US Voters Would Support Female or African-American Presidential Candidates, but.....

[frazzledspice]

AARP Bulletin published a poll on this subject--with separate results for all Americans and over-50 Americans.

And the results?

Americans are ready for a woman President.
Americans are ready for an African-American President.
But only 33% of over 50's, and 31% of all Americans, feel America is ready for a LDS President.

AARP Bulletin: The Bulletin Poll: U.S. Presidents

Is America ready for a woman president?
All U.S.
Adults ' Americans
50+ Yes 60% / 54% No 36% / 43% Don't Know 3% / 3%

Is America ready for an African American president?
All U.S.
Adults / Americans
50+ Yes 63% / 57% No 29% / 32% Don't Know 8% / 10%

Is America ready for a Mormon president?
All U.S.
Adults ' Americans
50+ Yes 31% / 33% No 55% / 53% Don't Know 13% / 14%

[phoenixx]

Do I want to know what the Mormons have to do with the presidency?

[frazzledspice]

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is often talked about as a Republican candidate in 2008.

I'm assuming that this question was included in the poll.

[realtraveller]

There's a NY Times story about this subject on today's frontpage.

40 some years after JFK had to address this issue, it's too bad that religious bigotry still grips many people.

Bigoted jokes about Mormons aren't even questioned in the media. I heard a snide 'joke' about Mitt Romney's 'wives' on "Hardball".

I don't think the Mormon hierarchy is controlling any politician's thinking. All you'd have to do is contrast the voting records of Harry Reid and Orriin Hatch to disabuse anyone of that notion.

Come to think of it, Orrin Hatch ran for the Republican nomination a decade or so ago and his religion never entered into the public discussion. Maybe because he was a very dark horse. Now Romney's Mormonism is fodder for the front page of the NY Times because the political long knives are out to get him.

[drmomentum[$]]

And atheists are the devil.

[drmomentum[$]]

realtraveller said

40 some years after JFK had to address this issue, it's too bad that religious bigotry still grips many people.

And news organizations.

CNN had a recent bit on the Paula Zahn show where they asked people:

"Why do Jews inspire such hatred?"

Unbelievable - as if it's the fault of the Jews. And nobody on the show balked!

Oh, wait. It was "Why do Atheists inspire such hatred." Mea culpa.

-JP

[erik_kosberg]

Romney has about as much chance of getting the Republican nomination as Sharpton has of getting the Democratic nomination.

[frazzledspice]

I found it interesting that, although older people are less likely to believe the country is ready for a female or African-American President, they are more likely than 'all voters' to think that the country is ready for a Mormon President.

It shows me that even the young, who are generally more open-minded about diversity, have their doubts about Mormon candidates.

And I don't think that it really has that much to do with Mormons per se.

I think that it has more to do with the power and influence that religious conservatives have had in Washington during the past 6 years, and the perception that many people have, correctly or incorrectly, that they are out to restrict our freedoms and liberties and turn our country into a theocracy.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

I have to struggle to understand why there is such a strong bias against atheists, because it's not something that I come across in my non-internet life. But looking at how Bush was elected, and reelected, and beloved by so many people for so long, I've come to the conclusion that the primitive urge for a leader/king who serves as an intermediary between the people and God (or the gods) is still very much alive.

I first thought of this when I was at a museum show about ancient Egypt, and one of the things they talked about there was how the Pharoahs were believed to be that kind of intermediary between the people and the gods. It struck me that Bush likes to present himself in that same kind of light, and that many people do respond to that, even though we are supposed to be so modern.

That could also explain why people reacted so harshly to any criticism of Bush, why they said it was traitorous to criticize him during a war. If you look at criticizing a leader as risking bringing down the wrath of the gods that he represents, then it starts to make more sense that people would react so strongly against it.

[realtraveller]

I think there is a strong bias against atheists, but I don't think there is a bias against agnostics. Agnostics have the humility to know that they don't know. And atheists have been hampered by the really bad public face of atheism, that is, Madalyn Murray O'Hare and that Sacramento guy (Niebaum?) who filed the Pledge case. Both came across as the most disagreeable people on the face of the earth.

The other component is that atheist groups are not known for charity work. Charity work is a wonderful way to show your religious or other beliefs in action. I've never seen any of the national atheist groups involved in any sort of charity. They seem to spend their money filing lawsuits that most people find frivolous.

They may say "We don't care what people think about us". Well, okay then. But then don't complain when your public persona as a group isn't liked.

[pippadaisy[$]]

I'm not ready for an LDS President. Then again, I'm not ready for a born-again Christian President, but no one ever seems to care what I think when I'm casting my vote.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

realtraveller said

I think there is a strong bias against atheists, but I don't think there is a bias against agnostics.

What I was thinking of when I wrote the post above (which may not have been clear) was the incredibly strong bias against electing an atheist President, in the United States. I've seen polls in this -- I don't remember the exact number offhand, but it was some surprisingly huge majority that said they would not vote for a presidential candidate who was an atheist.

I suspect the same might be true of agnostics, unless they did belong to an organized religion and just kept their agnosticism to themselves, as I suspect many people do. But to be publicly agnostic and run for President? I don't think they could do it.

The other component is that atheist groups are not known for charity work.

First off, "atheist group" is almost a self-cancelling phrase. It is a requirement of many religions that believers belong to an organized group. That's obviously untrue for atheists.

It seems intuitively false to me to say that atheist individuals give less to charity than religiously-affiliated individuals. I'd love to see the stats on that, if they exist. Also, many religious people tend to give most or even all of their donations to their own religious organizations, while atheists are more likely to spread it around.

Charity work is a wonderful way to show your religious or other beliefs in action. I've never seen any of the national atheist groups involved in any sort of charity.

Again, "atheist group" is an almost meaningless concept. Do you watch TV? Do you belong to a national TV-watching group? Those groups exist, and a handful of people belong to them. Do they represent you either in your TV viewing choices or in the rest of your life? If the national TV-watching group focuses on working with legislative issues that affect TV programming and does not engage in charity work, does that mean that you, as a TV viewer, must not be involved in charity? Same thing as what you are saying about atheists and atheist groups.

[erik_kosberg]

The other component is that atheist groups are not known for charity work.

Whatever.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Don't let the facts interfere with a good story!

[erik_kosberg]

And then there's this atheist.

[drmomentum[$]]

AuntieEmma said

Again, "atheist group" is an almost meaningless concept. Do you watch TV? Do you belong to a national TV-watching group? Those groups exist, and a handful of people belong to them. Do they represent you either in your TV viewing choices or in the rest of your life? If the national TV-watching group focuses on working with legislative issues that affect TV programming and does not engage in charity work, does that mean that you, as a TV viewer, must not be involved in charity? Same thing as what you are saying about atheists and atheist groups.

Good point, Emma.

There is a lot of resistance from many atheists and agnostics to gather
based on their lack of belief.

And if you're talking about a lack of belief, these two terms often cover the same thing -- atheism means "without theism," not "militant anti-theism." Believers make more of a distinction because they like to imagine agnostics as some sort of soft and more friendly atheist.

In any case, atheists don't want to define themselves based on something they don't believe anymore than Christians want to define themselves by the fact that they don't believe in invisible pink unicorns.

It's true that there are atheist groups for those who do want to gather, but what AE is saying holds.

[realtraveller]

erik_kosberg said

Whatever.

I was referring to atheist groups, not individuals. And there are organized atheist groups like the one that O'Hare headed and they define themselves by their non-beliefs. They raise money for lawsuits. What they don't do is charity.

[wivabef]

I find it interesting that a thread that started off about a curious bias against LDS became about an even more curious bias against atheists.

Which leads me to believe that we are ALL persecuted. We shall overcome, by either GOD or Science or Scientology!

Amen or A Man or Woman.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

realtraveller said

I was referring to atheist groups, not individuals. And there are organized atheist groups like the one that O'Hare headed and they define themselves by their non-beliefs. They raise money for lawsuits. What they don't do is charity.

Again, you're comparing apples and oranges. You're talking as if atheist advocacy groups were a type of church, but they are not the same kind of organizations at all. It's a meaningless comparison.

Another example: MENSA is an organized group, a national organization for people with high IQs. As far as I know, they don't engage in charitable work as an organization. From that, would you conclude that smart people are uncharitable, and that having high IQ is a bad thing because it causes people to turn away from charity? And that therefore, you cannot trust someone who is smart, and we should never elect a smart person as President because their smartness makes them morally deficient?