benlehman | Let's talk!

Hey, Atheists: Remember all the fun we used to have on this journal?

Yeah, about that... I was kind of a dick to you on at least a couple of occasions about that very thing, and I'm sorry. I shouldn't have been a dick.

Dude, it's all good. Seriously ... I have very fond memories.

yrs--
--Ben

I think requiring all office holders to have a particular state of mind is pretty dumb.

Matt

Aren't we doing that, in principle, with oaths of office?
(There's the usual "uphold the Constitution" thing, but, IIRC, federal judges also pledge specifically that they will not discriminate between rich and poor.)

-- Alex

A fair point, a fair point. Still, I can choose not to act in a discriminatory manner (and therefore it's a somewhat-reasonable pledge to make); I can't really pledge in good faith to continue believing something I believe now, especially about something so abstract as belief in God.

Matt

Heh. Yeah, that does bring up a funny implication in our theoretical world: say, an atheist in office has a mystical experience, while on the operating table or something, and has to resign...

Modern American culture doesn't seem to take any form of conflict of interest in politics seriously(*), so it's a reach to believe that you'd actually need to resign.

That said, if there was a well-defined culturally-accepted philosophy behind why folks with religious beliefs couldn't hold office, I don't think it'd be any weirder than, say, resigning from a job doing DoD stuff because you've become a pacifist.

-- Alex

* - With the possible exception of minorities in power. Somehow that one is still debated to death.

I'm not necessarily talking about the US.

I dunno. I think that, say, requiring office holders to be basically mentally healthy is perfectly legit. (I say this as someone with a mental illness.) I don't want, say, a schizophrenic or psychotic in charge of the military, regardless of how charismatic or otherwise qualified they are.

I've seen it said (a lot) that religious is comparable to a mental illness. If it is, it is pretty sensible to try to keep religious people out of power.

yrs--
--Ben

Hmm. Perhaps "state of mind" was the wrong word choice. I think being sound of mind is still different than being required to hold particular attitudes. On the other hand, there are particular attitudes that are associated with mental illness (like the attitude that the Martians have tapped your phone or whatever). What you seem to be arguing, in a Devil's Advocate sort of way, is that perhaps sincere religious belief is one of those attitudes that should disqualify someone from office. I think the answer here, and it really is centuries-old, going back to Montaigne really, is the concept of secularism, the idea that we can come together in the public sphere despite religious differences. It's something the Founding Fathers took very seriously, is the reason for the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment, etc. You don't have to be an atheist or agnostic to believe in the principle of secularism.

So, when people take the oath of office in the U.S., to uphold the Constitution, they are pledging to uphold the ideal of secularism. And certainly we see many on the right who are unwilling to acknowledge the importance of secularism to America's founding principles, and instead talk about turning America into a Christian nation and all that. That is to say, any officeholder who speaks in such a manner is clearly evincing an attitude that is already disallowed by the Constitution.

Matt

I didn't join in during the previous rounds, so please let me know if there's some context I'm missing.

Honestly, some days, I do find myself wishing that it was harder for people with rabidly essentialist mindsets to get into office. Filtering out non-atheists would be a pretty crude way to achieve that: you'd be barring quite a few of the people I consider delusional hypocrites, but at the expense of also barring numerous people I consider entirely reasonable and trustworthy. Doesn't seem all that effective.

-- Alex

I also think that assumes atheists are always, or mostly always, non-"rabidly essentialist", a thing I've not found to be true.

Oh, no, I don't assume that at all. Hence why I don't think it would actually work.

Most of the time, when I run into terrible atheists, they're, like, self-righteous adolescents on an Internet forum (given that there's, like, four prominent media atheists and effectively zero politicians). And the crappy behavior of those random assholes don't trigger my "Jesus Fuck, is there no way to keep this psycho out of power?" wishful-thinking reflex nearly as much as seeing all the insane theocrats and pseudo-religious kleptocrats actually wielding power does.

-- Alex

Heh. Yeah, I didn't want to turn this into my "fundamentalist atheists, oy vey!" rant, but I do think the difference between random assholes and scary anything-crats is really a function of majority and power...

There's also the "worst people are loudest" effect in any ideological community, of course.

In modern America, I think there's a difference in the character of those ideological communities rather than just their numbers.

