Why no Athiest Politicians?

[Cato]

Firstly, how do you know?

and secondly, who cares?

I certainly don't care about a politician's religion, as long as it does not influence the policies they follow.

[femmefatale]

I certainly don't care about a politician's religion, as long as it does not influence the policies they follow.

Interesting. Bit like saying 'I don't care about a politician's sex, as long as it doesn't have any bearing on what they think, feel or do.' An equal opportunities sexist.

[Oldira1]

Nick Clegg, leader of the Lib Dems in GB is openly atheist.

So is David Milliband.

Atheists are just as bad as fundamentalists as both are positive about something without any proof.

Agnosticism is the only way.

[Own Arris]

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler.

Hitler was a Catholic. Stalin and Mao were against organised religion, it intefered with their own cult of personality, but as far as I'm aware there is no proof at all that they were actually atheist.

Pol Pot was a Theravada Buddhist

Joe Higgins is an atheist as far as I'm aware.

[Didimus]

I certainly don't care about a politician's religion, as long as it does not influence the policies they follow.

Why care about what influences their policies? Why not just judge their policies?

[Cato]

Interesting. Bit like saying 'I don't care about a politician's sex, as long as it doesn't have any bearing on what they think, feel or do.' An equal opportunities sexist.

I care not what they 'think' or 'feel', but I do care about what they do. Religion should no influence in something as important as running a state, founded as it, religion - all religion, is on fear, superstition, and falsity.

[Cato]

So is David Milliband.

Atheists are just as bad as fundamentalists as both are positive about something without any proof.

Agnosticism is the only way.

For the 1037th time, atheism does not require proof as to prove a negative is logically impossible. We atheists simply need to note the complete absence of proof for the god hypothesis and therefore reject it like we would any other unsupported hypothesis.

[Cato]

Why care about what influences their policies? Why not just judge their policies?

That's fair enough point, but then you look at the Woods-religious orders deal and you see the injustices that can arise from a politician allowing their religion to interfere and influence them in the performance of their duties.

[Didimus]

"Founded as it, religion - all religion, is on fear, superstition, and falsity"
You might get that by as being at least debatable if you stuck a few 'ors' in there somewhere.
Fear or falsity has at least the merit being debatable. You believe that by definition all religion is based on a false belief, so therefore all religions are in your view based on falsity. How you can judge that all religions are based on fear, or have to based on fear is beyond me. You have a very wide knowledge of the world.

[Didimus]

That's fair enough point, but then you look at the Woods-religious orders deal and you see the injustices that can arise from a politician allowing their religion to interfere and influence them in the performance of their duties.

You disagreed with his policy which is fine. If an atheist politician had the same policy you would also disagree.
Presumably if a politician who was regular massgoer nationalised all church policy you would agree to.