Atheists becoming less unpopular?

[Brian37]

Why should you think a Muslim deserves less consideration than anyone else? What matters is what a politicians says after they file the legal paperwork to run, not before. I would not vote for fellow atheists if they were an economic Ayn Rand lover. I most certainly would vote for a Muslim who said what JFK or John Kerry said "I will not use my article of faith to legislate" and had the same economic views I do.

I think there are far too many people who assume any Muslim who migrates here could not be objective while in office. I also doubt very seriously if either party got a Muslim in office, suddenly they would drastically and suddenly have the ability to over turn our system of checks and balances. Shit, both left and right without them already constantly scream the other is going to kill our system. Right now I'd say you'd have more to worry about our system collapsing  under Trump than say having democrat congressman Kieth Ellison a Muslim being our president.

I think we as a pluralistic society should give everyone consideration without judgment until they run and even then your voting should be based on economic issue not the personal religion of the person running. 

But yea, according to those polls it seems the idea that only a white Christian should be considered is falling away. You wouldn't know that though with all the successful gerrymandering nationwide that makes it really hard to get someone none white and non Christian in office. It took forever to have JFK in office, back then Catholics were not widely trusted. But 58% saying they would vote fore a qualified atheist, trust me, compared to 20 or 30 years ago, that is a huge jump. I also think the more atheists who run, or even other minorities who run, especially in traditionally red states, you will see minority numbers get more equal too. Bad thing for white right wingers is that younger people aren't buying all the bigotry of their parents or grandparents generation.

An objective Muslim president is far more likely (if elected) then some want to think. American Muslims are less dogmatic than those in Muslim fundamentalist countries and are statistically more likely to accept gay marriage than Evangelicals.

BINGO, 

Skip the labels for a second. If you look a group behavior in our species, the majority does not like their order upset. So when others move in, that minority if they want to stay, cant come in screaming like a rabid dog. Even in American politics, we take it for granted that all sects of Christianity have always been considered . Nope, and again, it took hundreds of years before America elected it's first Catholic president. 

It is also why even in Israel, while true they let religious  minorities partake in politics, it is just as less likely that a Muslim will ever become PM of Israel even if born in Israel, but the same would be said if someone from Japan or China migrated there, or was a second generation child born there. It takes a long time for humans to change. We've done a far better job in the west making progress, but again, you wouldn't know that considering all the far right hyper nationalism spreading throughout Europe and America. 

At least in America, migrants or the children of migrants are far more likely to vote democrat because socially we are not dicks. Cuban migrants though, they are an oddity and that really stems from the bad economics they escaped from in leaving Cuba. Cubans are a mix but many vote republican, mostly for economic reasons. 

I think friend and foe alike worldwide bar any migrant from becoming the head of state, their offspring however, that would again, be depending on country, what the laws are for local and regional politics. In that case, at least in the west, we are far more flexible.

---

Let me give you another example. If I had stayed married to my X wife and moved to Japan, I may be allowed to live there, but I would never become PM of Japan. However, if we had a kid born while there, our kid might have a better shot in local or national politics. I think most human groups are like this. 

The good thing long term, is that our species is mixing (well actually we should be saying shuffling) our genes crossing boarders more and more. Humans are traveling more and more, and that makes the world increasingly smaller. Simply put, it is hard to hate someone as an individual you are interacting with consistently.

[Regina]

Not to sound like a trashy cunt, but I'm genuinely shocked Muslims rank higher than atheists

I will say overall though, I think it's a positive when most people clearly don't have a problem with the idea of a president who isn't white. 90+% of people saying they'd support a president who isn't white is pretty amazing (and I think debunks this idea that people voting for Trump was some kind of "whitelash").

Why should you think a Muslim deserves less consideration than anyone else? What matters is what a politicians says after they file the legal paperwork to run, not before. I would not vote for fellow atheists if they were an economic Ayn Rand lover. I most certainly would vote for a Muslim who said what JFK or John Kerry said "I will not use my article of faith to legislate" and had the same economic views I do.

I think there are far too many people who assume any Muslim who migrates here could not be objective while in office. I also doubt very seriously if either party got a Muslim in office, suddenly they would drastically and suddenly have the ability to over turn our system of checks and balances. Shit, both left and right without them already constantly scream the other is going to kill our system. Right now I'd say you'd have more to worry about our system collapsing  under Trump than say having democrat congressman Kieth Ellison a Muslim being our president.

