Would you vote for an Atheist?

[Moros]

Cute Wolf referred me to a wikipedia entry on discrimination of Atheists. While I was aware of some of it, I never realised how the situation abroad was.

So two questions I would like to hear answered:
-Would you ever consider to vote for an Atheist?
-If not, do you mind Atheists holding office?


Edit:
Perhaps a last additional question. Do you consider Atheists to be 'discriminated' or frowned upon in your country of residence?

[Ice]

I'd prefer it.

[Beskar]

In Britain, Athiests/Secularists are preferred, because of the cultural significance of viewing religious types mainly as fruitcakes. If an American-style politician did his whole big show-tell about going to church and how god is backing him, and other general nonsense, they would be laughed out of the room as the fool they are.

[Moros]

In Britain, Athiests/Secularists are preferred, because of the cultural significance of viewing religious types mainly as fruitcakes. If an American-style politician did his whole big show-tell about going to church and how god is backing him, and other general nonsense, they would be laughed out of the room as the fool they are.

In Belgium I think both are accepted. Some will have their preference. But all in all, most people don't care wether the prime minister is Catholic, Protestant or Atheist. Though I'm sure it would get controversial if he was to be Islamic. Strangely the wikipedia entry: quoted some research saying that most americans would prefer someone of Islamic believe over an Atheist. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrim...ainst_atheists).

Either way the poll currently is showing more what I expected.

[gaelic cowboy]

I said yes but really I would vote for the best politician or at least the least worst one

[spmetla]

Yes, of course I would, I should probably add that I am an atheist too. Of course policies would be the deciding factor, not the belief system or lack there of.

[Lemur]

I think I already have, multiple times. How many politicians are genuinely religious? Very few, I would imagine. And their genuineness is probably in an inverse relationship with their public religiosity.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Depends on how annoying about it they are. Over-the-top in-your-face atheism pisses me off just as much as over-the-top in-your-face Christianity or any other religion. Nobody cares, start talking about issues that matter.

[Rhyfelwyr]

In Britain, Athiests/Secularists are preferred, because of the cultural significance of viewing religious types mainly as fruitcakes. If an American-style politician did his whole big show-tell about going to church and how god is backing him, and other general nonsense, they would be laughed out of the room as the fool they are.

Well Tony Blair did feel the need to do a Charles II and pretend to be Anglican while in office.

And that's just thinking about England. A lot of MP's in Scotland are religious, and it crosses over the parties. The Catholic Church pushes its agendas through the Labour Party, the Tories have ties with Unionism and the Orange Order, one caused controversy in refusing a gay couples access to his B&B, and the SNP had one councillor who recently called all gays sad people and said atheists were all going to burn in hell.

And that's without going into Northern Ireland, where they have a lot of very hardline Ian Paisley-esque Presbyterians, and some guys that have pretty quirky ideas (that they are descended from the 10 lost tribes of Israel etc).

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I would if I agree with he/she.

[Centurion1]

it doesnt matter to me and im a serious roman catholic.

however i cannot stand the stereotypical psuedo intellectual militant atheists.

id probably assasinate one of those suckers.

[Monk]

The religion of a politician is the very last thing on my mind when I go to vote, right after "What am I gonna make for dinner tonight?"

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Their personal religious beliefs are far less relevant than policy related and leadership related factors.

[ajaxfetish]

Absolutely. I don't think religion should be an important factor in choosing elected officials. On the other hand, if they were to enact an anti-religion policy, that would change things.

Ajax

[Beskar]

I will change my post slightly.

I have no trouble with politicians who have been to church, or was raised religious.

However, if they start talking about how god is choosing them to be president, homosexuals burn in hell and promoting creationism, I want them out of that office, asap. I have no time for non-intellectual nonsense.

If some one however goes, "I don't agree with homosexuality, but I understand the importance of homosexual rights and no problems with them adopting", that people gets some serious +rep from me. As they know what is important is not their own personal beliefs, but for the benefit of everyone as a whole.

[Moros]

only one voted no. Perhaps then indeed the problem isn't really all that in the west. But then again if we hold the same poll in the bible belt...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

However, if they start talking about how god is choosing them to be president, homosexuals burn in hell and promoting creationism, I want them out of that office, asap. I have no time for non-intellectual nonsense.

Some of a more fundamentalist approach to religion might find this offensive, Beskar, and it was not necessary to your point to take the shot.

[Beskar]

Some of a more fundamentalist approach to religion might find this offensive, Beskar, and it was not necessary to your point to take the shot.

