in our lifetimes. Do you know if this has happened? I'll admit to being somewhat ignorant on the matter. I'm just guessing that it hasn't happened because of how the majority of our society views non-believers. There are probably many people in politics in D.C. who are atheists or agnostics. The social stigma of someone in such a position admitting it would probably be crushing. It's bad enough for ordinary people. The media would have a field day with it.

Pete Stark, Dem from California, is no longer in office. I believe he is/was the only "out" atheist in the US govt. Barney Frank now admits to being an atheist, but he was coy about it while in office.

Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona is probably an atheist.

oops....gotta run!

He was from my district, untill they shuffled things around.

Supposedly it has to do with their "worldview" and decision-making process. Not unlike where they are from and how they grew up.

Remember John Roberts told us his personal feeling would not interfere with his interp of the law and the constitution.... liar... and people believed it!


But it cannot be officially questioned as any kind of "test". And of course one should NEVER vote one issue...like a candidate's religion.

Every other facet of a candidate's life goes under the microscope, and all facets are part of what makes this person who they are. Why should their religious beliefs be exempt? Their beliefs can dramatically affect how they think and act. Shouldn't we, as the citizens who are expected to vote on who to put in office, have as much information as possible to make an informed decision?

I would naturally be more inclined to vote for an atheist/agnostic/freethinker. That's not the determining factor, of course, but I'd rank it pretty damn highly.

Last edited Thu Apr 16, 2015, 11:33 AM - Edit history (1)

What if their belief is that they were put on earth to bring about a theocracy?

nothing that important is private. Very little at all, if anything, can be justified as "private", in fact.

We need to know if they'll use their religious beliefs to withhold rights from women and lgbt people and to fund anti-science agendas.

If we lived in a country where most politicians valued secularism I might feel differently.

OTOH, how many of these yahoo bible-thumpers actually believe half the crap they spout, and how many are just peddling pap to the ignorant?

As an agnostic/atheist person who is agnostic as the existence of a deity, who has seen no evidence of a deity, the fact is that when a person puts their name forward for public office they open themselves to all sorts of questions. I'm of the opinion that the Religious among us should declare themselves as supporters of a medieval way of thinking, a philosophy that easily lends itself to the promulgation of a hegemony of religious zealots.

America doesn't need these kind of people in federal government, the kind of person who doesn't understand that we live in modern times and that modern times create the need for modern thinking people. The rabid fundamentalist is a person who has excluded the other believers to a moral certainty. The feel that they no longer have to be respectful and have manners when they speak to and interact with those don't believe as they do.