Q: Should atheists be barred from public office?

How long this poll on atheists holding public office will be active is anyone's guess. Probably not that long. The question is the same as my title, above. (It's also been hijacked to where it's now 97% - No, and 3% - Yes.)

I found the following comment (possibly trolling for disagreement) on a post in the blog of a prominent Science Blog writer. Said blogger may also have non-theistic tendencies, as well. On to the comment:

If a man will not acknowledge a Creator, why would he show any reverence for creatures?

If an atheist is consistent in his beliefs, he has every reason to be a tyrant when given authority over others. He has no compelling reason to respect anything in creation.

I find this curious because of the very invalid assumptions this commenter is making. I want to take them one at a time:

1. "If a man will not acknowledge a Creator, why would he show any reverence for creatures?" Wow. Leaving arguments that seem to claim that babies believe in a Creator without any prior knowledge, this would suggest you need belief in a deity in order to be capable of love. Let me suggest that babies and animals do not know or acknowledge any sort of Creator deity, and they are certainly capable of love. But reverence isn't, strictly speaking, love. They just seem synonymous, to me.
   
2. "If an atheist is consistent in his beliefs ..." Curious. I thought an atheist didn't have these kinds of "beliefs." Otherwise, there is nothing at all consistent/inconsistent about what an individual believes. It has nothing to do with anything.
3. "... he has every reason to be a tyrant ..." I am not aware that non-belief in a deity means one must completely disregard others. Disregard for others is sociopathic behavior, and certainly not part of any "atheist manifesto."
   
4. "... no compelling reason to respect anything in creation ..." Other than his acknowledgment that other people and things do, in fact, exist. This doesn't require any sort of belief system, except belief in the existence of the world. Kind of hard to ignore for most people, I'd think. Of course, there may be reasons for one to not have respect, but one basis for respect is acknowledging the existence of something. I respect my car, but I'm pretty sure some guy built it.
   

Only when you can make such broad, baseless assumptions about someone, can you believe such statements as these are reasonable.

So, on the surface the poll question seems curious. As was suggested, a better question could have been "would you vote for an atheist?" which is much more to the point. Both questions hint at the same kind of non-pluralisic thought, but the second one is more valid. We really can't keep someone out of public office for such capricious reasons. I mean, what if we tried to ban all redheads? Makes as much sense--that is, it makes none. But, if you don't like redheads, then you have every right to be utterly ignorant and bigoted, and not vote for them. Can't do anything about that but try to change your mind.

I think we can easily accept that non-believers are just as capable of love, respect, and reverence as anyone else. It doesn't take belief in some supernatural god to see the majesty and magnificence of a mountain. Or in the cosmos. This universe is a truly amazing place, regardless how it came into being. Scratch any scientist and you'll find a very (insanely) curious kid who wants to explore everything and eventually know everything. If there wasn't amazement at what they find in the universe, then I doubt they'd be interested in learning more about it. You can believe everything was created, or you can believe the opposite. It doesn't change your level of engagement. What I'm driving a is this: Many scientists have no faith in deities. Sociopaths are few in number, many fewer than even atheistic scientists. I want to suggest that the most ethical and moral among us have chosen science. It's that insane drive to know, and to act well with that knowledge.