I don't really need politicians to speak to my lack of faith. But it seems people of faith like to hear that from their politicians. I think it's a nonissue for athiests/agnostics. You can't really appeal to a lack of something. "Hey, you don't have diabetes either! Vote for me!" You know? Can only speak for myself though.

it's hard to talk about nothing?

in this country?

Bigotry isn't a tangible thing like diabetes. It's a mind set held against people for what they are, or what they do or don't believe. Xians may hold it against a politician for not believing in Jesus while they're perfectly OK with them not believing in Zeus.

When a religious person gets up and prays to their imaginary god, no one is demanding they prove their god is more than "nothing."

Putting a few atheists on the stage would serve to show the party embraces non-faith just as readily and openly as it embraces all faiths.

And I have no problem with them not making a point of being inclusive of atheists.

Atheism polls really badly. Americans at large have a lower opinion of Atheists than they do of, say, LGBT or Muslims.

Ordinarily, I wouldn't say that the fact that people are biased against a group is a reason to cower and not support that group. But atheists aren't persecuted or discriminated against like LGBT people or Muslims. I have never felt in the least way discriminated or threatened or whatever for being a nonbeliever.

So I say, just leave it alone. We need to win the election.

Try running for dog catcher while admitting you're an atheist.

For people just going about their lives and careers, atheists (like me) are not discriminated against.

I wish we were a country that were less anti-atheists, but on the scale of problems we have, it's not very big.

is to attract Independent and disgruntled Republican voters.

I don't think religious or non-religious affiliation is one of the most important issues. Climate change, gun control, justice system, racism, national security, and other matters are much more important.

Many speakers have said "God bless our country" or "God bless America." And there have been opening and closing diverse religious prayers. That doesn't offend me.

Talking about atheism often gets divisive, and this convention is all about love and inclusiveness. Speaking as an atheist, I can say that love and inclusiveness are more important to me than arguments about whether God or god does or does not exist. I suppose that makes me a "soft atheist," rather than a "hard atheist." Nihil humanum mihi alienum est.

I am more interested in what people do believe in than what they do not believe in. Scientific method, humanistic goals, and democracy are some examples of things to believe in and strive for.

Anyway, I don't feel ignored. But if others do, that might be a subject to bring up with future organizers of political conventions.

Disestablishmentarianism isn't atheism. It's not even religiously neutral. It's there in particular to protect religious minorities. Jefferson & Washington were being pretty liberal on the issue when they respectively said the boundary of disestablishment should include atheists and pagans.

Interestingly, several states continued to support state religions for decades after the Constitution's nonestablishment and oath clauses and the bill of rights insured freedom from federal religious coercion. Maryland, New York, and the Carolinas were Episcopal--Maryland specifically trying to suppress their Catholic minority, Pennsylvania was all but officially Quaker, and New England (except for mostly Baptist Rhode Island) was officially Congregationalist.

Of course only a fool today wouldn't include atheists in freedom of religion. The point should be made that not having a religious faith doesn't necessarily leave a speaker anything to say when discussing their views and inspirations on the podium. It's not like any of the theistic speakers were proselytizing--they were only speaking in fairly general terms about personal sources of strength and moral guidance. There were a number of speakers who spoke about their moral convictions without invoking God.

although the question would be if there were any advocates out there who petitioned to speak?