Atheists least likely to be elected president, less likely than gays, lesbians or members of Reverend Wright’s church
One doesn’t have to be a secret poll junkie—although it helps—to be absolutely fascinated by the latest Gallup figures on who voters do not wish to see in the Oval Office. Among the more fascinating results, Gallup found that while 22% of respondents would not vote for a Mormon even if he or she was the party’s nominee for President, they’d be more than twice as hostile to an atheist. Resistance to Mormon candidates increases as educational levels decrease.
Gallup’s analysis of its poll shows that Americans’ prejudice against a Mormon President “is exceeded only by their opposition to electing someone who is either gay or lesbian (32%) or an atheist (49%). By contrast, less than half as many, 10%, say they would not vote for a Hispanic, and fewer than 10% would not vote for a nominee who is Jewish, Baptist, Catholic, female, or black.”
Furthermore, “[t]he stability in U.S. bias against voting for a Mormon presidential candidate contrasts markedly with steep declines in similar views toward several other groups over the past half-century, including blacks, women, Catholics, and Jews. The last time as many as 22% of Americans said they would not vote for any of these groups (the same level opposed to voting for a Mormon today) was 1959 for Catholics, 1961 for Jews, 1971 for blacks, and 1975 for women. As noted, opposition to voting for each of these has since tapered off to single digits.
“Still, it is significant that in 1959, the year before John F. Kennedy won election as the nation’s first Catholic president, 25% of Americans — including 22% of Democrats, 33% of Republicans, and 18% of independents — said they would not vote for a Catholic. Public opposition fell to 21% by May 1960 and to 13% by August 1961″.
This analysis notwithstanding to the contrary, I will always wonder just how candid anyone really is when a stranger claiming to be from Gallup, or any other polling organization, answers questions about what groups the respondent is most prejudiced against. Talk, after all, is cheap. Completely candid responses are rare in life (“Do these pants make my ass look fat?”) and may well be impossible to find through a telephone call by one stranger to another.
One last observation on these Gallup findings. How interesting it is to reflect that in 2008 a majority of voters supported a candidate who had spent 20 years in the church of “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright, listening as the hate-filled preacher spewed vitriol at the United States of America and its staunchest ally, Israel, and even exposed his young, impressionable daughters to this toxic maniac—but 49% of Americans find it unacceptable to vote for a candidate who believes in no deity at all.
h/t RJL
Here’s the problem: if someone doesn’t believe in a Creator, I worry that he’d be less likely to believe that my rights are unalienable. If there’s no Creator, He can’t have given me rights and therefore my rights are endowed by the State and can then be taken away.
That is ridiculous. Exactly which “rights” are you speaking of? You have a perfect, objective list of all rights that should never be violated?
Also, someone who believes in a creator will also only trust his own conscience, because he believes his god is always speaking to him. Therefore, if he thinks something is okay, regardless of the action’s moral or ethical value, then he believes it is his god’s decision. Basically, it’s like putting a schizophrenic person into office. One that is very obedient to his imaginary friends and alternate personalities.
You have a weird understanding of religion. Christianity is mostly about limitations. Thou shalt not, etc…. It is also about humility. The folks who use it for justification for crazy stuff would find some other crazy justification for stuff, because they are crazy.
Religion is a civilizing influence, generally. Well, there is Islam….
“That is ridiculous. Exactly which “rights” are you speaking of? You have a perfect, objective list of all rights that should never be violated?”
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, amongst these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Perfect, objective rights that liberals believe came from the state and which the state can claim whenever they desire.
Let me explain it to you in the simplest terms. Regardless of the bad uses of religion, or the capacity some people have to live up to decent moral standards in spite of their disbelief in God, gods, or almighty forces in nature, etc. Regardless of all that there are simple people in our society whose brains are not up to the task of the philosophical challenge of connecting ethics with their everyday behavior. The simple come in two flavors, those who are mostly naturally good and those who have bad inclinations (incest, self destructive habits, theft, killing for pleasure, and worse.) General mores emanating from the belief in the all-seeing eye of God may deter some of the bad ones but not all. Some will bet that God exists perhaps and choose not to act on their bad desires. There is no harm to anyone in (at least) make believe that not raping a four-year-old is better than actually doing it because our laws have a divine origin, or at least permission. The opposite–in the mind of the simple–means that IF the police is not LOOKING and I can get away with it… hey! Why not? You see, we have transferred the moral roots of our law from and ideal entity (God) to the force and power of a real entity (The Police, distinct from the police.)
The belief in God, as a real person or as a mere archetype or sublimation of societal most desirable virtues, is an admission that there are norms that supersede our own desires. In that scenario the state is a servant of the common good (you choose if God is a useful dream or a moral reality.)
If you are an Atheist and decide to live your life accordingly but you are also a philosopher and what we call a decent law-abiding citizen then God does not add or detract from your moral conduct. Yet you should think of the simple living among us, and of those who are as intelligent as you are and yet believe in God as a source of all goodness and justice.
Remember this: if tomorrow we were to prove to the whole world beyond any doubt that God does not exist and never existed, the result would be obvious within minutes. Nothing would prevent me from acting as I please. We would all be gods knowing good and evil. There will be no stopping anyone from following their basest instincts. Even if the majority remains civilized there is going to be a sizable minority that can only be brought under control by continuous overwhelming force.
