If Clegg were an American politician, he couldn't get elected dog catcher at this point. I suspect that there are as many 'closeted' atheists in politics are there are closeted gays.

I'd vote for him for that reason alone

I can't possibly endorse him. My invisible superhero from outer space might become angered.

Here politicians just lie and say they're born again.

If Bush is a Christian, I'm Richard Nixon.

"invisible superhero from outer space"

I'm remembering that one. Thanks!

I'm listening and have to say the Clegg would definitely win my vote. He's wiping the floor with them.

Oh, and Brown is by far the worst. Talk about politics of fear - Tories will kill economy, LibDems will make us less safe. Bleh.

C'mon Steve...we are HYPOCRITES! We demonize people for telling the truth and then fall on our knees on Sunday and pray to (???) avowing that we are a 'Christian nation'...Jesus himself would be horrified.

Europeans!

Calling the LD candidate someone with a chance at getting the PM's seat is a bit of a stretch. Yeah, they hold 63 seats (more than I'd thought, though, so go libs, I guess), but that's less than a third of the Conservatives (and right around 1/6th of Labour). The Liberal Democrats are sort of like semi-sane libertarians. Basically, they're more or less U.S. Democrats, only with even less of a pretense of care for unions. (Yes, that's a gross over-simplification of their politics, but...hello, Internet?)

"Oh, and Brown is by far the worst. Talk about politics of fear - Tories will kill economy, LibDems will make us less safe. Bleh.
Posted by: Johio"

Well, to be fair, the Tories really will kill the economy. Look what their political equivalents did in the U.S. As for the LibDems making the Brits less safe, what do you expect in a country where CCTV on every street corner is actually seen as a boon to protect it's citizenry? They took 1984 as an instruction manual.

Clegg said:
"I'm not a man of faith but my wife is Catholic and my children are being brought up as Catholic...."

And finished:

"...so it would be an honor to have my family diddled by the king of the diddlers, er, did I say that out loud? I meant to say, the pope."

It stands in pretty stark contrast to politics in the United States.

In other words, they sound like grown-ups.

I understand the difference on the economic approaches, but I'm not sure I get your point on the safety issue. As I heard the debate, the "will make us less safe" referred to nukes and Iran. I didn't hear civil liberties dealt with at all.

"It stands in pretty sharp contrast to politics in the United States."

It would have to. For a relatively small country to survive the ravages of two world wars and the loss of an empire and still aspiring to serve its citizens well, certain idiosyncrasies are unaffordable luxuries.

It's so courageous to make asshole comments about religious faith, even the kind that doesn't interfere with politics and is kept separate from the running of the state. Bridging the American culture gap with that signature progressive respect and tolerance for other ways of life, here at Political Animal.

Yo De V,

The Ironically Challenged support group is down the hall.

I'm a history teacher in a part the Pacific Northwest where it's pretty darn liberal and I still don't feel I can tell my students I'm an atheist. Sad, really.

C-SPAN has today's UK debates archived on their web site.

http://www.c-span.org/

It stands in pretty stark contrast to politics in the United States.

its hard to imagine the public dialogue of a so-called "advance" nation being more immature, more ignorant, or more ludicrous than what its been reduced to in the United States by republican/conservatives since reagan.

If it's any consolation, here in Oz a concern held by many is that both the Prime Minister (Anglican or whatever is going) and the Opposition leader (Catholic) are ostentatiously religious. Like many opther US customs, it's been infiltrating over the last few years.

On the other hand, quite a few pollies have come out as athiest or agnostic, and a lot more as "no comment". The no comments are likely a split between those who don't want to say they are religious and those who don't want to fess up that they are not.

We've had at least 3 athiests as Prime Minister; Curtin, Whitlam and Hawke (all Labor, btw).

I wonder, what is so controversial about the Pope's views on science?

What is "controversial" is the Pope's opposition to embryonic stem-cell research and cloning. It's not like he adopts a literal view of the Bible as a record of how the universe created. It's more like "God created the universe, and science shows us how it was done."

"It's not like he adopts a literal view of the Bible as a record of how the universe created. It's more like 'God created the universe, and science shows us how it was done.'"

I'm not quite sure why this is controversial.

"...feel entirely comfortable describing himself as not being a person of faith"

Absolutely NOTHING in comparison to those of us who must describe ourselves as gay extraterrestrials.

