BellaOnline Forums Religion and Spirituality Atheist Random Thoughts

Thanks Debbie for checking out the ocellated turkeys and sharing with us your remarkable swallow migration story.

When I go on a birding tour early next year in Panama, I hope to see another distinctive looking and behaving ocellated species, the ocellated antbird.

Any of you know what ocellated means (the spell check on this system does not even recognize it as a word)? I sure the heck didn't until I looked it up a ways back!

I also, as I have done in the past want to give thanks to all of the faithful(?) readers of RT, be you a poster or unknown to me lurking theist, unaffiliated spiritually-oriented soul, pagan, wiccan, agnostic, atheist, deist or any variety of freethinker who have viewed this thread.

For a relatively low volume forum system that BellaOnline is, the numbers at RT have been outstanding and without being coy, I am without any real knowledge as to why.

So, whether you are into numerology or not, below you will see the last days 8 viewing figures with the most current last-believe it or not, I am not really OCD about this:

724
541
531
597
783 (a record, I think for RT?)
543
635
613

I am convinced that it has nothing to do with my praying for favorable results or my lighting of candles or my avoiding black cats or my visiting Our Lady of Fatima or being "vortexed" in Sedona, Arizona and Bernal, Queretaro, or my speaking in tongues, or my tithing my income or for my accepting anyone/anything as my savior.

So, all of my thanks are directed collectively towards you, whoever and whatever you may be!

Which Occupations do you think are Over-Represented in relation to their % of the Population by Atheistic-Agnostics and Atheists?

The following is my non-comprehensive list. The first two are well-documented as empirically being the case:

1. Scientists including biologists in multiple fields like zoology, botany and ornithology, chemists and physicists
2. Philosophers
3. Astronomers
4. Meteorologists
5. Mathematicians
6. Anthropologists
7. Geologists
8. Sociologists (*but not the entirely different profession of social workers, based on my experience and observations)
9. Naturalists
10. Historians
11. Psychologists
12. Physicians
13. Psychiatrists
14. Archeologists
15. Paleontologists

Do you discern any pattern(s)/common denominator(s) to the above occupations?

Are there any occupations you think should be added?
Are there any occupations that are listed that you disagree with?

In an interview a few years back, ex-president Jimmy Carter was asked "do you think an atheist could ever be president in this country?"

To that, he replied, "well, I think so. It depends on what – how they dealt with the issues. If they would have laid the campaign premise out of scorning other people`s religion, no, but if they said they`re a deep thinker, they believe in human rights and things like that, there`s a chance. But it would be very difficult."

From what I have read and observed, "it would be a little difficult" seems like a gross understatement (is there such a thing as a euphemistic reverse hyperbole?).

How many politicians that you are aware of have publicly declared themselves as being atheists?

The above got me pondering in a RT sort of way as to what percent of politicians do you think are "closet" atheists?

"In the spirit of celebrating the amount of progress secularism has made around the world," AlterNet comprised a list "of eight of the best countries in which to be a non-believer." The following is that list which came from an article published in 2012 at The Salon titled "The 8 best Countries to be an Atheist" by Amanda Marcotte:

1. Czech Republic
2. Sweden
3. Denmark
4. Austria
5. France
6. Norway
7. Australia
8. Japan

Did the inclusion of any of the above countries surprise you?
Do you think that any other country(s) should have been included?

If you are of the freethinking mindset, or not, it may be enlightening to go to the article mentioned above and see the rationale for why those 8 nations were selected as being the most hospitable towards "non-believers." You may also find it interesting as I did that the U.S., with a three paragraph explanation as to why, was given an "honorable mention."

In 2012, there was a Gallup Poll conducted to determine the religiosity of the U.S, with the results being published in February, 2013.

Overall, 40% of Americans nationwide were classified as very religious in 2012 -- based on saying religion is an important part of their daily life and that they attend religious services every week or almost every week. Thirty-one percent of Americans were nonreligious, saying religion is not an important part of their daily life and that they seldom or never attend religious services. The remaining 29% of Americans were moderately religious, saying religion is important in their lives but that they do not attend services regularly, or that religion is not important but that they still attend services.

Eight of the top 10 religious states are in the South. The states outside the Southern belt are Utah and Oklahoma.

The 12 least religious states comprise all six New England states in addition to the three most Northwestern states in the union, Alaska, Washington, and Oregon, plus the District of Columbia, Nevada, and Hawaii.

Most religious states, based on % very religious
Mississippi, 58%
Utah, 56%
Alabama, 56%
Louisiana, 53%
Arkansas, 52%
South Carolina, 52%
Tennessee, %0%
North Carolina, %0%
Georgia, 48%
Oklahoma, 48%

Least religious states, based on % very religious
Vermont, 19%
New Hampshire, 23%
Maine, 24%
Massachusetts, 27%
Rhode Island, 29%
Oregon, 29%
District of Columbia, 30%
Nevada, 31%
Hawaii, 31%
Alaska, 31%
Connecticut, 31%
Washington, 31%

In my typical critical thinking yet decidedly not U.S. bashing manner, in looking at the least and most "very religious" states, I could not fail to recognize a very high correlation between the most very religious states being exclusively red/Republican states on the recent political history spectrum while the least religious states, including D.C. were primarily blue/Democrat states.

