david f,

>>” You have brought in the Nazis implicitly equating them with religion. I find that offensive.”<<

If you re-read you will find it says Nazi based “etc”. It was not equating religion with Nazism it was showing how in one case, religion, you don’t want to know, and in the other, Nazism, you certainly would want to know.

>>“You seem to me to have the same mindset that the medieval Christians had. You want to force politicians to make statements about their beliefs. Their record should be enough.”<<

And it their views are not on the record? And don’t come back with people can ask because people are too busy surviving to think about such things.

Why you bring in the JFK quote is a mystery. No one is denying office by them admitting religion.

>>” Your idea sounds like the McCarthyite demand for loyalty oaths.”<<

This is utter nonsense and used in an attempt to make a case where one does not exist.

Most atheists I know and know of are on side about this matter. You appear not to be but I wonder if that is true. At the moment you are just throwing mud and most of it is sticking on you. Why are you throwing it?

David

Dear Banjo,

I can envision Mahatma Gandhi giving a young person who wants to change the world the brilliant spiritual advice: “Be the change you wish to see in the world”.

I can also envision this written in a book and subsequently, 6000 years later, read by a scholar in some future stable society that has no wish, or even no concept of 'changing the world', who looks at it puzzled saying "what a mumbo-jumbo!".

Dear David (AFA),

<<Equating that with atheism or me is blind ignorance.>>

I was not equating atheism with the inquisition, only with a specific statement of demand that you made.

Many atheists are, in fact, quite religious.

Dear George,

<<but would you agree that you are in some way trying to defend the Hindu or the Buddhist way of seeing life, existence and reality?>>

I am defending religion. There is not this-or-that religion, only one: http://greenmesg.org/swami_vivekananda_sayings_quotes/religion-religious_harmony.php

Hail Mary!

Yuyutsu

>>I am defending religion. There is not this-or-that religion, only one:?<<
Thhis reminds me of "not this or that religion is a genuine knower of Truth", only mine is genuine, knows the Truth

>> http://greenmesg.org/swami_vivekananda_sayings_quotes/religion-religious_harmony.php<<

Thanks for answering my question through this link. So your guru is apparently Swami Vivekananda whose roots are obviously Hindu. [My modest understanging of Hindu influence on interpretations of science (phsics) came only through V. V. Raman, who, I suspect, could view Hinduism only from the outside.]

Dear AFA David,

Whether or not many atheists agree with you is irrelevant. It does not make you either right or wrong because other people agree with you.

You can make excuses for bringing in the Nazis but they were irrelevant to your argument unless you wanted to smear. Why bring them in at all?

Your idea that believers in religion must make a statement defining how that belief would affect them sounds exactly like a McCarthyite loyalty oath. You have singled out a particular group as an object of suspicion as though that particular group cannot act in good faith.

Many people have special interests or ideas. Lawyers have defended many clients with diverse interests or have even been employed by those interests. They don’t have to make such a statement. If they have defended a polluter they don’t have to state their position in that area.

Reserve army officers may get elected to office. They can participate in legislation affecting the military establishment without making any statement about how their background affects them.

Kevin Rudd’s wife made big bucks from employment agencies. That is very much an area of interest as employment is a concern of the government. Yet Rudd was not required to make such a statement.

Real estate developers get on local councils where they make decisions on zoning that could affect their interests. They are not required to make any statement concerning the way their business interests would affect their activities on council.

However, you want religious people to state how their religion would affect their acts in office when other people with other interests are not required to make such a statement. Why should religious interests be treated differently?

That sounds like sheer prejudice against religious believers to me. I see you as reflecting the intolerance that many religions show toward the heretic and unbeliever.

I don’t believe in religion, but I also don’t think it’s fair to treat people differently because of their religious beliefs.

Accusing me of mudslinging is a tacit admission that you don’t have a real argument.

david f,

True that no matter how many accept a statement does not make it correct. However, the case by a lone dissenting voice should be investigated. Your case, in using all kinds of strategies instead of rational evaluation doesn’t hold water.
This thread on the AFA Forums has had more than thirteen hundred look. I have seen no objections. Surely that means something. http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=17577

I have stated that “all politicians” should supply their views on various matters that the majority electorate consider important.

You want to keep religion as a private matter. That is your opinion. You want to give religion some special kind of dispensation and respect. I don’t. I would not have this opinion if politicians with a religion were more honest about it.

What are the adverse ramifications for a politicians stating they are religious or they are not religious. Julia Gillard stated she is not. To me that is a big plus. When we don’t know a politician’s religious or non-religious beliefs, then we are left guessing. That might be OK in private conversation but it is not acceptable with people who are representing us.

If a politician says they are against legal voluntary euthanasia and then goes on to advance the religious bulldust opposing arguments dressed up as concerns for the most vulnerable etc, without knowing that such a politician is sprouting religious propaganda, it can have an influence on some people that they are putting forward a genuine case.

This kind of shenanigans has kept progressive social policy at bay for too long.

You are protesting far too much about this and I am not impressed. There are no negative ramifications for anyone in what I am proposing.

The interest is not so much in the religious beliefs of politicians but their opinions they bring into law or reject as law, that are a result of them.

David

Dear David,

If you would make the same request of all politicians and all interests that is a different matter. To declare one's interests and state how they would affect your actions is reasonable. I am sorry for apparently missing that part of your statement.

However, I do have a particular concern about requiring religious people to make a statement. I would want to keep religion as a private matter. When people make a statement that focuses attention on their religious beliefs I feel that many of the electorate will pay more attention to their religious identification than to the substance of their statement. Many will vote for or against a candidate because of their religious beliefs and no other reason.

Once a religious label is put on a person or party that colours feelings toward that person or party. eg. If a party chose to call itself the Christian Democrats I would not want to vote for that party. I would prefer that a person simply announce their position on issues.

When people vote for a candidate on the basis of that candidate's religious identification I think that is most undemocratic. I know I favour Gillard over Rudd partially because Gillard is an atheist. I really would rather not have known their religious identification.

In Israel there is a new political party called Yesh Atid. It is good because it wants to move Israel toward a secular state by taking away the various exemptions from obligations that the ultra-orthodox have.

However, Yesh Atid would be unnecessary if the religious hadn't formed political parties in the first place. I am afraid that having people make statements concerning their religion will lead to political lineups based on religion. Yes, I would like to keep religion a private matter.