ARE YOU A SINGLE ISSUE VOTER? DO YOU — WOULD YOU — VOTE YOUR ATHEISM? Other groups, from gays and abortion rights supporters to gun enthusiasts are often “single issue” voters. They judge candidates entirely, or mostly, how they stand on a single political or legislative issue. What about you? Do you “vote your Atheism”? Will Atheism and your commitment to the First Amendment separation of government and religion be the major factor in which candidates you support in 2006 and beyond? GAMPAC, The Godless Americans Action Committee is calling upon Atheists, Freethinkers, Humanists and other nonbelievers to support the political candidates that vote “our issues.” How do you feel about this? Let us know.
why would you be a single issue voter that just makes no sense how could you make such a decisionbased on one issue lets say I am into guns but am a prochoicer ther would be almost no one to vote for couldnt do it sorry although atheism might sway me just might
The more religious the candidate, the more likely I am to feel some antipathy towards him/her. However, I think that it is a mistake to be a single issue voter, unless you really don’t care about anything else (and there is a lot ‘else’ in life).
That said, I would NEVER vote for a right-wing fundie, because they are on a mission to impose their views on everyone else.
The problem is many, if not most, politicians go after the single-issue voters. Bush went after the people who felt strongly about the anti-gay amendment. He, and other right wing politicians, used that to get votes.
Like udonaman said, there’s always at least one issue I disagree with in almost every candidate.
Then again, being in the minority, how could we get an atheist nominated to anything?
If ever, I vote for State/Church separation issues. Now then, defining that tends to be the challenge. I would not, however, vote for someone just because they’re an atheist.
Belief (or not) in religion I do not see as a key issue. I look around and I see that some types of religious belief are possible and still be able to make rational, intelligent decisions as well as recognize that other beliefs (and nonbelief) and lifestyles are also acceptable. It is the unwillingness to accept harmless differences that is a problem.
Which is why I DO consider complete separation of church and state a key issue. Anyone who tries to bring their own religion into being a part of government (like our current administration) obviously is not tolerant of others being different. Attempting to do it under false pretenses is especially indicative of untrustworthiness.
i’m with sentinel. the degree of their religiosity will have much more of an impact on my vote versus whether or not they are atheist.
I would not vote for George Bush based on his religiosity alone.
Clinton, I would not care because even though he is religious, I don’t feel it affected any of his decisions.
I would not vote for (insert imaginary candidate here) because they are openly atheist. though it would certainly earn them some bonus points.
Why Dave? Are you thinking of running?
Serious now, if I were to vote on someone solely on their belief, then I would be no better than those that vote for a person solely because they are a xtian. I am better than that.
I could vote for an xtian over an atheist or vice versa. Depends on the person and their platform. If they had the same qualifications and platforms, but one perfessed to being an xtian and the other not, I would vote for the atheist on the simple fact the he/she guides their thought patterns the same as I.
So Dave, what is your platform besides the obvious?
In as much as having a naturalistic outlook affects my decision making, I suppose I ‘vote’ my atheism. But only to the degree that my ethical beliefs and sympathies aren’t swayed by BS emotional pleas/fanaticism/fervor etc.
And as long a religious candidate (read most) isn’t overly proselytising or wacko, I have no problem supporting them if I feel they are rational enough to do the job.
Single issue voter? No way. Politics is simply too complex to take such a simple approach.
I’m not a single issue voter. I have voted primarily Republican since I was 18 because I agree with a small, less intrusive government, balanced budgets and a strong national defense. It always bothered me that they cozied up to the religious right, though, because I am quite liberal when it comes to what adults do behind closed doors.
After the tragedy that is the Bush Administration, I don’t think I could ever vote for another Republican again. Even one like Rudi Guillianni. Bush has screwed the budget, intruded into all our lives and turned our national defense into a national offense.
If I were a Christian, I would swear that Bush is the Anti-Christ.
As far as a candidate that proclaims their Atheism, that would be the kiss of death here in America. Chile recently elected a divorced mother of two that is also an agnostic. Americans are not that open minded.
Today, I refuse to vote for anyone that supports a marriage amendment, a flag burning amendment, intellignet design, prayer in school, or even “under god” in the pledge. I also refuse to vote for anyone that believes it’s alright to START a war.
