Why the dearth of atheist politicians?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

Last edited Wed Jan 17, 2018, 08:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Here is what we know from surveys:
1. at least 10% of the population is atheist/agnostic
2. there is a strong correlation between level of education and not believing in god (calm down, I'm not arguing causation)

Given that there are upwards of 600 people in political positions in Washington DC, it would seem statistically that 60 of them would be atheists. And there should be more given the education levels of those people.

Yet there are fewer than a handful that openly identify as atheist. Why? I think it is political suicide to indicate that one is an atheist. So those that are (and there HAS to be that there are some) have to pass as believers. How does that add to the "see, religious people do great things" when that person may not actually be religious but just need to say they are to do the job they do?

[rzemanfl]

1. It's hard to get replies when you answer your own question. Correctly, I might add. n/t

[Cuthbert Allgood]

6. Good point. But I could be wrong.

Happens a couple times a decade.

[rzemanfl]

10. Not this time IMO. I am reminded of what my long dead Bohemian immigrant

grandfather said in 1960. "I'll vote for Kennedy even though he's Catholic and I know he wouldn't vote for me if he knew I'd don't go to church."

[hlthe2b]

2. How do we know there aren't more (atheist) politicians?

My guess is that many just don't talk about their beliefs (or lack thereof).... Do "closeted" atheists count?

[Mariana]

5. It's very hard to count them when we don't know who they are.

There are constantly posts on DU claiming that this or that rotten person is a "fake Christian" or some variation of that idea. The obvious implication is that those rotten people must be atheists. I think that's wrong. We shouldn't be trying to read people's minds, and we shouldn't try to judge whether or not people's professed faith is genuine. If someone claims to be a Christian, I think it's best always to assume that person is telling the truth. The same applies to people who claim to adhere to any other religion, or to no religion.

[guillaumeb]

12. Amazing attempt at framing.

When you said:

There are constantly posts on DU claiming that this or that rotten person is a "fake Christian" or some variation of that idea. The obvious implication is that those rotten people must be atheists. I think that's wrong.

Constantly posts? Truly?

[trotsky]

13. Yes, constant.

And since you have stated others can use DU's search feature to find posts to back up your claims, you can swallow a dose of your own medicine and do the same for this.

That is, if you're NOT a raging hypocrite. Surely you aren't, right gil?

[guillaumeb]

14. Amazing.

Truly amazing.

[guillaumeb]

15. And this part is the most amazing:

The obvious implication is that those rotten people must be atheists. I think that's wrong.

[trotsky]

16. If they're not believers, then what are they, gil?

What are they?

[guillaumeb]

17. I am still recovering from my amazement.

It may take a while.

[trotsky]

40. You take all the time you need.

I understand why you're using that as an excuse not to answer, though.

[Mariana]

37. Please see the thread I've linked to

In which several posters either imply or just say outright that Paul Ryan is no Christian. The obvious implication is that he must be an atheist. I think it's wrong for them to do that. They can't read his mind, so they can't judge if his faith is genuine.

I suppose it's possible they think he's a follower of some religion other than Christianity, but they don't say what that might be.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218266937

[guillaumeb]

45. Saying he is no Christian does not imply that he is an atheist.

Ryan has stated that he is a Catholic. That is enough for me. While I disagree with his politics I accept that he is a Catholic.

But a few responses in one thread does not a constant message make.

[Act_of_Reparation]

47. You're being awfully pedantic for a guy who treats words like they have no objective meaning.

[guillaumeb]

49. Which ignores my actual point.

Perhaps because my point was correct.

[Act_of_Reparation]

50. My point is your point is pedantic bullshittery.

Your nitpicking obviously hyperbolic terms borders on gaslighting, and doesn't deserve to be addressed so much as it deserves to be laughed the fuck out of here with the utmost expedience.

[guillaumeb]

53. Weak attempt at deflection.

The poster made a very hyperbolic claim.
I pointed it out.
You did not like that.
Thus your attempt at deflection and name calling.

Amazing display on your part.

