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]

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

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

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