I realize this doesn’t exactly leave me with many choices. The most pressing order of business is to get the house and or senate back in the hands of the donkeys so the investigations can begin. Impeachment would not satisfy me. I want the whole lot of them rounded up and sent to the Hague to stand trial for crimes against humanity.
Ren,
Ramen, brother.
I’m not a single issue voter. Being female and a mother, there are other issues that I’m concerned with as well. Altho it would be nice to have a candidate that is non-religious, I think that is highly unlikely in today’s world. Non-republicans are as good as we are going to get for tolerance in that area.
I can’t promise that I would in all circumstances vote for an openly godless candidate either, but the lack of enthusiasm in some of the responses is a little disappointing.
It’s probably unrealistic to think that politicians will ever be fighting for our votes. But I can imagine them highly interested in our campaign donations–if we developed a reputation for reliably making them to those who show support for secularism.
AAinSA,
Thank you!
Sportin’ Life,
You make a couple of good points. Just because someone is an Atheist does not mean they are competent or even well intentioned. Stalin and Mao Tse Dung come to mind. (Can’t swear they were Atheists, but they sought to replace religion with the state)
AA, being a non-prophet, er profit, organization, isn’t able to endorse candidates, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t bring individual candidates to to the attention of others on this blog. We could then make it a point to donate enmasse with the explicit understanding of why we support them.
Since most American politicians (Jesse Ventura excepted) are scared shitless to mention anything that might be perceived as critical of religion I don’t see how anyone could “vote atheist”. What am I missing?
I do however always vote gay and can be considered a single issue voter in that regard.
Alex.
Ren said “I have voted primarily Republican since I was 18 because I agree with a small, less intrusive government, balanced budgets and a strong national defense.”
I can just imagine how dissapointed you must be then with the current Republican leadership which has created the largest and most intrusive government ever and the largest defecit in our national history. At least they got your strong national defence. Three out of four ain’t bad.
Alex.
Alex,
I voted Libertarian in the last two general elections, so I accept no blame for the Bush Junta. Unless something drastic happens between now and November, I will be voting strictly Democrat.
I come from a long line of individuals that served in the military and that was the basis for my (minimalist) conservative views. You are absolutly correct that Bush & Co. are not conservatives. They are fascists. I wouldn’t piss on dubya if he were on fire.
off topic beech If your intersted in some kind of meetup in omaha with me and ren go to http://www.omahaatheist.blogspot.com and drop a line
on topic I agree with ren to a point about the size of the goverment and the fiscal responsiblity but theres still issues I have with the republican party but its not like I dont have issues with all the politcle parties maybe let anarchy rule show the true nature of evoultion only the strong survie no that wouldnt work Im afraid its gonna be all about comprimises ive already said it I couldnt vote as a single issue voter even for gay rights sorry alex I know you mean well but lets say the person running was all for gay marriage but wanted to repael all gun laws could you still vote for that person I doubt it Iknow I couldnt
oh and ren you must not be voting when in NE election that is comming up are you it seems all of the cannidopes are running on one or the other paltforms you mentioned just glad im in Iowa although I still have to see the dopes on the news and read about them in the paper
Take care all
Tony
I vote Dem straight across the board.
Oh, and one more thing, Alex. I wouldn’t categorize what Bush has done to our military as being strong on DEFENSE. I would say he is strong on OFFENSE, to which I and millions (dare I say billions?) of others take great exception.
Since most of the people I count as friends are still in the military, my wife included, I would say that I have it from inside sources that Bush is destroying our military. Morale is in the dumps. Recruiting is in the dumps. Equipment is being abused at, at least 5X the rate it would be in garrison. That’s not including the equipment that is being destroyed by the enemy.
Our misadventures in Iraq are going to top $2 trillion even if we leave by the end of this year. We will not be leaving anytime soon, though. We will be there until we are forced out or until we no longer need oil from that region. It was never and still isn’t about democracy. That is nothing more than a ruse to keep the imbecils back home placated.
udonman,
I will be voting in the upcoming NE election, but it remains to be seen how it is going to work. Since I am now registered “non-partisan” I was told there would only be one question on my ballot; an issue not a candidate. I was told I could ask for a “non-partisan” Dem or Repug ballot and have a say in the primary. I guess we’ll see how it goes.
beechfront,
Hope to see you on the Omahaatheist blog.
