Let's talk!

[benlehman]

Hey, Atheists: Remember all the fun we used to have on this journal? Man, that was a good time.

So here's a thing: 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'd be really interested to hear answers from my Dawkins-fan friends.

Religious folks, you can play too: Answer the same question but for your faith.



My answer: I have no idea how such a country would even function (agnosticism / deism isn't exactly ... rigorously testable) and I wouldn't anyway. Diversity is strength and all that.

Comments

[matt-rah.livejournal.com]

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

Matt

[alexpshenichkin.livejournal.com]

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

[matt-rah.livejournal.com]

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

[amberite.livejournal.com]

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...

[alexpshenichkin.livejournal.com]

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.

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

I'm not necessarily talking about the US.

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

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

[matt-rah.livejournal.com]

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