0 - No Religion, No Representation

[Abyssinia]

Throughout its history, Congress has been far from representative of the nation as whole in many ways. In 2011, one large segment of the population, the roughly 16% of Americans who are unaffiliated with any particular religion, remains completely unrepresented on Capitol Hill. Not one of the 435 members of the House of Representatives or one of the 100 senators serving in the 112th Congress lists his or her religion as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular.” Six members, however, do not specify a religious affiliation, which is similar to the percentage of the public that says they don’t know or refuses to specify their faith.

pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=1192

news.yahoo.com/s/pew/20110210/ts_pew/0noreligionnorepresentation

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Throughout its history, Congress has been far from representative of the nation as whole in many ways. In 2011, one large segment of the population, the roughly 16% of Americans who are unaffiliated with any particular religion, remains completely unrepresented on Capitol Hill. Not one of the 435 members of the House of Representatives or one of the 100 senators serving in the 112th Congress lists his or her religion as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular.” Six members, however, do not specify a religious affiliation, which is similar to the percentage of the public that says they don’t know or refuses to specify their faith.

pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=1192

news.yahoo.com/s/pew/20110210/ts_pew/0noreligionnorepresentation

1. Polticians don’t represent people’s faiths, they represent their needs.
2. If atheists are so gung ho about getting one of their own elected, find one that makes a lick of sense and put him/her on the ballot.
3. if that doesn’t work, then gather in a congressional district (relocate and settle) and THEN run again.

Anything is possible for he that depends on the Lord.

Well, maybe an out of place saying…

 

[grampben]

I am a non believer but any pro markets, pro Israel candidate strong on national security would get my vote. This annoys me jsut as much as the people who say there are too many MPs in Britain that are white, male and Oxford educated. Parliament (or Congress) represents the views of the people in relation to governance. What if we found out the percentage of Americans who supported the Yankees was more than the percentage of congressmen who supported them? Is that a problem? Of course not.
An atheist like myself doesn’t need another atheist in charge. I would rather someone with the same political views as me, not the same beliefs or lack there of.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I am a non believer but any pro markets, pro Israel candidate strong on national security would get my vote. This annoys me jsut as much as the people who say there are too many MPs in Britain that are white, male and Oxford educated. Parliament (or Congress) represents the views of the people in relation to governance. What if we found out the percentage of Americans who supported the Yankees was more than the percentage of congressmen who supported them? Is that a problem? Of course not.
An atheist like myself doesn’t need another atheist in charge. I would rather someone with the same political views as me, not the same beliefs or lack there of.

Well said.

 

[manualman]

That’s perhaps because our system of government doesn’t work that way. There is nothing I am aware of that says that our government is SUPPOSED to look like a microcosm of the population as a whole.

While we are at it, we might as well bemoan the lack of Congressmen and women whose previous profession was gas station attendent or cashier. Congress isn’t supposed to be a microcosm of America, it is supposed to be a body of representatives elected by their respective local areas. How that shakes out is really up to the local areas in question and how they vote.

Of course, I DO tend to have sympathy for the grotesque over-representation of lawyers in Congresss…

 

[Not_Sure_1]

so what if athiests don’t have seats in Congress? So what if any group does not get seats in congress? That just means that they were not voted into office, you can try again next election.

 

[Cactus]

Let them run on a platform to represent atheists. That would not go over well with the electorate. We don’t, thankfully, elect representatives from special-interest groups but rather from electoral entities that are comprised of all kinds of people. Sometimes this is contravened by the use of gerrymandering. The results speak for themselves.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Throughout its history, Congress has been far from representative of the nation as whole in many ways. In 2011, one large segment of the population, the roughly 16% of Americans who are unaffiliated with any particular religion, remains completely unrepresented on Capitol Hill. Not one of the 435 members of the House of Representatives or one of the 100 senators serving in the 112th Congress lists his or her religion as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular.” Six members, however, do not specify a religious affiliation, which is similar to the percentage of the public that says they don’t know or refuses to specify their faith.

pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=1192

news.yahoo.com/s/pew/20110210/ts_pew/0noreligionnorepresentation

The link says that “Pete Stark has said he is an atheist”. Coincidently, he’s arguably the most repulsive member of congress. Watch the YouTube link on this story; latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/03/pete-stark-forced-out-as-ways-means-chairman-was-it-that-shouting-match-with-constituent-video-here.html

 

[Nine_Two]

1. if that doesn’t work, then gather in a congressional district (relocate and settle) and THEN run again.

Anything is possible for he that depends on the Lord.

Well, maybe an out of place saying…

Gay people did it. Why not Atheists?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Gay people did it. Why not Atheists?

So we have a Congressperson who was elected only to represent the gay crowd?

 

[manualman]

So we have a Congressperson who was elected only to represent the gay crowd?

\

I think he’s trying to say that there are certain geographical areas in which those of homosexual inclination tend to move to and create a subculture friendly to their worldview. I’m not sure I’d agree (or even that he’s asserting) that this was done specifically to concentrate enough votes to get political power, but it is a natural side effect of demographic concentrations.

 

[Nine_Two]

\

I think he’s trying to say that there are certain geographical areas in which those of homosexual inclination tend to move to and create a subculture friendly to their worldview. I’m not sure I’d agree (or even that he’s asserting) that this was done specifically to concentrate enough votes to get political power, but it is a natural side effect of demographic concentrations.

That is what I’m saying.

I agree that it isn’t why they did it, but it is undeniable that there are certain areas that are majority homosexual. Whether these add up to district majorities I don’t know, certainly numerous enough that ignoring them is the same as forfeiting the election.

 

[puzzleannie]

Throughout its history, Congress has been far from representative of the nation as whole in many ways. In 2011, one large segment of the population, the roughly 16% of Americans who are unaffiliated with any particular religion, remains completely unrepresented on Capitol Hill. Not one of the 435 members of the House of Representatives or one of the 100 senators serving in the 112th Congress lists his or her religion as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular.”

then I guess it behooves members of those unrepresented groups to become politically active and elect one of their own. Or as an option they could support a candidate who self-identifies as Catholic yet consistently votes against and publicly defies all Catholic teaching in the execution of their office.