They don’t let athiests be candidates in my state (and I wonder if they do in this COUNTRY)!!!
Last year, the Estes Park CO community recalled a councilmember because he refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. He doesn’t agree with the “under god” part of it. THIS WAS THEIR ONLY REASON FOR RECALLING HIM!!!!!
That said, I find it extremely hard to find a candidate that I CAN vote for. They all make me sick. If I find ONE candidate with the BALLS to stand up and give us some straight talk, I’d vote for them in a minute – Christian or not. HONESTY. That’s what I’m after, and politicians just simply arent’ honest.
Where do I go from here?
damn bones love estes park wouldve loved to live there but not now any way
this is the reason so many dont vote in the elections hell its the reason so many dont even know when there is an election other then the presidental and even then there are many who wouldnt even know when it is or who is running much less there stances on the issues well much less even the issues we need to do more to raise the politlce awareness much less the image of atheist before we can even imagine getting an atheist in to an office of power Im beging to think if we could take an atheist org and turn it into a machine that could raise awarness for voting registration and proudly be and show we are atheist doing good with out the buybull or being of a certain religious affliation
sorry to ramble on have to many things just flowing out of my head screw syntax and grammer
For me, atheism in a non-issue when voting, except if said candidate is intent on bringing their mysticism into public policy.
One of the most admired , if not most effective, presidents is perhaps the most religious in recent times. Namely Jimmy Carter. He’s a devout xian who understands and advocates the separation of church and state.
As long as the candidate will keep gods and goblins out of their policy making they would be in contention for my vote.
Wasn’t there an atheist candidate in Texas who turned out to be a white supremacist?
Voting strictly along religious or irreligious lines is always dangerous. I vote with the goal of expanding freedom and equality, and the Separation Clause is simply another necessary ingredient of that ideal. Sure, I’d like there to be more open atheists in our government, but I’ll settle for more of the UUs and UCC type religious folks. You don’t have to be an atheist to believe in the importance of secular government.
Although it may be self-explanitory, I AM a single-issue voter — I vote Separation of Religion and Government (SRG).
In my opinion, this encompasses other issues as Gay Rights, Death with Dignity, and yes, abortion (I realize there are exceptions to the rule in the latter). As I see it, all these are subsets of the religion issue, and that the strategy of the religious right is to divide the opposition with these smaller issues, rather fight all of us on SRG. IMO, if we all voted SRG, the other issues would go away.
And yes, there are Atheists for whom I would never vote — but I’d love the opportunity to vote someone into office that was proud of being logically inclined.
I will vote for anything that is not a Republican!
The religion of my candidate is something I don’t particularly care about. It’s what they do with it that gets me.
If I recall properly (someone please correct me if I am wrong here) John Kerry is a Catholic. I saw him speak at a rally on my school campus, and he mentioned that though he was Catholic, it was important to him not to make decisions based solely on his religion. He didn’t say it directly, but he implied that if someone is breaking God’s law, it’s not the government’s job to enforce it. I liked that.
I would never vote single-issue. Lucky for me, though, my big issues tend to end up on one side of the ballot, anyway. Addressing problems with our education system. Women’s rights, family rights, gay rights, abortion rights. These mostly fall under the same candidates, and as it turns out, it seems to me that these same candidates are going to be the ones to support my rights as an atheist, as well.
If someone is going to say “it’s not my business to tell you you can’t have an abortion” and “it’s not my business to interfere with your homosexual marriage” I think they’ll be a lot more likely to say “You don’t worship my god, but that’s really your choice.”
Though I have to say, it’d be really hard for anyone to run and claim to support atheist issues. There we go with that whole stigma thing. Support those godless heathens? Who do you think I am, the Antichrist?
I am more of a single issue non-voter, for multiple issues, if that makes sense.
If a candidate holds any of these positions:
FOR the drug war – I will NOT vote for them ( so long as they are for some sort of relaxation, I will go for it)
FOR gun control – I will NOT vote for them(though if they are for some sort of relaxation, I will consider them)
FOR resticting marriage to non-gays – I will NOT vote for them
FOR abortion prohibition – I will NOT vote for them(I have some sympathy for partial birth bans)
FOR the Iraq war – I will NOT vote for them(though at this point, we need to clean up before we leave)
FOR unregulated immigration – I will NOT vote for them(not isolation, just keeping track)
FOR socialized medicine – I will NOT vote for them
So this pretty much leaves out every republican and democrat out there. Except maybe Ron Paul. And he is in Texas, and is not interested in running for president again, so I can not vote for him.
