Talk:List of atheists in politics and law

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People to add to the list[edit]

We should add Fidel Castro and Vladimir Lenin to the list.Xx1994xx (talk)

Pretty odd not to see Ayn Rand on this list - User:Stigmasound April 18th, 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 09:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Lincoln[edit]

I have read that Abraham Lincoln was an atheist. Can anyone back this up?

He may well have been, but I've not seen any evidence to be sure. Like many others from that era, it's hard to tell critics of religion, deists, 'mere' anti-Christianity-ism, agnostics etc from actual atheists.
But if you know of a source for him, please add him! Oolon (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lincoln had his own very unorthodox beliefs and was not a church member, but certainly was not an atheist. Furthermore, as explored in books of the past decade, Lincoln moved closer to his faith during the last few years of his life as he underwent great sadness. Here is a slate article that kind of summarizes: Lincoln's Religious Quest, Why his faith won't suit either side in the culture wars.
The original source that pushed that viewpoint was "Lincoln the Freethinker," a work written to advocate a specific agenda, and as one reading the book will notice, that agenda was not teaching history. This book was the originator of the quote, "The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. ..." and the only source given for such an extraordinary quote was, "On another occasion he is quoted as having made this laconic and all too significant statement..." This wouldn't even come close to meeting wikipedia standards for giving a source and certainly not for quoting someone, much less for an extraordinary claim. There is a reason that unlike quotes such as "And whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions, in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord . . . .", his "the bible is not my book..." one is not in the The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln.
As one can surmise, the author of the book was not a scholar, but in fact an atheist activist.Madridrealy (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Minister Campbell[edit]

This is a funny joke, it made me grin, so I'm not deleting it. But to the author (who's done a lovely job organising this page) I think it mightn't be appropriate. I'm not so sure about Atlee btw. Callaghan I wouldn't know either way. But did you see AC Grayling's Grauniad article? :) Wikidea 23:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Callaghan on there when his page states he was a Baptist?

By Country[edit]

Do people think that this should be ordered by country and then alaphbetically? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.81.142 (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ion Iliescu is not atheist[edit]

I will remove Ion Iliescu (1930–): Romanian politician, three times President of Romania from the list because he is not an atheist. I live in Romania and I have never heard Iliescu saying anything about something like this. One time he said that he is a free-thinker,not an atheist. In Romania the term free-thinker is being used by many persons who believe in a Creator,like Pavel Corut and who are against atheists. when he was President of Romania,Iliescu used to pray in the little church from the presidential palace,not to mention that his party promoted hate against atheists,like all Romanian parties. And I see that his inclusion in this list is based entirely on an article that was wrote by a foreigner and foreigners use to associate (former) communists and atheists although all the Romanian communists were devout Orthodox Christians.Azdfg (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Prime Ministers[edit]

I'm pretty sure that Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke were both atheists, I will try and find some proof somewhere. Peter C Jones (talk) 05:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Gillard (Australia PM) is an Atheist. We'll she's never said, "I am an Atheist" but she did say on a radio program that she didn't believe in god and that she wasn't a religious person. I don't see any mention of her on the Talk page, so I'll add it with sources Sumdog (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty is that she can only be added if she says "I am an atheist". She has in the past described herself as agnostic, and more recently used language which strongly hinted at being an atheist, but as far as I am aware she has never personally described herself as an atheist in a reliable source. - Bilby (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now she has here.
I inserted Gillard, but I believe Hawke and Gough Whitlam are more in the agnostic camp, I believe. Whitlam famously joked that whilst he never goes to church, he always goes to cathedrals. When Mrs Whitlam died recently, Gough and her family chose a religious Anglican funeral Ozhistory (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mussolini[edit]

Regarding Mussolini and atheism:

Denis Mack Smith wrote that in 1938 Mussolini: "Sometimes he now acknowledged that he was an outright disbeliever, and once told a startled cabinet that Islam was perhaps a more effective religion than Christianity. The papacy was a malignant tumour in the body of Italy and must be 'rooted out once and for all', because there was no room in Rome for both the Pope and himself." So obviously Mussolini's baptism was just for show.