Most of the annoying atheists I've run into -- I call them "Junior Atheists" when I'm being an asshole -- are basically kids who are more invested in identifying as "smart" than actually learning. They've arrived at their over-simplified self-righteous atheist ideals the same way they've arrived at most of their beliefs: they find a flaw in some general consensus, adopt a "smarter" contrary position, but then don't work up the intellectual curiosity to further refine their understanding.

You see this behavior in other stuff they do. Like, for instance, these are the folks who learn that "the Civil War was about slavery" is an oversimplification, so they instead proudly say "the Civil War wasn't about slavery" (for non-ideological reasons: I'm not talking about the Sons of Confederate Veterans here) -- and remember some supporting evidence about economic friction and whatnot -- but never give it enough thought to realize that, yes, the Civil War had complex causes, but 1850s America was absolutely obsessed with the future of slavery.

I called 'em "kids" because I associate that pattern with adolescence. Not everyone grows out of it, I know. And, that, to me, is most of the crappy atheists. They're self-absorbed and uncritical, but you can push most of them out of their ignorance with enough time invested.

Straight-up fundies, on the other hand, also have subcultures built around systematically retarding personal conscience and intellectual curiosity, with value systems that prioritize preserving their crazy bubbles above all else. That's way more dangerous and harder to fix, in my opinion.

Certainly Totalitarian communists tried to set up cultural and educational systems like that, but I've yet to see even a glimmer of that taking hold in the US -- unlike the perpetually-recurring theocratic nutbags we usually treat with kid gloves as long as they dress up nice and label themselves correctly.

-- Alex

I think that's the above point about "majority and power." Atheists aren't a majority in the US, and don't hold much political power as a group, so they don't get the same chances to be as awful. I tend not to think there's anything special about atheism that would safeguard against abuse of power if atheists are the majority.

Fringers and fundies without massive political power still manage to do the weird indoctrination thing. All it really takes is having an insular community. US atheism doesn't have the same closed-off-ness. I don't think it actually equips you to govern any better than, say, Christian socialism (probably way less, actually), but I do think they are qualitative structural differences that make atheism as we know it (which is bigger than just not believing in God) more functional and less corrupting than a number of modern American sects, independent of majority or power.

-- Alex

"Fringers and fundies" is a pretty vague term. If you're referring to cults, sure, though I would bet there are some atheist cults out there that are just as creepy and indoctrinating. And many hardcore fundamentalist groups do have a sizable chunk of political power-- Church A or Denomination B may not be a powerful majority by themselves, but many of their political goals are shared by other churches and denominations.

I'm trying to think what defines atheism, other than not believing in any spiritual or supernatural beings. I'm thinking other qualities would be: being against spiritual and superstitious beliefs, being strongly pro-science, and elevating rational thought, plus a contrary streak.

My guess is that the contrary streak you identified in American atheists is the result of growing up in families or environments where many of the people around are religious. If the default growing up was atheism, I don't think that would be present. And I don't think the other qualities actually make a government less prone to corruption and oppression.

"being against spiritual and superstitious beliefs, being strongly pro-science, and elevating rational thought, plus a contrary streak"

I think that's an accurate summary of what the "professional atheists" are about.

-- Alex

I'd just like to point out in this sub-thread that it's not that atheists have less political power and influence than right-wing Christian and pseudo-Christian cults, it's that we have no political power. There is precisely one non-theistic member of Congress, while there are tens of millions of non-religious Americans (whether they identify as atheist or agnostic or just unaffiliated). Furthermore, polls consistently show that voters will not vote for an atheist—there's one rather amusing poll from around 2000 showing that voters were far more willing to vote for a gay person or a Muslim than an atheist.

I also contest your assertion that there are creepy atheist cults out there, at least in the US. If you accept into your definition of modern atheism the elevation of rational thought, that includes argumentation—making it really hard to stifle discourse. Sure, atheist communities might kick out someone who wasn't a sincere atheist, or they might try to persuade that person to adopt an atheist stance, but I don't think real indoctrination occurs very often. Furthermore, since the only required stance is non-belief in God, everything else (political issues like taxes, personal issues like monogamy) is still up for grabs. Note that that isn't true in actual creepy atheist cults—they include lots of statist dogma as well. (Christopher Hitchens speaks eloquently about this problem in his book God Is Not Great.)