But if I had to, I would vote against those to keep a complete ogre out. I just have not seen that come up yet where I vote.
Though if I were in Alabama I would give serious consideration to this lady:
http://www.nallforgovernor.com/ just to slap the face of Roy Moore
Generally, I’m not a one issue voter, but I can see David’s point about how the SRG issue can link other issues together. Basically, what I do is figure out about 4-5 issues that are really important to me and rank them by importance. Then I try to find the candidate that agrees with them, if I can find 2-3 I consider myself lucky. No one is perfect.
If I were a voter, I would be a single issue voter. The issue would be freedom. Since there are no candidates whose actions demonstrate a love of freedom, I do not vote. When I see a candidate come out in favor of revamping the drugs laws (55% of prisoners have been deprived of their freedom because of the unjust and ludicrous drug laws), I may vote for that candidate. If a candidate appears that seems capable of removing god from the money, the pledge, the courthouse, and most importantly the classroom, I may vote again. I don’t expect it to happen.
Politicians are concerned with two things, power and money. Both of these concepts are imcompatible with freedom. We traded freedom for money in the late 1800’s. Any politicians wanna dispense equal quantities of freedom??? Ha Ha Ha. So, you think the founders had a handle on freedom?? Are they the ones who implemented slavery???
This will be my first time to vote after losing my “born-again xainity” faith. I used to only vote for the religious right. Wow, this is going to be fun – to search out the people and issues for myself. (How could I have been so sick?)
I wouldn?t vote for a candidate based on a single factor (including atheism), though I agree that the enforcement of separation of church and government is essential. And yes, whether or not this is enforced does strongly influence the treatment of other important issues.
I try to do my research before I vote. However, if I don?t know the candidates running for a particular post, I?ll vote Democrat. Realistically, I agree more with the Democrat than I would the Republican about 98% of the time. While I?d be pro-?smaller government? I don?t think the Republican party actually works towards this in any way, shape, or form and is actually the party more likely to create legislation regulating what I feel should be personal choices and preferences. As Bill Maher said, a party that claims to be the party of less government shouldn?t make laws about love (he was referring to the push for an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage).
Has anyone read Garrison Keillor?s book, Homegrown Democrat? I did and loved it- it contains many excellent points, poetically expressed. Keillor has a wonderful sense of vision and an amazing ability to explain what he feels is right and wrong about government. Unfortunately, few other people in the Democratic Party seem to share this skill.
I?d vote for the oh-so-Lutheran Keillor in a heartbeat if he would just run for something. Garrison! Run for something!
I heart Garrison. Run for something!
I think the most important thing is to just vote.
I don’t mean vote blindly, or by party line, or on just one issue, but do the research needed to make an informed vote.
The biggest reason Evangelicals have as big an influence as they do is cause politicians know they vote. Let it be known Atheists vote in large percentages and we will get a seat at the table. I can’t think of another way to get there.
While we all don’t hold the same political beliefs, we probably have more common ground than you might think. While I often disagree with Tomwright on environmental issues, I agree with all his talking points on canidate selection.
Voting is a right and duty that if enough of us ignore it someone may step in and make the decisions for us.
That last line should read “…if I can find someone that agrees with 2-3 issues I consider myself lucky.”
I definitely don’t think I’m a single-issue voter. If someone took a very, very radical stand on a single issue that I supported very much then I could be (like taxing churches!) but otherwise I wouldn’t. And politicians today don’t take radical stands, unless it’s to the right.
While I definitely think that religion is one of the core problems in the world right now, the separation between church and state is not. The danger is not that the government would start burning people at the stake, but that children might get suggested to them that evolution is incorrect. This issue is not as dangerous and as pressing as war, fighting for a true democracy, and dealing with the problems of capitalism. So in summary, no, I would not vote for atheism if that were the only issue.
Have all of you seen or heard about the Iranian leaders letter to Washington? It urges the West to return to religious principles and states that liberal democracy is a failure and that islam will triumph.
Here is the story from the Beeb:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4752831.stm
Alex.
Ok, forgive me for being off topic but I have a good idea for a blod. We should have a blog that asks us,
“What is better to you? Logic and reasoning or emotion?”
This could show who is more prone to want to have faith instead of the cold truth, it could also show how Christians (there are a few on this blog) compared to Atheists are sided in to cold logic vs human emotion. Logical people tend to be be more reasonable than others.
This would shed light on that the false myth that Atheists are Atheists due to a bad event with the Church or something. No, it will show that Atheists are
Atheists due to proper reasoning and will weaken the Christains arguments. It will show they are more blind than they thought. I think presidents should be asked this to.
While religion is very important, it would be wrong and unfair to judge solely on such. i would never pick someone “just because” they happened to be a fellow
Atheist. They need to be highly suitable for the job. I would not vote for a clear, radical Christian however, because their faith would clearly affect their entire outlook to a great degree. It really depends on deep someone’s faith or non faith affects the person. I would vote for an Atheist who understands the importance of the our rights and who is rightfully qualified to be the head of our country, because after all, this is the leader of our country we are talking about here. We have to be really prudent on this, it is very important to be fair and just. We must give our fair judgment to all, even to the Christians (so long as their faith does not go too deep, otherwise s/he would kill us or try and ruin our lives).
anthony its fixed
Tony
Thanks for letting me know about that Tony.
I would, but I can’t recall a single candidate (unless for a small town office or school board) announcing their atheism. Usually, people running for office avoid that label like the plague.
How did I double post? Sorry David…please correct this if you wish. I hate making stupid mistakes but I only put in one post…parhaps this is an angry Greek god trying to get back at me, lol.
Alex,
I was not aware of the letter. Rather disturbing to see a call for a return to religious principles. I wonder to which particular set of religious principles he is referring. I guess not those that King George II currently invokes.
Tom Wright and I have a similar political ethos.
I can’t say I would vote for atheism. But I definitely vote against religion. It is my belief that the First Amendment requires that a candidate be politically atheistic. What I mean by this is that they can believe whatever they like, but the second they cross the line into making decisions for all of us on the basis of faith they need to get the boot.
What I want is a candidate that will trim down the government, set the stage for a laissez faire involvement with religion, and stands the same or similar on all the issues Tom Wright mentioned.
I seek the greatest personal liberty with the least government involvement. I guess that’s why I label myself a Libertarian (though I’m not 100% with everything some in the party believe).
Anthony,
Not all atheists became so because of cold logic, there were many emotional reasons for abandoning faith. You can read some of the stories people posted about themselves and their beliefs here:
http://www.atheists.org/nogodblog/index.php/2005/10/11/tell_us_your_story#comments
Nor do I think that emotion is necessarily a bad way to make decisions for yourself. The idea is to be happy with yourself and your life, so making a decision based on how you feel, even if it seems illogical to others, can be perfectly OK.
The problem comes when you decide that your feelings are a valid excuse for controlling others. Just because you are happier being a certain way does not mean that it is OK to tell everyone else to be the same:
?The idea of eating squid disgusts me, so I will not eat it.? is OK.
?The idea of eating squid disgusts me, so I will outlaw eating squid and punish any people who eat squid? is not.
So negative emotions, hating others who are different is a bad approach. But empathy for others can be a good way of making decisions:
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2004/9/20048072.shtml
(The interplay between emotions and logic is much more complicated than this, this is just an introduction to the concept.)
I’m a multi-issue voter predominantly democratic. There are many issues that affect my personal views but as far as religion, the candidates I vote for are those with an unbiased perception of the law and no ties to religious influences. I would never vote for someone like Bush or Rick Santorum who constantly flaunt their religion because they only serve those who belong to that denomination and not the nation as a whole. That is not politics, that is favoritism.
Alex-
Alex, don’t you do everything gay???
Well I voted for the party that endorsed the policies I thought were best, just so happens that we have half a dozen different choices here (proportional representation) and the Prime Minister happened to be Agnostic which is close enough to swing it for me. Into the second term here in NZ for the Labour party and I just get more and more impressed with their performance, record GDP growth, budget well in the black.
Conversely the main opposition National party (read republican) was involved in accepting political donations from both American republican analysts and the seventh day adventists, which I think is rich as their religion bans them from voting anyway (secret deals going on to get rid of the NZ nuclear weapons free zone).
So I guess I’m not a single issue voter, but I’m lucky that there is a party which pretty much matches my outlook on most things.