Reason Rally: Do You Know The Bible?

[pancreasman]

My mistake, I found the goals of the reason rally.


I am not aware that atheists are not allowed to run for political office.

Also it seems that points 2 and 3 conflict. If there is no one "True Atheist", then it isn't possible to have a representative for all atheists. If one claims that a representative represents all atheist, wouldn't that prove a stereotype?

I think that in a democracy, one should represent all one's constituents. Thus a Jew can quite successfully represent the interests of all people in their district. As can a Christian. As can an atheist.

[Tanakh Keeper]

True enough.

[KingsGambit]

I don't want to speak for Jesse, but I'm guessing that what he's referring to might be that some states (I know North Carolina for one) still do have statutes on the book stating that non-theists are excluded from running for office. As federal law supersedes state law, none of these statutes are technically applicable because of the First Amendment, which prohibits religious tests as a prerequisite for election, but this hasn't stopped a few people from pushing for the laws to be enforced.

[lao tzu]

Thank you for your diplomatic response, KG.

In fact, I only suggested that TK had mistaken the mission of the Reason Rally. I did not provide details. To his credit, he looked up the stated goals, and found them to be counter to his claim, and so withdrew it. An entirely commendable response.

As you note, there are state statutes still in place that require religious tests, but in practice they're not enforced. That's not the focus of the argument, however. As has been shown in a number of studies and demonstrated in recent campaigns, atheism, or even tolerance of atheism, is toxic for any political candidate; that's an attitude worth addressing as atheists. We are the last minority it's still okay to hate. What we'd like to see is public condemnation of anti-atheist sentiment on par with that toward anti-gay or anti-black sentiments. We would like to see an end to atheist bashing. I'd like to be able to go to a restaurant without having to listen to the blue-haired ladies at the next table talking about how evil I am.

As ever, Jesse

[lao tzu]

I am not aware that atheists are not allowed to run for political office.

You've misread this, I believe. Atheists can run for political office, and even be elected here in the US, so long as they never mention their lack of belief.

Also it seems that points 2 and 3 conflict. If there is no one "True Atheist", then it isn't possible to have a representative for all atheists. If one claims that a representative represents all atheist, wouldn't that prove a stereotype?

I think you're correct here. As many a heated discussion on the old IIDB has taught me, the only thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief in gods. That's not a value. Certainly, most of us support humanistic values, and that's a position we can shorthand for public awareness, but no, it's not atheism. It's humanism.

As ever, Jesse

[Tanakh Keeper]

As you note, there are state statutes still in place that require religious tests, but in practice they're not enforced.

I had no idea that such laws existed.

As has been shown in a number of studies and demonstrated in recent campaigns, atheism, or even tolerance of atheism, is toxic for any political candidate;

Which recent campaigns said intolerance of atheists is okay?

[Cybelle Hawke]

You've misread this, I believe. Atheists can run for political office, and even be elected here in the US, so long as they never mention their lack of belief.

I kind of extracted from the OP that this thread was about the deeper/wider context as to reading and studying the bible and I had no idea it was about a rally or atheists being (not) able to run for political office.... but since this is now brought forward and when I read your above statement, I was kind of flabbergasted.....

So how exactly does one never mention one´s lack of belief if one sincerely is convinced to not believe? How can one distance him/herself from such identity- and integrity-interwoven convictions while dedicating, let´s say, 60 hours a week to one´s political job?

The US dollar note states In God We Trust.... so atheists do not use that money? In the US national hymn God is mentioned and referred to, so atheists do not sing that hymn?

I am just wondering how one can be elected for political office without accurately performing and working within one´s personal beliefs and convictions? An atheist who does not recognize the existance of God, the God who is mentioned and referred to in the most basic, yet also secular american activity (money & sports just to name two)..... what could this atheist possibly say without either be in self denial, lack of integrity or being a hypocrite?

Mind you, I do not want to attack anyone.... I just do not understand how atheists function in the USA.... Would it not be more transparent and clear if they would and could just step forward to be atheists and see if they (still) get elected instead of having to shut up all the time while trying to be of service to the american people in aspiring a political career?

By the way I am not american so do excuse my ignorance and thank you in advance for your time to answer....

[lao tzu]

I had no idea that such laws existed.

I'd imagine if they were directed against Jews, they'd make a bigger splash.

Which recent campaigns said intolerance of atheists is okay?

The senate race between Kay Hagan and Elizabeth Dole is probably the most recent, high-profile example.

[lao tzu]

I kind of extracted from the OP that this thread was about the deeper/wider context as to reading and studying the bible and I had no idea it was about a rally or atheists being (not) able to run for political office.... but since this is now brought forward and when I read your above statement, I was kind of flabbergasted.....

Nick's been writing about the Reason Rally for a while now, so he probably figured it was part of the common context folks would bring to bear when reading this latest.

So how exactly does one never mention one´s lack of belief if one sincerely is convinced to not believe? How can one distance him/herself from such identity- and integrity-interwoven convictions while dedicating, let´s say, 60 hours a week to one´s political job?

Cybelle, I do believe you're trying to be polite, and so I'm going to thank you for the spirit of your post. But what you've got here is almost a laundry list of theistic misapprehensions of atheists in the public sphere. I can't begin to make sense of the above or what follows without assuming you think atheism is some kind of religion or belief system. Do you? Because, well, if you do, that's a pretty fundamental mistake, and we've got quite the task of deconstruction ahead of us before you can appreciate our position.

Some of these, though, don't make much sense even from a Christian position. How does a Christian representative handle muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist constitutents with respect even though they sincerely believe they're heading for hell? Now, if you've got an answer to that, go ahead and assume I'd like my representative to treat me the same way even though I don't share his beliefs. From there, it's only a short step to imagining how an atheist representative should handle theistic constituents. We should treat them with respect, too, and instead of keying in on our religious differences, concentrate on the issues of interest to all of us.

It's not as if we're constitutionally allowed to lend legislative support to their religious positions, anyway. That's in our First Amendment, top of the page of the Bill of Rights.

The US dollar note states In God We Trust.... so atheists do not use that money? In the US national hymn God is mentioned and referred to, so atheists do not sing that hymn?

Well, I don't sing that verse, but it's not like anyone else does either. It's tacked on to the very end:

The Star Spangled Banner

Oh, say! can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming;
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there:
Oh, say! does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In fully glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh, long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution!
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Oh, thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust":
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

I don't think many people spend much time reading currency, either. The religious motto mentioned in the national anthem is a fairly recent addition to our bills in any case. Like the similar addition to the pledge of allegiance, it's fallout from the Cold War. There are regular challenges to its constitutionality. The reaction from Christians to litigation for its removal is ample evidence it's an example of "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Seriously, though, that's a back burner issue. There are plenty of other things the government is getting wrong that deserve addressing before we get to changing the motto on our currency.

I am just wondering how one can be elected for political office without accurately performing and working within one´s personal beliefs and convictions? An atheist who does not recognize the existance of God, the God who is mentioned and referred to in the most basic, yet also secular american activity (money & sports just to name two)..... what could this atheist possibly say without either be in self denial, lack of integrity or being a hypocrite?

The Supreme Court says the motto on the currency is secular. I'm free to argue against them, but that makes it the law of the land. We expect our representatives to follow that law, independent of whether they believe in any gods.

Mind you, I do not want to attack anyone....

If you'll permit me to interrupt that thought, the obvious question comes to mind on reading it: So why are you doing it? Self-denial, lack of integrity and hypocrisy? How was that necessary?

... I just do not understand how atheists function in the USA.... Would it not be more transparent and clear if they would and could just step forward to be atheists and see if they (still) get elected instead of having to shut up all the time while trying to be of service to the american people in aspiring a political career?

It sure would, but this isn't the best of all possible worlds. In politics especially, we don't get to choose between good and evil; at best we end up supporting the least of evils. We're currently on the receiving end of ungodly amounts of ignorance and prejudice, if you'll forgive the wry metaphor. The compromises necessary to get a seat at the table are admittedly difficult to navigate, but navigate them we must, or accept the consequences of continued disenfranchisement.

By the way I am not american so do excuse my ignorance and thank you in advance for your time to answer....

In point of fact, it was time I didn't really have available to answer, and I almost certainly wouldn't have troubled absent your last word.

As ever, Jesse

[Cybelle Hawke]

In point of fact, it was time I didn't really have available to answer

The more I appreciate your time and reply!

I will come back to it after having pondered on what you say (and if it does not derail too much the thread)

Allow me to quickly react on the self denial, lack of integrity & hypocrisy thing..... I did not mean to say that I believe atheists to be in self denial or that they are hypocrites or have lack of integrity.... On the contrary, the few atheists I know (actually just two but anyway) have a set of personal ethics that I can only admire and aspire.

