+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Would you live in a country requiring atheism/agnosticism as a condition of serving in public office?

  1. #1
    Obeah Man, Mischief Maker, Lord of Bees Skald the Rhymer's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    562

    Default Would you live in a country requiring atheism/agnosticism as a condition of serving in public office?

    Let's call this hypothetical state ScrewAslan. ScrewAslan is an island state similar in geography, area, population, and economy to Singapore, for those who inisist on knowing such things. Unlike Singapore, though, it has a system of government similar to the United States. In fact, its constitution is pretty much cribbed from ours, with one significant exception. To wit, where the first clause of the First Amendment to teu US Constition reads thus

    Quote Originally posted by some dead and largely hypocritical white dudes. They did some good stuff, though, and, hey, at least they didn't saddle us with a king. Kings suck.
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof <snip>
    the First Amendment to ScrewAslan's constitution begins like this:

    With regards to the citizenry of the Nation, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; but no person shall serve as President, Vice President, Senator, Representative, Judge, or Chief or Deputy Chief of any executive, legislative, or judicial agency who does not aver that there is neither a God, Goddess, or gods. Furthermore, any person wishing to be employed by the government in any respect must, as a condition of serving, declare that he or she will forever subordinate all teachings of his or her religion to the laws of this land.

    The rest of ScrewAslan's First Amendment reads like ours.

    Now, let's say that ScrewAslan has an uncommonly vibrant economy, a wonderful climate, and all that jazz; and that ScrewAslan allows immigration and naturalization. We'll add that you have an opportunity to work there at your dream job. Would you be willing to live there? Would you try to becomea citizen if eligible? Why or why not? Do you think that ScrewAslan's First Amendment is ethical?
    "Fairy tales do not give the child his first idea of bogey. The baby has known the dragon intimately ever since he had an imagination. What the fairy tale provides for him is a St. George to kill the dragon." (Chesterton)

  2. #2
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    I'm agnostic. I am more or less anti-organized religion. This would be a great boon in my opinion. Let people have their religious beliefs but keep said beliefs out of government.

  3. #3
    MOON GIRL FIGHTS CRIME Myrnalene's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,597

    Default

    I'm an atheist and I would be really bothered by such a law. A person's spiritual life should be as irrelevant to their professional / political life as...I don't know, their sex life should be. It's is only a person's public actions that should matter, not their private relationship with God (or whatever).

    As to whether I would still try to emigrate, I dunno. This issue is big enough deal to me that I would be really, really wary of the government that would have such a code.

    Quote Originally posted by What Exit? View post
    I'm agnostic. I am more or less anti-organized religion. This would be a great boon in my opinion. Let people have their religious beliefs but keep said beliefs out of government.
    everything in nature is sort of gross when you look at it too closely. what is an apple? basically the uterus of a tree - terrifel

  4. #4
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Myrnalene View post
    I'm an atheist and I would be really bothered by such a law. A person's spiritual life should be as irrelevant to their professional / political life as...I don't know, their sex life should be. It's is only a person's public actions that should matter, not their private relationship with God (or whatever).

    As to whether I would still try to emigrate, I dunno. This issue is big enough deal to me that I would be really, really wary of the government that would have such a code.
    Agreed 100%, Myrna, other than I am not an atheist. I am not a terribly religious person, and I would prefer to vote for people in general who do not bring religion into politics, but as long as they keep them separate in practice, I don't care what they think or believe internally. Besides that, the People have a right to vote for whomever they want to, and whatever values are important to them.
    Last edited by Sarahfeena; 11 Jun 2010 at 03:04 PM.

  5. #5
    Oliphaunt The Original An Gadaí's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    2,933

    Default

    “For church and state in close embrace
    Is the burden of the human race
    And the people tell you to your face
    That you will long repent it
    For kings in power and preaching drones
    Are the cause of all your heavy groans
    Down from your pulpits, down from your thrones
    You will tumble unlamented”

    The Liberty Tree.

  6. #6
    Free Exy Cluricaun's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Elgin IL
    Posts
    3,641

    Default

    No, even as a radical athiest and all around stringently anti-Abrahamic religion kind of dude, people should be able to believe in magical sky wizards if they want to. However any attempts at legislating their stupid belief systems into everyone else's life via restricting the rights of women, homosexuals, or any other group that they turn their blackened hearts towards should be treated as treason and punished to the full extent of the law. Also moments of silence and other prayer requirements in any governmental function should be either banned or athiests should be allowed to celebrate by blasting a boom box playing Eddie Grant's "Electric Avenue" and doing the robot while pointing and laughing at the primitives.
    Hell, if I didn't do things just because they made me feel a bit ridiculous, I wouldn't have much of a social life. - Santo Rugger.

