[Replying to post 1 by Master Spade]
LOL, because we want a bunch of self-worshippers to rule?
Only Atheists Should Hold Public Office
Moderator: Moderators
-
otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20796
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 211 times
- Been thanked: 361 times
- Contact:
Post #33
Moderator CommentRobert H wrote: [Replying to post 1 by Master Spade]
LOL, because we want a bunch of self-worshippers to rule?
Please do not make derogatory statements about a group of people.
Please review the Rules.
______________
Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
-
SurvivingOnNothing
- Student
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 2:47 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Only Atheists Should Hold Public Office
Post #34[Replying to post 2 by dianaiad]
I'm not American; I can never really get my head around the idea of the constitution.
See, I live in the UK. There's lots of differences between us and America.
So the constitution is a very traditional, very old text, and whilst I agree with it in most part, if it does indeed constitute for a christian nation (which I assume it does) although the intention is good, that is simply not realistic.
Many Americans quote the constitution as if it were equivalent to the bible. They fail to understand that it was written by men who were slave-owners. Oh, the irony of the 'all men are equal' idea...
So using 'its unconstitutional' isn't really a great basis
I think, for any country, the leader of that country should be someone who has the ability to lead and is true to their word. Somebody who can actually problem solve. I quite like the idea of the kind of system that china has; now, please note that I am not promoting communism. China's political system is actually very interesting in that you need to have proven yourself in something like 40-50 years of political service before you can be one of the leaders (or the top leader) of China itself. In America, the system seems much more loose. Same for the UK.
Back to the question; should an ATHEIST be in office?
I don't think it matters. I would not want a so called 'militant atheist' in office, despite being an atheist myself. By that, I mean that I wouldn't want somebody who would prohibit prayer in schools, or try to shut down religious buildings. I have religious friends, who, I know, would get very angry about this. But I wouldn't want a militant Muslim or Christian either - the fact is, extremism is not an admirable quality, as it is quite closed-minded.
In general, most religious people aren't militant, and the same is true with most atheists. Therefore, it shouldn't matter; they would all try to act like a decent human being and not belittle other groups. There doesn't seem to be much religious discrimination due to government in first world countries like America anyways.
I'm not American; I can never really get my head around the idea of the constitution.
See, I live in the UK. There's lots of differences between us and America.
So the constitution is a very traditional, very old text, and whilst I agree with it in most part, if it does indeed constitute for a christian nation (which I assume it does) although the intention is good, that is simply not realistic.
Many Americans quote the constitution as if it were equivalent to the bible. They fail to understand that it was written by men who were slave-owners. Oh, the irony of the 'all men are equal' idea...
So using 'its unconstitutional' isn't really a great basis
I think, for any country, the leader of that country should be someone who has the ability to lead and is true to their word. Somebody who can actually problem solve. I quite like the idea of the kind of system that china has; now, please note that I am not promoting communism. China's political system is actually very interesting in that you need to have proven yourself in something like 40-50 years of political service before you can be one of the leaders (or the top leader) of China itself. In America, the system seems much more loose. Same for the UK.
Back to the question; should an ATHEIST be in office?
I don't think it matters. I would not want a so called 'militant atheist' in office, despite being an atheist myself. By that, I mean that I wouldn't want somebody who would prohibit prayer in schools, or try to shut down religious buildings. I have religious friends, who, I know, would get very angry about this. But I wouldn't want a militant Muslim or Christian either - the fact is, extremism is not an admirable quality, as it is quite closed-minded.
In general, most religious people aren't militant, and the same is true with most atheists. Therefore, it shouldn't matter; they would all try to act like a decent human being and not belittle other groups. There doesn't seem to be much religious discrimination due to government in first world countries like America anyways.
-
SurvivingOnNothing
- Student
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 2:47 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Only Atheists Should Hold Public Office
Post #35[Replying to post 32 by Robert H]
Not all atheist are self worshipers. I call myself an atheist, but really, I guess I'm a strange deist who thinks that the laws of Physics is god. I'm still alternating between perceptions here, as I recently lost my faith (only a few weeks ago, actually)
This blind stigma that you're attaching to atheism is actually quite common amongst believers - hence why most 'atheists' tend to joke about your beliefs. At least, I find this is the case with myself.
If you have the mindset of a christian, however, I completely understand this worldview - you believe that you, as a christian, are as self-less as Christ, since you are the physical embodiment of Christ (you and every other Christian on earth). You also probably believe that I, as an atheist, have rejected God, probably because I wanted to follow my own sinful nature, and therefore I deliberately live for myself out of a selfish nature.
but through my mindset, my atheism doesn't change my fundamental humanity. Neither does your Christianity. Being an atheist doesn't make me any less of a human being, and doesn't make me 'evil' or 'self-worshiping'. I worship nothing. I have no hierarchy of what comes where; everyone is equal to my mind. Homosexuals and religious people stand on the same line as me; something which I didn't think about when I was a christian. I often saw myself elevated above atheists. Now I know that I was wrong.