[Act_of_Reparation]

59. This is a web forum, not a fucking formal debate.

It is clear the poster is claiming "not a real Christian" is a very common reaction conservative Christians. It is clear the poster did not mean liberal Christians are literally constantly saying "not a real Christian" at all times.

Go sell your gaslighting somewhere else.

[guillaumeb]

62. Maybe you should read the poster's reply to me.

Complete with a link.

Sell your attempt at framing to another.

Given the number of times I have been asked why I used one word over another, the double standard is quite obvious.

[Act_of_Reparation]

65. Maybe you should read the poster's reply to you.

But I have a better idea.

Every time I find a poster call a Republican a fake Christian, I could PM you with a link. Maybe everyone else could to do the same. Once you've compiled your data, you can demonstrate to all of us how common this criticism is. Whaddya say?

[Mariana]

89. Good grief, you'd have no time to do anything else.

I wasn't exaggerating all that much when I said it was constant. I include those who put the word Christian in quotation marks when they're talking about a rotten person, because the implication of that is clear to everyone (except maybe to Gil), even if they don't say it outright. It's so common that most people don't even pay attention.

[marylandblue]

99. I usually interpret it as calling them hypocrites

I don't know if people who say it have thought it all the way through to "they must be atheists." It seems mostly to be applied to people who are homophobic and anti-choice, but don't want to take care of the poor and the sick or are racist.

[Mariana]

101. I've asked some of them to elaborate

when they say some rotten person is a fake Christian or they put the word Christian in quotes. None then said they really meant Christian hypocrites, but maintained that those rotten people are not Christians at all. When I ask what the rotten people are, if they aren't Christians, the posters generally refuse to answer.

[marylandblue]

105. Heretics maybe?

There is a long Christian tradition of keeping a few heretics around just in case you need to excommunicate or burn someone.

[trotsky]

102. I agree with you, I don't think many people do follow through on that.

By saying they're not Christians, they CLEARLY don't mean that they're Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or any specific religion.

They clearly mean they're not actually followers of the religion, i.e., are non-believers. It's just another part of the millenia-old hatred of and bias against atheists. People associate evil with non-belief. A lot of people do it subconsciously.

[Act_of_Reparation]

104. Here's one

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210118340

Three in one, actually.

[trotsky]

111. Well there ya go.

"Nothing But Fake Christians."

"They are NOT Christians in the truest sense of the word."

"They AREN'T Christians..."

Exactly what multiple people told gil. I suspect you will either get no response, or a lame attempt at deflection.

[Act_of_Reparation]

120. Here's another

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210134923

[Mariana]

122. There are a couple in this thread, so far.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210137735

[Mariana]

123. More. It's a busy day.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210137723

[Mariana]

124. Pseudochristians!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210138516

[Mariana]

125. Faux Christians who are really agents of Satan.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210135856#post7

[trotsky]

126. I wonder why gil hasn't acknowledged any of these?

Interesting.

[Mariana]

127. There are several instances in this thread.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210147161

[Mariana]

128. These assholes are not Christian!

along with several other similar posts in this thread.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210146118

[Mariana]

129. These so-called "Christians"

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210147929#post5

[Mariana]

130. These fake christians 'hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil'

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210147355#post1

[Lordquinton]

92. So ignored points are correct?

Considering you ignore points in every thread, there are a lot of correct points that people have on you.

[trotsky]

52. What does it imply then?

That they're a Muslim?

[guillaumeb]

57. Ask those who responded in that fashion.

And if they all respond that they feel he is an atheist, you might have a point.

[trotsky]

63. You already claimed you know what they DIDN'T mean.

And now you respond with this bullshit.

No wonder no one takes you seriously.

[guillaumeb]

71. And you misread my reply once again.

[trotsky]

74. Oh no, I'm seeing everything perfectly clearly.

Perfectly. Clearly.

[guillaumeb]

75. Right.

20/20.

[Mariana]

97. I have asked some of the posters who say that.

Almost every time I've done so, they've refused to answer. Isn't that a surprise.