In a article from "Greta Christina's Blog" titled "Ten Scariest States to be an Atheist" that was originally published in AlterNet, with many exceptions, she maintains that "now, to a great extent, how badly it s_ _ _s to be an atheist may not depend on the state you live in. It’s sort of like the red-state/ blue state myth: cultural differences in the United States break down more along urban/rural lines than they do along state lines. Is it easier to be an atheist in New York than in Texas? Maybe… but it may also be easier if you’re in Austin, Texas than if you’re in rural upstate New York."

Do you agree with her assessment?

Makes sense to me as it could be considered to be a modern day continuation of the country's "Rock of Ages"/"Give me that old time religion" historical/ongoing "city-country debate."

Give me that old time discrimination
Give me that old time discrimination
Give me that old time discrimination
You can't hold office since you don't believe in creation

Give me that old time discrimination
Give me that old time discrimination
Give me that old time discrimination
You can't hold office since you don't believe in revelation

Well, whether they are merely anachronistically on the books and enforceable or not, articles in 8 state constitutions in the U.S. ban atheists from holding political office.

Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:

" No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."

Maryland, Article 37:

"That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution."

Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:

"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state"

North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8:

"The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."

Pennsylvania, Article I, Section 4:

"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."

(note: this article does not directly prohibit atheists from holding office but does grant believers the right not to be "disqualified")

South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:

"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."

Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2 (PDF):

No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

Texas, Article 1, Section 4:

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."


Give me that old time discrimination
Give me that old time discrimination
Give me that old time discrimination
You can't hold office since you don't believe in salvation

Give me that old time discrimination
Give me that old time discrimination
Give me that old time discrimination
You can't hold office since you don't believe in religion.

In the Secular Web Kiosk, the the author, an atheist, who has political aspirations of his own maintains the following:

"THE GAY COMMUNITY IS THE BEST MODEL FOR ATHEISTS TO FOLLOW IN THE QUEST FOR ELECTING SOME OF OUR OWN TO OFFICE."

"The best model for Atheists to use, in terms of attempting to climb the political ladder, is the gay community. Gays and lesbians are the most similar to us in that the overwhelming prejudice and hatred they face stems from religious dogma. The gay community has mastered the art of raising large sums of money for their candidates. They have also achieved the discipline of supporting their own in contested elections."

While agreeing with the author's thinking that gays/lesbians and non-believers have experienced persecution and contempt as a result of religious-based/fomented intolerance and that relatively recent history has demonstrated that there is a "gay community," I do not believe that it is credible to make the assumption that there is an A/A "community."

The concept of "some of our own' is totally alien, if not ludicrous, to me. What "us"???

From my perspective, primarily to do with their freethinking nature, many agnostics and atheists would never want to be considered as being part of a homogenous "community" as they are as their own entities demarcated by their individualism, if not, nonconformity.

Freethinkers of the World Unite!!! I think not!!!

So, let's pretend (alas, as for now, that would take a lot of fantasy in one's thought process) that a openly atheistic candidate is running for president or the senate.

Just because John Q. Atheist or Juanita Q. Atheist was running for office, would you as an A/A vote for him/her and/or contribute to their campaign solely because of their lack of belief in any deity?

After all, that candidate (I guess there really could be such a godless entity as a conservative/reactionary atheistic candidate-heaven help us!), on his/her campaign platform may be advocating for the reversal of Roe v. Wade, a return to a policy of "separate yet equal," less restrictive gun control, deporting all Hispanic-surnamed immigrants (shame on you, Juanita whose family changed their name to Reagan!), and reestablishing "don't ask, don't tell" in the military.

Do/would any of you vote for or not vote for a candidate partially or solely (ala Mitt Romney) because of their religion?

As for me, if her were of a 180 degree different ideological mindset I may have voted for Mr. Romney as his being a Mormon would not have factored in my decision making process in the least. However, under no circumstances would I have voted for him as I must admit that I have a fervent prejudice against anybody with the name of Mitt!

In his article, "Americans are Right to Resist an Atheist as President," Michael Medved makes what I believe to be a less than compelling case that no matter how competent an atheist may be, electing an atheist would not be in the best interests of America.

He maintains that "actually, there’s little chance that atheists will succeed in placing one of their own in the White House at any time in the foreseeable future, and it continues to make powerful sense for voters to shun potential presidents who deny the existence of God. An atheist may be a good person, a good politician, a good family man (or woman), and even a good patriot, but a publicly proclaimed non-believer as president would, for three reasons, be bad for the country."

The three reasons he mentions are:
1.Hollowness and Hypocrisy at state functions
2.Disconnecting from the people
3.Winning the War on Islamo-Nazism

If you are of the open-minded variety, please take a look at the article by Googling the title, and see if you think his arguments have any merit.

As for me, as many people do, I think that Mr. Medved is way off course in confusing the fact that atheism is not a movement but rather is a philosophy that is derived at by many individuals. There is no "one of their own."

If one's religion whatever it may be should not disqualify one from being president, neither should one's philosophy. Remember, good or bad, politicians are politicians no matter what their belief system!