Comments on: The Religious Makeup of the 111th Congress http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/12/20/the-religious-makeup-of-the-111th-congress/ by Hemant Mehta Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:15:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: James Smith, João Pessoa, Brazil http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/12/20/the-religious-makeup-of-the-111th-congress/#comment-401155 James Smith, João Pessoa, Brazil Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:51:43 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=7010#comment-401155 What I would find interesting if he numbers could be accurately determined is how many of the public and congress while "officially" affiliated with a religion actually are total non-believers but for social or business reasons, pretend to be deists. I am sure the number would be shocking to most "true believers" and would include a surprising number of clergy. What I would find interesting if he numbers could be accurately determined is how many of the public and congress while “officially” affiliated with a religion actually are total non-believers but for social or business reasons, pretend to be deists. I am sure the number would be shocking to most “true believers” and would include a surprising number of clergy.

]]> By: Atheists Are The New Evangelicals | The Stimulist http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/12/20/the-religious-makeup-of-the-111th-congress/#comment-312014 Atheists Are The New Evangelicals | The Stimulist Fri, 22 May 2009 04:10:37 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=7010#comment-312014 [...] of congresspeople generally mirror those of the American public, there is one big exception: the unaffiliated. As far as raw numbers go, atheists (with one—California Congressman Pete Stark) rank down there [...] [...] of congresspeople generally mirror those of the American public, there is one big exception: the unaffiliated. As far as raw numbers go, atheists (with one—California Congressman Pete Stark) rank down there [...]

]]> By: Caught My Eye http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/12/20/the-religious-makeup-of-the-111th-congress/#comment-254452 Caught My Eye Tue, 23 Dec 2008 04:01:13 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=7010#comment-254452 [...] Friendly Atheist - Religious Makeup of the 111th Congress Protestants, Catholics, Jews & Mormons are over-represented in the US House & Senate and atheists & agnostics are locked out even though we represent 16% of the population…this has gotta change. (tags: usa multiculturalism) [...] [...] Friendly Atheist – Religious Makeup of the 111th Congress Protestants, Catholics, Jews & Mormons are over-represented in the US House & Senate and atheists & agnostics are locked out even though we represent 16% of the population…this has gotta change. (tags: usa multiculturalism) [...]

]]> By: Chelsea http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/12/20/the-religious-makeup-of-the-111th-congress/#comment-254367 Chelsea Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:17:53 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=7010#comment-254367 I've always thought of "Christian nondenominational" as the "We go to church on Christmas Eve and Easter, and one year we even went on Mother's Day!" type of Christian. :D I’ve always thought of “Christian nondenominational” as the “We go to church on Christmas Eve and Easter, and one year we even went on Mother’s Day!” type of Christian. :D

]]> By: Erp http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/12/20/the-religious-makeup-of-the-111th-congress/#comment-254097 Erp Sun, 21 Dec 2008 21:48:09 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=7010#comment-254097 Strict percentage allocation would lead to the far far right being represented also. I dislike Rick Warren; however, the invocation is icing with no real substance behind it. Obama may be trying to make Warren indebted to him without giving him anything real (I'm not sure Warren will see the debt though). Personally if we had to have an invocation/benediction, I think one of the people giving them should have been Jewish. Strict percentage allocation would lead to the far far right being represented also.

I dislike Rick Warren; however, the invocation is icing with no real substance behind it. Obama may be trying to make Warren indebted to him without giving him anything real (I’m not sure Warren will see the debt though). Personally if we had to have an invocation/benediction, I think one of the people giving them should have been Jewish.

