Would the U.S. be better off if atheists were in charge?

A CSPAN caller said that it would be our downfall if the atheists were in charge, that anyone who was an atheist was simply ignorant.

So, do you think it would be any different if the atheists were in charge? How so? Would it be a good or bad thing?

The atheist agenda is not tied down by 2000 year old rhetoric.

:)

nt

as long as they were intelligent and tolerant

Well, I suppose so. We all worship the same God. Just as long as they are atheists of faith, it sounds less risky.

I have met some very militant atheist who may not respect an individuals right to worship. Freedom of Religion does not guarantee freedom from religion.

it's the american way. yesterday on larry king, even laura said that in america anyone can worship or choose not to worship god

Not familiar with those. Could you provide some examples? I would like to better understand your point?

I went to a "Atheist Church" in Dallas, Texas once. The whole purpose of this was talk about how horrible Christians are. How foolish they were. I found it offensive. I consider my self an agnostic. They were also really into Ayn Rand.

Hmmm... Contradiction in terms. What was this church called?

An "atheist church?" Athiests do not HAVE churches. And if, hypothetically, there were one in DALLAS, TX of all places, I think it would last about 2 minutes before the lynch mobs showed up. Please don't try to bullshit the antheists. :eyes:

or practice a chosen religion.

At least that's been my experience. The poster who mentioned Ayn Rand as a subject of an atheist "church" discussion is probably right on the mark. Militant atheism would be akin to the USSR at its worst.

I personally am an atheist and I think faith in an anthropomorphic or zoomorphic god, goddess, or multiples thereof is just slightly absurd. But I also understand that it gives some people a great deal of comfort. So as long as their belief or their practice of their belief doesn't harm or advocate harm, I just shrug and say "Whatever floats your boat, dude."

Nor have I ever met any that were remotely interested in telling anyone else what to believe or not to believe. When RWers throw around that "Freedom of religion isn't freedom FROM religion" line (not that you did it in that context) usually they're trying to justify group prayer in public schools, 10 commandments monoliths in public courthouses, or even the establishment of something called "biblical law" (including, many advocate, death by stoning for "crimes" like being gay or having sex outside of marriage) in the U.S... Frankly, the only people I've ever come across who are "militant" about telling other people what to think, have been the believers.

Ayn Rand fanatics, now, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

of the militant Atheist.

ANYTIME

OF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES AND THE OVAL OFFICE

are just as vital as freedom OF.
If I choose to avoid religeous practice and assembly, its my right to do so.
That said i am very respectful of religeons in general. i simply don't belong to any one faith and choose to avoid it.

That's the whole point.

Live and let live - but don't expect us to roll over.

Don't shove your "religion" down our throats and not expect us to shove right back, twice as hard.

With those atheists in charge over there.

minded, helpful to their fellow human beings and the planet than any religious person of ANY denomination I have known.

They open their homes, souls, and pocketbooks to help without thinking of unrelevant matters such as religion. It is done just because we are all together in this universe and we should help to try to make it a better place.

They are good PEOPLE who are atheists. I am sure that there are horrible people who are atheist. It has nothing to do with atheism. It has to do with a person's humanity.

And I did belong to a religion before... it showed me prejudice and ignorance raised to incredible levels.

So a good atheist (who does not care about what people believe in terms of personal myths relative to a "God") would be a great leader, probably much less prejudiced than a good religious person.

spout this rubbish. IMHO a mans ( or womans) religion is their own business. The country would be better off with a leader who is not on a misguided religious crusade, and respects the seperation of church and state.

You could feasibly have an atheist neocon ruining the country as well as the usual fundamentalist christian ilk. Sort of like Log Cabin Repukes only in terms of religion.

Too many religionists I've seen and met want to turn the clock back to some "simpler, moral time" aka, the "good ol' days" that never existed. Even with prayer in school there were still teenage gangs, violence, drinking, drag racing, etc., along with various societal problems.

I don't know if it would be any different with the atheists in charge, other than churches would lose their tax-exempt status. :shrug:

And I think that by removing faith from consideration it actually moves us closer to a separation of church and state. It would of course depend on the person, someone who would still respect the practices of all other religions.

I think it would put us on the path of normalized relations wih the arab world. No more ending of speeches with "And may God continue to bless America", that sort of thing pisses me off. Don't get me started on the pledge and currency issue.