I just wonder how someone could meet with the requirement "to never mention their lack of belief" as you put it and in my way of thinking, one can only act according to one´s (dis)beliefs - religious or not. Lack of belief does not necessarily mean bad decision or decline of values, so why requiring to never mention it? Yet requiring to never mention it, could affect one´s integrity and even force someone on the hypocrite path. I was just wondering how an atheist would cope with that, while on the other hand, the theist is allowed to amply ventilate and justify his beliefs.

But you are right, my inexperience with atheism and my lack of understanding how the american society actually functions (believe me it seems another planet to me).... it is too much to explain.

[Tanakh Keeper]

I'd imagine if they were directed against Jews, they'd make a bigger splash.

True 'dat. Well, obviously we are more organized than atheists. Plus there have been generations of hatred and persecution specifically directed at us. Atheism isn't a religion or even a specifically identifiable group. You can't look at a group of people and find the atheist, but the guy with very long sideburns and wearing black hat is hard to miss.

The senate race between Kay Hagan and Elizabeth Dole is probably the most recent, high-profile example.

I googled those people and took a peek. Interesting bit of negative campaigning...just accusing someone of being godless proved an effective tactic. In this case, it wasn't that an atheist wasn't allowed to run, but accusing someone (a theist) of being an atheist caused that person to lose votes. It looks like rather than passing laws, you need to change attitudes. Speaking from generational experience, that is difficult. You will need educational campaigns and wide-spread marketing for at least a decade to effect that.

[lao tzu]

True 'dat. Well, obviously we are more organized than atheists. Plus there have been generations of hatred and persecution specifically directed at us. Atheism isn't a religion or even a specifically identifiable group. You can't look at a group of people and find the atheist, but the guy with very long sideburns and wearing black hat is hard to miss.

Either Jewish or with ZZ Top, and I'm pretty sure there are more of the first than the last.

Any zombies in the mix? Cause it would warm the cockles of Dee Dee's heart.

[Tanakh Keeper]

http://media.photobucket.com/image/z...z_top.jpg?o=18

http://media.photobucket.com/image/h...icJews.jpg?o=2

Hmmm... yes, some similarity there.

The only picture of an atheist I could find and it's a cartoon.

http://media.photobucket.com/image/a...heist.jpg?o=24

[SarahB]

Good post, Nick.

I don't intend to be flippant here. I wonder if, in your wishes for how church members deal with skeptics, you'll be including instruction on insults, derision, belittling, invective, mild vulgarity, name-calling, etc. These, after all, are frequent components of your ministry partner's paradigm.

Please note, an often heard defense of the paradigm, that it is only "riposte" used to respond-in-kind, is not true.

I hesitated to bring this up here but since you are a ministry partner and offer endorsement or, at the least, tacit approval, I figure is wasn't unfair. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Cerebrum123]

Good post, Nick.

I don't intend to be flippant here. I wonder if, in your wishes for how church members deal with skeptics, you'll be including instruction on insults, derision, belittling, invective, mild vulgarity, name-calling, etc. These, after all, are frequent components of your ministry partner's paradigm.

Please note, an often heard defense of the paradigm, that it is only "riposte" used to respond-in-kind, is not true.

I hesitated to bring this up here but since you are a ministry partner and offer endorsement or, at the least, tacit approval, I figure is wasn't unfair. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Now I haven't been here long ,but I haven't seen Holding use name calling on anyone that either hadn't demonstrated ignorance on the subject at hand ,or begun the name calling themselves. Again I haven't been here that long ,and I personally don't use the "riposte" (I think that there are people here who can genuinely say whether that is the correct term for what Holding does ,but I haven't been here long enough to make that judgement myself) ,but I don't have a problem with others using it when warranted. One guy on the actual comments section of Deeper Waters going by Simplexion ,has demonstrated ignorance ,AND name calling. I refrained from it myself ,and this guy still attacked me ,in spite of the fact I was trying to give him a real chance at what he said he wanted ,which was an honest discussion. I said if he was that bothered by others calling him "Simpleton" ,then he should show in his responses to me that the name wasn't warranted. He failed to do this ,and simply started mocking me instead. I think that Holding just realized what kind of a jerk Simplexion was sooner ,than I had ,and because of his experience in dealing with people like him for so long.