They would run based on the issues. Atheists and agnostics don't have any religion. That's the point.
Other candidates would attack atheist candidates on religious grounds, using the same kind of tactics we see with Romney's speech: that areligious people are unpatriotic and cannot possibly have any moral core. The atheist finds him- or herself either running on religion or defending his or her own character. So the election ceases to be about the issues, but becomes a referendum on religion.
Should the atheist candidate be elected, opposition forces can successfully turn even the most mundane aspect of public business into a discussion of religion, should the atheist officeholder dare to speak up on the public business at hand.
Christians like to pretend they have been persecuted by the forces of secularism (read: scientifically based public policy) in this country. What has really happened is that the primacy of Christian belief in the public square has been challenged by non-Christians, and the Christians have taken exception to not being the favorite child. If Christians were really hammered day after day the way atheists and agnostics are, they couldn't take it. They still have large, tax-exempt organizations and their own schools. They have an enormous presence in public discourse, and commeasurate influence. Yet they cry "persecution" because they can no longer require children in public schools to recite Christian prayers out loud or put up their religious symbols in public buildings at public expense. Too bad.
Christians have good reason to oppose teaching evolution. Should we have a more scientifically literate population, they might find their influence even more eroded. They might actually have to practice the finer points of their religion to gain credibility. As we all know, it's easier to declare your neighbor worthy of damnation than it is to love your neighbor as yourself.
Flame » in reply to no where in Romney's speech did he make any indication that he wants everyone to believe as he does.
Atheists, as a rule, would not run based on religion.
The whole thread (144 posts)
- "Freedom requires religion" (Mitt Romney)
- Does anyone here know what Mormons believe?
- Has anyone seen "The Mist"?
- re: "Freedom requires religion" (Mitt Romney) - OK, regarding Romney:
- A classy outlook on it from Al Gore
- re: "Freedom requires religion" (Mitt Romney)
- Well then you are free not to vote for him.
- Oppression
- no where in Romney's speech did he make any indication that he wants everyone to believe as he does.
- Oppression
- Then we have Fred Thompson...
- Wow...just bathing in the "tolerance" on this thread. (n/t)
- God I hate the "holier than thou" bullshit from religious freaks
- re: "Freedom requires religion" (Mitt Romney)
- That statement basically if mumbo gumbo
- God save me from Christianity
- Text of the speech
- Playing to the base
- re: "Freedom requires religion"