This is the problem though, with such focus of faith I cannot see an atheist who admits to being an atheist as being the president.

and could be in charge without trying to use atheism as an evangelical base, i.e. really respect the constitutional right of anyone to their private delusions, yes, I think they would do a better job. However, I'm afraid the drive to attain power has, at its root, the desire to be powerful over others. This then encourages megalomania in the ruling class which always has the effect of disenfranchising those out of power.
So, would it be better? Probably. Extremism of any sort is to be resisted IMHO.

government.... but neither is being a slave to big money or other powerful interests. Being an atheist does not make one immune to corruption (see also "the former Soviet Union").

just because some deity didn’t spell out our moral code. Atheists are like all other people – there are good atheists & bad ones, just like there are good Christians/Muslims/Hindus/whatever & bad ones.

If you believe in free will, it all comes down to every choice you make – are you going to do the right thing or not? It doesn’t matter if your ethical doctrine is spelled out for you or you define it yourself, what action will you CHOOSE?

That's right, without having ever met me 58% of America has deemed me to be lacking of moral character simply because I don't share their faith in their god. As for the question of what would happen in atheists were in charge it is the same as what if devout Christians were in charge. If we're talking right wing self-centered, the government isn't good for anything, I believe that their isn't enough for everyone in the world, their can never be peace on earth, I'm going to shove my faith down your throat etc. etc. etc. then we would be fucked just like we are with Bush. However, if they were atheists who believed that there was enough to go around and that peace on earth is possible then the government would be run a lot better. Same goes for if we had that type of Christian.
It isn't about religion. It is about faith in humanity. In every person's life they will have to repeatedly make two crucial decisions which will shape their outlook on the world. Is there enough to go around? Can humanity live in peace? If you believe that their isn't enough to go around you will not be generous. You will not be charitable. You will look out for #1. If you don't believe peace on earth is possible you will not strive for it. It is a self fulfilling prophesy, if you believe that there isn't, then there will not be. However, if you believe that there is enough to go around and that there can be peace on earth you will be generous and work toward peace. It is your decision. You make the choice.
P.S. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_poll3.htm (here is where I got the stat)

Since atheism is still a belief system, I'd much prefer someone who doesn't have a specific belief system.

I know I'm largely by my own on this one, but I sincerely think that anyone who allows their religious beliefs to dictate how they govern others who don't share those religious beliefs is completely unfit for any sort of leadership role.

The Bible may be a work of fact or it may not, I don't know. But I DO know that the only thing it proves is that there were writers back in those days.

That said, I would have no problem with an Atheist running the country as long as he kept his faith to himself. Same goes for agnostics, Catholics, Satanists, Southern Baptists, or Voodoo Houngans.

Absence of belief is a belief, right?

Can't it be argued then that being agnostic is a belief system as well using the same criteria?

Atheism is the specific belief that God does not exist. Agnosticism is believing that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. True Atheism is committal, true Agnosticism is not.

Everything IS technically a belief system, but Agnosticism is as close as one can get to a lack of one.

My general pitch is this. "At man's current evolutionary state, it is not within our ability to perceive irrefutably whether or not God exists as a conscious entity with specific desires for the human species. Therefore anything you hear about the will of God is (at best) grossly incorrect, including what I'm saying to you right now."

Actually, it's pretty liberating. Once you've found peace with not making a decision about God everything else is cake. :)

I'm going to behave the way I believe is correct. No promises of reward for good behavior or punishment for bad behavior, rather, simply doing the right thing because it is the right thing.

I assume when I shuffle off ye olde mortal coil there are equal probabilities of my meeting Jehovah, Odin, Ra, The Great Spirit, something brand new that no one ever talked about, or simple oblivion. All I can do is try to be a good man and assume that will be enough for whatever waits on the other side.

If it turns out that Hell does exist and if that's where I end up, then that will be where I belong in the cosmic scheme of things. Besides, if Jerry Falwell turns out to be correct then Heaven would be a Hell for me anyway. I wouldn't want to spend eternity with the cosmic thug that guy's created in his own image.

A great story of a very unexpected afterlife!! Although I wouldn't bother with the rest of the series.

You're an atheist.

Atheism is the lack of theism, period. That needn't necessarily be a commital assertion. There are many different types of athiesm. Mine is just as the etymology implies. I don't assert that there is no god. I simply haven't seen compelling enough evidence for one, so I forego the belief. A newborn baby (or any person of any age, really) who hasn't been taught belief in a deity is an atheist. A strident, prosletyzing anti-believer is, of course, an atheist too.

