Atheist or Agnostic in American public office

I want to start off by thanking pro for hosting this debate. Atheists aren't trustworthy according to the general public [1]. I want to point out the study cited by the article I linked to indicates atheists are about as trusted as rapists. With the general public ( atheists included ) this distrusting of atheists why would you want one in office? The public should be able to trust someone holding public office. To put someone in office that untrustworthy could bring about a lot of resentment for that office and maybe even some hostility. Any political candidate that increases hostility, resentment and distrust towards government would clearly be inferior to a political candidate who restores faith in the people holding public office. Atheists are immoral. Pro insinuates in his opening arguments that atheists are likely to be more moral. Most people would say morality means knowing between right and wrong, and acting altruistic. But studies show that atheists are more likely to believe in moral relatism. Atheists also on average donate less to charities then their religous counter parts [2]. So there you have it atheists have a looser definition of morality and are more selfish. Most people would agree a selfish person who has a more relaxed definition of morality would make a worse political candidate and public office holder. Atheist's aren't neccesarily more rational. Pro argues that atheists are more rational, yet he offers no sources. This is just a feeling he has. An atheist can come to his belief system in an irrational way and a religous person can come to his beliefs in a rational way. Belief or disbelief in a supreme deity is no indicator of how rational a person is. Atheists are more likely to be genocidal maniacs. Worst 5 genocides of all time[3] 1. Mao Zedong At least 34 million dead (atheist ) 2. Joseph Stalin at least 23 million dead ( atheist) 3. Adolf Hitler at least 6 million dead ( atheist ) 4. Hideki Tojo at least 5 million dead ( religion unclear probably Shinto and Buddhist which is closer to atheism then Christianity) 5. Pol Pot at least 2.5 million deaths ( atheist ) Sure the chances of electing a genocidal maniac are extremely slim. None the less, if you put an atheist in public office he is statistically more likely to push for genocide. Therefore making him a worse person for public office even if just marginally. Atheists interested in politics are more likely to be statists [4]. Most people are looking for a higher power. A lot of people find that higher power in religion. Some people find it in Anthony Robbins. The most rational people look to there selves, but a majority of atheists look to the government to be that higher power. If you look back at the genocidal maniac list you can see a pattern with that as well. Any politician that favors group rights over individual rights is less worthy to be in office. Any politician that would take away freedom from the individual is a worse candidate for public office. Any political candidate that would take power away from people and give that power to the government is bad for public office. If your the type of person who cares about freedom then you should know your more likely to lose it with an atheist politician. Psychology of the atheist As I've already proven atheists are looser with their morals, but what does that mean? As an atheist myself I think I have a good understanding of the psychology of an atheist, so let me explain. As an atheist, I know there is no God. If I rape and kill a woman, the only things I have to consider is will I get away with it and will this hurt me psychologically. If I were a sociopath then the only thing I would have to consider is, will I get away with it. The religous person, even if the religous person is a sociopath knows that god is watching and knows they will pay for their crime. They won't even consider if they can get away with it because in their mind, they can't. Tell me which person can you trust with a female relative more? The person who knows they will be punished for raping that female relative or the one who knows that there is a tiny possibility they can get away with it? I don't know about anyone else but I want my sister to be around people who won't even consider raping her. A person who would consider rape has got to be a worse political candidate then the person who won't. Summary 1.Atheists aren't trusted by the general public and would therefore create hostile feelings, resentment and distrust for their political office. 2. Atheists are looser with their morals and are selfish. Not good qualities for a public office holder. 3. Candidates are probably extremely unlikely to be genocidal maniacs, but atheists are slightly less unlikely then theists. 4. Atheists are more inclined to favor power to the government then power to the people. 5. atheists are more likely to consider raping my sister then theists. This is not a quality I look for in a political candidate. Sources [1] http://www.scientificamerican.com... [2] http://www.psychologytoday.com... [3] http://justontop.blogspot.com... [4] http://www.atheismresource.com...