4 ms·

It's from the 1920s when the social democrats convinced the working person to ditch religion for a more 'rational' form of politics. Despite the other negative

It's from the 1920s when the social democrats convinced the working person to ditch religion for a more 'rational' form of politics. Despite the other negative comments (nobody thinks their govt is doing good), politicans are held to account and policy is primarily driven by rational debate. For example, there was a strong rumour that a recent prime minister (Goran Persson) was religious. Being religious would obviously be a bad thing, as it might bias his policy - that is the consensus. And yes, it is a more consensus driven society. But without some level of consensus, how can you get your fellow citizens to help one another?

moogly 10y ago
Not a rumour. When asked what profession he would have had he not gone into politics, he answered "priest".
- jamesblonde 10y ago
  That's true. Just proves the point that it was controversial that somebody with religious tendencies has the lever of power. I should also add Swedish newspapers are somewhat more responsible/rational than Anglo Saxon newspapers (Expressen/Aftonbladet excluded, of course). DN, DI, Dagbladet are all pretty fair to the 'other side'.
  - sotojuan 10y ago
    In the US it's the exact opposite. Saying you're not religious is political suicide!
    - brianwawok 10y ago
      Well saying you are not some form of Christian. Both an atheist and a Muslim would have no chance of being elected. Jewish seems to be generally okay. Not sure on Buddhist or other eastern religions.
      - Kadin 10y ago
        As of 2010 there were two Muslims in the US Congress. There were also two or three Buddhists. (The number varies by source, I think because of confusion over how to categorize Soka Gakkai.) There were nine "Unspecified", which is probably what you'd put down if you were an atheist. It is certainly helpful, and perhaps required, to be Christian (some flavor of Protestant, specifically) in many parts of the US if you want to be electable, but it is not as much of a political death sentence as is widely believed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_111th_United_States_Congress#Religious_demographics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_111th_United_St... Intriguingly, the WP articles on more recent Congresses don't have the religious demographics easily accessible. I'm not sure if that's just a Wikipedia thing or if the data isn't being reported.
        brianwawok 10y ago
        That is surprising data in a good way. President I think is a tougher nut to crack, because you need to cross all the different states.. some being more liberal, and some more conservative.
      - jcranmer 10y ago
        Christianity in the US, particularly in the Revolutionary period, usually meant mainstream Protestant sects. Indeed, in the mid-1700s, Maryland (originally set up as a Catholic colony during England's turbulent religious times) actually outlawed Catholicism and prohibited Catholics from serving public office. Only one Catholic (Charles Carrol) signed the Declaration of Independence. The first (and, to date, only) Catholic elected president was JFK. Note that Mitt Romney is Mormon, which is sometimes considered non-Christian. Thomas Jefferson is probably the closest the US ever had to an atheist president (he wrote a translation of the New Testament that cut out all of the miracles)--in a time when church was actually held inside the US Capitol. I'm not aware of any viable non-Christian presidential candidates, although there have been Jews for the vice presidential nominee (Lieberman) or as primary candidates (Sanders). Judging from polls that ask questions like "Would you vote for a president if he were an atheist?", an outright atheist would be unlikely to hold a successful run for the presidency, at least not for another century or so. Muslims would probably have a harder time than Buddhists or Hindus (as far as I know, there really haven't been any studies on the latter groups), but they'd have an easier time than atheists. For less visible elected roles in the US, there are already Muslims and atheists who have been elected. The first Muslim representative in Congress was sworn in on Thomas Jefferson's copy of the Koran.

moogly 10y ago

Not a rumour. When asked what profession he would have had he not gone into politics, he answered "priest".

jamesblonde 10y ago
That's true. Just proves the point that it was controversial that somebody with religious tendencies has the lever of power. I should also add Swedish newspapers are somewhat more responsible/rational than Anglo Saxon newspapers (Expressen/Aftonbladet excluded, of course). DN, DI, Dagbladet are all pretty fair to the 'other side'.
- sotojuan 10y ago
  In the US it's the exact opposite. Saying you're not religious is political suicide!
  - brianwawok 10y ago
    Well saying you are not some form of Christian. Both an atheist and a Muslim would have no chance of being elected. Jewish seems to be generally okay. Not sure on Buddhist or other eastern religions.
    - Kadin 10y ago
      As of 2010 there were two Muslims in the US Congress. There were also two or three Buddhists. (The number varies by source, I think because of confusion over how to categorize Soka Gakkai.) There were nine "Unspecified", which is probably what you'd put down if you were an atheist. It is certainly helpful, and perhaps required, to be Christian (some flavor of Protestant, specifically) in many parts of the US if you want to be electable, but it is not as much of a political death sentence as is widely believed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_111th_United_States_Congress#Religious_demographics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_111th_United_St... Intriguingly, the WP articles on more recent Congresses don't have the religious demographics easily accessible. I'm not sure if that's just a Wikipedia thing or if the data isn't being reported.
      - brianwawok 10y ago
        That is surprising data in a good way. President I think is a tougher nut to crack, because you need to cross all the different states.. some being more liberal, and some more conservative.
    - jcranmer 10y ago
      Christianity in the US, particularly in the Revolutionary period, usually meant mainstream Protestant sects. Indeed, in the mid-1700s, Maryland (originally set up as a Catholic colony during England's turbulent religious times) actually outlawed Catholicism and prohibited Catholics from serving public office. Only one Catholic (Charles Carrol) signed the Declaration of Independence. The first (and, to date, only) Catholic elected president was JFK. Note that Mitt Romney is Mormon, which is sometimes considered non-Christian. Thomas Jefferson is probably the closest the US ever had to an atheist president (he wrote a translation of the New Testament that cut out all of the miracles)--in a time when church was actually held inside the US Capitol. I'm not aware of any viable non-Christian presidential candidates, although there have been Jews for the vice presidential nominee (Lieberman) or as primary candidates (Sanders). Judging from polls that ask questions like "Would you vote for a president if he were an atheist?", an outright atheist would be unlikely to hold a successful run for the presidency, at least not for another century or so. Muslims would probably have a harder time than Buddhists or Hindus (as far as I know, there really haven't been any studies on the latter groups), but they'd have an easier time than atheists. For less visible elected roles in the US, there are already Muslims and atheists who have been elected. The first Muslim representative in Congress was sworn in on Thomas Jefferson's copy of the Koran.