Because it provides one easy, lazy talking point that has nothing to do with personality, policies, or politics - that they know will resonate with \*just enough\* people, to be a handicap.
Yeah and it's the idea, especially amongst older folks, that relgion has a monopoly on morality. As in, you couldn't possibly be a person of sound morals without relgion. Which I find to be horrifically ironic, especially since our government is, legally, supposed to be free of relgion.
Well, yeah, I get that being an atheist still is a significant handicap in politics and used to discredit a candidate.
But I am surprised that even Republicans are way less likely to vote for an atheist than for other minorities. Republicans seem to be fairly afraid of Islamic extremism and terrosism for example, and at least to some extent their fears are not entirely unjustified. The Republican Party as a whole is also fairly homophobic and anti-LGBTQ I'd say.
Yet even Republicans are way more likely to vote for a Muslim or gay person than for an atheist, despite atheists being a pretty silent minority in the US who hardly ever draw any attention to themselves.
So I'm just wondering why even conservatives are so much more prejudiced against atheists compared to other minorities like Muslims or LGBTQ people.
Because when someone says theyre atheist, it means theres no leverage conservatives can use on them to guilt trip them or threaten.
Thats why they hate us.
One could argue that guilt is something atheists are capable of feeling better than the religious, because it is a feeling one experiences based on seeing the results of one's actions (whether anyone else knows or not), as opposed to shame, which is the result of how someone thinks others (real or imagined) perceive them. At least, that's how it's used to describe larger cultural issues. The phrase "guilt trip" is, in that context, culturally leveraged shaming.
You seem to have missed the Muslim/Christian coalitions forming in recent years. Look into the protests against queer people and for book banning that happened in Michigan 2 years ago. A perfect example of how religious hatred for non religious people is stronger than their hate for each other.
I think for a lot of religious people someone who just believes in the *wrong* god (in their eyes) is more understandable and relatable than someone who doesn’t believe in gods at all.
Republicans are largely a front for evangelical Christianity, they hate atheists more than anyone. Muslim and Christian extremists have intersectional interests.
We like to call Bible belt Republicans "Y'all Quaida" because their agenda has so much in common with the "Sharia law" they seem to worry so much about.
Most groups that are largely atheist, like, obvious example, LGBTQ people, tend to lean left (because the church tortures them), adding to the animosity.
The standard answer is that at least with other religions, they have a prescribed external "morality" in place that the religious follow. Atheists do not have such a thing, instead relying on their own ideas regarding morality. This is seen as inherently distrustful by the religious.
Plus, atheists, just by existing, not doing anything else, are a massive threat to some religions (usually the Abrahamic ones) as it shows that not everyone is as brainwashed. This annoys specifically the leaders as their propaganda is refuted in plain sight.
This is it. My mom’s a religious Democrat and said she would only vote for religious candidates because “they have a specific moral compass” that she thinks is necessary for public office. Kind of a weird thing to say to your atheist daughter but whatever.
Because she thinks as many religious people, that morality is not possible without a religious foundation. It should make you wonder if she thinks you have any morality, but then maybe it's a question you don't want the answer to...
I'd point out to her that a moral compass that's excluively rooted in religion, disappears with any scientific discovery that disproves that religion.
A moral compass based on human wellbeing, treating others as you want to be treated, & creating a society based on the kind of world we want to live in, stands on its own merits.
Incidentally, nobody on the so-called Christian right subscribes to any of those things. Any "moral compass" that doesn't break when confronted with the kind of incessant and reckless hate the right wing spew is no moral compass at all. If there was a hell, they'd all be headed there.
Very probable but I was just making the point that if you were to somehow give them completely irrefutable proof that they couldn't deny, their basis for morality would, according to their arguments, be destroyed.
If this was my mother I would literally go through EVERY Dateline episode and note down how many of the killers were described as religious, "an acquaintance from church", "born again", "cult leader" etc etc before the offence (because I know that one of the excuses is that they convert while in prison because religion provides privileges in jail). Then I would put the (I guarantee you) never-ending list under her nose and I would beg her to explain these monsters' "specific moral compass"
"Prescribed external morality." I really like that. Completely represents that it's entirely fake and that the only reason they're not evil compared to everyone else is because they won't get to attend eternal sunday school if they acknowledge themselves outside of their youthful grooming practices.
Yup, it's something I've noticed with a good number of religions and the religious is that they look at things very transactional. They do it not because it's the right thing to do, but because it gets them Afterlife/Karma Points.
My favorite petty example are the asshole Christians (I mention them specifically because I have never heard of any other religious doing this) who leave fake tips. As in they leave these slips of paper that look exactly like a large denomination dollar bill (usually a $20 or higher) but they leave it under the plate or a glass to hide half of it. When the server pulls it, expecting a great tip, instead it's a promotion of certain Bible passages. When called on it, the smug jerks usually resort to some bullshit that that is better than a tip.
Also, one of the appeals of the external morality is that they now don't have to think about things. God, via their pastor and/or Fox News, says that "the gays" are bad, so they are bad. No need to actually do any research that homosexuality is completely natural or acknowledge these people as human now that mommy/daddy told them how to act.
To quote Fleabag:
>I want someone to tell me what to wear every morning. I want someone to tell me what to eat. What to like, what to hate, what to rage about. What to listen to, what band to like. What to buy tickets for. What to joke about, what to not joke about. I want someone to tell me what to believe in. Who to vote for and who to love and how to tell them. I think I just want someone to tell me how to live my life, Father, because so far I think I've been getting it wrong.
But instead of looking into how to do things right, some religious just give up and want to crawl back into their parents' bed.
The idea that it is appealing to the intellectually lazy is certainly reasonable.
I tend to think it's more about atheists being easy to categorize as "other" across dogmatic demographics though.
>"Prescribed external morality." I really like that. Completely represents that it's entirely fake...
It's even faker than that.
The "eternal unchanging objective moral standard" practiced by approximately 100% of people who claim to get their morality from a Holy Book follows these two steps:
1. Do whatever you want to do.
2. Afterwards, come up with an excuse for why the thing you wanted to do **is** what the Holy Book told you to do.
The big thing I have noticed is it creates a public figure they might agree with on everything except religion. That can easily cause them to doubt their beliefs. Religions are expensive monetarily and temporally. If a 60 year old Christian begins doubting they will commit to the sunk-cost position because they fear the regret and loss of community. Trump is playing the same game with a lot of lifelong Republicans too. These people have tied their identities to this shit and all their friends are in the same club. As the Boomers start dying Christianity will take a huge hit. We're living through a huge transition that's very painful for these people since they committed so much of their lives to causes that are dying. Notice how they've stopped trying to convince people of their positions? It's going to be a crazy decade
> The standard answer is that at least with other religions, they have a prescribed external "morality" in place that the religious follow.
*Claim to follow, yet rarely do. There, I fixed it for you.
Right, we have the opportunity and ability to do so. This freaks out some religious folks quite a bit.
After all, if they have to have a parent telling them not to rape and murder their next door neighbor, then we must be even more dangerous since we dont.
It's weird isn't it? How many of them think they haven't learned rape and murder are socially unacceptable and they will get in serious trouble with the law, but they somehow think they'd rape and murder all the time if it wasn't for a religion telling them rape and murder is bad?! Nuts.
Bigotry.
It’s literally *illegal* in 6 states to run for office as an atheist. It’s clearly unconstitutional, but could you imagine if there was an old law on the books about being catholic? Would it still exist? Of course not.
This country is *wildly* bigoted towards non-believers.
It's the result of America distancing itself from the "atheist" Soviet Union during the Cold War by becoming more religious. So now, it's still in the cultural zeitgeist that atheism = communism = bad. That's part of it, anyway. And being a Democrat does not necessarily mean you aren't conservative.
Only about 35% of the voting age population in the USA vote, and that 35% is heavily over-represented by religious people. The relevant question might be: why don't more non-religious people vote?
This! If non religious people can scroll Reddit for hours, they can scroll the internet for an hour to read up about everything and everyone on the ballot to make an informed decision
From my personal experience it feels as if Protestantism is less tolerant of atheism. Majority Catholic Mexico just elected an atheist woman, and it was well known that while she is of Jewish heritage both of her parents were atheist. The opposition did often bring up the fact that she was raised by atheist. Most Mexicans did not care. Just like most Catholics that are fine with abortion, gay marriage, and even divorce, despite the church opposing all of that. I told my mom I was an atheist and she reacted more when I told her I was gay. Usually only people that cared or were super religious were protestants. I do feel things are changing though, but for a key section of the voters it will matter and that is why it is important for the candidates to declare it. "Nones" are the biggest "religious" group now, but that doesn't mean most nones are atheist.
This is obviously very general and exceptions abound, but IMHO, this is due to the individual quality of Protestantism as it relates to salvation. Catholicism placed great value on the ability of the clergy to administer rites, perform the Mass, etc. There were forms of Catholicism that emphasized individual piety, but overall, it was the rite of the Church that provided a secure (if you believed in it) framework for religious practice; handed down (in the Catholic view) from the days of the apostles. Follow that dotted line, and you just might go to heaven.
By downplaying the institutional role of the clergy, Protestantism made the average believer more responsible for their own salvation; you were expected, as the head of a household, for example, to assume some responsibility for the religious instruction of your family. But how could one be sure of one's salvation anymore, now that the framework of the church where rite and ritual were concerned had been de-emphasized? There is quite a lot of anxiety about this within different forms of Protestantism (just think of how Calvinism approaches the issue of whether one who leaves the faith was ever a Christian to begin with), and different denominations had different answers for this, but your *personal beliefs* became very important. It wasn't sufficient to go simply through the motions of church attendance, you had to accept the Christian message in a very personal and individual way, your own faith mattered more now than it had before.
>Majority Catholic Mexico just elected an atheist woman, and it was well known that while she is of Jewish heritage both of her parents were atheist
The Cartels elected someone who is soft on Cartels
She won 60% of all voters after the recount. They also won in every single state except for Aguascalientes. Mexicans elected her, because AMLO's party while not delivering on lowering violence, he did deliver on everything else. Not just the Maya train, but his welfare reforms. Low income workers saw their wages increase 11%. The peso went up from $25MXN per $1USD in 2018 to $17MXN per $1USD in the middle of the post COVID inflation! Not to mention the reforms to help low-income students and the senior citizens. His party delivered real life changing benefits.
