Only Atheists Should Hold Public Office

[Choir Loft]

(1) Rights are always competing.

(2) While many Christians (particularly in the United States) have neglected poverty as a voting issue, it is historically false to claim that dogma makes Christians ignore poverty.

In short, the article has a simplistic view of religious groups' engagement with politics.

Atheist leadership would be focused entirely on the actual civic problems facing the country.

I almost don't need to point this out, it's so absurd. In point of fact, many of the reasons that the large civic problems facing our country are not resolved is the problem of public goods and voter accountability.


Furthermore, even if all of the candidates and officials were atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Jains, Buddhists, and every other religious group would still be voting, so basic political theory suggests that political candidates would still converge to their views.

(Atheism) may be the only world view that places real world problems first and America needs that.

Again, the author has a unfairly jaded view of religion and an unfairly rosey view of atheism.

Of greater importance, however, is the danger of religious leadership. Theocratic nations restrict freedom and place adherence to religious dogma ahead of real-world issues and common sense.

Finally, this association of "religious leadership" with "theocracy" is absurd.

I'm impressed, sir, with your literate grasp on the political situation. I'm equally impressed with the lack of it on the part of the initiator of this thread.

Most of your words are an objection to bias. I've known many atheists who were well founded in their facts as well as their clarity of expression. Their contributions to society in politics and the arts have been extraordinary. WE NEED more people like them. Unfortunately, that is not the case with most participants on these pages.

Our nation has serious complex problems with equally complex roots. To suppose that simplistic statements, base upon religious (or political) bigotry, will resolve them is childish to say the least.

I salute your efforts to clarify the discussion.

and that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

[theopoesis]

I'm impressed, sir, with your literate grasp on the political situation.

Then maybe I should stop while I'm ahead and suggest you avoid reading any further posts I may make on this subforum

Most of your words are an objection to bias. I've known many atheists who were well founded in their facts as well as their clarity of expression. Their contributions to society in politics and the arts have been extraordinary. WE NEED more people like them. Unfortunately, that is not the case with most participants on these pages.

Agreed. Sadly, the problem of bias in politics extends well into the Christian circle too, as does the problem of bias on these forums among Christians. I myself am certainly quite a biased individual. But, we have out moments, I suppose. Here's to hoping there are more of them.

[Clownboat]

http://news.yahoo.com/only-atheists-hol ... 00792.html




That article makes Great points!








Agree or Disagree with this idea?

1. It's unconstitutional.
2. Every time governments have tried the 'atheists only' sort of government (that is, prohibiting theists from holding office or power) all sorts of nasty things happen, involving the death of millions of people.
3. It's Unconstutional.
4. It's unconstitutional.


and finally, the most telling point......

It's unconstitutional FOR A REASON.

And since when have Atheists cared about following the constitution?

How are you making the correlation that, "not believing in gods" equals "not caring about the Constitution"?

[Darias]

And since when have Atheists cared about following the constitution?

How are you making the correlation that, "not believing in gods" equals "not caring about the Constitution"?

I suspect this idea is not all that uncommon.

I suppose St. Anger may get this misconception from popular ideas about Atheists -- such as that they are all supposedly Communists, unAmerican, unpatriotic, etc.

He may also be assuming that the incorrect notion that the Constitution is Biblically or even Divinely inspired.


"One Nation Under God" by Jon McNaughton

So obviously when more than one Atheist defends the Constitution and the rights it gives us, people like St. Anger are completely dumbfounded. The thing is, they really shouldn't be. Every American of any group should have a vested interest in the Constitution and the rights inscribed therein.

[NVIIIX1]

http://news.yahoo.com/only-atheists-hol ... 00792.html




That article makes Great points!







Agree or Disagree with this idea?

The people get the leader they deserve. If their king is godless it's because the hearts of the people are wayward. That being said, Christians ought to honor whomever is appointed over them and they can live victoriously inspite of the evil leadership.

[Darias]

The people get the leader they deserve. If their king is godless it's because the hearts of the people are wayward. That being said, Christians ought to honor whomever is appointed over them and they can live victoriously inspite of the evil leadership.

Long gone are the days of the divine-right theory of kingship. Leaders are not appointed over us by birth, caste, or by divine will. Leaders are elected, and the voters bear full responsibility -- not because of their "wayward hearts" but because of their voting habits.

