benlehman | Let's talk!

Let's talk!

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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