Atheists: How much does a politician's religion matter to you?

A lot. Not the religion per se, but how he/she talks about it.

If they say “I will make decisions based on the bible”, they have lost my vote. I want the person to think for himself, not cop out and follow a folktale.

Down south, as you know, we have lots of politicians who tout themselves as “Conservative Christians”. They also lose my vote, right off the bat.

If we lived in a theocracy (which, thankfully, we don’t – yet – then religion might be something to consider in a politician. But in 2014, we’re not quite there yet. [Side note: if religion part of government, how many non-Christians would be elected? Answer: close to zero.]

So from my point of view, a politician who is selling him/herself as a religious person has almost certainly LOST my vote. I would rather have them touting their intelligence and Yale degree and even military service, than their religion.

By the way, I’m equal opportunity. I do not care what religion the politician espouses. Baptists, Nazarenes, Jews, Catholics, you name it. I am not going to support anyone who ties his/her political career to religion.

I am a very basic theist and I have very strong feelings about this subject. May I answer?

Sure, you can answer.

Believing in a religion is not a strike against for me, but hearing someone tout their religion is. Whatever your religion (or lack thereof), that’s a private matter that I shouldn’t even know about. I should be able to judge you for your actions, not your dogma.

Basing policies on your religious beliefs rather than the law is a strike against, absolutely. Using religion as an excuse for bigotry is. Using religion as an excuse for hatred is. And in my experience, for politicians who make their religion known, that’s what they use it for.

Thank you.
I pretty much agree with @elbanditoroso (anti-climactic, I know) and I’d like to add another point to his. I really object to persons who have the designation of Reverend in front of their names having anything to do with politics. When they wade into the mix (and sometimes with the intent to end up on ballots) the conflict of interest expressed by that makes me nuts. If one’s entire profession has been formed by religion, I really don’t think they can be a voice for all.
If I go on I’ll start yelling and foaming at the mouth.

I don’t object at all to people of religion, just keep it out of the government, as originally mandated.

I want to add a little more to my question.

If they just mention it as part of their campaign, like saying they are Christians, is that enough to be a turn off? Even if they seem to be level headed in how they look at issues? I’m only using Christian as an example, because I only have seen them do it.

Not to be confused with when a politician is directly asked about their religion, then I would expect to simply respond truthfully with the religion they identify with.

Also, is there any religion you won’t vote for?

@JLeslie wrote “is there any religion you won’t vote for?”.

No, as mentioned above, it’s the person and their intelligence that I am voting for (or against). I usually don’t know what the religion is of the person. It would be silly to not vote for someone I agee with, just because he/she is, for example, a Mormon.

Mentioning it at all is a bit of a turn-off for me. I recognize that that one’s faith will definitely shape policy to a degree, but mentioning it specifically in a campaign smacks too much of religious marketing. (And yes, I realize that campaign = marketing but you know what I mean.)
I don’t care if it’s general knowledge.

I absolutely would not vote for anyone who makes absolute claims to be part of the gimmicky religions that are used to point out how stupid they think any religion is.

I was going to say not at all but that is not true.

I don’t really care what their religious leanings are unless the politician is blatantly professing his faith as a means to get elected it is a pretty sure bet that he, or she, will not get my vote. especially if his religion demands that others follow their particular guidelines on morality and faith.

Not much. But the concern is whether or not the religious candidate is going to try to turn the government into an establishment church. Most people of the Christian and modern Jewish faith take for granted the adage “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar“s”, so that is usually not a big issue.

A problem the Western democracies face in the future is Islam. Nobody in the West knows for sure how seriously the Muslim “community” is about the notion that the Leaders of the Faith should also be the Heads of State. That would be a problem, and would influence my vote.

I live in a very red state and candidates here often tout their religious beliefs and say that they are Christians with Christian values. They campaign on their religion and it works for them. I could care less what a persons religious beliefs are but when it is used to get into office, I have a problem with that because we are not a theocracy. Often times, once the candidates are in office they do use their religious beliefs as justification for legislation and I have problem with that because we are not a theocracy.

I know in the past I have refused to vote for a candidate who uses the words “traditional”, “family” or “values”, either alone or in any combination, in their campaign. Probably going to continue in future elections.

Religion is like a penis; it’s okay to have one, but it shouldn’t be flaunted in public, and it’s absolutely not okay to ram it down people’s throat. That is true for all people, and doubly so for those seeking/holding office.

@prairierose Red states are Theocracies, but that’s simply because the majority of voters there want it that way.

@jerv I know and for those of us, who think differently it can be very frustrating.

@prairierose It’s not going to get any better. Those incapable of accepting (or understanding) the necessity for separation of church and state will continue to concentrate in the redlands, as economic opportunities decline.

@stanleybmanly Maybe it won’t get any better or it might. Some of the young people are not that sold on religion and minorities usually vote issues rather than on religious beliefs.

@prairierose You don’t suppose that the majority of the young people will seek opportunities elsewhere? I agree with your assessment that the demographic around “bible thumpers” is rapidly headed toward geriatric. A prime reason for their dominance in the red zones is that so many are old enough to retire, and therefore not relying on a paycheck.

Seems like if the youg people want to earn more or they simply rely on their paycheck, they’d be moving to Red States

It matters a lot. Religion greatly influences many politicians, and the decisions they make in government. And that scares me!

@Jaxk But they aren’t. Better to starve in Manhattan than work in Kansas!

I am uncomfortable knowing that a politician, or a doctor for that matter, is strongly religious.

@stanleybmanly whut if you’re in Manhattan, Kansas? I’ve starved there before.

@stanleybmanly – That opinion doesn’t seem to be shared by those born in NY. Thay are fleeing at an alarming rate and they’re moving south.

A lot.

I would never vote for a Mormon, for example. I would campaign against a Scientologist. I have read considerably about both, and I’m convinced that believing in either shows a serious lack of judgment.

By and large, I will not vote for a candidate that makes a big deal about their religion, or one where their religion is a serious topic of discussion. I expect that a candidate represent me, to the best of their ability, not something they take on “faith”.

As an example, if a Catholic is elected a leader today only based on their faith, aren’t they bound to stand in the way of abortion above all? That’s fine if the voting public has a majority of Catholics, but mine does not, and I would not vote for that candidate.

The less they talk about religion, no matter what it is, the more likely it is that I will support them. Religion has no place in politics.

It doesn’t mean a thing to me. It’s simply one of many pandering talking points that politicians use to maintain their voting base. I don’t think any of them really believe the bullshit that they spew.

If being an outspoken Christian caused a drastic drop at the polls you would see a great deal of the ‘religious’ right suddenly walking an agnostic line.

@Jaxk First off, I had to find a better source than a notoriously far-right one. I would expect you to be more mindful of picking such blatant sources that lean so hard they fall over sideways. That said, I found a more neutral source that backs you up but it paints a different picture. Basically, peopel are moving to where there are people like them, and there is corroboration for that

It isn’t taxes, though the fact that Washington is also seeing a population boom lends some strong evidence to it being job growth, especially as the red states that are benefiting are the few that actually have decent job growth (Texas and Florida) while people are also fleeing the Liberal bastions of Kansas, Ohio, and Illinois.

If you want to see the migration from wherever to wherever, this is an interesting place to see who is moving where. Seems like a lot of New Yorkers are heading to California and New Jersey while there is a lost of swapping (roughly equal numbers both ways) between California and Texas.

I think I’ve already entered the “I hate them all” phase. Politicians are different, but they are more the same then anything and it just seems like everything is about money. I’m throwing in the towel for now on caring for politics.

Very cool graphic, @jerv. I played with it for some time.

Their religion doesn’t bother me at all as long as they keep it out of their work. When their religion obviously colours their work, I really do not like it. I realise they can’t extract their religious beliefs from their actions and opinions but if they have a conflict of interest, I think they should abstain from voting on certain issues. So if you’re a catholic and you’re being asked to vote on whether contraception should be available to women, and you can’t remove the Catholic Church’s doctrine from your decision making, you should abstain from that vote.

But if the are representing a predominantly Catholic district, @Earthbound_Misfit, there’s no need to abstain.

Their vote needs to match the majority of the voters. We’ve gotten so far away from that concept.

@ibstubro, they’re supposed to represent their voters, that doesn’t mean they have to do everything their voters may think they want. As politicians they have access to information, experts and knowledge that isn’t available to the majority of their constituents. The decisions they make, which at a federal level affect the broader community, should be driven by critical analysis and based on the information and facts available to them. Their decisions should not be driven the doctrines of the Catholic (or any other) Church.

I realise this doesn’t often happen, but it’s how things should be. I’m fed up of this ‘we have a mandate’ crap. I’m hearing way too much of that over here. Because some flat earthers think climate change is ‘crap’ our government, made up mostly of Catholics, refuse to listen to scientists (or the international community) in terms of our response to this problem. Furthermore, schools are being forced to sack counsellors because they’re not religious pastors. These are just two examples where politicians are allowing their own ideological and religious beliefs to dictate policy.

@Earthbound_Misfit Note where they elect those sorts of government officials though; they actually do represent their constituency.

That is why I weep for humanity.

@jerv and if the decision they’re making is situated at a local level, they can simply take their constituents needs/desires into account. If they’re operating at a federal level, they have broader responsibilities. I know it’s not what happens, and I’ll join you in the weeping.

Anyone who makes their religion part of their campaign loses my vote.

@Jaxk I shouldn’t need to point out the difference between the state of New York and New York city, without which the state of New York would probably be as red as a stop sign as well as an economic basket case. The same can be said for the state of Illinois with regard to Chicago. It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if rednecks and frustrated gun nuts in blue country set sail for Dixie, and geriatric old folks have been fleeing to Florida and Arizona for decades. And it is true that huge crowds of liberals migrate to the islands of blue surrounding nearly every first rate university marooned in the red wastelands. What I’m talking about is the compass headings of the nation’s youth, with particular emphasis on our best and brightest. I can assure you that when stranded in Nebraska in my distant youth, I entertained no thoughts of a promising and fulfilling life awaiting me through migration to the bible belt.

Since the blues are moving one way and the reds the other, wouldn’t it be all around better if we just let the South go like they wants to go back in the 1860s? The cultural/political divide is too wide for America to be called the United states any longer, and it seems that with a few exceptions (like Austin), the lines are pretty close to where they were ~150 years ago. Probably best to do it now while it’s merely untenable than to wait until it naturally evolves into violence on it’s own.

That brings up an interesting question. It doesn’t seem to matter how deeply red the territory surrounding it happens to be, why is it that great seats of learning are unfailingly situated on islands of blue?

@jerv, no, no it wouldn’t. I like the state I am in, and the people for the most part are ok unless they get up in your face with their religion and politics. And I want us to be a blue state.

@stanleybmanly Because education tends to lead to questioning tradition, wanting to change the world, and otherwise doing things that pretty much defy the term “conservative”.

@stanleybmanly – I will quickly concede that if you want to live in the inner city, Nebraska may not be your ideal destination.

@Jaxk If you want the semblance of an idea or a creative thought, the hint of an inspiration, an occasional moment of discovery, a conversation infused with wit, well – - – -

Sounds like you’ve found Nirvana. Far be from me to argue against that.

It isn’t a question of discovering Nirvana. It’s more about escape from its opposite.

Now you know why I like the Northern corners of the country, though with Seattle being about half the price of Boston, the decision between East and West was easy.