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 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

[matt-rah.livejournal.com]

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

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

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.

[matt-rah.livejournal.com]

Which ones? China doesn't count.

Matt

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

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

[matt-rah.livejournal.com]

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

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

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

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

Elections aren't in the initial post.