Atheists need not apply

[Kimpatsu]

But oddly, her representative in Australia, the Governer General, can be an atheist. Bill Hayden (exGG) posed a dilemma for the Australian Boy Scout movement as the GG is automatically their "head". Dilemma was, that part of the Scouting oath was to swear allegiance to God and the Queen. Bill refused to take such an oath.

Good for him.

 

[Kopji]

Note:
"Steven Waldman is editor in chief of Beliefnet, the leading multifaith spirituality and religion Web site."

I was not very impressed. His concluding remarks comparing the value of talking to pictures of presidents or God were specious and display the usual bias that the answer to our questions does not come from within us.

To topic:
If the state laws had contained language establishing racial prejudice or bias, lawmakers would probably find the time to have the embarrassing language removed.

The difference is that lawmakers are not embarrassed, but PROUD to include the exclusionary language even though it would not hold up in court.

Are we wrong for trying to instill some small sense of their hypocrisy and institutionalized injustice? Apparently so.

Additionally:
By leaving anti-atheist language in the laws, the states contribute to the same kind of 'hate' that they so fervently establish laws against. A Florida 'hate' law could have been applied to the troubled young man who broke a church window. The crime would have been much more serious if it were defined as a "hate crime" against Christians.

And yet, the same seeds of intolerance are rooted in our laws against atheists.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Note:
"Steven Waldman is editor in chief of Beliefnet, the leading multifaith spirituality and religion Web site."

I was not very impressed. His concluding remarks comparing the value of talking to pictures of presidents or God were specious and display the usual bias that the answer to our questions does not come from within us.

To topic:
If the state laws had contained language establishing racial prejudice or bias, lawmakers would probably find the time to have the embarrassing language removed.

The difference is that lawmakers are not embarrassed, but PROUD to include the exclusionary language even though it would not hold up in court.

Are we wrong for trying to instill some small sense of their hypocrisy and institutionalized injustice? Apparently so.

Additionally:
By leaving anti-atheist language in the laws, the states contribute to the same kind of 'hate' that they so fervently establish laws against. A Florida 'hate' law could have been applied to the troubled young man who broke a church window. The crime would have been much more serious if it were defined as a "hate crime" against Christians.

And yet, the same seeds of intolerance are rooted in our laws against atheists.

Well said!

 

[Stew]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2104602/

I'm just posting this as a follow-up to another article I posted a little while ago (about 5 posts up). This is also by the same author who criticized John Kerry for not making religion a bigger issue in his campaign. Well it seems like John was listening when Waldman suggested that being a secular leader was essentially Un-American. So now Kerry is out desperately, and a bit awkwardly, trying to convince Americans that he believes in an invisible man in the sky just as much as the next guy (as long as that next guy aint an atheist). What's amazing to me though is that with all that is going on in the world, and with the extreme polarization in the U.S. right now that the biggest issue to some people is that Kerry is a catholic.
So I guess the real point here isn't whether or not an atheist can legally take office, but whether one would even make it that far.

 

[Ladewig]

Let's look at the numbers


The results of a 1999 Gallup poll asking whether U.S. citizens would consider voting for a candidate who was completely qualified and ...

black - 95%
female - 92%
Jewish - 92%
gay - 59%
atheist - 49%

-------------------------------------


Kopji is right. Even if someone were brave enough to sponsor a bill eliminating an unconstitutional law, there is no way in heaven that such a bill would pass.