NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush has said that he doesn't think an atheist can be a good american. I think I'm a good american. I think Bush is a pretty lousy one. What are your thoughts on the subject of atheism and good citizenship?

Bush is an idiot. Unfortunately, until/unless Church and state are seperated he has a twisted logic which makes maybe an increment of sense.

If Bush said it it must be true.

I pity those who are so inherently immoral that they can't do the right thing without God telling them to.

Also, excellent example of America-centrism here.

Also, excellent example of America-centrism here.

...what? Yeah, it's a topic about whether or not a certain type of person can be a good American. Of course it's "America-centrism."

I think so. I have known many athiests and I think they are good Americans in the sense that they do not commit crimes and they participate in society. So sure.....

Ya know, this actually looked like an interesting thread...

Luckily for me it has already turned to Bush or anti-Bush...

Now I can finally debate politics!

Big Bush said that, not Little Bush. That said, George Dubya isn't much better in regard to separation of church and state. Someone hasn't heard of the Treaty of Tripoli, naughty Bushes. Or would that be Bushs?

Bush has said that he doesn't think an atheist can be a good american. I think I'm a good american. I think Bush is a pretty lousy one. What are your thoughts on the subject of atheism and good citizenship?

agreed

If his definition of "good citizen" = Christian, then an atheist cannot possibly be a good citizen. However, I'm quite sure Bush is a monkey who has someone behind him at all times speaking and moving his mouth with invisible wires. Notice how you can never get a good shot of his back!

I humbly take back my last comment. I see I was mistaken...

We're back on track. GAME ON!

I think it's horrible that someone would let their personal religion dictate actions meant to govern a country so religiously diverse as ours.

I wonder what Bush thinks of Rev. Fred Phelps, with his www.godhatesamerica.com.

well i am an athiest, and i am joining the Marine Corps, to fihgt for my country oh yea i am a horible citezen.

...what? Yeah, it's a topic about whether or not a certain type of person can be a good American. Of course it's "America-centrism."
I mean that the suggestion that being a "good" or "bad" American is somehow different from being a "good" or "bad" person in general.

I know a couple of athiests, who are my friends, at my school who are deeply involved w/almost every community service club there - does they make them evil? :rolleyes:

And if he hates atheists, does that mean all agnostics (like me) are %50 evil?

I mean that the suggestion that being a "good" or "bad" American is somehow different from being a "good" or "bad" person in general.

Ah, I misunderstood you. Sorry.

In that case, "good" or "bad" when used in regards to "American" may not be referring to morality as it would with people in general. That is, "good" or "bad" American may be much the same as a "good" or "bad" book or movie, rather than some judgement of morals.

I know a couple of athiests, who are my friends, at my school who are deeply involved w/almost every community service club there - does they make them evil? :rolleyes:

And if he hates atheists, does that mean all agnostics (like me) are %50 evil?

He doesn't hate you, he condescends and makes it clear that he feels he is superior to you. Slight difference.

And if he hates atheists, does that mean all agnostics (like me) are %50 evil?
Yes!

Are you tired of the bitter flavour of atheist, but repelled by the truly pure at heart?
Try, new Agnostic Brand Souls!
With half the evil of a regular souls Agnostic Brand Souls bring you all the fun, but with half the evil!
Available at Law Firms, Churches, and anywhere else ssouls are sold . . .

If his definition of "good citizen" = Christian, then an atheist cannot possibly be a good citizen. However, I'm quite sure Bush is a monkey who has someone behind him at all times speaking and moving his mouth with invisible wires. Notice how you can never get a good shot of his back!

and that monkey's name starts with 'd' and ends in 'ick cheney'.

Yes!

Are you tired of the bitter flavour of atheist, but repelled by the truly pure at heart?
Try, new Agnostic Brand Souls!
With half the evil of a regular souls Agnostic Brand Souls bring you all the fun, but with half the evil!


Bouncing Souls pwn j00.

Yes atheists can make good citizens and Bush is a good citizen. But to be a good citizen you have to be patriotic.

and that monkey's name starts with 'd' and ends in 'ick cheney'.
You don't mean . . .
DONALD PATRICK CHENEY!!!!
:eek:
How could he have survived? I saw him get hit by that car . . .
And then fall over that waterfall . . .
Into the lake filled with alligators . . .
That was then filled with nuclear waste!
Someone, HELP ME!!!
He's back from the dead!!
*runs into a wall in panic*

I mean that the suggestion that being a "good" or "bad" American is somehow different from being a "good" or "bad" person in general.

Isn't it? A lot of the good Brits I've met are very poor Americans, so to speak. ;)

Yes atheists can make good citizens and Bush is a good citizen. But to be a good citizen you have to be patriotic.

Oh yeah? Bush is a good citizen? I didn't see him going out to fight in the wars he so valiantly demanded from the safety of his office after throwing his toys out of his pram. What makes him such a good citizen?

An atheist can have and usually does have morals equal to or superior to those in the Church. Bush is just an idea who is trying to get all of America to be Christian so he can wage more Holy Wars with less interference.

I don't have anything clever to say
so...
YES.

Bush is, sadly, incorrect (whichever one it was)

Originally Posted by Anjamin
and that monkey's name starts with 'd' and ends in 'ick cheney'.
You don't mean . . .
DONALD PATRICK CHENEY!!!!
:eek:
How could he have survived? I saw him get hit by that car . . .
And then fall over that waterfall . . .
Into the lake filled with alligators . . .
That was then filled with nuclear waste!
Someone, HELP ME!!!
He's back from the dead!!
*runs into a wall in panic*
lol

On the subbject of monkeys and Bushhttp://www.bushorchimp.com/

Bush has said that he doesn't think an atheist can be a good american. I think I'm a good american. I think Bush is a pretty lousy one. What are your thoughts on the subject of atheism and good citizenship?

Bush is incorrect in thinking that an atheist can't be a good American. Hell, the atheists I know are all good Americans.

Bush Jr. on the other hand, is trying to break down the very foundations of the country, so I think that would make him a pretty crappy American.

Bush has said that he doesn't think an atheist can be a good american. I think I'm a good american. I think Bush is a pretty lousy one. What are your thoughts on the subject of atheism and good citizenship?
Did he really say that? Where's your source?

Talk about losing the atheist vote!

http://atheisim.proboards22.com/index.cgi

Atheists can come here to post their ideas and comments. I will do my best as a Christian to have intelligent responces, but hey.

Anyhow, I would say that a good American pays taxes and obeys laws. After that, that they are generally nice people, tollerant of others, and try hard. And you know what, if that's what you do, that's cool then. As long as we can live with you, and you feel you can live with us. That makes you a good American. Yeah, freedom and stuff too. That's good stuff.

Anyway, that's my two cents on being American,

-R. S. of UC

Talk about losing the atheist vote!
When did he have it in the first place?

Big Bush said that, not Little Bush. That said, George Dubya isn't much better in regard to separation of church and state. Someone hasn't heard of the Treaty of Tripoli, naughty Bushes. Or would that be Bushs?

Sort of. Yes, Aitch Dubya was the only one to have come out and said it, but based upon Dubya's records, his religious doctrine which he inserts into his politics is of course dripping with anti-atheism.

They don't like athiests because athiests aren't qualified to believe that the Bush family were made President by God and hence have divine right.

In my mind, you can be a good citizen of America if you're an atheist. I don't see why not- America and Religion are two seperate things.

Bush has said that he doesn't think an atheist can be a good american. I think I'm a good american. I think Bush is a pretty lousy one. What are your thoughts on the subject of atheism and good citizenship?
I am an atheist, and I would never in my life dream of defending George W. Bush, but can you give me a source for this claim?

They don't like athiests because athiests aren't qualified to believe that the Bush family were made President by God and hence have divine right.

