Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Jon,

Do you have a source for state Constitutions allowing those who do not profess faith in a supreme being from being barred from office? I’ve always heard that was true of my home state, Texas, but I’ve never confirmed it.

I suspect that there are more atheists/agnostics in government than we know. Being an agnostic, a word coined by Thomas Huxley in the 19th Century, merely means one is uncertain about the existence of God. It’s an intellectually tenable position that acknowledges both the absence of empirical proof (or why is faith necessary?) and the impossibility of proving the negative (God does not exist). It’s a rational position, and I suspect it’s in fact the position of more than the polls detect. Atheism, the denial of the existence of God, is less rational (imo), because how does one prove God does not exist?

Regardless, atheism/agnosticism seems to be the political kiss of death, and I suspect many in government either don’t profess what are essentially intellectual positions or, frankly, lie.

“Don’t pray, don’t tell” appears to be the official policy.

The Gallup poll you cite is interesting. Far more people are satisfied with the current religious influence in this country than profess to believe in God. That means many of the atheists/agnostics believe religion has value even though they don’t believe in a Supreme Being.

Opps, I meant to type “‘Don’t pray, don’t tell’ appears to be the unofficial policy.”

Atheism, the denial of the existence of God, is less rational (imo), because how does one prove God does not exist?

I disagree with this perspective, because it’s equivalent to telling a believer that it’s irrational to believe that his or her religion is right and all other religions are wrong.

After all, a Christian is an atheist with respect to all Gods except the God of the Bible. A Muslim is an atheist with respect to all Gods except Allah. If you say it’s not possible for an Atheist to prove that the Christian God doesn’t exist or that Allah doesn’t exist, then how do you believe that it’s possible for a Christian or a Muslim to prove that Zeus doesn’t exist?

Any believer in a particular religion is almost completely atheist, with the one exception for the deity he or she prefers. How is it so much less tenable to go to the next step?

Lawnboy,

You make an interesting point. In fact, Christians and Jews in Rome were often called atheistic because they denied the existence of all other gods except their own God. However, let me phrase this without using the word “rational” or “irrational.” It is a matter of belief that one’s own God exists but others don’t. And I don’t believe it is possible for a Christian or anyone else to prove Zeus doesn’t exist. Do you? What would such a proof look like?

The move from polytheism to monotheism is fascinating history, but not really relevant, I think, to my point.

All I’m saying is that religion is a matter of faith and that, from a logical point of view, admitting there is no way to prove the nonexistence of gods or God is logically valid. Therefore, agnosticism makes more sense to me than atheism.

With the way they act you couldn’t prove it to me that any of our politicians believe in God. If they did they’d sure act a whole heap different than they do.
Anyone can profess to believe anything. But as the old saying goes. The proof is in the pudding. If any of our politicians really believed in any kind of supreme being (Bush included) they wouldn’t be the lying crooks they are.

Ron,

I agree in principle. I’m far more concerned with how people behave than what they believe. As far as religion goes, I approve of it insofar as it helps people behave better, and disaprove of it insofar as it empowers people to behave poorly.

If the ACLU were to put up a candidate you would have a voice. But, they’re too busy denying religious freedoms contained in the founding documents. They scare the hell out of believers and don’t bode well for non-believers or ?-believers.
As a Christian I believe the God I worship is the same God that Muslims worship and the very same God that Jews worship. It is how they mis-use the writing of their prophet Mohammed that is so perverse. Being a Christian Politican doesn’t mean that one always follows the tennents of their faith. Don’t atheists and agnostics betray their ideals and integrity from time to time? The very mention of holding Christians to different standards implys a belief by the critic that our standards and morals come from God.

Jim,

I think the thrust of Jon’s article concerns how difficult it is for someone who doesn’t profess religious beliefs to gain political office. In some cases, according to Jon’s information, one can be barred from office if he or she doesn’t profess such beliefs. What you are talking about is the prohibition against using state resources to promulgate religious belief.

A quick Google search came up with this listing of state Constitutions that discriminate against atheists or agnostics.

