Ellen Johnson on Politics and Religion

Vote your atheism first, and together we can enlighten the vote

Yea, I’d have to disagree as well. It’s pretty much the same as the fundies saying they should all vote based on their religion first, regardless of the candidate.

Of course, as we’re more rapidly turning into a theocracy, maybe this is the best choice…

I think the entire monologue is great up until the last sentence. I agree. Voting our “atheism first” is no different than the fundies voting their religion first.

I think she’s just calling for atheists to come together as a “voting block” to speak out against the current goings on in this election.

One votes their atheism by supporting a candidate that supports the separation of church and state and understands that one can be a good citizen and support freedom without being religious. Mitt Romney has already show that he does not support these concepts. Meanwhile Barack Obama has come closer than anyone to supporting these ideas. Please visit my “Presidential Faith Watch” to see examples.

Thanks for the link.

-magikent

Romney creeps me out with his religious views, but yes, it is very troublesome that every single politician seems to have to make a religious stand for this election. It really bothers me greatly. The Constitution states that politicians should not make a religious stand as a qualification for canidacy (I can’t spell this morning). This whole race troubles me and I’m a liberal non-theist. I really hope Obama makes it because he does not have such an emphisis on religion and he sees all of us as Americans regardless of our religious stance- or lack there of. I don’t think he will base his policies on religion. I would be surprised if he does, but even he has had to make a stand, which is not a good thing.

Mike, currently the issue of Separation of Church and State should be one of the issues priority wise.

Consider this:

1. If someone like Romney or some other religious reicher gets into office, the potential for a modern day Darkage and inquisition is great. You might not have the right to practice liberal beliefs and be forced to commend and support religious extremism.

Maybe that is paranoia and maybe it’s not, but I do find such ideas and a strong emphisis on religion frightening.

2. If a religious reicher gets into office, good people who are non-theists could be persecuted strongly. How would you feel if a good friend of yours, who just happens to be a non-theist, was subjected to a modern day Inquisition?

You might not believe it could happen, but I know some Christians who are extremists in their views and support religious reich ideology, so much so that they want a religious reicher in office so that their views will be imposed on others. If that happens, we are all in trouble. We MUST keep church and state separate or we will have no freedom, because without freedom FROM religion, we have no freedom OF religion. Think about it.

Yeah, they do the same thing to us on LGBT stuff–they tell gay people that gay issues are the only important ones for voting–that we should disregard any candidate that doesn’t have a strong record on LGBT issues.

As far as I’m concerned, the only real issue is the environment. It’s the only one where bad decisions will devastate humanity for centuries to come.

I think a better way would be someone who thinks about what they believe and doesn’t believe in nonsense. In other words atheists (I’m not sure where pantheists and deists fix in, although the new agers are probably nuts). Why would you want to vote for someone who A) doesen’t think about their beliefs or B) holds ones tht are false because of political expediecy or the refusal to change their mind? Atheism doesn’t make you a better canidate; it does however show tha you have the capacity to think straight.

I agree, the “vote atheism first” seems silly and even impossible. Could I vote for a creationist? In the unlikely event that I agreed with them on all other issues I suppose I could. With all the crap they throw out there is it hard to tell what are their real beliefs and what is pandering to the masses.

I see little reason to object to the slogan “vote atheism first.” It is simply a bumpersticker with no clear meaning. Those who “disagree” with it or “object” to it apparently have infused it with a meaning not to their liking. It could be understood simply to exhort atheists, when voting, to accord some priority to those candidates and issues of particular importance to those who don’t believe in god(s). No harm in that; actually an obvious, natural thing to do.

Given that the American electorate currently is composed in large measure of those adhering to one religion or another, politicians by and large must realistically reflect some of that aspect of the electorate–otherwise they’ll be ex-politicians. Atheists who want to promote atheism and reduce the sway of religion in American society must, as a practical matter, largely work for that aim outside the political system. Within the political system, about the best atheists can expect is the election of the least worse religionist–one who at least will respect the separation of church and state and refrain from using his or her official position to promote religion.

In current events, Mike Huckabee has declared in a speech that we should amend the Constitution to bring it in line with the “Word of the Living God”.

And he’s the front runner.

