In recent response to politicians using their power and influence as a way to implement laws with only the religious population in mind. Laws that allow Public Schools to require a school prayer, laws that require teachers to give creationism the same time and credibility as evolution, certainly have a religious agenda. This campaign challenges voters to ask politicians currently running for office "What will you do for atheist voters?" This challenges the politicians to recognize us as a voting group and acknowledge the fact that they have not always voted with us in mind. http://www.usanap.org/events/questioncampaign.html/ (http://www.usanap.org/events/questioncampaign.html/)
The most recent reply to this campaign is a video from Jacob Kramer VP of Outreach of the National Atheist Party talking to Joe Walsh in an open forum. I think the response shows that this does not have to be an attack campaign and it can be a very positive movement that should be taken up by all of us
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zAQVRekQFQ&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zAQVRekQFQ&feature=youtu.be)
Here is A-News covering the topic. They are a pretty cool Atheist News shows that I find fun to watch. They cover some good topics that I know people here would enjoy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS1pLN9fwN4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS1pLN9fwN4)
Just an update at on this campaign for anyone who was interested by my initial post.
This is a video response from Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Wt80bgUYsA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Wt80bgUYsA)
His response is not what I would call a negative response but a typical Ron Paul response. He wants the smallest government possible. So when asked what he will do for atheist voters, he replies"Nothing"
More encouraging responses come from Tara Nelson, running for Congress-Indiana District 4, and Tammy Duckworth running against Joe Walsh for the 8th District of Illinois.
Tara Nelson emailed me her response to the question "What will you do for Atheist Voters?", how do you feel about the recent passing of Indiana SB 89, and how do you plan to support the separation of Church and State
Thank you for contacting me. I do support the separation of church and
state.
I am surprised that SB 89 was passed by the Senate. I am surprised by a
lot of legislative action taking place in the Indiana Republican General
Assembly. They are shoving their far right agenda on the entire state of
Indiana. The majority assembly has proven that because they had at least
51% of the vote, they will run 100% of their agenda.
There is not a lot that I can do about that as a candidate for U.S.
Representative. I have rallied at the statehouse with the teachers and
unions, but the only thing I can do as an Indiana resident is to vote
Democratic and ask my friends, family, and acquiantences to do the same.
The supreme court has already ruled "Creationism" unconstitutional, so I'm
not sure how Indiana G.A. will get away with this one. It will certainly
cause many lawsuits, and eventually be repealed.
Please stay in contact.
Best Regards,
Tara Nelson
Candidate for U.S. Representative - Indiana District 4
3222 Norwegian Dr.
Lafayette, IN 47909
765-412-4850
tara@taranelsonforcongress.com
Jacob Kramer submitted a video response from Tammy Duckworth who expresses and open mind and a concern for all voting citizens
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yC5NfDS-PRs&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yC5NfDS-PRs&feature=youtu.be)
here in the UK we're quite lucky at the moment that two of the three main party leaders are open atheists. Unfortunately the one who isn't is currently Prime Minister. Still, I've got my fingers crossed that we may have an atheist Prime Minister in Number 10 in a few years' time :D
Quote from: Too Few Lions on February 09, 2012, 09:44:41 AM
here in the UK we're quite lucky at the moment that two of the three main party leaders are open atheists. Unfortunately the one who isn't is currently Prime Minister. Still, I've got my fingers crossed that we may have an atheist Prime Minister in Number 10 in a few years' time :D
In North America, if a main party leader or opposition party leader admitted to being an atheist... they'd be booted out or in some areas, literally run out on a rail. Which is why anyone here who doesn't believe in God will say they do, to keep their office. It's sad.
Correct me if I'm wrong (as if you wouldn't :D). IF a person had enough money to fund a campaign to be president and they were an atheist they could stand for president as an independent candidate?
Quote from: Amicale on February 09, 2012, 06:18:19 PM
In North America, if a main party leader or opposition party leader admitted to being an atheist... they'd be booted out or in some areas, literally run out on a rail. Which is why anyone here who doesn't believe in God will say they do, to keep their office. It's sad.
that sucks. Over here if a party leader came out as being overly religious he'd probably be considered eccentric at best, and a bit of a nutter at worst. Tony Blair tried to hush his religious beliefs up while he was in office, despite the fact that he pretty obviously had strong religious beliefs, but a lot of people consider(ed) him a nutter anyway, and rightly so IMO.