Moreover, Mussolini worshipped the state alone. Mussolini quote: "Fascism is a religion. The twentieth century will be known in history as the century of Fascism." Mussolini quote: "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."

Your criteria for inclusion in this list is very strange. If someone was an ardent theist his whole life and then on his deathbed says he is an atheist he is included. Conversely a devout atheist can't be included if in his last moments he accepts God. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.160.88.63 (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the criteria: I find them not at all strange. It is fairly standard with regards to personal identity (ethnic, religious, philosophical, etc.) to identify a person according to their latest known or expressed identity. So, for example, we have Antony Flew on List of former atheists and agnostics, despite the bulk of his career as a philosopher having been spent as an outspoken atheist, and despite his twilight years defense of deism receiving little scholarly respect.
Regarding Mussolini: I was aware of Smith's words on Mussolini's religion, having read them the last time this issue came up. They are far from what is needed to include Mussolini here. Mussolini may have sometimes acknowledged that he was an outright disbeliever, but the question is: Disbeliever in what? From Smith's context, all we can conclude is that Mussolini sometimes acknowledged that he was an outright disbeliever in Christianity. This may be enough to exclude Mussolini from a list of Christians (though he may perhaps still be counted as a lapsed Catholic, as he never officially deconverted). But Mussolini's disbelief in Christianity does not automatically put him back in the camp of the atheists. A latter-day disavowal of belief in God/deities would be required for that. Nick Graves (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your evidence that Mussolini disavowed his often-expressed, enthusiastic atheism was based on his baptism (not much evidence in my opinion as the baptism was politically motivated). Since this baptism was a sham (see quote regarding Mussolini in 1938) even this thin evidence evaporates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjilin (talk • contribs) 00:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He converted to Roman Catholicism. The conversion was recognized by the church. In fact, it could never have happened except under the aegis of the church. To convert, he would have had to avow belief in God. He never deconverted, and as far as we know, he never expressed disbelief in deities after his conversion. He spoke often of God in his later career. Political motivations for conversion do not necessarily make a conversion illegitimate.
The source you cite to include Mussolini only proves his atheism prior to his conversion. This list is not for former atheists. And it's not for people whom you strongly suspect were still atheists even after they converted to a God-affirming religion. Inclusion on such basis constitutes original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. We need to go with what the sources say. Can you find a reliable source that says that Mussolini was an atheist or did not believe in God after his conversion to Catholicism? Can you find a post-conversion quote where he states he does not believe in God? I've searched the book you cite for Mussolini's inclusion here. No such information is to be found in this book.
Is it possible Mussolini remained an atheist, and that his conversion was insincere? Certainly. It is probable, even. But Wikipedia is not for our own speculations, even if they seem reasonable. We must report what the reliable sources say. Nick Graves (talk) 04:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the previous discussion regarding this issue: Talk:Benito Mussolini/Archive 1#Religion, Talk:Benito Mussolini/Archive 2#Stop demonizing atheism, Talk:Benito Mussolini#Atheist. Nick Graves (talk) 12:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You keep using the word "converted". What we have evidence of is a baptism - the two are not identical. When you are baptized you do not have to declare a belief in God.

You wrote: "Is it possible Mussolini remained an atheist, and that his conversion was insincere? Certainly. It is probable, even. But Wikipedia is not for our own speculations, even if they seem reasonable." But you are basing your opinion on speculation: you are speculating that Mussolini's baptism, contrary to all evidence, was sincere.

You have claimed evidence that Mussolini was a Catholic (based on his baptism). This was the basis for your contention that Mussolini was a theist. I gave you evidence that Mussolini was not a sincere Catholic both at the time of his baptism and afterwards.

another quote: In 1927, Mussolini had himself baptized by a Roman Catholic priest in order to take away certain opposition from the side of Italy's Catholics, who were then still very critical of the modern Italian State, which had taken away papal property and virtually blackmailed several popes inside the Vatican. However, Mussolini never became known to be a practicing Catholic. link: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Mussolini

You never provided evidence that he was any other kind of Christian or theist.