Though, being honest, if they think Saying they are God's Champion for the Election. Telling people to burn in Hell, and think Creationism belongs in Science class....

Me =

It is nonsense, and it is arguably even exploition of Christian values.

Jesus taught to love your neighbour, I doubt that falls under telling people they are going to burn in hell. Also man has no right to judge, judgement is reserved right of the father in Heaven, only he may judge who goes to heaven and who does no.
"Judge not, that ye be not judged."
"How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."


Jesus praises the meek, he doesn't want people showing off their charity donations and using the Lord names in vain as his false champions.
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."


As for the Creation, it is a Story written by man, showing how God created the world. There is even seven different versions of it in Judaism. If the religion they took it from had seven different versions, what makes them think the one they have is the correct one? What does it have to do with Science?


I can even give a Christian ideological answer to why they are phonies and should be cast down from Office and I can give a non-religious answer to why as well. They are phonies, frauds and abusers of religion.

[pevergreen]

Apparently we've got out first Atheist PM.

Too bad I don't like her.

[a completely inoffensive name]

As an atheist: yes. But I really couldn't give a **** if she/he has **** policies. And Lemur is right in that many politicians are probably fakes in regards to religion. That might change though, since 2007 we have had our first self recognized atheist in Congress.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Being irreligious myself, I would probably consider it a mark in their favor, much the same way people of one religion tend to favor people of that religion. This person would probably represent my viewpoint more closely, and especially as it relates to public policy, take no religious approach whatsoever, and oppose religious influence on policy.

However there would certainly be non-religious people I wouldn't vote for. It's not my top priority.

[Fragony]

I would never vote for a non-atheistremoved.

[Furunculus]

I live in a different western country and YES

[miotas]

Different 'western' country and YES, but not because they are Atheist, religion has no bearing on who I choose.

[rory_20_uk]

The religion doesn't, but it might influence the policies that one comes up with.

E.G. I would vote for a Christian, but not one that was campaigning on banning all trading on Sundays / pogrom against gays / compulsory Church on Sundays for example.

[Wishazu]

I would vote for an Athiest, I don't have anything against them as I am one myself. Not many politicians here in the UK are really outspoken about there personal beliefs or lack thereof so I don't know whether I have voted for a religious person or not in the past.

I have to admit though that finding out Nick Clegg was an Athiest a few weeks before the election was a deciding factor in my voting Lib Dem.

[Skullheadhq]

banning all trading on Sundays

Why not? This is very good to protect small businesses against big corporations.

[rory_20_uk]

I'd rather increase consumer choice than force me into not doing any shopping on one of the two days in a week that I get off.

Small businesses can hire staff just as any other enterprise can.

[Skullheadhq]

I'd rather increase consumer choice than force me into not doing any shopping on one of the two days in a week that I get off.

Small businesses can hire staff just as any other enterprise can.

Sunday staff is more expansive and many small businesses cannot afford it, big businesses can so people will shop there for the rest of the week as well, small business loses customers and goes bankrupt. Things are not as simple as they seem.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Noooo! Atheists telling Christians what to believe, my pet peeve of all time. This is as bad as that thread where atheists said women shouldn't wear the burka because it's no in the koran.

Jesus taught to love your neighbour, I doubt that falls under telling people they are going to burn in hell. Also man has no right to judge, judgement is reserved right of the father in Heaven, only he may judge who goes to heaven and who does no.
"Judge not, that ye be not judged."
"How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

First of, Jesus regulalry told people himself that they were going to "burn in hell". And as John said, "the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son" (John 5:22), so no that right isn't reserved to the father.

Furthermore, Matthew 7:1 is the verse most commonly taken out of context in the whole Bible. Although you did at least show the next bit, where he says sort yourself out, and then you can admonish your brother! That requires judgment. Paul himself was happy to use his judgment, as he wrote "For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed" (1 Cor 5:3).

Jesus praises the meek, he doesn't want people showing off their charity donations and using the Lord names in vain as his false champions.
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

Being meek in spirit has nothing to do with your temporal power. Otherwise we should discard every said by Moses, David, and half the Old Testament characters! The point is they got where they were by trusting in God and not in their own strenght, hence why God always chooses the younger son as with Isaac and then Jacob etc, to show that they only get what the achieve by his power, not their own strength.

As for the Creation, it is a Story written by man, showing how God created the world. There is even seven different versions of it in Judaism. If the religion they took it from had seven different versions, what makes them think the one they have is the correct one? What does it have to do with Science?

A better question would be what does "science" have to do with this thread?