Atheist Leaders Is it Ethical To Lie

truethat · 28th August 2008, 10:15 PM

I was having a conversation with a group of people the other night and one of them is running for office. He is actually an atheist but was raised Muslim. He's got a few rock and hard place scenarios going with that. But it was interesting to me that he flat out said he was atheist and all of the people at the table told him "Don't say that, you'll never get elected."

So how are atheists going to move ahead in the world of politics if this is the attitude? Which I have to say I tended to agree with?

Is it better to have the atheist in office incognito, or should atheists come out and be outspoken about it thereby forfeiting the election and yet paving the way for others?

What say you?

Jontg · 28th August 2008, 10:18 PM

Well, given that atheists aren't allowed to hold public office in a couple of states, I'd say it's perfectly acceptable. When the law is unethical, the only ethical choice is to break it.

Mark Felt · 28th August 2008, 10:20 PM

I'd say that it doesn't matter what their religious affiliation is. What matters are their policies. If I don't agree with the way the atheist votes but I agree with the way the theist votes, I'm voting for the theist.

X · 28th August 2008, 10:21 PM

I'd say the best bet would be not to mention any religious affilitation at all.

It's not neccessary for public office. At least not in North America. Maybe in the Middle East, or in Catholic South America, it is.

Of course, that's an idealized notion. I rather fear the voting public would be more comfortable voting for an individual they percieve as being sympathetic to their faith, rather than risk a complete unknown.

MattusMaximus · 28th August 2008, 10:33 PM

I think atheists should come out of the theological closet.

Pete Stark, a member of Congress from California, did that very thing, and it seems that his political future is secure.

It can be done. Stark will be only the first of many in the future, imo.

ETA: Yes, there would be a huge difference between Stark coming out in California and someone attempting to come out in, say, the middle of Alabama; I acknowledge this. However, the tide has started to turn regardless.

elipse · 28th August 2008, 11:04 PM

I say he should fake it until he gets elected, be as upstanding a politician as he can be (because one he comes out his behavior will be scrutinized). Once his policies have some success and people like him fairly well-- or at least, people get used to him

-- then he should come out.

elipse · 28th August 2008, 11:05 PM

doh. should have specified: he shouldn't lie about it, but should be sort of vague and evasive until he's elected. People will mostly naturally assume he's theist.

gumboot · 28th August 2008, 11:33 PM

I think a politician (and all people) should be honest about it. Those who intentionally conceal details about themselves do so for purely personal reasons. Sometimes those reasons are quite understandable - like pretending to be heterosexual so you don't get beaten up for being gay - but ultimately such deception only prolongs the process of being accepted by society, forcing others who come after you and whom share those traits to suffer rejection.

Social bias against certain people doesn't change if those people hide it. In most cases, when a person discovers that someone they admire and look up to has an "undesirable" trait, it forces them to reassess their opinion of that trait (I put "undesirable" in quote marks here to distinguish traits that are unfairly discriminated against such as race or sexual orientation, as opposed to traits that are fairly discriminated against such as dishonesty or criminal records). While atheist politicians are a rare and odd occurrence, people will tend to be wary of them. When atheist politicians are more open and reveal they're actually more widespread than thought, they will be accepted as normal.

So while concealing your religious beliefs may be of benefit to you personally, it is not of benefit to the long term interests of the nation (assuming you believe, as I do, that a nation benefits from being more equal, open, and tolerant of different people). A good politician should put the nation's future before their own personal career. (I know, like that would ever happen).

I, for example, applaud Keith Ellison, the first openly Muslim US Congressman. It wouldn't surprise me if he has personally suffered as a result of his decision to not hide his religion.

westprog · 29th August 2008, 12:35 AM

Originally Posted by Mark Felt

I'd say that it doesn't matter what their religious affiliation is. What matters are their policies. If I don't agree with the way the atheist votes but I agree with the way the theist votes, I'm voting for the theist.

What if their policies were equivalent?

Lonewulf · 29th August 2008, 12:41 AM

Originally Posted by westprog

What if their policies were equivalent?

I think it might be interesting to see how you'd vote, since from what I remember, you're the type that these politicians feel they have to hide from.

Originally Posted by Jontg

Well, given that atheists aren't allowed to hold public office in a couple of states, I'd say it's perfectly acceptable.

While a couple of states do disallow such things in their state's Bill of Rights (Texas is a good example), federal law trumps state law, especially in this case. Thus, atheists are allowed to hold public office in any state, no matter the laws of that state. I think it's better that way, personally.

westprog · 29th August 2008, 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

I think it might be interesting to see how you'd vote, since from what I remember, you're the type that these politicians feel they have to hide from.

The type who jumps to totally unwarrented conclusions on scanty evidence?

Quote:

While a couple of states do disallow such things in their state's Bill of Rights (Texas is a good example), federal law trumps state law, especially in this case. Thus, atheists are allowed to hold public office in any state, no matter the laws of that state. I think it's better that way, personally.

Lonewulf · 29th August 2008, 01:54 AM

Originally Posted by westprog

The type who jumps to totally unwarrented conclusions on scanty evidence?

So you're saying that an atheist and a religious man, if they're equal on all issues, would still not matter in their beliefs for you?

westprog · 29th August 2008, 02:00 AM

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

So you're saying that an atheist and a religious man, if they're equal on all issues, would still not matter in their beliefs for you?

I certainly wouldn't vote for someone purely on the basis of whether they were an atheist or not.

However, certain beliefs - religious or otherwise - might affect my opinion. I would be less likely to vote for a Marxist, or a fundamentalist.

Furi · 29th August 2008, 02:12 AM

I'd say that he should stick to his beliefs, if it happened to a case where religion was required for public office than use that as a point that his decisions would not be based on religious requirments.

[PigglesFliesAgain]Would be nice to have someone standing by their beliefs rather than pandering to everybody just to get elected and ending up just another non effective unpersonality[/Piggles]

Lothian · 29th August 2008, 02:58 AM

Originally Posted by Furi

[PigglesFliesAgain]Would be nice to have someone standing by their beliefs rather than pandering to everybody just to get elected and ending up just another non effective unpersonality[/Piggles]

Depends on what their beleifs are. I do not feel refreshed by Nick Griffin standing by his beliefs.

Furi · 29th August 2008, 02:59 AM

Originally Posted by Lothian

Depends on what their beleifs are. I do not feel refreshed by Nick Griffin standing by his beliefs.

At least you'd know what you're not going to vote for.

Lothian · 29th August 2008, 03:00 AM

Originally Posted by Furi

At least you'd know what you're not going to vote for.

Fair point.

ponderingturtle · 29th August 2008, 05:50 AM

Originally Posted by [X]

I'd say the best bet would be not to mention any religious affilitation at all.

It's not neccessary for public office. At least not in North America. Maybe in the Middle East, or in Catholic South America, it is.

So Texas is not in North America then, as in its constitution they require any state employie to state that they believe in a supreme diety.

Furi · 29th August 2008, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So Texas is not in North America then, as in its constitution they require any state employie to state that they believe in a supreme diety.

*Glomph* WHOA!
wait far too understated
*Glomph^Glomph Tasers Horse*

Any state employee? does it have to be a Specific Supreme Deity or could I choose Kylie for example

Lothian · 29th August 2008, 06:04 AM

Originally Posted by Furi

*Glomph* WHOA!
wait far too understated
*Glomph^Glomph Tasers Horse*

Any state employee? does it have to be a Specific Supreme Deity or could I choose Kylie for example

No it has to be a supreme, most go for Diana Ross.

Ocelot · 29th August 2008, 06:16 AM

Originally Posted by Furi

*Glomph* WHOA!
wait far too understated
*Glomph^Glomph Tasers Horse*

Any state employee? does it have to be a Specific Supreme Deity or could I choose Kylie for example

You wouln't have to, but you might have to go to the supreme court before the state accepted this.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm

Furi · 29th August 2008, 06:17 AM

Originally Posted by Lothian

No it has to be a supreme, most go for Diana Ross.

I Second that Emotion

CurtC · 29th August 2008, 06:43 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

But it was interesting to me that he flat out said he was atheist and all of the people at the table told him "Don't say that, you'll never get elected."

It's not lying if you don't mention it. I could see that if it were relevant, hiding the information could be seen as being less than honest, but the religious views of an elected official should have no correlation with the workings of the government. It's perfectly OK just not to bring it up.

In fact, if he's asked about it, the best "official" answer is that he views his religious beliefs as personal and unrelated to government service, so is taking the high road and not discussing it.

truethat · 29th August 2008, 06:55 AM

Well the tricky part to me is that he was also raised Muslim. So if he doesn't say anything then it can work against him as well if his opponent decides to suggest that he's secretly Muslim and hiding it. He's not Christian that's for sure.

Gord_in_Toronto · 29th August 2008, 07:00 AM

Originally Posted by Furi

I Second that Emotion

What's Love Got to do with it? No wait. That's Tina Turner. Never mind.

Lonewulf · 29th August 2008, 07:03 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So Texas is not in North America then, as in its constitution they require any state employie to state that they believe in a supreme diety.

Federal law beats state law. That bit in their constitution is just words on a document. They cannot be backed up, by anyone in the government.

ponderingturtle · 29th August 2008, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by Furi

*Glomph* WHOA!
wait far too understated
*Glomph^Glomph Tasers Horse*

Any state employee? does it have to be a Specific Supreme Deity or could I choose Kylie for example

Originally Posted by Article 1 section 4 of texas state constitution

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust in this State; Nor shall anyone be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledges the existence of a Supreme Being

So atheists can not be employed by the state of texas legaly.

Smackety · 29th August 2008, 07:06 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So atheists can not be employed by the state of texas legaly.

not that any would care to be.

ponderingturtle · 29th August 2008, 07:07 AM

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Federal law beats state law. That bit in their constitution is just words on a document. They cannot be backed up, by anyone in the government.

And it is still enforceable untill it gets over turned by the supreme court of the united states. And as it is not specific to what supreme being must be achnologed it would be interesting to see of atheists are protected by the consitution.

cwalner · 29th August 2008, 07:18 AM

Ive noticed a lot people referring to revealing his athiesma s coming out. I think this is very apropos as I would adivse your friend to take a similar path as to gay office holders: Do not confirm it publically until you have reached the level of public service you wish to stay at. This is because the public reaction seems to the be same to both gays and athiests in public office, It is very hard to get elected initially with this being public information, but getting re-elected is much easier.

And since Athiests are bout 10-20 years behind in the coming out curve (I know of no open athiests in Congress, but several open gays.) it would be prudent to hold off on full disclosure.

I would also say that I would only find withholding this information as unethical if he voted for and/or supported legislation that discriminated against athiests (like that ridiculousness in Texas that others have referenced).

Beerina · 29th August 2008, 07:34 AM

Is it ethical for a politician seeking power, who is an athiest, to lie about it so he can get elected?

If you've gotten that far, you probably have no reservations about lying in your quest for power, regardless of religion.

Denver · 29th August 2008, 07:39 AM

To be ethical, he has to be upfront about it. If he lies or hides it, it is probably because he knows that giving that information to other people will hurt his goals. In that case, he is not allowing the people to make an informed choice based on information he feels is important to them, and is treating them only as a means to an end, rather than as individuals whose well-being he is being elected to protect.

This would also be unethical under the golden-rule ethic: treating others as you would have them treat you. If he feels religious belief is so important, would he also be upset if someone he voted for had hidden or lied about their belief? If so, then he would be wrong to do the same.

And even if he was elected under this method of hiding his beliefs, part of the election process is establishing a relationship with his electorate. Under one ethical model, maintaining relationships is very important, and it is considered unethical to engage in behavior that hurts relationships. Building this relationship on a lie would be unethical, since it weakens it, and can destroy it completely if the truth comes out later.

This sort of feeds into the a utilitarian ethical model: what would happen if everyone lied or hid their religious bent? It might be healthier if people just did not particularly care about it one way or another, and in that case, not revealing it would be ok. But that is certainly not the case these days, especially for a presidential election.

So overall, to be ethical he has to at least be prepared, when asked (and he will be asked) to be truthful about his beliefs.

Pardalis · 29th August 2008, 07:40 AM

It doesn't matter if a politician is an atheist or a theist, what matters is that he/she is secular and promotes it.

Ladewig · 29th August 2008, 07:44 AM

In the U.S., polls have shown that 45% of the population¹ would NOT vote for a well-qualified candidate that was atheist. That percentage is higher than the percentages that would not vote for well-qualified blacks, Muslims, or gays.

If it were me, I would probably tell the truth, but I would not hold it against anyone for being secretive about it.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

(1) that's just the people who are willing to admit it to a pollster. I suspect the actual number is higher.

truethat · 29th August 2008, 10:02 AM

The thing is, its not like he's a Jehovah's Witness who isn't saying. That would be unethical on two fronts. One is that he's lying about his convictions in his religion and the other is that he's lying to the public.

However this guy just doesn't care. He's not "religiously atheist" he just doesn't believe in God theories, although he's respectful of them. For him personally its not a real issue.

So its not like he's a staunch atheist who is hiding it. Its a non issue so why make it one? Is that the same as being unethical? Isn't he playing into the concept that his religious beliefs matter by bringing it up at all?

I tend to agree with Beerina's post.

Ocelot · 29th August 2008, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

The thing is, its not like he's a Jehovah's Witness who isn't saying. That would be unethical on two fronts. One is that he's lying about his convictions in his religion and the other is that he's lying to the public.

However this guy just doesn't care. He's not "religiously atheist" he just doesn't believe in God theories, although he's respectful of them. For him personally its not a real issue.

So its not like he's a staunch atheist who is hiding it. Its a non issue so why make it one? Is that the same as being unethical? Isn't he playing into the concept that his religious beliefs matter by bringing it up at all?

I tend to agree with Beerina's post.

So he wouldn't have any problems taking an oath of office that mentioned God or swearing it on a bible?

balrog666 · 29th August 2008, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Atheist Leaders Is it Ethical To Lie

Is there any such thing as an "Atheist Leader"?

And why would atheism be relevant to one's ethics?

godless dave · 29th August 2008, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So Texas is not in North America then, as in its constitution they require any state employie to state that they believe in a supreme diety.

The Supreme Court ruled that such provisions are void quite some time ago.

Ladewig · 29th August 2008, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by balrog666

And why would atheism be relevant to one's ethics?

There are large swarths of the American electorate who believe that atheists are inherently incapable of following any system of ethics. They believe all morality comes from God, who is the only Being in the universe who can define right and wrong. Therefore atheists cannot be trusted to make ethical or moral decisions.

godless dave · 29th August 2008, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by Ocelot

So he wouldn't have any problems taking an oath of office that mentioned God or swearing it on a bible?

They don't actually swear on a Bible when they take the oath of office, at least in the US Congress.

28th August 2008, 10:15 PM	#1
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,625	Atheist Leaders Is it Ethical To Lie I was having a conversation with a group of people the other night and one of them is running for office. He is actually an atheist but was raised Muslim. He's got a few rock and hard place scenarios going with that. But it was interesting to me that he flat out said he was atheist and all of the people at the table told him "Don't say that, you'll never get elected." So how are atheists going to move ahead in the world of politics if this is the attitude? Which I have to say I tended to agree with? Is it better to have the atheist in office incognito, or should atheists come out and be outspoken about it thereby forfeiting the election and yet paving the way for others? What say you?
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,625

28th August 2008, 10:18 PM	#2
Jontg The Bear Skeptic Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: A world of kindling. Posts: 926	Well, given that atheists aren't allowed to hold public office in a couple of states, I'd say it's perfectly acceptable. When the law is unethical, the only ethical choice is to break it.
	__________________ All that is sacred must burn.

28th August 2008, 10:20 PM	#3
Mark Felt Muse Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 518	I'd say that it doesn't matter what their religious affiliation is. What matters are their policies. If I don't agree with the way the atheist votes but I agree with the way the theist votes, I'm voting for the theist.
Mark Felt Muse Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 518

28th August 2008, 10:21 PM	#4
X Slide Rulez 4 Life Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Launching the army, waiting for Hok to commit her forces (then the moles strike...) Posts: 4,082	I'd say the best bet would be not to mention any religious affilitation at all. It's not neccessary for public office. At least not in North America. Maybe in the Middle East, or in Catholic South America, it is. Of course, that's an idealized notion. I rather fear the voting public would be more comfortable voting for an individual they percieve as being sympathetic to their faith, rather than risk a complete unknown.
	__________________ It is sad that this is necessary: Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly." Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly." [X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis

28th August 2008, 10:33 PM	#5
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	I think atheists should come out of the theological closet. Pete Stark, a member of Congress from California, did that very thing, and it seems that his political future is secure. It can be done. Stark will be only the first of many in the future, imo. ETA: Yes, there would be a huge difference between Stark coming out in California and someone attempting to come out in, say, the middle of Alabama; I acknowledge this. However, the tide has started to turn regardless.
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin' Last edited by MattusMaximus; 28th August 2008 at 10:42 PM.

28th August 2008, 11:04 PM	#6
elipse Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,863	I say he should fake it until he gets elected, be as upstanding a politician as he can be (because one he comes out his behavior will be scrutinized). Once his policies have some success and people like him fairly well-- or at least, people get used to him -- then he should come out.
elipse Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,863

28th August 2008, 11:05 PM	#7
elipse Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,863	doh. should have specified: he shouldn't lie about it, but should be sort of vague and evasive until he's elected. People will mostly naturally assume he's theist.
elipse Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,863

28th August 2008, 11:33 PM	#8
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,116	I think a politician (and all people) should be honest about it. Those who intentionally conceal details about themselves do so for purely personal reasons. Sometimes those reasons are quite understandable - like pretending to be heterosexual so you don't get beaten up for being gay - but ultimately such deception only prolongs the process of being accepted by society, forcing others who come after you and whom share those traits to suffer rejection. Social bias against certain people doesn't change if those people hide it. In most cases, when a person discovers that someone they admire and look up to has an "undesirable" trait, it forces them to reassess their opinion of that trait (I put "undesirable" in quote marks here to distinguish traits that are unfairly discriminated against such as race or sexual orientation, as opposed to traits that are fairly discriminated against such as dishonesty or criminal records). While atheist politicians are a rare and odd occurrence, people will tend to be wary of them. When atheist politicians are more open and reveal they're actually more widespread than thought, they will be accepted as normal. So while concealing your religious beliefs may be of benefit to you personally, it is not of benefit to the long term interests of the nation (assuming you believe, as I do, that a nation benefits from being more equal, open, and tolerant of different people). A good politician should put the nation's future before their own personal career. (I know, like that would ever happen). I, for example, applaud Keith Ellison, the first openly Muslim US Congressman. It wouldn't surprise me if he has personally suffered as a result of his decision to not hide his religion.
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

29th August 2008, 12:35 AM	#9
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by Mark Felt I'd say that it doesn't matter what their religious affiliation is. What matters are their policies. If I don't agree with the way the atheist votes but I agree with the way the theist votes, I'm voting for the theist. What if their policies were equivalent?
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	__________________ Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.

29th August 2008, 12:41 AM	#10
Lonewulf Humanistic Cyborg Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: San Antonio, Texas Posts: 10,380	Originally Posted by westprog What if their policies were equivalent? I think it might be interesting to see how you'd vote, since from what I remember, you're the type that these politicians feel they have to hide from. Originally Posted by Jontg Well, given that atheists aren't allowed to hold public office in a couple of states, I'd say it's perfectly acceptable. While a couple of states do disallow such things in their state's Bill of Rights (Texas is a good example), federal law trumps state law, especially in this case. Thus, atheists are allowed to hold public office in any state, no matter the laws of that state. I think it's better that way, personally.
	__________________ Writing.com Account

29th August 2008, 01:27 AM	#11
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by Lonewulf I think it might be interesting to see how you'd vote, since from what I remember, you're the type that these politicians feel they have to hide from. The type who jumps to totally unwarrented conclusions on scanty evidence? Quote: While a couple of states do disallow such things in their state's Bill of Rights (Texas is a good example), federal law trumps state law, especially in this case. Thus, atheists are allowed to hold public office in any state, no matter the laws of that state. I think it's better that way, personally.
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	__________________ Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.

29th August 2008, 01:54 AM	#12
Lonewulf Humanistic Cyborg Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: San Antonio, Texas Posts: 10,380	Originally Posted by westprog The type who jumps to totally unwarrented conclusions on scanty evidence? So you're saying that an atheist and a religious man, if they're equal on all issues, would still not matter in their beliefs for you?
	__________________ Writing.com Account

29th August 2008, 02:00 AM	#13
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by Lonewulf So you're saying that an atheist and a religious man, if they're equal on all issues, would still not matter in their beliefs for you? I certainly wouldn't vote for someone purely on the basis of whether they were an atheist or not. However, certain beliefs - religious or otherwise - might affect my opinion. I would be less likely to vote for a Marxist, or a fundamentalist.
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	__________________ Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.

29th August 2008, 02:12 AM	#14
Furi Felix Sapiens Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Living life in the bus lane Posts: 2,006	I'd say that he should stick to his beliefs, if it happened to a case where religion was required for public office than use that as a point that his decisions would not be based on religious requirments. [PigglesFliesAgain]Would be nice to have someone standing by their beliefs rather than pandering to everybody just to get elected and ending up just another non effective unpersonality[/Piggles]
	__________________ =^..^= Felix Sapiens,Drink Beer! It is big, and it is clever, There’s a man with a mullet going mad with a mallet in Millets The chances of anything coming from mars are a million to one they say.

29th August 2008, 02:58 AM	#15
Lothian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: https://twitter.com/CV4UK Posts: 10,373	Originally Posted by Furi [PigglesFliesAgain]Would be nice to have someone standing by their beliefs rather than pandering to everybody just to get elected and ending up just another non effective unpersonality[/Piggles] Depends on what their beleifs are. I do not feel refreshed by Nick Griffin standing by his beliefs.

29th August 2008, 02:59 AM	#16
Furi Felix Sapiens Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Living life in the bus lane Posts: 2,006	Originally Posted by Lothian Depends on what their beleifs are. I do not feel refreshed by Nick Griffin standing by his beliefs. At least you'd know what you're not going to vote for.
	__________________ =^..^= Felix Sapiens,Drink Beer! It is big, and it is clever, There’s a man with a mullet going mad with a mallet in Millets The chances of anything coming from mars are a million to one they say.

29th August 2008, 03:00 AM	#17
Lothian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: https://twitter.com/CV4UK Posts: 10,373	Originally Posted by Furi At least you'd know what you're not going to vote for. Fair point.

29th August 2008, 05:50 AM	#18
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,424	Originally Posted by [X] I'd say the best bet would be not to mention any religious affilitation at all. It's not neccessary for public office. At least not in North America. Maybe in the Middle East, or in Catholic South America, it is. So Texas is not in North America then, as in its constitution they require any state employie to state that they believe in a supreme diety.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

29th August 2008, 05:59 AM	#19
Furi Felix Sapiens Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Living life in the bus lane Posts: 2,006	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle So Texas is not in North America then, as in its constitution they require any state employie to state that they believe in a supreme diety. Glomph WHOA! wait far too understated Glomph^Glomph Tasers Horse Any state employee? does it have to be a Specific Supreme Deity or could I choose Kylie for example
	__________________ =^..^= Felix Sapiens,Drink Beer! It is big, and it is clever, There’s a man with a mullet going mad with a mallet in Millets The chances of anything coming from mars are a million to one they say.

29th August 2008, 06:04 AM	#20
Lothian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: https://twitter.com/CV4UK Posts: 10,373	Originally Posted by Furi Glomph WHOA! wait far too understated Glomph^Glomph Tasers Horse Any state employee? does it have to be a Specific Supreme Deity or could I choose Kylie for example No it has to be a supreme, most go for Diana Ross.

29th August 2008, 06:16 AM	#21
Ocelot Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: London Posts: 3,016	Originally Posted by Furi Glomph WHOA! wait far too understated Glomph^Glomph Tasers Horse Any state employee? does it have to be a Specific Supreme Deity or could I choose Kylie for example You wouln't have to, but you might have to go to the supreme court before the state accepted this. http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm

29th August 2008, 06:17 AM	#22
Furi Felix Sapiens Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Living life in the bus lane Posts: 2,006	Originally Posted by Lothian No it has to be a supreme, most go for Diana Ross. I Second that Emotion
	__________________ =^..^= Felix Sapiens,Drink Beer! It is big, and it is clever, There’s a man with a mullet going mad with a mallet in Millets The chances of anything coming from mars are a million to one they say.

29th August 2008, 06:43 AM	#23
CurtC Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 4,758	Originally Posted by truethat But it was interesting to me that he flat out said he was atheist and all of the people at the table told him "Don't say that, you'll never get elected." It's not lying if you don't mention it. I could see that if it were relevant, hiding the information could be seen as being less than honest, but the religious views of an elected official should have no correlation with the workings of the government. It's perfectly OK just not to bring it up. In fact, if he's asked about it, the best "official" answer is that he views his religious beliefs as personal and unrelated to government service, so is taking the high road and not discussing it.
	__________________ Is there a God? Find the answer at The Official God FAQ.

29th August 2008, 06:55 AM	#24
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,625	Well the tricky part to me is that he was also raised Muslim. So if he doesn't say anything then it can work against him as well if his opponent decides to suggest that he's secretly Muslim and hiding it. He's not Christian that's for sure.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,625

29th August 2008, 07:00 AM	#25
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,415	Originally Posted by Furi I Second that Emotion What's Love Got to do with it? No wait. That's Tina Turner. Never mind.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

29th August 2008, 07:03 AM	#26
Lonewulf Humanistic Cyborg Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: San Antonio, Texas Posts: 10,380	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle So Texas is not in North America then, as in its constitution they require any state employie to state that they believe in a supreme diety. Federal law beats state law. That bit in their constitution is just words on a document. They cannot be backed up, by anyone in the government.
	__________________ Writing.com Account

29th August 2008, 07:04 AM	#27
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,424	Originally Posted by Furi Glomph WHOA! wait far too understated Glomph^Glomph Tasers Horse Any state employee? does it have to be a Specific Supreme Deity or could I choose Kylie for example Originally Posted by Article 1 section 4 of texas state constitution No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust in this State; Nor shall anyone be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledges the existence of a Supreme Being So atheists can not be employed by the state of texas legaly.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

29th August 2008, 07:06 AM	#28
Smackety Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,145	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle So atheists can not be employed by the state of texas legaly. not that any would care to be.

29th August 2008, 07:07 AM	#29
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,424	Originally Posted by Lonewulf Federal law beats state law. That bit in their constitution is just words on a document. They cannot be backed up, by anyone in the government. And it is still enforceable untill it gets over turned by the supreme court of the united states. And as it is not specific to what supreme being must be achnologed it would be interesting to see of atheists are protected by the consitution.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

29th August 2008, 07:18 AM	#30
cwalner Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Deepest Darkest Indiana Posts: 5,694	Ive noticed a lot people referring to revealing his athiesma s coming out. I think this is very apropos as I would adivse your friend to take a similar path as to gay office holders: Do not confirm it publically until you have reached the level of public service you wish to stay at. This is because the public reaction seems to the be same to both gays and athiests in public office, It is very hard to get elected initially with this being public information, but getting re-elected is much easier. And since Athiests are bout 10-20 years behind in the coming out curve (I know of no open athiests in Congress, but several open gays.) it would be prudent to hold off on full disclosure. I would also say that I would only find withholding this information as unethical if he voted for and/or supported legislation that discriminated against athiests (like that ridiculousness in Texas that others have referenced).

29th August 2008, 07:34 AM	#31
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Is it ethical for a politician seeking power, who is an athiest, to lie about it so he can get elected? If you've gotten that far, you probably have no reservations about lying in your quest for power, regardless of religion.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

29th August 2008, 07:39 AM	#32
Denver Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Denver, Colorado Posts: 6,599	To be ethical, he has to be upfront about it. If he lies or hides it, it is probably because he knows that giving that information to other people will hurt his goals. In that case, he is not allowing the people to make an informed choice based on information he feels is important to them, and is treating them only as a means to an end, rather than as individuals whose well-being he is being elected to protect. This would also be unethical under the golden-rule ethic: treating others as you would have them treat you. If he feels religious belief is so important, would he also be upset if someone he voted for had hidden or lied about their belief? If so, then he would be wrong to do the same. And even if he was elected under this method of hiding his beliefs, part of the election process is establishing a relationship with his electorate. Under one ethical model, maintaining relationships is very important, and it is considered unethical to engage in behavior that hurts relationships. Building this relationship on a lie would be unethical, since it weakens it, and can destroy it completely if the truth comes out later. This sort of feeds into the a utilitarian ethical model: what would happen if everyone lied or hid their religious bent? It might be healthier if people just did not particularly care about it one way or another, and in that case, not revealing it would be ok. But that is certainly not the case these days, especially for a presidential election. So overall, to be ethical he has to at least be prepared, when asked (and he will be asked) to be truthful about his beliefs.

29th August 2008, 07:40 AM	#33
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	It doesn't matter if a politician is an atheist or a theist, what matters is that he/she is secular and promotes it.

29th August 2008, 07:44 AM	#34
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,800	In the U.S., polls have shown that 45% of the population¹ would NOT vote for a well-qualified candidate that was atheist. That percentage is higher than the percentages that would not vote for well-qualified blacks, Muslims, or gays. If it were me, I would probably tell the truth, but I would not hold it against anyone for being secretive about it. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (1) that's just the people who are willing to admit it to a pollster. I suspect the actual number is higher.
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board. Last edited by Ladewig; 29th August 2008 at 07:46 AM.

29th August 2008, 10:02 AM	#35
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,625	The thing is, its not like he's a Jehovah's Witness who isn't saying. That would be unethical on two fronts. One is that he's lying about his convictions in his religion and the other is that he's lying to the public. However this guy just doesn't care. He's not "religiously atheist" he just doesn't believe in God theories, although he's respectful of them. For him personally its not a real issue. So its not like he's a staunch atheist who is hiding it. Its a non issue so why make it one? Is that the same as being unethical? Isn't he playing into the concept that his religious beliefs matter by bringing it up at all? I tend to agree with Beerina's post.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,625