Well, there’s no way to know if someone secretly believes in God, and no amount of solemn affirmations will assure this. I would suggest to my American cousins, though, that they might be better off with a political system a little more like ours, where anyone asking about the candidates’ religious beliefs is written off as a nut.
How are age of consent laws unethical?
Or, for that matter, property laws?
Because you are imposing a set of beliefs on your elected officials and government employees.
It does if the citizenry wants to run for office.
As seems commonly to be the case, you are incorrect. The OP stated clearly the belief being enforced -
That’s a belief.
Regards,
Shodan
No, I would not want to live in such a place.
I don’t think I’d want to live in such a small country. I like big countries, like the US. And not so close to the Equator. No, I like my NorCal geography and climate too much. I’ll pass.
It’s a lack of belief.
I’d be inclined to move there. The government already have to obey certain higher rules of propriety than general society eg in their business dealings and what they must declare etc. This is just another example of an extra rule those who wish to be in a position of power must follow.
ie it is a concrete affirmation that where there is conflict between the rule of law and the rule of God, the rule of law wins. God has no place in government - zero. I didn’t vote for him.
I reconsider. Really, what I want is to live in a country with an electorally dominant atheist majority. I’m not too worried what the law formally requires of public officials since beliefs are subject to misrepresentation, anyway. I’d rather have a situation where you can’t, practically speaking, get elected as an openly religious person. Well, a few token Unitarian Universalists are ok.
I’m not holding my breath.
This part :
and that part :
seem very different issues to me. Wouldn’t you expect an employee of the government (even in the current USA) to do exactly that? Wouldn’t you want him to resign if he ignored the law due to his religious beliefs?
What I intended there was to note that, in ScrewAslan, one must say one is an atheist to be President, Senator, and so forth, but a beat cop, mail carrier, etc. must merely promise to never put his religion above the law. A practicing Catholic can be a government doctor, but she can’t use that as a reason not to prescribe birth control pills.
For this to be passed, you’d have to presumably either have the majority of your people as hardline atheists or somehow its ‘unrepealable’. If its majority atheists you’d have to wonder why it needed to be compulsory, and it wasnt you’d have to wonder how it would be sustainable.
In an unrepealable situation you still have to get elected, so you’d have representatives saying they’re atheist but still willing to enact policy that keeps their religious electoral base happy.
Like you see in the US with the converse today with electoral candidates claiming a far higher religiosity than seems to actually be the case.
Otara
Yeah, this is a good point. When people talk about the US being a Christian nation, they seem to forget that quite a few “Christians” on both the right and the left are anything but. Who’s to say that the same wouldn’t be true for Screwaslan?
I wouldn’t live in that country in a thousand years, not because I wouldn’t like to live in an atheist society. I just wouldn’t want to live anywhere that passed any sort of laws that dictated what I had to believe or not believe in order to have a say in my government. The whole reason I embraced atheism–other than the “I don’t believe in God anymore” point–was to celebrate free thinking, something which is absent in the OP’s scenario. The opposite of a repressive theocracy is not a repressive anti-theocracy; it’s a government that respects people of all faiths, beliefs, and lack thereof and allows them to participate. I realize that there’s nowhere on earth that’s true, but what Skald puts forth isn’t exactly Utopia as far as I can see.
Fuck ScrewAslan!
Nope.
As everyone here has heard until they’re sick of it, I’m a homeschooler. Many groups have “statements of faith,” which you have to sign in order to join (or sometimes only in order to hold office). I don’t join groups that have statements of faith, because I think they’re wrong. If it’s not an actual church, it’s no one’s concern what my beliefs are. Same deal here.
Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right; forbidding citizens from holding public office based only on their religious beliefs is a serious infringement of that right. I would not emgirate to ScrewAslan (unless the alternative was something really dire, like I had to choose between emigrating and being put in a “re-education” camp by some theocratic or otherwise tyrannical government here in the U.S.). I can’t say for certain what sort of person I would be if I had been born in and grew up in such a society, but I like to think I would oppose such a provision, even though it’s not my ox that’s being gored.
Of course, some U.S. states still have provisions in their constitutions that forbid atheists from holding public office (for example, South Carolina). Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, these provisions aren’t enforceable–except socially. I think those constitutions should be amended as well, of course.
I would love to live in such a utopian country
I currently live in a country where belief in God is a de facto requirement if public office, and I’m not leaving just because of that. So, I’d have no problem living in ScrewAsia.
ScrewAslan.
They’re a bright-line law negating individual choice on the part of precocious youth. Ditto drinking laws, contract laws, voting age laws, marriage age laws, etc. The argumenum ad protectiva is a *pragmatic *solution to problems of testing/licencing youth, but it doesn’t negate the ethical problem of overriding individual choice.
Property is theft, plain and simple.
No. Only allowing people to hold public office if they believe that a certain falsehood is false is not the same thing as only allowing them to do so if they believe that falsehood is true.
I might live there if I had a good reason to, I would not support the law and would not consider becoming a citizen of that country.
First off, we already have this country. It’s called China. In order to join the Communist Party, you have to profess atheism. In order to be involved in politics, you pretty much have be a party member. I don’t think this law has caused any increase of morality and I wouldn’t be the first person to observe what seems to be a bit of a moral crisis in modern China. Furthermore, it doesn’t even prevent atrocities- they’ve been outright zealous in killing Falun Gong practitioners.
Religious freedom is a good thing.
For some years, atheism or agnosticism really was required for public office in a country not so far away at all. Since 1857, the Mexican government has been officially anti-clerical. The 1917 Constitution was even stricter, leading to the Cristero rebellion. A believer became president in 1940 & things began loosening up.
The above is from the slightly scattershot Wikipedia article. But it seems to match up to stuff I’ve read. This being the Dope, we might get an actual scholar to supply details or corrections.