROM religion that is arrogantly dismissed.
Okay, I admit it has drifted from my first posting. That can happen in a thread. But my point in the OP, even if I did not express it clearly, is still the same. Namely, that Freedom FROM Religion is not respected as a distinct and equal right as valid as Freedom OF religion.
It is not taken seriously.
From the CIA World Factbook.
Kazakhstan
Religions: Muslim 47%, Russian Orthodox 44%, Protestant 2%, other 7%
So not a majority Muslim country, because of all of the Russian immigrants, but very close
Kyrgyzstan:
Religions: Muslim 75%, Russian Orthodox 20%, other 5%
Or, if you prefer Wikipedia:
Okay, so one Muslim state is in the top 50 for atheist populations with its 7% who not believe in God.
By the same token Kzakhstan is NOT a Muslim country. It has a Muslim minority. Close only counts in horseshoes.
The point I was making is that hundreds of millions of Muslims live in countries in which you can be subjected to severe penalties and even death if you abjure Islam. How many people might there be in these countries who are actually atheists but are terrified to express themseles for fear of punishment? But the cases that are brought out are cases of people being persecuted for converting to Christianity.