Religious "None" for President

[Imwashingmypirate]

If a religious person wants to live their life a certain way that doesn't harm anyone else, good. Fine. Who cares?

But if they feel compelled to force their emotionally motivated beliefs and codes on everyone else, well guess what? I'm going to tell you what I really think about your idiotic damned religion. That's simply fair game. Policy based on B.S. is not good policy.

That seems reasonable to me. I live in a country with an official religion, where the monarch is the head (on earth, that is) of that church, and a number of that church's leaders sit by right in the upper chamber of parliament.

But nobody, including the leaders of that church, suggest that the distinctive doctrines of that church should be in any way enforced upon the citizenry by law. Of course, when the leaders of the official church, and indeed of other religious groups, make policy suggestions that do not depend on their specific doctrines - such as, that hungry children should be fed, or that poor people ought to be helped to pay their heating bills in winter, then they meet with widespread agreement from secular people such as myself.

If, on the other hand, someone tried to tell me that my children's school should not deliver education in the area of sexual function and behaviour, because that would make the angels cry, I would certainly tell them in effect to S T F U (though more politely).

Right?

It seems odd to me that any western country would need to consider whether their leader is religious or not. It shouldn't even come into play.

I used to be against sex education talks but my son is in year 4 and we are considering the talk because all of his classmates are talking about it and children only 2 years older are watching porn. It's horrifying. I didn't learn about porn til I was at uni. My kid is going to know about sex details that I'd rather he didn't before he stops believing in Santa.

[Imwashingmypirate]

Religion is intellectual comfort food.

Going to church is like eating a pint of ice cream in one sitting and then wondering later why you don't feel right, never thinking to blame the sugary frozen dairy.

That doesn't happen to me.

[Some Schmo]

Religion is intellectual comfort food.

Going to church is like eating a pint of ice cream in one sitting and then wondering later why you don't feel right, never thinking to blame the sugary frozen dairy.

That doesn't happen to me.

It doesn't happen to me anymore. I've learned my lessons. No more church or ice cream.

[Res Ipsa]

All I'm saying is that for the most people to be represented, we need a non-religious president. I will say I was being a little tongue-in-cheek.

That was what confused me, as religious Americans vastly outnumber non-religious Americans. Not only that, the beliefs of the largest part of the nones ("nothing in particular") appear closer to the religiously affiliated than they do to the atheists and agnostics.

[Res Ipsa]

Apparently, Religious 'Nones' are now the largest single group in the U.S.

In other words, people who self-identify as atheist, agnostic, or 'nothing in particular' now make up the largest US demographic. So, in order to fairly represent the United States, we need a the President who is also not religiously affiliated.

The fact is, we always needed that, because religion has no place in the US government. If you want a state run religion, move to the middle east. This country was founded on and is supposed to be for people who don't like religious oppression.

There's something wrong with the religious mind. Many faith-types complain about religious persecution, but most of it is brought upon themselves. If they shut the “F” up about their religion, nobody would care what they believe. But because they want to make public policy (that affects everyone, not just their congregation), it forces us evidence valuing people to criticize the way they think.

If a religious person wants to live their life a certain way that doesn't harm anyone else, good. Fine. Who cares?

But if they feel compelled to force their emotionally motivated beliefs and codes on everyone else, well guess what? I'm going to tell you what I really think about your idiotic damned religion. That's simply fair game. Policy based on B.S. is not good policy.

The growing number of Americans who claim no particular religious affiliation is probably one of the main reasons that hard right religious conservatives are so desperate to dismantle public schools in favor of private schools and vouchers that people can use to attend them. They know that secular schools that value honest teaching of science and evidence-based reality and critical thinking skills inevitably undermines the credibility of many of their most cherished faith-based superstitions and religious precepts. Their best hope of nipping this growing tendency in the bud is to advocate or even mandate teaching religious indoctrination in the nation's schools alongside or even in preference to sound, evidence-based realities with which they are uncomfortable and tend to expose the fallacies of their long-held, faith-based paradigms.

