Would you vote for an atheist

[Missourian]

I'm sorry, but you're too fucking dumb to debate with. My last few posts were not intended for you. I research and save this stuff for future use. You're just a flamer.

You quoted my post.

You're really bad at this, the smartest thing you've done so far is give up.

So you advocate for religious establishment in government?

No, I don't...and never once said I did.

Read the thread.

If you want to answer the question Lakota can't feel free.

Edit- here's the link.

 

[Photonic]

You quoted my post.

You're really bad at this, the smartest thing you've done so far is give up.

So you advocate for religious establishment in government?

No, I don't...and never once said I did.

Read the thread.

If you want to answer the question Lakota can't feel free.

Oh ok, not a majority of Christians but you didn't really specify numbers so creationism is a big problem.

Oh, so is Gay marriage.

These are public systems and there are government benefits derived from marriage, it is no longer a religious establishment. To say that two consenting adults can't claim a government benefit because you don't want to give them their due freedom is insane.

Religious dogma being taught in public school is no less so, if they wish to have their children taught creationism (which is a religious view based on assertions and not on fact) they are free to do so in private schools.

I have nothing against Christians until they push their agenda on a public platform. Very few Christians do this and the ones that do are often looked down on by the majority for painting them in a bad light. I have no problem with religion as a whole but I do have problems with extremists of any religion.

Hopefully I am able to answer what he does not care too.

 

[Lakhota]

In Boerne vs. Flores the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which was signed by Bill Clinton, was struck down as unconstitutional by a majority of Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, Scalia (all but part III-A-1), Thomas, and Ginsburg. Dissenting were O'Conner, Breyer and Souter.

That is true, and it affected Native Americans.

 

[Missourian]

So you advocate for religious establishment in government?

No, I don't...and never once said I did.

Read the thread.

If you want to answer the question Lakota can't feel free.

Oh ok, not a majority of Christians but you didn't really specify numbers so creationism is a big problem.

Oh, so is Gay marriage.

These are public systems and there are government benefits derived from marriage, it is no longer a religious establishment. To say that two consenting adults can't claim a government benefit because you don't want to give them their due freedom is insane.

Why just two...why not three or five or eleven?

Religious dogma being taught in public school is no less so, if they wish to have their children taught creationism (which is a religious view based on assertions and not on fact) they are free to do so in private schools.

Hell, I want taught man made global warming 30 years ago, just as much assertion as creationism.

I have nothing against Christians until they push their agenda on a public platform. Very few Christians do this and the ones that do are often looked down on by the majority for painting them in a bad light. I have no problem with religion as a whole but I do have problems with extremists of any religion.

Hopefully I am able to answer what he does not care too.

It's okay to be opposed to gay marriage, as long as it's not religion based?

That's just silly.

Since there is no factual evolutionary theory for the creation of the organic from the inorganic, at the moment, creationism is no more or less assertion based than the scientific theory.

Unless you have a scientific facts relating to the transformation of dust to life that you're keeping to yourself.

Anything else?

P.S. - Going to bed...to be continued.

 

[Photonic]

No, I don't...and never once said I did.

Read the thread.

If you want to answer the question Lakota can't feel free.

Oh ok, not a majority of Christians but you didn't really specify numbers so creationism is a big problem.

Oh, so is Gay marriage.

These are public systems and there are government benefits derived from marriage, it is no longer a religious establishment. To say that two consenting adults can't claim a government benefit because you don't want to give them their due freedom is insane.

Why just two...why not three or five or eleven?

Religious dogma being taught in public school is no less so, if they wish to have their children taught creationism (which is a religious view based on assertions and not on fact) they are free to do so in private schools.

Hell, I want taught man made global warming 30 years ago, just as much assertion as creationism.

I have nothing against Christians until they push their agenda on a public platform. Very few Christians do this and the ones that do are often looked down on by the majority for painting them in a bad light. I have no problem with religion as a whole but I do have problems with extremists of any religion.

Hopefully I am able to answer what he does not care too.

It's okay to be opposed to gay marriage, as long as it's not religion based?

That's just silly.

Since there is no factual evolutionary theory for the creation of the organic from the inorganic, at the moment, creationism is no more assertion based than the scientific theory.

Anything else?

I'm going to play nice and simply let you know that evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life. That would be abiogenesis, which does have supporting experimental evidence.

Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab | LiveScience

Something creationism lacks in its entirety.


As to the polygamous marriage, that would seem more like tax evasion than actual marriage at that point. While I agree that it is not simply a Christian only talking point, it is primarily Christians that support the ban of marriage that is not between man and woman. Why, if you cannot discriminate in the constitution, should you be allowed to discriminate in a government institution?

 

[Bubble]

Yes, I'd absolutely vote for an atheist. My question is: Why not?

I believe in the separation of church and state. As long as a politician acknowledges that, I won't consider his religious affiliation a factor when I vote. I don't care if they're Mormon, Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, or any other religion. They'll earn my vote if I believe their political views will help us out of this economical rut.

As John F. Kennedy once famously said:

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured--perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again--not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me--but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

That basically sums up my belief on this topic.

 

[yidnar]

Everybody that runs for president is 'expected' to proclaim their religious affiliation.

Would you vote for an atheist for president of the USA?
Why or why not?

why not?? libbs voted for a Muslim !!

 

[Lakhota]

Just imagine if a highly qualified ATHEIST announced his/her candidacy for president in the current political/religious climate. The religious extremists would go nuts. There would probably even be bloodshed - possibly major bloodshed. In fact, I can't imagine even if an Atheist won the presidential election that he/she would ever live to see the Oval Office. It would make bombing abortion clinics seem minor in comparison. I really believe that.

