HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The next President needs ...

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 07:37 PM

The next President needs to be an atheist

Let's be honest, self-entitled and self-righteous religious conservatives are at the core of civil unrest and political dissent in this country. These Dominionist are the common thread among the throngs of racist, sexist, xenophobic, nationalistic, militant, science denying, imperialist, corporate raiders that elected Trump and have had a strangle on the GOP for several decades. The "Southern Strategy" and marriages of convenience that the Republicans have exploited to remain relevant and powerful for the last half century have finally come home to roost...They finally have all three branches of government, but they are subject to and hamstrung by an irrational, superstitious, and rabidly stubborn base that has so deeply ingrained their theology with conservative policy that the two are now virtually indistinguishable.

How many politicians, from both parties, give lip service to their "christian" faith because they fear the judgement, wrath and venom of these so called "moral" people? Every politician that knowingly plays this fiddle only continues to let these ignorant superstitions define the parameters of not just national policy, but the very discussion of our national policy. We need national and presidential candidates who are unashamed to say they don't believe, if indeed they don't. Do you really think Pete Stark is the ONLY member of congress who doesn't believe in god? I would wager well over half of them don't, but will never say so out of fear that they'll incur the wrath of the intolerant fundamentalist.

I am not advocating for the abolishing or banishing of religion (although I do feel it's time that we, as a species, move on from superstition and embrace the full applications and implications of our sciences), but rather that we as a populace need to start standing up to these people. They truly think they have the divinely sanctioned moral authority to judge and police the rest of us, and we have allowed them to do so for far too long. Until we start putting people in office and in positions of cultural authority that openly challenge their bronze age belief system and values, we will keep having this fight to finally leave the middle ages behind and embrace humanities bright future. They need to be shown that we do not take them seriously, they do not represent all of us, and we will no longer let them constrain our species with their narrow view of reality. No more lip service. Stop living in fear of admitting you don't believe in mystical sky fathers either.

115 replies, 19097 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 115 replies Author Time Post
Reply The next President needs to be an atheist (Original post)
IamFortunesFool Feb 2017 OP
Motown_Johnny Feb 2017 #1
etherealtruth Feb 2017 #11
sarcasmo Feb 2017 #2
madokie Feb 2017 #8
Hamlette Feb 2017 #3
IamFortunesFool Feb 2017 #7
onenote Feb 2017 #31
IamFortunesFool Feb 2017 #33
onenote Feb 2017 #38
Post removed Feb 2017 #42
onenote Feb 2017 #52
IamFortunesFool Feb 2017 #59
onenote Feb 2017 #69
IamFortunesFool Feb 2017 #72
onenote Feb 2017 #79
IamFortunesFool Feb 2017 #81
onenote Feb 2017 #84
IamFortunesFool Feb 2017 #85
onenote Feb 2017 #86
IamFortunesFool Feb 2017 #88
onenote Feb 2017 #89
IamFortunesFool Feb 2017 #90
ProfessorGAC Feb 2017 #94
SticksnStones Feb 2017 #102
Tanuki Feb 2017 #40
IamFortunesFool Feb 2017 #44
LanternWaste Feb 2017 #98
former9thward Feb 2017 #30
Maru Kitteh Feb 2017 #37
Hamlette Feb 2017 #82
bdamomma Feb 2017 #4
Freethinker65 Feb 2017 #5
The Velveteen Ocelot Feb 2017 #6
IamFortunesFool Feb 2017 #10
The Velveteen Ocelot Feb 2017 #14
IamFortunesFool Feb 2017 #20
The Velveteen Ocelot Feb 2017 #45
IamFortunesFool Feb 2017 #49
JHB Feb 2017 #21
IamFortunesFool Feb 2017 #23
onenote Feb 2017 #39
IamFortunesFool Feb 2017 #41
etherealtruth Feb 2017 #12
The Velveteen Ocelot Feb 2017 #18
etherealtruth Feb 2017 #19
TexasProgresive Feb 2017 #9
TeamPooka Feb 2017 #13
Warren DeMontague Feb 2017 #16
rug Feb 2017 #15
treestar Feb 2017 #17
Xolodno Feb 2017 #22
IamFortunesFool Feb 2017 #25
Brainstormy Feb 2017 #24
csziggy Feb 2017 #26
IamFortunesFool Feb 2017 #28
Nonhlanhla Feb 2017 #27
SticksnStones Feb 2017 #103
Nonhlanhla Feb 2017 #105
SticksnStones Feb 2017 #108
Nonhlanhla Feb 2017 #112
tavernier Feb 2017 #29
tandem5 Feb 2017 #32
IamFortunesFool Feb 2017 #35
nolabels Feb 2017 #34
Dark n Stormy Knight Feb 2017 #36
FSogol Feb 2017 #43
IamFortunesFool Feb 2017 #46
FSogol Feb 2017 #48
IamFortunesFool Feb 2017 #53
brooklynite Feb 2017 #47
IamFortunesFool Feb 2017 #50
brooklynite Feb 2017 #99
NightWatcher Feb 2017 #51
IamFortunesFool Feb 2017 #57
NightWatcher Feb 2017 #60
IamFortunesFool Feb 2017 #63
NightWatcher Feb 2017 #67
IamFortunesFool Feb 2017 #75
guillaumeb Feb 2017 #54
IamFortunesFool Feb 2017 #62
guillaumeb Feb 2017 #107
dubyadiprecession Feb 2017 #55
Tanuki Feb 2017 #74
babylonsister Feb 2017 #56
SharonClark Feb 2017 #58
babylonsister Feb 2017 #73
HopeAgain Feb 2017 #61
IamFortunesFool Feb 2017 #71
HopeAgain Feb 2017 #77
IamFortunesFool Feb 2017 #80
HopeAgain Feb 2017 #92
Crunchy Frog Feb 2017 #64
Tommy_Carcetti Feb 2017 #65
liquid diamond Feb 2017 #68
liquid diamond Feb 2017 #66
samir.g Feb 2017 #70
IamFortunesFool Feb 2017 #78
Calculating Feb 2017 #87
Mariana Feb 2017 #96
WillowTree Feb 2017 #76
IamFortunesFool Feb 2017 #83
WillowTree Feb 2017 #91
HAB911 Feb 2017 #95
IamFortunesFool Feb 2017 #100
MissMillie Feb 2017 #93
logosoco Feb 2017 #97
bravenak Feb 2017 #101
jcboon Feb 2017 #104
LanternWaste Feb 2017 #106
itcfish Feb 2017 #109
anarch Feb 2017 #110
LAS14 Feb 2017 #111
Vermijelli Feb 2017 #113
Vermijelli Feb 2017 #114
HAB911 Feb 2017 #115

Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 07:39 PM

1. The next President needs to be a Liberal.

 


If so, the rest will work itself out.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 08:02 PM

11. Agreed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 07:40 PM

2. An Atheist President would be refreshing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarcasmo (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 07:50 PM

8. I'm all for that

being one myself

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 07:40 PM

3. it is not the cause, let alone the mail cause, it is just cover but I'd love to have an open atheist

I think we've had atheists before (I think Obama is one but shhhhh).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hamlette (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 07:47 PM

7. We certainly have

Last edited Mon Feb 6, 2017, 08:43 PM - Edit history (1)

And I suspect you're right about Obama. Like I said in the OP, I suspect there are a great number of closeted atheist or agnostics in elected office that are afraid to "come out". Hell, it's hard for regular folks to do it, let alone those under public scrutiny. That whole atmosphere of judgement is exactly what I'm suggesting needs to be shattered through honest familiarity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Reply #7)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 08:52 PM

31. Suggesting that Obama wasn't really a Christian

is as arrogant and offensive when its done by someone here as it was when RW'ers said he wasn't really Christian.

You don't know squat about what Obama believes beyond what he publicly professed and your projection of your own views about religion onto him is childish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #31)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 09:01 PM

33. Are you suggesting I have no right to share my opinion?

It is absolutely my opinion that Obama is likely a closeted atheist or agnostic, and that is based on hints in his writings and evidence in his intellectual ramblings. I believe he publicly expresses christian faith because of the political expedience of it. I am not espousing that theory to either demonize (like the RW's you mentioned) or project my own thoughts onto him, as YOU so arrogantly assumed. This is an open forum, and there is absolutely nothing "childish" about expressing my thoughts on this subject. If you are suggesting that I should take my ideas elsewhere because you don't agree or don't like the implications, I would say that it is in fact YOU who may be in the wrong place. Thanks for the input! Cheers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Reply #33)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 09:38 PM

38. Did you think it was okay for RW'er to offer their opinion as to whether Obama

was really a Christian? Your motivation is really not relevant. Sure you can have your opinion. But it is as dependent on a belief that Obama is lying when he declares himself to be Christian as was the claims of right wingers.

And, thanks, but I think I'll stick around and make MY opinions known.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #38)


Response to Post removed (Reply #42)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 10:35 PM

52. Wrong. I'm progressive. But I'm not a Christian.

And I'm a Democrat who thinks that those who belittle the religious beliefs of major segments of our party, which includes African-American church goers, Jews, Muslims, and many progressive Christians of a wide range of denominations, does not help build a winning coalition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #52)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 10:45 PM

59. I would love to see that coalition rally around something other than a Judeo-Christian

I don't think the call for a different type of leader to combat the rabid fanatics on the right is at all unreasonable or necessarily exclusionary. I'm sorry that reasonable religious folk's can't keep the crazies in check, but they haven't. I'd like to see some power in government that didn't pander to this activist fringe. I'd like to see religion extricated from our politics. That will never happen so long as saying you are a person of faith is a litmus test our public officials have to pass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Reply #59)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 11:03 PM

69. And belittling their beliefs isn't likely to win that coalition over

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #69)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 11:11 PM

72. I am not belittling their faith. I am saying that I'm sick of it ruling our politics.

Believe me, if I was trying to belittle religious faith, there would be a lot more angry people on this thread than there are now. It is what is it is. Faith is the antithesis of critical thought. I'd like to see a more critically thoughtful and less superstitious approach to governance. If that is belittling to someone, then perhaps they just don't possess enough faith, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Reply #72)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 11:33 PM

79. Here's a test of whether you're belittling someone's faith

Go into your local African-American church and tell them that they should stop believing in "mystical sky fathers" from the "stone age" and ask them how they feel about that.

