Freethinker Sunday Sermonette: religious bigotry

Hi - I guess your premise then is twofold; first that voters in MA are stupid, misuided, foolish for having elected this allegedly "dispicable" politician. Second you lament the apparent inability to elect an atheist President based on their atheism. You claim this as a result of religious bigotry. I suppose it might be, although we often us the word bigot to generically cover folks we don't like (and I am as guilty of this as anyone I expect). So if I vote against a politician because of some characteristic I think important (public policy position, religious belief, personal behavior, etc.) does that make one a bigot? Perhaps. Democratic processes however are premised on people making decisions using whatever criteria they wish, fair criteria, unfair criteria, personal bias. It seems to me that to have "the right sort" voting who would meet whatever standards you would wish for (willingness to vote for an atheist for example) you have to then restrict the francise to that "right sort." The other option is to try to educate the mob to your position. Since religion appears to be a hard wired behavior (that is over time and space whether we are talking about 10th century China, 6th century Syria, or 21st century America religious behaviors permiate societies) you may be kicking against the wind. With that difficulty in mind perhaps you would want to emphasize the republican rather than democratic aspects of our society by somehow restricting the franchise?

carl: "Perhaps" it is religious bigotry? That someone wouldn't vote for an otherwise qualified candidate because of their religious views? What if someone said (as they used to) that they wouldn't vote for X because he or she was a Catholic, even though they were qualified. Or because they were an evangelical Christian? Or a Muslim? Wouldn't you call that religious bigotry? And what would it mean to educate people to your position in this case? That atheism is OK? Since you yourself seem to believe it is a biologically impossible position (it is "hardwired" into us; so what happened to me and the zillions like me?), how can we be educated. We can only be operated on. Yes, it is bigotry. Maybe not of the worst sort, but bigotry nonetheless, and to the extent we all engage in it tacitly, doesn't make it less odious. The problem is that we often don't think about it. The purpose of my bringing it up here on Sundays is to call your attention to it. Discriminating against atheists -- which this poll shows again is a pervasive attitude in this country -- is religious bigotry. There is no evidence whhatsoever that an atheist will run the country any differently than anyone else. He or she won't take orders from some "foreign" source. Their basic attitude toward the issues of the day are part of their "otherwise qualified" dossier.

As for the voters in Massachusetts, they got what they deserved, or at least what a little over half deserved. The others got someone who wrecked state government (further). He couldn't get elected trash collecter in that state now.

Anti-elderly prejudice is expressed against a candidate 72 years old. McCain will be 72 on August 29, 2008 (Reagan, elected president at age 69, holds the current record).

These results are almost entirely useless without knowing where and how the results were obtained.

1000 people were surveyed - in rural Wyoming, or in downtown NYC? Over the phone, or walking down the street?

This is critical information and nobody seems to include it!

Mike: It's a Gallup poll, so consider the methodology the same as their political polls. Standard survey research. Do you not believe the results reflect attitudes? This isn't the case of making a big deal out of 45% versus 39%. There is a ten fold difference in how Catholics are regarded by this question and atheists. Keep your eye on the main point, not the details. The details you mention can be very important in some contexts but less so in others. These aren't amateurs in surveys.

Hey, does this mean a homosexual
would win in a race against an atheist, all else being equal? Woo hoo!

(" a well-qualified Candidate " is so broad and says nothing about their policy choices!! Any of those-
- hey- were "Christian Evangelicals" left off the list??
Pollsters are so wierd...)

Revere - When I say a behavior (such as religion) is "hardwired" first I am not saying it as a fact I am saying it as a likelyhood. It is a likelyhood because the behavior is seen across time and space whereas culturally specific behaviors are generally not seen across both time and space (for example the American emphasis on youth not seen in many places). Second when a behavior is hardwired it doesn't mean that every individual exhibits the behavior it means it is common in the statistical group (alturism for example). Statistics for a group to not apply to any given individual (e.g., if 70% of folks who smoke get cancer that does not mean that you - as an individual - have a 70% chance of getting cancer). I would expect public health folks to understad how statisitcs work - so no it is not impossible to "educate" people to a position even if that education is contrary to a common bias (that the earth is flat or whatever). I just think you have your work cut out for you trying to eliminate bias against atheists.