  7. #7
    Curmudgeon OtakuLoki's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    2,836

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Myrnalene View post
    I'm an atheist and I would be really bothered by such a law. A person's spiritual life should be as irrelevant to their professional / political life as...I don't know, their sex life should be. It's is only a person's public actions that should matter, not their private relationship with God (or whatever).

    As to whether I would still try to emigrate, I dunno. This issue is big enough deal to me that I would be really, really wary of the government that would have such a code.

    I'm with Myrna, too.

    Not least of which is that I can see how easily common usages could really set in to make religious persons into second-class citizens, over time. An argument might be raised that, for example, the bar against religious persons in "any judicial agency" means they can't serve on juries. And from there it would seem to me that it would be a short step to requiring an avowal of atheism to be allowed to vote.

    Since I don't have kids, and don't expect any, I'd probably still consider emigrating: I'm talking about long-term problems, rather than anything I'd expect to live to see. But it still rubs me the wrong way.

  8. #8
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,174

    Default

    I'd rather not live condescending-smug-git-land, thanks.

    I'm probably technically an agnostic, but peope's personal beliefs should not be dictated by the state. Saying a whole class of people is unfit for public office due to their thoughts and ideas a leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. And how would Buddhists fare?

    Theocracy is wrong. Atheocracy is equally wrong.

    Also what Myrna said.

    Quote Originally posted by Myrnalene
    It's is only a person's public actions that should matter, not their private relationship with God (or whatever).
    Last edited by Orual; 11 Jun 2010 at 06:00 PM.

  9. #9
    Jesus F'ing Christ Glazer's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga. U.S.A. (Male)
    Posts
    1,485

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by His Most Pirateness
    ...atheists should be allowed to celebrate by blasting a boom box playing Eddie Grant's "Electric Avenue" and doing the robot while pointing and laughing at the primitives.
    Have you been watching me?
    Welcome to Mellophant.

    We started with nothing and we still have most of it left.

  10. #10
    Oliphaunt Taumpy's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,356

    Default

    When you get down to it, a constitution like that (that is otherwise like ours) is codifying making those with faith second class citizens because they are unable to represent themselves in government. Hell no, I don't want to live in a country that's willing to do that. Who else are they going to decide is unfit?
    Taumpy: Oh noes, you aren't a super powerful wave of destruction.
    Panther Squad: It's true! My scythe does not shorn the biomonsters in great swaths like it ought!

  11. #11
    Content Generator AllWalker's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Antipodea
    Posts
    1,479

    Default

    Yeah, I don't think such a system is all that good. I've heard worse, though.

    If you were wanting to guarantee in your constitution that you didn't want religious nutjobs lording over everything then there would be other ways to do it. Just off the top of my head, something like "a minimum of 20% of the senate/congress/whatever must be striclty atheist, and a minimum of 20% must hold in the belief of a God or Goddess or Gods or whatever". Why you would want to, I don't know, but hey.

    The thing is, though, without even lying about my beliefs I could equally claim to be a hard atheist, a monotheist, or a pantheist. The term "God" and the term "universe" are almost entirely interchangeable, so I could say I believe in a God that is the universe, or equally that everything is God. Which amounts to their being no God.

    That is why I am ignostic - the term "God" is so poorly defined, subjective and open to interpretation that discussions in the matter are incredibly difficult.
    Something tells me we haven't seen the last of foreshadowing.

  12. #12
    Oliphaunt featherlou's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,209

    Default

    Religion should be private. I would no more want to live in a mandated agnostic or atheist state than a mandated religious one.

  13. #13
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,908

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by featherlou View post
    Religion should be private. I would no more want to live in a mandated agnostic or atheist state than a mandated religious one.
    This. I don't want to know the religion of political figures. Requiring that private information to be public would simply not sit well with me and I couldn't choose to move to a country where such a system was put in place.

  14. #14
    Obeah Man, Mischief Maker, Lord of Bees Skald the Rhymer's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    562

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Zuul View post
    This. I don't want to know the religion of political figures. Requiring that private information to be public would simply not sit well with me and I couldn't choose to move to a country where such a system was put in place.
    Not even for the $200K annual salary you'll be getting at your new job?

