DEBATEitOUT.comHave Your Voice Heard, 24/7.

Uh. Not that I would not benefit or mind to some degree there's a raft of problems with this question.

It's unconstitutional. We're not supposed to have a state religion. Including the state mandate of an absence of one. So whether or not we should, we would first have to deal with the idea that we CAN'T.

And for another, atheism isn't a unified dogma other than the central point that there is no god. It's pretty hard to impose. You can ask the Soviets or the Chinese how that worked out for one thing and they both had core ideologies that they used instead of a bland "atheism".

Religion, for all its many flaws, has the advantage of having codified structures that are easy to articulate and impose upon people who follow them. Atheism does not. It asks some of the same questions about the nature of existence, but I doubt you would find much cohesion in the answers between a variety of atheists (this is obviously somewhat true of religious dogma, but it's generally capable of giving the same stock answers). Many of these existential questions go ignored because most atheists simply find they have no answers or meaning (as in, we probably made up the subject matter in the first place rather than it being something empirical and natural which we could postulate about wildly for centuries). It's thus really hard to impose it. As much as I disdain organized religions, we're not going to get anywhere by abolishing the ability for it to exist.

Absolutely not. The government should neither impose a religion or a lack of one. That is, as has been stated, unconstitutional.

What thoughts?

State-imposed "atheism" is probably a poor or inadequate way to state the situation. Yes, I believe the liberty to vote or engage as an active and informed citizen with one's government ought to come with the prerequisite that one be of sound mind and it will be imposed not by government primarily but by those with the real power in the United States – individual demonstrably rational citizens. I personally don't believe anyone who harbors superstitions of any sort is qualified to participate as an informed citizen of sound mind. The end result, of course, is the same – only someone who is technically a so-called "atheist" in their philosophy is free of superstition although, certainly, one can be free of superstition and yet still not be entirely of sound mind for reasons other than superstitious belief. In that respect, one might be an atheist and yet still not qualify for complete liberty to engage as a citizen generally without limitation.

All in all, it isn't "atheism" primarily we must insist on but rather the clear ability and intent to live one's life with unqualified respect for both accurate observation and logically sound reason. Such a person is necessarily "atheistic" but only as a consequence of a sound mind, not as a primary philosophical or political position.

Having said that, if one has to somehow officially demonstrate one's rationality to participate as a citizen, one certainly must demonstrate such to serve as a leader or representative of such persons AND for those who are not rational enough to responsibly participate in the formation of a government for all. That one isn't rational enough to engage in citizenry in no way implies one has no rights with respect to one's neighbors or one's government. It simply means such an important structure as a government "of the people, for the people, by the people" requires those who are rational enough to make decisions regarding its formation, its structure, its powers and limitations for the good of those who cannot and mustn't be allowed until their rationality can be properly demonstrated. That one is disqualified from participation doesn't imply one will always be disqualified. Most persons can learn and are willing to learn to be better thinkers. Certainly, some cannot and will not.

Those harboring superstitions are ill-equipped to do so and may remain that way without the will to throw off superstition. Those unhindered by such limitations ought not live in fear of the irrationality of such persons grossly affecting the powers and efficiency of government over all.

From the Constitution of The United States;

Amendment One
"Freedom of religion, speech and the press. Right of assembly and petition."

"Congress shall make no lawrespecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

If that doesn't answer your question, then nothing will.

My not-so-humble opinion.

Problem with this: who determines who is rational and of sound mind? Of what business is it of ours to impose this as a test of honesty. During the centuries of religious reign, one such right which has often been denied to atheists and secularists has been a right to testify and appear as witnesses at trials for example. Under some asinine logic that they could not be accountable and honest, even if to defend others under the law (and not merely themselves). Instead they accepted as credible the testimony of witnesses who LIED outright and claimed some basis of religious faith in order to testify despite this supposed weakness.

Making such a requirement and enforcing it are two very different things. I do not foresee that we, as secularists, humanists, or any other rational basis for societal organisation, would be able to escape the same questions, doubts, and necessary determinations at this or any other time. You could not give some test, because there are many people of sound reason but of some dishonest character who could pass such a test. And you cannot simply act on some good "faith" and take it that people who claim that they hold no superstitious nonsense in the way of their faculties would not be abusing that right and corrupting the system with the use of secret ballots and the like. I would prefer people be able to maintain their honesty about their personal faiths, or lack thereof. Rather than restrict, infringe, or abolish their rights, it seems far more sensible to appeal to reason than to insist upon it.

Agree completely. ^.^

It seems we are all (or most of us are) in agreement here.

If 'state athiesm' means that government employees must ascribe to athiesm- uh, no. There isn't supposed to be a religious test for determining whether or no someone can serve, and even if the test would determine that one does not ascribe to a religion, it's still wrong.

As others have said before- the first amendment guarantees freedom of religion to all, and I don't see any stipulation that says that government employees don't have that right.

Actually the state cannot be without religion. And the whole debate is just a fake.

Atheism is a religion, because it is about believing things cannot be proved by science, especially the believe of the absence of God, the other life and the judgment day.

And it is very important to decide about the existence of God if you want to do anything serious.

For example, if we have a judgment day, then our laws should consider following special practices to guide us to the happiness in the other life, not this one only.

But the problem is, the Christianity religion lost its historical evidences. And sadly, it is no any more a religion of science. For that, as I believe, Islam is the only remaining solution to this problem. Because, Islam can be scientifically proved, and it can solve the problem of having a religious government and yet a scientific one.

But if I was forced to choose between atheist government or a Christian one, I believe I will choose the Christian one. Because, Christianity is much more promising for the the balance of happiness between the two major ideas of this world "There is a God, and There is no God" as far as this Christian government does not enforce its religion on people.

I believe you’re confusing atheism and nihilism / postmodernism.

I believe you should provide your references for definitions, as I think I didn't confuse atheism with nihilism/postmodernism according to wikipedia.

I don’t think it should as evolution is just as much a religion as any other. It takes more faith to believe we were descended from soup than a supreme being.

So why should evolution be taught if it holds so many flaws that science can’t explain. I’ll give you an example, every year the moon slowly moves away from the earth, if big bang is true the moon would’ve been inside the earth billions of years ago. (This creates obvious problems)

Evolution has too many holes to be intelligently suggested.

and why ppl do we feel wikipedia is a good source of anything?

What? Where do you see any mention of restricting anything? Anywhere?

If we're going on Science here, then, “The cardinal rule in all science is that it must be susceptible to being shown to be wrong.”– Paul Hewitt, John Suchoki and Leslie A. Hewitt. Conceptual Physical Science. San Fransisco : Pearson Education Inc., 2008.

Science isn't likely to prove religion right or wrong. What gives anyone the right to restrict access to it?

The government of the U.S. does not have the right to "impose" any value or belief on anyone.
It is sad but true that, in the current political venue, we have lost sight of that. In the U.S. no one;
NO ONE, has the right to impose belief/values.

We may object to specific beliefs, values, morals, and ethics, but we must allow people to believe
in them. The more objectionable these values are, the more we must defend the right of people
to hold them. The highest example of a real American Ideal would be for a Rabbi to defend the
right of an Islamic extremist to hold a rally in a Jewish neighborhood. Or, the NAACP would defend
the right of the KKK to march in Harlem.

People who want the government, or any other organization, to impose "politically correct" actions,
language, or behavior on people is just the first that an Adolph Hitler wanna-be would take. The
government has no more right to impose atheism on the people is just as objectionable as having
the government impose Roman Catholicism on the people.

I think we have to distinguish between religion and God.

And then between religion in generic terms and religion as an organized however loosely as for example a movement.

At most I would agree — but first I am not a US citizen — that government should not adopt any official religion however loosely organized even just as a movement.

I would even agree that government should discourage any however loosely organized religion as for example as I said a movement.

Next, as regards atheism, insofar as an atheist wants to abolish the concept of God from people’s mind by force, no government should even ascribe to such an idea of such an atheist.

That is a futile and wasteful enterprise on the part of government.

So, my answer is no, government must not impose state atheism.

At most it may discourage established or organized religion however loosely understood even just as a movement.

But then, that would be against the liberty in a modern democratic state of citizens to organize themselves for any purpose, provided it is not dedicated to any violence that is not justifiable on grounds of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Pachomius2000