Religious "None" for President

[Some Schmo]

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 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 BS is not good policy.

[Chap]

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).

[Some Schmo]

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.

Certainly there is overlap between religious and nonreligious motivation for policy. Only the reasons are different. If there is evidence that feeding the poor is good for a society, secular types should be moved to support related policies.

It's when someone wants to ban a book, or make nonscientific claims about human gestation or the climate, or any number of other emotion-based policy decisions that we rightfully push back on the grounds that their religion has no power in the wider community space. I have no desire to live in a place like Saudi Arabia.

[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.

[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.

I'm not following. When I turn to the Pew survey, I find that 28% of adults in the U.S. identify as "religiously unaffiliated" (i.e., "nones"). https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/20 ... y-believe/ How is 28% any sort of mandate that the President should be a "none?" The religiously unaffiliated are vastly outnumbered by the religiously unaffiliated and by self-identified Christians, and, if I recall correctly, are even outnumbered by self-identified Protestants.

Not all of the religiously affiliated want to impose their religious beliefs by means of governmental authority. However, those who do have been politically active and organized in the last several decades and so have captured an outsized percentage of political offices (especially at the state level).

It's pretty universal that people want the government to enact public policies that align with their own views (including minimalist government action). Public policy, by definition, affects everyone in the country, state, etc.

[Some Schmo]

I'm not following. When I turn to the Pew survey, I find that 28% of adults in the U.S. identify as "religiously unaffiliated" (i.e., "nones"). https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/20 ... y-believe/ How is 28% any sort of mandate that the President should be a "none?" The religiously unaffiliated are vastly outnumbered by the religiously unaffiliated and by self-identified Christians, and, if I recall correctly, are even outnumbered by self-identified Protestants.

The only mandate is that which is voted for, so I'm not sure what you're implying.

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.

Not all of the religiously affiliated want to impose their religious beliefs by means of governmental authority. However, those who do have been politically active and organized in the last several decades and so have captured an outsized percentage of political offices (especially at the state level).

So those would be the people I'm talking to. They need a good face slap.

It's pretty universal that people want the government to enact public policies that align with their own views (including minimalist government action). Public policy, by definition, affects everyone in the country, state, etc.

Sure, people want what they want. The point is that we should only honor opinions on policy that are based on evidence.

[Jersey Girl]

Not all of the religiously affiliated want to impose their religious beliefs by means of governmental authority. However, those who do have been politically active and organized in the last several decades and so have captured an outsized percentage of political offices (especially at the state level).

So those would be the people I'm talking to. They need a good face slap.

Don't you mean that the people who vote them in need a good face slap?

[Gunnar]

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.

[Some Schmo]

So those would be the people I'm talking to. They need a good face slap.

Don't you mean that the people who vote them in need a good face slap?

I mean anyone, whether it's voters encouraging these ideas or politicians who want to implement them: they all need a good slap. Religions are like referees - the best ones go unnoticed.

[Some Schmo]

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.

Yep.

I have a friend who believes religion's raison d'etre is to encourage birth. Everything is about church members having babies (hence the rules about abortion, birth control, masturbation, etc). Similar to your point, the easiest way to grow church membership is through birth, and indoctrination from childhood. Adults need to be caught in a period of extreme stress/tragedy for them to consider a religion. Babies are way easier to convert.