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.
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.
I’m not a one-issue voter, but I would certainly be favorably disposed toward a candidate that openly professed atheism. However, it just ain’t real likely that a candidate is going to do that. I would really like to see it happen, though.
Lee
Tom,
While I agree with you I am still thinking that if feelings were terminated somehow then our world would be a much better place to live in. People are flawed and will remain flawed. Flawed beings cannot live in a perfect world because they are flawed. I guess without the help of machines, people will always suffer from emotion.
While it can be good sometimes (like parents raising kids) it is the sole source of all human conflict (think how religion came up). If only people were more logical, for example like you. You explained that in a logical sense and it made sense to me. If only most people would do the same.
I will take every candidate’s platform into consideration when I vote. I am very pro-gay rights and anti-religious indoctrination, and unfortunately I have yet to see a candidate who is going to make me happy. I think most of the time it boils down to people like us having to choose the lesser of two evils (b/c we all know that, at this point in time, we’d be more likely to get a terrorist into office than an atheist).
anthony in a way I wish we didnt have feelins either then I wouldnt have to worry about my gender dysphoria but really what kind of world would that be a bunch of mindless zombies sorry might as well be in church
pixel “Alex, don’t you do everything gay???”
Girlfriend, you know I do!
I’m a one man gay pride parade.
Alex.
speaking of gay pride Im going to my first pflag meeting tomorrow and its in a church gonna be a fun night
gonna be the only time ive ever regutly gone to church hahaha
In conservative Texas it doesn’t matter much. Most people simply vote Republican. The Texas/Mexico border and Austin have democrats but that mere word here gets people not to vote for someone. The latest ploy is RINO. Republican in name only. If the candidate is moderate on any major issue, the conservative opponent affixes that label and the moderate generally loses. I don’t vote single issue. I look at key issues and where a candidate stands on those.
tx ask sounds like the recent nebraska primary
well hell look at ben nelsen hes a big DINO
democrat in name only
New Orleans.
A lot of the national guard were stationed in the middle east and couldn’t be there to help. A lot of their equipment would have come in handy too but alas, it too was in the middle east.
Last I heard there were still about 3000 people missing, this doesn’t seem to be newsworthy though, they were poor.
the Republican admin actually voted to cut the budget to reinforce and upgrade the levees (before Katrina)because they needed the money to cover the war on terror.
When there are only two parties that have a chance of winning, it stands to reason that you should choose one of the two that moves the political spectrum your preferred way. In other words, single issue voting is foolish.
Now as an activist, there are many things you can do to promote your single issue to the party of choice. Grassroots activism, that’s where we are. What can we do for our cause Dave?