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.
hmmmm...I'm atheist...would the "clear headed secularist government based 'SOLELY' on the Constitution" support the second amendment un-infringed upon?... a short one word answer is really the only thing I am interested in.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'm responding to a specific comment, and I'm perfectly on topic.Complete, unsubstantiated bigotry. Of course you endorse it, you're a bigoted piece of shit.
I haven't endorsed anything, you lying hag.
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.
None of which has anything to do with the OP. Stay on topic, please.
You Leftards always dream of bringing Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Hitler back.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?
Yes they do. They have orgasms watching Venezuela tanks roll over those troublesome peons.You Leftards always dream of bringing Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Hitler back.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?
hmmmm...I'm atheist...would the "clear headed secularist government based 'SOLELY' on the Constitution" support the second amendment un-infringed upon?... a short one word answer is really the only thing I am interested in.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'm responding to a specific comment, and I'm perfectly on topic.Complete, unsubstantiated bigotry. Of course you endorse it, you're a bigoted piece of shit.
I haven't endorsed anything, you lying hag.
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.
None of which has anything to do with the OP. Stay on topic, please.
Here is the comment I responded to..which you are pretending doesn't exist:
"Unfortunately, about half of all American voters vote precisely the way they are told to vote on Sunday and never reconsider or think...."
and my responses:
"What complete horse shit. Obviously, you've never stepped foot in an American church"
"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.:
When you say I'm off topic, in other words, you are lying.
we seem to have the same view...I'm a secular constitutionalist, I have no desire to own a gun but the constitution is explicitly clear on the matter of guns...thanks for the honesty.hmmmm...I'm atheist...would the "clear headed secularist government based 'SOLELY' on the Constitution" support the second amendment un-infringed upon?... a short one word answer is really the only thing I am interested in.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?
Of course. I'm firmly pro-2nd amendment.
You Leftards always dream of bringing Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Hitler back.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?
we seem to have the same view...I'm a secular constitutionalist, I have no desire to own a gun but the constitution is explicitly clear on the matter of guns...thanks for the honesty.hmmmm...I'm atheist...would the "clear headed secularist government based 'SOLELY' on the Constitution" support the second amendment un-infringed upon?... a short one word answer is really the only thing I am interested in.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?
Of course. I'm firmly pro-2nd amendment.
Pointing out the lineup of atheist political leaders IS the topic, Dufus.You Leftards always dream of bringing Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Hitler back.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?
Cult45 can't stick to the topic? You don't say!
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?
Pointing out the lineup of atheist political leaders IS the topic, Dufus.You Leftards always dream of bringing Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Hitler back.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?
Cult45 can't stick to the topic? You don't say!
I guess, the first atheist to run for president might be farther off than even I thought:
A few months after retiring, former Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) also announced his nonbeliever status, a declaration he made more than 25 years after coming out as the first openly gay member of Congress.
That Frank felt more comfortable going public with his sexuality in 1987 than he did with his secular beliefs at any point during his House career says a lot about the stigma surrounding atheism in electoral politics. In 2011, Herb Silverman of the Secular Coalition of America told the Guardian that his group was aware of 27 members of Congress other than Stark "that have no belief in God." It's unclear who they were, or are, but none of them -- perhaps except Frank -- have since decided to speak out.
Atheists may have thought they had a new congressional ally last year, when Democrat Kyrsten Sinema won a seat in Arizona's 9th Congressional District. Sinema's staff has since regularly pushed back against the "nonbeliever" label that had initially been ascribed to her, instead clarifying that the congresswoman prefers a “secular approach.” Though Sinema "does not consider herself a member of any faith community," her communications director has said, she “is a student of all cultures in her community.”
The political picture looks no brighter for atheists in state legislatures, many of which have laws barring nonbelievers from holding public office. By most counts, there's only one atheist currently in office: Nebraska state Rep. Ernie Chambers, an independent who has not shied away from his secular views and belief in the separation of church and state.
Also, it would appears that (as of 2014) atheists are banned from holding public office in seven states. Can't see how that isn't blatantly unconstitutional.
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?
No.
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?
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?
No.
K, Thanks.
Also, it would appears that (as of 2014) atheists are banned from holding public office in seven states. Can't see how that isn't blatantly unconstitutional.
we seem to have the same view...I'm a secular constitutionalist, I have no desire to own a gun but the constitution is explicitly clear on the matter of guns...thanks for the honesty.hmmmm...I'm atheist...would the "clear headed secularist government based 'SOLELY' on the Constitution" support the second amendment un-infringed upon?... a short one word answer is really the only thing I am interested in.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?
Of course. I'm firmly pro-2nd amendment.