After a steady increase for a number of years, the percentage of nones fell three percentage points between 2022 and 2023. One data point can't tell us whether there is a change in the trend or whether it represents sampling error. But I think it should lead to caution in making any claims about the trend.

[huckelberry]

The growing number of Americans who claim no particular religious affiliation is probably one of the main reasons that hard right religious conservatives are so desperate to dismantle public schools in favor of private schools and vouchers that people can use to attend them. They know that secular schools that value honest teaching of science and evidence-based reality and critical thinking skills inevitably undermines the credibility of many of their most cherished faith-based superstitions and religious precepts. Their best hope of nipping this growing tendency in the bud is to advocate or even mandate teaching religious indoctrination in the nation's schools alongside or even in preference to sound, evidence-based realities with which they are uncomfortable and tend to expose the fallacies of their long-held, faith-based paradigms.

After a steady increase for a number of years, the percentage of nones fell three percentage points between 2022 and 2023. One data point can't tell us whether there is a change in the trend or whether it represents sampling error. But I think it should lead to caution in making any claims about the trend.

Res Ipsa, as you noted earlier the proportion of nones depends upon how you divide up the other possible groups and perhaps who you include in the group nones. Considering trends I think there are a number of reasons to be cautious in seeing them. People change what group they are in and trends can reverse. I thought in about 1968 that the US trend towards leaving religious belief was strong. Yet it was only a few years later that a strong move to fervent conservative religious ideas illustrated by Hal Lindsey's Late Great Planet Earth got started joined Moral majority and TV evangelism.

Most Christian thought in the past viewed political legal decisions to be properly based upon best understandings of what is good for society. That would be the same general considerations nones would have. There are groups which have grown in the US along with that growth of conservative belief which feel that our society needs to adopt religiously based rules found in the Bible. (Our current speaker of the house said his hoped for policy is to be found in the Bible.) I think this a problematic approach.

[Some Schmo]

All I'm saying is that for the most people to be represented, we need a non-religious president. I will say I was being a little tongue-in-cheek.

That was what confused me, as religious Americans vastly outnumber non-religious Americans. Not only that, the beliefs of the largest part of the nones ("nothing in particular") appear closer to the religiously affiliated than they do to the atheists and agnostics.

Absolutely, but by the same token, you can also break up those people who identify as religious into numerous subgroups (congregations). Just because a President is religious doesn't make him representative of all religions. It doesn't even necessarily make him or her representative of their own.

And if there were a "none" President, I'd have very little hope he or she actually represented my concerns. I imagine Trump is a "none" (beyond the cult he created, which makes him uniquely religious and a lot different from your run-of-the-mill "none"... the key is that his base seems to view him as a religious symbol), and he certainly does not represent me.

It was tongue-in-cheek because I don't think any President really represents all that many people beyond the very wealthy.

[Gunnar]

After a steady increase for a number of years, the percentage of nones fell three percentage points between 2022 and 2023. One data point can't tell us whether there is a change in the trend or whether it represents sampling error. But I think it should lead to caution in making any claims about the trend.

I didn't realize that. Cautionary note well taken. Thanks!

[Res Ipsa]

That was what confused me, as religious Americans vastly outnumber non-religious Americans. Not only that, the beliefs of the largest part of the nones ("nothing in particular") appear closer to the religiously affiliated than they do to the atheists and agnostics.

Absolutely, but by the same token, you can also break up those people who identify as religious into numerous subgroups (congregations). Just because a President is religious doesn't make him representative of all religions. It doesn't even necessarily make him or her representative of their own.

And if there were a "none" President, I'd have very little hope he or she actually represented my concerns. I imagine Trump is a "none" (beyond the cult he created, which makes him uniquely religious and a lot different from your run-of-the-mill "none"... the key is that his base seems to view him as a religious symbol), and he certainly does not represent me.

It was tongue-in-cheek because I don't think any President really represents all that many people beyond the very wealthy.

Gotcha. Thanks!