Where's my flying car?

[labellementeuse]

Here's what I think about the inauguration: You know all those movies, usually vaguely crappy sci-fi/natural disaster movies, set somewhere in the indeterminate future? Like Independence Day and Deep Impact and stuff. Well, sixth_light and I realised some time ago (because we watched a lot of aforementioned vaguely crappy SF movies) that the President was always black. It's like it was a rule: In The Indeterminate Future, the President will be African-American. Putting This In Our Movie Makes Us Seem Liberal, Right?

So anyway. Welcome to the future, y'all.

Comments

[reticent-lass.livejournal.com]

If we get a female president any time soon, you can bet she'll be at least a little bit pretty, with a very quiet husband who makes no waves whatsoever. Guys can get by on words alone (though Obama's good looks didn't hinder him any), but an ugly woman "can't" be smart. Single women are seen as too unpredictable to be elected any time soon, and if the man's got any voice at all he'll be seen as the REAL power. Hillary Clinton didn't have a chance--very public husband, poor marital history, and a very sharp voice that grated on the ear.

However much we may come forward, however, no atheist is going to get elected in this lifetime. America will take your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, so long as they pray to somebody every now and then. Atheists are generally put on the same level as rapists by even the more moderate people of faith. I was frankly shocked when Obama even mentioned 'non-believers' today--I have never, ever heard a neutral-to-positive reference to atheists before by a public figure. Look back through all those schlocky disaster films we know and love and try to recall even ONE atheist who isn't a bitter, God-hating scientist or some grieving husband who turns back to the light by the end.

Huh. B-movies as a way of measuring contemporary American opinion. It works pretty well, really.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

However much we may come forward, however, no atheist is going to get elected in this lifetime.

This is funny because in New Zealand, politicians have been known to bend over backwards to *avoid* acknowledging religious faith, particularly politicians in majority parties - there is room for politicians in smaller parties to be overtly devout, but not so much for prime ministers. I certainly find your description of the attitudes towards atheists to be shocking, and very unlike attitudes here (except those held by, again, the very devout.)

For a similar reason your remarks about women leaders having to be attractive is amusing, because our first elected woman PM was... well, I love her to pieces but she's not the most attractive woman out there - a fact which did indeed get dragged through the muck. A lot. Calling her a dyke in casual conversation (despite the fact that she was married to a man, although childless) was not uncommon and referencing the fact that her voice was rather mannish was extremely common, even to be expressed in formal media.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure things are quite as clear cut as you say. We've had some pretty devout Prime Ministers. Jim Bolger didn't talk a lot about his Catholicism, but it was obviously a pretty strong part of his identity. David Lange was much the same (although obviously not a Catholic). In fact I think Helen Clark would be our first avowedly atheist Prime Minister, although I could be wrong (I'm not sure where Geoffrey Palmer or Mike Moore stood on the subject)

But yes, I agree overall that generally people are accepting of atheist politicians. Even people who saw it as acceptable to attack Helen Clark for her (percieved) lesbianism didn't bother with her atheism.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Jim Bolger didn't talk a lot about his Catholicism

I think there's the rub, for me. I do not think we would be extremely tolerant of someone who spoke as often or as passionately about his religion and faith as Obama has. YMMV, of course.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's probably true.

I think the consensus could be inelegantly summed up as "It's OK if you are religious and even if your religion informs your political views, but we are more interested in the views themselves than the way you formulate them"

Of course for somebody whose religion was outside those that are widespread, that might not hold true. For instance, a satanist.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

The quiet husband thing is not necessarily a problem from my POV. Buy one, get one free is not something I'm keen on. But that's just me, and I am reflecting the norms of my political environment when I say that. I have noticed that the spouse of the President seems to have a more prominent public role in American politics than it does here. Do you think that's a good thing?