Therefore the abundant evidence for Mussolini's atheism is in no way counterbalanced by any evidence for his theism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjilin (talk • contribs) 00:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a practice of the Catholic church to baptize those who deny its creed? Regardless, we cannot read Mussolini's mind. All we have are his words, and others' assertions about his internal state. In his autobiography, he wrote (of Franz Ferdinand): "Though deeply a Catholic, like myself..." (page 31) Now, unless one can be a deeply Catholic atheist, this amounts to an affirmation of belief in God. On the day before he was killed, Mussolini wrote: "I believed in the victory of our arms, as I believe in God, our Lord..." ("Ho creduto nella vittoria delle nostre armi, come credo in Dio, Nostro Signore..." [1] I am unaware of any reliable source identifying him as an atheist after he joined the church. Perhaps you can find one.
The burden is not on me to prove that Mussolini was not an atheist in his latter days. It is on you to prove that he was. Nick Graves (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) You ask: Is it a practice of the Catholic church to baptize those who deny its creed? The Church does not know if someone is lying about his convictions. 2) That "autobiography" is anything but reliable! It was written by ghostwriters. link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Autobiography_(Mussolini) 3) That website www.ilduce.net seems the work of someone possessing an undying love for Il Duce. lol It's hardly reliable. Doesn't it seem like a better idea to stick with a serious historian like D.M. Smith? 4) Please recall that we have evidence that Mussolini was baptized, not that he was a theist. Since we know, courtesy of DM Smith, Mussolini's true opinion of Catholicism we can only conclude that the baptism was a sham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.160.92.55 (talk) 08:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) Certainly, the church does not know if someone is lying about their convictions. No one does. But to receive baptism, Mussolini would have had to meet certain requirements. One of these, at the very least, would have been an affirmation of belief in God. Indeed, the very act of assenting to a baptism is itself an affirmation of the creed under which one is baptized. Mussolini would have been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (that is, God). Furthermore, the church would not have baptized an adult who did not agree to join the church, making the difference between baptism and conversion to Roman Catholicism a moot point.
2) Mussolini's autobiography was dictated by Mussolini, himself. True, others edited and prosified these dictations and other materials from Mussolini into his autobiography. But the basic material still came directly from Mussolini, and it was published with his approval. It is therefore a reliable primary source for Mussolini's self-identity, which was unequivocally Roman Catholic at the time.
3) Sure, it is possible that the letter reprinted by the pro-Mussolini website was fabricated. I concede that a reprint by a neutral, scholarly source would be much preferable. I have not yet found such a reprint. Regardless, there are plenty of other writings or speeches of Mussolini that testify to his latter-day affirmation of God's existence, such as this, from his 1932 article Doctrine of Fascism:

The Fascist State does not create a "God" of its own, as Robespierre once, at the height of the Convention's foolishness, wished to do; nor does it vainly seek, like Bolshevism, to expel religion from the minds of men. Fascism respects the God of the ascetics, of the saints, of the heroes, and also God as seen and prayed to by the simple and primitive heart of the people.

4) It seems you did not type what you meant in your fourth point. I responded to what I think you meant here in my first point above.
Whatever Mussolini's attitude toward the Catholic church after his 1927 baptism, there are two things absent from your case for including Mussolini here: (1) A statement, public or private, from Mussolini after his baptism in which he says he does not believe in God; (2) A statement from a reliable source asserting that Mussolini did not believe in God, post-1927.
As we cannot read minds, it is standard on this list to give precedence to a subject's own reports about their position on the existence of deities. With his 1927 baptism, Mussolini affirmed that he did believe in a deity, and he repeated that affirmation many times afterward. Was he lying? Maybe he was. Heck, he might have been lying back in his days as an avowed atheist. Who can tell such a character's real beliefs, when he so quickly changes his religious allegiances when it is politically expedient? Like I said, we cannot know with certainty anyone's true beliefs. So we report their own self-identity, or else report what reliable sources have said about their identity.
So I ask again: Have you found any post-1927 statements in which Mussolini says he does not believe in God? Have you found any reliable source that identifies Mussolini as an atheist after his 1927 baptism? The sources currently cited are inadequate to include Mussolini here, as they only document his beliefs prior to 1927. Nick Graves (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) You write: "Mussolini would have had to meet certain requirements. One of these, at the very least, would have been an affirmation of belief in God." Of course neither the Church nor anyone else has any way of testing this.

