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

[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.