And the act of voting isn't enough. You must be an informed voter; the problem is too many people are not and that's how Christian fundamentalists like Charlie Fuqua (who advocates capital punishment for sassy children as per the word of god) get into office.

A lack of belief in gods does not make one immoral. Indeed there are many many Atheists who have a stronger sense of morality and better integrity than most believers.

[NVIIIX1]

The people get the leader they deserve. If their king is godless it's because the hearts of the people are wayward. That being said, Christians ought to honor whomever is appointed over them and they can live victoriously inspite of the evil leadership.

Long gone are the days of the divine-right theory of kingship. Leaders are not appointed over us by birth, caste, or by divine will. Leaders are elected, and the voters bear full responsibility -- not because of their "wayward hearts" but because of their voting habits.

And the act of voting isn't enough. You must be an informed voter; the problem is too many people are not and that's how Christian fundamentalists like Charlie Fuqua (who advocates capital punishment for sassy children as per the word of god) get into office.

A lack of belief in gods does not make one immoral. Indeed there are many many Atheists who have a stronger sense of morality and better integrity than most believers.

Especially in the Middle East and North Africa, we do see Kingdoms in place which aren’t reliant on the vote of the people for power.

Romans 13:4 states that any and all leaders--whether elected or not, are "servants of God". It is they who punish wrongdoers and praise those who do good works according to God’s moral code as revealed in the scriptures.

Nebuchadnezzar was appointed of God for such a time that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego could be used as God’s men. Those three men lived a more excellent lifestyle in the midst of the King, and as such they were miraculously protected from the furnace. Ultimately the King had to acknowledge that their god was the one true God and must be worshiped and praised.

[Hugh Mann]

http://news.yahoo.com/only-atheists-hol ... 00792.html

That article makes Great points!

Agree or Disagree with this idea?

Reading through this thread, I get the feeling that many people have failed to spot that the article linked in the OP was written by an author with his tongue very firmly in his cheek.

Of course no one is suggesting that non-atheists should be excluded from public office. What he's offering is a contradictory argument to the one all too often made in the US that only Christians (or theists) should be elected. The fact that he can make such an argument almost sound plausible is humorous in its own right!

Like all satire, it has a message, but it's not the one in its title.

[SailingCyclops]

http://news.yahoo.com/only-atheists-hol ... 00792.html

That article makes Great points!


Agree or Disagree with this idea?

It would be unconstitutional. HOWEVER, I do believe that one's religious beliefs should be front and center in every political election and campaign. Questions about what a candidate believes should not be shied away from by the press.

Proper and appropriate questions to be posed to every candidate for office would include, but would not be limited to:

Do you believe in angels, spirits, demons, talking snakes, burning bushes ..... ???
Do you believe the earth is about 4.5 billion years old?
Do you believe in Evolution? In the literal flood? In the literal Adam and Eve? In the 6 days of creation?
Do you believe the dead can come back to life? Can virgins give birth?
Does your god live on Planet Kolab? Is he a man? Will you be a god someday?
Do you wear magic underwear? If so why so?
Do you talk to god? Does he talk to you?
Have you dealt with your thetans?
Can you say down with Mohammed? The Koran is a lie? The Book of Mormon is trash?
When in conflict would you vote to support the constitution or your religious beliefs?
[...]
A full public accounting by the press of what a candidate's religious beliefs actually are, and how they would affect policy decisions would go a long way to limit the religious insanity we currently observe in our legislative bodies. The press has been delinquent in not demanding specific answers about what a candidate's religious beliefs are.

Some might argue that a candidate's religious beliefs are not relevant to his' or her's ability to perform official duties in a secular congress. Well:

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) tore into scientists as tools of the devil in a speech at the Liberty Baptist Church Sportsman’s Banquet last month.[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]

Paul Broun Expects To Remain On Science Committee After Calling Science 'Lies' From 'The Pit Of Hell'

Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) is admittedly not a big fan nor a believer in some of the most central tenets of science, but that shouldn't be a reason to cost him his seat on the House Science Committee, his staff recently told U.S. News.
[...]

Views and beliefs like these need to be outed by the press BEFORE ignorant fools like Broun is elected to the Senate of the United States.

So, no, I do not believe atheists only should be eligible for elected office, but a simple and accurate vetting of fools like this would insure fewer religious fanatics end up in positions of power in our congress. House committee on science??? REALLY??? Embarrassing!!