Let me add, though, that these such provisions in state Constitutions may no longer have legal effect because of Supreme Court rulings invoking the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

If the ACLU were to put up a candidate you would have a voice. But, they’re too busy denying religious freedoms contained in the founding documents.

Not this again. The ACLU’s goal is to protect the Constitution, particularly the First Amendment. Sometimes that means the ACLU opposes religious actions, and sometimes that means the ACLU supports religious actions. The key is that they support individual expression of religion while opposing governmental imposition of religion.

Here are some examples of the first category:

ACLU supports baptisms in parks.

ACLU fights to keep a church from being closed.

ACLU worked with JERRY FALWELL to make sure churches can incorporate.

ACLU protects a Native American’s right to practice his religion in jail.

There are many other examples.

The ACLU is not anti-religious; they support and defend the religious freedoms contained in the founding documents, not deny them.

Gerrold - I don’t believe any of those state restrictions would ever seriously deprive an atheist of state office, there’s no way they could possibly hold up. But the fact that they’re there at all - even if only symbolically - clarifies my point. (Which, as you recognize, is that the atheist is essentially barred from office by the general population, rather than by specific law.)

Jon:

What are the odds if you are a gay atheist?

It’s probably like camel through the eye of a needle or something.

Have “faith”, someday an atheist will be elected president.

Craig

Jon…

Where is the equal representation for

short people?
handicapped people?
drug addicts?
red haired people?
amputees?
Witches?

I don’t feel represented by my congressman or senators right now…I just gut it out…you should do the same or decide to be gay, whichever is easier.

When the ACLU goes into our courts to ban religious symbols on the graves of our armed forces in national cemeteries, is seeking to ban those in the military from wearing religious symbols on their person, and is trying to prevent public meetings from opening with a prayer I say they are the ones who are violating our constitutional rights. Jon Rice above has it exactly right, an atheist will be elected to office when the voters want it. Personally, I would have no problem with an athiest as President or anything else. But, I do perceive some ackward moments when consoling victims of disasters and familys of slain warriors. What is he or she to say? Gee, I am sorry but since there is no God they’re just dead with no prospect of life everlasting. I would be a much different person if it were not for the morality and ethical behavior instilled from my religious training.

Jim,

The ACLU never tried to ban religious symbols on the graves in national cemeteries. That’s an urban myth that apparently has its origins in a parody chain letter. I don’t believe the ACLU ever tried to ban individual militarymen from wearing religious symbols; please cite a source.

just backing your statement up with this, Gerrold…
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/cemetery.asp

James Madison ” We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

Patrick Henry “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ”.

John Jay (the first supreme court justice) “Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers.”

When you enter the Supreme Court courtroom the Ten Commandments are engraved into the oak doors.

I’m a Catholic and am very tolerant. I find anti-religous people to be the most intolerant. If you’all think you’re going to redefine America lets go. I am tolerate but if you think Fallwell was anything you have no idea. This countries backbone is decent, middle class Christian families. I want you guys to get more aggressive, you will not win and it would be the end of liberalism.

Real atheists are hard to find. Ask yourself this, if a true believer believes that all atheists are going to hell (not an illogical assumption), but doesn’t do anything about it, does the atheist has any reason to feel insulted? If yes, why? I have been cursed by gypsies on many occasions. I know they have no powers, so I just don’t care. If you are insulted that someone thinks your are going to hell, you probably suspect it might be true.

To our atheist friends, we might say, “See you later … or not”

Interesting idea, Jack. The idea that logically one only takes offense at insulting ideas if one thinks there might be a kernel of truth to the insult.

Mindbogglingly inane, but interesting.

i would consider myself an atheist b/c i don’t believe there is a higher being. the way i see it when you die you just go back into the ground. but it think humans are all born good and their environment then will mold that person. i wish it wasn’t such a taboo to be atheist but alas that is the religious nature of the USA.

jon, i’m with you i think we are not represented appropriately and i hope and work for the day it won’t be such a taboo to be an atheist.

What bothers me the most, as an ‘athiest’ (sorry, but I stopped believing Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny too when I grew up), is that people think that because you don’t believe in an afterlife or a higher power that you can’t be moral. That you cannot have genuine compassion for your fellow man, not the scared forced compassion that religion gives us. If an athiest is compassionate and moral, then he is truly that way of his own person, not because he is afraid of what might happen to him after he dies. In my book, that’s a stronger and more just person than any religious individual.