I'm pretty sure there aren't many people who believe in God who think that the President of the USA is appointed by God. I believe in God, I'm not a Christian and I find this notion laughable.

It's called satire....

Oh well.

I have yet to find a religion that even closly resembles the libertarian ideals America was founded on during the colonial ages. Therefore, if anyone has a belief system that adheres to the original principles of America, it is the atheists. But if we're talking about modern America which is a melting pot of vice layered over with Byzantinian politics, I fail to see why one would want to be a good citizen.

Bush Jr. on the other hand, is trying to break down the very foundations of the country, so I think that would make him a pretty crappy American.

What foundations is he breaking down?

Seems to me he is trying to keep the radical judges from circumventing the checks and balances of power when they throw out the laws and create their own from the bench. Separation of powers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers)

Seems to me he is trying to give all people, from conception to natural death, a right to life.

Seems to me he is trying to keep terrorists from killing innocent Americans.

Seems to me he sees that he understands that God has given all of us the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. As stated in the US Declaration of Indepedence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence)

I think he is a great American. He may not be doing some things the way I would do them, but I don't have access to different groups of people and administrations he does.

Best if you don't judge people by assumptions. Assume makes an ASS out of U and ME.

A bad American to me would be someone that burns a flag, is militant against the government and society at large, cares only for themselves and does not help other Americans. A bad American hates voting, supporting political process, hates democracy, hates it when immigrants come to this country to live (most everyone here is either an immigrant or is a decendent of an immigrant), hates apple pie and baseball.

What foundations is he breaking down?

Seems to me he is trying to keep the radical judges from circumventing the checks and balances of power when they throw out the laws and create their own from the bench. Separation of powers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers)

Radical judges...I always love this. You are right though, it is a matter of checks and balances. The judges are there to make sure the legislature doesn't pass any unconstitutional laws. The president's only check on judges is he gets to appoint them. Of course, in the last fifty years the executive branch as massively outgrown is proper powers and is now taking legislative powers....but that is a totally different subject.

The point is....is Bush trying to stop "radical" judges or are the judges trying to stop "reactionary" legislation? It depends on what you think of the legislature. But since the judges are the 'interpretors' of the Constitution...if they say it then that's the way it goes.


Seems to me he is trying to give all people, from conception to natural death, a right to life.

Seems to me he is trying to keep terrorists from killing innocent Americans.

Um...don't those terrorists and criminals on death row have a right to life as well? I mean, no one has found those terrorists guilty of anything...don't they get a day in court?

And some people don't agree that human life begins at conception. I mean, we are talking about a foreign body of cells that is parasitizing a woman's uterus. Maybe the woman doesn't want to/can't raise a kid at that point in life...do you suggest we put em all up for adoption? Don't we have too many people already? And "right to a natural death"??? What the HELL is that? If I wanna die, who is anyone to tell me differently? I thought I had the "right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as you state below. If I say it is time for me to die, well, that is good enough for me. If soldiers are allowed to rush enemy positions, smoke, and euthanize pets, I think we should be allowed to decide when to end our own lives.



Seems to me he sees that he understands that God has given all of us the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. As stated in the US Declaration of Indepedence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence)


Well, that all depends on if you believe in god. And seeing as the Constitution spells out separation of church and state, I say it has precedence because it founded our country.


Best if you don't judge people by assumptions. Assume makes an ASS out of U and ME.

Seems like you are assuming a lot about the nature of the legistation going thru, as well as the nature of god and life in general. I say let the government work it out...in theory it should work out. The amendments don't look like they'll pass the congress, and therefore the judges rulings will stand. That's the system for ya...as much as you like it or not. People are going to disagree with you. Oh, and there is nothing wrong with burning the flag if you have reason. Just don't use it for kindling next time you go camping please :D

And baseball SUCKS. That's just a completely subjective opinion though.

Hope I didn't offend anyone too much...I was just trying to point out differences on these ideas.

Oh, and more on topic...of course atheists can be good citizens.

I was floored when I saw that old Georgie actually said something like "This is one nation under god" and that atheists can't be patriotic or citizens. This nation has only been "one nation under god" since the 1950's. We added it so we didn't look like godless communists (who had state-supported atheism). He was an adult when that happened....he wouldn't even had said "under god" when he was in school.

I pay my taxes, I vote, I help others when I can, I try to be productive,and I stand up for my rights. Doesn't that make me a good citizen? I'm not a true atheist, but i'm godless so I figure that would still be covered by the Bush-speak.

This is a freedom of religion country, founded by folk who voted down starting the constitutional convention with a prayer. Atheists can be great citizens, just like any other person of various religions or lack of one can be.

One's religious beliefs or lack thereof doesn't make him or her a good or bad citizen. Its their actions that are the determining factor. After all, a athiest can be a hero in someone's life if they give CPR, while a religious person murders someone because he/she claims it was the will of God... Religious beliefs have no bearing on a person's character strength.

Well, that all depends on if you believe in god. And seeing as the Constitution spells out separation of church and state, I say it has precedence because it founded our country.


Sorry to have to break it to you, but you have the common misunderstanding of where the "separation of church and state" came from. It is not in any founding papers of the US.

Separation of Church and State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States)


The First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". Contrary to popular belief, the phrase "separation of church and state" appears in no founding American document. The concept of a "wall of separation between church and state" is often interpreted as prohibiting religious expressions in public settings (schools, courtrooms, etc.). The phrase was first used by Roger Williams and popularized by Thomas Jefferson in a 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists (a religious minority concerned about the dominant position of the Episcopal church in Virginia). His intention was to assure this religious minority that their rights would be protected from undue external interference. The two prohibitions of the First Amendment have often been viewed as contradictory, and one common theme in court rulings in the United States is to resolve situations where the establishment clause and the free exercise clause appear to contradict each other.



As I understand the Constituition and separation of church and state,
our government cannot institute a state religion. This is what the founders fought against. They never wanted the government to state what religion everyone had to belong to. But they never said, chuck the Christmas trees off the courthouse lawn, or take the Commandments out of the schools. People do not understand that the government the founders wanted was not chucking all religion out but just did not want a state run religion.


In 1962, the Supreme Court banned from public schools all public prayers and religious readings done for religious purposes. The Supreme Court continued to allow private prayer. As such, any teacher, faculty, or student can pray in school, in accordance with their own religion. However, they may not lead such prayers in class. "Non-sectarian" teacher-led prayers are not allowed, e.g. "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country."




The founding fathers did not prohibit all religious references in official contexts. The Declaration of Independence, the founding document of the United States, contains four references to God. While the Declaration is a rebuke to the notion of a Divine Right of Kings, and while it can be argued that references to God were unavoidable because it is responding to a religious concept, its particular wording goes further than the minimum required for this, expressing implicit faith in God and reliance on God for the founding of the United States. The Declaration, however, is not a legal document; the Constitution—which is the legal framework of the United States—does not refer to God (other than referring to its passage by the Constitutional Convention as occurring in the "Year of our Lord 1787").



The greater arguments come from State laws and enforcement of laws regarding prayer, religious expression, etc.


At the time of the passage of the Bill of rights, several states had established churches, and the prohibition against the Federal interference with religion (like most of the other rights in the Bill of Rights) was understood to be a limitation on the Federal government, but not the power of state governments.




However, contrary to practice in some other countries, the United States does not excise all religious expression from politics and government. US currency carries the "In God we trust" motto; Congress begins its sessions with a prayer; the Pledge of Allegiance refers to God; and politicians often make references to faith as a foundation of political decisions. Such political and governmental expressions of religious belief are usually interpreted as being Judeo-Christian in nature.

In this regard it is often stated that while the US has a separation of Church and State, it is not a separation of government and religion