An Atheist Presidential Candidate is what's needed

[Marion Morrison]

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.

Of course. I'm firmly pro-2nd amendment.

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.

IF, "the constitution is explicitly clear on the matter of guns.." why do you think there is so much debate on its construct?

Apparently all douchetards posting here (including you) missed the "freedom of religion" thing this country was founded upon, leftist fucktard!

 

[Weatherman2020]

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?

You Leftards always dream of bringing Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Hitler back.

Cult45 can't stick to the topic? You don't say!

Pointing out the lineup of atheist political leaders IS the topic, Dufus.

You are pointing out non-American political leaders, you complete brain rot. It has nothing to do with the topic. Troll your own threads.

Atheist political leaders are atheist political leaders.

You’re just pissed because the record of atheist leaders has 180 million dead bodies under it in the past century. 180 million OF THEIR OWN CITIZENS.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

Of course. I'm firmly pro-2nd amendment.

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.

IF, "the constitution is explicitly clear on the matter of guns.." why do you think there is so much debate on its construct?

Because there's commies just like you. Do you really think you'll win in the end?

Pffft!

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

Of course. I'm firmly pro-2nd amendment.

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.

IF, "the constitution is explicitly clear on the matter of guns.." why do you think there is so much debate on its construct?

IF, "the constitution is explicitly clear on the matter of guns.." why do you think there is so much debate on its construct?

Because the Left are America hating fascists and keep attacking our Constitution.

Next question now.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Of course. I'm firmly pro-2nd amendment.

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.

IF, "the constitution is explicitly clear on the matter of guns.." why do you think there is so much debate on its construct?

Apparently all douchetards posting here (including you) missed the "freedom of religion" thing this country was founded upon, leftist fucktard!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

The more you post, the more I'm inclined to believe you are mentally retarded. Of course you are also a damn liar and very inarticulate.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

Of course. I'm firmly pro-2nd amendment.

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.

IF, "the constitution is explicitly clear on the matter of guns.." why do you think there is so much debate on its construct?

Apparently all douchetards posting here (including you) missed the "freedom of religion" thing this country was founded upon, leftist fucktard!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

The more you post, the more I'm inclined to believe you are mentally retarded. Of course you are also a damn liar and very inarticulate.

I wasn’t aware that Pelosi created an official religion of America. Please link.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Of course. I'm firmly pro-2nd amendment.

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.

IF, "the constitution is explicitly clear on the matter of guns.." why do you think there is so much debate on its construct?

Because there's commies just like you. Do you really think you'll win in the end?

Pffft!

I'm a Democrat, not a "commie". It's so sad that stupid people like you have no clue as to political science and the terminology of the educated.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

Of course. I'm firmly pro-2nd amendment.

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.

IF, "the constitution is explicitly clear on the matter of guns.." why do you think there is so much debate on its construct?

Because there's commies just like you. Do you really think you'll win in the end?

Pffft!

I'm a Democrat, not a "commie". It's so sad that stupid people like you have no clue as to political science and the terminology of the educated.

Name 3 differences between a Democrat and Commie

I’ll wait.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

IF, "the constitution is explicitly clear on the matter of guns.." why do you think there is so much debate on its construct?

Because there are those who cherry pick their amendments...it is easier to point to the right to bear arms in the constitution than the right to an abortion wouldn't you say?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Of course. I'm firmly pro-2nd amendment.

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.

IF, "the constitution is explicitly clear on the matter of guns.." why do you think there is so much debate on its construct?

Apparently all douchetards posting here (including you) missed the "freedom of religion" thing this country was founded upon, leftist fucktard!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

The more you post, the more I'm inclined to believe you are mentally retarded. Of course you are also a damn liar and very inarticulate.

I wasn’t aware that Pelosi created an official religion of America. Please link.

I'm sorry, we are still seeking to find the missing link, some suggest that they still exist, mostly in the confines of conservatism.

 

[Olde Europe]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

The more you post, the more I'm inclined to believe you are mentally retarded. Of course you are also a damn liar and very inarticulate.

Perhaps more importantly, Article VI: "[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Also, you do know what they say about wrestling with pigs (figuratively speaking).

 

[Wry Catcher]

IF, "the constitution is explicitly clear on the matter of guns.." why do you think there is so much debate on its construct?

Because there are those who cherry pick their amendments...it is easier to point to the right to bear arms in the constitution than the right to an abortion wouldn't you say?

True, there is only R v. W to protect the natural rights of women. Of course there is some hope that the equal rights amendment will be revisited; the #metoo movement is alive and well. More power to American Women!

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

The more you post, the more I'm inclined to believe you are mentally retarded. Of course you are also a damn liar and very inarticulate.

Perhaps more importantly, Article VI: "[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Also, you do know what they say about wrestling with pigs (figuratively speaking).

Thank you, I will follow your sage advice and leave the pig alone.

 

[Weatherman2020]

IF, "the constitution is explicitly clear on the matter of guns.." why do you think there is so much debate on its construct?

Because there are those who cherry pick their amendments...it is easier to point to the right to bear arms in the constitution than the right to an abortion wouldn't you say?

True, there is only R v. W to protect the natural rights of women. Of course there is some hope that the equal rights amendment will be revisited; the #metoo movement is alive and well. More power to American Women!

RvW will be in the file with the Dred Scott case by 2022.

 

[BlindBoo]

IF, "the constitution is explicitly clear on the matter of guns.." why do you think there is so much debate on its construct?

Because there are those who cherry pick their amendments...it is easier to point to the right to bear arms in the constitution than the right to an abortion wouldn't you say?

True, there is only R v. W to protect the natural rights of women. Of course there is some hope that the equal rights amendment will be revisited; the #metoo movement is alive and well. More power to American Women!

RvW will be in the file with the Dred Scott case by 2022.

Probably for the best. Then the Democrat women will have to take over the State legislatures and and Congress to pass a few new amendments to protect women from the religionist.

 

[Olde Europe]

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.

It kind of is. But, thanks for the interesting info nonetheless.

You're welcome. Moreover, you've kind of won me over, since there absolutely need be some high profile atheists running for office, or those in office "coming out", and not just after retirement. The reaction of the religionist bigots and other Christian Taliban on this board - all also whining, quite stridently, about Christian persecution - just provided the last drop.

 

[Wry Catcher]

IF, "the constitution is explicitly clear on the matter of guns.." why do you think there is so much debate on its construct?

Because there are those who cherry pick their amendments...it is easier to point to the right to bear arms in the constitution than the right to an abortion wouldn't you say?

True, there is only R v. W to protect the natural rights of women. Of course there is some hope that the equal rights amendment will be revisited; the #metoo movement is alive and well. More power to American Women!

RvW will be in the file with the Dred Scott case by 2022.

COOL, then only the well off can leave the US and have their abortion in a safe place; then the poor will suffer infections and or have a baby they can't afford to keep.

We can then build orphan's homes and prepare these orphans for a future being exploited by employers - the more poor the more competition for descent jobs.

 

[Weatherman2020]

IF, "the constitution is explicitly clear on the matter of guns.." why do you think there is so much debate on its construct?

Because there are those who cherry pick their amendments...it is easier to point to the right to bear arms in the constitution than the right to an abortion wouldn't you say?

True, there is only R v. W to protect the natural rights of women. Of course there is some hope that the equal rights amendment will be revisited; the #metoo movement is alive and well. More power to American Women!

RvW will be in the file with the Dred Scott case by 2022.

COOL, then only the well off can leave the US and have their abortion in a safe place; then the poor will suffer infections and or have a baby they can't afford to keep.

We can then build orphan's homes and prepare these orphans for a future being exploited by employers - the more poor the more competition for descent jobs.

Free to leave, I have no issue.

 

[ViewFromAbove]

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?

A candidate for POTUS should not have to declare their theist or athiest beliefs, unless INTELLIGENCE is valued.
INTELLIGENCE is more valuable than releasing tax returns!
In this case, the most intelligent position is an honest one; to admit one is an AGNOSTIC.
Everyone is, even though they don't realize it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

IF, "the constitution is explicitly clear on the matter of guns.." why do you think there is so much debate on its construct?

Because there are those who cherry pick their amendments...it is easier to point to the right to bear arms in the constitution than the right to an abortion wouldn't you say?

True, there is only R v. W to protect the natural rights of women. Of course there is some hope that the equal rights amendment will be revisited; the #metoo movement is alive and well. More power to American Women!

RvW will be in the file with the Dred Scott case by 2022.

COOL, then only the well off can leave the US and have their abortion in a safe place; then the poor will suffer infections and or have a baby they can't afford to keep.

We can then build orphan's homes and prepare these orphans for a future being exploited by employers - the more poor the more competition for descent jobs.

Free to leave, I have no issue.

That doesn't surprise me, most callous conservatives lack empathy.