Why don't liberals and Democrats fully embrace atheism?

I always respect and am grateful for the moderators.

I agree, overlooking the violence and hatred done by atheists seems to be trying to blame people of faith alone.

I only read the first few, and the last few, posts so I hope I’m not repeating anyone when I say:

The answer is the same as “Why don’t Conservatives fully embrace atheism?”. Because it’s not politically expedient in a country that is still very religious. Plus some theists tend to be intolerant of atheism (and sometimes vice versa), so it’s not a thing you can really play both sides on.

Now I know the preceding question may have seemed ridiculous to some. But bear in mind religion is not inherently tied to the right-wing; that’s something that happened in the US, around the time of the Reagan presidency (IIRC it’s debateable whether he can be credited with this strategy though). It’s not something universal around the world.
And let’s not forget that Jesus was all for sharing wealth, caring for those around us, pacifism (although he seemed to endorse all the OT smiting) etc.
So ideologically, you could make a case for atheism seeming more attractive to the right, the more libertarian wing anyway.

I think the reason liberals don’t fully embrace atheism is because atheism is neither necessary nor sufficient to holding liberal views. There is an association, but that might be different in a different society.

And the Democrats don’t embrace it because many if not most of the people who vote for them are religious. Not much mystery there.

A reminder that President Biden is not only devoutly religious, his inauguration was filled with religious (and specifically Christian) references.

Add me to the list of people who find the OP baffling. Democrats/liberals (broadly speaking) are fine with people holding religious beliefs, and also fine with people not holding religious beliefs.

Biden, as far as I can tell, does not believe that he should force his religious beliefs, or ethical decisions based on his religious beliefs, on other people. That’s what gotten him in trouble with the cardinals.
I think liberals in general, religious or non-religious, believe in decisions based on secular ethical arguments only. Personal ethical decisions can be based on faith. I’m fine with that. Except when they hurt other people.

Moderating:

I always respect and am grateful for the moderators.

I agree, overlooking the violence and hatred done by atheists seems to be trying to blame people of faith alone.

This is an official warning for repeatedly failing to follow moderator instructions in this thread.

You may not “agree” with moderators by misstating their instructions as you simultaneously take your last shot at others who are complying with those instructions. This behavior is provocative and dismissive of prior mod notes, and therefore not permitted.

Sorry.

Noted.

Let me observe that the evil done by theists (e.g. to LGB…, but also by Inquisition and others) is a result of their religious beliefs; the evil done by atheists, real enough, is not caused by their atheism. This is a false equivalence. Stalin and Mao didn’t murder tens of millions because they hated believers. Even Hitler didn’t do it because they were believers, but because they were “racially impure”.

That’s a pretty important distinction that seems to get largely overlooked by those making that argument.

I’m disappointed by the number of people here who think atheism is a “bad stereotype.”

I don’t think people think (at least not many) that atheism is a bad stereotype, but that atheists are badly stereotyped.

Arguably the French Revolution had an anti-theist streak to it, but it would be extremely inaccurate to credit its sins wholly to its atheist ideals.

It had a strong anti-clerical streak, true, which for some evolved into a generally anti-religious philosophy.

I’m not sure that’s generally true. In both cases we have ‘enemies within’, which might be heretics or LGBT for the religious, and ‘counter revolutionaries’ or class enemies for communists, and ‘enemies without’ - rival religions or political groups. In general there is some other motive for attacking these (power, money, group cohesion, etc) and the religion or political faction mostly serves to define the groups.

Atheists don’t form a group in the same way religions do, but there are plenty of non-religious groups too, so atheism does not insulate a person or movement from this general dynamic.

Probably because Christianity isn’t synonymous with either liberal Democrats or liberal Republicans. Heck, it’s not even synonymous with conservative Democrats or Republicans. (Roe v Wade, perfect example.) Any religion is just an answer first and then teachings to substantiate it, so it becomes the reason for moral compass.

If I’m a politician, I don’t want to offend groups of people, especially BIG groups of people. If I “embrace atheism”, I’m offending Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, etc, etc, etc. That’s a B-I-G group, no?

Atheism doesn’t make people bad, and it also doesn’t make them good. So, yeah.

Oddly, being a Jew no longer offends Christians. I don’t know about being a Buddhist. We’ve mostly gotten over being a Catholic offending Protestants (after Al Smith.) So why should being an atheist offend someone more than being a Buddhist?
I suspect it is the stereotypes, and the religious nature of a lot of places. I live in the secular Bay Area. My old congressman came out as an atheist near the end of his terms (but not before being reelected) and no one seemed to care. I have no idea of the religious affiliation of my current congressman.

Atheism is just another 'isim. The Dems should be secular.

I too base my ideology based on what suffix the root word is modified by. Luckily there are lots of fun systems like “monarchy” or “autocracy” that don’t end in ‘ism’!