 

[Photonic]

Just imagine if a highly qualified ATHEIST announced his/her candidacy for president in the current political/religious climate. The religious extremists would go nuts. There would probably even be bloodshed - possibly major bloodshed. In fact, I can't imagine even if an Atheist won the presidential election that he/she would ever live to see the Oval Office. It would make bombing abortion clinics seem minor in comparison. I really believe that.

Atheist isn't capitalized, it's not a group and it isn't a proper noun.

The more you know. <3

 

[yidnar]

Just imagine if a highly qualified ATHEIST announced his/her candidacy for president in the current political/religious climate. The religious extremists would go nuts. There would probably even be bloodshed - possibly major bloodshed. In fact, I can't imagine even if an Atheist won the presidential election that he/she would ever live to see the Oval Office. It would make bombing abortion clinics seem minor in comparison. I really believe that.

HOW DO YOU KNOW ??

 

[Lakhota]

Just imagine if a highly qualified ATHEIST announced his/her candidacy for president in the current political/religious climate. The religious extremists would go nuts. There would probably even be bloodshed - possibly major bloodshed. In fact, I can't imagine even if an Atheist won the presidential election that he/she would ever live to see the Oval Office. It would make bombing abortion clinics seem minor in comparison. I really believe that.

Atheist isn't capitalized, it's not a group and it isn't a proper noun.

The more you know. <3

I know, but I like to capitalize it like Christian... but thanks for the heads up...

 

[saveliberty]

Just imagine if a highly qualified ATHEIST announced his/her candidacy for president in the current political/religious climate. The religious extremists would go nuts. There would probably even be bloodshed - possibly major bloodshed. In fact, I can't imagine even if an Atheist won the presidential election that he/she would ever live to see the Oval Office. It would make bombing abortion clinics seem minor in comparison. I really believe that.

Your imagination does not make any of it reality. Your faith in it is amusing.

 

[JoeB131]

I would have no problem voting for an atheist if I agreed with his positions on everything else, being an atheist myself.

However, I would not want my party to nominate one if my goal was to get rid of an incumbant I didn't like. Polls show that 49% of Americans would not vote for an atheist. Therefore, nominating one would be a sure fire loser.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Everybody that runs for president is 'expected' to proclaim their religious affiliation.

Would you vote for an atheist for president of the USA?
Why or why not?

It's rather interesting how those who support "Big Government" embrace its strong arm of dictatating it's predominance and influence OVER those that are to be subjected under it's "rule of power" without question, except when it comes to "morality" or an individual's "religious" impact over another.

I personally don't believe a person's beliefs, nor their moral views (or lack of them), ought to be FORCED upon by anyone of influential Presidential power. That being said no one in the Federal Government, according to the First Amendment, can enforce any "denomination" of faith or belief (including atheism) over another, nor does the Amendment allow for someone to encroach their views to dictate "which" and "where" a person might freely demonstrate their beliefs in this country. Too often the First Amendment is used by those of power, to sensor and stiffle the views (rights) of another simply because the individual (or group) doesn't believe as THEY do. Thus the First Amendment must carefully be interpreted "correctly", through historical views of interpretation surrounding those involved in its inception, and supported by documentation, to secure the rights of all.

 

[Liberty]

as long as they were a libertarian, sure.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I would have no problem voting for an atheist, but I'd never vote for a candidate that called my God the "Invisible Sky Daddy".

That's what would worry me about an atheist: they all seem really incapable of having any sort of respect for other beliefs. I don't think that attitude makes for an appropriate President for a country that enshrines freedom OF religion, rather than freedom FROM religion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Absolutely! Religion does not determine morality!

I agree.

I would certainly trust a moral Atheist above a religious zealot who believes in the invisible Sky Daddy.

Religion does not equal zealotry.

Atheism often does, though.

 

[Photonic]

Absolutely! Religion does not determine morality!

I agree.

I would certainly trust a moral Atheist above a religious zealot who believes in the invisible Sky Daddy.

Religion does not equal zealotry.

Atheism often does, though.

By that EXACT same logic, all religious people are extremists.


Please do not enforce your generalizations on us.

Did you know most Buddhists are considered by definition to be atheist right? Some Hindu's also.

Atheist doesn't mean a lack of religion, just a lack of belief in the existence of any deity.

It's not a belief, it's simply a state of lacking a belief.

Hopefully this information will cure a lot of the propaganda that has been spread against atheists. Though people are notorious for having tunnel vision.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I know this is just friendly conversation but in the U.S., Art VI Paragraph 3 spells it out. It was adopted before the War of Southern Rebellion too No Religious Test Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Framers were quite intelligent in this regard.

I don't recall anyone suggesting that an atheist be BARRED from running for the office. Do you? Perhaps you could point that suggestion out, if it exists. Otherwise, you could shut the hell up on pretending that the US Constitution has ANY provisions regarding what qualities individual citizens may or may not use to determine who to vote for.

Moron.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I never said it did.

Yet you feel free to ridicule my religion. Why?

Really? What is your religion? I suspect it's based on ONE book written thousands of years ago by many ancient superstitious goat/sheep herders who were banging their flocks and relatives. Am I close...?

I'm pretty sure this post is EXACTLY what was meant by "ridiculing my religion", and EXACTLY why people don't want to vote for an atheist: no one thinks it's a good idea to have the President being so arrogant and condescending to the majority of American citizens.