politics, community, usaAs a minority group, non-believers have by far the largest gap in representation at both the federal and state levels in the US. As a member of this minority would you be willing to put aside your political ideology or ideas and value a prospective candidate’s atheism over their political platform in order to further the cause of the group as a whole?
Seems like most atheists fall into either of two political ideologies: Liberal or Libertarian. So the question is: should we put such ideologies on the back burner in order to help the general cause of atheism?
Edit: Five answers all saying no basically. I just wanted to add this to give another side. I actually am with the five answers here but here is a discussion where an actual politician argues for the opposite.
http://www.archive.org/download/ConversationsFromThePaleBlueDotepisodes078AndOnward/084-EddieTabash.mp3
No, because a person’s theism or atheism is rarely a deal-breaker. There are many considerably more important issues for me as a voter.
A theist can fulfill these requirements just as well as an atheist can. I would be happier to elect an atheist candidate, but between a theist who met my requirements and an atheist who didn’t, I would vote for the theist who’s going to work to keep the government out of my uterus and my bedroom and keep the church out of my kid’s school.
For me, it’s solely a matter of what laws get passed, not the religion of the people passing them. I’ll happily vote for a devout Christian whose political views align closely with mine (hey, it happens) over an atheist whose views I disagree with.
I’m not into tribalism for its own sake.
Promote whichever candidate most closely aligns with your political beliefs, which I hope would be a set of your core belief system.
If you consider a candidate’s religious affiliation more important than his view(s) on something else, then there you go. Hopefully there will be some overlap.
Electing anyone is a compromise on something - if you’re not willing to compromise, you’ll just have to run for office yourself.
That said, I can see atheism being a tipping point in this (often unconscious) compromise calculation. Not solely for atheism itself, but for what it implies about the individual’s thinking.
But aiming to elect an especially atheist group would seem rather silly here in Finland. Being an atheist politician isn’t a problem here. Sure, as pretty much everyone, we too have some problems about religion in politics (lately especially concerning gay rights), but they are mostly concentrated on specific issues, so an atheistic group really doesn’t make much sense.
… now a instead of atheist, a rationalist group would be a different matter - for that I might be willing to do some ideological compromises, simply to get that mode of thinking some visibility in politics. But then again, rational politics is pretty much an oxymoron, so I wouldn’t keep my hopes up. :)
No, because my primary political beliefs center around the social angle. Like I said above. I am a Bull Moose and am more-or-less OK with the current, and more propositions for, business. I vote based on my social liberalism. So a candidate that would support ID in school, the abolishing of abortion, or anti(pick a group) legislation wouldn’t have any of what I’d want from an Atheist. You know?
What could I gain? Would he make Atheists the Technocracy? Haha. Probably not.
EDIT
To clarify, what I am saying is the question creates a paradox. I wouldn’t vote for someone just because of their religious beliefs. That’s a dumb thing to vote for. So the question presupposes that I could be voting for someone that doesn’t share my political views. Which more-or-less means the above things.
You think that sounds silly? That’s because you asked me to do a silly thing and I pointed out why it is silly.
Now, if the question were “Should we support Atheist candidates where they otherwise share our ideals, then that has a clear - and obvious - answer. Of course we should.
Yes, I would be willing to make some compromise. Not in every case, but in my experience, you always have to compromise when you select a candidate. So certainly I’d give up some things in order to get an atheist in office.
This question I like, makes me think.
Living in New Zealand I would not compromise because there is not a problem I can see but if I was in America I think I would if there was little difference in their ability to do a good job, there would be no point if things go worse under Atheist politicians.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.