It needs to happen, of course. Everyone has the right to their opinion (fundamentalists and the sane alike), no one’s arguing that. But when we have people in positions of power (in what is, unfortuately, the most powerful nation on Earth, no less) who not only employ these fundamentalist christian beliefs in their work but force them onto the nation as a whole (thus violating the Constitution), then we’ve got a problem. The only thing that’s stopped this movement from arising, predictably, are the nutcase fundies themselves, who immediately cry “persecution” whenever anyone points out the painfully obvious (that the only people doing the persecuting are the right-wing fundies themselves).

Wouldn’t an atheists view of what it means to be competent give you a prejudiced opinion as to whether a theist is competent?  How could you fairly judge their competency?  This seems like what was mentioned in another thread about Scott Adams not taking the opinions of the scientists or the creationists because they both have agendas.  Somebody’s status as a scientist or believer does not automatically make them incompetent of telling truth.  It is whether the mind is open or closed as to whether they are competent to govern.

Not quite what I meant, Theo.

If somebody is making a decision about something, I don’t care if it is a serious topic such as abortion or something frivolous, like declaring a holiday, that decision needs to be a rational, fair decision. If you believe something as far-fetched as the stories in the bible (Adam & EVe, The Great Flood, etc) then you are likely to believe anything and can not be trusted to make those decisions competently.

Would you want someone who believes that the best way to cure cancer is faith healing, making the decision on whether to increase the funding for cancer research?

I’d say that would eliminate just about every politician in Washington.  Sounds good to me.

Who or what determines what is far fetched?  I don’t care if the governing body incharge of legislating welfare belives that Santa Clause is real as long as they are accountable to provide rational reasons why they took the course of action they did.  If they are being irrational then by all means fire them.

Being a Christian or follower of any religion shouldn’t automatically dismiss you from the ability to perform the duties of a politician.  Granted I honestly don’t think Christians should participate in politics but that is for reasons entirely unrelated to yours.  To suggest they can’t rule effectively or fairly because of their religion is unfair itself.  Let their reasoning be judged and their fate decided accordingly.

How about a test? We can come up with 50 questions, scenarios that would require a decision. The correct answer would be based on reason, the other choices guided by faith instead.

(Yes, I know that sounds like a set up, all answers arrived through faith are wrong, etc. Not what I am suggesting. I mean deliberately choosing scenarios where faith may lead you astray from what needs to be done. eg: the 10 commandments being posted in a courthouse. Clearly a violation and inappropriate and yet some would let their faith into calling it okay.)

We can let religous leaders and scholars help craft the test, so long as they are able to look at a problem through the lens of reason and not faith.

We’ll spend several years hammering out the test and when everybody is satisfied that it is fair, we force every politician in the country to take out. If they can’t pass, so long…..

To suggest they [fundamentalist Christians] can’t rule effectively or fairly because of their religion is unfair itself.

It would be unfair *if* we didn’t (a): have previous experience on which to base our notions (i.e. the past actions of other such fundamentalist politicians), or (b): have any reason to believe/expect a certain individual legislator/judge, etc. to behave in such a manner.

Unfortunately, rarely do scenario (a) or (b) take hold. I can’t think of a single well-known fundamentalist Christian politician who doesn’t push his/her own views onto the public at large. I know that simply being a fundamentalist may be all the justification that such a person may feel for pushing his/her views onto the public, but I personally feel it’s wrong.
I have nothing against fundamentalist Christians believing/expressing what they feel (although I’ll admit, they do annoy the living hell out of me), as we are all guaranteed both politically and morally (I feel) to such rights.

Where people of all faiths, but especially fundy Christians it seems, cross the line is when they try to force their beliefs onto others, either in the form of harassment, persecution and/or legislation.

Santa Clause IS’NT real?  *sniff*

Frumpa, I won’t presume to say Santa is or isn’t real, but check out this.

LMFAO Zilch! - My old mans German so I grew up with copies of Stern mag lying around - talk about your gratuatious nudity! - and he borrowed them from the library! - Yeah the more I think about it,the european “Tell it like it is” attitude really appeals to me…Its really just “Little America” down here in Australia these last 9 years.

