Is It Right For Someone Interested In Politics to Lie About Their Religion?

[TheReasonator]

Say someone has determined that the place they can do the most good is in politics, but realize that if they are atheist or agnostic and are honest about their beliefs they will not make it very far. Is it OK for this person to lie and attend Church or some other religious institution in order to fool the public so they can get elected and then do public good?

[Dakota Bob]

I'm sure there are some that already do.

[TenfoldMaquette]

I'm sure there are some that already do.

^This. Something like 25-30% of humanity identifies itself as "non-religious", and yet how many open Atheists/Agnostics/etc do you see in politics? A small handful, but certainly not one-in-four or one-in-three as should statistically be present.

[Mechtaur]

I'm sure there are some that already do.

More than a few probably have, but Reasonator isn't wanting to know if they do. He wants to know if we consider it morally ok to do so.

In any event, I propose that yes, it is. As unfortunate as it is, Atheists don't have a good reputation and it is severe enough that it can harm them on their ability to do good. If someone needs to clear their conscience of the event, they can simply start saying they've been questioning their faith and then say they gave it up (provided they aren't in an atheist friendly religion like Buddhism to begin with).

Is it lying? Yes, but unfortunately it can be necessary in today's world. If it is resulting in more good being done than if they were completely honest, it is better to do so and work on it later. Of course, like I said, this is if the politician in question isn't a religious atheist.

[Yla]

I think this is a disagreement between ethics and morals. Is it morally right to do so? I'd say no. Keep in mind that you would be actively deceiving your electorate, even if it would be for a good cause. That would be an ethical justification, and while valid under an ethical viewpoint, it doesn't necessarily hold under a moral viewpoint. Is it ethically right to do so? Maybe, I'm not sure.

[Witchyjoshy]

Ideally, religion should be a complete non-factor in politics.

Unfortunately, most of the US population doesn't agree with me on this.

Eh... my viewpoint is that it's wrong, but that it might be a necessary wrong.

[Fpqxz]

Those of you who read The Prince know that Machiavelli expressly promoted deceit in most political matters, including religion.

Now of course, there is some debate as to how serious Macchiavelli was when he wrote the book, so...take it with a grain of salt.

[rookie]

Good question. I think it's exactly as OK to lie about your religious affiliation as it is to lie about your sexual preferences. Add to that the different classes of lying and there's some serious wiggle room.

[Askold]

Ideally, religion should be a complete non-factor in politics.

Unfortunately, most of the US population doesn't agree with me on this.

Eh... my viewpoint is that it's wrong, but that it might be a necessary wrong.

Actually I am going to have to disagree...

You see in a democracy the voters must have the right to choose who they vote (duhh) and therefore they must also have the right to decide WHY they vote for that person. And if a voter decides that he will only vote for people who share his religion then this should be a valid choice as well.

I don't care how silly or superficial the reasons for the voter are. Voter A only votes tall bald guys who listen to Nickelbag, but it still is an equally valid vote as voter B who chose the smartest, most experienced candidate with the exact same values and agendas as voter B.

[Witchyjoshy]

Ideally, religion should be a complete non-factor in politics.

Unfortunately, most of the US population doesn't agree with me on this.

Eh... my viewpoint is that it's wrong, but that it might be a necessary wrong.

Actually I am going to have to disagree...

You see in a democracy the voters must have the right to choose who they vote (duhh) and therefore they must also have the right to decide WHY they vote for that person. And if a voter decides that he will only vote for people who share his religion then this should be a valid choice as well.

I don't care how silly or superficial the reasons for the voter are. Voter A only votes tall bald guys who listen to Nickelbag, but it still is an equally valid vote as voter B who chose the smartest, most experienced candidate with the exact same values and agendas as voter B.

I... never said anything to the contrary.

I spoke of an idealism.  That's all.

[MadCatTLX]

There are a few states in the US where it is illegal for an atheist to hold public office.

[Material Defender]

There are a few states in the US where it is illegal for an atheist to hold public office.

I smell a class action lawsuit. Totally against the constitution of the Federal Government.

[rookie]

There are a few states in the US where it is illegal for an atheist to hold public office.

I smell a class action lawsuit. Totally against the constitution of the Federal Government.

It is. However, these are states and towns that no atheist can ever hold office anyways. All the other side needs to do is get the biggest douche they can find who goes to church Sundays, put him (let's not kid ourselves, it'll be a him) in front of a microphone, show him how to point to the other guy and scream ATHEIST from July til November.

[Material Defender]

There are a few states in the US where it is illegal for an atheist to hold public office.

I smell a class action lawsuit. Totally against the constitution of the Federal Government.

It is. However, these are states and towns that no atheist can ever hold office anyways. All the other side needs to do is get the biggest douche they can find who goes to church Sundays, put him (let's not kid ourselves, it'll be a him) in front of a microphone, show him how to point to the other guy and scream ATHEIST from July til November.

I don't mind de facto stupidity like that, that's just politics. But the moment they make it De Jure, they ask for the Courts to weigh in.


Hrm, I'm thinking back to my days growing up religious and all. I wonder if the reason that atheists are regarded so wrongly by religious individuals is because they cannot comprehend disbelief? I mean, when I was a child that was impossible to me. I mean, I grew past that as I grew older. Hell I think I had my first doubts when I was eight, but apparently autistics tend to doubt religion more readily than most. But this inability to comprehend disbelief may lead them to the conclusions that they 'worship' things and they are really lying.

[Sleepy]

Part of it is probably atheists being viewed as untrustworthy because some people think lack of belief in hell = lack of morals.