    Plus the fact that, for various complicated reasons, your sister isn't allowed inside the country?
    "Fairy tales do not give the child his first idea of bogey. The baby has known the dragon intimately ever since he had an imagination. What the fairy tale provides for him is a St. George to kill the dragon." (Chesterton)

  15. #15
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,908

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Skald the Rhymer View post
    Not even for the $200K annual salary you'll be getting at your new job?

    Plus the fact that, for various complicated reasons, your sister isn't allowed inside the country?
    Nope, not even for that. I'm used to being poor and can stand to continue in such a capacity for the sake of my principles. Giving something up that I don't have is easy!

  16. #16
    Aged Turtle Wizard Clothahump's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    475

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by What Exit? View post
    I'm agnostic. I am more or less anti-organized religion. This would be a great boon in my opinion. Let people have their religious beliefs but keep said beliefs out of government.
    I will agree with this 100%. Well stated.
    Political correctness will be the death of our country.

  17. #17
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Zuul View post
    This. I don't want to know the religion of political figures. Requiring that private information to be public would simply not sit well with me and I couldn't choose to move to a country where such a system was put in place.
    This puts me in mind of another point, which is that we really have no way of knowing a person's inner religious thoughts, anyway. I'm sure there have been plenty of agnostics in government who have faked being religious...and that's due to social pressure alone. If you it illegal for elected officials to believe in god, they will just lie about it. AND it will push religious worship underground, and that sounds a bit like something that would happen in a fascist state, don't you think? Not the kind of place I would want to live.

  18. #18
    Clueless but well-meaning Hatshepsut's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    2,832

    Default

    I'd go there in a heartbeat, although I would speak out in disagreement with that part of the constitution. There are many reasons why:

    1) Singapore is awesome. It's clean, well-organized, easy to get around, has fantastic museums, decent bookstores, ethereal food, very little crime, excellent recreation activities, interesting people, good schools, etc.

    2) Life is imperfect, and so are governments/constitutions. To be perfectly honest, I think the Second Amendment of the US Constitution gives citizens the right to keep weapons in their homes. I know we liberals like to try to wiggle out of it by saying "but that was in support of a local militia which we don't have any more!" and "but they didn't have assault rifles in those days!" and so on, but that's just sophistry. Am I going to refuse to live in (well, be a citizen of) America because there is one constitutional clause I'm uncomfortable with? No way. Same applies to ScrewAsia.

    3) If ScrewAsia is a country of immigrants, they are likely to be rather interesting people.

    4) I am personally distrustful of people who "turn themselves over to the Lord" for decision-making. Give me a rationalist any day - especially for making public policy decisions, which by definition are going to include a lot of cost-benefit analyses. In ScrewAsia, I'm guaranteed a rationalist president!

    As to this clause:
    Furthermore, any person wishing to be employed by the government in any respect must, as a condition of serving, declare that he or she will forever subordinate all teachings of his or her religion to the laws of this land.
    I have no problem with that. How is that different from what we expect in the US? Civil servants are expected to enforce the law of the land. If they don't like it because their religion forbids birth control, co-habitation without marriage, women in pants, or whatever, that's up to them, but they are NOT allowed to enforce their beliefs on the job.

    Don't get me wrong, here - I am not saying I think the ScrewAsia constitution is flawless as written. It's not. But I don't see it as worse than anything we find in real life, and it's arguably going to lead to a society that offers a higher than usual level of education, safety, economic well-being, and opportunity to its citizens. Sign me up!

  19. #19
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,174

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Hatshepsut View post
    In ScrewAsia, I'm guaranteed a rationalist president!
    Oh, bull. There are 9 million varieties of idiotic woo that aren't related to religion.

  20. #20
    Clueless but well-meaning Hatshepsut's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    2,832

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Orual View post
    Oh, bull. There are 9 million varieties of idiotic woo that aren't related to religion.
    True enough, but healthy skepticism tends to extend to all fields. I'm only guessing here, but I bet if you asked a cross-section of the population whether they believe in god, dowsing, pyramid power, ghosts, crystal energy, mesmerism, and what-have-you, there would be a strong correlation between not believing in god and not believing in the rest of the woo.

    Perhaps I should have said that my chances of getting a rationalist president are higher. Nothing, alas, is ever guaranteed.
    Last edited by Hatshepsut; 05 Jul 2010 at 11:53 PM.

  21. #21
    Jesus F'ing Christ Glazer's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga. U.S.A. (Male)
    Posts
    1,485

    Default

    [QUOTE-Hatshepsut]Nothing, alas, is ever guaranteed.[/QUOTE]

    Death and Taxes.
    Welcome to Mellophant.

    We started with nothing and we still have most of it left.

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts