Maybe not atheist exactly (Too broad a category) but rather something like Pearlism or secular humanists, and yes I'm all for it.
At least in Britain, there would just be no point. As far as I can tell, UK athesits don't suffer from any form of institutionalised prejudice or discrimination wharsoever. I also wouldn't like tosee anything like an atheist party, that'd just be nonsense.
At least in Britain, there would just be no point. As far as I can tell, UK athesits don't suffer from any form of institutionalised prejudice or discrimination wharsoever. I also wouldn't like tosee anything like an atheist party, that'd just be nonsense.
MetalGear_Ninty
But it could stand for more then just stopping discrimination against atheists, for instance it could also take a strong stance on promoting scientific research and education, being against using religious reasoning in political matters, promoting reason and logic, freedom from religion etc etc, which is why I think just 'atheism' is too broad a category.
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]
At least in Britain, there would just be no point. As far as I can tell, UK athesits don't suffer from any form of institutionalised prejudice or discrimination wharsoever. I also wouldn't like tosee anything like an atheist party, that'd just be nonsense.
bean-with-bacon
But it could stand for more then just stopping discrimination against atheists, for instance it could also take a strong stance on promoting scientific research and education, being against using religious reasoning in political matters, promoting reason and logic, freedom from religion etc etc, which is why I think just 'atheism' is too broad a category.
But all those are attributes not inextricably linked with atheism; atheism does not have a monopoly over said attributes. Rather, I'd like to see those qualities linked with mainstream political parties rather than exclusively in niche organisations.[QUOTE="bean-with-bacon"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]
At least in Britain, there would just be no point. As far as I can tell, UK athesits don't suffer from any form of institutionalised prejudice or discrimination wharsoever. I also wouldn't like tosee anything like an atheist party, that'd just be nonsense.
MetalGear_Ninty
But it could stand for more then just stopping discrimination against atheists, for instance it could also take a strong stance on promoting scientific research and education, being against using religious reasoning in political matters, promoting reason and logic, freedom from religion etc etc, which is why I think just 'atheism' is too broad a category.
But all those are attributes not inextricably linked with atheism; atheism does not have a monopoly over said attributes. Rather, I'd like to see those qualities linked with mainstream political parties rather than exclusively in niche organisations.Of course it doesn't, which is why I think something based of pearlism, humanism, rationalism, or the like would be better then just atheism. And obviously having mainstream parties with those qualities would be much more ideal but quite frankly that is not going to happen anytime in the near future, so we might as well start somewhere with our own party.
Â
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="bean-with-bacon"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]
At least in Britain, there would just be no point. As far as I can tell, UK athesits don't suffer from any form of institutionalised prejudice or discrimination wharsoever. I also wouldn't like tosee anything like an atheist party, that'd just be nonsense.
bean-with-bacon
But it could stand for more then just stopping discrimination against atheists, for instance it could also take a strong stance on promoting scientific research and education, being against using religious reasoning in political matters, promoting reason and logic, freedom from religion etc etc, which is why I think just 'atheism' is too broad a category.
But all those are attributes not inextricably linked with atheism; atheism does not have a monopoly over said attributes. Rather, I'd like to see those qualities linked with mainstream political parties rather than exclusively in niche organisations.Of course it doesn't, which is why I think something based of pearlism, humanism, rationalism, or the like would be better then just atheism. And obviously having mainstream parties with those qualities would be much more ideal but quite frankly that is not going to happen anytime in the near future, so we might as well start somewhere with our own party.
Well I think the church and the state should be completely seperated, and this includes atheisitic organisations, for if any organisation such as this were to have political power, that automatically excludes those who don't share your lack of faith by default. Therefore, such organisations are inherently divisive as strong political entities.Not to mention, that pearlism and humainsm and the like are philosophical systems of thought, and thus dissociated from political governance.
[QUOTE="bean-with-bacon"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="bean-with-bacon"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]
At least in Britain, there would just be no point. As far as I can tell, UK athesits don't suffer from any form of institutionalised prejudice or discrimination wharsoever. I also wouldn't like tosee anything like an atheist party, that'd just be nonsense.
MetalGear_Ninty
But it could stand for more then just stopping discrimination against atheists, for instance it could also take a strong stance on promoting scientific research and education, being against using religious reasoning in political matters, promoting reason and logic, freedom from religion etc etc, which is why I think just 'atheism' is too broad a category.
But all those are attributes not inextricably linked with atheism; atheism does not have a monopoly over said attributes. Rather, I'd like to see those qualities linked with mainstream political parties rather than exclusively in niche organisations.Â
Of course it doesn't, which is why I think something based of pearlism, humanism, rationalism, or the like would be better then just atheism. And obviously having mainstream parties with those qualities would be much more ideal but quite frankly that is not going to happen anytime in the near future, so we might as well start somewhere with our own party.
Â
Well I think the church and the state should be completely seperated, and this includes atheisitic organisations, for if any organisation such as this were to have political power, that automatically excludes those who don't share your lack of faith by default. Therefore, such organisations are inherently divisive as strong political entities.Not to mention, that pearlism and humainsm and the like are philosophical systems of thought, and thus dissociated from political governance.
Which is why I'm not advocating an atheistic party...
See all I'm really advocating is a party that promotes things like rationale enquiry and thinking, scientific research, freedom from religion, secular education, anti discrimination based on beliefs etc etc. Sure the majority of people in that party would probably be atheists but that doesn't necessarily require it to be an 'atheist party.'
Though whether that is a valid platform to build a party on I have no idea (politics aren't exactly my forte :P )
Â
Well whatever you'd call it, it'd be the atheist party in all but name. Any name you choose to call it would be nothing more than a cleverly engineered euphamism.Which is why I'm not advocating an atheistic party...
See all I'm really advocating is a party that promotes things like rationale enquiry and thinking, scientific research, freedom from religion, secular education, anti discrimination based on beliefs etc etc. Sure the majority of people in that party would probably be atheists but that doesn't necessarily require it to be an 'atheist party.'
Though whether that is a valid platform to build a party on I have no idea (politics aren't exactly my forte :P )
bean-with-bacon
We already have those in government that lobby against religious teaching and for the advancement of sciences, at least in schools.
I wouldn't mind an atheist political presence, we need more people to challenge religious ideals.
Lets face it, however, no religious person would ever vote an atheist into office.
Â
Look what politics does for us, i mean, SARAH PALIN was almost let in the White House...I still can't believe it.
Lets face it, however, no religious person would ever vote an atheist into office.itsTolkien_timeWrong. I know several who would. The ones who don't necessarily see a person's faith or lack thereof as a necessary part of the qualifications. If they are the best suited person for the job, who cares who they pray to, of if they pray at all? And that, by the way, should work both ways. ;)
[QUOTE="itsTolkien_time"]Lets face it, however, no religious person would ever vote an atheist into office.ChiliDragonWrong. I know several who would. The ones who don't necessarily see a person's faith or lack thereof as a necessary part of the qualifications. If they are the best suited person for the job, who cares who they pray to, of if they pray at all? And that, by the way, should work both ways. ;)
I think there are actually some laws in some states that prevent atheists from running, not 100% sure on that thoughÂ
Lets face it, however, no religious person would ever vote an atheist into office.itsTolkien_time
Despite the obviously disheartening figure that almost half of America would not vote for an atheist for president, when one considers the fact that only around 10% of the country are not religious, that means that at least some religious people must be willing to vote for an atheist.
Wrong. I know several who would. The ones who don't necessarily see a person's faith or lack thereof as a necessary part of the qualifications. If they are the best suited person for the job, who cares who they pray to, of if they pray at all? And that, by the way, should work both ways. ;)[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"][QUOTE="itsTolkien_time"]Lets face it, however, no religious person would ever vote an atheist into office.bean-with-bacon
I think there are actually some laws in some states that prevent atheists from running, not 100% sure on that thoughÂ
That's true. And Atheists were voted the least American demographic in the country, even behind immigrants. There is currently only one open Atheist in Congress.What about Britain, then. What is the disribution of various religions in the government there? I suppose I was so negative on the religious votes because of an event that happened last year. In class we were discussing what we thought was necessary to a president. A girl raised her hand and said, "Christian". There was a murmer of agreement as the teacher wrote it down with the rest, words like "organized" and "dedicated". "Christian" sat among them, as if it belonged.itsTolkien_time
I'm not sure, but according to a 2005 poll only around 40% of the country expressed a belief in God, so you're almost guaranteed to get some people in Parliament who don't believe in God with those numbers.