Likewise, you misunderstand agonsticism. It's not a middle ground or a non-committal approach (and that you argue for the superiority of an approach you seem to consider a non-committal half-measure is making me wonder right now why I'm bothering to engage in any discussion with someone like you, but anyway...). There is atheistic agnosticism and theistic agnosticism. The former is the kind you're dipping your little toe into espousing - denial of deities based on lack of knowledge and the in-principle impossiblilty of said knowledge. Note its smilarity to the atheism I embrace. Theistic agnosticism is the belief that there is likely to be a deity or deities, but its/their nature can never be known to humanity.

Your definition also describes specific aspects of the deity you deny. If it's not possible to perceive god in a specific way, why include a specific description of a specific god with specific characteristics in your argument against belief?

Your post beat me to the punch (my first punch on the board, as well). Many, perhaps most, people erroneously define atheism as a belief there is no god. While some atheists do adopt such a belief ("strong atheist" is a term I've seen used to describe such a subscriber), such a position is by no means integral to atheism. As you state, atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a deity. As such, it is a null state.
Many individuals, myself included, may adopt "strong atheism" in relation to particular theological interpretations, when logic dictates such beliefs untenable. For me, an example is the "tri-omni" thread that runs through much of Christianity (omnipotence, omniscience, and omni benevolence). In my opinion, the undeniable existence of suffering negates this potentiality (argument from evil). I've yet to come across a counter to the argument from evil that did not entail significant question-begging. But I'm always open to rational discourse.
A confusion of agnosticism/atheism is another frequent issue. Gnosticism, and its philosophical counterpart, agnosticism, deal with knowledge. Theism, and atheism, relate to beliefs. These are separate concerns. It is not a one or the other type deal. We can all be described as falling into one of four categories: Agnostic/atheist, gnostic/atheist, agnostic/theist, or gnostic/theist. Again, the exact categorization may depend upon the particular theological interpretation you are addressing, so the categorizations are relative, rather than exclusive. But each person lies somewhere on both axis, not on one or the other.
I'll never forget one of the lessons of a philosophy professor from my days of yore: Everyone (except a pantheist) is an atheist. The only difference between someone professing atheism and most theists, is that the latter is simply an atheist in relation to one fewer deity than the former. Was this a Bertrand Russell gem? Can't recall.

Welcome to DU, von Staufenberg! GREAT first post, too. In fact, I kind of wish you'd beaten me to it - mine looks so ranty and pissy in comparison!

I've been a longtime lurker. Discussions about atheism are usually powerful bait for me. Case in point.

Welcome to DU :hi:

Don't know why I picked that handle other than it was the first thing that popped in my head. Too bad the man had really bad, bad luck.
Thanks for the welcoming.

"There may or may not be a god, but it's impossible to prove one or the other conclusively. Therefore, I'm going to spend my time studying things that *can* be proven or disproven, instead of worrying about things that can't be."

That's where I am, and that's why I'm more likely to be in the astronomy lab instead of in church on a Sunday.

I'd say I'm agnostic, but I'm not sure where I am on the theism/atheism axis you described.

Why include a specific description of a specific god with specific characteristics? Simple. Because such a God might exist. I never met the man nor have I gone beyond the veil as it were and seen a great void with no such God. So I can't lay claim to either his existence or non-existence. All I said was IF such a God were to prove real, then I would go to Hell. IF. I brought it up as an example of how I am not going to model my behavior patterns on that size of an IF.

As for the semantics of Atheism vs Agnosticism, I'm going with the standard usage of such terms such as you find in the dictionary. This particular usage comes directly from the American Heritage as that is the one I have available. You most likely have another source, which is perfectly peachy keen.

I also claim no approach is superior to any other. The question was whether or not Atheists should run the county, and I stated that given the choice I would personally prefer Agnostics. But I couldn't care less what religious faith a leader choses to follow as long as he keeps it to himself and doesn't let his faith drive his politics. The case was then made that Agnosticism is as rigid as Atheism and I disputed that based on the common usage definitions of those two words.

Anyway, let's at least attempt to keep this civil, okay? Whether you intended it or not, you came across as extremely rude and I think that is unnecessary.

