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

[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