They do apparently have a Jedi MP, though.
[QUOTE="itsTolkien_time"]What about Britain, then. What is the disribution of various religions in the government there? I suppose I was so negative on the religious votes because of an event that happened last year. In class we were discussing what we thought was necessary to a president. A girl raised her hand and said, "Christian". There was a murmer of agreement as the teacher wrote it down with the rest, words like "organized" and "dedicated". "Christian" sat among them, as if it belonged.GabuEx
I'm not sure, but according to a 2005 poll only around 40% of the country expressed a belief in God, so you're almost guaranteed to get some people in Parliament who don't believe in God with those numbers.
They do apparently have a Jedi MP, though.
Yep, David Miliband is probably the highest ranking, openly-atheist MP in the country. He could eventually be the prime minister one day.What about Britain, then. What is the disribution of various religions in the government there? I suppose I was so negative on the religious votes because of an event that happened last year. In class we were discussing what we thought was necessary to a president. A girl raised her hand and said, "Christian". There was a murmer of agreement as the teacher wrote it down with the rest, words like "organized" and "dedicated". "Christian" sat among them, as if it belonged.itsTolkien_time
[QUOTE="itsTolkien_time"]What about Britain, then. What is the disribution of various religions in the government there? I suppose I was so negative on the religious votes because of an event that happened last year. In class we were discussing what we thought was necessary to a president. A girl raised her hand and said, "Christian". There was a murmer of agreement as the teacher wrote it down with the rest, words like "organized" and "dedicated". "Christian" sat among them, as if it belonged.THUMPTABLE
[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]That's just my personal opinion though, but it does trouble me that "Christian" ranks higher than "competent" or "smart".GabuEx
To a lot of people I imagine that those are synonymous.
That's the problem!!! :x[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]That's just my personal opinion though, but it does trouble me that "Christian" ranks higher than "competent" or "smart".GabuEx
To a lot of people I imagine that those are synonymous.
[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]That's just my personal opinion though, but it does trouble me that "Christian" ranks higher than "competent" or "smart".THUMPTABLE
To a lot of people I imagine that those are synonymous.
See all I'm really advocating is a party that promotes things like rationale enquiry and thinking, scientific research, freedom from religion, secular education, anti discrimination based on beliefs etc etc. Sure the majority of people in that party would probably be atheists but that doesn't necessarily require it to be an 'atheist party.'Though whether that is a valid platform to build a party on I have no idea (politics aren't exactly my forte :P )
bean-with-bacon
I agree with this 100%. I get chills everytime I hear that stem cell research that can potentially save hundred of thousands of lives be stopped in the name of religioun, it's ridiculous.
[QUOTE="itsTolkien_time"]What about Britain, then. What is the disribution of various religions in the government there? I suppose I was so negative on the religious votes because of an event that happened last year. In class we were discussing what we thought was necessary to a president. A girl raised her hand and said, "Christian". There was a murmer of agreement as the teacher wrote it down with the rest, words like "organized" and "dedicated". "Christian" sat among them, as if it belonged.Bourbons3Alistair Campbell, Tony Blair's Director of Communications, famously said that the government didn't "do God". And Blair, once he was no longer PM, suddenly became hugely religious, because he knew that if he did that while he was still in the job, he's be seen as crazy, on some level. I couldn't bare living somewhere where "Christian" is as necessary as "dedicated".
Thanks for the response to the Britain question, and thanks to you too, Gabu.
It's not that bad living here, you get used to it. :P It's just part of life.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment