An article I read this morning brought to my attention something quite alarming from my perspective. As an atheist, I didn’t realize that how much of a lack of political power atheists have. I suppose that it makes sense for public relation purposes that presidential and other high office candidates announce some sort of religious association, but at the same time, I do find it kind of troubling; especially when presidential candidates denounce atheism openly in public speeches such as Mitt Romney did.
“[Mitt] Romney recently gave a speech extolling religious liberty, decrying religious ‘tests’ for office, and invoking the faith of some of America’s founding fathers. All this, naturally, was designed to help his quest for the presidency. The speech thrilled many religious conservatives, and plenty of pundits thought it served him well politically too. But members of one minority with virtually no political success in America were left sputtering with frustration. America’s atheists and agnostics felt excluded when Mr Romney said that ‘freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom…freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.'”
I won’t be voting for Mitt Romney anytime soon from this quote alone. While he might be the first mormon presidential hopeful, his intolerance for the lack of religion is quite apparent. The article did have some good suggestions as to what atheists should do however to gain more political power:
“If these growing ranks concentrate on areas where American religiosity can do harm—over-aggressive proselytising in the armed forces, undermining science or AIDS programmes, alienating minorities at home and Muslims abroad—they could wield the sort of influence that any other minority representing 10% of the country might do…”
I would highly recommend the read to anyone interested. You can find the article here: http://www.economist.com
Let us not forget that, except in the area of politics (i.e. BS), politicians are no better than those kids in class always wearing the dunce caps.
Too bad Romney is going to hell anyways. 😉
As an atheist, it comes as no surprise to me that I am not included in the discussion. The biggest reason I’m given is that ‘as an atheist you have no moral ground’ – the fore, the logical extension on their part is that with no moral compass my opinion is irrelevant. We have a long way to go in this country, fighting ignorance and intolerance, before we can ever hope to have a respected voice on a public stage.
Very good post. As a reformed christian (small caps definitely intentional) this kind of crap needs to be exposed. Religion should have absolutely NOTHING to do with running a country. They condemn the muslims for starting wars out of hate, yet… need I really say more? We need to get the word out.
All very good points. I just find the whole situation very disappointing…
There is no such thing as an atheist. more about that in my site rltjs.wordpress.com
Hello,
Religion should always be separated from the State. Opening doors to religion is a Pandora box. Religious should not attempt to run for office, last time the US of A had one he’s created such mess that some countries will take years to rebuild their social cohesion. And yet many roam on this planet using religion to crush opposition.
Cheers
Remember: the idea that state and religion are two entities instead of one is a very recent idea on how to do things. Until the founding of our country, pretty much religion and state were one and the same, at least according to the historic accounts I was given. 😉
This is true, although the British did have clear separation of church and state for a short while during the republic that followed the civil war in the 17th century.