Should we object when politicians use religious rhetoric

Blog from Psychology Today:


Should politicians bless secular voters?


Even atheists are divided on this issue.  It seems to me that, as long as we stay silent and pretend that such language isn't important, politicians are going to feel free to continue it, thinking nobody objects. If we don't raise our voice, reminding them that there are constituents who don't appreciate it, they'll keep doing it.  And as long as they do it, they validate the Religious Right while marginalizing secular citizens.


Tags: elections, language, politics, religious

Views: 56

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Agreed.  Speaking out would be the best idea, although acting on such speech would be difficult.  If one is to vote their persuasion, rhetoric like that becomes something that would be difficult to vote on.  I know if I were given two options, a republican or a religious democrat, regardless of what I say about them "blessing me" I'd be much much more likely to vote for the democrat regardless, as I simply have no trust for a republican.


[edited for grammar]

I'd be much much more likely to vote for the democrat regardless, as I simply have no trust for a republican.

What if its a moderate republican?  That is socially liberal and politically center. I know most of them are not now but still. Religious democrats tend to bash gays or look the other way.
merely the affiliation repulses me~ that doesn't mean I would never vote for them, for if their policies don't match the typical republican ignorance I might feel more comfortable~ and yet, if they aren't really republican, why do they call themselves so..  Why not a fiscally conservative democrat instead of a moderate republican?  The word "republican" means something, politically, that I have a deep detest for~ merely its attachment to someones name (and then considering the above quandary) is usually enough for me to look the other way.  Unless there is no other reasonable option, I will look elsewhere to place my vote.
The evolution of Fannie Mae, which eventually led to the housing crisis, is an excellent example of what happens once privatization is introduced into a program that is supposed to support the general good.  The Federal National Mortgage Association began as a government program to direct the flow of credit towards low income households~ in the late sixties it was partially privatized, taking on share-holders and producing profit.  Its expansion over the next 40 years, its increased greed, lobbying power, and fierce opposition to anything that opposed its interests led to it growing so large that once its foundation collapsed (because of artificially inflated markets caused by deregulation) the entire thing imploded, ironically costing the people it was chartered to help (the low-middle class) the most.

What we can see in Michaels posts is a philosophical viewpoint that has no aversion to poverty and no concept of social responsibility.  As a human being, I cannot justify such a position rationally~ and I don't think it has been done, either.  Humanity has reached the point it is at despite our tribal and individualistic nature, not because of it~ and yet that is the exact same behavior that he seeks to advocate.  When considering the 'fairness' of the system we use, consider my previous description of the price of a coffee table~ add profit onto each item (except the wages of the workers) and consider that every entity or company that would perform the duties of creating that furniture, in the current system, profits.  Now, look at the end of the chain, where the consumer purchases it~ the profit cascades down through every hand that the product passes through except for the consumer.  They end up embracing all profits, paying all of those entities something for which they physically receive nothing~ and that money pools everywhere but on the end of the consumer.  Its a system purposefully designed to exploit the individual for the benefit of the producers.  Maybe if purchases were itemized in such a fashion people would begin to see how exploitative it can be.

"ok, you want to buy this sofa.  let me make sure you agree to all of the costs~ do you agree to pay $10 above cost to the lumber company? ok.  Do you agree to pay $5 above cost to the transportation company for moving the lumber? ok.  do you agree to paying 15$ above cost to the rendering facility that cuts and stains the wood? ok.  Do you agree to pay $10 above cost to the transportation company that transports the material to the assembly plant? ok. Do you agree to pay 20$ above cost to the assembly plant? ok.  Do you agree to pay $10 above cost to the shipping company that moves the assembled sofa to the retail outlet? ok.  Do you agree to pay $30 above cost to the retail company for purchasing the sofa? ok.  Do you agree to pay $20 above cost to the bank who's going to loan you the money to purchase this sofa? ok.  Do you agree to pay $50 above cost to the company to send the sofa to your house? ok, great, we have a deal!


Why is it that I'm the only one this seems ridiculous to?

inb4 "its fair because they agreed to it"~ ignorant people agree to lots of things, it doesn't mean they are right.

The republicans are likely going to lose. They lost in a conservative district in upstate new york.  The only thing i have to worry about that democrats seem more pro buisinesss then they used to be. THey want to censor google searches that have websites that don't follow copyright laws. That could be sites like youtube that sometimes users upload non- copyright approved videos. When will people learn that only way to prevent copyright of your media is to upload them yourself and put in AD's.
Seeing as how I vote for politicians based on their political stances, I see no harm in such statements.  Do I find it a bit patronizing?  Sure.  However, I give far more credence to a candidate's policies rather then their religion.  I'm also a firm believer that religion and politics should not mix.  The combination of the two is a volatile and dangerous mix.

I was thinking along the same's along the lines of "let's pray for those victims of (fill-in-the-blank-with-appropriate-disaster)".  Although there's no harm done, I would much rather hear politicians and policy makers address how they will solve problems.  I'm tired of all the blessing and praying because I put that in the category of not doing anything TANGIBLE to solve whatever problem has come up.  Action speaks louder than words and financial aid in times of great suffering is my idea of HELPING.  Let the ministers and preachers and religious leaders keep the arena of prayer/blessing and let's keep the politicians fixated on serving the citizens and advocating for 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness', all secular ideals that don't insult or patronize anybody.


What politician ONLY sends prayers in a disaster?

I didn't mean it in such absolute terms...sorry if I came across that way.  It just seems like it brings it to the surface more...a tendency, not an absolute.


How many times has a speech by ANY politician, Republican or Democrat, ended with this phrase:


"May god bless you, and may god bless the United States of America"


or some very similar statement?  I've heard it so many times, particularly during campaign speeches, State of the Union addresses, and other political presentations that, despite my atheism, I think I'd be somewhat stunned if I DIDN'T hear it.  Like so many other religious elements, it's become a part of the culture, and extracting it from such common usage is NOT going to be easy.

I'm not saying we shouldn't TRY.  I'm just saying that getting rid of it will be a fun time ... NOT!

Whenever I hear "God bless the United States of America", I ask "did America sneeze?". 


© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service