Candidates who use their faith in their campaigns remind me of injustice.

When Barack Obama, or any Democratic candidate, makes his or her faith a theme in the campaign, it is a reminder, intentional or not, that only some faiths need apply for the presidency, and if you have no faith, its utterly out of the question. It's true that the constitution prohibits religious tests for holding public office, but voters are free to violate the spirit of that provision by using their own personal religious tests to determine who gets their vote. The collective will of the electorate is that minority faiths and atheists are second class citizens in politics.

This is, to put it blandly, an unsatisfactory situation to me, and to what is probably the majority of those who lack faith, not to mention those of unpopular faiths. It stings to be reminded that because I do not agree with the collective imagination of the religious majority, many of them react by deeming me as prima facie unfit to hold office, apart from the question of my qualifications to actually perform the office. How should I be expected to react? Does the majority of the country or the majority of the party have the right to trumpet their faith without me complaining about it? That would imply that this is a just state of affairs, but I doubt people agree with that.

Instead, justice is sacrificed to expediency. No doubt it's convenient for the party or the society to ask me not to speak out and upset the apple cart. But when you think about it, isn't justice always inconvenient? It always takes more time and involves more risk to do what is fair, and what is right. If it were easy, I would not have to appeal to justice to ask my fellow party members to understand why I resent appeals even to sincere faith. Moreover, if you agree with me that a country that looks down on minority faiths and atheists is not as just as it could be, how will it ever change if those who are affected most don't present their case with all the strength born of actually being affected by this problem?

I can't expect people who, if they had their way, would not even want to be reminded that they are tolerating injustice for the purposes of expediency, to forcefully advocate change this situation. All I ask is that you understand when my passion and the passion of others makes it difficult to remain silent in the face of repeated reminders that we are, politically, second class citizens in the eyes of our society.

Thank you for your time.

Just your philosophy of life is tantamount to injustice if you do not agree.

Yes, it is true that an atheist would have a very hard time getting elected in this country. That does not make people of faith, even if they are candidates, your enemy.

Unless someone is imposing their religious beliefs on you through their actions, they are not.

Speaking of their Christian faith may be an easy way to connect to the religious majority, but would our candidates be so eager to campaign on their faith or even run in the first place if they were Wiccans, or Scientologists, or atheists? You have to answer that for yourself, but I know what my answer is.

In your philosophy. So am I and I am neither a Christian or an atheist.

There is nothing wrong with appealing to the majority when you, in fact, share their views. Sure, a lot of it is pandering. What else is new, that is hardly the province of religion, candidates pander to all sorts of groups I disagree with.

because you aren't in the majority, when religion has nothing to do with one's ability to perform the office, even if you never intend to run?

I'm perfectly comfortable not being with the majority.

No one would vote for me if they knew my beliefs about a LOT of things.

which is part and parcel of getting to know the candidates. I am agnostic and do not find expressions of faith threatening. It is only when leaders use faith as a shield to act out un-Christ-like behavior that causes me discomfort.

it doesn't disqualify a person from being a fair and effective leader.

who would run but for the necessity of meeting the Christian majority's de-facto religious test.

for Obama, at least. It would be a pander if he weren't a regular churchgoer who felt obligated to please the Xtians. Obama's appearance seemed pretty sincere to me.

I don't think Kerry lost because he was Catholic, and I don't recall seeing him touting faith on the campaign trail. To the X-tians who require faith as a prerequisite, Catholic doesn't count. And those voters would never consider a Dem, period.

Atheists, well...take a look:

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26611

Thankfully.

I don't believe there are really that many non-christians are are actually that interested in running in the first place. Now, for those that DO run, sure, it can be a problem unless they're one of the big three monotheist groups (though, honestly, try being a Muslim running for office in this country. Can't possibly be fun). This is a different issue than what you seem to be describing, and one that will likely be impossible to deal with. The election is (usually) decided by a majority. and the majority of people in this country are Christians of some sort or another. It's always going to be an edge.