Don't feel bad about your interpretation of atheism, dictionaries unfortunately generally back up your definition. Even the online Cambridge dictionary defines it as "someone who believes that God or gods do not exist." Problem is, these definitions are misleading. But, as I've had pointed out to me before, who are you going to believe? Me, or Daniel Webster? A simple deconstruction of the word suffices to clarify the issue: A- (as in without)Theism (yada, yada, yada). What is important is that there is a valid distinction between the statement "someone who believes that God or gods do not exist" and a "lack of belief in a deity." The first is an affirmative belief (even though it is a negation) and therefore assumes a position that must be defended, just as a theist's belief in the existence of a god must also be defended. However, a null state such as suggested in the latter, more inclusive definition carries no "burden of proof." There's nothing to prove or disprove (the famous difficulty of proving a negative). The so called "burden of proof" lies solely with anyone challenging it.
This is a material issue because it frequently leads to a strawman argument. One of the more common refrains I've heard in discussions with theists is that my beliefs are based on as much faith as theirs. This, of course, is incorrect. Perhaps if I held a universal belief that "god does not exist," they may have a point. But I never said, nor believed, anything of the sort. I simply have no belief in a deity, but that doesn't mean I believe no deity exists. Lacking a belief in something is not the same as believing that that something doesn't exist. This is a subtle point that requires a bit of head scratching (did for me at least). Throw in epistemology and existentialism and we have a thoroughly vexing cocktail.
Pertaining to your point about preferring an agnostic to an atheist as a leader, I encourage you to look at it as not an either/or situation. I understand your point, at least in terms of rigidity of belief. But keep in mind that we are talking about two distinct things: belief and knowledge. To the simple atheist (non-strong variety), belief really has no place in rational analysis. Speaking for myself, I'm not concerned with belief. The bar to be passed is the boundary of epistemology. If a logical argument can be made to support a hypothesis (such as god exists), and that argument prevails against all challenges (i.e. supported by observation or syllogism), it passes into the realm of knowledge. If it cannot so escape challenging, then it is at best a concept supported not by logic or reason, but by faith (a tautology to the logician).
I agree whole-heartedly that the common understanding of the terms leads to confusion. But if you carefully analyze the roots of their definitions, you'll see that they really are very distinct concepts.

I'm not any sort of a linguist, and I definitely haven't made a serious study of theology. I'm pretty much your average dumbass American with an average dumbass American etucashun.

First off, I don't want to give the impression that I'm discounting what you've said, it's quite interesting really. I merely feel that deconstruction of the specific word is incidental in the case of this particular discussion. I was only REALLY irritated by asthmaticeog being a smeghead about it. :)

When you speak to the average dumbass American and say the word "Atheist" it translates to "One who specifically believes there is no such thing as God". If in our history we had somehow associated the word "Peanut Butter" as meaning "Someone who specifically believes there is no such thing as God", nothing would change except people who specifically believe there is no such thing as God would be referred to as "Butterists". The meaning would stay the same in the mind of the average dumbass American.

So let's say that when I speak of Atheists and Agnostics, I am referring to the belief systems (rigid disbelief vs noncommittal) regardless of whether or not the terms are technically correct in the realm of scholarly text.

if you do not worship a god, you are an atheist. It is simple as that. You are a theist, or you are an atheist, there is no other.

we have no agenda. we just don't give a shit about the cloud being.

one other thought. For those who may be interested, you may like to visit the Brights website.

I hate the term "Brights." The implication being that theists are necessarily "dim?" BAD P.R. - humanism needn't entail snobbery.

I had much the same reaction at first, but the more I thought about it, the more I liked it. Maybe some primal urge to take Daniel's side of the fight and then brag about it. So I became a number ?? or some such last August-ish, and have enjoyed watching the thing unfold.

The pols would abuse non-belief just as they abuse belief. I would see no change from this world to that world.

I'm an atheist/agnostic with respect for the good that religion can do. And I certainly know about all the bad.

It would be great if a politician could "come out" as an atheist without being attacked. And even better if the hypocrites who claim to be ruling on God's behalf would stop making honest people of faith look bad.

athiests aren't necessarily better, but it's better when opportunities are open to all groups, such as women or minorities or whatever. It's a waste of talent otherwise.

A strong democracy has people from all walks of life serving as leaders.

or Jew, or Buddhist.

The US would be bette off if the people in charge were able to keep their religious beliefs or lack thereof from influencing the way they do their jobs. Whoever is in charge, whether atheist, agnostic, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or pagan, should realise that not everyone else believes as he does and that religion has no place in public discourse, as it is a private affair.

These people running the country aren't Christians. They don't believe in God. They show no shreds of morality, of humanity, of respect for the teachings of Jesus Christ. They respect only money and power, and will destroy anything that stands in the way of their obtaining either. They do not follow Christ. They are just paying lip service to an extraordinarily gullible demographic.

It's working, too.

If true Christians were in charge, there wouldn't be hunger in this nation (among other things), because a true Christian would not abide it.

These people are in league with Satan. Shocks me that the fundies aren't able to see this.

Either they are self deluded and dangerous or malicious cynics. Possibly some weak contradictory combo of the two which make them even more irrational.

Sincere, rational and service oriented people of conviction who do not lord it over others' beliefs are what is required. Some beliefs may disqualify them for leading a democratic diverse nation and guess who is always looking for those flaws if they can't out "convict" them before the voting faith communities?

or any other imaginary being.

I was talking about the BFEE.

They may or may not be atheists, but I don't really think that matters. I doubt that they think about God much, except insofar as invoking His name can help them to greater power and riches.

Anyone who has read and taken to heart the words of Jesus in the New Testament cannot possibly see another person as his "enemy" without some serious cognitive dissonance. I wonder if Bush ever considered "turning the other cheek" after 9/11?

or VERY moderate religious people.

Despots don't always believe in God. I agree with an earlier poster: The despots currently in charge don't believe in any God but money. And power.

But a reasonable non-believer who supports the separation of church and state, sure, they'd have my vote.

Is it Asimov's view of society or Stalin's view of society that would prevail? Both were atheists.

It is no different from any other belief system. An evil person can twist anything, and a good person can turn anything to good. Both Bush and Carter are Christians, but one of them bombs people's houses and one of them builds people's houses.

Atheists aren't some chosen people. They are good and evil, like all the rest.

that I thought atheist are "some chosen people" or that they were all good simply because they are atheists. This woman's comments just made me wonder since she had this vision of it naturally being some sort of horrible state of affairs.

My comment was poorly phrased.

I'm trying to say that I don't think religion makes any difference in a person's morality. There is no correlation to actual behavior.

They would not be beholding to any religious group like what we are seeing right now. And as long as they did not push their agenda I really don't see a problem with it.

In all reality right now that will never happen. But, in the future, somewhere down the road, I believe there will be a good possibility that it may happen. People will begin to see that organized religion has done nothing but wreak havoc on the world. That's when the change will begin.

what the "atheist agenda" is? :shrug:

We're as corruptible as anyone else.

..the heart of the problem.

Fundamentalist religion is one manifestation, i.e. one symptom of the deeper problem. This is a problem that can affect atheists, Christians, Jews, agnostics, or any other person on the planet.

The problem is the corrupting influence of power and the move toward institutionalization. The bigger and more powerful the system, and the more unchecked that power is, the more likely it is for people to become corrupted by it. You don't "need" religion for that to happen, but religious institutionalization and the power corruption associated with it is certainly one manifestation. Another one is manifested in our transnational corporate persons. Another in our government.

Taking your "god" to fight against other's "gods" is not the only symptom of problems we have today. Fighting for money is another one. Fighting for power is another. An Atheists is just as susceptible to the corrupting influence of great power as any other human being. The temptation won't come in the form or religious power, but it will come just the same.

What we need to do is not worry about only electing atheists or only election religious people - instead we need to worry about election people with a moral center, an attitude of servitude, and a great intellect wed with great (genuine) compassion.

>> An Atheists is just as susceptible to the corrupting influence of great power as any other human being. The temptation won't come in the form or religious power, but it will come just the same. <<

That's also a good point as far as the likelihood that an atheist is as susceptible to corruption as anyone else. But it's highly unlikely that an atheist would have the added benefit (tool? weapon?) of using deities to justifying his greed and lust for power. It's equally unlikely (unless the politician is pretending NOT to be an atheist) that he'll use deities or quote religious scriptures in an attempt to influence other deity-believers into accepting (or not questioning) his motives or actions.

-- Allen


P.S. How are you, Selwynn? :hi:

rational thought and universal ethics running it. They could be atheists or practicing a certain faith as long as they honor the Constitution's provision for the separation of Church and State.

At least, not one who acknowledges it publicly.

A transgender African-American woman is more likely to become President than an atheist.

Personally, I don't care what religion our leaders are as long as it remains separate from governing.

A transgender AA woman would not beat out an atheist. I would be an awfully close race, though. ;-)

...at this weird, yet very serious time in history! :evilgrin:

...he can't even become a BOYSCOUT!

"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under gawd".

--George HW *

Of course an atheist would be fine running the country! And I'm sure that a couple already have...

Being an atheist is as silly as being a theist.
-P

don't start this crap again. Please see above posts re: the real meaning of the word atheist.

Anybody who believes that you can have certainty about the non-existence of something needs a course in basic logic. True intellectuals are agnostics, not atheists.

Is that still up in the air?

according to his logic. :shrug:

Atheism itself is not illogical. In fact, logic lies at its very heart.
I suggest what you view as illogical is simply a type of atheism. One in which a person adopts an affirmative belief (albeit a negation). And I agree with you that adopting a belief not based upon logical analysis is indeed illogical. But that doesn't describe atheism in its entirety.
It all comes down to drawing a distinction between "a lack of belief in a deity" and the "belief that god does not exist." The former is the simple, yet inclusive definition of the word. The latter is a misconstruction (although VERY common) of the term. I'm not trying to play semantic games. I will certainly give you that the second definition is the one more commonly identified. But, it is also woefully misleading. Because of this, people tend to confuse agnosticism and atheism. But agnosticism is not a less extreme, or more reasonable, strain of atheism. They are two completely different concepts.

I had to go do some cheer leading plus actual work on the 'smack the media' campaign and take a nap. Von S, I have met your mind on some other tableau, perhaps late at night. Indeed welcome. How very nice to see you again.
It does appear to me that any difference will be seized upon by those willing to do anything to achieve 'pow' of power, without the concomitant responsibility of justice and humility.

The disguised "straw man argument". Beautiful. Not only do yo need a course in basic logic, you also need a course in what the term atheist means.


Note how he first misrepresents the position of atheism, then uses that incorrect representation to attack atheism.

Nice try.

if rationality and humanity reigned.

It is irrational to have none.

faith and rationality are two entirely separate things.

Atheists are people too and thus also have strong beliefs. Not all atheists are inherently good people. Stalin was an atheist and that didnt' make his rule any less dogmatic.

dream on, I know... we can't even get an atheist elected dog-catcher in this stuperstitious country :grr:

think it is the best the way it is (supposed to be) now - no religious tests at all. I would actually prefer if politicians would just shut up about religion - or at least only mention it in the context of explaining who they are and THEN shut up about it.

First probably we need to define the often abused word "atheist".
The caller could have implied the strong-atheist version. Since we are discussing the word in the context of American politics, it's probably safe to assume that she implied a lack of belief in Christianity - one of the three monotheistic religions evolved from that Bronze age text called Old Testament. Anyways, this interpretation is a subset of the strong-atheist system.

Judaism, Islam and Christianity are sky-god religion. God is the omnipotent father - so they are inherently patriarchal.In general, for most periods of time in the last 2000 years or so and in most countries afflicted by these religions, women had a raw deal.

The sky-god is demanding and requires total obedience. Historically these three belief systems have been very prone to be (ab)used for evangelism and "kill or convert", "us versus them" paradigms.

Blacks and Arabs are descendants of Ham and can be considered cursed. St. Paul asked the slaves to obey their masters. Black churches were surrogates for earthly freedom for a long period. Even today antiquated texts of Leviticus are quoted for gay-bashing.

A total disregard for nature and environment can be seen as consistent with "subdue it, and have dominion, ... over every living thing that moveth upon the earth".

Anti-abortion positions can be seen as supported by "be fruitful and multiply."

USA, the world's only superpower and beacon of freedom, still has not been able to elect a woman, black, Hispanic, atheist, gay President (65-70% of population currently). It has the largest prison population (minorities over-represented) in the industrial world. It has a terrible environmental track record. It openly and with disdain admits not bothering to count civilian deaths after invading a sovereign country. US president can actually think of amending constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Does none of these have anything to do with Christianity? Are all of these mere abuses of an otherwise perfect belief system?

Does the fact that isolationism as a political thought lost out to interventionism around the same time as Christianity's strong influence on state laws and policies recovered from some temporary setbacks (Scope's trial, prohibition repealed) is a mere coincidence? Interestingly, around the same time (50s), "in god we trust" was inserted in currencies - a direct violation of the first amendment. Since then more and more government revenues have been spent on killing mostly non-Christians all around the world.

A vast majority of the black and brown world of Asia and Africa associate Christian evangelism with white colonial and imperial atrocities. An American president who brings his God and good-and-evil morality in every other sentence makes them cringe.

It's theoretically possible that an atheist could turn out to be as incompetent, corrupt and ignorant as Bush. I would think that would be less likely though. But the idea that a person in charge could lead to US downfall just because she is an atheist is ridiculous.

I will personally welcome a person who lacks any faith in Christianity with its strong anti-human legacy to run for offices. I think Jefferson, Adams, Payne and Lincoln would have agreed. The fact that even in 2004 such a person has no chance of getting elected wouldn't have been foreseen by them.

make a powerful argument.

First, we need to start a church, so we can get some respect from the believers. Also, we need to just *go* with this silly idea that Atheism is as much a belief as theism.

Selling out? Call it what you want, we've got a world to save, dammit! Obviously, the American people believe that "strong beliefs" are far more important that "what those strong beliefs consist of". If the last 4 years have taught us nothing else, we should have learned at least that.

So there you have it, the Church of Atheism ~ for Atheist with strong beliefs and moral clarity. Hell, give us 20 years and we can unbuckle the bible belt, politically speaking of course.

We can school America on what Atheism really means later, when we have power over the schoolbooks. Bwaaahhhhaaaaaaaaahhhhhaaaaaa!


We could call our church the Unitiarian University~alist or somesuch.

Why is this blatant prejudice so acceptable?

religious people are the ignorant ones.

Honestly, I don't think it would make any difference. I don't think a person's religious beliefs or lack of should be a factor at ALL in our government.

But hey I'm just silly like that.

doesn't express, loudly, belief in an invisible being who created everything, is omnipotent and all-powerful, and, (most importantly) needs your money... one who, with a 15 billion light-year wide Universe to run, has nothing more important to worry about than the sex habits of a bunch of hairless apes on a tiny jerkwater planet in a nondescript spiral galaxy... a being for which there is not one single solitary shred of actual evidence, and on the contrary, this being's alleged representatives on the planet have been dead-set wrong on just about every scientific question re: the nature of reality (the Earth Going around the sun, for instance) that has come up in the last 2000 years... Yeah, those folks must be "simply ignorant".

Pffft.

:)

but i'd settle for SANE people in charge.

on the morality of those that believe in a God.

you can have a religious person who is intolerant of beliefs other than their own who is worse than an open minded atheist.


An atheist who wanted to do away with religious freedoms would be worse than a religous person who believes in one's right to believe/practice or not.

It should matter if they are atheist or religious as long as they honor the bill of rights and constitution.

I really haven't seen much evidence of them trying abolish religious freedom. However, too many Christians are trying to legislate their beliefs on the rest of us.

we agree :-)

what a silly question

What we have to do is stop electing power-hungry, greedy, corrupt, sold-out, idiots. What belief they hold (or more likely, pay lip service to) is irrelevant.

Also a little of diversity of opinion in the govt. would help too.

might be nice to try.

And the LESS religion in government the happier and safer we are going to be.

A person with atheist beliefs also does not equal "atheism" in government. There are many people of "faith" who are committed to the principle of strict and complete separation of Church and State.

and so was lincoln. We owe a great debt to them.

For example, we know that Lincoln invoked the name of God many times in his letter life in public addresses and letters. People have many different thought about this.

"Gordon Leidner has collected some quotations from Lincoln's later years in which he invokes God, and he makes the argument that Lincoln became a sincere believer. It seems to me he did come to believe in God, but he never accepted organized Christianity."

http://www.atheistempire.com/greatminds/

Still, I was never denying an atheist could be a good president. I am denying that an atheists couldn't be a bad one, and I am denying that a religious person couldn't be a good one.

they just piss me off.

Especially now when they should be on their knees praying about hurricane stuff.

Stephanie

Cat 5 comming up ! I think I can use parts of Shakesperes The Tempest.

My husband, the World's Cutest Atheist, JanMichael, and I had a freshley cracked open box....ummmm yeah...BOTTLE of wine last night....and I was so disgusted by the C-span callers that I wrote that to be a smart ass.

He was egging me to hit "post."

I think most DUers know who I married! ;)

silly ya.

What were the C-Span callers saying ? I don't have cable. One of the few I guess.

because that post left me going :wtf: I thought perhaps you had changed his "evil" ways or that the worry and stress had just gotten to you.

In any case, I hope Shakeydave and all the people you both care about down there weathered the storm safely and aren't faced with too much devastation.

Damn that stuff to the depths of hell! ;)

Change Michael's evil ways? No way! His evil ways are part of his charm!

Steph

:D

(But you shouldn't listen to CSPAN callers - you got to look out for your health!)

Isnt Michael one? I really dont think it matters, I think athiests can be as big assohles as thiests, you know who was an athiest tyrant, Stalin, but there's been thiest tyrants too like the Calvinists in Switzerland. You need to have a government of people no matter what their faith who will help the people of the nation.

seminary student. I guess it didn't take.

Hitler was an alter boy I think, yet no fan of religion yet he used it to help gain power. Stalin's mother wanted him to be an Eastern Orthodox priest, I dont know what turned him athiest really. But many of the worst tyrants of history have been athiest especially communist ones, Ayn Rand was one too, and it would be hell if her kind ran the nation.

But you still love me, godless commie freak that I am. ;-)

As long as they allow people to embrace their religions, then I'm a-ok with it.

whacko's out there that scares me. The Stepford Sheep, brainwashed till blue in the face, will fuck it up each and every time...

History bears this out.

Like the Jews had it better under the early Muslim empires than they did under the Christians.

For example, an atheist in charge could remove "In God we trust" and "under God" from the money and the pledge, both of which are pure corruptions of religion for state purposes. When a state coopts a religion, it negates that religion's ability to perform its primary function, which is to criticize the state for its failure to live up to a moral code. (see the old testament prophets and what Jesus thought of the pharisees and moneychangers)

Likewise, it would prevent fundamentalists from giving religion a bad name. There would still be fundamentalists, but anti religion people might be inclined to be more charitable if a non religious person were in charge, and the theist fundamentalists wouldn't be so noticeable IF THEY DIDN'T OWN THE COUNTRY!

religious rules and regulations and nonsense

can be just as foul a cause as creedal perfectionist theism ...

Stalin was an avowed atheist, yet he murdered tens of millions of innocent people ...

HUMANISM is the cause of mild government ... Religious or otherwise: a HUMANIST theist does not burn 'witches' at the stake .... a HUMANIST atheist does not purposely starve to death a whole region of the world for political purposes ..

Atheistic, secular humanism is what could bring humanity to safety and security, I believe .... It isnt a 'faith', it is a hope ...

Religious humanism can lead to mild liberal government as well, but ONLY if the forces of strident, militant creedalism are restrained ....

I am an atheist, but I have never really encountered anybody who wears it on their sleeve I would trust to watch my cat.

Deep down, anybody who is so craven for money as those that rule the country are certainly not Christian, but that is a very different question, and a sad one at that.....

thoroughly secular

...It's "non-fundamentalist" or "moderate". I think what's pissing people off about religion is how knee-jerk reactionary and fire-and-brimstone it gets, especially among *ahem* certain government officials. Really, I don't care what specific religion my leaders are--Christian, Atheist, Agnostic, Buddhist, Jewish or yes, even Muslim--just so long as they don't base their policies on religion and don't try to force their religion upon the nation's people.

I think most of us know pretty well what the problem is, and that is that right-wing conservative religious bigots and hypocrites are now in charge.

But the solution is not to have atheists in charge. It's to have a broad representation of the people, including atheist and people of genuine faith, who understand that there must be separation of church and state, and that government must be driven by secular humanism and by the core values and principles that are at the core of all religions.

The biggest problem in the world today is that two conflicting views of the world now dominate and create violent confrontation. And those two views are pretty much represented by two bigoted hypocrites named George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden. And they are BOTH WRONG.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

no, that isn't something we'd like would it? :silly:

OF COURSE THE WORLD WOULD BE BETTER. No Question.

At the is? Hmmm...

No more "God Bless America" at the end of every speech. No more "God" in any speech at all.

That is for churches. I can't stand to hear it in political speeches or seeing it as graffitti on our currency.

It will never happen, but it sure is a nice thought.