[guillaumeb]

107. I cannot answer for them, or for that.

Perhaps the general hostile tone exhibited by a very few in this group inhibits some from otherwise engaging.

[Mariana]

109. You might think that, but it's not true.

It happens much more often in General Discussion than it does in Religion, and that is mostly where I've asked posters to explain what they mean by it. So, the reason for their refusal to answer has nothing to do with what goes on in this group.

[guillaumeb]

112. They might feel unwilling to engage on that subject.

But neither of us can say what their motivations are, or might be. We might speculate.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

55. So if you take him at his word, then he is a Christian.

So what do you say to those here on DU that say he isn't?

And how does saying he isn't a Christian by those here that say it NOT indicate he is then an atheist?

[guillaumeb]

58. You are reading far too much into the available evidence.

I know a few people who are not Christians. Some are Muslims, some are atheists. One is a Buddhist and 2 are Jews.

Your final question is an interesting exercise in logic.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

60. So in that thread when they say Ryan isn't a Christian, they mean he's a Jew?

Yeah. Sure. Sell that shit somewhere else. They mean he isn't religious. They mean he's an atheist. They are not arguing that he is just a different religion. Don't piss in my ear and tell me it's raining.

[guillaumeb]

64. Another interesting attempt.

So now you are a mind reader?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

67. You tell me. What are they saying then?

I've given you some options. You have given NOTHING that makes sense.

What does that OP and the other in that thread mean, then? Fill me in.

[guillaumeb]

73. Ask those who responded in that manner.

The same response I gave to another poster.

Alternatively, you can substitute what you feel they meant, and then condemn them for that.

[trotsky]

69. You claimed to be, since you told us what they DIDN'T mean.

[trotsky]

68. Act_of_Reparation nailed it above.

He's using pedantic bullshit.

He's pointing out that "Logically, if you say someone isn't A, it doesn't mean they are B. They could be C, D, E, or so on." so he can look like he's proven his point.

But he's proven something that no one is disputing, as usual. Straw men are gil's best friends.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

7. Certainly.

And kind of my point. But in this group we see posts of "awesome people of faith." Lately, a lot of them have been politicians. I'm not saying that the people used in those are actually atheist, but some of them have to be. Just made me think, I guess.

[guillaumeb]

18. "Some of them have to be".

Really? Why would you say this? That is an interesting line of reasoning on your part.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

23. Well, I spelled it out in the OP, but here it is again.

10% report on polls as being atheist/agnostic. There is a high correlation between education level and atheism. SOOOOO, if you list 10 politicians, AT LEAST 1 should be atheist and probably more since there is a higher education in the political world.

[guillaumeb]

25. "Should be" is merely your own wish.

And as long as you understand that, I understand your motive.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

26. You really don't understand statistics, do you?

Do you have any explanation as to why politicians so drastically cut against what are pretty solid statistics? Because that seems like an outlier that needs some study.

[guillaumeb]

31. I understand statistics, to a degree,

and probability as well. But even if statistically 30% of people are left-handed, would you assume that in any particular group, 30% must be left handed?

[MineralMan]

36. The percentage of lefties is not that high.

It's 10%. And, if you get 100 people together at random, yes about 10 will be left-handed. I'm a lefty, and I've asked for a show of hands in various groups while speaking. That percentage consistently is accurate.

[Act_of_Reparation]

51. If that group is a representative sample...

... YES.

If your group isn't 30% lefties, then your group isn't representative of the general population, and then it is time to start asking WHY.

That's how statistics works.

[guillaumeb]

56. Who decided that Congress, or politicians, are a representative samle?

The poster is speculating about something with zero evidence to support that speculation. That is an accurate assessment of this post.

[Act_of_Reparation]

61. Are you having trouble reading the OP, or remembering the OP?

Because the OP is asking why Congress is not a representative sample.

[guillaumeb]

70. The poster is speculating that some members

are secret atheists. So, speaking to your title, I would ask you the same question.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

66. Do you think it is odd that the percentage of white people in the Senate

is way higher than the percentage of white people in the country? I've certainly read a lot of articles about that. And it is troubling. Because there should be some level of representation for minority groups in our government. Yes?

So, isn't it troubling to you that AT LEAST 10% of the population has basically no representation? I'm sure it doesn't bother you since your theistic viewpoint is represented, but how about you think about others and realize government isn't just about you and your group being represented.

[guillaumeb]

72. There is a reason that the Senate is basically a white, male, millionaires club.

And we can all guess as to the reasons why that might be.

[Lordquinton]

94. Why did you omit Christian from your list?

Considering that is literally the thread at hand, blatant framing on your part.

[guillaumeb]

106. NO need to state what is obvious,

given the actual post itself, that we both are presumably reading.

[Lordquinton]

108. That's how you're going to frame it?

Ok.

[Lordquinton]

93. Ok, so you actually don't understand statistics

Thanks for clarifying.

[PJMcK]

3. Bill Maher said it best

"In fact, not only is atheism not a religion, it's not even my hobby. And that's the best thing about being an atheist: It requires so little so little of your time."

My point is that there are probably plenty of atheists in D.C. but they have no incentive to broadcast their lack of religious faith. And that's probably true of our greater society. I'd be willing to bet that there is a substantial part of many congregations that don't really believe in their churches' teachings. Accordingly, your survey statistics might very well be inaccurate and more than 10% of the population is actually atheist or agnostic.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

8. Agreed.

If 10% of people say they are atheist/agnostic in a country where that makes them part of a very hated group, then certainly there are more than 10%.

[PoliticAverse]

4. I believe the "dirth" is of politicians being honest about being atheist. n/t

[Cuthbert Allgood]

9. Yup

I don't blame them. As a teacher in Wisconsin, I often feel like my atheism would not be well received by parents.

[guillaumeb]

11. Well, if you cannot avoid the many progressive theists,

this is one attempt at reframing.

But using this same attempt at framing, how do we know that some of the predatory self-described theists like Roy Moore are really theists?

Amazing.

[Mariana]

19. We don't know.

So, it's best to take them at their word, since it is impossible to read their minds. Roy Moore says he's a Christian, so we should assume that he is, in fact, a Christian. It's not our place to judge his faith. No one should be calling him a fake Christian, putting the word Christian in quotation marks when referring to him, or otherwise implying his faith isn't genuine.

[guillaumeb]

22. I took exception to your framing.

Per my initial reply to you.

[trotsky]

42. Jesus fuck would you knock off this ridiculous "framing" bullshit accusation you do.

It's unbelievably tiresome. Support your position, if you think you can.

[guillaumeb]

48. Certainly.

I find some things here to be tiresome also.

[Lordquinton]

95. I'm sure you find people making points you can't rebut tiring

Which is why you constantly ignore what is said and go off on ridiculous tangents.

After all, you did just say that people doing that to you meant you had one that they couldn't address.

[AtheistCrusader]

79. Most of your posts are framed like you don't own a level or a t-square so pluck the telephone pole

from thine own eye, pal.

[guillaumeb]

81. The second poster who feels qualified to answer

for another. Interesting.

[Lordquinton]

84. Let me guess

You're the first?

[guillaumeb]

87. No. But I will give you some help.

look at the posts above mine, and below the one that I responded to.

[Lordquinton]

90. So this isn't an open forum where anyone can respond?

Why the sudden change in opinion on that?

[guillaumeb]

91. You asked a question.

I answered it.

[Mariana]

96. Anything to try to distract from the actual topic.

Anything.

[AtheistCrusader]

85. You frame all of your OP's. All of them.

Through a comforting lens of your own approval. Go ahead. Deny it.

And in doing so, you leave out relevant details, such as the scope or scale of a 'good news' item. If the 'goodness' is newsworthy, it should have some degree of impact. You leave that out all the time. A passer-by might mistake it for actual progress.

[Lordquinton]

20. Do they not teach statistics

At Jesuit University?

[guillaumeb]

21. And logic as well. eom

[Cuthbert Allgood]

24. We don't know.

That's the point. I'm more than willing to take them ALL at their word, but statistics indicate that over 10% are closeted atheists.

And it does me no harm if Roy Moore is an atheists. There are atheist assholes. I've never denied that.

[guillaumeb]

28. No, statistics do not indicate that.

They can indicate probability, but assuming that at least 10% are hiding their atheism assumes facts not in evidence.

Even if 10% of the population is left-handed, or atheist, or cat lovers, that does not mean that in any particular sub-group 10% will be any of the preceding. It just indicates a probability.

No matter his opinions, Roy Moore is a predatory sex offender.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

32. Yeah, they do.

If 10% of the population is left-handed and there were no left-handed people in Congress, that would be a crazy outlier. Not saying it would have to be exactly 10%, but if it were less than 1% like it is with atheists, that's pretty odd.

[AtheistCrusader]

80. We don't.

Honestly, I don't believe you, or any of them really are. Not really.
I also don't see how you could possibly prove that you actually believe.

[guillaumeb]

82. By an amzing coincidence,

I feel the same way about you and your position.

[AtheistCrusader]

86. Oh, are you one of those 'hairs on your head, stamped on your heart' believers?

[guillaumeb]

88. I have never heard this expression.

[AtheistCrusader]

98. Never read the bible huh?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

100. It's just from one of the gospels.

Hint: Check out Luke. It's a barnburner of a read.

[Act_of_Reparation]

103. Yes, an imminently quotable chapter.

Hippie Jesus was on a tear that day. Lots of love, charity, and good ol' Christian forgiveness there.

[FreepFryer]

27. Ignorance. Ps, thats spelled dearth.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

29. Derp. Thanks. My bad.

Need to give myself time to proofread when I post, I guess.

[FreepFryer]

30. In law and literature, proofreading is generally more effective than prayer :) (n/t)

[Cuthbert Allgood]

33. That's awesome. I have to remember that.

And I'm an English teacher, so that makes it worse.

[FreepFryer]

34. Made it up on the spot (it figures, as Im an historian). :D

[Binkie The Clown]

35. You can't get elected if you worship the devil and eat babies.

And that's how most "Christians" see atheists. Because of that atheist politicians know better than to come out as godless heathens.

[Jim__]

38. "... it would seem statistically that 60 of them would be atheists."

Given that there are upwards of 600 people in political positions in Washington DC, it would seem statistically that 60 of them would be atheists. And there should be more given the education levels of those people.

That assumes that the upwards of 600 people in political positions in Washington DC are a random sample from the population. If we're talking about people in elected positions, it's not a random sample.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

39. Not arguing it is a completely random sample.

But, if we also look at the high correlation between education level and atheism, it would lead one to conclude that the number should be higher given the education level of those in DC. It's not a random sample, but the population does skew to the correlation.

[Jim__]

46. Yes, it is not a random sample.

You can't just assume statistical properties of the general population apply to an elected subset of the population. You explicitly stated in the OP why we wouldn’t expect a proportional representation of atheists:

… I think it is political suicide to indicate that one is an atheist. …

[Cuthbert Allgood]

54. But they would still be atheists. Just not out of the closet.

Which opens up a whole new set of questions about the role of religion in politics.

[trotsky]

44. If anything, they'd skew toward being more likely to be nonbelievers.

Generally more educated, wealthier, etc. Characteristics that at least in the West tend to be more closely associated with non-belief.

[Mariana]

41. I think the majority in just about every constituency is religious.

If a high percentage of the religious people in each district are bigoted and won't vote for an atheist under any circumstances, then known atheists can't win these offices.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

43. Sure. But does that mean that the person is religious or just knows not to admit they aren't.

I can't believe there are no atheists that want to run for office.

[Mariana]

76. There's no way to know.

I suspect there are atheists in office, too, but I'm not about to try to divine who they are.

[Iggo]

77. They're there. They just have to lie about it. (n/t)

[Doodley]

78. You can support taking safety nets from the poor as a Christian and claim moral superiority

If you vote for a bible-thumper.

It's all to do with being told you are superior by virtue of your religion. No matter how repulsive, bigoted and mean-spirited one's views, it's always better to point the finger and say I'm not as immoral as those heathens. Same with millions of poor people being Republicans. You can claim social security and Medicare and say I am with the rich and successful people, that's why I am a Republican, not a Democrat that takes handouts.

Having married into a GOP family, this has been what I have witnessed. It is all about labels and identity. If the bigots voted for an atheist, they wouldn't be able to use God as an excuse for their repugnant views and treatment of follow human being who live in their own country.

[rock]

83. Religious people need to be reinforced in their beliefs

Atheists do not. Therefore a politician can choose to be religious without pissing off either group.

[Lordquinton]

110. I find it interesting that theists have taken this subject

And are frocing their framing on it, and accuse others of that when they get called on it.

[trotsky]

115. Well they have to make sure to dispel any notion that the religious might be bigoted.

Because duh, only non-believers are bad. So all the atheist-hate must be coming from fellow atheists. Yeah, that's the ticket. Or they deserve it because they won't shut up. Something like that.

[Lordquinton]

116. And so it goes

The theosplaining continues.

[Lordquinton]

118. Didn't notice

Not one, but two threads! That both miss the point and bash atheists why try to point it out.

[trotsky]

119. Well it's important to make sure atheists understand:

1) They are a despised minority
2) It's their own damn fault

Because the person who starts those threads sure seems to think those things.

[struggle4progress]

113. There are many more than 600 political positions in DC. Perhaps you mean to refer

to the Congress?

The usual recipe for winning electoral office includes not being too far from mainstream in the district; it is also important to shape an easily-understood message that communicates something to voters, convincing them the candidate understands their concerns and views

If a person provides no definite information about himself/herself by saying "I'm an atheist," there's no campaign advantage to the assertion: it provides a meaningless soundbite that might push more useful soundbites from news coverage

[Cuthbert Allgood]

117. I'm talking about elected officials.

Rounding up, 540 in Congress. There are other elected positions or high profile ones appointed by elected officials that gets us close to 600.

"there's no campaign advantage to the assertion" Really? You are going to just gloss by the fact that there is a HUGE disadvantage to the assertion because theists think that atheists are immoral baby eaters?

[struggle4progress]

121. A candidate needs an easily-understood message that communicates something to voters,

convincing them the candidate understands their concerns and views

Most people pay only limited attention to election issues and campaign messaging: in 2016, only about 55% of voting age citizens actually voted. A large portion of the population tunes out quickly; and that's as true for the voters as for the non-voters

To be successful, a candidate can't afford to spend time trying to broadcast a hodge-podge of facts about his/her views, since only one or two of those facts will earn coverage at any given time -- and then not necessarily with the spin the candidate prefers

A "controversy" may be the only thing many potential voters ever learn about a candidate, and an unintended "controversy" usually doesn't help a candidate: that's why campaigns are often so bland

It seems to me that the general view in this group is that people tell us little about themselves by calling themselves "atheists," because atheists are a diverse lot. Assuming this view correct (and I think it is), there would be small cause for a candidate to emphasize his/her atheism in a campaign, in part because the label provides almost no information to voters, and in part because candidates try to limit "controversies"

According to Gallup in 2015 on Presidential preferences, about 90% of Americans say they are willing to vote for qualified Catholic, female, black, Hispanic or Jewish candidates; about 80% say they are willing to vote for qualified Mormon candidates; about 75% say they are willing to vote for qualified gay/lesbian or evangelical Christian candidates; about 60% say they are willing to vote for qualified Muslim or atheist candidates; and about 45% say they are willing to vote for qualified socialist candidates. Gallup reports partisan differences here, but we should expect important local and regional differences as well

I'm not a typical voter: I'll volunteer for campaigns, for example. I typically ignore candidates' religious views completely: I really don't care if the candidate is a Catholic, a Hindu, an atheist, a Jain, a Buddhist or a Baptist or a Jew. I try to consider a combination of credibility, experience, and views on various issues relevant to the office. But if a candidate spends too much time off-topic, that's a red flag to me -- and I usually regard the candidate's religious views as off-topic