It also explains why so many who claim or profess to be ‘christian’ are usually the most evil and dirty individuals I’ve met to date. Just take a look at all the ‘christians’ ruining our lives in congress and the White House?

Personally, I would like to see a truly just man run for President, not a phoney who calls himself a christian out of fear or personal advancement…

cliff,

you should do the same or decide to be gay, whichever is easier.

I didn’t knew that becoming gay could turn atheists into theists.
Stacking minorities doesn’t make you less minor.

This may be ‘off thread’, but I tink it is ironic that the most morally reprehensable people are those who profess christianity as their moral compass, and the least morally reprehensable are athiests who don’t believe in sin.

Perhaps it is because those who think we are responsible for our own actions and deeds know that we must be that way or parish, while those who are ‘forgiven’ take that forgiveness as license to commit immoral acts.

Philippe,

That’s the whole idea…

There are numerous groups of people who are not represented…If you think you are not being represented, join a group that is…

Don’t get me wrong…I really was just poking fun at a pretense that states that all types of groups should have equal representation. It’s just moronic to think that way, yet people do.

If all are equal, it’s a moot point. All this does is continue to divide.

Will we ever as a nation think this way?…NO…People are just too self-centered.

Sooo…We will continue to have more and more different groups that want their own special rights. We will continue to pass more unenforcable laws to placate these groups.

Maybe…just maybe…the nation as a whole will have the collective guts to say, enough…

Jack,

Real atheists are hard to find.

True. Very few are strong atheists actually. Most, me included, are pratical atheists.
Agnostics are among these. By opposition to “strong” atheists, these large part of all atheists are also called “weak” atheists.

As one, I think there is no point to deny *and* claim god(s) existence, as both can’t be proved. And I’m lucky to born french, as french are among developed societies one of the most atheist ones, making me part of a majority, not a minority.

Which make french politicians religious background irrevelant. We don’t care that much about private life of politicians, and their spiritual life is in their private circle, as their romantic one.

We only care when one private life overlap with his public/politic nehavior, which by french constitution, *must* be secular.

To our atheist friends, we might say, “See you later … or not”

Shouldn’t be “See you later in hell… or not”?

In both case, believers should not hope to see their atheists friends in after-life…
;-)

Not “nehavior”, whatever it could means if anything, but “behavior”.
Sorry.

Actually…

It should read:

“See you later…NOT.”

What I find frightening is that at least two Rep contenders for president have stated that they do not believe in evolution. That means they do not believe in the science of biology,paleontology,zoology etc and empirical evidence has no place in their world view. I am not an atheist but I do not believe that God requires ignorance and denial as virtues necessary for public service.

Rhinehold,

What bothers me the most, as an ‘athiest’ (sorry, but I stopped believing Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny too when I grew up), is that people think that because you don’t believe in an afterlife or a higher power that you can’t be moral.

Totally agreed with you here.
Which also means that we could find an agreement ;-)

That you cannot have genuine compassion for your fellow man, not the scared forced compassion that religion gives us. If an athiest is compassionate and moral, then he is truly that way of his own person, not because he is afraid of what might happen to him after he dies. In my book, that’s a stronger and more just person than any religious individual.

Or just maybe people are compassionate and moral because they’re afraid to not be enough?

Compassion and moral have very volatile definition. What is compassionate for one is altruism for another and psychological egoism for other. Same goes for moral.

Saying some are stronger than other at it because their motivation are not fear of after-life but “good feeling”, sense of satisfaction, self-esteem or irreligious fulfillment of duty seems a little weak to me.

After all, who are we to speculate on the motives. Very often, people doing it can’t even.

Nice to see such a civilized thread!

One thing that I take strong exception to from the religious community (at least, from some of them) is that as an atheist I cannot have morals or ethics.

I disagree. I teach my kids respect for others. I practice it myself. I do not discriminate against others, I welcome others’ opinions and thoughts, and I consider myself open-minded enough to absorb and ponder those thoughts on the whole. For instance, Jack recently persuaded my of a contrary viewpoint to the one I had recently held.

