Why no Athiest Politicians?

[Cato]

You know ... you could abandon the (knowingly) provocative approach altogether ...

There's no smilie to convey that sentiment.

Don't cry, Femme. Your point has been noted and I'll now turn the polemics down a notch or two.

[femmefatale]

Don't cry, Femme. Your point has been noted and I'll now turn the polemics down a notch or two.

It's okay, Cato. I know you are trying to make a point and that sometimes one needs to phrase things strongly to get one's point across. I can take it.

[Supermanpolitician]

Ive been searching Google to see if they exist.
There's only a few refrences I can find and theyre in America.

Are there any Irish Athiest politicians, and if not then why not?

What would be the political ramifications of a Political leader or politician declaring him/herself Athiest?

Surely a person's personal beliefs are their own business?

If they wish to declare them, fair enough. If not, fair enough also.

FTR -Charlie McCreevy is an occassional Mass going Atheist

[dresden8]

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler.

As opposed to Bush and Blair who regularly talk to their God, and then invade countries.

[MsAnneThrope]

If we had atheist politicians here and one of them had to swear on oath in the High Court, for example, or swear on the bible at a tribunal to tell only the truth, sure how could we trust them at all at all? With our current regime of self-proclaimed, devout Catholics in government, who want to go to heaven and have foreheads on Ash Wednesday like a man who has been headbutting a mudball all morning, we need not worry ourselves with such trivial matters. A land of saints and scholars, you know...

[Didimus]

Because in the past politicians have not shown the ability to seperate their private religious beliefs from their public duties we should, in the future be suspicious of them doing the same, unless it becomes a part of our political culture that politicians perform such a separation. As it currently stands can we trust (for example) Catholic politicians to act in good faith towards gays? I think not. If, however, the culture was one of separation of private faith from public matters then we could, of course, trust Catholics, and other Christians, to do their proper duty.

So in fact you do currently mind what religion a politician professes. If there were two politicians who in all respects were similiar in policy and political outlook, including complete equality for gays, you would have a question mark over the good faith of the Catholic politician in implemening the latter policy.
Which again is your right, but does mean your original contention that you do not care about a politicians religion may not too accurate.

[femmefatale]

If we had atheist politicians here and one of them had to swear on oath in the High Court, for example, or swear on the bible at a tribunal to tell only the truth, sure how could we trust them at all at all? With our current regime of self-proclaimed, devout Catholics in government, who want to go to heaven and have foreheads on Ash Wednesday like a man who has been headbutting a mudball all morning, we need not worry ourselves with such trivial matters. A land of saints and scholars, you know...

There are frauds and phonies. People who would sell their soul, or their granny, for a vote or a backhander. That says more about those individuals, and the system that allows them to get away with it, than it does about religion, theists in general, or politicians who happen to have religious convictions.

[onlyasking]

I'm all for the concept of rational thought. I'd prefer to live in a society in which rationality rules the day, such a society representing at this point little more than a pipe-dream.

A choice:

Politician A: an apparently reasonable and intelligent person, who is convinced of the existence of a supreme being with whom he or she has a personal relationship, a god who knows and records every thought and action of every person who has ever lived, who billions of years ago created this unimaginably vast universe from nothing, who waited and waited until recently for the evolution of we who must obey, and who currently intervenes on an ongoing basis in our lives. This politician is inspired by the middle-eastern bronze-age story of a sky-god, as described in various writings over several centuries between 2,500 and 1,900 years ago. This politician worships the sky-god on the sabbath and bases major life-events around such worship.

Politician B: an apparently reasonable and intelligent person, who, in the absence of any evidence of the existence of a supreme being, juggles with the tangible problems which confront all of us to a greater or lesser degree, who wastes no time musing on the unknowable and who cares little about 'private morality'.

Politician A may very well be a decent, humane and committed politician, and politician B may not. However, if they were equally decent, humane and committed, I'd put the future of this society and this planet in the hands of politician B, demonstrably the more rational of the two.

That said, there have been broadly religious politicians who I've respected and seemingly rational and secular politicians I've despised. Generally speaking though, give me a humanistic politician at the helm. We don't seem to have many of that ilk, as that'd be far too rational for us at this point in our development as a people.

[theObserver@hotmail.com]

I would prefer if politicians kept their views of religion out of the politics of a secular state.

[fionnmccool]

Why no atheist politicians ? I'd speculate this is because of a perception that it could be controversial and mainstream politicians do not like to be so when running for election. How church scandals and the revelation of hypocrisy has affected this can be speculated on but taking a stance either way as a bible thumper or as a atheist is still risking controversy. Experienced politicians like to talk a lot but say nothing and give nothing away of their real positions else they can provide ammunition for their opponents or leave open the possibility of a negative media article. Another factor is possibly the votes of pensioners who turnout for elections more and who would be perceived as more old fashioned and more conservatively rooted in the values of the past when society was more religious and less secular. There are exceptions when it comes to making a stance such as the DUP but for them it would probably be controversial within their constituency not to be a bible thumper. Theres also the exception of Bertie who talks a lot yet hardly ever makes any sense.