What I find so interesting is that athiesm is seen as "worse" than homosexuality via this poll. As despicable at the right seems to think homosexuality is, they seemingly despise athiesm even more. Wow! Why are religious people so threatened by those who are not?

carl: Hardwired usually means anatomically determined. If reception of AM broadcasts is hardwired into your radio, it doesn't mean statistically predominant. But you are free to use a private language if you wish. On the other hand, I don't see the logic here. By your logic, ignorance is hardwired because it appears in every era, as does despotism, stupidicty and much else. On the other hand, because humans learn, they can alter their behavior in ways that suggest it is not preordained by anatomy or physiology (which is what I would mean by hardwired). Since most of Europe is now "secular" in outlook, it would seem we have learned as a species. If you want to take that to mean that we can overcome an innate tendency to worship, fine with me. It's not of much relevance because we can and do overcome it.

I agree that we atheists have our work cut out for us in the US to overcome prejudice against us, a prejudice which many commenters here seem to want to deny exists. I think this poll amply demonstrates otherwise.

The more likely explanation of the popularity of religion is that humans seek to have an explanation of the world around them--whether it is through science or superstition. When humans didn't understand the solar system, we had "gods" who controlled the sun, wind, sea, etc. Now that we have an understanding of most of the world around we (humans)have limited our superstition to one overlord--a kind of catch-all for all the unanswered questions. When we have answered the most universal questions about the universe, our "hardwired" propensity for religion will seek to exist.

Interesting poll, although it suffers from the type of bias one encounters when pollsters ask socially sensitive questions. I doubt 90+% of Americans would vote for an African American, Jewish, or Catholic candidate. The same for the 85+% who would vote for a woman or Hispanic. Questions of this nature simply can't be tested. Real voters choosing real candidates would more than likely rationalize away their bias. What this survey does show is degree to which discrimination against each group is acceptable. On this point the atheist scoring is very troubling. It reminds me of the scene in "Contact" where an atheist is passed over as ambassador for the human race. There apparently is very little downside to discriminating against atheists. I wonder what the answers would have been to questions expanding on different situations: eg. acceptability as neighbor, married into family, teacher, doctor, lawyer?
On another note, the funniest category, aimed at Newt Gingrich I guess, involves the multiple divorcee. Go Newt! Thanks Revere, another eye opener.

tony: I think you are quite right. The low scores for some of these categories is because people are embarrassed to admit they are prejudiced. Which makes this even more striking. They are not at all embarrassed to admit they are prejudiced against atheists. It's quite socially acceptable.

As a non US citizen I find the poll interesting but irrelevant on the grounds that it only asked about "well qualified candidates". Looking at some of the resent incumbents of the post the question is why out of a population of 300 million do you continue to pick candidates with barely average intelligence, should you not be looking for the very bright; it is quite an important job.

JJ: Not so sure what "bright" means. Surely Tony Blair is bright. He is also an asshat. John Howard. Dumb and an asshat. George Bush. To call him an asshat would only be half correct. It was "the best and the brightest" that got us into Vietnam. So I don't thjink an intelligence test does it. Maybe a morals examination.

Touché, I think bright might be a minimum requirement. One or two other character traits my also be helpful. In the case of our PM the ability not to follow around your President like a sycophantic puppy would be a good start.

P.S.

What would make a Presidential candidate well qualified in a democracy/corporate oligarchy. The ability to persuade potential donors to the war chest that, come inauguration day, their interest will be looked after?

George Bush is a dumb hat? ;)

To be honest, given the attitudes and ignorance of most of my fellow Americans, it surprises me that the as many as 45% would vote for an atheist.

Frak, I voted for Perot. Some truthful Sunday humor for you folks.
And only got four hours sleep last night so responses from me may drag into another day.

Saw a similar survey on the news channel last week, scientology was below atheist, so you're not at the bottom of the barrel revere.

