Comments on: Atheists for Political Office http://liberatedmind.com/2010/03/atheists-for-political-office/ handmade, clean living, free thought Sat, 11 Feb 2012 07:22:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Daniel Shaw http://liberatedmind.com/2010/03/atheists-for-political-office/comment-page-1/#comment-577 Daniel Shaw Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:17:14 +0000 http://liberatedmind.com/?p=1392#comment-577 Now that I can agree with. If there is a theist and non-theist with comparable political views I will side with the non-theist every time. Now that I can agree with. If there is a theist and non-theist with comparable political views I will side with the non-theist every time.

]]> By: LiberatedMind http://liberatedmind.com/2010/03/atheists-for-political-office/comment-page-1/#comment-576 LiberatedMind Tue, 23 Mar 2010 01:58:01 +0000 http://liberatedmind.com/?p=1392#comment-576 i agree, but i do think we should support more non-theists in political office when we agree with their political stance and make other aware of the discrimination that is present in state constitutions forbidding non-theists from holding public office. i agree, but i do think we should support more non-theists in political office when we agree with their political stance and make other aware of the discrimination that is present in state constitutions forbidding non-theists from holding public office.

]]> By: Daniel Shaw http://liberatedmind.com/2010/03/atheists-for-political-office/comment-page-1/#comment-575 Daniel Shaw Mon, 22 Mar 2010 23:02:24 +0000 http://liberatedmind.com/?p=1392#comment-575 I am unable to support an idea that a candidates religious beliefs or lack thereof are a more important factor than his political ideology. I couldn't follow an athiestic candidate blindly, not after I have discoverd the joys of seeing the world with eyes wide open. I am unable to support an idea that a candidates religious beliefs or lack thereof are a more important factor than his political ideology. I couldn’t follow an athiestic candidate blindly, not after I have discoverd the joys of seeing the world with eyes wide open.

]]> By: LiberatedMind http://liberatedmind.com/2010/03/atheists-for-political-office/comment-page-1/#comment-571 LiberatedMind Mon, 22 Mar 2010 21:09:31 +0000 http://liberatedmind.com/?p=1392#comment-571 You have a valid point. I think difference in a religious group supporting political candidates and a freethought group supporting candidates lies in the heart of the constitution with the separation of church and state. Elected officials are supposed to be secular in their public life. In private, they may practice whatever religion they choose. However, as elected government officials, it is in following with the constitution that they should not mix secular politics with personal religion. This is what we should champion through a political group like the one above. We should not elect people based on their personal worldview, but rather on how well they separate their personal worldview from their public job, as a representative of ALL the people. Freethought and non-theist candidates are thus far the best at this separation. It is also good to note here that there are still laws on the books in a number of states: Texas, Tennessee, North Carolina are just a few. The state constitutions specifically prohibit non believers from holding public office and testifying in a court of law. http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Laws_and_other_rules_against_atheists_and_agnostics Atheists are discriminated against in government to the point where if an atheist is open about his worldview, he can forget about being elected. I think it is a meme that is worth fighting for to give equal rights to non-theists and to challenge the christian religion that has gradually taken hold of our government through sponsored prayer at public meetings, swearing on the bible at inaugurations, pleding to "god" and country, and building chapels in the public buildings in D.C. You have a valid point. I think difference in a religious group supporting political candidates and a freethought group supporting candidates lies in the heart of the constitution with the separation of church and state. Elected officials are supposed to be secular in their public life. In private, they may practice whatever religion they choose. However, as elected government officials, it is in following with the constitution that they should not mix secular politics with personal religion. This is what we should champion through a political group like the one above. We should not elect people based on their personal worldview, but rather on how well they separate their personal worldview from their public job, as a representative of ALL the people. Freethought and non-theist candidates are thus far the best at this separation.

It is also good to note here that there are still laws on the books in a number of states: Texas, Tennessee, North Carolina are just a few. The state constitutions specifically prohibit non believers from holding public office and testifying in a court of law. http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Laws_and_other_rules_against_atheists_and_agnostics

Atheists are discriminated against in government to the point where if an atheist is open about his worldview, he can forget about being elected. I think it is a meme that is worth fighting for to give equal rights to non-theists and to challenge the christian religion that has gradually taken hold of our government through sponsored prayer at public meetings, swearing on the bible at inaugurations, pleding to “god” and country, and building chapels in the public buildings in D.C.

]]> By: Daniel Shaw http://liberatedmind.com/2010/03/atheists-for-political-office/comment-page-1/#comment-569 Daniel Shaw Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:55:39 +0000 http://liberatedmind.com/?p=1392#comment-569 I am not sure it is ethical to support this organization. I am strongly opposed to religious members supporting certain candidates based only on their faith. How then can I support a group that advocates certain candidates based only on their lack on faith? I would love to see atheistic members of congress so the idea of supporting those candidates is appealing. I think we must ask ourselves though if we are willing to become the beast we are trying to slay? Should we make atheism an institution, an organized anti-religion? Or should we take the moral highground and stay the independent free thinkers that caused us to drop our faiths in the first place? I am not sure it is ethical to support this organization. I am strongly opposed to religious members supporting certain candidates based only on their faith. How then can I support a group that advocates certain candidates based only on their lack on faith? I would love to see atheistic members of congress so the idea of supporting those candidates is appealing. I think we must ask ourselves though if we are willing to become the beast we are trying to slay? Should we make atheism an institution, an organized anti-religion? Or should we take the moral highground and stay the independent free thinkers that caused us to drop our faiths in the first place?

]]>