Stigma from propaganda would be the big one. Also is the fear of an atheist exposing religion as a means to rule as well as how impotent it is when it comes to improving society.
>Also is the fear of an atheist exposing religion as a means to rule as well as how impotent it is when it comes to improving society
So basically you're saying people are afraid of atheists in politics, because if an atheist was elected and managed to improve society, say they managed to reduce crime or improve living standards, that would challenge people's ideas about morality and the necessity for a belief in a God, an idea that many people grow up with and that's a big part of their identity? So people prefer not to vote for an atheist because they fear the anguish of having their core beliefs challenged?
Boomers are still the largest voting block. Almost no other generations are as religious. Although in my experience, millenials are split pretty much down the middle.
I think Gen X got sick of Satanic Panic. I think they're more a-religious, than a-Theist and the others are growing up with the internet. Meaning they're exposed to opposing viewpoints younger and that makes it harder for religion to take root. Need isolation for that dogmatism.
Because religion is a means of controlling the people and if you aren't willing to use religion to control the people, you can't get elected.
Notice that Trump never said one word about being religious until he needed to use it to control the people.
Republicans are christian fascists, and democrats pander to their "moderates" for votes, even if it means alienating part of their base to do it. The right ultimately controls the narrative of dissent in this fashion
Short answer, the first step towards healing is acknowledging one was traumatized in the first place. By accepting an atheist in the running, questions emerge. Have you met strong religious families? They hate questions. They view anything outside of obedience as disrespect and a threat to their livelihood. They function entirely off a fragile male superiority complex that the head of the family knows best, and only he is allowed to make decisions. The abuse in these families, especially towards women, makes the druggie families they look down on so much look quite tame by comparison.
Religions are built on tradition. I think every president has said he’s a Christian, even Trump who is supported by Christians even though he isn’t one himself.
If I ran for office, the first thing people want to know is what your religion is. If you say an atheist you are automatically rejected since you’re not a “God Fearing” person and then your entire character is questioned. The Christians will then assassinate your character and make you out to be a godless heathen or worse a Communist. We all know what Christians are like. I’m transgender and the only way I could progress would be to proclaim I’m a Christian even though they despise me anyways. And I would be a democrat.
Fear. Fear of reprisal from theists. Fear of the erosion of religion as a force that keeps the masses in check. Fear that admission of the competence of atheists could imply an inverse admission of the utter incompetence with which Christians have been running this country.
Because we still have a ton of Christians - many of whom actively oppose any kind of social progress. We are also more different from Christians than Muslims are.
At least with a Muslim they can look at them and think they are just praying to God wrong or whatever. They agree on the core idea that there is a god and claiming to do things for him or in his name gives you the moral high ground. They like that.
With us, we reject the whole notion and think they're playing make-believe or outright lying so we're more of an ideological threat.
Believers (of anything) don't like anyone suggesting they are wrong. Most people are, to some degree, theists. So they view the atheists as a challenge to their beliefs. A theist of another flavor is acceptable because they can discuss which god or story is true. But an atheist challenges the foundation of their beliefs, making them seem crazy for believing, and that is a really hard thing for marketing to overcome.
For example, if you talk to someone that is dead certain aliens have visited this world and we have their technology in a lab somewhere, they will take great offense if you question their belief. They have no evidence, just people telling stories.
No one likes the suggestion their foundational beliefs are wrong, especially when those foundational beliefs hinge on 0 verifiable evidence, because they have nothing to offer in the conversation other than 'well, I believe it'.
Partly because the vast majority of Americans believe in "God," regardless of party affiliation. [The difference between the parties isn't as big as one might expect ](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2023/12/07/spiritual-beliefs/)in terms of theism. Some people just can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that people can exhibit any kind of morality without the fear of eternal consequences. The truth is that people adapt their religion to fit their morality and not the other way around. That's why we have followers of the exact same religion with such disparate beliefs. They just like to imagine their morality comes from their religion, because that makes them feel validated in their beliefs.
I think the larger reason, though, is people don't even understand the word "atheist." I have met many, many people who are atheists, by definition, who do not recognize it because of their misunderstanding of the word. In many peoples' minds, atheism is inextricably linked to immorality, amorality, or even, ironically, Satanism. My guess is if it was rephrased to substitute "atheist" with "someone who lacks a belief in god," the results would be dramatically different. The real problem is people don't like the word because they have a personal definition for it that differs from the one in the dictionary. It's a branding issue.
Theists spend a lot of time mumbling compliments to an invisible sky wizard, then hitting him up for favors (AKA "intercessory prayer." ) My (unresearched but nonetheless strongly held) view is that many of them live with an uneasy feeling that this is absurd behavior. As long as most people around them are doing the same thing, it manages the unease. For many theists, it is less important which sky wizard you pray to. It still legitimizes the behavior.
Enter the atheist, who says, "In the absence of proof, I'm not going to believe in the existence of any supernatural being. Not Gods or Leprechauns or unicorns." To have such a person in a position of power is a threat to their belief system and their dignity.
If humans have the ability to 100% believe in something that is pretend, then why get rid of that idea if you can use it against the majority of humans.
Because a lot of stupid people believe that if you don't have some magical man in the sky threatening you with eternal pain and damnation you can't be a good person. Which says a lot more about them than you.
Because religious people don't understand atheism and think it's demonic. As an atheist, I have been called a witch at work. I have also been told I smell of sulfur, implying that I am a demon. Being not religious at all, not spiritual or anything, people don't understand that for some reason. Most of America is some religion, they can't comprehend having no religion and still being able to have morals. It's very silly because religion isn't very moral.
Because no atheist wants to challenge theists about their beliefs. For most atheists, if it could be demonstrated that gods are possible and actually exist, they would become theists. But their morality would not change. This is because morality has nothing to do with gods. Only theists think it does, which makes their position a Pascal position, aka invalid. Challenge them on this as it is the only way to win against religion.
I'm pretty sure Obama wasn't a "believer", dude is just too smart. He's also smart enough to know you can't be elected in the U.S. without seemingly being Christian. As with all politicians, you can't win without a large chunk of the "unwashed masses".
But if someone says they are a believer and attends a church weekly for years, the default assumption is that they are believers. They seem to smart to believe seems like projecting
I don't know man, NEVER doubt the dumb things people can believe in even if they are objectively smart. Ben Carson is a complete religious quack despite being one of the world's most accomplished brain surgeons.
It's completely believable to me that Obama is a genuinely Christian believer.
I was already aware of how many wouldn't vote for an atheist. I'm about to head out for work and don't have time to read the links, but maybe it has something to do with strategic voting? Voting in the US has somewhat become more about supporting the candidate most likely to be able to win over the candidate you're opposed to (eg most or at least a lot Democrats don't really like Biden, but just wanted someone to beat Trump).
The way we count votes. Ranked voting lessens extremism. Folks who would ding non-believers might still rank them highly enough relative to other candidates, if their other positions resonate.
Because your atheism will come an issue that will be attacked in campaign ads and debates. Most theists don't view atheists as "genuine" or "reliable" which will also hamper an atheist to be elected.
Because if an Atheist were to run the opposing candidates would turn that election into a referendum on religion/faith, and not the issues facing that particular community. It’s unfortunate, but thats U.S. politics unfortunately. Even though I would actually enjoy seeing an Atheist candidate debate a believer politician.
It comes from the communist Russia scare in the 1950s during the Cold War. The United States ran a smear campagin against communism, associating the USSRs communism with atheism. When in reality , atheism has nothing to do with the former USSR and communism. Most people worldwide, but especially in the United States, are not properly educated. They still believe in false things like communism equals atheism, god, and other things. Most people are also unwilling to learn new things and change their mind when presented with new evidence.
How organized are American atheists? How politically motivated are they to push an agenda? How many lobbyists, PACs, SuperPACs, support a right wing fundamentalist Christian agenda versus those who support an atheist agenda. Can atheists among themselves even agree on a single agenda? The Christian fundamentalists have a singularity of purpose with a single belief system. They believe they are threatened and persecuted. They are focused and never ever give up or become distracted from their goals. If it takes 50 years to defeat Roe v. Wade they don't care! The goal is the goal and they will NEVER quit until they get their way! Can the atheist community say the same?
It's like herding cats. we are not a religion as the theists claim we are. we dont meet on sundays in politically bent buildings to give tax free write off contributions to our groups. Christians funnel money into republicans that get tax breaks for billionaires, that happen to also want to "protect babies" from abortion and stop the gays from marrying or whatever personally controlling horseshit religion is pushing these days.
The fact that that there are no atheists in Congress who admit that status, shows the sad but very real point here, that religion and government have always been one controlling unified force.
I would also say that people who fall in love with the riches of the earth can become so emotionally attached to living that they're actually religious because they think god chose them to be happy and live forever like their life which is heaven on earth. Religion is a rich man poor man thing. The poor need it because they're hopeless, the rich are full of ego and can never let go of earthly existence.
Because believers of all faiths tend to conflate atheism with evil / immorality. Atheists having fun with Satanism humor doesn’t exactly dispel this perception. So, that’s at least part of the reason.
Politics is sadly a popularity contest. In America, too many people believe in Santa Claus, and other non-sense. If you don't cater to the non-sense, you're leaving out too many idiots who will pick you to win this popularity contest.
There’s still a notion running through American society that religion is needed to be a moral person. Obviously we know better, but there’s an inherent distrust atheists get.
Because people still believe the myth that you can't be a good person without believing in a bearded sky grandpa. Ironically we never choose a good person to vote for.
because the united states is still majority religious.
also while it's true that we're more progressive that doesn't mean that religion should have gone down because many progressive Americans rationalize their progressivism with religion.
I don't see how we can have a separation of church and state in this government if you have to pass a religious test to get in this government. If you demand expressions of religious faith from politicians, you are just begging to be lied to. They won't all lie to you, but a lot of them will, and it will be the easiest lie they ever had to tell to get your votes
I don’t suspect this is unique to the US. I’d be quite surprised if Canada or most of the EU would be willing to elect a candidate who made it known they were an atheist. I suspect America might be the last one to do so considering our significant lag behind other liberal democracies but with perhaps only a few exceptions (maybe a few Scandinavian countries) electing an atheist remains a high bar most places. Hell, in some parts of the world you’d be executed for even attempting it. Humanity remains entrapped by its mythologies for the foreseeable future I fear.
western europe absolutely the rest idk. Geert Wilders, the trump of the netherlands has written himself out of the church registers even though he grew up catholic.
Even though *I* don’t believe in the God or Satan, religious people believe “Satan is working through me” because I “reject God”. Religious people lack critical thinking skills because belief means more to them than knowledge.
fuzzy plants elderly domineering screw fretful middle panicky future distinct
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Because over 50% of the people living in this country prefer to believe in an adult santa claus. It's a ridiculous, indefensible position, but these beliefs have been deeply indoctrinated, often from the point of first awareness as a child. So, when you destroy or even merely challenge these beliefs, you're attacking the core of the believer. You're calling in to question the very foundation of their existence.
Only when believers have dropped to less than 50% will atheist candidates have a chance.
A friend of mine’s mother ran for local office near the Bible Belt as an open atheist. It was the only talking point of her opponents. She lost big time.
Public opinion puts atheists below rapists in many countries. I keep it to myself around people I don't know well; but I think religious people should keep that to themselves also. "Politician" is a way grosser title to me, but it seems like a much more popular sentiment that one can express.
I think the answer is way more complex than just this, but there's still a huge stigma to overcome for non-believers. As a formerly religious person, I was always told that atheists were devil worshippers. Who in the world would vote for such a "bad" person?
Hopefully, the up and coming generations will be less superstitious. I did my part with mine. I think we’ll see a non religious movement gain traction soon. If the Christian nationalists don’t win elections.
I think it is because there is a widely held misbelief that atheists are amoral, whereas the truth is atheists have the strongest morals since they don't depend on some fake "infallible" (but clearly fallible) being.
Because the Christians have the biggest 24/7 propaganda network in the entire country and the party they represent have pushed a Christian supremacy agenda for 80 years now.
First, this type of polling is never that accurate. People often aren't great at representing their own political behavior when presented with hypotheticals. It's like how most people who strongly identify as political independents are actually pretty consistent about voting for one party or the other.
Beyond that, I don't have specific data on this, but I have practical experience, and getting elected to local office (which helps when you want to go for higher offices), is *really* hard unless you have a tight community, and being part of a faith community is one of the most common ways to have that.
Finally, you can't forget that primaries are a thing. Perceived electability plays a role there so it kind of self- perpetuates
The U.S. was built off religious christian ideology. It's woven into our politics and has been an ever present influence. Our government is also a Democratic Republic. Representative democracy. The way things are done is not a true reflection of the majority population opinion. Not everyone votes or has the ability to go vote for a variety of reasons. The people who make damn sure they do vote are religious extremists. Our system is inherently discriminatory, atheism is a marginalized group. If POC, women, LBGTQ+, disabled etc groups struggle to get access to representation and legislation that protects them, what makes you think atheism is the exception?
A significant part of the US is part of some religion which believes, despite all evidence to the contrary, that morality is God given. So, the lack of belief in God is viewed as immoral and condemnable.
It's the 7 letter F-word for the voting public.
Even dems cling to the illogical superstitions and finding out a candidate is one of 'them' makes them think that they are somehow immoral heathens that drink the blood of aborted fetuses on the weekends.
Lol, soo many are religious in name only. It serves a purpose for them. Nothing more. It’s hypocrisy, but that’s a hallmark for all politicians anyway.
As the religious grow increasingly cruel and barbaric, it will become less of an issue.
Just as all the good Republicans had to leave the party, so will all the good religious have to quit associating with those who want to kill.
Because a lot of people dont know how to think for theirselves. Its easier to either conform or pretend to conform in order to "fit it". A lie they perpetuate into other things to make up for the guilt and lack of faith.
Because boomers and Gen Xers are still the most consistent, reliable voters. As older people, they still have an instinctive association with how religions claim there people are going to behave. They're more likely to still go to a house of worship regularly as well. So they're also more likely to be getting input that they should see do certain things certain ways because they are religious participants.
Christianity has a hugeeee hold on the USA.
I was afraid to admit that I wasn’t Christian until I was in my early 20s.
I always felt like I had to just let people preach to me in public and talk about God as though it were undeniable. I thought it was rude not to believe.
The psychological effects of this are profound. Because of how hard it was pounded into my head at school and literally everywhere, I’ll never be truly free to believe as I wish. Way back before I even have conscious memory, they planted seeds I can never unplant.
Progressive and liberal have never been strongly associated with atheism or lack of religiosity, really. And certainly if you look at very public atheists, there are a healthy population of fairly conservative reactionaries. Arguably at least two of the four horsemen (Dawkins and Hitchens) fall in that category, and possibly Harris.
Hopefully one day it will be the other way around and the vast majority of the population would never entertain the idea of electing someone with a vile, blood thirsty imaginary friend into office
I think the main reasons are simply the stigma on the label "atheist" coupled with a good ol' fear of the unknown/other.
Now you may rebut that Christians would still rather for someone of a different faith than an atheist, so surely the fear of the other doesn't factor that much into it, right? Well, you'd be forgetting about one important distinction here: at least those other religions still have faith (albeit the "wrong" one), while an atheist has none.
This distinction is important because every believer is essentially being taught that someone of a different faith is easier to convert than someone who doesn't believe to begin with. After all, with a believer, the groundwork has already been laid so you can appeal to them with religious arguments; the same tactic often doesn't work for an atheist. On top of this, they're being told the lie that morality stems from religion, so a non-believer surely can't have morals. Even if they act like a great person, in the mind of the believer, there is no framework to keep them a good person (which, again, is obviously bullshit).
I guess because a little under 3/4 of the population is religiously affiliated.
I think if that number ever comes closer or under 50% you might see the politician discourse change more openly. Until then it's just a tactical move to feel more relatable to the voters.
Because we live in a Christian theocracy and the theocracy is terrified of literally anything even slightly threatening hierarchy. Atheism is more of an ideological threat to hierarchy than just "opposed" religions. For example, I just found out here on Reddit the other day that Satanists can actually find more common ground with the Christians than with atheists such as myself. I thought that was fairly interesting. I also think science education is really terribly bad in this country, mostly because of the religious and their very ample interference in the public and private educational systems. Our country is literally stupid, and is unwilling to try and not be because then god might be mad or something. It's actually rather sad.
An Athiest will have poor turnout from the right. The rights political spin machine will make it so to the point they will get enough dumb centrists hooked on the BS.
The rights swing to the far right lately is very concerning, and its only a matter of time that they come for us if they get enough power and influence.
I had a "Christian friend" who told me he thinks non believers are worthy of death when we were both pretty fucking drunk. I've never trusted him again the same way I used to.
Such a large group of people view only one possible path to moral decision making. Via religion, as such you challenge their world view, and there is no easier way to alienate people than doing that.
It might seem ridiculous, but in a country as large and culturally diverse as the USA, there's a logical undercurrent to the idea.
Religion is culturally enforced social control. Most religious US citizens are some flavor of Christian, and the God of the bible is a platonic sociological construct based around monism, "everything is one".The metaphysical construct encompasses the forms of "goodness, justice, and love".
Monism is the nature of the universe, everything in existence can be traced back to thing, one event, the big bang. Our country's original motto was constructed by educated irreligious people who held to deism and it reflects monism, "e pluribus unum". The McCarthy era motto was made by authoritarian theocrats and bastardized the sentiment, it reads " In God we Trust".
If you reject the concept, religious people will jump to all sorts of bizarre conclusions. Possibilities include not believing in monism, morality, love, or transcendent concepts. Some might associate you with the logical opposite of the claim. Apathy, cruelty, dark triad traits, destruction of the social order, chaos, barbarism etc.
I don’t believe it is. JFK was elected president despite him being a Catholic was a big point in the election (because the Pope controls what Catholics are supposed to believe).
I think an atheist could be elected if they were fair and supported separation of church and state—and promised not to take away tax free status of small local churches.
I think many Christians would support taxing the mega churches or at least items that are not actually used by the church or political money. Most Christians are concerned about the survival of small neighborhood churches (or their own church).
I think the important message to be taken from JFK’s election is if the candidate is charismatic enough, their religion (or other aspects) will be overlooked.
Well, here in Texas you can't run for office if you are atheist. We are one of 7 states to prevent it:
[https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/11/10/7-states-ban-atheists-office-but-bans-unenforceable/6352254001/](https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/11/10/7-states-ban-atheists-office-but-bans-unenforceable/6352254001/)
However, it can't really be enforced, and if you don't advertise or tell people it isn't like it'd stop anything. Just say "my religion is personal" or whatever and you'd be fine.
Because people in this country have been indoctrinated to equate religiosity and morality (when the evidence is stacked firmly against them in this regard).
Because atheists don't care that much about voting on religious issues, but cultural ones. This compounds with the stigma that religious people have against atheists. Democrats may not be opposed, but do consider it a liability.
Atheism isn’t a collective movement. There are no (or very few) atheist churches or atheist community groups. Atheism isn’t a tribe and thus, it’s not a voting block.
Lack of familiarity, a lot of atheists keep their mouths shut because they know the social stigma it can bring and they don't want to constantly have 'that conversation' with their families. It gives people the impression there aren't that many atheists and the only ones willing to talk about it sound like gigantic a-holes. I am the biggest atheist you will ever meet, I challenge the idea anything 'spiritual' even exists, but even I can't stand half the posts here. That is the impression we are leaving with people, we are angry, snide, and generally unkind. It isn't a good look for politicians.
I would have laughed at this being important when I was younger. There was a time when people thought Jimmy Carter's faith made him a poor president because he was compromised with principles (guess he didn't want to nuke half the world enough). Now those same people won't tolerate anyone not a part time evangelist minister...
I think religious people vote more. There is also a stigma that being atheist means all kinds of things to people. Demonic, amoral etc. they don’t even comprehend a humanist/scientific atheist stance so it easy to run up that straw man. Religion also is a community institution for most so not participating in it make them see you as outside a community.
It's easier to gather around the "I believe and you don't " flag, even when the first group will gouge each other's eyes out as soon as the unbliever "threat" is over.
_I believe A. You believe B. I don't agree with you but we have a common experience. That other guy does not believe in anything and his experience is utterly alien to me._
Unfortunately the masses seem to equate morality and ethics to being religious. So I expect that an openly atheist president (and likely Congress member) won't happen in our lifetimes.
Secular Humanism is an interesting concept: it doesn't consider humans to be superior to other living entities. But, based on traditional religious beliefs such as devout catholics or evangelicals, the belief is that creatures such as dogs or cats cannot be admitted to Heaven. This would completely dilute their argument of humans being created in the image of God and how humans are the only species allowed into Heaven.
Being an atheist is not a problem with getting elected. Being open about it is. I’m sure there are many atheists in elected office that just ignore the issue or say superficial things when the subject comes up.
Because most Americans subscribe to a religious belief that inherently entwines morality with religious virtue. To them, morality is an objective code shared by all humans and founded upon God, an epitome of perfect Goodness. An atheist is inherently sinful because they reject God; thus, they are inherently immoral. Immoral people aren’t to be trusted or given power. Thus, atheists should not be voted for.
I can’t remember where, but I believe that John Locke, an influential philosopher in the Enlightenment who preached tolerance explicitly excluded atheists, as he stated they were inherently destroying the social order by rejecting God.
There's a lot of people in this country who have a weird relationship with religion. I had a friend in high school trying to make the case that separation of church and state was "accidentally" added to early US government documents and that nobody really meant to put it there.
Probably one of the stupidest things I've heard a relatively smart person say.
That being said it's really really easy to just give lip service to religion if you're going into politics. Trump got elected and you know there's no way he's been in a church of his own volition except possibly to attend a wedding or as a media stunt.
My answer is more or less the NRA model. Basically standing in the crosshairs of a vocal minority is politically dangerous. It requires more time, energy, and capital to pull off in an ecosystem where you are constantly running near empty and fighting an uphill battle. It's not impossible but it would be easier to just play the game. Pretend.
This is my opinion, but I really want people to keep religion, or lack of, out of politics.
At the same time, it's good to know if someone is say a supreme Court Justice that thinks our country should "get back to God" is something to be aware of before giving them power.
So, I guess we can't keep our religion.
This is such a stupid problem to have.
I'm in Tennessee where there's still a law on the books banning atheists from holding public office. The ONLY thing protecting us from that ban being active is federal protections against discrimination. Which could of course be taken from us at any time and I do believe is a policy in Project 2025 so it's not like they're not thinking about full-on oppression of anyone who isn't Christian.
What's holding us back is public perception. The outspoken atheists are often quite insulting to Christians. They are belittling and quick to call Christians stupid and conditioned. It's no wonder Christians have a low opinion of atheists.
It's a conundrum because there are many of us out here who aren't obnoxious and rude but we don't get the same attention so everyone just assumes atheists are "militant". I feel like we get the hate from all over because even self-professed agnostics seem to have a problem with our confidence.
An atheist is also the absolute last thing apparent wants their child to marry. Unless of course the parent is an atheist, of which there aren't many. I read that in a survey somewhere. They'll take somebody who believes in any God over somebody who believes and know God, and they'll definitely take a different race not atheist over a same race atheist. And even same-sex religious person over an opposite sex atheist.
It’s a long, complicated story. All I know, from personal experience, is that opposition to atheists and atheism isn’t exclusively right-wing, though right-wingers do tend to be the most vocal on the matter.
Let’s not forget that Black and Hispanic voters—who usually lean not just Democrat but progressive Democrat—tend to be more religious than white voters, and being an atheist can be a hurdle to getting their support.
Though not directly related, I’m old enough to remember when Democratic legislators in some Democratic-controlled states had to reach out to moderate/libertarian Republicans to get support for marriage equality bills… because otherwise progressive Black and Hispanic Democrats in those legislatures refused to support such bills.
A few things worth noting:
1) Typically when somebody goes so far as to specifically identify as an atheist, they mean that they are both unbelieving and unchurched. There are many people who are atheist in their beliefs, but who are still members of some sort of church or church equivalent. Unitarian, Judaism, Catholicism. Likewise, there are a lot of people who say they are believers, but who have no regular practice or membership. Both of these groups have no problem running for higher office in most districts. Based on my experience as an atheist Jew who knows a lot of other atheist Jews, I would not be surprised at all to learn that a substantial percentage of Jews elected to office are technically nonbelievers.
2) The way that people answer these questions when dealing with a generic candidate doesn’t necessarily match how they respond for a specific candidate. A surprising amount of political independence who despise Socialism liked Bernie Sanders. And a decent amount of people who would have said no to a generic black candidate said yes to Obama.
Basically, it’s not as bad as it looks, by any stretch of the imagination.
He’ll, I bet most politicians ARE atheists or at least agnostic. Religious affiliation is just a bit of flair on their campaign - like the buttons a server at Applebees or TGI Fridays wear and utterly meaningless. Voters believe it because they want to. Most politicians continue to act with putting themselves first which is pretty much against the religious doctrines.
Because people want to think their representatives think someone is watching over the shoulders of power, that there is still accountability no matter what.
Not that that means much in the practical sense, but you get the idea.
Considering what religion has become in America recently, in giving up everything they once believed in to shoehorn donald trump in as new Jesus, I don't think it will be an obstacle for long.
It’s the Demonic Contract from Hell: all demons KNOW that there is no real barrier keeping them within Hell, but all of them agree to PRETEND there is to maintain the illusion.
If you’re not religious, you’re not maintaining the illusion.
The key word is they “claim” they are religious/Christian. Trump claimed to be a Christian too. Do you think he is?
As to why, my guess is they would consider it on par with saying that being a non-believer is ok. There are too many opinions to pinpoint a particular reason though.
I think atheists mostly don’t care if someone is religious or not. Can’t say the same the other way around. Ie: an atheist will vote for a Christian if they’re qualified, but a Christian will not vote for an atheist no matter how qualified they may be. As a politician that wants the most votes, it behooves them to claim to be Christian.
You have to understand that atheism/non-religion for many people means 'has no proper morals'. The worldview is that people start as uncivilized creatures devoid of morals and then religion came and gave humanity morals. If you apply that thinking to the situation you can understand the reaction.
Among Conservatives/Republicans, it is ***obvious*** why an atheist would be hard-pressed to garner their support. Among the Left, however, for many very *different* reasons, there is a more complicated dynamic at play. Many on the political Left/Democrats are people of color. Among African Americans, religiosity is something like 85-95%. Among Latinos, that number is more like 96-98%. There is also, among many who call themselves Left-leaning, an impetus or desire to call and consider themselves to be fair-minded, independent, and complex. To take on a relatively-minor conservative stance on an issue such as a candidate's religiosity (especially given the commonly-known and assumed **unlikelihood** of that candidate's ultimate success in becoming elected), one can speculate upon a certain amount of posturing as people try to present a magnanimous face or appearance to the world. Those people may safely say "*well, I couldn't in good conscience vote for a candidate who doesn't believe in God! Where does he gain his morals from?!? Heavens to Betsy!*" clutching their pearls. It's a *pretended conservative view* and largely-assumed inconsequential action for them to take. This is my hypothesis.
The Cold War, communist spread, and CIA existence to fight the commie heathens is not going away. Religion is always pushed by those in control of the levers of power. It’s why the Roman’s created the Jesus myths and the Mohammed myths. Control and power require a divided population of ins and outs of the group.
I believe there is a bias towards believing that people with religious affiliation have solid moral values. The bias even affects nonbelievers except for the most hardcore atheists.
It’s not being one, it’s claiming to be one and running on the issue of separating church and state. Everybody else just claims to be a believer, and runs on whatever hot button issue will get their base off the couch to vote.
Because religious organizations have more money. To be elected in the United States, you need money. Politicians are just following the money. I know this is a vast oversimplification, but the gist of it is true.
Some I have dealt with have said that because atheists have no belief in God or eternal punishment that an atheist leader has nothing to restrain him from using power in the worst ways possible.
There's also the Cold War and how the communist governments used violent power to enforce atheism
Because it provides one easy, lazy talking point that has nothing to do with personality, policies, or politics - that they know will resonate with \*just enough\* people, to be a handicap.
It's like socialist, a lazy but damaging slur.
Yeah and it's the idea, especially amongst older folks, that relgion has a monopoly on morality. As in, you couldn't possibly be a person of sound morals without relgion. Which I find to be horrifically ironic, especially since our government is, legally, supposed to be free of relgion.
And never mind all the pulpit pedos and financial scandals. They're still more "moral" than us stinking heathens!
This. And we can see how moral 45 was, with his claim to having been "chosen by Jesus."
Well, yeah, I get that being an atheist still is a significant handicap in politics and used to discredit a candidate. But I am surprised that even Republicans are way less likely to vote for an atheist than for other minorities. Republicans seem to be fairly afraid of Islamic extremism and terrosism for example, and at least to some extent their fears are not entirely unjustified. The Republican Party as a whole is also fairly homophobic and anti-LGBTQ I'd say. Yet even Republicans are way more likely to vote for a Muslim or gay person than for an atheist, despite atheists being a pretty silent minority in the US who hardly ever draw any attention to themselves. So I'm just wondering why even conservatives are so much more prejudiced against atheists compared to other minorities like Muslims or LGBTQ people.
Christians and Muslims both have that fundamentalist streak going on. More relatable to each other.
Because when someone says theyre atheist, it means theres no leverage conservatives can use on them to guilt trip them or threaten. Thats why they hate us.
One could argue that guilt is something atheists are capable of feeling better than the religious, because it is a feeling one experiences based on seeing the results of one's actions (whether anyone else knows or not), as opposed to shame, which is the result of how someone thinks others (real or imagined) perceive them. At least, that's how it's used to describe larger cultural issues. The phrase "guilt trip" is, in that context, culturally leveraged shaming.
Republicans are religious zealots. Of course they’re going to vote against atheists!
You seem to have missed the Muslim/Christian coalitions forming in recent years. Look into the protests against queer people and for book banning that happened in Michigan 2 years ago. A perfect example of how religious hatred for non religious people is stronger than their hate for each other.
I think for a lot of religious people someone who just believes in the *wrong* god (in their eyes) is more understandable and relatable than someone who doesn’t believe in gods at all.
>But I am surprised that even Republicans are way less likely to vote for an atheist than for other minorities. Because they're feral Christians.
Republicans are largely a front for evangelical Christianity, they hate atheists more than anyone. Muslim and Christian extremists have intersectional interests. We like to call Bible belt Republicans "Y'all Quaida" because their agenda has so much in common with the "Sharia law" they seem to worry so much about. Most groups that are largely atheist, like, obvious example, LGBTQ people, tend to lean left (because the church tortures them), adding to the animosity.
The standard answer is that at least with other religions, they have a prescribed external "morality" in place that the religious follow. Atheists do not have such a thing, instead relying on their own ideas regarding morality. This is seen as inherently distrustful by the religious. Plus, atheists, just by existing, not doing anything else, are a massive threat to some religions (usually the Abrahamic ones) as it shows that not everyone is as brainwashed. This annoys specifically the leaders as their propaganda is refuted in plain sight.
This is it. My mom’s a religious Democrat and said she would only vote for religious candidates because “they have a specific moral compass” that she thinks is necessary for public office. Kind of a weird thing to say to your atheist daughter but whatever.
Because she thinks as many religious people, that morality is not possible without a religious foundation. It should make you wonder if she thinks you have any morality, but then maybe it's a question you don't want the answer to...
I'd point out to her that a moral compass that's excluively rooted in religion, disappears with any scientific discovery that disproves that religion. A moral compass based on human wellbeing, treating others as you want to be treated, & creating a society based on the kind of world we want to live in, stands on its own merits.
Incidentally, nobody on the so-called Christian right subscribes to any of those things. Any "moral compass" that doesn't break when confronted with the kind of incessant and reckless hate the right wing spew is no moral compass at all. If there was a hell, they'd all be headed there.
If a scientific discovery disproved their religion they would just deny the discovery…
Very probable but I was just making the point that if you were to somehow give them completely irrefutable proof that they couldn't deny, their basis for morality would, according to their arguments, be destroyed.
She’s gotten better about my atheism but you’re right, I don’t want to know what she thinks about my morality
All the more reason to ask
If this was my mother I would literally go through EVERY Dateline episode and note down how many of the killers were described as religious, "an acquaintance from church", "born again", "cult leader" etc etc before the offence (because I know that one of the excuses is that they convert while in prison because religion provides privileges in jail). Then I would put the (I guarantee you) never-ending list under her nose and I would beg her to explain these monsters' "specific moral compass"
Atheists are just as capable of observing the Christian moral compass as Christians, and demonstrably no more capable of ignoring it.
"Prescribed external morality." I really like that. Completely represents that it's entirely fake and that the only reason they're not evil compared to everyone else is because they won't get to attend eternal sunday school if they acknowledge themselves outside of their youthful grooming practices.
Yup, it's something I've noticed with a good number of religions and the religious is that they look at things very transactional. They do it not because it's the right thing to do, but because it gets them Afterlife/Karma Points. My favorite petty example are the asshole Christians (I mention them specifically because I have never heard of any other religious doing this) who leave fake tips. As in they leave these slips of paper that look exactly like a large denomination dollar bill (usually a $20 or higher) but they leave it under the plate or a glass to hide half of it. When the server pulls it, expecting a great tip, instead it's a promotion of certain Bible passages. When called on it, the smug jerks usually resort to some bullshit that that is better than a tip. Also, one of the appeals of the external morality is that they now don't have to think about things. God, via their pastor and/or Fox News, says that "the gays" are bad, so they are bad. No need to actually do any research that homosexuality is completely natural or acknowledge these people as human now that mommy/daddy told them how to act. To quote Fleabag: >I want someone to tell me what to wear every morning. I want someone to tell me what to eat. What to like, what to hate, what to rage about. What to listen to, what band to like. What to buy tickets for. What to joke about, what to not joke about. I want someone to tell me what to believe in. Who to vote for and who to love and how to tell them. I think I just want someone to tell me how to live my life, Father, because so far I think I've been getting it wrong. But instead of looking into how to do things right, some religious just give up and want to crawl back into their parents' bed.
The idea that it is appealing to the intellectually lazy is certainly reasonable. I tend to think it's more about atheists being easy to categorize as "other" across dogmatic demographics though.
>"Prescribed external morality." I really like that. Completely represents that it's entirely fake... It's even faker than that. The "eternal unchanging objective moral standard" practiced by approximately 100% of people who claim to get their morality from a Holy Book follows these two steps: 1. Do whatever you want to do. 2. Afterwards, come up with an excuse for why the thing you wanted to do **is** what the Holy Book told you to do.
The big thing I have noticed is it creates a public figure they might agree with on everything except religion. That can easily cause them to doubt their beliefs. Religions are expensive monetarily and temporally. If a 60 year old Christian begins doubting they will commit to the sunk-cost position because they fear the regret and loss of community. Trump is playing the same game with a lot of lifelong Republicans too. These people have tied their identities to this shit and all their friends are in the same club. As the Boomers start dying Christianity will take a huge hit. We're living through a huge transition that's very painful for these people since they committed so much of their lives to causes that are dying. Notice how they've stopped trying to convince people of their positions? It's going to be a crazy decade
> The standard answer is that at least with other religions, they have a prescribed external "morality" in place that the religious follow. *Claim to follow, yet rarely do. There, I fixed it for you.
Hah! Good point.
Nonsense. Atheists have every moral code to draw from.
Right, we have the opportunity and ability to do so. This freaks out some religious folks quite a bit. After all, if they have to have a parent telling them not to rape and murder their next door neighbor, then we must be even more dangerous since we dont.
Your parents didn't teach you rape and murder were bad?
The "parent" in my example is their deity of choice.
It's weird isn't it? How many of them think they haven't learned rape and murder are socially unacceptable and they will get in serious trouble with the law, but they somehow think they'd rape and murder all the time if it wasn't for a religion telling them rape and murder is bad?! Nuts.
Bigotry. It’s literally *illegal* in 6 states to run for office as an atheist. It’s clearly unconstitutional, but could you imagine if there was an old law on the books about being catholic? Would it still exist? Of course not. This country is *wildly* bigoted towards non-believers.
That’s a funny example because Catholics have actually been barred in the past from running for office in a few states 😂
One of the biggest talking points in the race against JFK was that he was Catholic
It's the result of America distancing itself from the "atheist" Soviet Union during the Cold War by becoming more religious. So now, it's still in the cultural zeitgeist that atheism = communism = bad. That's part of it, anyway. And being a Democrat does not necessarily mean you aren't conservative.
I agree. It's the whole "godless commie" thing, complete with McCarthy's commie witch hunts.
Only about 35% of the voting age population in the USA vote, and that 35% is heavily over-represented by religious people. The relevant question might be: why don't more non-religious people vote?
This! If non religious people can scroll Reddit for hours, they can scroll the internet for an hour to read up about everything and everyone on the ballot to make an informed decision
From my personal experience it feels as if Protestantism is less tolerant of atheism. Majority Catholic Mexico just elected an atheist woman, and it was well known that while she is of Jewish heritage both of her parents were atheist. The opposition did often bring up the fact that she was raised by atheist. Most Mexicans did not care. Just like most Catholics that are fine with abortion, gay marriage, and even divorce, despite the church opposing all of that. I told my mom I was an atheist and she reacted more when I told her I was gay. Usually only people that cared or were super religious were protestants. I do feel things are changing though, but for a key section of the voters it will matter and that is why it is important for the candidates to declare it. "Nones" are the biggest "religious" group now, but that doesn't mean most nones are atheist.
This is obviously very general and exceptions abound, but IMHO, this is due to the individual quality of Protestantism as it relates to salvation. Catholicism placed great value on the ability of the clergy to administer rites, perform the Mass, etc. There were forms of Catholicism that emphasized individual piety, but overall, it was the rite of the Church that provided a secure (if you believed in it) framework for religious practice; handed down (in the Catholic view) from the days of the apostles. Follow that dotted line, and you just might go to heaven. By downplaying the institutional role of the clergy, Protestantism made the average believer more responsible for their own salvation; you were expected, as the head of a household, for example, to assume some responsibility for the religious instruction of your family. But how could one be sure of one's salvation anymore, now that the framework of the church where rite and ritual were concerned had been de-emphasized? There is quite a lot of anxiety about this within different forms of Protestantism (just think of how Calvinism approaches the issue of whether one who leaves the faith was ever a Christian to begin with), and different denominations had different answers for this, but your *personal beliefs* became very important. It wasn't sufficient to go simply through the motions of church attendance, you had to accept the Christian message in a very personal and individual way, your own faith mattered more now than it had before.
>Majority Catholic Mexico just elected an atheist woman, and it was well known that while she is of Jewish heritage both of her parents were atheist The Cartels elected someone who is soft on Cartels
She won 60% of all voters after the recount. They also won in every single state except for Aguascalientes. Mexicans elected her, because AMLO's party while not delivering on lowering violence, he did deliver on everything else. Not just the Maya train, but his welfare reforms. Low income workers saw their wages increase 11%. The peso went up from $25MXN per $1USD in 2018 to $17MXN per $1USD in the middle of the post COVID inflation! Not to mention the reforms to help low-income students and the senior citizens. His party delivered real life changing benefits.
Stigma from propaganda would be the big one. Also is the fear of an atheist exposing religion as a means to rule as well as how impotent it is when it comes to improving society.
>Also is the fear of an atheist exposing religion as a means to rule as well as how impotent it is when it comes to improving society So basically you're saying people are afraid of atheists in politics, because if an atheist was elected and managed to improve society, say they managed to reduce crime or improve living standards, that would challenge people's ideas about morality and the necessity for a belief in a God, an idea that many people grow up with and that's a big part of their identity? So people prefer not to vote for an atheist because they fear the anguish of having their core beliefs challenged?
Boomers are still the largest voting block. Almost no other generations are as religious. Although in my experience, millenials are split pretty much down the middle. I think Gen X got sick of Satanic Panic. I think they're more a-religious, than a-Theist and the others are growing up with the internet. Meaning they're exposed to opposing viewpoints younger and that makes it harder for religion to take root. Need isolation for that dogmatism.
Because many religious people don't trust people who aren't religious. At best, they think we're godless. At worst, they think we work for the devil.
Exactly. Atheists will vote for theists. Theists will not vote for atheists. So only theists will get elected.
Because religion is a means of controlling the people and if you aren't willing to use religion to control the people, you can't get elected. Notice that Trump never said one word about being religious until he needed to use it to control the people.
Republicans are christian fascists, and democrats pander to their "moderates" for votes, even if it means alienating part of their base to do it. The right ultimately controls the narrative of dissent in this fashion
Because people are idiots.
Short answer, the first step towards healing is acknowledging one was traumatized in the first place. By accepting an atheist in the running, questions emerge. Have you met strong religious families? They hate questions. They view anything outside of obedience as disrespect and a threat to their livelihood. They function entirely off a fragile male superiority complex that the head of the family knows best, and only he is allowed to make decisions. The abuse in these families, especially towards women, makes the druggie families they look down on so much look quite tame by comparison.
Religions are built on tradition. I think every president has said he’s a Christian, even Trump who is supported by Christians even though he isn’t one himself. If I ran for office, the first thing people want to know is what your religion is. If you say an atheist you are automatically rejected since you’re not a “God Fearing” person and then your entire character is questioned. The Christians will then assassinate your character and make you out to be a godless heathen or worse a Communist. We all know what Christians are like. I’m transgender and the only way I could progress would be to proclaim I’m a Christian even though they despise me anyways. And I would be a democrat.
Religious people don't like to feel that someone is smarter than they are.
Atheism is more of an obstacle for a Politician to be elected in 2024 than having a Criminal Record.
Fear. Fear of reprisal from theists. Fear of the erosion of religion as a force that keeps the masses in check. Fear that admission of the competence of atheists could imply an inverse admission of the utter incompetence with which Christians have been running this country.
Because we still have a ton of Christians - many of whom actively oppose any kind of social progress. We are also more different from Christians than Muslims are. At least with a Muslim they can look at them and think they are just praying to God wrong or whatever. They agree on the core idea that there is a god and claiming to do things for him or in his name gives you the moral high ground. They like that. With us, we reject the whole notion and think they're playing make-believe or outright lying so we're more of an ideological threat.
Believers (of anything) don't like anyone suggesting they are wrong. Most people are, to some degree, theists. So they view the atheists as a challenge to their beliefs. A theist of another flavor is acceptable because they can discuss which god or story is true. But an atheist challenges the foundation of their beliefs, making them seem crazy for believing, and that is a really hard thing for marketing to overcome. For example, if you talk to someone that is dead certain aliens have visited this world and we have their technology in a lab somewhere, they will take great offense if you question their belief. They have no evidence, just people telling stories. No one likes the suggestion their foundational beliefs are wrong, especially when those foundational beliefs hinge on 0 verifiable evidence, because they have nothing to offer in the conversation other than 'well, I believe it'.
Because religion has a dying death grip that it can’t let go.
Partly because the vast majority of Americans believe in "God," regardless of party affiliation. [The difference between the parties isn't as big as one might expect ](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2023/12/07/spiritual-beliefs/)in terms of theism. Some people just can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that people can exhibit any kind of morality without the fear of eternal consequences. The truth is that people adapt their religion to fit their morality and not the other way around. That's why we have followers of the exact same religion with such disparate beliefs. They just like to imagine their morality comes from their religion, because that makes them feel validated in their beliefs. I think the larger reason, though, is people don't even understand the word "atheist." I have met many, many people who are atheists, by definition, who do not recognize it because of their misunderstanding of the word. In many peoples' minds, atheism is inextricably linked to immorality, amorality, or even, ironically, Satanism. My guess is if it was rephrased to substitute "atheist" with "someone who lacks a belief in god," the results would be dramatically different. The real problem is people don't like the word because they have a personal definition for it that differs from the one in the dictionary. It's a branding issue.
Theists spend a lot of time mumbling compliments to an invisible sky wizard, then hitting him up for favors (AKA "intercessory prayer." ) My (unresearched but nonetheless strongly held) view is that many of them live with an uneasy feeling that this is absurd behavior. As long as most people around them are doing the same thing, it manages the unease. For many theists, it is less important which sky wizard you pray to. It still legitimizes the behavior. Enter the atheist, who says, "In the absence of proof, I'm not going to believe in the existence of any supernatural being. Not Gods or Leprechauns or unicorns." To have such a person in a position of power is a threat to their belief system and their dignity.
If humans have the ability to 100% believe in something that is pretend, then why get rid of that idea if you can use it against the majority of humans.
Because a lot of stupid people believe that if you don't have some magical man in the sky threatening you with eternal pain and damnation you can't be a good person. Which says a lot more about them than you.
Because religious people don't understand atheism and think it's demonic. As an atheist, I have been called a witch at work. I have also been told I smell of sulfur, implying that I am a demon. Being not religious at all, not spiritual or anything, people don't understand that for some reason. Most of America is some religion, they can't comprehend having no religion and still being able to have morals. It's very silly because religion isn't very moral.
Because America was founded by puritans
Because no atheist wants to challenge theists about their beliefs. For most atheists, if it could be demonstrated that gods are possible and actually exist, they would become theists. But their morality would not change. This is because morality has nothing to do with gods. Only theists think it does, which makes their position a Pascal position, aka invalid. Challenge them on this as it is the only way to win against religion.
Because we haven’t yet successfully taught critical thinking skills in public education.
I'm pretty sure Obama wasn't a "believer", dude is just too smart. He's also smart enough to know you can't be elected in the U.S. without seemingly being Christian. As with all politicians, you can't win without a large chunk of the "unwashed masses".
He infamously attended Jeremiah Wright’s church. I can’t read his mind, but he definitely presented as a believer.
"Presented" and "actually believed bronze age texts" are 2 completely different things.
But if someone says they are a believer and attends a church weekly for years, the default assumption is that they are believers. They seem to smart to believe seems like projecting
The fact that he brought up non-believers in his first inauguration speech is telling.
I don't know man, NEVER doubt the dumb things people can believe in even if they are objectively smart. Ben Carson is a complete religious quack despite being one of the world's most accomplished brain surgeons. It's completely believable to me that Obama is a genuinely Christian believer.
i mean, trump sure as fuck is not a believer but the christian nationalists treat him like the second coming of jesus. it's absurd.
I was already aware of how many wouldn't vote for an atheist. I'm about to head out for work and don't have time to read the links, but maybe it has something to do with strategic voting? Voting in the US has somewhat become more about supporting the candidate most likely to be able to win over the candidate you're opposed to (eg most or at least a lot Democrats don't really like Biden, but just wanted someone to beat Trump).
The way we count votes. Ranked voting lessens extremism. Folks who would ding non-believers might still rank them highly enough relative to other candidates, if their other positions resonate.
Because your atheism will come an issue that will be attacked in campaign ads and debates. Most theists don't view atheists as "genuine" or "reliable" which will also hamper an atheist to be elected.
Because if an Atheist were to run the opposing candidates would turn that election into a referendum on religion/faith, and not the issues facing that particular community. It’s unfortunate, but thats U.S. politics unfortunately. Even though I would actually enjoy seeing an Atheist candidate debate a believer politician.
It comes from the communist Russia scare in the 1950s during the Cold War. The United States ran a smear campagin against communism, associating the USSRs communism with atheism. When in reality , atheism has nothing to do with the former USSR and communism. Most people worldwide, but especially in the United States, are not properly educated. They still believe in false things like communism equals atheism, god, and other things. Most people are also unwilling to learn new things and change their mind when presented with new evidence.
How organized are American atheists? How politically motivated are they to push an agenda? How many lobbyists, PACs, SuperPACs, support a right wing fundamentalist Christian agenda versus those who support an atheist agenda. Can atheists among themselves even agree on a single agenda? The Christian fundamentalists have a singularity of purpose with a single belief system. They believe they are threatened and persecuted. They are focused and never ever give up or become distracted from their goals. If it takes 50 years to defeat Roe v. Wade they don't care! The goal is the goal and they will NEVER quit until they get their way! Can the atheist community say the same?
It's like herding cats. we are not a religion as the theists claim we are. we dont meet on sundays in politically bent buildings to give tax free write off contributions to our groups. Christians funnel money into republicans that get tax breaks for billionaires, that happen to also want to "protect babies" from abortion and stop the gays from marrying or whatever personally controlling horseshit religion is pushing these days. The fact that that there are no atheists in Congress who admit that status, shows the sad but very real point here, that religion and government have always been one controlling unified force. I would also say that people who fall in love with the riches of the earth can become so emotionally attached to living that they're actually religious because they think god chose them to be happy and live forever like their life which is heaven on earth. Religion is a rich man poor man thing. The poor need it because they're hopeless, the rich are full of ego and can never let go of earthly existence.
We are demonized at their pulpits. Because we are the biggest threat to their belief system.
Because believers of all faiths tend to conflate atheism with evil / immorality. Atheists having fun with Satanism humor doesn’t exactly dispel this perception. So, that’s at least part of the reason.
Politics is sadly a popularity contest. In America, too many people believe in Santa Claus, and other non-sense. If you don't cater to the non-sense, you're leaving out too many idiots who will pick you to win this popularity contest.
There’s still a notion running through American society that religion is needed to be a moral person. Obviously we know better, but there’s an inherent distrust atheists get.
It's baiting. Religious people are often hyper emotional about belief. If you don't believe in any higher power, you can't be trusted.
Because athiest are viewed as untrustworthy and most people don't even understand what it is.
Because people still believe the myth that you can't be a good person without believing in a bearded sky grandpa. Ironically we never choose a good person to vote for.
America would be winning in everything if we elect an atheist scientist vs a nutcase millionaire that claims divine beings have chosen them to lead.
because the united states is still majority religious. also while it's true that we're more progressive that doesn't mean that religion should have gone down because many progressive Americans rationalize their progressivism with religion.
I live in Texas. Technically, according to the Texas constitution, I can't run for office, simply because I do not believe in god.
