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

[chris-goodwin.livejournal.com]

Hey, Atheists: Remember all the fun we used to have on this journal?

Yeah, about that... I was kind of a dick to you on at least a couple of occasions about that very thing, and I'm sorry. I shouldn't have been a dick.

[matt-rah.livejournal.com]

I think requiring all office holders to have a particular state of mind is pretty dumb.

Matt

[alexpshenichkin.livejournal.com]

I didn't join in during the previous rounds, so please let me know if there's some context I'm missing.

Honestly, some days, I do find myself wishing that it was harder for people with rabidly essentialist mindsets to get into office. Filtering out non-atheists would be a pretty crude way to achieve that: you'd be barring quite a few of the people I consider delusional hypocrites, but at the expense of also barring numerous people I consider entirely reasonable and trustworthy. Doesn't seem all that effective.

-- Alex

[karjack.livejournal.com]

Absolutely not. It's the disenfranchisement that's wrong, not who is or isn't being disenfranchised.

[icecreamemperor.livejournal.com]

No. I don't really understand what the pro position would look like¹, so I'm not even sure what reasons I could give except 'why?'

¹ Something like 'we cannot allow anyone who believes a wrong thing to hold office'? Or is it just 'anything goes as long as it lets us keep fundamentalists out of government'?

[meguey.livejournal.com]

Not an atheist, so:
"On the balance, would you rather live in a country that -- while guaranteeing freedom of religion -- required all office holders to be [my faith]?"

No. Double no. What I'd really like is accurate representation in government. There was a cool graphic circulating a while ago, showing the make-up of congress and the make-up of the country, and how off the one was from the other.

OTOH, if all elected officials governed from the same most basic beliefs as I hold - the inherent worth and dignity of all beings and respect for the interconnected web of which we are a part, and the idea that there is no holy book beyond the sacred book of nature - I do think the country would be a better place.

[alexpshenichkin.livejournal.com]

As a thought exercise, when someone proposes a funky law or system of government, I like to imagine "What kind of society might actually create this, as an effective solution to some real problem they actually have?"

Here goes...
Most religious groups are strongly hierarchical, with leaders who make all kinds of pronouncements over "worldly" affairs. Membership in a church is analogous to having a second citizenship in a meta-state that transcends physical borders.
There are smaller religious groups, too, but they're most often mystical or apocalyptic in character. The ones that manage to get big and stick around turn into big hierarchical political entities as an inherent part of the "mainstreaming" process, because this culture can't really imagine another path.
There are probably non-theistic movements as well, but they lack the power and longevity of these established religious meta-states, and aren't really organized around their atheism.

So, for these fictional people, in this particular fictional context, I think barring the religious from government would make sense and actually address a real problem -- massive conflicts of interest (or disinterest, in the case of the folks with transcendental beliefs).


Do we have that kind of problem here and now? Nope, not even close. As Matt said above, secularism is the more appropriate filter to apply in Western democracies.

-- Alex

[bakeneko.livejournal.com]

The point a bit upthread about the espoused religions of congresspeople brings to mind an interesting distinction. Protestantism in particular tends to conflate personal belief and religious social behavior/community membership, but it seems worth considering them separately for this purpose.

So, in the US, it's politically expedient to vaguely claim to be some sort of Christian and possibly to attend church for a number of reasons, but notably, non of these reasons are related to belief, or even really require a thorough knowledge of religious material. But pretty much anyone can take advantage of this and "pass" as vaguely-theist or protestant-ish. The only people really disadvantaged are those who have a strong belief system to the contrary, or some kind of visible difference. Everyone else is willing to make the occasional Jesus (or whatever) reference if that makes their polling numbers go up.

My suspicion is that some kind of requirement/expectation of atheism in political figures would have similar results. . . those with strong or visible counter-beliefs would be marginalized, and everyone else would just sort of muddle through and say what they need to say to get the job they want, even if it's not exactly what they believe in their heart of hearts. I mean, it's politics, picking your battles is what you do. I'm not trying to say all politicians are horrible liars, but for many people in many cultures, religion is a social thing, and you say what you need to to get along.

[wickedthought.livejournal.com]

Religious requirements of any kind (including non-belief) are a violation of the First Amendment. Freedom of Speech and Thought are essential to a healthy community. Without them, all the other rights mean nothing.

[yeloson.livejournal.com]

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 wouldn't. Freedom from religious bias has shown, and continues to show itself as not the real source of inhumane, injust, and even irrational policies. From non-consensual medical testing to lobotomizing women for "hysteria", history has a lot of examples showing that science can be falsified into an excuse for oppression as much as any other ideology.