A Young Atheist Running for State Office?

For some reason, this phrase bothered me:

…as a gift from an atheist is on Christmas morning

Me, I give great Christmas gifts! If an atheist’s gift was thoughtful, timely and/or useful, why would it be any less welcome than a Christian’s gift? That feels extra insulting to me.

That said, I wish him luck. Be proof, sir, that you don’t need to be a Christian to be ethical and competent.

He’s living in the wrong state! I wish him well, and I agree that the more atheists that run for office, the easier it will become for the next person to do. I honestly wonder how many politicians are actually agnostic or atheist and simply pretend to be Christian in order to get an office.

Arkonbey, I give great Christmas presents too! It’s something I take pride in. 🙂

Just FYI.

I just looked up atheists in UK parliament and found quite encouraging results: There’s an all-party Parliamentary Humanist group with 110 members and on the BHA distinguished supporters page, I count 13 MPs, 14 lords and 5 baronesses. That’s only the ones who are supporters of one specific humanist group. I should imagine there are even more out there. Perhaps American atheists could point to the fact that UK politicians are no more evil than US ones to show that atheism in office would not destroy society.

Perhaps American atheists could point to the fact that UK politicians are no more evil than US ones

Are you kidding? People over there have foods called “spotted dick” and “blood pudding”. They’re homosexuals who eat pureed babies!

Me, I give great Christmas gifts! If an atheist’s gift was thoughtful, timely and/or useful, why would it be any less welcome than a Christian’s gift? That feels extra insulting to me.

Really. How much of an asshole would you have to be to refuse someone’s thoughtful gift because they have a differing religious opinion?

I lived a dozen years in Rock Hill. My wife was Winthrop’s PR director and I worked for the college library. My wife earned her MBA there. In other words, I know Rock Hill and Winthrop. Rock Hill is in York County – as in Jim and Tammy Bakker and the PTL club. When I worked there, state employees had to chose whether to take Martin Luther King day or Jefferson Davis day as a holiday. MLK day was universally known as n***er day. It was legal to drive with a cocktail in your hand. This kid doesn’t have a snowball’s chance. I’m also a little concerned about his apparent obsession with pornography and booze.

Swinton is about as useful to the people of District 24 as a gift from an atheist is on Christmas morning.

I got ninja’d on this, but are they really going to refuse a Christmas present just because the gift giver wasn’t hectored into it by their invisible friend? Weak.

I’m also a little concerned about his apparent obsession with pornography and booze.

why? Okay, it’s probably a bad idea to flount your love of booze and porn in your campaign literature, but I don’t see it hurting his chances any more than being an atheist does.

Looking at his platform, it sounds pretty good (even if a few of those things may not be in the hands of the state legislature — for example, I don’t think that South Carolina can increase MPG requirements for cars [California did it, or at least tried, but an exception for CA is written in the federal clean air laws, if I’m not mistaken].

I can tell why Hemant is skeptical of some of his positions, though — Swinton wants to lower the math requirement for graduating from high school! I can’t say that I support that either. Fining people that don’t graduate from high school or get their GED doesn’t seem like a very good idea to me either. Otherwise, his platform is very green and fairly progressive, and I like what he has to say regarding a living wage for South Carolina.

If I lived there, I would vote for him!

At least he is making the run in a state where he would be allowed to serve if he wins. In my current state of residence, atheists are legally forbidden from holding public office.

http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Laws_and_other_rules_against_atheists_and_agnostics

Some of his positions seem… a bit odd, Ill agree. And some are just wrong.

D.C. is in favor of altering the state’s high school diploma requirements to include a greater number of credits required for History, less for Math, and a required number hours of community service.

History is great, but cut math? Seriously, our math in the US needs to be expanded, not shrunk.

D.C. is in favor of the legalization of marijuana, with taxes similar to those of tobacco products.

? Comparing marijana with with tobacco is the wrong way to go. Its more comparable with alcohol, and should be taxed and controlled similar to it.

D.C. is in favor of increasing the “living” wage – no longer using “minimum” in his campaign and beyond – higher than the national standard.

Minimum and living wage is a very complicated topic. I hope he has taken some economics classes to fully understand the consequences of raising minimum wage. Its a far better approach to ensure services to the poor, than to just guarantee them higher wages.

D.C. is in favor of passing legislation that would require each party represented in a race for a state office to have at least one female candidate involved in a primary.

Quotas suck. They cause problems. The gender gap is closing, and we have plenty of women in government. Support them? Absolutely. Mandate them? No, it would be ineffective to the cause of feminine rights.

And the white roof law? Ok, that seems a bit eco-draconian. Encouragements and incentives are a far better way to move people to a ‘greener’ way of thinking. People need to be motivated to think about their environment, not legislated into it.

I fall much closer to the center of most politics, and even on the conservative side on particular issues. Its hard enough having to fight the preconception that all atheists are immoral baby eaters (Sorry Hemant), but I also have to fight the preconception that all atheists are granola munching bleeding heart liberals (and I like granola!). I am glad to see someone who doesn’t hold up platitudes of faith to get elected, but I don’t feel that I could support this candidate.

Not that I live in SC, but looking at his platform the guy seems crazy to me. 🙂 Some points seem at odds, which I think makes him look naive. For example, marijuana legalization and increasing sin taxes, a somewhat unusual combination I think.

He has green hysteria, as indicated by the expensive, poorly thought out, and generally ineffective “green” proposals. He has the silly roof thing, worrying about traffic lights, and the worst, increasing pointless recycling (why is it noted as being “free of charge”, when, if the recycling was worth anything, it would be generating income). And his anti nuclear power stance says a lot about his (lack of) knowledge. Half of his environmental proposals would have the opposite effect of their intentions.

I would only agree with a couple points on his platform: marijuana legalization (minus the sin taxes), the no school voucher thing, and possibly the Confederate flag thing. The rest I would be indifferent or, in most cases, against. I’d imagine that platform wouldn’t be popular in SC either, for different reasons than mine (maybe he should try NY). Combine that with the atheist thing, which people love to vilify, especially in the South, and I bet his chances are slim.

I guess the point of my off-topic rambling is that even though I’d like to see an elected atheist in office, I wouldn’t want it to be this guy. 😛

@Nivex: For the US states, that list doesn’t seem to be very accurate. When I moved to Maryland I investigated the religious clauses in the MD constitution, thinking they would prevent me, an atheist, from doing jury duty. I found that they had been struck down decades ago. Even though they are no longer valid they do still shamefully remain there in the text, and I imagine removing them would cause an uproar. I would expect the clauses have also been invalidated in the other US states by now too.

I have a history degree, and even I think cutting math requirements is a bad idea. Especially if @No Name Please is right and half of Rock Hill celebrates Jefferson Davis Day…

Some points seem at odds, which I think makes him look naive. For example, marijuana legalization and increasing sin taxes, a somewhat unusual combination I think.

Actually, that makes sense: he wants to legalize marijuana, but tax it like tobacco. In other words, smoke up pot-heads, ’cause you’re supporting the state now! In all seriousness though, isn’t that the primary argument of legalizers? Stop wasting money on the ineffective “war on drugs” and recoup from users instead?

As a non-Carolinian, non-American, I have no god in this hunt, but I think the best thing here is what has been said, that we need more atheists running for office and losing, because this gets the new car smell off the ‘openly atheist candidate’ meme. Getting the ideas out there. From what I’ve read, I might not have voted for this kid if I could, but its a good thing that he’s running.

The best way to get people to stop smoking pot is to legalize it, have the government sell it (like ABC stores), tax it heavily, and keep a database of those that buy it.

The pot black market will dry up (just like the liquor black market) because it can’t compete with the government. No one will want their name in a database so people will stop smoking pot (except for a minority of people who will only be able to get menial jobs). All employers will want to tap into that database. Its Orwellian, but it would work.

Teleprompter, I agree with not wanting to live in an Orwellian society.

It’s hard to maximize freedom (minimum laws, no lists), safety (low crime), and public health (not taking drugs) all at the same time.

Winthrop is my alma mater, so this is surprising and interesting news. I wish DC luck. I no longer live in SC, so I can’t consider voting for him.

I’m embarrassed that the opinion was published in The Johnsonian.

“about as useful to the people of District 24 as a gift from an atheist is on Christmas morning”

I’d take a few free computers from Bill Gates on Christmas morning, if he’d give me some.

Perhaps it represents a bit of a marriage of convenience between pot-loving libertarians and those who would use taxation to control behavior and increase the state’s influence, but such compromises are what politics is. It would be naive to expect an intellectually pure platform from a politician (and frankly, I wouldn’t want one).

No, it quite simply makes sense.

It is sad that you think that one has to be a stoner or a rabid anti-drug campaigner in order to be consistent. Decriminalisation and regulation of all drugs will make for the result of best utility for society.

The consistency is in seeing that cannabis, codeine and alcohol all need to be treated in the same fundamental, sane way.

Guess what? My husband ran for local office last year (city council) and was the most voted candidate (democrat). It’s a small Virginia town in the DC suburbs. Although at city level it doesn’t really matter, who know whether he might try a state position one day. He’s an atheist (has and does participate in the ocasional atheist meeting, and I am an activist atheist. I am a member of the Beltway Atheists, a large group in the DC area. So I URGE smart, intelligent and well intentioned wannabe politicians to run for office. Just proselytizing won’t take us anywhere. If you have good ideas, invest in signs, knock on doors,and once in office and after having done a good job as a lawmaker, advertise your atheism.