I wasn’t changing the subject, I was paraphrasing.
The problems of Stalin’s Soviet Union and Mao’s China were not the result of forbidding theists from holding public office. 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.
Atheism is rational, that’s not a fallacy. The argument you’re address to make is that atheists are always rational in all ways, and that’s of course true. I would wager that on average atheists are more rational, but there are certainly atheists below the average line.
To answer the OP; no, I don’t see much of a point in such a setup for a country. Requiring people to claim to be atheist to get into office is more likely to produce a government full of theists who are lying about it, not one of atheists. I consider a society primarily composed of and run by atheists to be generally a desirable thing; I see little point in one where people just pretend they are atheists.
Atheism is rational; atheists however are not necessary rational. It just means that they have one less reason to be irrational. You can still be an atheist if you believe that black magic using space aliens have replaced Obama with a golem made of cheese, as long as you don’t think that gods are involved.
Yes, which is one reason that Communism is sometimes called a religion or a close cousin. And clearly it was communism and not atheism that was at fault or you’d see that sort of behavior wherever you see atheists gain influence; instead of just where Communists do. Besides which, atheism can’t be a motivation for bad behavior, or good behavior since it doesn’t command any behavior or make any moral judgments. Unlike religion, and unlike communism as well if you don’t consider it to be religion.
And yes, there are of course atheistic religions before anyone says that communism can’t be atheistic and a religion. Religion is characterized by dogmatism, a denial of rationality and of objective reality; a belief in gods is common by not a universal among religions.
Well that’s an insane assertion, but I’m not going to derail the thread over it. My point stands: There are legitimate and illegitimate reasons to deny someone the right to hold office and that in a free country with access to courts, the legitimate reasons are upheld, while the illegitimate reasons are (eventually and with much trouble) tossed, so your original statement that just because the nation decided that one group of people couldn’t hold office meant that it could decide that any group couldn’t hold office and have that decision stand forever without trouble simply isn’t true.
Actually, you didn’t quite say what I just bolded, and I apologize for getting that wrong. What you said–or at least implied–was that the fact that one group of people were denied the right to vote in a free society meant that it was *logically consistent *for that society to deny any group the right to vote for whatever reason popped into its head.
Where are you coming from with the ethics angle? What ethics? Would you agree that there are right and wrong reasons to deny someone public office?
And let’s say that ageism in this case would be wrong. It’s not, but let’s pretend it is. How would wrongly denying someone public office based on his or her age or any other unjust reason justify denying them office based on their creed? Something about two wrongs and a right? Regardless of ageism, what you’re proposing isn’t ethical.
No, I wouldn’t, actually. As far as I’m concerned, there are no good reasons, period. Everyone should be eligible, from convicts to the mentally handicapped to foreigners.
It wouldn’t. I never said it would.
What, exactly, do you think I’m “proposing?”
I’m not advocating that the OP’s ScrewAslan actually be set up, what I’ve said is that if it exists, I’d want to live there, as I already put up with a lot more unethical things as a compromise position in my politics, that mandating religious people not be allowed to hold office is small ethical potatoes compared to that.