You might think that you're belittling their faith, but that isn't your call to make.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #79)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 11:53 PM

81. So we should only say things that nobody will be offended by?

I'm sorry, but that extremist version of PC is just as muzzling as any other form of censorship. In the same way that comedy knows no bounds and has no lines, neither should intellectual inquiry. I can support my views with empirical facts and well researched, cohesive arguments. I doubt they can, but am always hopeful someone will. I would have no problem entering any church and telling them that I think they believe in "mystical sky fathers" and stone age superstitions...I've stated that case in front of far more hostile crowds than an African American church (jail). If they feel belittled by my frank and sincere assessment, then perhaps their faith isn't as strong as they'd like to believe it is. It is not said in a hostile or haughty manner. It is what it is. Religion is nothing more than mythology that hasn't yet been relegated purely to historical record.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Reply #81)

Tue Feb 7, 2017, 12:41 AM

84. We should avoid unnecessarily antagonizing our allies and show them the respect

they've earned.

Or you can just give up politics and be happy in your principled purity. We know how well that worked out in November for some people who thought it was more important to be true to themselves than compromise to achieve a preferred result.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #84)

Tue Feb 7, 2017, 12:51 AM

85. The only people my OP is meant to antagonize are religious fundamentalist and they are NOT allies

Nor have they earned my respect. Nor do they vote for our candidates. I feel like you're just being combative with me because you think my approach is unnecessarily abrasive and because you're too focused on identity politics...which is a big reason why we lost in November. Our party needs to grow a pair and reject the victim mentality so pervasive to our intellectual approach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Reply #85)

Tue Feb 7, 2017, 12:59 AM

86. You misread my point. Which is that you have, by your own admission,

no problem with antagonizing our allies because you have facts on your side and the hell with showing them some respect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #86)

Tue Feb 7, 2017, 01:24 AM

88. No, you and I disagree on what constitutes antagonizing

You suggested I should go into a black church and make my pronouncement. While I agreed that I would feel no qualms in doing so, that does not mean that is how I spend my time. My OP and subsequent responses have been plainly directed at the religious fundamentalist on the right, and the never ending litany of politicians who pander to them. I am actually an extremely accommodating person, and am typically only drawn into this type of annoying and fatiguing intellectual dissent when absolutely forced to. I am not out to "convert" anybody. I merely desire for some perspective to be added to our political process. To get that, we need to actively reject the constant pandering to religious people that has become ubiquitous to our politics. Your staunch insistence that religious people should be inherently respected is ridiculous. Those who have shown respect for others (most effectively manifested by NOT infecting policy positions with religious motivations or principals) will be shown respect, and those that can't separate their beliefs from their policy should be rejected outright.

Incidentally, me having facts on my side WOULD make a compelling case for withholding measures of respect for those unwilling to face them. People that willfully ignore facts when presented with them don't deserve respect. The respect I have for Christians is determined by their exposure to education and true scientific inquiry. Folks that have been educated and still choose to believe in something that flies in the face of all reason do not receive my intellectual respect. They can still be compassionate or generous people, and earn respect that way, but they do not get any intellectual validation for their superstitions. If they don't like being thought of as superstitious then they are welcome to present evidence to suggest otherwise and I am happy to engage in learned debate with them on the subject. However, I am not in the business of wearing velvet gloves to protect the feelings of people because they can't deal with the implications of their beliefs in the face of empirical discovery.

Again, you are so steeped in identity politics you can't even see it. Respect is something earned, not inherent to anybody. Respect for human life is a principal that supersedes the minutia of politics and social order. Respect within society has to be earned on merit of ideas and behavior. They may earn my respect with their behavior. Their ideas must past the test of reason if they want them to be respected. Religious belief is not reasonable, by definition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Reply #88)

Tue Feb 7, 2017, 01:25 AM

89. Your intellectual superiority to Martin Luther King, Jr. is duly noted

along with your arrogance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #89)

Tue Feb 7, 2017, 01:36 AM

90. As is your inability to formulate an argument beyond false equivalencies and insults LOL

I have nowhere claimed to be superior to anyone. I do claim to be more REASONABLE than religious folks, but even that is a matter of semantically nuanced definitions rather than egocentric valuations. Your perception of me as arrogant only speaks to your insecurity and inability to adequately debate my confident positions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #86)

Tue Feb 7, 2017, 08:38 AM

94. In Reading This Subthread. . .

. . .i agree with you Onenote. However, i see the willful antagonizing and alienation of allies here all the time. So, we completely agree that this is a counterproductive approach but it doesn't just happen on issues of religion.
There is a pernicious pursuit of perfect that doesn't solve the electoral condition at both the state and federal level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorGAC (Reply #94)

Tue Feb 7, 2017, 11:56 AM

102. +1

Not one to get in the middle of a back and forth but, what you said. Yup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Reply #33)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 09:45 PM

40. Sounds like your "opinion" is that President Obama was lying

when he professed his Christian faith. Also, if anyone took your OP seriously, it would rule out someone like Jimmy Carter or Martin Luther King from becoming president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tanuki (Reply #40)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 10:21 PM

44. Correct

And somebody like Jimmy Carter already was President...His name was, Jimmy Carter. We have had dozens of Judeo-Christians in the White House, and I suspect we'll have many more. I am arguing for some philosophical diversity in the pantheon, or at least ONE President that didn't tow the company line. Christian politics pervades our political system, and 'd like to see a hell of a lot less of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Reply #33)

Tue Feb 7, 2017, 09:22 AM

98. 2+2yellow is an opinion as well.

