I think I’d enjoy ScrewAslan. I don’t think that their policy would be any real problem at all. It simply means that any proposition needs to be backed up with a logical, scientific rationale. That means that the crazier social injustices and civil rights inequalities ought to be a thing of the past. It also means that logic should (in theory) supplant blind adherance to the status quo as new findings come to light.
Sign me up.
The difference, of course, between ScrewAslan and China or Mexico, is the standard of living and other amenities of the place. I don’t move to China or Mexico because I don’t want to live in the poverty most Mexican citizens do or the crowding most Chinese citizens do (or rather…that I’m under the impression they do. I readily admit my vision of China may be incorrect, as I’ve never been there.)
No. Atheism is a lack of belief. The claim by various believers that atheism is, itself, a religious belief is not correct because it insists that anyone who does not happen to believe in a deity must be expressing some sort of affirmative belief.
However, individual atheists (and the laws they might propagate), are quite capable of expressing belief in a particular situation and the laws, as presented, would be an active promotion of such belief.
= = =
I would see no point to living in a location where I was effectively disenfranchised.
On the other hand, I would not choose to live in a place with that law inverted, where belief in a deity, (either particular or general), was required. We have a de facto situation in the U.S. where social constraints tend to act in a similar fashion, but there is no law that enforces that social situation. To the extent that non-believers can present themselves in ways that will get them elected, they are free to do so, today, and as the society moves even further in the direction of secularism, more such people will have the opportunity to be elected in the future.
At one time, race was a de facto bar to various elected offices, as was divorce, and a few other socially recognized phenomena. Slowly such bariers crumble as society changes, but a law that enforced them would impede such changes.
I didn’t see this in the OP - you, as a religionist, are allowed to vote for any eligible candidate you choose, AFAICT. It’s no different, IMO, than having an age condition on political office - I mean, why the hell can’t a 28-yo stand for the Senate? Or a 34-yo be president? But even given that, are you disenfranchised in the US? Nope.
I am not going to derail this thread on this point. Suffice it to say, if I am prohibited from running for office and I am prohibited from voting for a person because of their beliefs, my franchise has been impaired. The younger person can always get older; a person’s fundamental beliefs are not subject to being switched on and off.
In the matter of non-believers, I am not disenfranchised in the U.S. I would probably always vote for a losing candidate, (given where I live, I usually do now, anyway), but I am not prohibited by law from voting for a person based on their beliefs.
This is a lousy comparison. You might as well say that a 34-year-old can’t be president, so neither can a black man. Or a 28-year-old can’t be a senator, so neither can a homosexual. Examining bases for for the ability to run for office and upholding those based on rational criteria (minimum age limits) while invalidating those based on irrational prejudice (race, creed, or color) is a cornerstone in the legislative history of pretty much any democratic nation you could choose to read. The process leading to that freedom has usually been a stormy one, and I don’t imagine many countries could look at their own records without blushing, but the fact remains that the process exists with the blessings of an increasingly progressive citizenry.
Which brings me to my next point, namely that in this scenario, ScrewAslan’s policy is doomed to failure. Its fatal flaw rests in the similarity of the rest of its constitution, which–if I’m reading it correctly–includes the right to a free press and free assembly. Sooner or later, you’re going to get the Jewish equivalent of MLK., the Buddhist version of Mohandis Gandhi, or the Baptist version of Susan B. Anthony. You’re going to get an intelligent, charismatic, and passionate activist who is going to take advantage of all the freedoms in the relatively enlightened society, get a first rate education (ideally in law and administration), and embark on a system of public speaking, epic courtroom battles, and civil disobedience that will sooner or later rally popular support to his or her side.
Really, the only difference will be the fact that the final act will have to involve an amendment repealing the first clause of the first amendment rather than a Supreme Court decision rendering the clause unconstitutional (By definition, it’s not.). But rest assured, that amendment will wind up carrying the votes–especially if the government is foolish enough to grant theists suffrage, which if you think about it, is really inconsistent.
Rightfully so, IMHO. That clause has no business in the constitution of a nation that calls itself free.
Well, except that it wouldn’t be writing its laws based on aligning them with religious interests, which is pretty much the very definition of a theocracy. So other than the minor issue that it’s the complete opposite, spot on.
No, the OP hypothesizes a country that had values that would put it in line with the US constitution except for this one thing. That’s very much not China. We’re talking about a culture/governmental system with one tweak, whereas China is about as alien as you get to the US way of governing.
My opinions on this issue are conflicted. If we were talking about a revolution in an existing country that made these changes, I’m not comfortable enforcing this idea onto an existing population. However, if a piece of land were the suddenly pop out of the pacific ocean and for some reason we decided that it was going to be basically the US + this minor tweak, and everyone knew going in what they were in for, then I’d live there. It’d probably be the best country on earth - it would self-select for people who were on average much smarter than the average person.
This is one of those tricky issues where you have to balance the ideal of freedom against the practical reality of freedom. For instance - when neonazis want to give speeches in the middle of town square, nothing good is going to come from that. It does nothing but drag down our society. But it would be ideologically inconsistent for us to prohibit this, because even though it’s a use of freedom to make society a worse place, some people think a consistent ideology of freedom is more important. Or, say, letting really stupid, uneducated people vote - this undoubtedly has a negative effect on the state of the country and probably ultimately our freedoms, and yet, can we deny these people the right to vote in the name of protecting our freedom? It’s ideologically inconsistent.
So, here, too - religious people in office - I mean, the truly religious ones - are a net negative effect on society. They also tend to be harmful to freedom in a lot of ways. So by weeding them out, we’d probably have a net increase in freedom - and yet it’s ideologically inconsistent because we’re doing this at the expense of not allowing certain people to participate in government.
On these types of issues, I tend to side with the side of ideological consistency and against pragmatism. But I’m not so sure it’s clear cut. So I think that this hypothetical society would be a better place to live, yet, we might feel bound to work against it and instead enable policies that allow it to become worse, in the name of freedom.
No. It’s no different that requiring someone to be of a certain religion in order to hold office. “You must believe THIS in order to run for office.” Screw that.
A test for religious beliefs (or lack of), should NOT be a condition for office. Fuck that. Who cares how “wonderful” it is. It’s not a wonderful country if it doesn’t have freedom of belief.
I’ll use the same answer as elsewhere; religion is private, and I would no more want to live in a society of mandated atheists or agnostics in office than I would one with mandated religious people.
It doesn’t though. Just because the elected officials have to be atheists doesn’t mean they won’t pander to the voters, and if the voters support something illogical or irrational, there will be elected officials who advocate the proposition. Not to mention the fact that atheists can be illogical, irrational, and nonscientific themselves.
It won’t even stop religious based policies from being advocated. In this fictional country, religious people still exist. They’re just not allowed to run for office. They’re still allowed to have political opinions, participate otherwise in the political process, lobby for issues important to them, and support candidates who agree with them. Edolphus Towns isn’t Jewish, but he still focuses a lot on Jewish issues, because his congressional district includes Williamsburg, which has a large Hasidic population.
I’d find that amendment unethical, but likely not so unethical for me not to live there.
It’s still discrimination. Just as it would if it forbade atheists from running for office.
I don’t think that a country should prohibit religion, even just to hold public office. What I would be for is an amendment that states that all religions are subject to the law. No religion has the authority to usurp any laws or regulations of the laws of the land. If found to be in violation, they will be shut down and banned.
Yes, I know. I was responding to the idea that a place like that would automatically be a place where religion didn’t have a place in politics, not commenting on whether or not it would be discriminatory.
No. Treating religious believers as second-class people or as subhumans has already been tried in circumstances such as Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China; the results speak for themselves.
Sure, but it’s discrimination on the basis of their failure to distinguish between fact and fiction.
The problems of Stalin’s Soviet Union and Mao’s China were not the result of their atheism. Sometimes it was because of a disregard for the rights of others, but often it was because of their devotion to doctrine even when any idiot could recognise that their doctrine was wrong. It may not have been caused by religion, but religion and disasters like the Great Chinese Famine are both symptoms of the same flaw.
Since ITR champion did not make the claim (on this occasion) that it was atheism that caused the problems, your reply is non-responsive. His point was that believers were treated as second class citizens; this is objectively true. Whether that was the cause of any particular evil beyond the persecution of those people is a different question that should be addressed on its own terms, not with changes of subject.
Sure, atheism didn’t cause these problems. But it certainly did shit-all to prevent them. We’ve had a number of posters come on to say they feel like increased atheism would automatically lead to an improved society that worked off logic and reason. These are some strong examples of how that is not true.
There’s nothing rational about age limits. It’s ageism, pure and simple.
I certainly wouldn’t make this claim. The atheism=rational fallacy is pervasive, but I’ve known lots of atheists who believed some pretty woo shit. But that’s not the OP’s hypothesis. He has a country that manifestly isn’t Russia or China.