Sam Harris would, I think, agree with you (KPatrick) on the competency thing. He wrote a book last year (or so) called “The End of Faith”, in which he argues against the insanity of tolerating even moderate religious influence in our socio-political existence. It is ever so cold and logical…yet easy to read. Highly recommended.

KPatrickGlover: ..we need to hire some lawyers and bring them each into court for competency hearings.  Think that would send a message?

Yes, I imagine it would.  The message would be something like: “Dear Christians of the United States.  We are no longer satisfied with the live-and-let-live policies which have worked so well in this country for the past 230 years.  We have decided that outright persecution is the way to go.  Thank you.“

Sexy Sadie: But when we have people in positions of power who not only employ these fundamentalist christian beliefs in their work but force them onto the nation as a whole (thus violating the Constitution), then we’ve got a problem.

Yes, the government is forcing their Christian beliefs onto the nation as a whole.

Can anyone name a single example of this government “forcing” Christian beliefs onto anyone?

KPatrickGlover: Would you want someone who believes that the best way to cure cancer is faith healing, making the decision on whether to increase the funding for cancer research?

No, I think I’d like something known as “the free market” to make that decision.  I know that’s anathema to the Socialists of the world..

KPatrickGlover: How about a test? We can come up with 50 questions, scenarios that would require a decision. The correct answer would be based on reason, the other choices guided by faith instead.

For all that people on the left view themselves as guardians of the Constitution, they generally know very little about the document.

“No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.“—US Constitution, Article 6

For all that people on the left view themselves as guardians of the Constitution, they generally know very little about the document.

“No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.“—US Constitution, Article 6

Point 1: I’m not on the left. I am a conservative. I just happen to be a rational conservative and don’t believe in the invisible sky daddy.

Point 2: The phrase you quoted means that no one shall be required to be any particular religion to hold office. I happen to know the Constitution very well, thank you. The test wouldn’t be a religous test, it would be a logic test to make sure your religous views don’t prevent you from making rational decisions.

Can anyone name a single example of this government “forcing�? Christian beliefs onto anyone?

How about the various state constitutions that prevent anyone who doesn’t believe in god from holding office? Wouldn’t that qualify?

That sure sounds like a religious test.  Maybe we should let the people vote for their leaders.  Oh, wait.  There’s a vast religious majority, so voting won’t work.  We’re going to need a dictatorship of some sort.  Anyone got any weapons?

KPatrickGlover: I’m not on the left. I am a conservative. I just happen to be a rational conservative and don’t believe in the invisible sky daddy.

A conservative is someone who believes in small, limited government and individual rights (particularly property rights).  In what sense would you be considered a conservative?

The libertarian sense?  Definitely not: you’re perfectly willing to dictate what are the “correct” and “incorrect” ways for other people to think.

Perhaps you’re an economic conservative?  Seems unlikely, given your tacit assumption that the government should be deciding how much money to invest in medical research.

Maybe you’re a social conservative..?  Despite what the left says, there are a lot of agnostic/atheist social conservatives who oppose things like abortion, no-fault divorce, and the welfare state for non-religious reasons.

Speak up, KPatrickGlover, what makes you think of yourself as “conservative”?

KPatrickGlover: The test wouldn’t be a religous test, it would be a logic test…

Regardless of your Orwellian attempts at doublespeak, “testing” people to make sure they don’t hold any religious views is a religious test and a rather frightening idea.

In any case, I don’t think you can argue that George W Bush or his buddies made any secret of their God-centered worldview before, during, or after the election.  The electorate still voted for them; it would appear the voters don’t agree with your definition of “fit to serve”.

KPatrickGlover: How about the various state constitutions that prevent anyone who doesn’t believe in god from holding office? Wouldn’t that qualify?

I suppose it might, if any of them had ever been enforced, or stood any chance of being enforced at any point in the future.

This argument is a non sequitur.  It’s like arguing that that someone is racist because the deed for his house still contains a covenant left over from the 1800’s prohibiting its sale to a Negro.

Can anyone here name even one example of the government “forcing fundamentalist christian beliefs onto the nation as a whole,“ as Sadie claimed?

A conservative is someone who believes in small, limited government and individual rights (particularly property rights).  In what sense would you be considered a conservative?

The libertarian sense?  Definitely not: you’re perfectly willing to dictate what are the “correct�? and “incorrect�? ways for other people to think.

