Lets make this a reality in our lifetimes.
Online Maybe not this president or the next one, but within our lifetimes I don't think it would be impossible.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe--cooper-20100504,0,1142903.story
AND it is hard for the believer to fight against such considering that Jefferson would not have made belief a litmus test after reading his famous Jupiter quote.
But, as happy as I am to see such quotes in media, and even Oberman quoting this same quote, the fight doesn't stop here. At every turn, when we can, we speak out, we post, we write our media and elected officials.
I can remember living in Lynchburg Va shortly after 9/11 going to the office of a state house rep and pointing out some of Jefferson's quotes and being blown off by the secretary. That was a lonely feeling. But times have changed and things are changing, but it is up to us to do it, it won't be done for us.
The theist will read this and falsely call it a mandate or quota, which is NOT what the author is suggesting. But that to get representation one has to compete, silence will not do the trick.
I cannot stress enough how important your voice is, no matter how small. I know it works. I have seen atheists go from the demonized fringe of society, expected to live in silence, to today, thousands of websites, best selling authors, mentions on major media and pop culture, from Wife Swap, to The Real World, to Olberman and John Stewart and Colbert. And every day things like bus adds and billboards popping up, even in the most fundy of places.
I still remember to this day a conversation I had with a former boss who I ran into on the street where I used to live, his last words to me back in 02, "Brian, give up that atheist thing". I feel so much vindication and comfort knowing that there are others out there.
BUT my open voice didn't start here, it started because of an atheist nurse who wrote a letter to a Chicago paper about her concern after 9/11 that atheists were being left out of the national mourning process. I wish I could meet her in person and thank her for giving me the courage to be open. I haven't looked back since.
And to the theists reading this, I cannot stress this enough. There are no utopias and any atheist worth their weight would not seek to oppress religion for the delusional goal of being the alpha male. It is merely a wake up call to challenge humanity to THINK outside ancient myth. It is a call to keep government neutral so we don't end up monochromatic like Saudi Arabia or Iran.
MAKE NO MISTAKE, most atheists DO want to see the end of religion, BUT our tactic isn't force of government, but reason in via the same free market theists use to sell their wears.
It is a battle, but not one of blood or oppression. It is a battle to lead humanity out of myth and into reality.
Get out there, say something. IT DOES WORK.
And to theists, do not take our blasphemy or ridicule personally, this IS NOT about hate of individuals. It is about standing up to claims and taboos and set norms. We know know the earth is a globe because someone bothered to say, "bullshit, the earth is a globe, not flat".
Now that I am done with my Hallmark moment, I have a cute kitty to BBQ.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
would if it mattered if I did. I don't live in the usa so my opinion dont matter. But just to offer a differant opinion.... surely every judge there should leave there religion and personal feelings on any subject at the door. If they cannot do this they shouldn't be Supreme Court Justice to begin with. So why should there religion matter when choosing? What should be looked for is the ability to leave personal feelings out of there decisions? Picking some one because they are an atheist is a bad mistake in my opinion. Being an atheist shouldn't negativly or positively affect the chance of being chosen.
that said
some diversity would be good. 6 catholics and 2 jews is probably not the best way to go. Some diversity would help ensure better decisions, but aslong as everyone of them can leave there personal feelings out of there decisions I see no problem with it.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Religious beliefs are, by their own definition, so fundamentally linked to the attitudes to life, especially to moral and ethical issues, which are in turn so crucial to the legal system, that it would be crazy to not make balancing religious affiliations, and ideally, lack of religion, an extremely important part of selecting judges.
"Black letter law" interpretations cannot be adequate for the law, more so at the top level. Especially when you have a conflict in how to interpret and/or apply the law, which is a major reason why you have a Supreme Court in the first place.
And that kind of decision is going to be inevitably, despite the best will or intent, going to be affected in a major way by the fundamental world-view, 'moral compass', and so on, of the judge.
Whether you think such basic attitudes are more a cause or an effect of religious beliefs, they are strongly correlated. So it is important that a Supreme Court reflect as closely as practical the mix in society.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
The "America is a Christian Nation founded by Christians" irrationality is now dead in the water, but the aim for nonsecular government (held high primarily by filthy GOPpers) is still alive and kicking.
If I had to say something, it would be along the lines of "Put all your cards on the table - every last one- and make sure nobody notices the ace up the atheist's sleeve."
Meaning, specifically - Let the fundies eat cake for 4-8 years' worth of presidential elections. And, when people finally get tired of corrupt bible-thumpers being put in charge of federal gov't... use such an opportunity to quietly and calmly suggest a more secular alternative to non-secular government. Machiavellian? Oh, yes! Radical? All too easily!
Necessary and vital? That's a tough one to answer.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I really liked this article. I'm stuck between don't ask/don't tell and seeking an atheist/agnostic to take the next post. However, it seems that there would be an inherent issue with asking for someone of a particular religious ideology to fill the post. It kind of reeks of affirmative action. Ideally it would be good if a nonbeliever was appointed because of experience and just plain ol' common sense--meaning that the majority thought it was a good idea so it would happen. What made me crazy was that part of the article that said that MY state mandated that nonbelievers not be accepted into office (without an expensive fight, of course). It's comparable to the zany outdated laws you hear about from time to time: no driving while barefoot, no wearing a duck on your head while you cross state lines, or the one about not riding in a sink down main street on Thursdays. Except...it actually affects people.
While I'm technically a theist, I don't use that one sorta/kinda belief to dominate any decision I make. I agree with the other post"er" that all that crap (crutches, insecurities) should be left outside the courtroom. If, indeed, that is possible. For those whose values are intertwined with their secular proclivities--well, they shouldn't be there at all. They all ought to take one of those ridiculous pre-employment quizzes that test for malfeasance. (as related to religion vs reason)
Definitely posting this article! Thanks!