Atheism

In France, the secular state agenda (e.g. separation of church and state) has historically been carried by the left. Same with sexual rights and gay marriage. I would assume that many French atheists tend to align to these secular views, even if they might be more rightist on other subjects such as economic policy.

In the US, there seems to be a much stronger religious right than religious left... Aren't most atheists left of center?

I don't know that any percentages have been established. I would think a right leaning atheist might feel more obliged to hide the atheism, out of self protection.

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-do-americans-still-dislike-atheists/2011/02/18/AFqgnwGF_story.html

I don't know that atheists in the United States can be characterized politically. The most vehement (and i mean ranting and angry vehement) anti-religionist i've ever known was a social and political conservative who had a great deal of respect and admiration for George Bush.

So says Pew Research.

I would guess that those numbers are much larger in France, Ollie.

Which leaves them at the mercy of biological drives. And conceding that others are entitled to the same privilege. And thus bound together as a mere bundle of sensations along with the rest of non-human life.

Why are you so coy about what you are for? You can't spend the rest of your life being against something for which you have no alternative or lack the guts to promote one.

The suspicion is bound to arise that you just get a kick, an aspect of the bundle of sensations, out of slagging people off like a little dog barking at the postman from behind the safety of the windows.

A schtick in other words. One pops up with the regularity of a Jack in the quality control department of a large Jack-in-a-box factory.

From the article I quoted, it would seem that atheism is basically a political death sentence in the US. Apparently no present member of congress is a non-believer... That would make for a clear political goal for American atheists, I should think: fight against anti-atheist prejudice in politics and state affairs.

Statistics can do wonders.

Many years ago i read Pagnol's La Gloire de mon père. At the very outset he makes it clear that his father's generation of educators were dedicated to providing a high quality of public education to every child, without the stain of religious superstition. Since then, a great many other things i've read have reinforced this. Binet made a test for enculturation, because that generation of educators believed that little black babies and brown babies and yellow babies should be educated exactly as were the little white babies in France. In line with la mission civilizatrice, the intent was to produce a uniform culture throughout the French empire. A law was passed in the 1890s requiring all children ages six to fourteen to received a public education. This was extended to the colonies. First at the clinic of the Salpêtrière, and then at the Sorbonne, Binet studied how children learn, and became a member of the Free Society for the Psychological Study of the Child. This was serious business for that generation.

The United States has had a different tradition, however. Public education was slow to grow, and children were often taught to read through the use of the bible and books such as The Pilgrim's Progess. Thomas Jackson, known to history as "Stonewall" Jackson, got his first public employment teaching children to read in their fathers' homes, and he used the bible for that purpose. Although he had had no religious instruction in the home in which he was raised (he and his sister were raised by an uncle), he eventually became a religiously devoted believer. I suspect that this was case for most Americans before public education became common throughout the U.S.

Binet's test was "adapted" at Stanford Univesity, and became what is commonly called the IQ test. One of the most common objections to its use in the United States is that it doesn't test intelligence, it tests enculturation. That is exactly what Binet intended. He wanted a test which would identify those children who were not making progress as rapidly as their peers, and this was crucially important in colonies, where children were not immersed in French culture as children were in la métropole. The emphasis of Binet's test was cognitive development of the child, it was not to attempt to test against an absolute scale of intelligence.

I am making no value judgments about the distinct cultures of France and the United States. When Olivier suggests that there is a strong secular thread in French culture, and that atheists have a large role in public policy, i find the idea very plausible.

Do you have statistics, reliable statistics, which tell you what the political leanings of atheists in the United States are?

Of course it does. We know exactly where to find Setanta on the spectrum of opinions on certain unmentionable controversial matters.

If Setanta was a Christian he would be on the other end of the spectrum.

His being against the manifesto of the Christian culture is a policy and an extremely important one.

And he has polarised the debate between the two extremes. That's why he takes no cognizance of the moderate centre which is comprised of the majority of the population.

Not polarised enough in his case to stand up at a Cathedral wedding to object to the virgin bride being sold into sexual slavery to further the ambitions of her loving Mom and Pop.

Why do you think Pop is a euphemism for father. It's a premature ejaculation joke with deep mythological connotations.

Senator John McCain cleverly said something that appeals to both christian and atheist voters..-
"I believe in evolution, but when I hike the Grand Canyon at sunset, I see the hand of God there also"

Exactly, and this explains why I listed secular public education as part of the so-called "atheist agenda".

The French reaction to the hijab is another illustration of that national culture. Rare were the French leftists and feminists who defended the right of Muslim women to hide their face (though some did).

I don't but I know that it can be done.

Too true ed. They are waiting for the wussy dupes to storm the citadel and then apply their ruthlessness to it.

The dupes then get a position on the pay roll assuming they can restrain their urge to criticise. Traffic warden say. Guard on the doors.

I'm not so sure about that. In the United States, the Pew Research Center regularly conducts surveys of religious affiliation. In Canada, Ipsos-Reid does the same thing. A few years ago, both polling organizations modified their questionnaires on religious affiliation, asking those who professed an affiliation with an organized religion if they believed in god. In both countries, about 10% of those professing a religious affiliation stated that they did not believe in a god. This was, of course, startling to people who had been conducting such research for many years. I think you would run into the same problem with identifying atheists with a political ideology. Researchers, like anyone else, tend to start from a set of assumptions.

You are not going to get Americans to agree on how to educate the young, re science and religion. Eventually, one side has to gain the clout to override the wishes of the other, to prevail. I don't see that happening, in my lifetime.

Plenty of atheist Jews and even a few atheist Christians around (I actually define myself as a Christian atheist). Still, any population can be analysed statistically and I would bet that US atheists are more often left of center than theists.

For that to happen, secular Americans should get organized, or at least vocal. The religious right IS organized and they are fighting their "culture wars" with no hold barrels. You can't win the fight if you don't fight the fight.

You can make whatever bets you please. It is the design of such a survey which will be the problem, and that's what i'm pointing out.