How Would the US be different if Atheists ran our government?

[elehhhhna]

Weigh in here, pleas. I think it would be more pragmatic, logical, and perhaps humane.

[swag]

1. Fish sticks and tartar sauce for all!

[mopaul]

2. I just think that some should be there to represent millions of americans

i know of none, but there are probably a few who keep their traps shut. some see atheists as worse than pedophiles.

and i wouldn't want atheism to be the official policy. i strongly support freedom of religion and strong seperation of church and state

[Warpy]

3. Atheists think there will be a future

and don't believe in that rapture nonsense, so atheists would likely be better stewards of the environment and would plan for things like the end of cheap, plentiful oil.

That's about the only major difference I can think of. Atheists are a mixed bag, though, and there are some as unprincipled as Armageddon-obsessed CINOs who think their lip service to Christ and a few hundred bucks a year to the 700 Club will get them into heaven before the shit flies.

[madrchsod]

4. they are running it now-

these people are not believers in christ nor god. they only use the names to make themselves presentable.

[mopaul]

5. give that man a cigar

repubs are givin' em' what they want, raw meat. they are no more sincerely christian than elmer gantry.

[robbedvoter]

6. Dod wouldn't "bless' us, but instead the furriners?

[Arugula Latte]

7. Saner and more compassionate.

We're not waiting for the afterlife to get things right.

[Caution]

8. There are bad atheists out there as well. It really depends on the

individual in power. My cousin is a rabid conservative as well as an atheist and he's the last person I would want running the govt. (I'm an atheist FWIW)

[calico1]

11. I agree.

I could see some Athiests harrassing people of faith and trying to prevent religious practices. This would be no better than holy rollers trying to force their religion. I think what we need is a government that respects the Constitution. You can believe or not believe, you just shouldn't mix faith or lack of faith with the way the Government is run.

[Pithlet]

18. Yes. I used to have a friend

who was very bright, an atheist, and a die hard Republican. I think part of it regarding his conservatism was his upbringing, which was privileged and upper middle class. I don't think being an atheist in itself makes one more or less qualified for office. It definitely depends on the person.

[annak110]

9. I agree, and no cooked up"supreme being" would be waiting

in the wings to kill everyone on the planet for the benefit of a "choosen few".

[Killarney]

10. we wouldn't fight any holy wars

and we wouldn't make laws discriminating against people because of what the Bibles says.

[pbg]

12. There's good atheism and bad atheism

Good Atheism: no religious hysteria, more support for scientific research, pragmatic social policy.

Bad Atheism: "What does it matter if I loot the government for hundreds of millions of dollars, as long as I don't get caught?"

Or to put it another way:

Good Atheism: Carl Sagan and Ron Reagan Jr.

Bad Atheism: Ayn Rand and Ken Lay.

You can either say that the lack of a God requires us to be moral and live well with our fellow beings--or you can say that the lack of a God entitles us to anything we can get away with.

Does anybody believe that Dick Cheney is anything but an atheist?

[JohnKleeb]

14. Lay isnt an athiest

I remember seeing his minister stand up for him and his wife. Yeah Sagan is good, he seemed to respect the pope and vice versa, my philosophy teacher was telling us about the time they met, and they commented its amazing how smart you are but you dont believe in god the pope said, Sagan said well I feel the same way about you. Is Reagan Jr an athiest too?

[pbg]

15. Ken Lay may go to church...

...and I don't know his personal philosophy--so I'll just say Ken Lay behavior.

If you engage in raping the citizenry and the environment, lying, cheating, and stealing for your own gain, you have four options.

1) you believe in Social Darwinism, that all this savagery and cruelty is Good For The Species;

2) that you are Chosen by God, and therefore can do anything you want and still be good, because all that matters is Jeezus as your personal savior

3) that somehow the Invisible Hand of the Free Market is going to magically transform all your crimes into Increased Prosperity for All, and All Boats Will Be Lifted, and The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow.

and 4) that all this higher morality and justice is a lot of superstitious hogwash, and He Who Dies With The Most Toys Wins.

2 is fundie xian; 3 and, to a far less extent 1, can be shoehorned into either camp (although I don't know anybody since the Victorian Era who combined religion and 1--and 4 is atheism.

they're all fucked, IMO. My point is that scratch an unethical corporate republican and you'll find 4. The GOP is an unholy alliance between the2's and 4's and the tension there is substantial. I really don't know whether GWB is, at the core, a 2 or a 4. (the 1's and 3's are mostly locked in the think tanks and blogging away about Atlas Shrugged. exceptions: Alan Keyes, Greenspan, Fat Tony Scalia.)

[stopbush]

17. Sorry, but Dick Cheney is no atheist. Why slur atheists by throwing that

POS into our camp? The man is an avowed Xtian. The Xtians can have him, we don't want him.

I find it interesting when people opine that "bush/cheney/fill in the blank with the name of an avowed Xtian aren't acting like Xtians." What Xtians would you be talking about? They act pretty much like most Xtians in this country today and a good number of avowed Xtians throughout history. Do you mean to tell me that none of those holy wars were actually fought in the name of Christ? Do you mean to tell me that Rome's anti-humanistic policies don't reflect the teachings of Jesus?

I don't know it you're religious or not, but I think it's time for Xtians to own up to their living legacy of xenophobia, racism and intolerance. Embrace the horror! Take the bath water along with the baby.

Jesus said that he came not to unite people but to set family against family, brother against brother, parent against child (Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. - Matthew 10:34-37). That about covers it. Where is there any ambiguity in those words?

Based on that little morsel, I'd say that bushco and their born again allies are fulfilling Christ's wishes to a tee.

[pbg]

19. Belief in God isn't a tribe

Nor is atheism.

Belief in God isn't necessary to start wars--just 'us' versus 'them.'

You've just illustrated a sad truth: the irresistible impulse of humanity to look at the folks from the next village as the enemy. No supernatural stuff necessary.

Create an enemy. Turn them into a tribe. Tar them with a bloody brush because they belong to a group--somehow.

I'm not a Christian apologist. I'm a Socratic in that i believe that admitting my ignorance is the beginning of wisdom.

But I will point out that the quote from Matthew can be--and has been--interpreted as a refutation of tribal and family blood-ties--those same ties that have created vendettas and feuds all through human history. Others have interpreted it differently, of course--but to some, that verse says 'don't listen to your family when they say that 'family honor', 'family tradition', and 'your position' come first. Truth cuts through all these things.' "peace" can mean 'the established order and the structure of society.' It relates to Jesus also saying 'give up all that thou hast and follow me.'

If your truth is atheism, it's a sword between you and your family, isn't it?

I stand by my observation on Cheney. He doesn't act like he thinks God is going to forgive him. He just takes it.

[Star]

13. No theocracy

We wouldn't be sitting watching them trying to turn this country into a theocracy. That's what's going on, folks. The religious right, al la Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, et al, are trying to turn this country into a theorcracy by getting right-wing fundamentalist christians into office. They've been at it since the 80's. If * gets elected in Nov, the supreme court will be packed with RW fundies, and our country will be gone. Bet on it.

[Cleita]

16. I think this is what our Deist foretathers had in mind.

They couldn't quite bridge the step to atheism, but they probably felt strongly that religion had no place in government because those qualities you stated above would be absent.

[Jackpine Radical]

20. Easy. The whole country would be going to Hell. Oh, wait...