Atheism means not believing in God, but it also means not having a religion or religious organization. It's not just another belief system, any more than vacuum is just another type of atmosphere. There's a (non-)belief, but there's no system.

Matt

I totally contest that "there's no system." That's just bullshit and wrong. The "new atheists," as a movement, are way more organized than most religions on the planet (exceptions include most Christian denominations.) They have conferences, retreats, writers, leaders, study sessions, rights organizing, etc, not to mention a pile of self-help books only rivaled by American Protestantism.

Also, you're pulling a slight of hand if you say that here are tens of millions of atheists not getting representation. I feel decently represented by McDermott, Murray, and Cantwell, regardless of their religious beliefs (which I don't even know) and if a hard-right Dawkins-style atheist was elected in place of one of them, I would be far *worse* represented in Congress in terms of religious beliefs (or lack thereof or whatever). This despite being "none of the above" on a census form.

yrs--
--Ben

Hmm. I still say there's no "belief system," even if there is a system.

Maybe I should start going to these atheist cons!

I don't think it's unreasonable to wish that being an atheist weren't automatic disqualification for office in this country. In fact I had assumed that's what the thought experiment was about—assuming the opposite of reality.

Matt

It's not exactly a thought experiment -- there are plenty of countries with religious tests for holding public office, and at least one (I think more than one) require atheist beliefs.

Which ones? China doesn't count.

Matt

Why not? You may think "oh, China is totally different" but they don't think that. Party members are required to espouse atheism, to take classes in atheist thought, etc. Is there a reason to say "China doesn't count" other than "I personally feel uncomfy about it?"

Nonetheless: Laos, Vietnam, North Korea although that's an edge case (I wouldn't consider Jurchen a form of atheism although it is atheist.)

yrs--
--Ben

China doesn't count because it doesn't fit your other stipulation! There's no freedom of religion in China.

Furthermore, just how democratically are public officials chosen in China? Are there even elections?

Matt

Article 36 of the Chinese constitution guarantees freedom of religion.

Now, this isn't followed up on, in practice. But I think that that's what happens when you provide special privileges to one group, in general.

yrs--
--Ben

Elections aren't in the initial post.

"sleight of hand."

argh.

Well, there were Ayn Rand's devotees back in the day. Distinctly atheist and rather cult-like. Nowadays, though, you see tons of theists reverently talking about Atlas Shrugged, like it's just another part of the canon of Supply-Side Jesus (i.e. the version of Jesus you'll find on WorldNetDaily).

-- Alex

I say "less" instead of "none" because statistically, atheists are more likely to be white, male, and well-educated than the general population. That equals some measure of political power, even if one can't run for office. I agree that being unable to run for office is a handicap, but it's not the same as being absolutely powerless.

There is also a difference between cultural prejudice and having those prejudices enshrined in the law of the land. There was a time when being Catholic could make someone unelectable, and now there are a ton of Catholics in office. I tend to think the same will happen with atheists because there is a movement.

That's true, and I hope you're right about the analogy with Catholics.

Matt

Context: The immediate spur was Richard Dawkins calling Martin Rees a "compliant quisling" for accepting the Templeton prize.

yrs--
--Ben

Slight correction: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/06/martin-rees-templeton-prize-god-wars

Relevant 'graph: "Last year, Dawkins published an ugly outburst against the softly spoken astronomer, calling him a "compliant Quisling" because of his views on religion. And now, Rees has seemingly hit back. He has accepted the 2011 Templeton prize, awarded for making an exceptional contribution to investigating life's spiritual dimension. It is worth an incongruous $1m."

So the quisling comment actually came first, at least according this article.

Matt

Correction noted. Thanks!

Note that Quisling is a particularly political term. My thought is "ok, so if even associating with religion is unacceptable, politically, what is the appropriate political system?"

yrs--
--Ben

Absolutely not. It's the disenfranchisement that's wrong, not who is or isn't being disenfranchised.

No. I don't really understand what the pro position would look like¹, so I'm not even sure what reasons I could give except 'why?'

¹ Something like 'we cannot allow anyone who believes a wrong thing to hold office'? Or is it just 'anything goes as long as it lets us keep fundamentalists out of government'?