It's not my opinion. Personally I'd be open to a president who is Muslim (or any religion) if they have secular principles and objectivity and aren't shitting on LGBT and womens' rights. There are some practicing Muslims (Maajid Nawaz and others with views like his) I'd take over some regressive as fuck non-Muslims in these kind of conversations any day of the week.

I'm just surprised there's so many other people who feel this way. Going on the general mood in society, I would assume a very significant number of people wouldn't want Muslims anywhere near political power. Some people (not a lot, but enough to get noticed) did just spend the last few years speculating on Obama's religion in an attempt to discredit him.

[Pat Mustard]

If you're a socialist hispanic gay female atheist who has left islam, I don't think your chances of becoming PUSA are too good [emoji20]

But what if you're a spy for ze Bosnians?

[Aristocatt]

For context this was written in 2015.  You might find a far less favorable position of a Muslim president among American citizens today than you did then.  
Same with socialism.  It may have gotten a boost.

Additionally, the question itself needs to be accounted for.  It says would you vote for X if they were in your party and were otherwise qualified.
I.e. - The decision really being made is -- vote for a Black republican or vote for a Democrat.  As you learn to hate democrats more and more, a black Republican starts to look more and more like the lesser of two evils.

One thing this poll inadvertently tracks isn't how accepting the respondent is of someones race or religious beliefs, but instead how bitter they are about the opposition party.
A good follow up question to this poll would be "how would you feel about having a ____ president?"

If you found the 25% of responses show that people would be "very displeased" with a black president, then you may start to wonder how much people are actually affirming a black president in the first question, and how much they are simply weighing the terribleness of black people with the terribleness of the opposition party.

**I don't think 25% of people would respond with very displeased.  I am not here to say "yeah but the country is still racist" or anything like that.  All I am trying to do here is show that the poll itself doesn't really accomplish what it seems to have set out to do.

[Brian37]

For context this was written in 2015.  You might find a far less favorable position of a Muslim president among American citizens today than you did then.  
Same with socialism.  It may have gotten a boost.

Additionally, the question itself needs to be accounted for.  It says would you vote for X if they were in your party and were otherwise qualified.
I.e. - The decision really being made is -- vote for a Black republican or vote for a Democrat.  As you learn to hate democrats more and more, a black Republican starts to look more and more like the lesser of two evils.

One thing this poll inadvertently tracks isn't how accepting the respondent is of someones race or religious beliefs, but instead how bitter they are about the opposition party.
A good follow up question to this poll would be "how would you feel about having a ____ president?"

If you found the 25% of responses show that people would be "very displeased" with a black president, then you may start to wonder how much people are actually affirming a black president in the first question, and how much they are simply weighing the terribleness of black people with the terribleness of the opposition party.

**I don't think 25% of people would respond with very displeased.  I am not here to say "yeah but the country is still racist" or anything like that.  All I am trying to do here is show that the poll itself doesn't really accomplish what it seems to have set out to do.

I really don't care when this article was written. Power shifts over time, attitudes shift over time, but one thing that remains the same is our species is still subject to the same ability to be compassionate or cruel. 

This austerity push is global, even in China I heard last year on CSPAN  covering the Chinese PM, "Now is not the time to tax the rich". As much as we bitch here as liberals about the mistreatment of minorities, it is still harder for an American to move to China and fit in. 

What is important to me is that more and more humans see each other as individuals not labels. I still today would vote for our Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison before I would vote for Trump. I would NOT vote for Paul Ryan who loves the economics of the atheist version "Ann Coulter"Ayn Rand. 

Our species, and I include atheists too, unfortunately think local and short term on average. Sagan is what more humans need to accept, in his Pale Blue Dot speech. 

My loyalty is to my species stability, not to a club not even to others whom call themselves atheists.

[Amarok]

Maybe because most people do not accept the definition of atheism as lack of belief, in which case they considered atheists opposed to the fundamental principle for justifying inherent human rights as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. If there is no God, there are no inalienable human rights.

1. If they don't recognize it that's there problem

2. Christianity has no true basis for human rights. And magic sky  man says so is not a basis. Nor is but his nature a justification . Secular philosophers can and have made just as good a case as your apologist armchair thinkers.

3. First the declaration is speaking of a deistic god you know the opposite of the Christian god. Second most of the founding fathers were against putting this line in but were pressured into it. Third the declaration isn't a legal document so it doesn't mean shit. The constitution  is the law of the land and it is absolutely secular.

4. The scientific fact of evolution describes the diversification of life . ID is creationism with a paint job that solves shit by saying "then a miracle happened "oh pardon "then the unknown intelligence did something "

[The Industrial Atheist]

For context this was written in 2015.  You might find a far less favorable position of a Muslim president among American citizens today than you did then.  
Same with socialism.  It may have gotten a boost.

Additionally, the question itself needs to be accounted for.  It says would you vote for X if they were in your party and were otherwise qualified.
I.e. - The decision really being made is -- vote for a Black republican or vote for a Democrat.  As you learn to hate democrats more and more, a black Republican starts to look more and more like the lesser of two evils.

One thing this poll inadvertently tracks isn't how accepting the respondent is of someones race or religious beliefs, but instead how bitter they are about the opposition party.
A good follow up question to this poll would be "how would you feel about having a ____ president?"

If you found the 25% of responses show that people would be "very displeased" with a black president, then you may start to wonder how much people are actually affirming a black president in the first question, and how much they are simply weighing the terribleness of black people with the terribleness of the opposition party.

**I don't think 25% of people would respond with very displeased.  I am not here to say "yeah but the country is still racist" or anything like that.  All I am trying to do here is show that the poll itself doesn't really accomplish what it seems to have set out to do.

I really don't care when this article was written. Power shifts over time, attitudes shift over time, but one thing that remains the same is our species is still subject to the same ability to be compassionate or cruel. 

This austerity push is global, even in China I heard last year on CSPAN  covering the Chinese PM, "Now is not the time to tax the rich". As much as we bitch here as liberals about the mistreatment of minorities, it is still harder for an American to move to China and fit in. 

What is important to me is that more and more humans see each other as individuals not labels. I still today would vote for our Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison before I would vote for Trump. I would NOT vote for Paul Ryan who loves the economics of the atheist version "Ann Coulter"Ayn Rand. 

Our species, and I include atheists too, unfortunately think local and short term on average. Sagan is what more humans need to accept, in his Pale Blue Dot speech. 

My loyalty is to my species stability, not to a club not even to others whom call themselves atheists.

I've heard good things about Ellison and would definitely take him over Trump.

[Brian37]

Maybe because most people do not accept the definition of atheism as lack of belief, in which case they considered atheists opposed to the fundamental principle for justifying inherent human rights as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. If there is no God, there are no inalienable human rights.

1. If they don't recognize it that's there problem

2. Christianity has no true basis for human rights. And magic sky  man says so is not a basis. Nor is but his nature a justification . Secular philosophers can and have made just as good a case as your apologist armchair thinkers.

3. First the declaration is speaking of a deistic god you know the opposite of the Christian god. Second most of the founding fathers were against putting this line in but were pressured into it. Third the declaration isn't a legal document so it doesn't mean shit. The constitution  is the law of the land and it is absolutely secular.

4. The scientific fact of evolution describes the diversification of life . ID is creationism with a paint job that solves shit by saying "then a miracle happened "oh pardon "then the unknown intelligence did something "

The problem with EVERY religion is that every religion bar none, thinks locally, and also thinks they solely invented the concept of good and empathy and cooperation.

"Rights" is our human language, but not rooted in any holy writing. It is rooted in our evolution in that most humans seek non violence and want a safe place to live and a means to survive. The problem is with our species desire to be on top as groups. 

If more humans would view rights in terms of needing resources rather than clubs or desire to be on top, there would be less conflict. I do think everyone has the right to the basics, food, shelter, housing. I don't mean that as to negate differences to eliminate class differences or pay differences, just in that as rich as the global GDP is, we cant continue sucking money up to the top just to concentrate wealth to fewer people.

The Tears For Fears song "Everybody Wants To Rule The World" is what most humans mean by "rights". In reality "rights" is not about domination, but equality. Rights isn't about having a Muslim nation, or a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or communist nation. Rights to me are not about getting rid of class differences. Rights are to me about allowing the differences while never having anyone fall below the ability to make ends meet.

If everyone seeks survival, and we all do, then rights should be about the ratio between the top and the bottom being fair and not lopsided to the point it becomes greed and counter productive. It cannot be about one religion or one economic view. Rights should always foster the attitude that we are all in this together.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Maybe because most people do not accept the definition of atheism as lack of belief, in which case they considered atheists opposed to the fundamental principle for justifying inherent human rights as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. If there is no God, there are no inalienable human rights.

1. If they don't recognize it that's there problem

2. Christianity has no true basis for human rights. And magic sky  man says so is not a basis. Nor is but his nature a justification . Secular philosophers can and have made just as good a case as your apologist armchair thinkers.

3. First the declaration is speaking of a deistic god you know the opposite of the Christian god. Second most of the founding fathers were against putting this line in but were pressured into it. Third the declaration isn't a legal document so it doesn't mean shit. The constitution  is the law of the land and it is absolutely secular.

4. The scientific fact of evolution describes the diversification of life . ID is creationism with a paint job that solves shit by saying "then a miracle happened "oh pardon "then the unknown intelligence did something "

Responses to:

1. True. We agree.
2. If there is a secular basis for human dignity and rights, I would like very much to hear it. You could be right. I just haven't seen one.
3. A couple of the Founding Fathers, such as Jefferson and Franklin, were deists, that is true. The overwhelming majority were not. They included mostly Anglicans, Congregationalists, Reformed, Presbyterians, and Quakers. Jefferson penned the DoI, but that was on behalf of all the rest. The DoI is not, as you say, a legally binding document. It is however a founding document, in the sense that it identifies the foundational principles for which the revolutionaries fought and for which they strived to establish in the new republic.
4. I do not doubt that evolution reflects the will of divine Providence. I do not believe random mutation and natural selection exhaust all the necessary and sufficient mechanisms for speciation. A growing number of prominent biologists recognize this problem. Some, but not all, advocate ID, among them those who are promoting an extended evolution model. Nevertheless, however life developed is irrelevant theologically (IMHO). My point was the Khem was applying the same logic used by ID advocates, not to advocate for ID myself.

[Jehanne]

1. If they don't recognize it that's there problem

2. Christianity has no true basis for human rights. And magic sky  man says so is not a basis. Nor is but his nature a justification . Secular philosophers can and have made just as good a case as your apologist armchair thinkers.

3. First the declaration is speaking of a deistic god you know the opposite of the Christian god. Second most of the founding fathers were against putting this line in but were pressured into it. Third the declaration isn't a legal document so it doesn't mean shit. The constitution  is the law of the land and it is absolutely secular.

4. The scientific fact of evolution describes the diversification of life . ID is creationism with a paint job that solves shit by saying "then a miracle happened "oh pardon "then the unknown intelligence did something "

Responses to:

1. True. We agree.
2. If there is a secular basis for human dignity and rights, I would like very much to hear it. You could be right. I just haven't seen one.
3. A couple of the Founding Fathers, such as Jefferson and Franklin, were deists, that is true. The overwhelming majority were not. They included mostly Anglicans, Congregationalists, Reformed, Presbyterians, and Quakers. Jefferson penned the DoI, but that was on behalf of all the rest. The DoI is not, as you say, a legally binding document. It is however a founding document, in the sense that it identifies the foundational principles for which the revolutionaries fought and for which they strived to establish in the new republic.
4. I do not doubt that evolution reflects the will of divine Providence. I do not believe random mutation and natural selection exhaust all the necessary and sufficient mechanisms for speciation. A growing number of prominent biologists recognize this problem. Some, but not all, advocate ID, among them those who are promoting an extended evolution model. Nevertheless, however life developed is irrelevant theologically (IMHO). My point was the Khem was applying the same logic used by ID advocates, not to advocate for ID myself.

I don't think that anyone claimed that the DoI is a legally binding document; at least I didn't. (Correction -- I misread your line, but yes, we agree on that. As for being a "founding document," it certainly became that, later on, but I think that it lost its influence for awhile; I once read that it got stuffed into a case and was largely forgotten about for awhile, at least until after the initial Constitution and Bill of Rights.)

As for "God" being the foundation of our legal rights, I would suggest that you read more of scholastic literature, such as Saint Thomas' Summa.  The idea of "liberty" and "pursuit of happiness" was completely foreign to the Medieval mindset; in fact, it is a truism that a noble lord was "the Law" on his land and could administer justice as he saw fit to, which included any mode of execution, however hideous, for any and all "offenses".