Quote from: Tank on February 09, 2012, 06:26:40 PMCorrect me if I'm wrong (as if you wouldn't :D). IF a person had enough money to fund a campaign to be president and they were an atheist they could stand for president as an independent candidate?
Aye, that would be possible. I'd support it if I could support the candidate. Really, the only restriction to more than two political parties running for president, is that most of the people are holding to only two parties (even though candidates are rarely inline with their party's values).
Over the past decade there have been numerous political parties in the United States. These include Libertarian, Green party and independents, your party affiliation is a personal declaration on your voting paperwork and you don't even have to declare party affiliation to vote in general elections. Primaries on the other hand are operated by the parties themselves which is why there are no libertarian primaries or green party primaries because these parties don't have the funding or organization to hold national primary elections nor do they need it necessarily because there are so few potential general election candidates within these parties. Success in American politics stems from both money and Washington connections. That is why both Ross Perot and Donald Trump have failed but Bush was able to strong arm his way into the presidency even with a huge controversy regarding actual vote count. An atheist with a lot of money could run for office but it would be difficult to crack the Washington social shell. Much like a kid from a well regarded college athletic program gets drafted to the NFL with a 60 million dollar contract yet a walk on from a relatively unknown school with comparable talent will most like ride the pine if they make the team at all. It's all about breaking into the establishment and right now I fear that the political climate in America is so unfavorable for atheists that even if one had unlimited monetary resources they would still lose in the general election for president. The other issue would be of course the David and Goliath story of a relatively unknown candidate taking on both the established Democrat and Republican parties simultaneously. There is a tremendous amount of campaigning character assassination and mudslinging across the two parties. It would be a blood bath if both major parties teamed up to take out a candidate from a smaller less organized under funded fringe political party. So the short answer is yes and atheist could run for office under the banner of a different party but it would be a futile exercise without first establishing a strong party base. This is just my imagination but the only way I could envision an atheist truly coming to power in America would be to infiltrate a major party, probably the democrats, by playing along democratic party lines and then fracturing the party after the individual candidate gains enough influence to encourage current party members and leader to change part affiliation to a 3rd party possibly called the democratic secularist party. This would then allow those resources within the Washington establishment to flow into the third party without having to build it from the ground up.
The problem is, how much of the Washington establishment would dare support a candidate who is atheist? Atheism is such a dirty word in the US, much like the word liberal. Hell, the GOP has even turned the word "secular" into a dirty label, so you can imagine how well "atheist" would go over. They're very good at playing to the fears of the lowest common denominator, and one way they do that is to make a policy position some un-American or unpatriotic, no matter how ridiculous it seems.
It's not just our political system, although that certainly does not help. The culture needs to undergo a paradigm shift before an atheist could ever be elected president, or hold more than a handful of political offices around the country. Look at the outcry over trying to remove "under God" from the pledge. "In God We Trust" is on our money and even the wall behind the Speaker of the House of Representatives. All that would have to change first. It might happen, but it will be a slow and messy road.
Quote from: Firebird on February 11, 2012, 03:48:59 AM
The problem is, how much of the Washington establishment would dare support a candidate who is atheist? Atheism is such a dirty word in the US, much like the word liberal. Hell, the GOP has even turned the word "secular" into a dirty label, so you can imagine how well "atheist" would go over. They're very good at playing to the fears of the lowest common denominator, and one way they do that is to make a policy position some un-American or unpatriotic, no matter how ridiculous it seems.
It's not just our political system, although that certainly does not help. The culture needs to undergo a paradigm shift before an atheist could ever be elected president, or hold more than a handful of political offices around the country. Look at the outcry over trying to remove "under God" from the pledge. "In God We Trust" is on our money and even the wall behind the Speaker of the House of Representatives. All that would have to change first. It might happen, but it will be a slow and messy road.
^
This
It is sad, but true. The entire country has to be turned completely upsidedown. There is so much brainwashing , and god and its "holy" crap is plastered everywhere from street signs to every federal building/court.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 11, 2012, 04:50:25 AM
^
This
It is sad, but true. The entire country has to be turned completely upsidedown. There is so much brainwashing , and god and its "holy" crap is plastered everywhere from street signs to every federal building/court.