I am kind to animals. I feel I’m generous. I praise my employees and respect their right to grow and develop under my tutelage.

In short, I try - with lapses, naturally - to live a life of which I can be proud.

I didn’t need instruction, except for that of my parents, my experience, and my observance of the failures and successes of others.

The teachings of Jesus, Mohammed, or Buddha fall into that category. Teachings, instructions, call them what you will - I see why people draw on them for inspiration in how to live life.

Personally I learned more from Nigel Mansell (ex- Formula One world champion) ;)

Seriously though, I see the value in learning from smart and compassionate people. I do question whether every lesson they taught is still valid today, but “love thy neighbor” seems a reasonable philosophy to me.

So, yes, I see the value of religion. I do not see the value in dogma, and THAT is what I see primarily in our politicians. In fact, pandering to the population’s adherence to dogma is almost worse.

I think it’s hard to see George Bush or Donald Rumsfeld as moral, ethical people according to the teachings of Jesus. How could an atheist in the White House be any worse than a warmonger who seems bent on creating irreparable rifts between the various belief-sets of mankind?

Religion is fine. Justifying war in the name of religion is, to my mind, hypocrisy of an unforgivable magnitude.

Jon, I agree with a number of comments on here, one being the tone set in your post that has encouraged some open dialogue. I guess Agnostic best describes my beliefs ( or lack of ), and I’ve found it increasingly difficult with the passage of time and the rise of the Evangelical despotic factions, to freely admit that. Others have also pointed out that just living by the Golden Rule, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity
which has some basis in religious beliefs, is a good way to live ones’ life. I agree with that also, and try to remember often that has been my choice.
We can go back into any number of posts through time on here and read some vitriolic statements by those who purport to being “religious” which should follow the tone of acceptance, tolereance and kindness.
The pointing to Bush and Co. is one of the most telling at this time, and to try and determine how the unconscionable decsions they have made can be supported by “God”, is beyond credibility.
Sorry to have strayed, but the bottom line is that it would be difficult to get any worse in the White House, so yes, an Atheist or Agnostic would be a breath of fresh air!

Professing a religion dos not make someone moral, good, or otherwise useful to the human race, if they believe that the end justifies the means in their political life. No religion supports it, and any members of the various religions mentioned are not faithful if they do so. For reference read Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary, which expresses the religious views of our founding fathers pretty well, but denies the usual historical view of polytheism.

Think Article 6 section 3 of the Constitution then ask yourself if the issue of discussion should even be brought up.

There is just reason for the lack of atheists in representation. People vote for those who are most like-minded with them. Most Americans are so far from the views of an atheist in their own views that they would not even consider voting for one. It goes the same with those on the far left and the far right. Most in these groups would not even consider switching parties with their votes. That is why the candidates think they have to work so hard to win the centrists, and there is some truth to that political philosophy. That is the reason you see Hillary having Democratic tent revivals in her town hall formats, Jon. She really thinks people are going to forget her and Bill’s past and buy that stuff. Jon, you are like a third party. You have little to no representation because the majority of people do not think or believe like you do. At this time, you have the choice of having no representation, or changing your beliefs to match those of the majority, simply because that is the way of Democracy and a Representative Republic. The only other choice is to convince as many people as you can to think like you do, and form the American Atheist Party. However, considering the core beliefs of atheists, I can’t say the AAP would have a platform much different than that of the Democratic Party at this time.

JD

JD,

Yes, though I would quibble with your statement that we must change our beliefs. When we vote for a candidate, we have to look at the whole picture. The good news for agnostics like me is that our values are not substantially different from those of anyone else. We abhor murder, we don’t want to be mugged, we believe in free speech, etc., etc. One can doubt the foundational grounding of various values yet still hold the values themselves.

For my part, I don’t want to necessarily change the religious views of people. I’ve like many of us have had family pass away, and I have no interest in taking away the comfort of religion to those dying or to the survivors. This is not to say that I won’t object to policies that I think are wrongheaded such as teaching creationism is the science classroom.

Go fuck yourself loser