2) I don't see how you can say that Mussolini joined the Church since he was never a practicing Catholic and his private opinions (as revealed by the diaries) certainly don't support your statement.

3) Given the origins of the autobiography (Wikipedia says: "Mussolini dictated parts of the text to his brother Arnoldo Mussolini who handed the manuscripts, together with other material supplied by Margarita Scarfatti, Mussolini's lover, to Richard Washburn Child (the former American Ambassador to Italy) who together with Luigi Barzini, Jr. served as a ghostwriter for the autobiography, mainly aimed at readers in the USA. It was a paid propaganda job and remained unpublished in Italy until 1971.") I think it would be a serious mistake to rely on this source.

4) In the article you cited Mussolini did not say he believed in God.

5) You write: "With his 1927 baptism, Mussolini affirmed that he did believe in a deity". No, he only affirmed that he was willing to be baptized. It is inappropriate to read anything more into the act.

6) You write: "give precedence to a subject's own reports about their position". I am relying on such reports: clear reports that do not come with an ulterior motive.

7) Please consider the vehemence of Mussolini's atheism. The man took the trouble to write a pamphlet on the subject! If Mussolini was lying about his atheism why the passionate proclamations?

7) I do not defend the proposition that Mussolini's atheism was insincere, but merely point out its possibility, which illustrates the problem with the speculative approach you are using with his latter-day views. An aspiring socialist leader at that time would have had an obvious motive for making vehement attacks on belief in God (just as aspiring politicians in the US today have an obvious motive for professing belief in God), even if such attacks were insincere. Given Mussolini's character and history, we cannot put such insincerity past him. When it was socially or politically expedient for him, attacking theism would have suited Mussolini's purposes--whether he was seeking to impress his anti-clerical father, or to impress the atheistic socialists he sought to lead. These may or may not have been sincere, just as his latter-day professions of God-belief may or may not have been sincere. As with anyone, we don't know for certain the sincerity of these professions. That's why our speculations (i.e. original research) must remain off the table.
6) You have no reports of Mussolini disavowing belief in God after his 1927 baptism. The closest you have is a report of Mussolini saying he was an outright disbeliever, but from the context of that report, the only conclusion we have a right to make is that he was an outright disbeliever in Christianity, which does not automatically make him an atheist.
5) It is hardly reading anything into Mussolini's baptism to conclude that it represents a profession of belief in the creed of Catholicism, which includes belief in God. Baptism is an initiation rite into Christianity, and any adult who submits to the initiation rite of a religion is of necessity outwardly professing acceptance of that religion's creed.
4) In the article, Mussolini outlines his own doctrine of fascism. Mussolini states that his fascism respects God. How can one respect God unless one also believes in God? One cannot. Mussolini's words therefore convey a clear profession of belief in God.
3) You're completely missing the point here. It doesn't matter whether those particular words came directly from the pen of Mussolini, or that the book was propaganda. What matters is that this autobiography was published in 1928 in the US with the approval of Mussolini. By approving its publication, Mussolini agreed that this autobiography spoke for him. It is therefore a reliable primary source for Mussolini's own statements about his own beliefs. Of course, it's not a reliable secondary source for information about politics, history, etc. But it is a reliable source for Mussolini's own professions, and he unequivocally claims a Roman Catholic identity (and therefore a theistic identity) in this autobiography.
2) That he was not a practicing Catholic after baptism does not negate the fact that he did join the church. The Catholic church itself counts all converts as Catholics unless they subsequently convert to another religion, and this includes even lapsed Catholics. To be non-practicing is not the same as leaving the church. You need not be a good Catholic to remain a Catholic. If Mussolini's private diaries confess that his profession of Catholicism was never sincere, that would change everything. But I haven't seen any quotes to that effect. Perhaps you could find them and present them here.
1) It's true that they have no way of testing its sincerity. But the profession of belief in God remains. This is what supersedes his former atheist identity. Such identity remains until we find some later quote from Mussolini in which he states he does not believe in God, or, at the very least, find an evaluation made by a reliable source that states that Mussolini remained an atheist, even after his (sham) conversion. You have yet to supply that. Nick Graves (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) You write: "An aspiring socialist leader at that time would have had an obvious motive for making vehement attacks on belief in God" Mussolini could have just as easily aligned himself with Catholic socialists (who were numerous at the time). A more restrained atheism could also have profited him. Mussolini chose fervid atheism instead.

2) "Baptism is an initiation rite into Christianity, and any adult who submits to the initiation rite of a religion is of necessity outwardly professing acceptance of that religion's creed." [bold added] Please note the words in bold print. People have many reasons for being baptized. They may wish only to please their spouse or parent. The act of baptism is not necessarily a profession of belief in anything.

3) Regarding the article, quote: Mussolini recalled and destroyed all available copies of "The Doctrine of Fascism "in April 1940 after he had second thoughts about certain phrases in it. link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_Fascism Moreover, the article was probably ghost written. Finally, people do sometimes speak of respecting an entirely fictional character.

4) You write: "with the approval of Mussolini" yet the Wikipedia article does not mention such approval. Who knows if Mussolini even read the work?

5) You write: "The Catholic church itself counts all converts as Catholics unless they subsequently convert to another religion, and this includes even lapsed Catholics. To be non-practicing is not the same as leaving the church." I don't think this is correct. Evidence?

6) quote: In the midst of the Greek disaster he occupied himself with a campaign against certain Catholic holy days. A year later he forbade the newspapers to mention Christmas, which, he said, "only recalls the birth of a Jew who gave the world debilitating and devitalizing theories, and in particular screwed Italy through the disintegrating work of the papacy." http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/07/rocca.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjilin (talk • contribs) 02:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter the motivation for baptism; the important point is that it still represents identification with the religion (and its creed) by which one is baptized. The Roman Catholic Church does not baptize adults who do not profess its creed. Mussolini affirmed belief in God. Whether he was sincere is another question entirely. See Lapsed Catholics for information on how the church views non-practicing Catholics. Furthermore, failing to observe the practices of a religion to which one has converted does not necessarily amount to recanting its creed. A Christian can skip church services for the rest of his life and still accept its creed, even if he does not live up to it.
You say Mussolini had The Doctrine of Fascism destroyed. That does not change the fact that he exhibited belief in God at the time he wrote it. You presented no evidence that his comments about God were among those he had second thought about. Perhaps some people say they respect entirely fictional characters. But God is not widely regarded as a fictional character, and it is not typical for people who do not believe in God to say they respect him. The possible interpretation you suggest is ad hoc--you have no evidence that Mussolini was speaking in this atypical way. The implication of the normal, plain meaning of Mussolini's words here is that he believed in God, or at least professed belief in God.
Mussolini's post-baptism campaign against Catholicism (and Christianity in general) does not amount to evidence of his atheism. During all of these activities, did he ever claim to be an atheist, or say he did not believe in God? I could start actively opposing the efforts of the Council for Secular Humanism (of which I've been an associate member), but this does not mean that I now believe in God again. Likewise, Mussolini could turn on the church which baptized him, yet retain belief in God (or at least continue to profess belief in God).
Mussolini's autobiography was written and published through the efforts of some of his countrymen (his brother, his mistress, and Luigi Barzini, Jr.) while Mussolini was still in power, and with his cooperation. Had he not approved of it, its publication would have represented dire consequences for those Italians partly responsible for its production. Furthermore, reliable publishers to this day attribute authorship to Mussolini. Can you cite any reliable source that says this book was not really Mussolini's autobiography?
If it is so obvious that Mussolini remained an atheist in his later years, then surely some reliable secondary source somewhere makes such an observation. Have you found one yet? Nick Graves (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our fundamental difference is that you take Mussolini at his word, you regard him as trustworthy - you speculate that his baptism was a candid expression of his personal philosophy. I think the evidence shows that Mussolini was untrustworthy and his baptism was politically motivated theater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjilin (talk • contribs) 12:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the same reasoning, Constantine wasn't a Christian at the end -- remaining a standard Capitoline polytheist, and just going for a belt 'n' braces bit of Pascal's Wagering. Point being, getting baptised does rather put a dampener on the conclusiveness of someone's atheism. To be regarded as nothing more than "politically motivated theater", we need some positive evidence that that was all it was. Oolon (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jimjilin, the conclusion you are drawing about Mussolini's (dis)belief is the result of original research. You are making your own interpretation of the sources, rather than faithfully reporting what the sources say. I think it quite possible that Mussolini's professions of faith in God were entirely insincere. But the fact remains that we do not know this, nor do we have a reliable source that pronounces him an atheist in his latter days, despite his baptism and public declarations of belief in God. What this boils down to is not whether you are right or not as to his post-1927 atheism. What is critical here is that we do not yet have a reliable source clearly confirming that he remained an atheist. Wikipedia content, of necessity, must be based on verifiability, not truth. Mussolini's professions of belief, however suspect, are sufficient to cloud his former status as a confirmed atheist. If some reliable secondary source makes the judgment that such professions were entirely bogus, and that he really remained an atheist, then that would be enough to include him. But we are not qualified (in our capacity as Wikipedia editors) to make such judgment on our own. Nick Graves (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What we in fact lack is a reliable source clearly confirming that he renounced his atheism.

Do you think the evidence shows 1) Mussolini was candid and trustworthy in his public utterances? 2) Mussolini did not possess a political motive to agree to the baptism? 3) Mussolini's baptism was based on sincere affection for the Catholic Church?

I would appreciate a yes or no answer for the three questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.139.25.22 (talk) 05:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Clegg[edit]

Clearly self-identified. If you want a discussion on "magic words" to define atheism, start a new discussion on List of Atheists or BLPN. --Noleander (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He did not identify as an "atheist". This is identical to the Miliband situation which was discussed and the consensus is they have to call themselves "atheists" - the fact that you resist this consensus notwithstanding. Please do not add BLP violations to the entry. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're serious about this (nucking futs) self-identification by magic-word-utterance malarkey, then on the basis of their current references, the following need to be removed:

Alex Erwin
Kanimozhi
M. Karunanidhi
Prakash Karat
Dick Gross
Proinsias de Rossa
Giuliano Ferrara
Alistair Campbell (only failed to deny it)
Charles Clarke
Frank Dobson (non-denial)
Donald Finlay
Evan Harris
Neil Kinnock (unclear, but looks more like journo interpretation than indirect quote)
David Miliband
Ed Miliband
Michael Portillo
Clare Short
Dennis Skinner
Veton Surroi (pah -- what would his wife know? It’s not self-identification.)
Erkki Tuomioja (anyone speak Finnish?)
Bob Avakian (so what if he fits even the most hardline definition – does he use the word of himself? If not, it's just our interpretation.)
Heather Mac Donald (non-denial)
Pete Stark

These all might well be atheists – in fact probably are. But the references neither directly nor indirectly quote them, so violate BLP. Have fun. Oolon (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Castro, Brezhnev, Ho Chi Minh and Mengistu[edit]

how can these names not be mentioned?

File:Charles-Gilbert Romme.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Charles-Gilbert Romme.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 8 September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gillard[edit]

Her statement in the Washington Post interview was as follows:
" We did have a joke about it — the first African American vs. being a single, childless, atheist woman. “You reckon you’ve got it hard?” But it was done in a very light-spirited way. I think it would be inconceivable for me if I were an American to have turned up at the highest echelon of American politics being an atheist, single and childless. It says something about Australians in the sense that people are less interested in whether their leaders are people of faith than Americans are. We have been less inquiring and interested in family circumstances."
There isn't any way to interpret the italicised sentences in a way that makes sense if she is not identifying herself as an atheist. She isn't saying that in an alternative universe where she exists as an atheist, single and childless she couldn't be an American and turn up at the highest echelon of American politics. The sentence is semantically equivalent to "Being an atheist, single and childless, I think it would be inconceivable for me if I were an American to have turned up at the highest echelon of American politics." I haven't found anything in the WP:BLP that would prevent a straightforward interpretation of an unambiguous self-identification being used as evidence. Ordinary Person (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Atheism[edit]

