Atheist Voters

[AnimatedDirt]

and what would their political agenda be concerning religion in this country

I would guess that an atheist president would be for religious freedom.
This would mean removing "in god we trust" from money, and enforced prayer from school because religious ought to be a personal choice and the government ought not favour one religion or non religion over another.

I'm not against removing 'in God we trust' from our currency nor am I FOR keeping it.  It makes no difference to me.  Prayer in school(s) should be personal, I agree.

Court upholds 'In God We Trust Phrase on Money

However, I think it's not really worth the cost it may take to do so. 

[Whitney]

I'd rather the religious or non-religious stance of our political leaders and politics in general be a non-issue....a real separation of church and state.  I wouldn't necessarily expect an atheist president to automatically be better at promoting personal freedom and religious freedom than a sensible religious president.

[Amicale]

I'd rather the religious or non-religious stance of our political leaders and politics in general be a non-issue....a real separation of church and state.  I wouldn't necessarily expect an atheist president to automatically be better at promoting personal freedom and religious freedom than a sensible religious president.

Yes. I'd much sooner have a reasonable, balanced, sensible head of state whose official decisions for the country wouldn't be based on his or her religious views or philosophies. I don't want a president/prime minister etc to allow their atheism to dictate any laws, just as I wouldn't want a theist to allow their theism to dictate the same. I'd much prefer a leader who saw themselves as a representative of all the people, and who was therefore willing to listen to differing ideas, and allow for differences in opinion and/or belief in society.

[Sweetdeath]

I'd rather the religious or non-religious stance of our political leaders and politics in general be a non-issue....a real separation of church and state.  I wouldn't necessarily expect an atheist president to automatically be better at promoting personal freedom and religious freedom than a sensible religious president.

Yes. I'd much sooner have a reasonable, balanced, sensible head of state whose official decisions for the country wouldn't be based on his or her religious views or philosophies. I don't want a president/prime minister etc to allow their atheism to dictate any laws, just as I wouldn't want a theist to allow their theism to dictate the same. I'd much prefer a leader who saw themselves as a representative of all the people, and who was therefore willing to listen to differing ideas, and allow for differences in opinion and/or belief in society.

Yes, but this seems like a fairy tale. Both a religious and non religious leader will.be bias in some way due to their (non) beliefs. 
I agree, I do just want fairness and reason...

[Amicale]

I'd rather the religious or non-religious stance of our political leaders and politics in general be a non-issue....a real separation of church and state.  I wouldn't necessarily expect an atheist president to automatically be better at promoting personal freedom and religious freedom than a sensible religious president.

Yes. I'd much sooner have a reasonable, balanced, sensible head of state whose official decisions for the country wouldn't be based on his or her religious views or philosophies. I don't want a president/prime minister etc to allow their atheism to dictate any laws, just as I wouldn't want a theist to allow their theism to dictate the same. I'd much prefer a leader who saw themselves as a representative of all the people, and who was therefore willing to listen to differing ideas, and allow for differences in opinion and/or belief in society.

Yes, but this seems like a fairy tale. Both a religious and non religious leader will.be bias in some way due to their (non) beliefs. 
I agree, I do just want fairness and reason...

Hey, a girl can dream!

And dream I do. The hope that our next leader will be more fair and balanced than the last one is what keeps me going back to the polls to vote. Although here in Canada, politicians seem to mask their religious views moreso than American ones do... but the views still tend to seep through in the policies they put in place. Sigh. We've prettymuch gotten to the point here where a lot of us see at least the two major parties (Liberal and Conservative) as being equally corrupt in different ways... and while I like what the NDP (New Democratic Party) has to say, I don't think they're even close to big or strong enough to take an election -- they tout themselves as a 'party for the blue collar workers' basically, and their platform is usually healthcare, worker's rights, education, etc etc... but since the party leader Jack Layton died, their new leader Mulcair is going to have a heck of a time getting people to rally behind him. He doesn't have the charisma Layton had, although he's smart.

True story: while Jack Layton was still alive, I actually met him in a bar, and shook his hand. That was a neat moment, because I thought he was a pretty great guy, as well as fair and balanced.

The next time we go out to vote, I have half a mind to simply vote by writing his name in, posthumously... 

[el_presidente]

I don't like seeing a so-called atheist party anymore than a religious one.  Hitching either "faith" to a political platform is degrading.

