Do you think the United States will ever pass an amendment making atheism against the law?

Yes! I know, this may sound like a ridiculous idea on its surface but after having read many of the ‘big atheists’ as well as books like ‘assault on reason’, ‘idiot America’ and others, I began to wonder about it somewhat. Then last night I caught this story on MSNBC and seriously began to wonder.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show...

Yes, I know, watching Rachel Maddow is much like listening to a chicken talk but the interview does make one wonder. I mean we are talking about Christian Conservatives and Evangelicals (CCE) and for some reason this presidential cycle the CCE seems to be crapping out some pretty scary presidential candidates. As if 8 years of Bush style politics caused any remaining republican ‘person of character’ (if such a thing exists) to suddenly vanish and be replaced by these religio-nutjobs like Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and I’m sure we’ll be hearing about others as the months pass.

My biggest concern though is that the CCE have managed to create a larger pool of potential presidential candidates, these candidates each uphold to ideologies that, like their supporters, are far from rational and seem primarily based on fear, apathy and just plain ignorance. And just like Bush, I wouldn’t be surprised if shortly after winning election the elected nutjob doesn’t come on TV and ask the American public to “Imagine with me this new fear”, that of non-secularism.

Views: 5

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by roland707 on July 15, 2011 at 10:55am
Scary thought, but I don't see it happening. Hell, most big politicos only use religion as a tool for votes. They don't really believe that mess. It would also be about as unconstitutional as you could get.
Permalink Reply by booklover on July 19, 2011 at 3:54pm

Seems like most politicians Are tools :)  And remember George H.W. said he didn't consider Atheists to be citizens. This country is sucking more and more.

'

Permalink Reply by David Maxwell on July 15, 2011 at 12:03pm

Yes, you’re right, it would be unconstitutional. But let’s not forget that many Conservative Republicans have been trying to change the US constitution for years. Here’s a recent list of just some of the amendments they’ve been trying to pass:

  • Republicans want to introduce a repeal amendment, changing the constitution so that states can repeal any federal laws they don’t like.
  • They proposed dropping the 14th amendment so you’re not necessarily a citizen because you were born here.
  • They have purposed a constitutional amendment to ban the US government from buying stock in a company.
  • Presidential candidate Michelle Bachman purposed a constitutional amendment to ban the President from entering into a treaty that would change the US currency to some sort of global currency.
  • Republicans have pushed to repeal the 17th amendment, that’s the one that says we get to elect US Senators.
  • Republicans have also backed in recent years a ‘parental rights’ amendment to the constitution, to make sure the UN doesn’t come in and take away American parent’s rights.
  • Republicans of course have purposed amending the constitution to ban gay marriage.
  • Republicans have purposed amending the constitution to ban abortion.      
  • Republicans have purposed to repeal the 16th amendment, which would ban the income tax.
  • They have wanted to purpose a constitution to make English the “official” language of the United States.
  • They have wanted to amend the constitution to ban desecration of the American flag.

I mean some of them I can understand their reasoning on (not that I agree with them) but it doesn’t take much imagination to see that many of these purposed amendments are the byproduct of Religious Peer groups.

Not to also mention that religious groups in this country aren’t the smartest nor the most ethical bunch on the planet. And I can’t say that many of the tea partiers and conservatives are all that brilliant or ethical either. And they’re really quite good at using religious dogma to deflect their follower’s attention away from the genuine issues at hand.

I guess what I’m really wondering is why atheists don’t have some sort of charismatic presidential hopeful working in our corner?

I’m reminded of a speech Richard Dawkins did back in 2007 on militant atheism, he brought up many interesting points but one that caught my interest particularly was on regarding the parallels of intelligence and level of spiritual belief, the higher a person’s intelligence the less likely they will believe in god. He then paralleled the level of political representation for each religious group has as well as the level of political representation atheists have (which is embarrassingly low). Anyway, he did say one thing that definitely struck me and I think is appropriate as a response to why we have such little political backing:

“To put it bluntly, American political opportunities are heavily loaded against those who are simultaneously intelligent and honest.”

I’m just wondering why that is.

Permalink Reply by Richard K. Emms on July 15, 2011 at 12:47pm

I've always believed that "honest politics" is a prime example of an oxy-moron.  Ergo, to be a polition is to forgo honesty and intelligence for personal gain.

   I'd love to be proven wrong on this, but I'm not sure it's possible.

Permalink Reply by TK on July 15, 2011 at 11:17pm
No honest man would want to be a master of other men.  To think that one could go into the machine that is politics and come out the other side a shining knight is laughable.
Permalink Reply by Matthew Shafer-Skelton on July 19, 2011 at 3:43pm
You could run for office without being corrupted, and you could even get elected, but you couldn't actually achieve any of your goals without becoming part of the monster.
Permalink Reply by mojo5501 on July 16, 2011 at 2:21pm
How would such a law be upheld?  What would make atheism 'criminal'?  People's thoughts and internal beliefs or non-beliefs cannot be made 'against the law' and religion cannot really be 'compulsory'...can it?  Would we be put in jails away from believers?   I'm trying to figure out what would make us so offensive that we'd be targeted like that.  On the flip side, the only religious behavior that is 'against the law' is behavior that fits into criminal behavior parameters anyway, right?  
Permalink Reply by TK on July 16, 2011 at 5:26pm
You can criminalize anything, and it doesn't really even need to make sense.  History shows us this.  It's not that we are offensive, we are a threat to the spreading of the influence of religion.  If a government had the goal of spreading a particular religion, wanted to exert control via that religion, or a religion had control over a government, we would be a threat just by the mere fact we wouldn't buy into the religion.  We could also be scapegoated for various "problems" like illegal immigrants are.
Permalink Reply by David Maxwell on July 16, 2011 at 8:38pm

And let’s not forget we are the same country that had the McCarthy hearings. Oh how history does like to repeat itself, it just tends to come in differing varieties of sheep’s clothing.

I mean, yes, I do have a somewhat low opinion of the intelligence of the American public, but I also live right next to a very large military base (FT McCoy) and I really can’t believe level sectarian rhetoric these folks have around here. I’m really beginning to dread this stupid little town, but it seems that the majority of folks around here are either hyper-conservative or just waaay too mentally deadened.

It occasionally reminds me of Deliverance.

Permalink Reply by Jolly Sapper on July 16, 2011 at 6:59pm
I don't think that we'd see any constitutional prohibition against a lack of belief in anything let along a god.  It might be possible that things would push society in a direction that makes it more difficult to be an openly atheist but that would be on an individual basis between players much much farther down the food chain than the Congress of the US.
Permalink Reply by David Maxwell on July 19, 2011 at 5:41pm

So would I be correct in the assuming that you’re purposing individual states would have the decision making power of allowing citizens residence based on their level of spiritual acumen. I’m only asking this for clarity, as I wouldn’t be surprised if this wasn’t the first step in eventually creating such an amendment (if such an amendment were to be created). Although personally I still wouldn’t be surprised an “anti-atheist” amendment were purposed in the US anyway.

 

Yes, I admit, I do have a low opinion of the intelligence of your average US citizen. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that the rational basis for why your “average American citizen” would be against Atheism is because of the line “one nation under god” is part of our national anthem. A line that many people feel is the primary basis for why we are a country in the first place.

 

Plus let’s not forget “in god we trust” is on our currency, and although this wasn’t added until after 1957, most people in this country feel this is the rational basis for why our political and economic systems operate in the first place (yes, I’m being presumptuous). But let’s start polling our average citizen and see what the results would be. I wouldn’t be surprised if your average citizen had no idea what was on the US constitution (other than freedom of speech and the right to bear arms), I also wouldn’t be surprised if many of them could care less. So let’s face it; people in this country aren’t exactly the brightest (nor the most inquisitive) bunch of bulbs to begin with. Why do you think FOX network does so well, they’d rather have their thinking done for them. Not to also mention the sociology of apathy is quite popular.

 

You know, tough decisions need to be made, and all that rot…

Permalink Reply by Secular Forces 2013 on July 16, 2011 at 8:28pm
funny you mention; depends on if lobbyists from this part of the world pay off and rip off americans.. through reps..
http://freeinternetpress.com/story/Press-Freedom-In-Hungary-Prime-M...

Just days after Hungary handed off the European Union's rotating president to Poland, Prime Minister Orban has hastened his radical transformation of the country's media landscape. Supporters claim a massive wave of layoffs is necessary restructuring. But critics fear that not toeing the line of the ruling party can result in a pink slip.

The European Union generally makes a good target, and Viktor Orbán, Hungary's national-conservative prime minister, was back on the offensive in late June, raging against the E.U. in his usual fashion. "We won't stand for others telling us who we are and what to do" was one of the key sentences in a speech he delivered before the Hungarian parliament in Budapest just days before July 1, the day the country's six-month term as rotating president of the European Union would end.

Hungary has been moving further and further away from E.U. values and standards -- and that's exactly what Orbán wants. One proposed law would force Hungary's unemployed to perform community service. If their homes are far from where they are supposed to do such work, the law adds that they can be housed in work camps. Likewise, a new electoral law is specifically designed to help Orbán and his Fidesz party (an abbreviation of the Hungarian words for "Alliance of Young Democrats") keep a long-term grip on power. Workers' right to strike and freedom of religion are also under threat in the country.

During Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's recent visit to Hungary, Orbán had nothing but the highest praise for the Chinese system. In the run-up to the visit, Hungarian authorities had rushed to outlaw anti-China demonstrations.

~
remember; atheism is not a religion it's a personal relation to reality... I think it's called Earth.

RSS

© 2013   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service