As an atheist, if you were president, would you deny the freedom to religion, since you think it's the downfall of humanity? You accuse religion to be the root of all evil, so wouldn't it make sense to stop something you view as harmful?
If you'd let people practice as they wish, wouldn't that be horrible of you since you'd be letting us "poor fools" ruin the planet and everyone else included?
2007-06-24 20:05:49 · 18 answers · asked by Jmyooooh 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I'm a little skeptical about how sincere you are in asking this, but I'll answer anyway.
Yes, of course I would let people practice as they wish; but if they attempted to put religion in places where it doesn't belong, like public school science classes for example, then I would have a problem with that.
2007-06-24 20:10:29 · answer #1 · answered by . 7 · 7⤊ 0⤋
I don't really get the "you" part of your question - it seems you know a lot more about the implications of atheism then this atheist. ("You think...", "you accuse...") Is this really what all atheists believe?! I never knew.
Anyway, it seems that you do not realize that atheists profit just as much from religious freedom as anyone else. It is freedom of religion that guarantees their right not to believe in any religion, after all. Atheism includes certain ideas about life, just like for example catholicism does. Both would therefore have the same reasons, or lack of them, to impose their worldview on someone else.
2007-06-24 23:53:09 · answer #2 · answered by deborah 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's a good point you have there...but no. Denying freedom of religion through an atheist would be exactly what most religions are doing today. And you can see where this country is heading...
It would just be another controlling device. Everyone should have the right to decide what they want to do.
2007-06-24 20:11:18 · answer #3 · answered by jaelrnya 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
A president doesn't have the power to change the constitution of the United States..
Article 5 of the constitution addresses changing the constitution..
Article 5 Changing the Constitution
Congress can call a convention to propose making changes to this Constitution at any time when two-thirds of both the Senate and the House of Representatives agree or when two-thirds of the state legislatures agree. Any ratified amendments will become legitimate parts of this Constitution, whether ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states, whichever Congress proposes. Amendments ratified before 1808 can’t change Article 1, Section 9, Paragraphs 1 and 4 of this Constitution. Amendments can’t take away a state’s equal representation in the Senate without the consent of that state.
Take you nose out of your bible a while all citizens should know and understand the constitution or forming document of their land..
2007-06-24 20:20:16 · answer #4 · answered by Diane (PFLAG) 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If i was an atheist president i would welcome freedom of religion. People need to be allowed to believe what they want and if they are stupid enough to believe in religion, then just let them. If it helps them sleep better at night...
Atheists do not believe that religion is the root of all evil or view it as harmful. Everyone needs to believe in something, even atheists know that.
2007-06-24 20:13:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
If an atheist were President, the rest of the world would cheer and we would all sleep more soundly. An atheist would not prevent anyone from practising their religion, s/he can't, check the Bill of Rights.
As an atheist I have no problem with people believing whatever they like. I do not, however, want religion taught in science classes nor do I want it to determine laws about abortion, stem cells or anything else.
2007-06-24 20:13:30 · answer #6 · answered by tentofield 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Freedom of worship is a Constitutional right, and since the president is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution (except, perhaps, the present president-- he apparently hates the Bill of Rights), he would be in violation of his oath and subject to impeachment were he to try to restrict freedom of worship. Of course, he would also be obligated to insure freedom FROM worship, so he'd be defending the rights of fellow atheists, as well.
2007-06-24 20:12:45 · answer #7 · answered by link955 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Outlawing religion does not make it go away. Instead, it causes religious people to try to undermine the government. Any government that opposes the religion of the majority of its citizens will fall.
I don't think any atheist smart enough to be elected president would be dumb enough to try that.
2007-06-24 20:12:11 · answer #8 · answered by scifiguy 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No... I would encourage freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion as well. I'd try to ensure that everyone could worship without persecution and NOT worship without persecution. I'd also try to prevent any use of religion in making laws, which is frightningly encouraged by the current administration.
The rest of your question shows that you know nothing about what atheists believe. We do not care what religion you practice or what beliefs you embrace as long as you don't force others to participate with you against their will.
2007-06-24 20:09:24 · answer #9 · answered by Rogue Scrapbooker 6 · 7⤊ 1⤋
Freedom includes the freedom to do stupid things. It makes no difference to me or Jefferson if you believe in one god, none, or twenty, as long as it doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg.
Were I president, you can bet I would be doing everything possible to ensure freedom of religion (and press, and assembly, and petition, and speech).
2007-06-24 20:13:36 · answer #10 · answered by Doc Occam 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