[markmcdaniel]

There is one more major obstacle to getting an atheist elected and that is the herd of cats mentality that atheists tend to have. Even if we formed our own party we do not seem to be united enough philosophically to actually win an election. It is possible to get an atheist or at least someone who sounds like they might be an atheist elected however. In Minnesota we elected Jesse Ventura to the governorship in 1999. Based on a comment that he has made regarding religion I would consider him an agnostic and possible an atheist or at least close enough to be called one. By the way the quote was: " Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers". He did clarify his quote later by saying that he considered himself religious more or less. I doubt that he could be elected today, but politics were for less polarized in the 90's.

[Firebird]

There is one more major obstacle to getting an atheist elected and that is the herd of cats mentality that atheists tend to have. Even if we formed our own party we do not seem to be united enough philosophically to actually win an election.

That's a valid point, though the Democrats are not much better at times! Ventura also did not wear his agnosticism/atheism on his sleeve. If an atheist were to do that and run for elected office, they probably couldn't win in most places. Maybe certain states, definitely not on the federal level.
If an atheist has a strong platform otherwise and does not highlight their non-belief much, then maybe they'd have a chance on the federal level, but it would be extremely difficult. In some state elections it's possible, mostly the coasts and parts of the midwest.

[Whitney]

If an open atheist is going to win any major election it will be as a democrat.  The republicans won't have it.  The independents can't grab enough of the vote anyway.  The Green party never picked up enough steam to make much of a bleep on the radar. And the general public would run away from any candidate who makes their atheism part of their political agenda by campaigning under the atheist party...and that would include a lot of atheists and agnostics running too.

[Sweetdeath]

If an open atheist is going to win any major election it will be as a democrat.  The republicans won't have it.  The independents can't grab enough of the vote anyway.  The Green party never picked up enough steam to make much of a bleep on the radar. And the general public would run away from any candidate who makes their atheism part of their political agenda by campaigning under the atheist party...and that would include a lot of atheists and agnostics running too.

Why are republicans such narrow minded shitheads?

[Tank]

If an open atheist is going to win any major election it will be as a democrat.  The republicans won't have it.  The independents can't grab enough of the vote anyway.  The Green party never picked up enough steam to make much of a bleep on the radar. And the general public would run away from any candidate who makes their atheism part of their political agenda by campaigning under the atheist party...and that would include a lot of atheists and agnostics running too.

Why are republicans such narrow minded shitheads?

Because narrow minded shitheads are attracted to Republican dogma. But that does not make all Republicans narrow minded shitheads, just the majority by all accounts.

[Firebird]

Republicans were not always dominated by narrow-minded shitheads. The tipping point, I believe, came with the evangelicals became a potent political force and took over their platform 30 years ago, and the party being using coded language to appeal to the white southern working class ("states rights"). Hell, before LBJ, most of the segregationists in the South were Democrats. People forget how much things have flipped.

[OldGit]

Republicans were not always dominated by narrow-minded shitheads. The tipping point, I believe, came with the evangelicals became a potent political force and took over their platform 30 years ago, and the party being using coded language to appeal to the white southern working class ("states rights"). Hell, before LBJ, most of the segregationists in the South were Democrats. People forget how much things have flipped.

The Republican party was founded in Lincoln's time, mainly on the anti-slavery platform.

[markmcdaniel]

Republicans were not always dominated by narrow-minded shitheads. The tipping point, I believe, came with the evangelicals became a potent political force and took over their platform 30 years ago, and the party being using coded language to appeal to the white southern working class ("states rights"). Hell, before LBJ, most of the segregationists in the South were Democrats. People forget how much things have flipped.

The Republican party was founded in Lincoln's time, mainly on the anti-slavery platform.

The Republican party was in fact the progressive party and remained so pretty much up to the election of Ronald Reagan. What is really frightening is that compared to the Tea Party Republicans that are currently in power conservatives like Berry Goldwater and and Ronald Reagan are now look like moderates.

[Firebird]

The Republican party was in fact the progressive party and remained so pretty much up to the election of Ronald Reagan. What is really frightening is that compared to the Tea Party Republicans that are currently in power conservatives like Berry Goldwater and and Ronald Reagan are now look like moderates.

Seriously! The Tea Party would never elect Reagan today. He'd be worse than McCain and Romney in their eyes. Their worship of him is almost...dare I say...religious