Would you live in a nation requiring atheism/agnosticism to hold public office?

Great Debates
1

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=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>
[/QUOTE]

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?

2

Imho, regardless of whether you are religious or not, the key point is whether it interferes with doing your job. Maybe this system works for that country, maybe not, but as a metaphor for what is happening in the US, we’re getting screwed when people in these positions can’t separate their beliefs from their job. On the other hand, athiests/agnostics/whatever-ists are in the same position: if their beliefs affect their job, they’re wrong.

3

Yes, I’d be willing to live there and become a citizen, but no, I don’t think that the Amendment is an ethical one. I believe in freedom of religion or freedom of no religion, but I don’t think it’s ethical to mandate what people believe. I would vote for an atheist, certainly, and probably prefer one to an equal in all other measures candidate, because I the only rulebook I want consulted in making or enforcing my country’s policies or laws are the secular ones. But I just can’t see how religion inherently makes anyone unfit for office.

4

Sure. I mean, why not? Anti-abortion people still live in America, hell, still move to America I’m sure, and if you honestly believe that abortion is baby-murder than that’s a way more serious infraction (IMO) of your ethics than violating one small facet of religious freedom. So yeah, I guess I’d have no problem living in a tropical paradise doing my dream job.

Is it ethical? Not really. Is it good policy? Not really. Is it a dealbreaker? Hardly.

5

I might live there, depending on personal circumstances, but I would not support that clause in the amendment and would work to repeal it.

6

Dio, I feel the same way, but I’d like to hear your reasons.

Part of MY reasons would depend on how long ScrewAslan’s been around and what its history has been like. It’s one thing if they’ve had that rule since, oh, 1860; something else if they started it in 2001.

7

As an atheist, I would live there only if there weren’t a better place to live. That amendment can only be enforced by thought police, which is abhorrent.

8

In a perfect world, I would prefer that religion not be a barrier, but that given the choice between religion being a barrier verses the present situation in the USA in which Christianity is often an un-official requirement to get elected, I’d pass on the USA.

9

No, I would never become a citizen there.

And their amendment is self-contradictory. Saying that no one can serve in elected office unless one renounces theism is a law interfering with the free exercise of religion.

Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right. ScrewAslan is no different from any theocracy.

Regards,
Shodan

10

The history wouldn’t matter to me. What would matter to me is what kind of job I could have there, what kind of home, what kind of neighborhood, educational and professional opportunities existed for my kids. Stuff like that. Totally selfish stuff.

11

I would love to live in a country where everyone was Atheist BY THEIR OWN CHOICE and every elected official was an atheist because it’s the only rational thing to believe, i could not support the law as presented in the OP.

12

Oh, take it as a given that the schools are wonderful, the job you’ve been offered there pays 33% more than your current position, there’s universal health care, and your wife likes the joint.

13

Then I’d stay and work for change within. It’s not like I agree with everything in the US.

14

People can misrepresent their atheism perhaps even more easily than they can misrepresent their religion. I am not particularly convinced by public officials’ declarations that they do believe (since it is a de facto requirement for office), so I’d be no more convinced by the reverse. Would I live there? Sure. After all, I live here.

15

I’m not that eager to live in a nation with a (slightly-modified) Constitution, but I’d be okay in a nation with a (slightly-modified) Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

16

I wonder if the atheists in the thread would feel the same way about living in a theocracy.

Or else -

“Fine! You’re hired as a teacher in our government-run school system. Welcome! Just one more thing - raise your right hand and repeat after me -
*
I do hereby swear and affirm, under penalty of perjury, that I have never been a member of the Communist party…*”

Regards,
Shodan

17

I’d move there in a heartbeat. It’s no less ethical to me than e.g. property laws or Age of Consent laws, so yeah, I’m cool with a religious test like that. Of course, this is because I’m convinced I’m right and it isn’t my ox being gored, but hey, so what? If every teacher and lawmaker is (at least publicly) an atheist/agnostic, that’s already a better society than one where the school board can mandate the teaching of fairy stories(America, I’m looking at you!)

18

No, I wouldn’t. What a stupid question.

19

Why would that be analogous? The scenario presented in the OP does not mandate atheism for the citizenry, nor is it possible for anything like an “atheist theocracy” to exist because atheism has no beliefs to codify into law.

20

I’m not moving there, because I have no intention of ever living outside the American South again. I love my SEC football, grits, and sweet tea.

Otherwise, I object to their version of the First Amendment for the reasons others have noted. Free exercise for all but elected/appointed officials isn’t really free exercise at all.