Let's just say the survey is accurate. And not to change the direction of this topic however, it happens and perhaps I can circle around to bigotry somehow. Anyway, it's surprising that Catholics are at the top of the list especially since the DiVinci Code best seller book, movie and now soft cover book. One would think a persons reasoning would kick in after reading, seeing and hearing how the Catholic church has manipulated people for time immemorial. The church has had a monopoly on the entire world and now its starting to crack. What the Catholic church did is the true crime to humanity. Then in the 4th century the Bible was stripped of more sections. All this to say that organized religions are misleading humanity.

Might as well lump Mormons and Hispanics together in the survey as the state of Utah is embracing them and converting them as well.

And not to take away from your experience revere however, there is intolerance across the board with every single thing that goes on in this world.

Mankind has been willingly programmed by the churches and it will take a great deal of effort to undo that programming.

As far as Romney, heard that 53% of the Republicans are still looking for a suitable candidate for President. Although, if Utah has it's way, and they have a mighty strength and pocketbook, Romney will get the job. There's a News blog in Utah I visit periodically and even the non-mormons are swinging towards him.

Chin up revere, you being atheist is alright with me, (so there's one less bigot in the crowd), although I believe that God does exist, just not the way the churches/religions have taught it.

As someone who takes psychotropic medications, I think it would be highly unlikely that I would vote for a Scientologist, but there are pro=choice Catholics, so perhaps it is not out of the question.

AaroninSanDiego: my cousin is o.k. as long as she takes her psychotropic medications.

revere: Given the current events in our world with so much emphasis put on religion the chances of my Presidental vote going for an Atheist are huge.

Hey, I was just invited to become a "Gallup Family" which means that our household-three adults aged 44, 46 and 86 and two children, aged 16 & 18 will soon be included in these figures. There are two atheists, two Catholics and 1 Diest in our group. Can't wait to tell them how WE feel....

I lived in Utah for 12 years. My ex-wife was Mormon. Her father was second counseler in his ward. Most of my co-workers were Mormon. I have nothing against a Mormon running for president. Mo Udall, a democrat and Mormon, ran for president in 1976. He would've made a great president. What I have against Rommney, he's changed his political views 180 from the 1990's. Just another ambitious person(McCain, Hillary, etc.) wanting to be president.Why I don't know.

Anonymous D: LOL. I can't wait either. Tel 'em.

Jim: What I have against Romney is that he was a rotten Governor and would be worse Prez.

I've never Gallup'ed but I Nielsen'ed for a month ten years ago. And I focus group once a year or so. If you don't like the new Canada Dry labels, blame me.

revere: There are numerous posts in support of Romney in the Utah blog I visit. What are some of the outstanding mistakes Romney made while governor?

Read this in the blog: Shortly after the Mormon founder, Joseph Smith, announced his candidacy for president in 1844, he was killed by a mob.

Lea: According to my colleagues at the Mass DPH he kept an iron grip on all information coming out of there, everything had to be vetted for political consistency, it took forever to get things approved, the actual workings of the state gov. were a mess with waste everywhere (they moved the Dept. twice once somewhere else and then back to where they were) at immense expense and loss of productivity. That's just the stuff I can remember from what they told me. The Dept. was put in charge of an administrative babysitter commissioner who became invisible, as did public health. The whole operation of the Executive Branch was run like a dysfunctional business.

Revere,

Just thought I would put a cat in amongst the pidgeons.

You Americans are a strange bunch. How can one nation with so much power, money, muscle, enterprise etc. etc, be so hog tied by religion.

Americans invoke the name of God for just about everything. "I danced really well, because of God", "God helped me to pass my exams", "I won this tennis tournament because of my God Jehovah" "Praise the Lord" "Lordy, Lordy, Lordy" etc.etc.

What ever happened to that old philosophy of hard work brings its own reward. Or what about, I accept the consequences of my own actions. I am responsible for my own life.

It seems that every American candidate for President must profess his or her personal beliefs, to appease the religious in your society.

You have had a few doozie Presidents. One president trod the boards with Methusela, one president had a long nose and liked to listen in on conversations, other presidents could not keep their peckers in the panties, one president was a lame duck, one likes stetson hats and believes in god and loves oil. Nearly every President has presided over a war of some description.

Are there any American presidential candidates, that are well traveled, well educated, well spoken, from middle America, liked globally, with some understanding of international politics and history? Is there a candidate out there who doesnt hold their religion up to shield for their lack of knowledge?

os, "Why are religious people so threatened by those who are not?"
Boycott one franchise cult - maybe but, boycott them all??!
Perish the thought!
(There must be some way to get group cohesion and altruistic behavior without afterlife carrot and sticks, and, hand you brain in at the door...)

I think JJackson has it right: "The ability to persuade potential donors to the war chest that, come inauguration day, their interest will be looked after"
Churches are well organized, with obedient followers; say you agree with them, and their money and votes are yours. Easier than convincing a whole populace of individuals of your character and policy intentions.
Govt. is only for corporations now, not the citizens.

AaronInSanDiego, maybe that 45%
is how many atheists/agnostics/people of unlisted religions there are in the US ! :-D
or, simply people who would actually not be bigoted against a well-qualified atheist prez!
(Now if only that 45% was organized; but, why plot for power? - well, because if we don't worse, people beat us to it -darn! too soon old, too late smart.)

"Power corrupts" Churches give examples of that every year. (So do presidents.)

v, those are some good comments about my country. But I seriously doubt that other governments of this world, given the power and reach of the US government would handle themselves much better. Britain has put up Thatcher, Blair. Look at the crook who is mighty successful from Italy. And the new democracy in Russia gives us Putin, surely bright, but surely an unethical tyrant. The bottom line is that truly good people rarely rise to the pinnacle of power. The US is just a particularly easy target but you fool yourself if you think this isn't a problem with human nature in general.

Tessera,

Lord Acton observed that "Every class is unfit to govern...Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

v: really did like what you wrote, it's true in degree however, the one nation with so much power, money, muscle, enterprise etc, being so hog tied by religion is not all that true. First the power and muscle is over exaggerated, the money is nearly gone, the enterprise is for the few. Many Americans can hardly keep their head above water financially. Hog tied by religion, well that farce is being cracked all around the world, just guess Americans are slower in that category.

Same thing with politics. It's old school anymore and the ignorance of the voters keeps us in bondage when it comes to presidents. Don't discount the strength of us though, more than one person has said Revolution is on the Menu if the government keeps jacking us around. There are so many Americans that would be great presidents but the lack of money prevents this. Sickening yes, but old school again.

And many of us would embrace a candidate, that is well traveled, well educated, well spoken, from middle America, liked globally, with some understanding of international politics and history. A dream come true type of scenario.

All that said v, don't give up on the sincere good people who call themselves Americans. We've created it and now we've got to uncreate it.

lea, melanie, Tessera, Crfullmoon, Hello,

I hope that the majority of America have the sentiments that you have expressed. America is the one country that can hold the world together. When America falls so do we all.

I fervently hope that America votes in someone new who is not to hog tied to any religion, corporation or ideology.

I hope the dream comes true.

"When America falls so do we all."

Not necessarily true, v.

The Europeans are scrambling to detach themselves from the train. The Germans have wisely promoted the French as the visible face of political reason. Putin can't make up his mind whether to throw in his lot or to stand back hoping to loot the wreckage, but all his neighbours know where they want to be. Even Bliar, after a lifetime of loyal service, is trying to pull an Eisenhauer.

India has never really been attached. China has two millenia of history teaching them the folly of foreign military adventures, and two decades of the folly of famine and demographic skew.

When the flood of "small arms" recedes, Africa, Latin America, South/SouthEast Asia, South Florida, will heave a sigh of relief audible even inside the Beltway.

It won't be pretty. There are dark corners all over. The people blessed with DU are shit out of luck. Every idiot with a gun on the face of the planet will be flailing about for his last chance at fifteen minutes of infamy. There will be a generation of kids maimed by clusterbomblets.

But there will be hope that no more bomblets can be resown. There will be hope that the bandits and thugs will need to conserve their bullets or to retire. People will begin to think about scaring the piss out of disobedient grandchildren with stories about the Black Chopper Monster.

It will not be possible to ship avian flu from Darekegyhaz to Holton in a reefer.
Nor opium from Kandahar to Bondsteel.