Did you hear about this? Unitarian Universalist (and “post-theist,” whatever that is) Cecil Bothwell gets elected to the Asheville, NC city council. This frustrates the conservative Christian community, who insist his election is illegal under North Carolina law which states you cannot “deny the being of Almighty God.” Of course, the US Constitution—which says there can be no “religious” test for holding office—trumps that. But I am sure that the plaintiffs would argue that the US Constitution also has no jurisdiction over the states.
Sounds like an uphill battle to me.
Atheists are clearly out. What about polytheists? I’m guessing most of them are out, too, unless their polytheism includes an “Almighty God” (and some do). Buddhists who believe in an impersonal and non-sentient spiritual ground of being would be left out as well, I guess. Maybe not agnostics, though, since they don’t straight up deny the existence of God.
Of course, you could be really strict about it. It’s amazing what some people consider “denying God.” You could make the case that any monotheist who believes in a god other than the Judeo-Christian god is banned, since they believe some other, lesser almighty god than THE “Almighty God.” And if you say, well, that means the Muslims can’t serve, I guess that also throws into doubt the service of Jews. That should make Joe Lieberman glad he represents Conneticut instead.
The Freemasons are a little more clear here than the North Carolina constitution. They only insist on monotheism, the theory being that only monotheism offers a powerful enough God to enforce oaths.
But I’m not sure we need that degree of certainty for public office. Clearly Almighty God does not enforce political oaths for us, which is why we have to censure, try, convict, and imprison politicians who take bribes.
A shame really, since lightning would be far more efficient.
Hat tip to The Wild Hunt, which has all the links you would want for this story.
This is crazy.
I AM one of those right-wing conservative Christian Bible thumpers, and I think it would be disrespectful for anyone to deny God’s existence.
(I mean, really, how would *you* like it if someone denied *your* existence?!)
However, to require this as a test for serving on counsels is wrong:
Even tho it may be a sin, does anyone remember the parable of the wheat and the tares, hello? THEY GROW UP TOGETHER!
Besides, while proclaiming the gospel is a mandate according to Mark chapter 16 and elsewhere, there IS NO mandate that we must make the choice for them -that would be rude -and deny free will. (As well, it would make all of Christ’s hard work as a perfect example and role model per John 13:15 meaningless -and let me tell you, as a human, I *do* need a role model.)
Let’s not make Christ look bad -let’s proclaim our message in a polite way.
I’m Gordon Watts, and I approve this message.
http://www.topix.net/forum/religion/unitarian-universalist/TVO7RRJN3RR8668ED#lastPost
I commented over there too…
And some clueless poster got confused on the ratings icons—learn 2 read b4 you log on already.
GW
I use the term “post-theist” because I feel I grew up in a post-theist era. I’m not averse to the term “atheist’ but it seems to have acquired a lot of baggage.
Many atheists seem eager to prove that god or gods don’t exist. That’s okay with me, but I really don’t care. I have seen no day-to-day evidence of supernatural intervention, so god arguments seem irrelevant. As I write in my just-released book, Whale Falls: An examination of belief and its consequences, “If the world is not a zero-sum game, then faith alone might set us free. If it is, faith will not suffice. In a physically limited system we need to curb our appetites and impose pollution controls. Protecting whole watersheds and building bicycles instead of cars become imperative. In short, we need to work, not meditate, if reality is circular—that is, if the loops of hydrology, nutrients, and energy are closed.”
Cecil, thanks for stopping by. I’m still kind of at sea about what “post-theist” means. Probably because “theist” is such a vague and unsatisfying term, one that tends to be used by atheists to mean “the community of people who disagree with us.”
And while there are some communities of the religious who choose only to meditate rather than be active, for many of those people it’s not because they feel God will save them but that reality itself is inconsequential. Plenty of religious groups are very active in both liberal and conservative causes, and they don’t have to declare themselves to be “beyond” belief to do so.
Although if the article is correct and you are a UU, I bet I don’t have to lecture you on that.