(underlining mine)
I think that’s the thorn in everyone’s side. Most reasonable people couldn’t care less about what types of beliefs a particular person has. When a person is in a position where they can impose their beliefs on others, though, then people can have legitimate concerns about that person’s ability/willingness to do so.
I’m not saying that Huckabee would definitely do this. But based on the things he conveys in his speeches, it just seems plausible.
LilShieste
Frankly, that concern holds true in the case of atheists in power as well.
More applause for an excellent analogy. Did you just think that up, or what?
Thanks for the props. I think it’s mine, but maybe it was planted in my subconcious by someone else…
I know of no Atheistic Code Of Beliefs, much less any instances where atheists in positions of power have denied rights to anyone over their moral/religious codes, or blocked science education or research opportunities based on atheistic beliefs.
Interestingly, Huckabee is quoted on his campaign website as saying he has greater respect for an atheist than for a pseudoreligious phony. The obvious question, then, is would he appoint a known atheist to a federal post?
Well, of course - it applies to anyone who would force their beliefs (or absence of beliefs) on anyone else. It seems like this is more of a problem with one group of people than it is with the other, though.
LilShieste
It has happened a few times, though not in the US.
I’m confident that the free exercise clause of the constitution protects religious people from an atheist president trying to, well, restrict the free exercise of religion. A religious president can, however, veto bills based on his religion and the SCOTUS can’t do a thing about it.
And, as you said, “atheism” isn’t a set of beliefs. It’s a lack of such.
Mr. Moto: Can you give an example of something an atheist president might do that would cause to be concerned about having such a person in the WH?
n.b.: I think the constitution protect atheist from someone trying to set up a theocracy, too, but a religious president can inject his beliefs into his actions in such a way as to not violate the establishment clause.
In the here and now, sure. But let’s not forget that as we speak officially atheist regimes daily deprive millions of people their religious liberty - and significant other liberties besides.
Now, that isn’t to say that an atheist elected in America would do these things. But let’s not kid ourselves - not all atheists are terribly committed to human rights, just as not all Christians observe strictly the commandments of their faith.
Sorry, I should have clarified that my comments are only in regards to American politics. I agree with you that someone’s identification as a Christian/Muslim/Atheist/etc. doesn’t automatically imply a certain level of morality.
LilShieste
Meanwhile theocratic regimes elsewhere do exactly the same things.
And not all Christians are terribly committed to human rights either. What exactly is your point? Are you suggesting that atheists are less likely to defend human rights than religious people?
I think his “point” is simply a manifestation of tu quoque (“They do it too!”).
The problem with this is the severe lack of examples where atheists in power positions in the U.S. (and yes, American precedents are what I’m thinking of) have denied rights to others based on some mythical conception of atheistic ideology. And where religious rights have been suppressed elsewhere, there is either a competing ideology (i.e. communism) or personal power motive involved, not cases where someone has put down religion because he doesn’t believe in a god(s).
And you’d be hard pressed to think of cases where an atheist heard a voice from the Void telling him he was on the right track and to ignore critics.
Are you suggesting that atheists are more likely to do so?
I think if we were talking about your average nice college educated Western atheist, that might be true. But that isn’t the only kind of atheist you find. Indeed, by strength of numbers, this kind of atheist might not even be representative.
The Dalai Lama has atheists and Christians in the ranks of his enemies and his supporters. Do you find more atheists among his friends or his enemies? And of the Christians, how do they divide?
Something to think about.
Hardly.
As was pointed out, atheism is a lack of a belief in God. Now, that doesn’t mean that other things have to be believed in, does it?
It would be as fruitless to find uniformity of thought among atheists as it would be to find it among Christians.
Which is why assumptions about atheism generally fall flat with me (as do assumptions about believers.) These nearly always fall apart when examined at the personal level.
I guess it’s as you say, we just never quite crossed paths on this. I really haven’t been in GD much in the past two or three years. Certainly not like before. The benefit of people like you for people like me is some blessed peace. Amidst all the clamor and analogies and hateful spite (hurled with pride, no less) — it all disappears into distant echos of quiet white noise when someone like you says the things you say. I don’t mean to gush, but you ought to know what a comfort you are. You may not be Christian, but you certainly have Christlike qualities, and I hope you take no offense at that. Again, a thousand apologies.
I simply asked you to clarify your statement. I wasn’t implying anything.
Or it might not be. Make a point and back it up, or shut up.
I have no idea. If you have the numbers, please enlighten us.
Sure sounds like *tu quoque * to me, all you’re saying is both groups are diverse, and you find bad guys on both sides.
Well, that issue cancels out when one compares Hillary to Tax Hike Mike.
That’s not what tu quoque is — it carries the requirement of ad hominem; that is, it must be a personalization in response to an argument. There’s a difference between, “Well you’re just as bad so don’t argue with me,” and “Both your side and my side have bad people”. If a person is prohibited from finding bad guys on both sides, then logic would be requiring him to turn a blind eye to facts. It would be an utterly useless fallacy.
Quite honestly, my mind reels when I consider the whole field of candidates from both sides. We’re either going to adapt European type socialism or Russian type fascism. One or the other is headed our way.
Within the next 8 years??? I’d be willing to bet we won’t.