Should the fact that someone is religious disqualify them from public ser

[Perky]

ice?

[Speck Tater]

1. That would require that office holders be atheists,...

and since atheism, like any other religious philosophy, has to be taken on faith that would be tantamount to requiring that office holders adhere to a particular faith. In this case, the faith that no God exists.

[jonnyblitz]

3. wow. atheism is NOT a religious philosophy based on FAITH

that is one of the most INSANE fucking things i have read on DU. :crazy:

[malachibk]

7. I totally agree with you

What a crazy thing to suggest.

[TreasonousBastard]

8. Then what is it?

For an agnostic, or anyone who simply has no religious beliefs, that's one thing, but an atheist who insists there are no gods is pretty much in the same position of provability as the religious who say there are. Proof is impossible in each case, so there must be something besides pure reason to bring that atheist to that conclusion.

[unblock]

13. not all atheists are simply believers of godlessness.

you don't have to have a profound conviction in the lack of a god to be an atheist. many atheists agree with agnostics that it is not provable whether or not god exists. however, they might feel that the likelihood of existence is so remote and the utility of faith so negligible that the chose to live their life as if god doesn't exist.

you could argue that this is technically a form of agnosticism, but in practice, it's pretty much atheism.

[TreasonousBastard]

25. This is true, and...

no where did I say anything else. If I left the impression that there are only one or two kinds of "atheist" that wasn't the intent. I was specifically addressing the militant hard atheist who denies the possibility of the existence of God-- just as with any religion, non-religion has its irrational wingnuts, too. Perhaps I spend too much time being bothered by the fringe of militant atheists, but I do see them as highly annoying, if not the ready threat that militant religionists pose at this point in time.

The whole thing gets a bit complicated when even some modern divinity schools are teaching Kirkegaard and questioning the existence of a "traditional" God and some churches out there accept some forms of atheism.

FWIW, according to several standards or definitions, I would most likely be considered an atheist myself.

[beam me up scottie]

17. Why do you refuse to use

the broadly accepted version of atheism?

Really, it's not that difficult to understand the difference.

Are you being obtuse?

It's very disrespectful, you know, to deliberately misrepresent a group of people.

It's also extremely intolerant.

[TreasonousBastard]

26. Explain the "broadly accepted version of atheism"...

when there are so many varieties.

Personally, I break it down to two major views-- don't know/don't care and probably/absolutely not.

That's simply my own way of classifying, and I am well aware that as, usual, there is a vast gamut of opinion that isn't easily classified. My own beliefs could be considered atheistic in some ways, and I became a Quaker largely because it is spritual without being doctrinaire or attempting to define what the gods may be.

Anyone reading who is actually interested in this discussion might want to visit www.infidels.org or see the Wikipedia entry on atheism as quite enlightening, although they don't go all that much into the Existentialists, where I found much of worth many years ago.

[beam me up scottie]

28. See my post #19.

Atheism 101.

It's a good start for people who have only heard atheism described by christians who tend to misrepresent it.

Not ALL christians, of course, but the ones who have vilified atheism are, as usual, the most vocal and their definition is the most widely published.

Look at how the reichwing portrays other religions.

Would you be comfortable using their definition of what a muslim believes?

[TreasonousBastard]

35. About.com? Please...

it's OK, but I've read Spinoza, Jaspers, Heidegger, and Russell, among others. Perhaps I should bone up on some of the newer ones if they've taken it further than, say, Nietzsche.

I still like Wikipedia and infidels.org best for Atheism 101 and 102. And they all say pretty much what I've said-- that atheism isn't a single homogenous viewpoint. So, what is this great insight you have that I have missed?

And, no, I would not be comfortable with an outsider defining what an insider believes, unless he got it from an insider.

Like, well, infidels.org.

[prolesunited]

10. Wow

I guess you learn something new every day.

Can you cite some sources for your definition of atheism as a religious belief?

[unblock]

14. you're getting confused by the terms i think

you're saying that the alternative to someone being "religious" is for them to be an "atheist" which you then say is like any other religious philosophy.

seems logically contradictory that the alternative to "religious" is something that you criticize for essentially being "religious".

i would think that the alternative to "religious" would be "secular" or "non-religious", i.e., someone for whom religion is not a very strong driving force in their life, and in particular, their judgement and their decision-making process.

[beam me up scottie]

19. Atheism 101

A starter course.

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheism/p/atheism101.htm

It should be required reading for ANYBODY that maligns or misrepresents this minority, IMNSHO.

[napi21]

2. A person's religious beliefs should not matter.

Each naminee SHOULD be able to say, no matter what my personal religious beliefs are, they will not affect my secular decisions on the court. THEY must be based upon the LAW only!

[dretceterini]

4. It is impossible

for a person to seperate their spiritual beliefs from who they are and what actions they will take on any occassion.

[unblock]

5. not impossible. everyone's different

for some, yes, it's impossible. for others, it's easy.

[napi21]

11. No it's NOT impossible! For instance:

I personally believe abortion is murder and would NEVER have one. However, I do not believe the gov't should have any say in the decision at all! Roe is settled law, and that would be MY vote!

I believe in the total separation of church and state because I think they harm each other.

Each has a goal to accomplish. They should be responsible to do so independently.

[Marr]

16. No it isn't. A person can behave like a professional

and put those ideas aside for the sake of duty.

I assume you've done it on Jury Duty. You may have a strong belief in the defendant's guilt or innocence, but you're instructed to limit your conclusions to what can be gleaned from the evidence. Same thing.

[dretceterini]

40. OK, to be fair

I'll just say it is very, very difficult. I know of very few people who can seperate their spiritual beliefs from their political ones....and near impossible to do it completely.

[punpirate]

6. The Constitution specifically forbids...

... a religious test for any office. Article VI says, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Since Bush described his choice of Harriet Miers, in part, because of her religious faith, it was clear that he was applying a religious test to her qualifications. Bad Bush. :)

[TreasonousBastard]

9. Yes, very bad Bush, but we knew that already...

the problem is just what to do about it when hardly anyone seems to care.

[Az]

12. Religion and faith inspire many people

The trick is while serving the state they must not use their religion to justify their actions. They can be the foundation of their ideas but when they justify it they must do so based on secular reasoning.

[Marr]

15. Of course not. An atheist could be just as guilty of using outside

texts to dominate their interpretation of the Constitution. It's not just the Bible.

I'm an atheist myself, but I wouldn't trust Ayn Rand on the Supreme Court anymore than I'd trust Jerry Falwell.

[beam me up scottie]

18. Bwahahahahahaha !!!

What a silly poll.

Anyone who voting yes immediately disqualifies every member of the House and Senate.

Besides, almost everyone knows it is atheists who are barred from being elected to office in parts of this country, not believers.

[Marr]

20. Good point. If there are any religious martyrs here, it's the atheists.

Imagine if we had an atheist president who said publicly that Christians cannot be patriots.

[beam me up scottie]

22. Why, that would be despicable.

What kind of person would vote for someone like that?

Or any relative of theirs, for that matter.

I'm glad I live in a society dedicated to religious freedom.

Aren't you?

[Zynx]

21. Oh goodie. Religious tests. Back to the 17th century we go.

This is honestly the most preposterous thing I have seen on the DU in sometime. Those who support religious tests should be ashamed of themselves.

[NYC Liberal]

23. That would be a religious test. You are TESTING for a religion

and it's unconstitutional. For a good reason.

[journalist3072]

24. Absolutely not...that is discrimination

We should not be disqualifying anyone from office either because they are religious, or because they are not religious.

I think that particularly with judicial nominees, the question should always be: can they apply the law fairly, without inserting their own personal beliefs?

But it would be the height of discrimination to disqualify someone because they are religious.

It's wrong.

[readmoreoften]

27. How about OTHER: this poll is flame-bait. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

29. Thank you.

:thumbsup:

[IntravenousDemilo]

30. Why not, eh?

After all this time, turnabout is fair-play. Besides, it's not wise to put the public trust in the hands of people with serious mental illness.

[Perky]

31. FASCINATING RESULTSTHUS FAR

So apparently if a person was a liberal in every respect of the word, but was devoted to the Peace Movement because of deeply held religious beliefs he or she would be nontheless excluded by the mere fact that they were religious by about one in six out of 90 votes cast.

[sandnsea]

32. Well

Actually, if their devotion to the peace movement means complete pacifism, and they therefore can't defend the country in accordance with the Constitution, they probably shouldn't be in the position of governing.

[Perky]

33. accepted

I wa however referring to the current Peace Movement...

[radfringe]

34. although I believe religious affiliation should NOT disqualify

someone from public service -- I do believe that if that person is using their religion as a basis for their qualifications and/or as a "highlight" of what they will bring to a job - then by all means their religious beliefs should be investigated

the only instance I could see religion being a major issue in a job is if the job is a religious position

that being said - bush* and his buddies chose to tout Miers religion as a qualification -- they opened the door and Miers religious beliefs should be questioned -- the Supreme court is a legal and secular institution -- not the council of cardinals nor the inquisition

[Perky]

36. kick n/t

[EST]

37. The case could be made that anyone who chooses to

take the position that they must follow any particular course based on assumptions for which there are no factual, provable basis is not, a priori, qualified for an office that must place a premium on facts, evidence, pragmatism, and secular planning.

[Perky]

39. ok umm huh?

what are you really saying????are you a lawyer?

[H2O Man]

38. The Constitution is a good thing.

Those who would want to destroy it with nonsense like restricting people's employment options by way of religious "standards" are short-sighted, indeed.