Perhaps you’re an economic conservative?  Seems unlikely, given your tacit assumption that the government should be deciding how much money to invest in medical research.

Maybe you’re a social conservative..?  Despite what the left says, there are a lot of agnostic/atheist social conservatives who oppose things like abortion, no-fault divorce, and the welfare state for non-religious reasons.

Speak up, KPatrickGlover, what makes you think of yourself as “conservative�??

Let’s see, belief in small, limited government? Check.

Dictate how people think? Certainly not, think however you like, just don’t force your delusins on me.

Economicly? Without a doubt. I don’t believe the government should be deciding things like how much is spent on medical research, most of that should be dealt with in the private sector. My comment was simply an easy metaphor to explain my point. Apparently the example went over your head.

Social Conservative? No, socially is the one area where I tend to slide to the left.

Regardless of your Orwellian attempts at doublespeak, “testing�? people to make sure they don’t hold any religious views is a religious test and a rather frightening idea.

Reread some posts and quit fighting strawmen. I never said test people to make sure they don’t hold religous views, I said to test them to make sure they don’t hold religous views that would affect their ability to think rationally. There is a difference.

Can anyone name a single example of this government “forcing�? Christian beliefs onto anyone?

Duh—it sadly happens all the time. Look at all the anti-gay/anti-love “amendments” that have popped up in various states over the last two years. Think that’s not related to Christianity? If you do, you’re only kidding yourself.

And what about politicians who try to restrict/rescind the rights of women to control their own bodies? Again, if you seriously think that’s not related to these politicians own religious agendae, you’re deluding no one but yourself.

Can anyone name a single example of this government “forcing�? Christian beliefs onto anyone?

1. Treatment of non-evangelical Christians at the Air Force academy.

2. Adding “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance during the Cold War.

3. Selection process for more than one Supreme Court nomination.

4. Attempts to reinstate school prayer (I don’t believe the prayers are from the Koran or in Hebrew or ...).

5. Substitution of Christian theology for science in biology classrooms in Kansas and other places.

And, to elaborate on what Sexie Sadie said:

6. Laws restricting a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion based solely on her own judgment and the judgment of her doctor (is there any other medical procedure that has similar restrictions)?

7. Prevention of the sale of the “morning after” pill over-the-counter despite the recommendations of a majority of the NIH review panel’s experts.

In other words, just read a newspaper. Or have someone read one to you.

You can look at the commandments on a courthouse as religious influence or as a symbol of the laws the court upholds.  The 10 commandments are a very understandable icon of the idea it is trying to convey.

Do you stop saying “sunrise and sunset” because they are meaningless terms?  The sun does not rise?  The earth rotates until we can see the sun.

I am all for the seperation of chuch and state.  I am also very concerned about the influence of religious power groups.

However, even us athiests should understand the power and contextual nature of symbols.

Now some other religious symbol of authority like a cross suspended over the judge and I am right with you.

8. (continuing from mine and Michael’s lists) Attempting to bar individuals who live alternative lifestyles from serving in the military forces (the motto “the land of the free” is so tragically ironic in this case).

9. Adult entertainment franchises being persecuted and investigated in states such as good ol’ Kansas (which of late seems to be rivaling Alabama for its willingness to make an idiot of itself).

10. “Amendment #2”‘s being proposed in various states in the early/mid-‘90s that were essentially overtly and unconstitutionally discriminatory against gays/lesbians.

11. Anti-sodomy laws in many states (that were finally struck down only two years ago).

12. “Faith-based” initiatives being thrown around in Congress.

13. Calls for removing sex education in public schools and replacing it with “abstinence-only” indoctrination, er, education.

14. The defeat of the E.R.A. (Equal Rights Amendment) in 1982, which came about largely from money donated by various churches.

15. The notorious “Global Gag Rule,“ in which aid is cut off to third-world nations who dare to think for themselves regarding reproductive rights. Instead, the people in these countries (that are so poor precisely because of overpopulation) are encouraged by the fundies in our government to try—you guessed it—abstinence! *gag*

When the President calls for amending the constitution to deny rights to 5% of the population to marry.  Is that the state forcing Christian views?

Homophobia seems to eminate from religeous views, ingrained over the centuries so even non religeous are indoctrinated. The biblical condemnation of gay sex comes from the fleeing Jews showing they are different from their former Masters, the Egyptians.

Michael Stiber:
6. Laws restricting a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion based solely on her own judgment and the judgment of her doctor (is there any other medical procedure that has similar restrictions)?

7. Prevention of the sale of the “morning after�? pill over-the-counter despite the recommendations of a majority of the NIH review panel’s experts.

The answer to what legislation is rational changes answers depending upon the ethical theory you subscribe to.  Religion can actually have nothing to do with what legislation is passed in this case.  Two atheists with opposing ethical theories can come to different conclusions but how would the test being proposed to remove the irrational decide between the two?

Michael Stiber: Laws restricting a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion based solely on her own judgment and the judgment of her doctor (is there any other medical procedure that has similar restrictions)?

Is there any other medical procedure which has a similar goal—namely, killing a human being?

As I said before, it’s a pretense of many people on the left that “opposes abortion”

<=>

“Christian”.  In reality, plenty of people who oppose abortion are agnostic/atheist.  Just off the top of my head, my father-in-law and his wife fit in this category.

Plenty of agnostics, atheists, and pagans think that theft, murder and rape should be illegal.  If you consider a fetus to be a living human being and you think murder should be illegal, it stands to reason you will oppose abortion—whether you’re religious or not.

Sexy Sadie: And what about politicians who try to restrict/rescind the rights of women to control their own bodies? Again, if you seriously think that’s not related to these politicians own religious agendae, you’re deluding no one but yourself.

Say, Sadie.. I’m a pilot.  I have a property right to control my own airplane.  I can say who gets to ride in my airplane and who doesn’t.

But you know what?  If I invite someone to take an airplane ride, but then decide in mid-air that I no longer want them in my airplane and push them out, that’s murder.  I’ve willfully placed them in a situation where their continued survival depends on occupying my airplane.  That trumps my property right.

A woman who gets pregnant has placed another human being (the child) into a situation where it depends on her for its continued survival.  She cannot then turn around and say “This is my body, I’ve grown tired of you, get out!“

Another example would be a couple with a one-month-old infant.  They have property rights over their own house, yet they cannot simply “evict” the infant into the wilderness if they no longer want it.  Having willfully placed another human being in a situation where it is totally dependant on them for survival, they are now obligated to care for that human being.

A more extensive exploration of these issues can be found at Libertarians for Life.

Such absoluteist arguments only hold water only if you consider a foetus to be a human being from the moment of conception. I do not.  There becomes a point when it is a human being, and so abortion should not be allowed, but to compare this to a morning-after pill which aborts a few thousand cells (which at that point have not yet developed specified functions) is foolish. Debate the point at which abortion should be not allowed, but dont assume day 1 is the same as day 280.

Let’s try to pry apart the distinct issues.

It’s not necessarily a bad idea to license candidates running for public office and make sure that they pass a competency test in the process. The catch is that those capable of passing the test are probably too smart to run for public office in the first place. Not that there’d ever be a consensus about what such a test would entail.

When comparing religious fundamentalists and Santa Claus literalists, the situation compares to alcoholics and abusers of controlled substances. They’re both addicted, but alcoholism is largely accepted by society, whereas junkies have an image problem. It gets tricky when you start to mix and match, though. Like a substancer abuser that happens to be a fundamentalist…

As CitizenX helpfully pointed out, it’s not really politicians that cause unrest. It’s the voters that put them in a position where they could cause harm. So, perhaps we should do away with the right to vote and replace it with a privilege to be earned. This might remove mental midgets, anti-intellectuals, narrow-minded bigots and the apathetic from the voter registers, but good riddance, eh?

Moving on to Christians in government. The U.S. has done well with close to a perfect score in the past, but it’s not going so well recently with fringe groups receiving undue consideration.

I’m not a political scientist, but the way I see it is that a nation like the U.S. or the European states perform a tightrope walk. They strike a fragile balance to prevent minorities and majorities to dominate or oppress each other, as applicable. Moonbats like most of the SEB regulars and the wingbat KPG are concerned because we perceive the system of checks and balances that makes the U.S. a decent place to live in for everybody (or so the theory goes) as in danger of being irreparably tilted to one side. It’s not like fundamentalists of any creed are particular tolerant to the heretics and infidels, are they?