"I suspect that there are as many 'closeted' atheists in politics are there are closeted gays."
Posted by: estamm on April 22, 2010 at 4:05 PM

I humbly disagree -- there are probably far more closeted atheists.
Depending on whose numbers you credit, GLBT population in the US is between 3 and 12% (though what it would be if identifying as GLBT weren't still literally risking your life in many communities, the Mouse & Disco Ball only know).
The most recent survey of any size I could find (AP/Ipsos, 2005) claims 2% of Americans identify as atheist, with another 4% saying they're agnostic.
However, far more voters indicate that they'd consider voting for an out lesbian/gay man than would be willing to vote for an announced atheist, and that can't help but have an effect on the willingness of people with political ambitions to let it be known that they're not believers.
It was only 23 years ago that George HW Bush was reported to have said, "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic."

Hey, cld, I'm actually a big fan of Political Animal. I read it pretty often. But people trying to outdo each other with the different smart-alecky ways they can refer to the idea of God or the concept of religion just turns me off. Democrats aren't doing themselves any favors with that. They're just alienating potential Democratic voters who ARE people of faith, and who don't want to be mocked for it. Not to mention driving more wedges down the Red/Blue divide. It's both politically unwise and culturally irresponsible.

I'm actually a big fan of Political Animal. I read it pretty often. But ... Democrats aren't doing themselves any favors...

If there were a God, it would note approvingly that Concern Troll is Concerned.

I…am not actually a concern troll? I don't really know how to make that point convincingly without looking more like one, but it's true. I do, in fact, like this site a lot (I've commented on one or two things before). But all the stuff that I cited before gets under my skin, and I guess I thought, hey, I'll say something about it and see how that goes. Sorry if I came off as trollish—I wanted to voice an opinion, and I suppose I did it too snarkily at first, and that was a bad idea. It's just that not all Democrats have the exact same views on things, and I wanted to point it out. In general I think the regular commenters around here are pretty awesome, actually (I'm in my early 20's and a politics newbie, so.)

Clegg can say that in Britain. There's no big evangelical movement there, and the mainline denominations are generally declining. If it was the US, he'd be politically dead.

What also stands in "stark contrast" to American politics is that all of the candidates are sane.

Okay, YDV, I accept that you're not a concern troll. But you did sound just like one, of the Amy Sullivan variety.

And here's why. Your thesis is that mocking the sensibilities of Democratic voters with religious beliefs could send them packing to the GOP. To such Democrats, if any really exist, I would say:

1. "Grow a thicker skin, for chrissake."

2. Alternatively: "Why are you upset? Didn't your Lord say this is gonna earn you beaucoup brownie points? Don't you believe him?"

3. More seriously: "You're telling me that you support the broad Democratic platform -- putting working families before monied special interests; equal rights for all citizens, not just white right-wing fundamentalists; affordable health care for all; sane environmental policies; effective and successful homeland security; a responsible foreign policy; overcoming the Bush recession and recovering the economic prosperity enjoyed during the Clinton years; and, in general, doing what can be done to undo the damage the Republicans inflicted on the nation and on the world during their eight years of lawless, anti-constitutional misrule -- you support all that, and yet you're going to give your vote to the forces of darkness because some guy on the internet made an asshole comment about religious faith? Really? Then good riddance to you, and enjoy Jesus Camp."

YDV,

you're saying your faith is a political position if someone else has an opinion about it and not just part of your political perspective but a fundamentally defining part of it.

And now that you've driven that car out in public it's green house gasses and lack of safety features are everyone else's problem, not just yours.

Ash cloud over UK. Coincidence? Not possible.

You can't deny that you have life - my theory is that all our lives do not exist in closed containers but in an interconnected matrix, a life-force-web that one could call 'God'.

Wait, what are we talking about here?

Oh, the British actually debate stuff. I'm sure Obama would love to argue with Cameron as opposed to John Boehner.

Zoiks!

I know I'm only leaving this here for the all-seeing eye, but I'm a perfectionist.

Somehow my editing utterly garbled my response above,

YDV,
you're saying your faith is a political position and it is wrong for someone else to have an impression of it because it is entirely right for you to have your own opinion, but you conclude then that your faith is not just a part of your political perspective but a fundamentally defining part of it, as if to make your entire political opinion identical with some inarguable divine revelation.

Having your cake and eating it too is something you can only do in privacy and now that you've driven that car out in public it's green house gasses and it's lack of safety features turn into everyone else's problem, not just yours.