I do not think that is your wish (or anyone’s.) Don’t give me the same boilerplate answer. Just think about it in your own mind. Run the scenarios and you will see what I mean. By the way, this is not my original thought. Check Plato, Aristotle (especially the Ethics) and even more ancient philosophers. This has been proposed many times before. Only in this dark age there are those so dimwitted to think that we can run a society without rules or rulers, without a moral reference point, with no more ideals that our fractured human nature.
Bruce, this IS a post about US presidential elections, so I’m talking about the rights listed in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.
If you look at human history it is painfully obvious that, the Declaration notwithstanding, there are no such things as inalienable rights. Governments may not be the source of rights, but they can damn sure take them away.
In modern politics the greatest danger to our rights is their unnecessary expansion. The Left loves to harp about the people’s right to such things as healthcare, a living wage, “justice”, etc. I’m more concerned about what a candidate thinks rights are than where he thinks they come from.
“there are no such things as inalienable rights. Governments may not be the source of rights, but they can damn sure take them away.”
Infringing on a right doesn’t mean you don’t have the right, it means you’ve been damaged or subjected to injustice. So, as an example, you have the right to be secure in your person. If I hit you, I’ve committed the crime of battery, and infringed that right. It doesn’t mean you’ve lost the right, rather, I’ve committed an injustice to you. If the government infringes your rights, it hasn’t taken them away, rather, it has committed a crime.
And the point of reference to decide what is just or unjust is…? Please elaborate. Libertarians propose limited norms but the god that decides what is a norm or where is the limit is… themselves. I understand their refusal to accept a God. I only wish they would understand my refusal to accept THEM as gods.
“Real progress consists in the movement of mankind toward the understanding of norms, and toward conformity to norms. Real decadence consists in the movement of mankind away from the understanding of norms, and away from obedience to norms.” Russell Kirk, Enemies of the Permanent Things, 1969
Imagine that you are a Christian in a society where the only public face of your faith is Rev. Jeremiah Wright. This is analogous to what the vast silent majority of atheists experience.
Most atheists are good patriotic neighbors, even conservative sometimes (like me), but the only atheists the public sees are the few loudmouth Christian hating jerks filing lawsuits against Santa Claus.
If I am not mistaken it is the atheists who bring lawsuits against crosses, mangers, Christmas, and baby Jesus.
A belief that is afraid of an object (a cross, a Christmas tree) is –in my humble opinion– comparable to animism of the lowest variety. Especially when ii is difficult to establish a civilized dialog with its defenders without them foaming at the mouth insulting their intellectual adversaries in righteous indignation (Hawkings, Hitchens, etc.)
Christianity is not only the local Pentecostal preacher, or Jeremiah right. You know that. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine of Hippo, Newton, or if you wish the more recent thinkers George Lemaitre, have left a legacy of unimpeachable thought and science for all of us. The legacy of atheist thinkers still has a long way to go to match the legacy of believers, sir.
Your write “A belief that is afraid of an object (a cross, a Christmas tree) is –in my humble opinion” as if anyone (an atheist or anyone else) who brings lawsuits against crosses or mangers on public lands is “afraid” of them. Huh? The main (or possibly the only) objection is the separation of church and state. Why should (now scarce) public monies be spent on artifacts of any religion? They shouldn’t. That doesn’t express fear of such artifacts, as long as they stay on church property and not in public squares.
Don’t assume that people who resent religious displays on public property would resent them in the proper religious environment or that they oppose them in public because of fear.
I’m curious: where do people get such hare-brained ideas, anyway?
It has gotten slightly better in my lifetime. For many years the public face of atheism was Madalyn Murray O’Hare, infamous for, among other things, the lawsuit that led to the ruling against school prayer in the early 60′s, and an all around nut job. There remain some obnoxious public atheist busybodies, but none so ridiculous as Ms O’Hare. And there are some thoughtful atheist voices (e.g., Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Hawking)who are making themselves heard, without attempting to interfere in others’ lives.
Makes me think of the article that pointed out Gingrich’s baggage. People do not elect folks who are on their 2nd or later marriage. Dole lost. Kerry lost. McCain lost. Gingrich would surely lose.
Ronald Reagan was on his second marriage.
Ronald Reagan mind you was divorced BY his first wife in spite of many efforts and protestations on his behalf. He was a good husband to his first and second wife. He lived in a simple, moral way ALL his life. He was a straight arrow never affected by the immoral lifestyle festering all around him in Hollywood yet he was not a self-righteous prig.
Mr. Gingrich has given enough proof of lacking the spine and the moral fiber needed for a Conservative president in this awful times we face. If we could have George Washington again it would be a difficult task, imagine then what would be our lot if we name someone known to fail time after time under pressure of his worse instincts.
If you want to cast doubts about Ronald Reagan’s character I suggest you do some deep research. It has been done and nothing of substance has turned up.
“If you want to cast doubts about Ronald Reagan’s character”? Where did you get that? Mark Malone said “People do not elect folks who are on their 2nd or later marriage.” and Roger Simon refuted that statement by giving a counterexample.
Nelson Rockefeller, who served as Governor of New York from 1959-1973, was divorced from his first wife in 1962 and married his second in 1963 and was re-elected thereafter to two additional terms (in 1966 and 1970.)
People do elect, and re-elect divorced “folks” who are particularly good at their jobs.