 

2+2=yellow is an opinion as well. And if expressed publicly and sincerely, lacking any valid evidence to support it, I'll mock it.

And should that mocking be misinterpreted as "take it else where" in a fit of righteous pique, I'll mock that too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hamlette (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 08:39 PM

30. People love to project their own views on Obama.

They have been doing it ever since he starting running for president and as your post shows they are still doing it now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hamlette (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 09:31 PM

37. I'd love to know what evidence you have beyond your own projection.

I mean - I would love to have an atheist in the White House too; but I don't assume that every thoughtful, intelligent, rational, progressive politician that I like is a closet atheist while lying to us about questions of their own faith. I take Obama, and others at their word.

ETA: This whole matter is basically moot, as the next president will most assuredly not self-identify as an atheist. I think the last election proved we are nowhere near that level of evolution as a country.









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maru Kitteh (Reply #37)

Tue Feb 7, 2017, 12:00 AM

82. my only evidence is his mother and grandparents

I got my religious beliefs from my parents and most people do. Notice I said most, not all. I know not all people follow the beliefs of their parents but once your world view is set, it is difficult to change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 07:40 PM

4. maybe trump is one

he thinks he is the supreme being.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 07:41 PM

5. Trump is not a believer...at least not a believer in "Hell"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 07:44 PM

6. Trump isn't religious.

He pretends to be only in order to sucker his fan base; his only god is himself. I do agree that elected officials need to keep their religious beliefs, whatever they are, out of their policy-making decisions. The Constitution itself says "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. That clause has been ignored far too often.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 08:00 PM

10. Trump is exactly why I say what I do

The results of his plainly transparent pandering to the evangelicals is the most blatant example of what kind of atrocities can be expected from our continued enabling of the religious right. It is time we relegate them to the corner of history where they belong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Reply #10)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 08:07 PM

14. The First Amendment prevents the enactment of laws that prohibit the free exercise

of any religion. "Relegating" the religious right/evangelicals to the corner of history can't mean forbidding them from exercising their rights under the First Amendment; otherwise we become a mirror image of, and just as bad as, them. What needs to be done is to elect politicians who recognize that everybody has the right to their religion or non-religion and that the government can't favor one over any others. That's supposed to be the law. And Article VI of the constitution says "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. If the politicians would just pay attention to the damn constitution we'd be fine. The whole mess was figured out more than 200 years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #14)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 08:16 PM

20. I am not proposing to in any way limit their rights

I am suggesting we need to demonstrate better that they are not inherently correct and do not have inherent authority. The longer our leaders pretend to have faith when they do not, the longer these zealots will feel empowered beyond their right. You are absolutely correct that if the Constitution was better adhered to this wouldn't be a problem, but these people exist in an alternate reality and historical narrative in which this is a Christian country, founded on Christian principals, and that they alone are the rightful heirs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Reply #20)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 10:25 PM

45. And I'm not sure if anything can be done to change their minds,

so the only alternative is to resist, as strongly as possible, their attempts to insert their religious beliefs into state or federal legislation. Push back every time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #45)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 10:28 PM

49. You are correct. I'm not looking to change their mind, just help others not be so intimidated

by them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Reply #10)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 08:20 PM

21. Even more than his pandering is their Play-Doh-like self-malleability...

They decry situational ethics, but bypass moral dilemmas by doing it one better: situational reality.

Need Kremlin Don to be "Godly"? Poof! Done! The barest, most blantant pandering is proof he has come to Jesus.

To people who swallowed every horseshit claim about Hillary and Obama that came down the pike like it was chocolate, this sort of mental and moral shape shifting is child's play. And reflexive.


The first letter of St. Don to the Plasticineians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JHB (Reply #21)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 08:26 PM

23. Yes, and that only underscores my point of why we can no longer empower these people

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Reply #23)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 09:43 PM

39. Does "these people" include anyone that professes a belief if god

however they may define that term for themselves?

Does it include John Lewis, graduate of a Bible College and a deeply religious man (or is it your informed opinion that he's just faking it, like Obama?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #39)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 10:04 PM

41. No, not at all

Despite what you seem to think, I actually have no problem with anybody believing in God. I DO have a problem with how far too many people use religion to excuse their inexcusable treatment of others.