I think "keeping the crazy people out of government."

Growing up in a different culture never really seemed like the same thing as 'being crazy' to me.

Also as others have already gone over it's a pretty poor implementation for avoiding crazy people. Political shibboleths are almost always a bad idea, especially when they aren't even about an issue that is directly political. The fact that every single politician in the culture says they're religious is strange, but it's also revealing - I still think some of them are sane, competent legislators, and others are not.

I also kind of doubt that even half of the politicians in question have a sincere, intellectual belief in God, or at least one that has the slightest impact on their behaviour.

Not an atheist, so:
"On the balance, would you rather live in a country that -- while guaranteeing freedom of religion -- required all office holders to be [my faith]?"

No. Double no. What I'd really like is accurate representation in government. There was a cool graphic circulating a while ago, showing the make-up of congress and the make-up of the country, and how off the one was from the other.

OTOH, if all elected officials governed from the same most basic beliefs as I hold - the inherent worth and dignity of all beings and respect for the interconnected web of which we are a part, and the idea that there is no holy book beyond the sacred book of nature - I do think the country would be a better place.

As a thought exercise, when someone proposes a funky law or system of government, I like to imagine "What kind of society might actually create this, as an effective solution to some real problem they actually have?"

Here goes...
Most religious groups are strongly hierarchical, with leaders who make all kinds of pronouncements over "worldly" affairs. Membership in a church is analogous to having a second citizenship in a meta-state that transcends physical borders.
There are smaller religious groups, too, but they're most often mystical or apocalyptic in character. The ones that manage to get big and stick around turn into big hierarchical political entities as an inherent part of the "mainstreaming" process, because this culture can't really imagine another path.
There are probably non-theistic movements as well, but they lack the power and longevity of these established religious meta-states, and aren't really organized around their atheism.

So, for these fictional people, in this particular fictional context, I think barring the religious from government would make sense and actually address a real problem -- massive conflicts of interest (or disinterest, in the case of the folks with transcendental beliefs).

Do we have that kind of problem here and now? Nope, not even close. As Matt said above, secularism is the more appropriate filter to apply in Western democracies.

-- Alex

The point a bit upthread about the espoused religions of congresspeople brings to mind an interesting distinction. Protestantism in particular tends to conflate personal belief and religious social behavior/community membership, but it seems worth considering them separately for this purpose.

So, in the US, it's politically expedient to vaguely claim to be some sort of Christian and possibly to attend church for a number of reasons, but notably, non of these reasons are related to belief, or even really require a thorough knowledge of religious material. But pretty much anyone can take advantage of this and "pass" as vaguely-theist or protestant-ish. The only people really disadvantaged are those who have a strong belief system to the contrary, or some kind of visible difference. Everyone else is willing to make the occasional Jesus (or whatever) reference if that makes their polling numbers go up.

My suspicion is that some kind of requirement/expectation of atheism in political figures would have similar results. . . those with strong or visible counter-beliefs would be marginalized, and everyone else would just sort of muddle through and say what they need to say to get the job they want, even if it's not exactly what they believe in their heart of hearts. I mean, it's politics, picking your battles is what you do. I'm not trying to say all politicians are horrible liars, but for many people in many cultures, religion is a social thing, and you say what you need to to get along.

Edited 2011-04-25 03:20 (UTC)

And suddenly instead of making excuses for not having attended church in five years, all those politicians would be making it a point of pride.

That's really hilarious to imagine X3

Absolutely.

Matt

Religious requirements of any kind (including non-belief) are a violation of the First Amendment. Freedom of Speech and Thought are essential to a healthy community. Without them, all the other rights mean nothing.

Does that mean many European nations -- er, almost all nations except the U.S. -- are not healthy?

On the balance, would you rather live in a country that -- while guaranteeing freedom of religion -- required all office holders to be atheist? Why or why not?

I wouldn't. Freedom from religious bias has shown, and continues to show itself as not the real source of inhumane, injust, and even irrational policies. From non-consensual medical testing to lobotomizing women for "hysteria", history has a lot of examples showing that science can be falsified into an excuse for oppression as much as any other ideology.

Let's talk!

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

yes.

Re: yes.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject