Generalizations by a Marxist.

Why Are Religious Beliefs Off Limits?

Lawrence M. Krauss
Director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University,
author of A Universe from Nothing

More generally, should we not be able to question whether the beliefs of the religion publicly espoused by a candidate may reflect on candidate's judgment and their ability to distinguish sense from nonsense?

The bible is full of dubious scientific impossibilities, from Jonah living inside a whale, to the Sun standing still in the sky for Joshua. But while the miracles at the foundation of the Mormon Church may be no more or less believable in an a priori sense than those attributed to mainstream Judeo-Christianity, they are clearly more suspect. Joseph Smith was previously tried for the crime of claiming to falsely find lost treasure when he then claimed to discover golden tablets buried under a tree in upstate New York in the 19th century, and with the aid of an angel translates them into 17th century English, and then the original tablets miraculously disappear. Among the beliefs that followed include the claim that native American tribes represent the lost tribe of Israel and that Jesus Christ also conveniently visited North America.

Shouldn't we wonder about the judgment of anyone who buys that story without doubt, especially when that person is vying for our trust as commander in chief?

However, his theological beliefs have led him to more bizarre beliefs that transcend even the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. Unlike the official statements of the Vatican, Santorum has argued strenuously that his theology is incompatible with the facts of biological evolution, and he has spearheaded calls for the insertion of religious based nonsense, labeled "intelligent design" into public school science curricula. Perhaps even more worrisome is his "end of days" theological belief that "Satan has his sights on the United States of America," as the former Senator put it in a speech a few years ago.

When a person's religious beliefs cause him to deny the evidence of science, or for whom public policy morphs into a battle with the devil, shouldn't that be a subject for discussion and debate?

Both Romney and Santorum no doubt gained their faith by exposure to their respective religions as children. Nevertheless, as adults we should amass sufficient tools of critical thinking to know which stories to keep and which to discard. It thus seems fair game to openly and directly ask Mr. Romney and Mr. Santorum to outline the specifics of their beliefs about the sacred as well as the profane, in order to more fully probe the character and intellect anyone who proposes to lead this nation. To do any less is to be negligent in our duties as citizens.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence- ... ef=science

Why are religious beliefs off limits regarding candidates?

The Constitution of the United States, that's why!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Si ... nstitution

"No religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or Public Trust under the United States."

The fact that the Constitution declares that there should be no religious test for office, a position I strongly support, is entirely different from me, or anyone else, judging for myself that the fact that someone beliefs certain things makes their judgment suspect.

The religious litmus test is in the Constitution for the government not to have it - i.e. local voting council authorities cannot impose it on any candidate. Yet, in TN (?) or Mississippi (?) I think it is in the state Constitution that a non believer cannot hold an office. The public can subject the candidate whatever test they want and the candidate is free to pander to whoever they want with their faith worn on the sleeve or not to mention it at all. Which is an interesting point that only 1 openly declared non believer (from CA?) is a US Representative.

I would be surprised if it were true that a state had a prohibition that a non-believer could not hold office.

But it is certainly a fact that in most cases, especially at state and federal levels, a declared atheist would have no chance of being elected because so many people would just not vote for one on that basis alone. Sad, but true.

DagnyWener



It sounds to me like you're in the wrong country.

There are far more important things for a president to be concerned about than whether you are related to the monkeys.

Both Romney and Santorum are at least honest enough to state what they believe. Isn't that better than what we have now.

If Obama gets another 4 years we might need to take a closer look at Santorum's end of days theology.

Just as there are those who promote atheism, and in some cases so vociferously that they are in fact Anti Theists (P Z Myers is an example), who are attacking candidates for their religious beliefs, I would have a serious problem voting for someone who promotes atheism. (An agnostic might be a different matter.)

For one thing, if someone believes that all existence, life, mind, and reason itself are the product of mindless forces, and that there is no Objective Morality, then it is entirely possible that they might not give a damn about me or other believers...seeing them as inferior or the like.

So, I'm sorry, but I just couldn't trust them with political power over my life; as it stands life and death are in the hands of Five People on the Supreme Court.

Jack........I would be surprised if it were true that a state had a prohibition that a non-believer could not hold office.

Atheists Prohibited From Holding Public Office in 7 State Constitutions
The Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC, 12-14-2009
Cecil Bothwell, atheist, elected to city council in Asheville, NC, challenged on his atheism to be removed from office.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY-FRhAXm-Q

Some state constitutions in the US require belief in God or a Supreme Being as a prerequisite for holding public office or being a witness in court. This applies to Arkansas,[22] Maryland,[23] Mississippi,[24] North Carolina,[25] where the requirement was challenged and overturned in Voswinkel v. Hunt (1979),[citation needed] South Carolina,[26] Tennessee,[27] Pennsylvania,[28] and Texas,[29] debatably.[30] A unanimous 1961 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Torcaso v. Watkins held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution override these state requirements,[31] so they are not enforced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of ... lic_office

In the United States, seven state constitutions officially include religious tests that would effectively prevent atheists from holding public office, and in some cases being a juror/witness, though these have not generally been enforced since the early nineteenth century.[34][35][36]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimina ... ted_States

Realized this post would fit the free will thread better. Posting it there.

Jack,

From a Christian perspective of grace, equality of every sinner under the law, forgiveness, and most importantly following god's law (as the law is ordained by god, according to the Scripture) etc, this is rather peculiar.

Gingrich says atheists can’t be trusted, disregards 50 million secular Americans
http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2011/10 ... americans/

Good research, Dagny - I am amazed that those proscriptions against atheists holding office, or requiring a statement of belief, exist.

I was called for a jury trial a few years ago, and even though I was dismissed, I checked and was told I could affirm, rather than swear, the oath concerning being impartial, on the grounds that swear implied a religious belief.

Jack, the remarks about "secular" Americans seem to equate "secular" with "atheistic".

The two, of course, are not the same.

And if atheists can claim that believers are somehow not as rational as atheists, and, I would assume, not as good as atheists, then you are not really in a position to criticize believers who don't trust atheists.

You can't have it both ways.

Jack......I was called for a jury trial a few years ago, and even though I was dismissed, I checked and was told I could affirm, rather than swear, the oath concerning being impartial, on the grounds that swear implied a religious belief.


Yes, affirmation is well established, though the judge/bailiff when swearing you may or may not give you this option. You are free to invoke it even if they don't say it outloud to you.

I'd be curious if there is any research (or meta research reviewing previous studies) that show that affirming vs. swearing to god effects the outcome of legal proceedings. I have not seen this, but it would make sense, considering the "unconscious bias" that is common biologically across a wide variety of parameters and also when it comes to religious biases of American Christians towards non believers (well documented in multiple polls by Pew, Gallup and others). I would not be surprised if there is a meaningful statistical bias (of 5-15%). This cannot be a striking difference, otherwise, anything in the 15+ percentile would immediately raise questions in the fairness of religious jurists and judges and would be in the news. Maybe because of the PC nature of it, this issue is not pursued?

Bias against minorities and light sentences to rich and highly educated defendants is well known though. Seems like "free will" arguments in judicial decisions don't hold water to unconscious influences.