As increasing numbers of US citizens self-identify as "without religion" in both red and blue states, when will they become politically organized and who will lead them????
PZ Myers makes an eloquent case for why he believes atheism should be a social democratic movement and a lot more than just the absence of god. However he also recognises that this isn’t likely to happen while the political spectrum includes folks like me and the libertarians, or the folks who think they’re liberal but hate immigrants.
There is very little political consensus to be had there.
Browse this site a bit and you'll see why. I've had a few heated debates here on a wide range of political and philosophical topics. Thankfully, these were all friendly disagreements. But people uniting to form a political party just because we're agnostic/atheist is like every bald person uniting just because they have no hair.
I very much doubt that non-believers or those who identify as not being of a religious frame of mind will ever form a political party, just like there's no Catholic Party or Jewish Party or Mormon Party or Islam Party. Why? Because the individuals who belong to either the "none" group or have a particular religious affiliation will differ drastically on mainstream political issues and policies.
You cannot define a group by what they are not - religious - and then try to treat them as if they were a contiguous body. It is in fact a fallacy to think of them as a coherent group at all, since the only commonality they share is a lack of one characteristic.
Firstly, the founders laid down, in writing, that there should be a separation between church and state.
Secondly, any person of intellect will cringe about having any person of religion in control of a potential nuklear strike.
Lastly, when "god" is mentioned, who's god?
This tipping point idea doesn't really exist, does it? Most politically inclined people without a specific faith will simply continue join an existing structure, eg. Democrats or possibly Greens, regardless of their faith or lack of it. Nothing about being an atheist (and most nons/nones are not) precludes traditional politics. In most other modern countries this is obvious, I suppose it's harder to see in the US currently due to polarization and disaffection.
1.) That doesn't mean what too many want it to mean. All that means is that the nons (ie: non-affiliated) didn't choose a sect on the Census form. It does not mean non-relgious. Non-religious is "none" which, didn't even make it to it's own line item for 2017 or 18.
2.) The nons congregate/organize in their church of choice, or maybe they don't.
3.) Those of us that are nones don't organize in the traditional sense. This site, a convention maybe. There's no real reason to organize.
Religion ... pure and faultless is this: to help widows and orphans in need and avoiding worldly corruption. James 1:27
The more people become non-religious the more that people in need get neglected and government and worldy corruption runs rampant.
All people want to do is play video games, smoke dope and contimplate electron and protons going in circles while giving sarcasm praise and worship to non-existent flying spaghetti monster sky god.