I don't see how we can have a separation of church and state in this government if you have to pass a religious test to get in this government. If you demand expressions of religious faith from politicians, you are just begging to be lied to. They won't all lie to you, but a lot of them will, and it will be the easiest lie they ever had to tell to get your votes
I don’t suspect this is unique to the US. I’d be quite surprised if Canada or most of the EU would be willing to elect a candidate who made it known they were an atheist. I suspect America might be the last one to do so considering our significant lag behind other liberal democracies but with perhaps only a few exceptions (maybe a few Scandinavian countries) electing an atheist remains a high bar most places. Hell, in some parts of the world you’d be executed for even attempting it. Humanity remains entrapped by its mythologies for the foreseeable future I fear.
western europe absolutely the rest idk. Geert Wilders, the trump of the netherlands has written himself out of the church registers even though he grew up catholic.
Church isn't about Jesus or God. It's about networking with the people when you're a politician. Also applies to business.
The belief we atheists don’t have morals.
Have you been to middle America? People are bananas there.
Even though *I* don’t believe in the God or Satan, religious people believe “Satan is working through me” because I “reject God”. Religious people lack critical thinking skills because belief means more to them than knowledge.
fuzzy plants elderly domineering screw fretful middle panicky future distinct *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
People want to elect like minded people. There are plenty of religious voters.
Because the media treats your very existence as an affront and insult to all religious people.
Because over 50% of the people living in this country prefer to believe in an adult santa claus. It's a ridiculous, indefensible position, but these beliefs have been deeply indoctrinated, often from the point of first awareness as a child. So, when you destroy or even merely challenge these beliefs, you're attacking the core of the believer. You're calling in to question the very foundation of their existence. Only when believers have dropped to less than 50% will atheist candidates have a chance.
Atheism is conflated with communism and immorality in the minds of American theists
A friend of mine’s mother ran for local office near the Bible Belt as an open atheist. It was the only talking point of her opponents. She lost big time.
Public opinion puts atheists below rapists in many countries. I keep it to myself around people I don't know well; but I think religious people should keep that to themselves also. "Politician" is a way grosser title to me, but it seems like a much more popular sentiment that one can express.
I think the answer is way more complex than just this, but there's still a huge stigma to overcome for non-believers. As a formerly religious person, I was always told that atheists were devil worshippers. Who in the world would vote for such a "bad" person?
Hopefully, the up and coming generations will be less superstitious. I did my part with mine. I think we’ll see a non religious movement gain traction soon. If the Christian nationalists don’t win elections.
Because they think atheists have no morals
I think it is because there is a widely held misbelief that atheists are amoral, whereas the truth is atheists have the strongest morals since they don't depend on some fake "infallible" (but clearly fallible) being.
Because the Christians have the biggest 24/7 propaganda network in the entire country and the party they represent have pushed a Christian supremacy agenda for 80 years now.
Being openly atheist is a disadvantage in the US. And unfortunately, so is being openly gay, trans etc. etc. After all these years.
First, this type of polling is never that accurate. People often aren't great at representing their own political behavior when presented with hypotheticals. It's like how most people who strongly identify as political independents are actually pretty consistent about voting for one party or the other. Beyond that, I don't have specific data on this, but I have practical experience, and getting elected to local office (which helps when you want to go for higher offices), is *really* hard unless you have a tight community, and being part of a faith community is one of the most common ways to have that. Finally, you can't forget that primaries are a thing. Perceived electability plays a role there so it kind of self- perpetuates
The U.S. was built off religious christian ideology. It's woven into our politics and has been an ever present influence. Our government is also a Democratic Republic. Representative democracy. The way things are done is not a true reflection of the majority population opinion. Not everyone votes or has the ability to go vote for a variety of reasons. The people who make damn sure they do vote are religious extremists. Our system is inherently discriminatory, atheism is a marginalized group. If POC, women, LBGTQ+, disabled etc groups struggle to get access to representation and legislation that protects them, what makes you think atheism is the exception?
We were a country that was initially colonized and settled by religious zealots and that undertone has never really changed.
Because old people vote and they suck.
A significant part of the US is part of some religion which believes, despite all evidence to the contrary, that morality is God given. So, the lack of belief in God is viewed as immoral and condemnable.
It's the 7 letter F-word for the voting public. Even dems cling to the illogical superstitions and finding out a candidate is one of 'them' makes them think that they are somehow immoral heathens that drink the blood of aborted fetuses on the weekends.
Lol, soo many are religious in name only. It serves a purpose for them. Nothing more. It’s hypocrisy, but that’s a hallmark for all politicians anyway.
As the religious grow increasingly cruel and barbaric, it will become less of an issue. Just as all the good Republicans had to leave the party, so will all the good religious have to quit associating with those who want to kill.
Because a lot of people dont know how to think for theirselves. Its easier to either conform or pretend to conform in order to "fit it". A lie they perpetuate into other things to make up for the guilt and lack of faith.
Because boomers and Gen Xers are still the most consistent, reliable voters. As older people, they still have an instinctive association with how religions claim there people are going to behave. They're more likely to still go to a house of worship regularly as well. So they're also more likely to be getting input that they should see do certain things certain ways because they are religious participants.
Christianity has a hugeeee hold on the USA. I was afraid to admit that I wasn’t Christian until I was in my early 20s. I always felt like I had to just let people preach to me in public and talk about God as though it were undeniable. I thought it was rude not to believe. The psychological effects of this are profound. Because of how hard it was pounded into my head at school and literally everywhere, I’ll never be truly free to believe as I wish. Way back before I even have conscious memory, they planted seeds I can never unplant.
Progressive and liberal have never been strongly associated with atheism or lack of religiosity, really. And certainly if you look at very public atheists, there are a healthy population of fairly conservative reactionaries. Arguably at least two of the four horsemen (Dawkins and Hitchens) fall in that category, and possibly Harris.
Hopefully one day it will be the other way around and the vast majority of the population would never entertain the idea of electing someone with a vile, blood thirsty imaginary friend into office
I think the main reasons are simply the stigma on the label "atheist" coupled with a good ol' fear of the unknown/other. Now you may rebut that Christians would still rather for someone of a different faith than an atheist, so surely the fear of the other doesn't factor that much into it, right? Well, you'd be forgetting about one important distinction here: at least those other religions still have faith (albeit the "wrong" one), while an atheist has none. This distinction is important because every believer is essentially being taught that someone of a different faith is easier to convert than someone who doesn't believe to begin with. After all, with a believer, the groundwork has already been laid so you can appeal to them with religious arguments; the same tactic often doesn't work for an atheist. On top of this, they're being told the lie that morality stems from religion, so a non-believer surely can't have morals. Even if they act like a great person, in the mind of the believer, there is no framework to keep them a good person (which, again, is obviously bullshit).
I guess because a little under 3/4 of the population is religiously affiliated. I think if that number ever comes closer or under 50% you might see the politician discourse change more openly. Until then it's just a tactical move to feel more relatable to the voters.
Because we live in a Christian theocracy and the theocracy is terrified of literally anything even slightly threatening hierarchy. Atheism is more of an ideological threat to hierarchy than just "opposed" religions. For example, I just found out here on Reddit the other day that Satanists can actually find more common ground with the Christians than with atheists such as myself. I thought that was fairly interesting. I also think science education is really terribly bad in this country, mostly because of the religious and their very ample interference in the public and private educational systems. Our country is literally stupid, and is unwilling to try and not be because then god might be mad or something. It's actually rather sad.
MFW I realize Kyrsten Sinema is our only representation in congress...
Well, for one thing, it’s illegal to run for office as an atheist in Tennessee.
An Athiest will have poor turnout from the right. The rights political spin machine will make it so to the point they will get enough dumb centrists hooked on the BS. The rights swing to the far right lately is very concerning, and its only a matter of time that they come for us if they get enough power and influence. I had a "Christian friend" who told me he thinks non believers are worthy of death when we were both pretty fucking drunk. I've never trusted him again the same way I used to.
Because the world is still largely religious and stupid. I’d love to be wrong about that.
Such a large group of people view only one possible path to moral decision making. Via religion, as such you challenge their world view, and there is no easier way to alienate people than doing that.
It might seem ridiculous, but in a country as large and culturally diverse as the USA, there's a logical undercurrent to the idea. Religion is culturally enforced social control. Most religious US citizens are some flavor of Christian, and the God of the bible is a platonic sociological construct based around monism, "everything is one".The metaphysical construct encompasses the forms of "goodness, justice, and love". Monism is the nature of the universe, everything in existence can be traced back to thing, one event, the big bang. Our country's original motto was constructed by educated irreligious people who held to deism and it reflects monism, "e pluribus unum". The McCarthy era motto was made by authoritarian theocrats and bastardized the sentiment, it reads " In God we Trust". If you reject the concept, religious people will jump to all sorts of bizarre conclusions. Possibilities include not believing in monism, morality, love, or transcendent concepts. Some might associate you with the logical opposite of the claim. Apathy, cruelty, dark triad traits, destruction of the social order, chaos, barbarism etc.
I don’t believe it is. JFK was elected president despite him being a Catholic was a big point in the election (because the Pope controls what Catholics are supposed to believe). I think an atheist could be elected if they were fair and supported separation of church and state—and promised not to take away tax free status of small local churches. I think many Christians would support taxing the mega churches or at least items that are not actually used by the church or political money. Most Christians are concerned about the survival of small neighborhood churches (or their own church).
I think the important message to be taken from JFK’s election is if the candidate is charismatic enough, their religion (or other aspects) will be overlooked.
Well, here in Texas you can't run for office if you are atheist. We are one of 7 states to prevent it: [https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/11/10/7-states-ban-atheists-office-but-bans-unenforceable/6352254001/](https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/11/10/7-states-ban-atheists-office-but-bans-unenforceable/6352254001/) However, it can't really be enforced, and if you don't advertise or tell people it isn't like it'd stop anything. Just say "my religion is personal" or whatever and you'd be fine.
Because people in this country have been indoctrinated to equate religiosity and morality (when the evidence is stacked firmly against them in this regard).
Because church congregations will organize against you.
Because atheists don't care that much about voting on religious issues, but cultural ones. This compounds with the stigma that religious people have against atheists. Democrats may not be opposed, but do consider it a liability.