]]> By: Chris Bradley http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/12/20/the-religious-makeup-of-the-111th-congress/#comment-254014 Chris Bradley Sun, 21 Dec 2008 09:04:02 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=7010#comment-254014 llewelly, well, y'know, it's just that atheist types like to think of themselves as being primarily ruled by evidence and reason - and evidence and reason suggest, yes, people are putting entirely too much faith in his being raised non-religious and his supposed liberalism. I mean, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if some crazy fundie believes that Obama is the anti-christ, but us atheists are supposed to use REASON, hehe, and when the facts contradict the narrative we're supposed to side with the facts. ;) llewelly, well, y’know, it’s just that atheist types like to think of themselves as being primarily ruled by evidence and reason – and evidence and reason suggest, yes, people are putting entirely too much faith in his being raised non-religious and his supposed liberalism.

I mean, it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if some crazy fundie believes that Obama is the anti-christ, but us atheists are supposed to use REASON, hehe, and when the facts contradict the narrative we’re supposed to side with the facts. ;)

]]> By: llewelly http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/12/20/the-religious-makeup-of-the-111th-congress/#comment-254008 llewelly Sun, 21 Dec 2008 08:12:08 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=7010#comment-254008 <blockquote> I’m semi-curious as to why anyone would think Obama’s administration might give people the ease with which to announce they’re atheists or non-theists. </blockquote> Two possible explanations: (a) Obama was raised non-religious. (He converted to Christianity as an adult.) (b) Obama is perceived as a liberal. While Obama's direct remarks in general don't discriminate against atheists or other non-religious folk, as we saw when he announced support for taxpayer-funding of faith-based organizations, the Democratic National Convention opened with a prayer breakfast, and again in his co-operation with the congressional selection of Rick Warren to give the inauguration invocation, his actions indicate to me that people are reading too much into (a) and (b).

I’m semi-curious as to why anyone would think Obama’s administration might give people the ease with which to announce they’re atheists or non-theists.

Two possible explanations:
(a) Obama was raised non-religious. (He converted to Christianity as an adult.)
(b) Obama is perceived as a liberal.
While Obama’s direct remarks in general don’t discriminate against atheists or other non-religious folk, as we saw when he announced support for taxpayer-funding of faith-based organizations, the Democratic National Convention opened with a prayer breakfast, and again in his co-operation with the congressional selection of Rick Warren to give the inauguration invocation, his actions indicate to me that people are reading too much into (a) and (b).

]]> By: Epistaxis http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/12/20/the-religious-makeup-of-the-111th-congress/#comment-254002 Epistaxis Sun, 21 Dec 2008 07:32:02 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=7010#comment-254002 I wonder if the word "makeup" was an intentional double entendre. I wonder if the word “makeup” was an intentional double entendre.

]]> By: Chris Bradley http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/12/20/the-religious-makeup-of-the-111th-congress/#comment-254001 Chris Bradley Sun, 21 Dec 2008 07:19:17 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=7010#comment-254001 I'm semi-curious as to why anyone would think Obama's administration might give people the ease with which to announce they're atheists or non-theists. Did I miss something and he's not just sorta, y'know, bending over for the religious right? I’m semi-curious as to why anyone would think Obama’s administration might give people the ease with which to announce they’re atheists or non-theists. Did I miss something and he’s not just sorta, y’know, bending over for the religious right?

]]> By: Milena http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/12/20/the-religious-makeup-of-the-111th-congress/#comment-253986 Milena Sun, 21 Dec 2008 06:25:44 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=7010#comment-253986 Miko, That sounds like a really complicated political system. The disadvantage of foregoing with geographical representation is that representatives won't be able to address local matters. There is a simpler system that is still based on geographical representation, yet seeks to reflect voting-patterns more accurately, so if the Libertarians get 5% of the vote, for example, they get 5% of the seats. It's called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_Member_Proportional" rel="nofollow">mixed member proportional representation</a>. Miko,

That sounds like a really complicated political system. The disadvantage of foregoing with geographical representation is that representatives won’t be able to address local matters. There is a simpler system that is still based on geographical representation, yet seeks to reflect voting-patterns more accurately, so if the Libertarians get 5% of the vote, for example, they get 5% of the seats. It’s called mixed member proportional representation.

]]>