I seem to recall Mitt Romney made some big 'faith in America' speech last year explaining why it was okay that he was a Mormon which essentially said 'It doesn't matter in what manner you believe in Jesus, as long as you believe in him'. Pretty progressive by the standards of 1930, but it very much reflects the comments you've made. He later clarified in a press release that he was down with atheists too, but that IMO is just trying to have it both ways.

One statistic I am fond of quoting is that there are more Muslims than Atheists in Congress. Given Islam's lack of popularity in the USA right now, that's pretty telling.

Of course as an atheist I care less about whether or not a candidate believes in god or not than whether or not s/he will enact policies I support.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Of course as an atheist I care less about whether or not a candidate believes in god or not than whether or not s/he will enact policies I support.

I agree. But it seems to me to be a luxury to think this way, because religion clearly affects at least the rhetoric of American politics, across the spectrum, in a way that confronts and confounds policy I support. If you know what I mean?

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

Well if you find that members of a particular religion oppose what you want politically 99% of the time, then yes, I suppose abstract homilies about not caring about people's religious beliefs may start to seem a bit precious.

Personally I find it very hard to bite my tongue when somebody uses a religious justification for a policy I agree with. If anything I actually feel a greater need to confront them than if they were using a religious justification for something I disagree with, since there's no assumed solidarity.

Of course usually such justifications take place in the realm of abstract brainstorming rather than political programme-building (thanks, the internet!) so I don't always hold back.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Personally I find it very hard to bite my tongue when somebody uses a religious justification for a policy I agree with. If anything I actually feel a greater need to confront them than if they were using a religious justification for something I disagree with, since there's no assumed solidarity.

This seems to me to mesh interestingly with your earlier statement that you don't care what somebody believes and are more interested in the policies they enact. Thought experiment: there is a politician who is a devout Catholic and therefore feels strongly that it is a Christian's responsibility to support people who cannot support themselves; responding to some of the Christ parables, she thinks we should be accepting of prostitutes, foreigners and people of colour, etc; she agrees with you on a wide range of issues, her policies are significantly to the left, and yet her policy is founded on her devout belief in the word of God as it is expressed in (her interpretation of) the Bible. Do you vote for this politician?

Well if you find that members of a particular religion oppose what you want politically 99% of the time

It's less that, and more the fact that I feel like Americans would be less likely to invade other countries if they weren't quite so sure they were God's chosen people and he was approving of them from on high. (Note to Amerians reading this: I don't mean you, at all!) I know plenty of lovely religious people and often they agree with me for mostly the same reasons, and sometimes they don't; but although their faith might motivate them to hold the religion they do, they rarely resort to its rhetoric to support themselves or attempt to convince me - people who I know who voted for ACT aren't going to appeal to some Bible passage to convince me that it's a good idea for me to do so. This is all by way of saying that I think American reluctance to elect atheists has a lot more to do with the publicness of religion in that country, and conversely the way we in this country tend to treat it as a private matter.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

Yes it is pretty hypocritical isn't it? Still, voting for somebody and discussing (or arguing) with them are somewhat different things for me. My disapproval or approval in a discussion doesn't mean much to most people; the stakes are low. In an electoral situation there are stakes, even if my particular vote doesn't count for much.

As for the christian politician, it obviously depends on the alternative. I'd certainly pick him over an atheist libertarian capitalist like Rodney Hide. My only worry would be that if they had a crisis of faith they might abandon all their socialism too, but I'm not aware of any examples.

That politician is, of course, not that hypothetical. In New Zealand those sorts of politicians dominated the Labour party right up until the 1980s.

And I agree with you on the religious thing. I'm not sure that an atheist American wouldn't be as interventionist as it is - I think there are economic factors which both religion and belligerence spring from. But it is interesting to note that most religious groups use reasonably secular logic (even if things like "the family" and "traditional values", while theoretically secular, are increasingly code words for religious conservatism). Presumably it's because they can't afford to alienate non-religious or atheist conservatives, whereas in the USA that is such a small group it effectively has nowhere to go but the mainstream conservative movement.