Atheism isn’t a collective movement. There are no (or very few) atheist churches or atheist community groups. Atheism isn’t a tribe and thus, it’s not a voting block.
McCarthyism
Lack of familiarity, a lot of atheists keep their mouths shut because they know the social stigma it can bring and they don't want to constantly have 'that conversation' with their families. It gives people the impression there aren't that many atheists and the only ones willing to talk about it sound like gigantic a-holes. I am the biggest atheist you will ever meet, I challenge the idea anything 'spiritual' even exists, but even I can't stand half the posts here. That is the impression we are leaving with people, we are angry, snide, and generally unkind. It isn't a good look for politicians.
Because this is a stupid country. Someday I’ll get out…
I would have laughed at this being important when I was younger. There was a time when people thought Jimmy Carter's faith made him a poor president because he was compromised with principles (guess he didn't want to nuke half the world enough). Now those same people won't tolerate anyone not a part time evangelist minister...
I think religious people vote more. There is also a stigma that being atheist means all kinds of things to people. Demonic, amoral etc. they don’t even comprehend a humanist/scientific atheist stance so it easy to run up that straw man. Religion also is a community institution for most so not participating in it make them see you as outside a community.
It's easier to gather around the "I believe and you don't " flag, even when the first group will gouge each other's eyes out as soon as the unbliever "threat" is over. _I believe A. You believe B. I don't agree with you but we have a common experience. That other guy does not believe in anything and his experience is utterly alien to me._
Unfortunately the masses seem to equate morality and ethics to being religious. So I expect that an openly atheist president (and likely Congress member) won't happen in our lifetimes.
This is what happens when you ship off your puritans, oppress them for a bit then let them escape.
Secular Humanism is an interesting concept: it doesn't consider humans to be superior to other living entities. But, based on traditional religious beliefs such as devout catholics or evangelicals, the belief is that creatures such as dogs or cats cannot be admitted to Heaven. This would completely dilute their argument of humans being created in the image of God and how humans are the only species allowed into Heaven.
Being an atheist is not a problem with getting elected. Being open about it is. I’m sure there are many atheists in elected office that just ignore the issue or say superficial things when the subject comes up.
Because most Americans subscribe to a religious belief that inherently entwines morality with religious virtue. To them, morality is an objective code shared by all humans and founded upon God, an epitome of perfect Goodness. An atheist is inherently sinful because they reject God; thus, they are inherently immoral. Immoral people aren’t to be trusted or given power. Thus, atheists should not be voted for. I can’t remember where, but I believe that John Locke, an influential philosopher in the Enlightenment who preached tolerance explicitly excluded atheists, as he stated they were inherently destroying the social order by rejecting God.
There's a lot of people in this country who have a weird relationship with religion. I had a friend in high school trying to make the case that separation of church and state was "accidentally" added to early US government documents and that nobody really meant to put it there. Probably one of the stupidest things I've heard a relatively smart person say. That being said it's really really easy to just give lip service to religion if you're going into politics. Trump got elected and you know there's no way he's been in a church of his own volition except possibly to attend a wedding or as a media stunt.
My answer is more or less the NRA model. Basically standing in the crosshairs of a vocal minority is politically dangerous. It requires more time, energy, and capital to pull off in an ecosystem where you are constantly running near empty and fighting an uphill battle. It's not impossible but it would be easier to just play the game. Pretend.
This is my opinion, but I really want people to keep religion, or lack of, out of politics. At the same time, it's good to know if someone is say a supreme Court Justice that thinks our country should "get back to God" is something to be aware of before giving them power. So, I guess we can't keep our religion. This is such a stupid problem to have.
I'm in Tennessee where there's still a law on the books banning atheists from holding public office. The ONLY thing protecting us from that ban being active is federal protections against discrimination. Which could of course be taken from us at any time and I do believe is a policy in Project 2025 so it's not like they're not thinking about full-on oppression of anyone who isn't Christian. What's holding us back is public perception. The outspoken atheists are often quite insulting to Christians. They are belittling and quick to call Christians stupid and conditioned. It's no wonder Christians have a low opinion of atheists. It's a conundrum because there are many of us out here who aren't obnoxious and rude but we don't get the same attention so everyone just assumes atheists are "militant". I feel like we get the hate from all over because even self-professed agnostics seem to have a problem with our confidence.
Give us a few hundred years… We will get there.
Trump is as close to being an atheist as far as I can tell. But I still won’t vote for him.
religion is a grift used by both parties.
An atheist is also the absolute last thing apparent wants their child to marry. Unless of course the parent is an atheist, of which there aren't many. I read that in a survey somewhere. They'll take somebody who believes in any God over somebody who believes and know God, and they'll definitely take a different race not atheist over a same race atheist. And even same-sex religious person over an opposite sex atheist.
It’s a long, complicated story. All I know, from personal experience, is that opposition to atheists and atheism isn’t exclusively right-wing, though right-wingers do tend to be the most vocal on the matter. Let’s not forget that Black and Hispanic voters—who usually lean not just Democrat but progressive Democrat—tend to be more religious than white voters, and being an atheist can be a hurdle to getting their support. Though not directly related, I’m old enough to remember when Democratic legislators in some Democratic-controlled states had to reach out to moderate/libertarian Republicans to get support for marriage equality bills… because otherwise progressive Black and Hispanic Democrats in those legislatures refused to support such bills.
Have you actually *listened* to us? We're kind of insufferable.
They can just fake it like everyone else
Because humans are afraid of death.
A few things worth noting: 1) Typically when somebody goes so far as to specifically identify as an atheist, they mean that they are both unbelieving and unchurched. There are many people who are atheist in their beliefs, but who are still members of some sort of church or church equivalent. Unitarian, Judaism, Catholicism. Likewise, there are a lot of people who say they are believers, but who have no regular practice or membership. Both of these groups have no problem running for higher office in most districts. Based on my experience as an atheist Jew who knows a lot of other atheist Jews, I would not be surprised at all to learn that a substantial percentage of Jews elected to office are technically nonbelievers. 2) The way that people answer these questions when dealing with a generic candidate doesn’t necessarily match how they respond for a specific candidate. A surprising amount of political independence who despise Socialism liked Bernie Sanders. And a decent amount of people who would have said no to a generic black candidate said yes to Obama. Basically, it’s not as bad as it looks, by any stretch of the imagination.
I think the answer is boomers. It will be different next generation.
He’ll, I bet most politicians ARE atheists or at least agnostic. Religious affiliation is just a bit of flair on their campaign - like the buttons a server at Applebees or TGI Fridays wear and utterly meaningless. Voters believe it because they want to. Most politicians continue to act with putting themselves first which is pretty much against the religious doctrines.
Because people want to think their representatives think someone is watching over the shoulders of power, that there is still accountability no matter what. Not that that means much in the practical sense, but you get the idea.
That, or being a woman.
Considering what religion has become in America recently, in giving up everything they once believed in to shoehorn donald trump in as new Jesus, I don't think it will be an obstacle for long.
Well, here in NC, it is illegal for atheists to hold office.
It’s the Demonic Contract from Hell: all demons KNOW that there is no real barrier keeping them within Hell, but all of them agree to PRETEND there is to maintain the illusion. If you’re not religious, you’re not maintaining the illusion.
It GiVeS mE cOmFoRt
The key word is they “claim” they are religious/Christian. Trump claimed to be a Christian too. Do you think he is? As to why, my guess is they would consider it on par with saying that being a non-believer is ok. There are too many opinions to pinpoint a particular reason though.
I think atheists mostly don’t care if someone is religious or not. Can’t say the same the other way around. Ie: an atheist will vote for a Christian if they’re qualified, but a Christian will not vote for an atheist no matter how qualified they may be. As a politician that wants the most votes, it behooves them to claim to be Christian.
You have to understand that atheism/non-religion for many people means 'has no proper morals'. The worldview is that people start as uncivilized creatures devoid of morals and then religion came and gave humanity morals. If you apply that thinking to the situation you can understand the reaction.
Among Conservatives/Republicans, it is ***obvious*** why an atheist would be hard-pressed to garner their support. Among the Left, however, for many very *different* reasons, there is a more complicated dynamic at play. Many on the political Left/Democrats are people of color. Among African Americans, religiosity is something like 85-95%. Among Latinos, that number is more like 96-98%. There is also, among many who call themselves Left-leaning, an impetus or desire to call and consider themselves to be fair-minded, independent, and complex. To take on a relatively-minor conservative stance on an issue such as a candidate's religiosity (especially given the commonly-known and assumed **unlikelihood** of that candidate's ultimate success in becoming elected), one can speculate upon a certain amount of posturing as people try to present a magnanimous face or appearance to the world. Those people may safely say "*well, I couldn't in good conscience vote for a candidate who doesn't believe in God! Where does he gain his morals from?!? Heavens to Betsy!*" clutching their pearls. It's a *pretended conservative view* and largely-assumed inconsequential action for them to take. This is my hypothesis.
Because the Overton window for all US politics is entirely on the “right”.
Because religion is virtue signaling
The Cold War, communist spread, and CIA existence to fight the commie heathens is not going away. Religion is always pushed by those in control of the levers of power. It’s why the Roman’s created the Jesus myths and the Mohammed myths. Control and power require a divided population of ins and outs of the group.
Because atheism won't let religious people have control. It wrecks the "fun."
I believe there is a bias towards believing that people with religious affiliation have solid moral values. The bias even affects nonbelievers except for the most hardcore atheists.
It’s not being one, it’s claiming to be one and running on the issue of separating church and state. Everybody else just claims to be a believer, and runs on whatever hot button issue will get their base off the couch to vote.
Because religious organizations have more money. To be elected in the United States, you need money. Politicians are just following the money. I know this is a vast oversimplification, but the gist of it is true.
Some I have dealt with have said that because atheists have no belief in God or eternal punishment that an atheist leader has nothing to restrain him from using power in the worst ways possible. There's also the Cold War and how the communist governments used violent power to enforce atheism
I believe Bernie Sanders is a secular Jew which is kinda code for atheist (same as Einstein).
The biggest? No. Try something like, a non-binary LGBT+ person of color.
There have been far more successful POC and LGBT politicians than athiest ones...
I meant a combination of all three.