People With No Religion Underrepresented...in New Congress

Anyone who feels underrepresented is free to run for office themselves as well.

At least atheists are accepted in today's world.

As the world becomes more and more connected, and science advances further and further religion stays stagnant in time, being left behind. The only advancements any major religion has made is the catholic church due to the newest pope on the block. But even accepting gays, and condoms, and evolution still won't bring them up to par with science and the natural universe that us simple little organisms on this tiny little planet seem to understand more and more.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

My gut reaction to this thread is...how can every aspect of the make up of a body of constituents actually be represented?

I'm a collector of jesters hats. Truly, I am.

As a collector of jesters hats, I am not represented.

I am also in the group of "unaffiliated" group of folks you mention. Well, I am working on being comfortable with calling myself buddhist. To my reckoning, as an unaffiliated/buddhist constituent, I am not represented, either.


The simple fact of the matter is, I do not expect to be represented from the standpoint of my interests.


-NF

originally posted by: guitarplayer

I was just stating a fact they took any reference to God out of their platform. You can stand in your driveway all day long and say your a car but that doesn't make you one.

I was just answering your question.

I don't understand your example though. What does it mean??? Who is "You", what is the "Driveway" and what do you mean by "saying your a car"???

a reply to: strongfp

Brilliant post. Thanks for adding your thoughts.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: guitarplayer

I was just stating a fact they took any reference to God out of their platform. You can stand in your driveway all day long and say your a car but that doesn't make you one.

I was just answering your question.

I don't understand your example though. What does it mean??? Who is "You", what is the "Driveway" and what do you mean by "saying your a car"???

The primis is one can call themselves anything they want to but does that make it so?

a reply to: nullafides

Well put

With all of the current "special interest groups," its impossible to represent the actual will of the people. When we undermine the majority rule, we go against our core values as a nation.

a reply to: strongfp

They are???

The numbers are in: America still distrusts atheists and Muslims

How Americans Feel About Religious Groups

Jews, Catholics and evangelical Christians are viewed warmly by the American public. When asked to rate each group on a “feeling thermometer” ranging from 0 to 100 – where 0 reflects the coldest, most negative possible rating and 100 the warmest, most positive rating – all three groups receive an average rating of 60 or higher (63 for Jews, 62 for Catholics and 61 for evangelical Christians). And 44% of the public rates all three groups in the warmest part of the scale (67 or higher).

Buddhists, Hindus and Mormons receive neutral ratings on average, ranging from 48 for Mormons to 53 for Buddhists. The public views atheists and Muslims more coldly; atheists receive an average rating of 41, and Muslims an average rating of 40. Fully 41% of the public rates Muslims in the coldest part of the thermometer (33 or below), and 40% rate atheists in the coldest part.

a reply to: guitarplayer

Tell me about it. I've tried "Lord and Master of my Domain", "King of the Castle" and even "Ruler of the House" yet my wife still just laughs at me when I tell her to address me as such!!!

a reply to: nullafides

The simple fact of the matter is, I do not expect to be represented from the standpoint of my interests.

Interesting response.
If you throw millions/billions of dollars at the members of Congress who are your so-called 'representatives', though - you COULD be represented. (see: lobbying)

And
IF members of Congress were not aligned with any 'religious camp', AND
those 'religious camps' had no money to throw at them and their vapid campaigns, THEN
it might be feasible for religion to be left out of the equation altogether.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
SECULAR.

The Founding Fathers's premise. Keep religion OUT of politics. Yet, nowadays, it seems only those 'candidates' who EMBRACE religion and USE IT to get votes are the, ahem, erm, 'winners'.

And - so - how are the REST of us (non-religious) being represented? We aren't. Because religious fervor OVERRIDES common sense with the 'majority' of this country, APPARENTLY. Based on what the elected officials are doing. Who were elected because they had been bombarded with enough MONEY to make a stab at it.....

and round and round we go

a reply to: mOjOm

What are they going to do to me?
Burn me at the stake?
Jail me for being an atheist?

Those stats are flawed, only people who actually want to voice their opinion AGAINST atheists will do so. What about the people who just do not care. Or don't mind it? Will they rise up and go to the polls and say 'YES I ACCEPT ATHEISTS!'.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: guitarplayer

Tell me about it. I've tried "Lord and Master of my Domain", "King of the Castle" and even "Ruler of the House" yet my wife still just laughs at me when I tell her to address me as such!!!

Your preaching to the choir on that one. I feel your pain. I use to tell my wife that Sara called Abraham Lord and he even had concubines. She didn’t buy any of it

a reply to: strongfp

How are your rights as an atheist been violated? Have there been laws passed limited your rights based on this? Civil or criminal action, unjustified, as a result?

I feel that a deeper explanation of your wronging would help us.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: strongfp

How are your rights as an atheist been violated? Have there been laws passed limited your rights based on this? Civil or criminal action, unjustified, as a result?

I feel that a deeper explanation of your wronging would help us.

I could answer that one if you let me. Most if not all moral laws against personal behavior is an infringement on the life liberty and pursuit of happiness. Why is it the governments business what I do in my own home with myself or a consenting adult?

a reply to: JBurns

Well, if you live in Oklahoma you may not be able to get married anymore because you're an atheist.

lawmakers declare ‘all-out assault’ on marriage for same-sex and atheist couples in Oklahoma

a reply to: mOjOm

Marriage is a concept of religion in the eyes of an atheist.
And I could easily 'fake' my way into any religion I please to gain a marriage certificate if I wanted to. I don't view any religions as a set in stone concept, who is to tell me I am not catholic? or Jewish? If I jump through enough hoops I can become what ever religion I want, but deep down I know I am an atheist.

With the way you just explained that, it makes sense now. I wasn't criticizing you. In fact, I tend to agree. Laws based on religion aren't fair.

a reply to: JBurns

Discrimination against those who do not believe in all powerful god that governs us humans, and set in place guidelines and rituals for us to follow has been around since the concept of religion came into thought.
Religions were once a way to explain natural causes that we did not understand, eventually as we all became a more social and sophisticated species, as did the stories and concepts of the world around us. We didn't understand why the sun set ever day and rose the next, we didn't understand how why people were just suddenly alive one day and dead the next, it was the unknown that created religion. But as a said in my previous post, our understanding of the universe grows more and more to the point where religion will be phased out one day.

a reply to: guitarplayer

Because if someone and their buddy is making meth inside their house they are putting a lot of their neighbors in harms way from an explosion, chemical fumes, and dangerous hangers on who come by to get said meth. Not the best example and I know what you mean but there are countless consequences from what some consenting adults do in their own homes.

I personally think this is one of the reasons religion was made, to sway voters to a certain "side". I'm guessing most Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. look at someone's beliefs as a huge factor in their decision, just as Republicans and Democrats do to their respective parties.

The last non-Christian as president was Taft in 1913, and he was a Unitarian which is an offshoot of Christianity. Our government has been run by Christians for a long time, or at least run by those pandering to the Christian demographic.