Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
"Die Religion ist das Opium des Volkesis"
- Karl Marx
I don't think we'll be going that way. Just glance at the Democrat commie line-up.
WHY?
What is needed is what the Founding Fathers intended - a 'Public SERVANT'.
IMO, one of the major problems is that politicians, especially the Leftist extremists, rejected the idea of being a public SERVANT for the intent to be RULERS long ago. CONTROLLING every aspect of US citizens' lives has become the socialist Democrat goal.
Democrats FORCED the American people to accept Obamacare. It was never up to the people.
Democrats now want to FORCE Americans to accept Single Payer 'Medicare For All'.
Cory Booker wants to outlaw eating meat simply because HE chooses not to eat any and thinks no one else should either.
The Constitution, written by the Founding Fathers, clearly and specifically define the powers of the United States Federal Government and declares any power and authority NOT SPECIFICALLY ALLOCATED TO THAT FED GOVT is to reside with the States.
This fact has all but been trampled beneath the feet of the every forward marching Socialist Democrats and others who seek to be the masters of US citizens instead of their servants, as the founding Fathers intended.
"Die Religion ist das Opium des Volkesis"
- Karl Marx
I don't think we'll be going that way. Just glance at the Democrat commie line-up.
It's frustrating that I need to explain that political parties have nothing to do with the topic.
"Die Religion ist das Opium des Volkesis"
- Karl Marx
I don't think we'll be going that way. Just glance at the Democrat commie line-up.
It's frustrating that I need to explain that political parties have nothing to do with the topic.
Non sequitur. "An Atheist Presidential Candidate ..."
The Constitution prevents the US govt from establishing an official religion. The words 'Separation of Church and State' liberals like to quote so often when it suits them is no where to be found in the Constitution. I accept that it is the OP's opinion that an Atheist is required, but I disagree. At this point I would appreciate one that does not vilify Christianity and attempts to eliminate any reference, symbol, ability to pray, etc...from Christians while defending violent faiths like Islam. A leader who could actually do the job he was hired to do without attempting to push his own beliefs / controls on others would be acceptable to me.WHY?
Why not?
What is needed is what the Founding Fathers intended - a 'Public SERVANT'.
Yep, which has nothing to do with the topic.
IMO, one of the major problems is that politicians, especially the Leftist extremists, rejected the idea of being a public SERVANT for the intent to be RULERS long ago. CONTROLLING every aspect of US citizens' lives has become the socialist Democrat goal.
Democrats FORCED the American people to accept Obamacare. It was never up to the people.
Democrats now want to FORCE Americans to accept Single Payer 'Medicare For All'.
Cory Booker wants to outlaw eating meat simply because HE chooses not to eat any and thinks no one else should either.
The Constitution, written by the Founding Fathers, clearly and specifically define the powers of the United States Federal Government and declares any power and authority NOT SPECIFICALLY ALLOCATED TO THAT FED GOVT is to reside with the States.
This fact has all but been trampled beneath the feet of the every forward marching Socialist Democrats and others who seek to be the masters of US citizens instead of their servants, as the founding Fathers intended.
Just partisan winger hyperbole that still has nothing to do with OP.
"Die Religion ist das Opium des Volkesis"
- Karl Marx
I don't think we'll be going that way. Just glance at the Democrat commie line-up.
It's frustrating that I need to explain that political parties have nothing to do with the topic.
Non sequitur. "An Atheist Presidential Candidate ..."
An argument from semantics. How predictable.
The Constitution prevents the US govt from establishing an official religion. The words 'Separation of Church and State' liberals like to quote so often when it suits them is no where to be found in the Constitution. I accept that it is the OP's opinion that an Atheist is required, but I disagree. At this point I would appreciate one that does not vilify Christianity and attempts to eliminate any reference, symbol, ability to pray, etc...from Christians while defending violent faiths like Islam. A leader who could actually do the job he was hired to do without attempting to push his own beliefs / controls on others would be acceptable to me.WHY?
Why not?
What is needed is what the Founding Fathers intended - a 'Public SERVANT'.
Yep, which has nothing to do with the topic.
IMO, one of the major problems is that politicians, especially the Leftist extremists, rejected the idea of being a public SERVANT for the intent to be RULERS long ago. CONTROLLING every aspect of US citizens' lives has become the socialist Democrat goal.
Democrats FORCED the American people to accept Obamacare. It was never up to the people.
Democrats now want to FORCE Americans to accept Single Payer 'Medicare For All'.
Cory Booker wants to outlaw eating meat simply because HE chooses not to eat any and thinks no one else should either.
The Constitution, written by the Founding Fathers, clearly and specifically define the powers of the United States Federal Government and declares any power and authority NOT SPECIFICALLY ALLOCATED TO THAT FED GOVT is to reside with the States.
This fact has all but been trampled beneath the feet of the every forward marching Socialist Democrats and others who seek to be the masters of US citizens instead of their servants, as the founding Fathers intended.
Just partisan winger hyperbole that still has nothing to do with OP.
A President is not elected to be the Spiritual Leader of the nation. His purpose is to lead the country in accordance with the Constitution and Rule of law....IMO.
Every few election cycles, an article like the following is written, which I find interesting:
It’s time for us to have an unapologetic atheist in the Oval Office (Opinion: WaPo)
From the link: Among the 21 candidates seeking the Democratic nomination, virtually every ethnic, religious and sexual identity is represented. There’s a gay man, six women, three African Americans, a Chinese American, multiple Catholics and Protestants, even a Hindu. (Hindus are 0.7 percent of the population.) But there is one conspicuous absence: Not a single candidate publicly identifies as an atheist. That’s not to say they are all religious believers. But if they aren’t, they are keeping it to themselves.
I believe a presidential candidate that is an unapologetic atheist would be an interesting pick. The people that would be trying to rip apart the candidate’s credibility would likely consist of devout theocrats, but they tend to be liars and hypocrites anyway, especially those currently supporting a 3-time adulterer and habitual liar currently occupying the White House, so their credibility is already compromised.
A candidate focused on the Constitution without any added distraction of kowtowing to the pious would be a well needed relief. A truly secular government could place traditionally religious ceremonies like marriage squarely on the shoulders of the church. The government would continue to provide legal civil unions indiscriminately based on law. Federal faith based programs could be de-funded by the government and relegated to the private sector, freeing up those monies to go towards necessary programs benefiting all Americans. By not favoring one certain religion, all other organized religions would be put on a level playing field.
According to Pew Research, people who profess no religious identity (“nones”) are one of the largest and fastest-growing demographic groups in the United States, so they’re definitely not going away anytime soon.
Some Theists have claimed that individuals can’t have any moral compass without religion. This is a purely philosophical argument predicated on the concept of a divine punishment. ‘Be good or god will spank you’ isn't going to be very compelling to a non-believer. Yet, according to a 2009 article using census data, states with the highest religious participation also have the highest murder rates. Non-belief also tends to correlate with less divorce rates and higher education.
So, what do you think? Are the shackles of religion a necessary requirement to lead the United States, or would a secular government based solely on the Constitution and Constitutional law allow us to see things with clearer heads?
I am not yet clear what you hope an atheist candidate / president is supposed to achieve.
If you hope for religious programs to be defunded, you also need a president with a line-item veto, no?
As to the "nones" who are not atheists (the vast majority), I would suspect there are a lot of Christians in various states of disenchantment among them. The assumption that they would all or overwhelmingly be prepared to vote for an atheist is, I think, not likely true.
Finally, at a time when an atheist would be acceptable to a vast majority of the electorate so that (s)he stands a chance to be elected, an atheist candidate also would no longer be necessary, since in that circumstance, policies would already be pretty exclusively secular in line with the electorate's preferences. No?
Since atheists are the least accepted demographic in America, I think an unapologetic atheist candidate would be a strong requirement to set a precedent.
Since atheists are the least accepted demographic in America, I think an unapologetic atheist candidate would be a strong requirement to set a precedent.
Yep, there is something to the above. It'd be interesting to watch how that plays out. I suspect it's not going to happen any time soon. For an unapologetic atheist even to dare to run openly as such, and supporters to spend any money on such an effort, you need far more acceptance among the population.
What complete horse shit. Obviously, you've never stepped foot in an American church.What we need is a system where no candidate is required do divulge their spiritual or religious beliefs, or lack thereof, to fucking anyone.
Unfortunately, about half of all American voters vote precisely the way they are told to vote on Sunday and never reconsider or think....
What complete horse shit. Obviously, you've never stepped foot in an American church.
This is the garbage comment:What complete horse shit. Obviously, you've never stepped foot in an American church.
Garbage comment. Why can't you expound instead of being a nasty bitch?
yeah that's what the Hitler and Tao said.
Complete, unsubstantiated bigotry. Of course you endorse it, you're a bigoted piece of shit.
But it is also hilarious because today, we are having a huge flux of false prophets in teh churches...and THEY are telling their leftist parishioners how to vote..for fags, for criminals, for tyrants...and the left stupidly flocks to do it, while claiming they now represent Christians everywhere.
As long as lefties worship at the altar of global warming it will be difficult to find an atheist among the democrat rabble..
