Anyone but the godless
By Sean Aqui | Related entries in General Politics, News, Religion
My presidential ambitions took a hit this weekend. The New York Times ran a story about religion and morality in politics, with Mitt Romney as the hook. But the chart that ran with it — reproduced above — is worth a long, close look (click on it to get a larger version).
Not believing in God — which, defined that way, applies to agnostics like me — renders a candidate suspicious in the eyes of two-thirds of voters. It’s worse than being old, uneducated, gay, Muslim, female, divorced, a drug user or a philanderer.
It’s a positive for just 3 percent. Which makes a certain amount of sense: lack of belief is a negative trait, after all — not negative in the sense of “bad”, but negative in the sense that it’s defined by the lack of something. It’s hard to get excited about something a candidate isn’t.
So I’m actually pleasantly surprised that it makes no difference for a third of voters.
It turns out that while the specific nature of one’s belief has an effect — more people are willing to vote for a Mormon than a Muslim, all things being equal — the most important thing is simply to have a belief.
It’s not that simple, of course. For one thing, a candidate usually has more than one trait listed on the chart, and any real candidate is an actual person, far more than the sum of his or her labels. So the chart is more useful as a description of general attitudes than as an attempt to apply it to specific races.
Further, the story goes on to note that the real concern with regard to candidates with minority beliefs is tolerance: John Kennedy got past anti-Catholic bias by promising he would resign rather than let his religion interfere with the national interest. It suggests Romney could pursue the same tact.
I don’t know about the resigning bit, but “tolerance” (or more carefully chosen words like “admiration” or “respect”) is how I’d frame it if I were running. Lack of belief on my part does not imply hostility to religion; far from it. It simply reflects my own inability to claim belief in something for which I see no compelling proof. In some ways I envy believers, for clearly they’ve found something that I have not. And who am I to say who’s right?
On a political level, religion has a valid and vital role in society, and that role should be tapped wherever and whenever it makes sense to do so. Religion should suffer neither fear nor favor from government.
One concern about a “godless” candidate is that they have no personal ethics, no solid moral foundation. It’s tempting to label such concerns ignorant, but there’s little political gain in insulting voters. Luckily, such questions are easily addressed by discussing my personal ethics and the principles they spring from. Alternatively I could simply point to various politically useful biographical items, like my military service, faithfulness in marriage or the fact that I was an Eagle Scout. That might not assuage concerns about unbelievers in general, but it would help make one agnostic candidate more palatable.
Meanwhile, the chart reveals some interesting relationships:
1. Being a smoker is worse than being a woman, which is worse than being divorced;
2. Being a former minister is even worse than that.
3. Having an extramarital affair is (slightly) better than admitting past drug use. But both are better than never having gone to college.
4. Being a Muslim is almost exactly as bad as being gay.
5. “Drain the swamp” rhetoric notwithstanding, 35 percent of voters view being a “longtime Washington politician” as a positive.
6. Apparently the recipe for a successful politician is a Christian veteran who ran a business after attending a prestigious university.
Lots more in the chart. What would you do? Which of the characteristics listed are positives or negatives for you, and why?
This entry was posted on Monday, July 23rd, 2007 and is filed under General Politics, News, Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 23rd, 2007 at 5:55 pm
“Not believing in God â€â€? which, defined that way, applies to agnostics like me â€â€? renders a candidate suspicious in the eyes of two-thirds of voters. It’s worse than being old, uneducated, gay, Muslim, female, divorced, a drug user or a philanderer.”
That’s because two-thirds of the population are what I call “clueless Christians.” Not all Christians are naive or clueless, but it has become clear that a good share of them are.
These are the types of Christians that watch the 700 Club and believe every word Pat Robertson SAYS, the Christian version of a “jihadist.” These are the types of Christians which believe so strongly about life (Pro-Lifers) that they wholeheartedly support the war in Iraq, which, no matter what you’de like to say about it, kills 10’s of thousands of children.
Let’s face it, a good share of America is made up of these “critical” thinkers. They elect people like Bush because he’s a “man of God.” Is it any wonder why the rest of the world thinks of America as a backwater for the most part?
Religion should be able to be practiced throughout America, all religions as long as they don’t become radical, religion shouldn’t have the ear of the president or the reigns of our government. Most Americans are ignorant and Christian. I dare say they are ignorant because they are Christians. I don’t believe all Christians are ignorant but the vast majority of American Christians (Protestant and Catholics alike) are.
July 23rd, 2007 at 7:40 pm
The trouble with surveys like this one, I find, is that they assume that I will apply the same criteria regardless of the office for which someone is running. To take just the obvious example, I would have a very different reaction to a complete lack of political experience if the candidate was running for town council than I would if he was running for President.
About all this chart reflects is what general prejudices and level of tolerance the population admits to. But as for how they would actually vote? When it comes down to actual candidates, even people who say they would be less likely (or more likely) to vote for someone with a particular characteristic are going to turn out to care rather more about track records and their reaction to what the individual says and how he says it. A 75 year old gay athiest might well get elected mayor of a conservative small town . . . if he’d spent a couple of terms on the town council and done well. Not based on the survey, but in the real world.
July 24th, 2007 at 8:11 am
I don’t see that such a correlation is made in this survey. If a politician says, “I don’t believe in God,” that sounds more like an atheist. That is a pretty harsh position to have – an unyielding faith in absolute nothingness, and a commitment to believing there is no higher purpose to “creation,” if you could even call it that.
July 24th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
No, a lack of belief is also applicable to agnostics. An absolute conviction that God does not exist is what defines atheism.
July 25th, 2007 at 8:09 am
To me, thats even worse. If you acknowledge the existence of God, but you don’t “believe” in him, it sounds like you have spite for the Creator of the Universe, or you know better than He does. To have “belief” in someone implies that you have confidence in that person, or you agree with him somehow; therefore, for an agnostic to say you don’t believe in God is sort of like saying, “Ya, I know He is there, I just think He is kind of a douchebag.”
July 25th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
An agnostic in the popular sense says “I don’t know.” There might be a God, there might not. It’s pretty much impossible to prove either way.
So I don’t believe in God, but I also don’t *disbelieve* in God. I don’t acknowledge his existence, but I acknowledge the possibility of his existence.
July 25th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Hmm. I guess its semantics. I always thought the definition of agnosticism was someone who didn’t subscribe to a particular religion, or someone who rejects the concept of organized religion alltogether. Maybe deist is a better word for me to use?
Anyway, even with Sean’s definition of agnosticism, a “No” answer to the question, “Do you believe in God” still seems like a rejection of the existence of a supreme being, and If I was given this survey, I would assume it meant that the candidate was an athiest. Perhaps the pollsters should make the distinction next time.
Lets assume it does mean athiest and not agnostic. How would that affect peoples opinions, and would they be justified?
July 25th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
I’ll agree that the phrase “doesn’t believe in God” probably makes most people think of atheists. But I’d also expect that a sizable portion of such people wouldn’t think much better of an agnostic once the term was explained to them.
As far as justified, I suppose it depends on the level of justification you’re talking about.
On the one hand, people can cast their vote for any reason they choose. People sometimes vote for politicians because they like their smile or their voice; is that justified? Intellectually, probably not. But as far as whether that’s a legitimate basis for voting, sure.
On a practical or policy level, of course, I would say not — voting for or against someone based on any single trait doesn’t make logical sense. There’s no reason to think a given believer is any more or less moral than a given atheist, for instance. And who would you consider more moral: A man who has been divorced three times but was faithful to each spouse, or a man who has been married to the same woman for 30 years but carries on myriad affairs?
July 26th, 2007 at 11:37 am
A mathematician’s definition of an agnostic: Someone who has concluded that the probability of the existence of an entity that exhibits characteristics that may be described as “god-like” is negligibly small. And an indifferent agnostic is someone who doesn’t care one way or the other.