In a recent thread, Lightkeeper noted a comment by Mike Huckabee during the U.S. primaries. Further, many have noted that nobody can be elected President of the U.S. (or probably to any other high office) with declaring his/her faith, and likely (as we have seen in the case of Mitt Romney), faith in Jesus Christ.

It is illegal in most parts of the western world to ask a person's religion as part of a job application, and it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion. And what is an election, if not a very convoluted job application?

It is also true that the Founding Fathers went to some trouble to effect the separation of church and state, which is a primary feature of the Enlightenment overall.

Therefore, I would like to issue a challenge to a formal debate on the following: "Resolved -- that religious beliefs should be neither requested nor disclosed during a democratic election." I would, of course, argue for the affirmative.

Anyone interested in opposing this resolution in a formal debate?

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

I'm happy to give this one a go EH to start the debate ball rolling. Regarding rules etc., I am happy to agree with whatever you think is appropriate although I would add that I do lean towards a 'rolling debate' as opposed to a finite number of posts. But, whatever you prefer...

Whatever rules you and I agree to will be fine. I don't think we need to set any minimum number of posts, but we should certainly agree in advance how we might end it. There are several possibilities. We could set an absolute maximum number of posts each, or a maximum number of weeks for the debate to continue. Or either one of us, at his own choice, could declare that this is his final post, and that the other will then have the opportunity to make one more response to that. I'm open to whatever you'd like.

As it's my challenge, and my subject, it might be fair if I were to make the opening statement, but as the challenger, I'll defer to your choice on that, too.

One thing, though, is that we should probably set a maximum time between posts -- something on the order of 5 or 7 days. Otherwise, we could go on forever! But we don't want it to be 1 day, either, because it's always good to have a little time to think or research a point.

I look forward to your suggestions for setting the debate rules.

As I am a debater, I would be looking for a volunteer from among the moderators to moderate this debate. That means keeping us honest, but it also means removing (to the bleechers) any posts that are not by one of the two of us, or the moderator.

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

Huckabee made this foolish statement during a pandering-to-Evangelicals-event no doubt. I'm glad I know what his full agenda is, as it I could interpret it to mean that atheists and Jews will have their citizenship revoked. Even Rush Limbaugh is disappointed in Iowa selecting this populist, tax raising, soft on illegal immigration, pro-teacher's union, anti voucher system, soft on crime pseudo-conservative.

It's pretty much a fact that only Christians are allowed to be presidents in the USA. Historically, it wasn't until 1960 that a Catholic was allowed to be president.

__________________
Tennessee skeptic

I am looking forward to this debate. Good luck to both of you!

__________________
May your awareness be perfection

That sounds good to me.

Fire away.
5 days is fine for me.