It's often struck me that although as non-believers we don't believe in God, it isn't the concept of a creator or a God existing that actually offends us. We might disagree with that idea in and of itself, but the idea of God isn't why people bother to call themselves atheists. People bother with secular labels because of what a horrible mess humans have made of religion, and what they've done in its name. If hypothetically nearly everyone in the world simply believed in a peaceful, generic creator, let others just exist as they chose to without trying to force the idea of conversion, and there were no (written by humans) holy texts imposing morality on us, and no wars in the name of this creator... we'd barely find a reason to react so strongly to the idea of God. We might assemble together, but only to possibly discuss science, or to attempt to explain the natural world to the believers as secular scientists saw it. As it is though, the name of God has been dragged across religions, governments and countries, and it's been used so often to bash people over the head, that we've found it necessary to strongly react to these actions.
Go figure. Someone on this board said once that God needs a much better PR team. I agree with that statement. I often shake my head not at the simple idea of a creator existing (that, I do hold as at least a possible option if it could be proven), but religion as I know it is truly a mess.
Its really sad that here in the US an open Atheist doesnt stand a snow ball's chance in hell of getting elected and would have to result to being an independent candidate to even run for office. It is encouraging to see that the UK is very different. I admire many aspects of UK politics and hope that if it is possible there then we can make change happen here. It may not be an immediate change but changing society's view of the word atheist and establishing ourselves as an openly recognized growing political minority is the first step. The National Atheist Party and their Atheist Voters Campaign is one facet of the movement to bring social change. The National Atheist Party is working very hard to establish themselves as an independent political party capable of running an openly Atheist politician.
The more control the political establishment has over your life, the more the religious orientation etc. of a politician or political party has on your life.
The best way to keep the religious/warmongering/tax-happy/whatever right/left/center out of your business is to keep ALL of them out of it regardless of what they're selling.
As a Christian, I'm not opposed to a president claiming Atheism as their religious stand (I know...), my feelings of trepedation would be the manner in which this president would use his/her Atheism as the majority of outspoken Atheists seem to think along the lines of Dawkins and/or Hitchens. I would classify these as angry Atheists...the question is; angry at what and what would their political agenda be concerning religion in this country. I don't care for any president to flaunt their religious affiliation or belief. I'm not too enthused about prayer in the political arena, not even in the schools. If religious freedom remains, I'm ok with an Atheist president. (I'd even consider Dawkins over our present Obummer) ;)
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 10, 2012, 10:46:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Stevil on April 10, 2012, 11:04:52 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 10, 2012, 10:46:23 PM
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 (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2010/July/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.
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.
Quote from: Whitney on April 11, 2012, 03:08:21 AM
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.
Quote from: Amicale on April 11, 2012, 03:41:17 AM
Quote from: Whitney on April 11, 2012, 03:08:21 AM
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...
Quote from: Sweetdeath on April 11, 2012, 07:19:23 AM
Quote from: Amicale on April 11, 2012, 03:41:17 AM
Quote from: Whitney on April 11, 2012, 03:08:21 AM
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...
:D 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... :P
I don't like seeing a so-called atheist party anymore than a religious one. Hitching either "faith" to a political platform is degrading.
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.
Quote from: markmcdaniel on June 08, 2012, 06:16:59 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Whitney on June 08, 2012, 03:13:10 PM
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?
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 09, 2012, 04:52:47 AM
Quote from: Whitney on June 08, 2012, 03:13:10 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Firebird on June 09, 2012, 05:46:11 PM
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.
Quote from: OldGit on June 09, 2012, 07:31:56 PM
Quote from: Firebird on June 09, 2012, 05:46:11 PM
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.
Quote from: markmcdaniel on June 09, 2012, 09:25:42 PM
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 ;)
Quote from: Firebird on June 10, 2012, 03:45:07 AM
Quote from: markmcdaniel on June 09, 2012, 09:25:42 PM
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 ;)
This is only too true. The Tea Party would not like the real Reagan.Upon occasion Reagan would commit the cardinal sin of compromise. This would never be accepted by the Tea Party today.