How, pray tell, have you figured this out?

I'm glad you acknowledge that it is a problem that the majority imposes a de facto religious test in violation of the spirit of the constitution. The solution is to lessen prejudice and discrimination against minority faiths and atheists, and also to push to convince people to remove religion or lack thereof as a deciding factor altogether. I don't consider that at all impossible, though it may take some time.

It's the same reason most Christians don't run for office, either - they lack the interest. I'm sure funding is a larger issue than interest, even.

What you are suggesting is that pagans, such as myself - yourself as well? Along with atheists, Hindus, Sikhs, all these other people, are terribly afraid of "rocking the boat" and prefer inertia to trying to challenge the status quo. I, personally, find that pretty darn hard to believe, and I hope on reflection, you do as well. If a large round of these people from minority religions were to suddenly stand up and try to get elected, and got the total slapdown, then I would change my opinion on this.

You're not going to be able to remove the issue of religion from the perceptions of the electorate. Why? Most voters are religious, and for better or worse, religion plays a significant role in how people interact with the world around them. The spirit of the constitution isn't in question, as it is a body of laws regulating the government of the nation, with only occasional forays into the populace. You might as well be arguing about the majority favoring a political party - yours or someone else's.

supports his faith. And he so believes more power to him.

But I tell you the truth, I can't get around religion any more. What the bush administration with all the false religious nutso's have done in the name of religion have really soured me on belief in God. And I think all the time, if there is a God, he deserted this country and let bush be elected not once but twice. He let bush start a war, let the black and poor people of the Gulf Coast drown. Let bush ruin all the good social programs for the poor. Look how the spawn of the devil vetoed this bill for children's health. No I sure don't think bush is on the side of God, more like on the side of the devil.

And since I have lost my faith, I don't think I will ever regain it til he and his whole damn administration have been held accountable before this country and the world. AMEN to that.

would likely feel the joy that is being unelectable. Doesn't that bite, even if you don't intend to run for office?

he also needs to explain his plans to restore the separation between religion and government. Otherwise, he has completely turned me off!

Recommended.

C'mon, for real.

"Does the majority of the country or the majority of the party have the right to trumpet their faith without me complaining about it?"

They can trumpet. You can complain.

You can also choose which constituency you want to represent by living in that community. If that community believes that you are not religious, but have a belief in the common good, there is a fairly good chance of being elected, as some have, if you live in an open-minded district or region.

He bowed to religious convention out of necessity, too. Would he have been less great as a UU? Hell, no. Would people have thought he was less great? He and his wife thought so. Is that fair and just? Hell, no!

And ridiculous.

And yes, unjust.

Bowing to the religious really paid off, didn't it?

Just look where we are now...

Pete Stark is the only nationally elected avowed atheist and he waited until he had been elected some 17 times in an extremely progressive district before he felt safe enough to say so. And even so we don't know what will happen to him next cycle.

Anyone not FIRMLY entrenched in a guaranteed safe seat with lots of favors to call in who was openly non religious would have absolutely zero chance of winning. The OP has it right in toto.

EDIT - happy to be the 5th rec

If you're not a member of the Majority Religion--or willing to pretend you are--you don't count.

:P

Maybe it'll get some attention and someone might actually READ the op and try to understand what it's like to be a member of the most distrusted minority in Amerikkka.

As for those who can't (or won't), they already have the vapors, let's give them something to really get indignant about.

Atheist, lesbian and vegetarian. I might as well go for broke. :*




Love that smiley btw.

You wrote, "It's true that the constitution prohibits religious tests for holding public office, but voters are free to violate the spirit of that provision by using their own personal religious tests to determine who gets their vote."

The constitution prohibits religious tests by the government for holding office, it makes no such claims on the electorate. People are free to vote based on their religious, moral, or philosophical beliefs, and that is utterly constitutional and the way it was meant to be.