No, I think John Lewis is a sincere believer, an well as an excellent example of what a religious minded person could and should be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 08:03 PM

12. Agreed ... he never appeared to have any interest until he needed voters

... and the right wing religiously insane went for it hook, line, and sinker (as they always do)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to etherealtruth (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 08:09 PM

18. It's mostly because of abortion.

A candidate could advocate whatever bizarre shit he wanted as long as he claimed to be anti-choice - the fundies would follow him right off a cliff if he swore to protect fetuses (never mind actually born children).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #18)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 08:13 PM

19. ... they pretty much did (follow him right off a cliff)

while I agree crazed opposition to abortion is a powerful motivator ... I also believe the racism, xenophobia, and bigotry had mass appeal (with the fundies), too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 07:51 PM

9. I would say we have one, except he is a trumpist. He worships himself.

The very basic and worst kind of idolatry. The Hebrews had a golden calf and he has a golden ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasProgresive (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 08:07 PM

13. yes, he worships a golden god, himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasProgresive (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 08:08 PM

16. Yes, everyone knows that godlessness is inherently less moral than believing

or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 08:08 PM

15. The next President needs to be someone who doesn't think in cliches.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 08:08 PM

17. Why always the President?

There might already be one in the House or Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 08:22 PM

22. FYI...There are athiests who are conservative.....

And yes, although they don't cater to religion, they do run the gauntlet of trickle down, against LGBT rights, etc. One of the more popular atheists, Penn Jillette is actually a Libertarian.

I'm of the view that religion should be a non-factor and nor should it play a role in politics...as the founding fathers intended. Just because you are religious doesn't mean you aren't a con, rapist, adulterer, molester, etc. Religion could easily someone's "cover" for something more sinister. Take it out of the equation then they can't pander to it.

Religion or lack of means nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xolodno (Reply #22)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 08:33 PM

25. I know, but the reality is that religion in politics and the pandering to religion is ubiquitous

You are absolutely correct that there are both conservative atheist, just as there are religious liberals. The difference is that it is religious conservatives who dominate the paradigm and have been holding our country hostage for decades now. I want to see more elected officials be openly non-religious both because I feel that Christians receive excessive deference and latitude because they are allowed to assume that everybody agrees with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 08:32 PM

24. And they all said

AMEN!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 08:34 PM

26. Even more important we need atheists on the Supreme Court

Right now the court is skewed away from the norm in the US with all Catholic (5) and Jewish (3) justices. That is completely out of whack with what most Americans believe.

Religion in the United States (2014 survey - Pew Forum):
Protestant[note 1] (46.5%)
Catholic (20.8%)
Mormon (1.6%)
Other Christian[note 2] (1.7%)
Judaism (1.9%)
Islam (0.9%)
Buddhism (0.7%)
Hinduism (0.7%)
Other religions[note 3] (1.8%)
Unaffiliated[note 4] (22.8%)*
Not stated (0.6%)
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/
Via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States
* Pew includes in unaffiliated atheists (3.1%), agnostics (4.0%), and nothing (15.8%)


Right now, the eight justices are members of religions that make up about 23% of the country. People who are unaffiliated with any religion make up about the same proportion of the US population according to Pew but we have no representation in the court and little any where else.

I can only hope that if the religious zealots currently in charge overstep the backlash will include more representation for the non-religious in all parts of our government!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #26)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 08:36 PM

28. Yes...but that will likely require an OPENLY atheist or agnostic POTUS....

Thus my OP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 08:35 PM

27. The current so-called president is not a Christian

He's never been religious, and he does not adhere to any of the basic beliefs of the Christian faith. He's not even a bad Christian like those idiot fundamentalists who voted for him. He's just...nothing. His entire world centers around himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nonhlanhla (Reply #27)

Tue Feb 7, 2017, 12:04 PM

103. If the current president says he's a Christian then he is a Christian

He may not be a good christian or one that adheres to Christian principles but the religion a person declares to be is the end of the subject. Surely we on the left stand for that !?

Questioning his stated religion is a little too Breitbarty, isn't it?

Weren't we outraged when the right did that to Obama for eight years?

And yes I know, we are clever with words and can make up some rationalization to make questioning trumpy's religion valid. But I hope for better. There's so much more policy to focus on.

Call him a failed Christian if you must. But if the guy says he's a Christian, he's a Christian.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SticksnStones (Reply #103)

Tue Feb 7, 2017, 12:49 PM

105. No, he is not even a failed Christian

He has never been a church goer. He just suddenly found Jesus for the election. He openly says he does not need God's forgiveness. I will call the religious right failed or bad or heretical Christians. Trump is not even that. He is just clearly a con man.

This is not comparable to the right's BS about Obama, who is clearly a Christian, just not their kind of Christian. The issue is not that Trump is not my kind of Christian - it's just that he is so very obviously faking it.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nonhlanhla (Reply #105)

Tue Feb 7, 2017, 04:08 PM

108. While I agree with your premise...

I find myself taking a step back to look at the bigger picture.

To me, the issue is not is he a Christisn or is he lying. For me the issue is that, as a democrat, I do not care about a politician's religious affiliations or lack thereof. It has long been my understanding that the Democratic Party doesn't care to bring ANY discussion of religion into the debate except for your freedom to be or not be anything you choose.

If he wants to lie about being a Christian, as a Democrat, I simple don't care. The Democratic Party doesn't care.

The issue IMO is about consistency in our platform. If we say religion doesn't matter, then that's how we must act - regardless of just how obvious his recent conversion appears.

How he practices or whether he practices a religion at all, is off the table. That's being a Democrat.

Now if you are a Christian questioning him as another Christian well, that's a different conversation. But I write in the context of being Democrat, writing here at the Democratic Underground.

Peace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SticksnStones (Reply #108)

Tue Feb 7, 2017, 05:53 PM

112. That's fine

But since we are discussing the president's religion in this thread, I thought that I would say that simply has none. He's not even an atheist. He just worships himself.

I don't care if the president is a Christian - I don't see that as a necessity for the job. There are good and bad Christians. But as a Christian theologian, I feel deeply offended when this man uses my religion for votes. I also get annoyed because so much of the Christian faith is corrupted by prosperity theology and hate. Those are bad Christians (I won't bore you with the details of the many heresies present in American white evangelicalism, but there's plenty). Trump is using them, and the idiot rightwing Christians think he is one of them. He is not. He's just an empty-headed narcissist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 08:37 PM

29. I'm pretty sure this one is.

He only worships himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 08:55 PM

32. Perhaps he won't directly admit it, but Trump is one. Our next president needs to be sane.

Baby steps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tandem5 (Reply #32)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 09:07 PM

35. Whatever he does or doesn't believe, I would wager he hasn't given it much thought

He doesn't strike me as a ruminating intellectual...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 09:03 PM

34. And hopefully not a sexist

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 09:08 PM

36. As long as it was an intelligent, thoughtful, literate, levelheaded, fair-minded,

feminist, anti-racist, social justice warrior atheist who believes in reasonable regulations of the "free market", I'd do all I could to get them elected and be thrilled when they were.

My biggest concern regarding religion and politics is that the Constitutional requirement for separation of state be accepted, championed, and enforced.

But since we seem to be moving even farther away from that ideal, I'm guessing we will not have an atheist president for a very, very long time, if ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 10:15 PM

43. Translation: The election is 3-1/2 years away, but I'm going to start finding ways to divide our

party today!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #43)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 10:26 PM

46. No, our party needs to show the courage of its convictions

The RW religious nutters have been out of control for a LONG time and I just believe public support for a non-believer would go a long way to taking the wind out of their sails. It is actually for the benefit of the party that I suggest this. Or do you not think our party would vote for a non-believer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Reply #46)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 10:27 PM

48. I think you are trying to define a small tent. That's a proven path to losing. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #48)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 10:35 PM

53. So you think the very presence of a professed non-believer makes for an inherently smaller tent?

You think that the supposed party of inclusion would reject a candidate that didn't profess some form of traditional faith? Are you saying that the party isn't ready for that, or are you saying an atheist/agnostic candidate is intrinsically less electable? Less capable?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 10:26 PM

47. All you need to do is get the atheists, as a voting block, to agree on a candidate...

...piece of cake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #47)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 10:30 PM

50. The right candidate would draw a lot more than just the atheist

As we saw with Hillary... Candidates matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Reply #50)

Tue Feb 7, 2017, 09:24 AM

99. If you want a candidate who IS atheist to step forward...

...you have to offer them a sufficiently strong voting bloc of support. Prospective Atheist candidates still have the lowest level of presumed support; you have to offset that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 10:31 PM

51. Religion controls the masses. Most top tier preachers don't believe what they're selling

I'd say very few of the religious leaders maintain their appearances when they aren't trying to manipulate the flock. They'll sell religion all day but they know it's just a tool of oppression.

I personally think religious people should face the same scrutiny as would a 30 year old who believes in the Tooth Fairy or Santa.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightWatcher (Reply #51)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 10:40 PM

57. I couldn't agree more...

I find it terrifying that people who believe in fairy tales control our economy and military. Unfortunately, that won't be changing in any meaningful way any time soon. There is a direct correlation to the pervasiveness of religious belief in this country and our abysmally low global ranking in science education with the general population.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Reply #57)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 10:47 PM

60. Plus the idea of faith is the antithesis of critical thinking and reason.

Critical thinking and reason need to be fostered, not brainwashed out of existence. If you are religious you cannot think critically. There's no way that a 500 year old man built a boat and filled it with every animal. If you believe this actually happened you're not thinking straight, or at all. We are no longer cave people who create fantastical stories to explain things. We know why it rains, how the planets move in orbit, and other "mysteries" that early man did not have the capacity to fathom. Fairy tales fill in gaps of understanding, but now we know why things happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightWatcher (Reply #60)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 10:55 PM

63. Precisely

Education is the only way out of this. The evidence is self-explanatory and obvious if you are exposed to it. Our exosomatic knowledge has become so vast, and in turn science education has become so corporately specialized, that we no longer foster competent, multi-disciplinary minds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Reply #63)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 10:58 PM

67. Don't make me bust out my Asimov "there is a cult of ignorance " quote

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

It goes hand in hand with evangelical religions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightWatcher (Reply #67)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 11:17 PM

75. It is so frustrating to live in an age...

...in which we can hold the sum of human knowledge in our hand, and yet we are ruled by belief systems and superstitious tendency from the stone age. I understand that our biological evolution is being far outpaced by our psychological adaptations and evolution, but it is maddening all the same. Can you imagine a world where we embraced the implications of our science and technology? Where we could appreciate how catalytic and exponential our vast wealth of exosomatic knowledge is and what it means to us as a species both historically and for our future?

Sigh...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 10:36 PM

54. Stalin was an atheist.

So was Mao Zedong.

Simplistic memes invite similarly simplistic responses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #54)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 10:51 PM

62. So was Carl Sagan...so is Stephen Hawking

And there is nothing simplistic about this. The simplicity is in the minds who don't or can't think critically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Reply #62)

Tue Feb 7, 2017, 02:38 PM

107. Any post that attempts to frame things as this post does

is simplistic on the face of it.
Actual analysis would reveal that religious belief, or lack thereof, is no indicator of behavior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 10:36 PM

55. Is there an alternative oath of office, that doesn't involve god and the bible?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dubyadiprecession (Reply #55)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 11:11 PM

74. Actually, neither invocation of God nor swearing on a bible is required.

Even though recent presidents have said "so help me God" at the end, this is the presidential oath of office as specified in the Constitution:
"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Similarly, while it is customary to recite the oath with the right hand on the bible, it is not obligatory. One president placed his hand on a law book. Lyndon Johnson was sworn in hastily, using a Catholic missal even though he was not Catholic, as it was the only thing handy on Air Force One.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 10:37 PM

56. dt is an atheist; he only believes in himself. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #56)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 10:43 PM

58. That is not the definition of an atheist

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SharonClark (Reply #58)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 11:11 PM

73. OK.

Who needs to believe in God when they believe solely in their own spiffy self?

I don't think dt has enough soul or humility to believe in anything but himself.

But I repeat myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 10:50 PM

61. Bigoted and arrogant post

Just as all Muslims are not terrorists, not all Christians, or religious people, are self entitled and self righteous. I follow the teachings of Jesus which, in my mind, makes me sympathic and emphatic towards everyone regardless of who they are. My belief is that my God wants me to be the kindest, most understanding person I can be aligns me with the principles of the Democratic party.

Faith is my strength not my weakness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #61)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 11:06 PM

71. I'm sorry you feel that way

I never stated ALL Christians or anything of the like. I specifically refer to the religious right and fundamentalist base of the Republican Party. If you indeed follow the compassionate teachings of Jesus, then my OP wasn't aimed at you. Unfortunately, Jesus didn't only teach compassion, and much of your faith is used to justify positions of bigotry, hatred, and environmental desecration. I do, personally, feel that religion is silly and superstitious belief in fairy tales, but I have no problem with you choosing to believe that. I DO have a problem with how interwoven it has become in our politics and I believe it's time to change that by installing somebody in our highest office that represents our American principals without having to validate the zealots. If you don't like that idea, I would suggest working to reign in your fellow believers and remember the principal of the separation of church and state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Reply #71)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 11:27 PM

77. Your post clearly implies an atheist would be better than any Christian

My faith bears no relation to the radical Christian extremists on the right and therefore I have no more ability to "reign in" those fundamentalist than you do. The problem is with people who are too arrogant in their opinions to consider that there are other ways to see things. Trump is proof that the religious right has no corner on that.

Maybe you would find it helpful to learn more about spirituality, and you wouldn't find yourself so judgmental about something you may not know as much about as you think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #77)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 11:42 PM

80. I was raised in a Christian family...I know it all too well

I am also an avid student of religion, spirituality, and philosophy. I have been a seeker my entire life, and I would wager that I know your religion as well, if not better than you do. After many decades of study and thought on the subject, I confidently maintain that religion is the active practice of mythological superstition.

And, yes, I do believe at this point in history that an openly atheist in office would be far better than yet another version of a Judeo-Christian. You've had dozens of them, and you'll likely have many more. I absolutely think it's time for a fresh perspective and a leader who isn't constricted by antiquated beliefs that are rooted in faith rather than empirical facts and testable postulates.

Unfortunately, you probably will never understand this, because you don't see your beliefs as outdated mythology as I, and the rest of the scientific community do.

Hate to be critical, but if you want to accuse me of being judgmental then I am compelled to state my case and demonstrate the validity of my crituique.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Reply #80)

Tue Feb 7, 2017, 08:02 AM

92. The problem is not religion...

Last edited Tue Feb 7, 2017, 08:11 PM - Edit history (1)

It is the narrow-minded people who use it to support their tribalism and fear of others who think differently. I have no doubt an Atheist could make a good president, but so could a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jew or anyone else who doesn't impose their views without considering alternative views. Hitler was not big on using religion to accomplish his twisted goals.

Personally, I believe unchecked patriotism and blind allegiance is far more dangerous than religious beliefs...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 10:57 PM

64. The next president needs to be a Democrat. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 10:57 PM

65. The next president needs to be sane.

His/her religious beliefs or lack thereof are completely irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #65)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 11:00 PM

68. This. So much for liberal tolerance.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 10:57 PM

66. Good luck with that.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 11:05 PM

70. We will have a Muslim in the white house before that

A real one, not an imaginary secret one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samir.g (Reply #70)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 11:31 PM

78. Sadly, seeing as how atheist poll as the only demographic seen as less trustworthy

than Muslims in this country, you're probably right.

Sigh...

Honestly, I'd rather see a Muslim elected than yet another pandering and enabling Christian. It is primarily Christian zealots who terrorize this country, not Muslims. The longer we keep installing leaders who pay lip service to the Christian faith, the longer the fanatics will feel empowered. It doesn't have to be an atheist or agnostic, it could be as simple as a candidate who refused to talk about his/her religious views. Although I do feel an outright non-believer would be most effective.

Now, make no mistake, there would likely be an initial uptick in violence as they grappled with the perceived assault on their throne, but in the end it would take some of their potency away, and that's what this country needs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samir.g (Reply #70)

Tue Feb 7, 2017, 01:22 AM

87. I think you're right

Less important is the particular religious belief, than the candidate believing in SOMETHING of the spiritual variety. Many people are uneasy with the thought of an atheist president because they want a president who believes in some form of 'higher power' or 'accountability for our actions in this life'. People believe that such beliefs will keep a person from acting out their worst fantasies. Other people just don't like atheists because they consider them to be arrogant or 'rebels who just don't want to conform to common belief'.

Personally I consider myself to be in the 'spiritual but not religious' category. What's important to me is that people can put aside their beliefs to act on proven scientific facts, and that they not discriminate against other faiths. The ongoing fight between Christians and Muslims is utterly ridiculous to me. They basically believe in the same version of God. The only difference lies in their traditions and how they worship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calculating (Reply #87)

Tue Feb 7, 2017, 09:15 AM

96. "Accountability for our actions in this life..."

You know, you're right, but it makes no sense for Christians to feel that way. Christians generally don't believe they'll be held accountable for their actions in this life. The whole point of Christianity is to get their sins forgiven and therefore to suffer zero consequences in the afterlife.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 11:20 PM

76. Sorry. I just can't get behind a religious test of any sort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #76)

Tue Feb 7, 2017, 12:33 AM

83. You've obviously missed my point

The current litmus test and expectation that major polital candidates profess some version of a traditional faith IS a religious test. That's why we need to elect somebody who does not believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Reply #83)

Tue Feb 7, 2017, 04:51 AM

91. You obviously missed the word "any".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Reply #83)

Tue Feb 7, 2017, 09:07 AM

95. agree 100%

the problem here is, this topic along with guns and pro sports brings out the aggressive but delicate flowers who feel threatened by opposing opinions. I'm surprised someone hasn't alerted this as a 'kooky' idea, LOL.

Never give up, man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HAB911 (Reply #95)

Tue Feb 7, 2017, 10:12 AM

100. Aggressive but delicate flowers

Spot on. Spot on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2017, 08:07 AM

93. I don't care if s/he is an atheist or not

I need that person to know and UNDERSTAND the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2017, 09:18 AM

97. Everyone is born an atheist. No one is born a racist.

Anyone wanting to enter politics or do jobs for the public should check their egos at the door.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2017, 11:33 AM

101. I honestly believe Trump is an atheist.

 

When ever he talks about praying he really is just talking about how he self comforts and tells himself how awesome he is. Last thing I heard him pray for were Arnolds ratings. Not religious.
And you know that an athiest cannot get elected. Not as president. Nope. Not for about another century.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2017, 12:24 PM

104. The most important question to a candidate is

how does your religious belief or lack thereof inform your politics?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2017, 12:59 PM

106. I suppose denying one imaginary construct...

 

I suppose denying one imaginary construct (religion) to better define another imaginary construct (nation-states) is rational to a heavily biased mind; mystical sky-fathers being as fictional as mystical national borders you see.

However, I fully understand you placing your faith in the natural and physical existence of the one, while denying the other the same... holding two like things to the same standards can get rather inconvenient. It's part of the human condition, I imagine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2017, 04:26 PM

109. This President does not believe in God

it is all a show

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2017, 04:54 PM

110. hmm...I'd settle for "not the actual Anti-Christ"

but frankly I'll be surprised if there are any more presidents...or any future for humanity in general, for the next couple thousand years. We had a good chance to really make some progress as a species this past century, but humans have pretty well fucked that up. The forces of regression and evil have won out, and I'd be surprised (if I was somehow still alive a couple hundred years from now) to see humans do anything much besides die out in large numbers at this point. The Republicans seem intent on putting us on the fast track to extinction...and they're in charge now, with no real opposition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2017, 04:59 PM

111. DU rules prevent me from responding to this post the way I want to.

I want to list the many, many religious organizations and people who do the right thing and have over the course of history. I think the OP is breaking the DU rule.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2017, 06:38 PM

114. The next POTUS needs to be the best liberal for the job

 

regardless of their race, ethnicity, sex, creed, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamFortunesFool (Original post)

Sun Feb 12, 2017, 10:16 AM

115. Bill Maher for President

Bill Maher in The Messy Truth with Van Jones #BillMaher


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread