Browse By

Only Nader Responds To Atheist Survey

Earlier this year, the Atheist Community of Austin sent out an issues survey to ten major and minor party presidential candidates. Only one of those candidates responded: Ralph Nader.

That’s a point in Nader’s favor – the other campaigns apparently don’t think that atheists are worth speaking with, even in terms of important political issues. The Austin atheist survey didn’t ask candidates to support atheism, but to state their positions, on a scale ranging between strongly agree and strongly disagree, on scientific issues and matters regarding First Amendment protections of liberty. Take a look at the questions asked, and Nader’s responses, for yourself.

I have a slight caveat to my praise for Ralph Nader for his response to the atheist voter survey, however. Mostly, I agree with Nader’s responses to the survey, but there are some items on the survey to which Nader has only responded with a waffling “U” – the letter which represents either uncertain or undecided, depending on which version of the survey you look at.

These questions are:

12: “E Pluribus Unum” or “In Science We Trust” would be a less divisive national motto than “In God We Trust”, “In Allah We Trust”, “In Shiva and Vishnu We Trust”, or “Gott Mit Uns”.
17: A religious leader who learns of a commission of a felony should not be immune from prosecution for failure to report the crime.
18: A prison inmate should not be paroled or granted prison favors on account of religion.
20: Parents who, on account of religion, prevent their children from receiving life-saving medical treatment should not be immune from prosecution or from loss of custody of their children.”

I would have like to have seen Ralph Nader provide a decisive statement on these issues, rather than declare himself undecided. A little bit of thought should have led him to some appropriate decisions on these matters, and anyone who is asking to become President of the United States should have thought them through by now.

7 thoughts on “Only Nader Responds To Atheist Survey”

  1. tom says:

    At least he responded which is more than you can say for any of the other candidates. You may be disappointed in his non-response to some of the questions, but some of them require clarification as far as i’m concerned.

    For example: is question #12 above asking for his opinion? Who cares what the national motto is when we don’t follow it anyway! We don’t “trust in God” or we wouldn’t have all those nukes lying around and the largest military budget on the planet.

    #17 There are matters of trust involved with the clergy, mental health professionals and legal people too. If you made the clergy turn in people who confess to crimes you’d have to do the same for psychiatrists and lawyers too. This creates conflict of interest and undermines the trust basis of their professions.

    #18 There are people doing mandatory terms for simple possession of marijuana, tax evasion and summary offenses (like contempt of court). Are you lumping them in with career criminals who rape and murder? How about we be more specific? Also what about someone who truly was “bad” (in the criminal sense) who suddenly, after years of imprisonment “saw the light” and truly did reform himself and demonstrated for the rest of his term true “Christian” (say, or Islamist) ideals and worked to help his fellow inmates give up the hate and understand their situation?

    #20 What do you think about this?

  2. John says:

    I agree with #20 as it’s written – “parents … should not be immune to prosecution”. Prosecution should not be mandated but it should be an option. I think the existing system works where a court orders treatment for the sick child. If the parents don’t violate the court order and a social worker signs off on the home environment then the case should be dropped. Just because someone is in a cult like Jehovah’s Witness or Christian Scientists doesn’t mean that they’re bad parents. The courts already have the power to protect children and that’s that important thing IMHO.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Since I started writing speeches more than ten years ago, I have always believed in the Democratic Party… spam, spam, spam, spam, cut and pasted all over the Internet, Republican Party fraud, spam, spam, spammity, spam… the Democratic Party left me.”

  4. J. Clifford says:

    Oh, anonymous, is that why you started writing cut-and-paste spam too?

    Can the spam. It’s transparent.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Whatever Cliff, but it is true! From a speech writer for the communist dictator Obama.

  6. Secularist says:

    Haha. Communist dictator. You idiot.

  7. garicgymro says:

    On question #12: I like “e pluribus unum” and “in science we trust” much better than “In God we trust”, but you asked which motto would be less divisive. If you’re going to answer that question honestly, you have to bear in mind that America would be seriously divided over the very question of removing the words “In God we trust”. That sucks, but I think it’s true.

    If the question had been about which motto is simply better, or more appropriate, then the answer might have been different

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!