Huckabee has pushed religion and politics more shamelessly than any mainstream candidate since Pat Robertson. If he isn’t defeated soundly and shamed, the next floating cross candidate we get will only be worse.

Where the hell is the outrage? There should be outrage. This should do Huckabee in. But it won’t.

I agree. I’ve also never heard that statement by Huckabee. I’d like to see the source.

And to Mike Clawson, who said:

Identity politics of any sort are getting way out of hand. Over and over again the media keeps telling us that women will for Hillary because she’s a woman, or black people will vote for Obama because he’s black, or that evangelicals will vote for Huckabee because he’s an evangelical. This may or may not be true, but the more they say it, the more it starts to become true. They start training us to think that what voters really want is someone who looks and acts just like them, irregardless of where they stand on the issues. Honestly just turn on the cable news channels – how many pundits said that Clinton’s win in NH had anything to do with her stand on the issues versus the fact that she got a little choked up a few days prior (and thus appealed more to women)?

This whole “vote for an atheist” or “vote for a Christian” is just more of the same sort of “identity politics”. I am a Christian, but I’d rather have an atheist candidate that agrees with me on the issues, than a Christian who doesn’t. And if you are an atheist, I would hope that the same (in reverse) would be true of you too.

You have to understand that the reason people fall for identity politics is because entire belief systems (values that lead them to their stances on the issues) are linked into those identities. For instance – many Americans believe that a non-religious person is incapable of having a strong sense of morality and therefore is unfit to lead the country. So dismissing identity politics as nothing but a simple label is a huge mistake. There are prejudices and judgements linked to those labels and THOSE are what drive voters to identify with the label of black, Christian, woman, etc. For instance, many voters won’t vote for Hillary because “she’s a woman.” But it’s not because she’s a woman – it’s really because of a set of ideas or qualities that they link to women.

I view purely “Atheist issues” as any issues involving the “here and now”.

Purely “Religious issues” involve the afterlife.

According to religion, the afterlife is infinitely longer than the “here and now”.

Atheists want to have a nice life in the here and now because they believe that is all there is. I will support any candidate that will best support the here and now.

I wish religious people would simply focus on the infinite afterlife and leave politics for debating “atheist issues” for making the infinitely short here and now the best it can be.

“Vote your atheism first” vs. “Is that what’s most important?”

Who said it has to be the most important issue? It’s my belief that you shouldn’t vote for a candidate you don’t believe in. If they must be an atheist for you to agree with them, then simply don’t vote for a candidate that’s not, even if that means not voting.

Oops, now I’m unpatriotic. How’d that happen? In any event, I’d say that if you’re a “devout atheist” (is that a contradiction?), then it’s simply one of the matters that should factor in when you’re looking at candidates, and thinking about whom you’d vote for. Obviously, you’re going to take issue with the religious fundamentalists, but their faith isn’t a reason to discount them entirely – it’s what they do with their faith, and what they allow it to affect.

Ideally, religion and politics would be separate from one another, however, insofar as politics is full of people, and people bring their own views to everything that they do, that’s simply a pipe dream. Even an “atheist government” which made moves to separate the church from the state, to remove religion from schools, political debates, and everything else to do with the arena is pushing a platform based on their faith, which is going to run afoul of any of a number of groups.

Selecting a candidate simply because they’re an atheist is similar to the ideas that “all African-Americans must vote for Obama” or “all women must vote for Hilary”. It’s ludicrous. Look at the issues, ask yourself if you’re willing to give on certain things, and vote with your *heart* first.

Hemant said:

There are no atheist candidates (even if there were, that shouldn’t be the only reason to vote for them).

Mike Gravel lists ‘Unitarian’ for his religion. Close enough? 😉

Mike Clawson said:

And if you are an atheist, I would hope that the same (in reverse) would be true of you too.

Yup. Heck, I’ll even consider voting for someone who believes in UFOs if their positions on actual policy were good.

And as it happens, the candidate who believes in UFO’s actually does have some of the best positions out there IMHO.

Seconded. I haven’t decided whether I’ll hold my nose and vote for Obama or happily vote for Kucinich or Gravel in the February 5 primary.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008 shows how bad the choices really are.

Which one is the UFO candidate?

Kucinich