Comment by Morgan Matthew on August 9, 2011 at 10:49pm

I bet in 5 years time we will see an atheist holding some sort of power.

Comment by Sara Howe on August 9, 2011 at 10:51pm

I heard Sean Faircloth speak, who works with Secular Coalition for America, and he said there are actually 24 (or 25?  I can't remember the exact number) members of congress who are secular, but they are not "out" because it would effect their poll numbers.  There is one openly atheist member.  This is something that SCA is fighting for...to make it more acceptable to be openly atheist as a politician.

Comment by matt.clerke on August 9, 2011 at 10:59pm

I'm not 100% sure how it works in America, but in Australia we have a serious 2 party mentality. Since your vote only counts to get someone elected for your area, it is extremely hard for minority groups to get ANY representation in parliament. I suspect the same thing happens in America and probably anywhere where elections for large scale areas are done on a per small scale area.

 

Using the above example, the unaffiliated are grossly under-represented in your congress. If all of those people were in a small geographic area, they would easily be able to vote in someone to represent them. But because they are geographically separate, their votes are considered separate of each other.

 

Long story short, the system doesn't work....need a new system imo.

Comment by Meghan McWilliams on August 9, 2011 at 11:09pm

I just don’t like to see anyone not have political representation. Regardless if it’s beneficial to me or not. Remember, America is suppose to be this “cultural melting pot” that’s so “diverse” and we are all equal, but only if you’re an upper-class, white, heterosexual Christian.  Sorry that sounded pissy.

Comment by matt.clerke on August 9, 2011 at 11:25pm

I agree, political representation is (should be?) everyone's right. Australia has an Atheist Prime Minister but she refuses to do anything about gay marriage equality... The only party I know of which openly supports it got enough votes nationally to secure a seat but the votes were spread too thin and so now that party has no input whatsoever in parliament. The parliament is just not representative of Australian's on a national level and I blame the current voting system.

Comment by Wyatt on August 9, 2011 at 11:35pm

There is a protestant offshoot called holiness? That's a new one to me. Are the "Don't Know/ Refused"  the closeted atheists? 

Comment by matt.clerke on August 9, 2011 at 11:38pm

Either that or something unsavoury which they don't want known.

Comment by Stephen Walski on August 9, 2011 at 11:38pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holiness_movement

Comment by ernie garcia on August 10, 2011 at 3:26am

I don't know if Pete Stark is still in Congress, but he is an atheist.  It was mentioned a while back when DJ Groethe hosted "Point of Inquiry."

Comment by Robert Karp on August 10, 2011 at 10:09am

@Wyatt my guess is the 'Don't Know/Refused" are secular, atheist or agnostic but because of political reprocutions they stay in the closet.

 

@Matt We also have a two party system and is clearly is not working and is only getting worse. Keith Olbermann recently called for mass disobedience in his commentary in response to the latest deficit debacle.  The problem is American are too lazy to act.

 

@Morgan I agree, and in maybe less time than that. You should run! I would but my past is too shady. ;-)

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page