The 2nd sentence of this article is simply wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.28.192.149 (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few missing[edit]

I know for certain Korean leader Kim Jong-Un is an atheist, and state founder Kim Il-Sung must have been atheist because he was a Communist. Also, while it does say on Wikipedia, it's a bit disputed, but Adolf Hitler may have been atheist personally, but adopted a Christian image to help his campaign in Germany. See Religion of Adolf Hitler. --ConCass (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

( I know for certain Korean leader Kim Jong-Un is an atheist ) Got a cite? ( state founder Kim Il-Sung must have been atheist because he was a Communist ) They are not the same; see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism ( it's a bit disputed, but Adolf Hitler may have been atheist personally ) Get back to me if and when you have something more definite. Brian Westley (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Gillard of Australia[edit]

Can someone explain the objection to Julia Gillard, the former Prime Minister of Australia, being included here? As I understand it, although Gillard had put herself on record as not having religion, I think there was some (over) sensitivity to defining her as "atheist" during her tenure as PM, because some of her supporters felt that the word "atheist" had negative connotations in the electorate, so they didn't want her tagged with it? At any rate that sensitivity seems to be out of date because a) she is out of office b) she has called herself atheist in a post-office interview. As far as I can see, there is no problem with including her here? Ozhistory (talk) 04:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right and fighting over this information is already considered as one of the lamest edit war. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So there's no objection any more to listing her? Her autobiography states "Kevin had the be the leader in our alliance because I understood that I was not what Labor needed at the point: a woman, not married, an atheist."Brian Westley (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@CamV8: is this the discussion you're referring to? IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And are you 211.30.210.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? If so, you're coming very close to sock puppetry. Logging in and out to pretend like you're two different editors is very bad form. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging @Ozhistory, Brian Westley, and Ordinary Person: as users who have discussed Julia Gillard already on this page. @CamV8: in light of the fact that Gillard both self-describes as atheist and is frequently described as atheist in reliable sources, could you please explain why she shouldn't be included here? I'm afraid linking me to WP:BLP without further explanation isn't going to cut it. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've been pinged: There is no sensible reason for Gillard's exclusion from this list. She has publicly unambiguously self-identified as an athiest on at least two occasions. It's not a controversial matter.Ordinary Person (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments[edit]

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infoboxes of individuals that have no religion.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hollande[edit]

François Hollande is included on this list, but the source provided merely indicates that he's not religious. It does not say whether he's an agnostic, a deist, an atheist, etc. Aridd (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of atheists in politics and law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of atheists in politics and law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of atheists in politics and law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Standards for inclusion?[edit]

The heading only gives a clear inclusion standard for living people: "Living persons in this list are people whose atheism is relevant to their notable activities or public life, and who have publicly identified themselves as atheists."

The United Kingdom section includes two Prime Ministers - not living, but also not so ancient that there is a lack of information on them: Churchill and Callaghan.

Churchill's own article describes him as an agnostic.

The only source given about religious views in Callaghan's article is this archived page from infobritain.co.uk, which I'm not entirely sure is a reliable source), and which only says: "It was at this point that religion and politics seemed to become incompatible for the young man. A slow drift away from the Baptist Church began" - which also seems to fall well short of the standard we'd apply for living people.

I'd suggest that the standard of inclusion needs some consideration, and some entries may need removing. TSP (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"List of atheists, agnostics and other nontheists (politics and law)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect List of atheists, agnostics and other nontheists (politics and law) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 5 § List of atheists, agnostics and other nontheists (politics and law) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_atheists_in_politics_and_law&oldid=1203877769"