(I know this has nothing to do with the thread, but honestly, your direct assumption of atheists as 'self worshipers' and your reference to 'LOL', which, to me, seems like a very idiotic and belittling move, just made me want to respond)
Not all atheist are self worshipers. I call myself an atheist, but really, I guess I'm a strange deist who thinks that the laws of Physics is god. I'm still alternating between perceptions here, as I recently lost my faith (only a few weeks ago, actually)
This blind stigma that you're attaching to atheism is actually quite common amongst believers - hence why most 'atheists' tend to joke about your beliefs. At least, I find this is the case with myself.
If you have the mindset of a christian, however, I completely understand this worldview - you believe that you, as a christian, are as self-less as Christ, since you are the physical embodiment of Christ (you and every other Christian on earth). You also probably believe that I, as an atheist, have rejected God, probably because I wanted to follow my own sinful nature, and therefore I deliberately live for myself out of a selfish nature.
but through my mindset, my atheism doesn't change my fundamental humanity. Neither does your Christianity. Being an atheist doesn't make me any less of a human being, and doesn't make me 'evil' or 'self-worshiping'. I worship nothing. I have no hierarchy of what comes where; everyone is equal to my mind. Homosexuals and religious people stand on the same line as me; something which I didn't think about when I was a christian. I often saw myself elevated above atheists. Now I know that I was wrong.
(I know this has nothing to do with the thread, but honestly, your direct assumption of atheists as 'self worshipers' and your reference to 'LOL', which, to me, seems like a very idiotic and belittling move, just made me want to respond)
-
orthodox skeptic
- Apprentice
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:18 am
- Location: NJ
Atheism and Public Ruin
Post #36Have you ever wondered why, at least in my memory and I go back away, that you've never heard of an atheist in congress ever coming out of the closet. It's almost become a badge of honor for a gay legislator to come out but....nary an atheist. Do you think that the stigma of atheism would be so execrable that not one of them dare say that they do not believe in a supreme deity? I'll go out on the limb here and say that for every gay member of congress there are twice as many atheists lacking the courage to come out...and justifiably so in their own minds because in our current hypocritical society such declaration would spell their political doom. It does represent a legitimate concern when these people are called upon to consider legislation relative to abortion, gay rights and other social issues.
Will they vote with their intellect or the dictates of the religious right?
Will they vote with their intellect or the dictates of the religious right?
-
dianaiad
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10220
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
- Location: Southern California
Re: Atheism and Public Ruin
Post #37orthodox skeptic wrote: Have you ever wondered why, at least in my memory and I go back away, that you've never heard of an atheist in congress ever coming out of the closet. It's almost become a badge of honor for a gay legislator to come out but....nary an atheist. Do you think that the stigma of atheism would be so execrable that not one of them dare say that they do not believe in a supreme deity? I'll go out on the limb here and say that for every gay member of congress there are twice as many atheists lacking the courage to come out...and justifiably so in their own minds because in our current hypocritical society such declaration would spell their political doom. It does represent a legitimate concern when these people are called upon to consider legislation relative to abortion, gay rights and other social issues.
Will they vote with their intellect or the dictates of the religious right?
I would never vote for an atheist who felt it important to make his or her atheism a part of the platform, or even a part of an official biography; not because of the atheism, but because making atheism part of the deal, s/he would be 'establishing a religion."
I feel exactly the same way about theists who use their religious faith as part of their campaigns.
Now, I don't hold it against either one...theist or a....if they are attacked for their positions and spend time defending/explaining 'em, but if they 'go first?' Lost my vote, either way.
Post #38
I wanted to briefly revise my views on this issue.
There shouldn't be a "public office."
I do not wish to lord over anyone, and I do not wish to empower others, whom I may fancy, to lord over everyone else, and I do not wish to be lorded over by anyone else.
If something needs to be done in society, let's cooperate and work together, or pay for it to get it done. There's no need to have a smarmy, lying politician make empty promises for us, only to impose laws on us all that no one wants. You don't need force to get things done. You don't need violence to get things done.
Voting is pointless. Either you are in the minority and your vote doesn't count anyway, or you're in the majority and you're practicing tyranny on everyone else. Just don't.
There shouldn't be a "public office."
I do not wish to lord over anyone, and I do not wish to empower others, whom I may fancy, to lord over everyone else, and I do not wish to be lorded over by anyone else.
If something needs to be done in society, let's cooperate and work together, or pay for it to get it done. There's no need to have a smarmy, lying politician make empty promises for us, only to impose laws on us all that no one wants. You don't need force to get things done. You don't need violence to get things done.
Voting is pointless. Either you are in the minority and your vote doesn't count anyway, or you're in the majority and you're practicing tyranny on everyone else. Just don't.
Re: Only Atheists Should Hold Public Office
Post #39The sterilization of religion from any organization is a crime against humanity (as well as an impossibility).Master Spade wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/only-atheists-hol ... 00792.html
That article makes Great points!
Agree or Disagree with this idea?
But if you need an example of atheist government, try the USSR.
***************
This is what happens when you make religion a crime and try to enforce it:
After 80 years of being anti-religious, the moment Glasnost and Parastroika appeared on the horizon, suddenly 80% of Russians were celebrating Easter.
Apparently, religion never disappeared, and 80% of Russians defied the government in secret.
Freedom is the only answer--always. If you're afraid of religious people being in charge, it's likely a personal problem that YOU have with religionists, not a problem with religion that actually exists.
