In general, religion did not play a major role in Tuesday’s elections. But there were some elections where it was featured. Kimberly Winston looked at the mixed results for atheists in Tuesday’s elections.
The one openly atheist candidate who was seeking a seat in Congress lost. James Woods in Arizona is not only atheist but also has progressive views, considers himself a feminist, and happens to be blind. He got 31% of the vote against the Republican incumbent. He is only 35 and should be around for a while.
But Kyrsten Sinema, who eschews religious labels but seems to have no religion, easily won re-election with 54% of the vote.
As Winston says, at the state level, the results relating to atheism were mixed, with some winning and some losing. But some people who were extremely hostile to religion atheists were defeated, which is a good thing.
you have a rather uniquely narrow way of looking at this.
like examining the bark and ignoring the forest.
in fact, religion has been a tool of politics in the US at least since Nixon’s Southern Strategy, and has only become more and more a useful tool of the right since then.
you really don’t understand American politics at all. It’s rather shocking, really.
Say what? Do you mean “some people who were extremely religious were defeated”? “some people who were extremely hostile to irreligion were defeated”? “some people who were extremely friendly to religion were defeated”? I’m not sure what you are saying is a “good thing.”
maddog1129,
Sorry, my mistake. I corrected it.
“you really don’t understand American politics at all. It’s rather shocking, really.”
You are weirdly antagonistic; do you frequent the slymepit?