NationStates Jolt Archive

If I wanted to be the President of the United States of America, it'd be impossible. Why? Because I'm Hindu and the Christian majority would see me as a "Polytheistic Devil Worshiper" (what an oxymoron).

Why is it like this when the founding fathers weren't even Christian themselves (they were either Deist or Atheist)? What makes the Christian right think that this nation was founded on Christian principles just because "God" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence?

What are your takes on this whole "Christian-majority-has-uber-voting-power" situation in the United States?

Yes, I'm sure the only thing stopping you from being President is your religion:rolleyes:

If I wanted to be the President of the United States of America, it'd be impossible. Why? Because I'm Hindu and the Christian majority would see me as a "Polytheistic Devil Worshiper" (what an oxymoron).

Why is it like this when the founding fathers weren't even Christian themselves (they were either Deist or Atheist)? What makes the Christian right think that this nation was founded on Christian principles just because "God" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence?

What are your takes on this whole "Christian-majority-has-uber-voting-power" situation in the United States?
so you are predicting your failure on your perceptions and using that as your only reason to blame a group for your imagined failure?

As a non-christian and a non-atheist (and, if "atheist" is a silly way to refer to oneself, "non-atheist" must surely be sillier) the main thing that has always bugged me about christianity is that they call their god "God".

If anything is as blatantly illogical; if anything is going to cause confusion; if anything is prone to misuse; if anything says "we think other religions don't count" more than that, I don't want to know it.

Of course, modern christians are just as stuck with it as the rest of us.

If I wanted to be the President of the United States of America, it'd be impossible. Why? Because I'm Hindu and the Christian majority would see me as a "Polytheistic Devil Worshiper" (what an oxymoron).

Why is it like this when the founding fathers weren't even Christian themselves (they were either Deist or Atheist)? What makes the Christian right think that this nation was founded on Christian principles just because "God" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence?

What are your takes on this whole "Christian-majority-has-uber-voting-power" situation in the United States?

Go away devil worshiper.

Yes, I'm sure the only thing stopping you from being President is your religion

and you too!

:p

Just kidding.

Who cares what your religion is...well okay, I really don't want a scientologist being president, but thats it.

non-atheist

theist

Do you have 100 million in the bank?

If no, you can't be president.

sizz-orry.

Do you have 100 million in the bank?

If no, you can't be president.

sizz-orry.

So true.

If I wanted to be the President of the United States of America, it'd be impossible. Why? Because I'm Hindu and the Christian majority would see me as a "Polytheistic Devil Worshiper" (what an oxymoron).

Why is it like this when the founding fathers weren't even Christian themselves (they were either Deist or Atheist)? What makes the Christian right think that this nation was founded on Christian principles just because "God" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence?

What are your takes on this whole "Christian-majority-has-uber-voting-power" situation in the United States?

Since you failed to name a single atheist or reveal to us more than the three known theists out of the over a hundred signers of the Declaration of Independence, all you have done is reveal your own prejudice against Christians.

The United Sates elected a Catholic president and there is nothing christians fear more than a Roman Catholic.

Do you have 100 million in the bank?
If no, you can't be president.

True. Then again, many rich non-Christian people exist.

Since you failed to name a single atheist or reveal to us more than the three known theists out of the over a hundred signers of the Declaration of Independence, all you have done is reveal your own prejudice against Christians.

The United Sates elected a Catholic president and there is nothing christians fear more than a Roman Catholic.

There are only 56 (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/index.htm) signatories.

Go away devil worshiper.



and you too!

:p

Just kidding.

Who cares what your religion is...well okay, I really don't want a scientologist being president, but thats it.And what denomination do you follow?

And what denomination do you follow?

I don't have a denomination. I mean, if you want to me technical, you could classify me as a restorationist, meaning I seek to live out the faith as the 1st century church did, as opposed to living like a catholic, orthodox, or protestant.

I'm not so sure your religion would be an insurmountable obstacle. I mean, if you ran as a Democrat, it probably wouldn't make much of a difference - or at least not one that couldn't be overcome by being a good politician.

I'm not so sure your religion would be an insurmountable obstacle. I mean, if you ran as a Democrat, it probably wouldn't make much of a difference - or at least not one that couldn't be overcome by being a good politician.

Couldn't agree more. This is the problem a non-believer like me has is that religions of all denominations actually create divisions amongst people instead of bringing them together. Divide and conquer and all that.

Since you failed to name a single atheist or reveal to us more than the three known theists out of the over a hundred signers of the Declaration of Independence, all you have done is reveal your own prejudice against Christians.

The United Sates elected a Catholic president and there is nothing christians fear more than a Roman Catholic.

You're kidding me, right?

Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington were deists. Let's not forget the fact that the philosophy expounded in the Declaration of Independance and the US Constitution are based on the philosophies of such Deists as John Locke and Voltaire.

Please read this also: http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

Yes, I'm sure the only thing stopping you from being President is your religion

I think you've missed my point. I mean to say that it's virtually impossible for me to become President since the majority of the voters are evangelical Christians (the "Christian Right").

Take, for example, George W. Bush's re-election in 2004. John Kerry (D-Mass) lost a HUGE mass of supporters when he said that he was Pro-Choice. George Bush (Incumbent President) gained a lot of supporters when he said that he was Pro-Life. Note that the "supporters" were mostly evangelical Christians.

The Christian Right are to United States Presidential elections
as
ConAgra, Inc. is to the North American Food Industry

I mean, look at Mitt Romney the Republic Presidential Hopeful. He's planning to give a whole speech on his religion (Mormonism) because it has been causing that much controversy.

The United Sates elected a Catholic president and there is nothing christians fear more than a Roman Catholic.

Silly person, Catholicism is a subset of Christianity.

theist

Pardon my ignorance; If that implies a singular god, then, no.

Actually if it implies worship of any kind, then, also no.

quite-happy-believing-selected-weird-shit-that-disqualifies-me-from-being-an-atheist-ist?

If I wanted to be the President of the United States of America, it'd be impossible. Why? Because I'm Hindu and the Christian majority would see me as a "Polytheistic Devil Worshiper" (what an oxymoron).

Why is it like this when the founding fathers weren't even Christian themselves (they were either Deist or Atheist)? What makes the Christian right think that this nation was founded on Christian principles just because "God" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence?

What are your takes on this whole "Christian-majority-has-uber-voting-power" situation in the United States?

Look on the bright side. You're not an atheist, so you would have a chance-- just a slim one.

Pardon my ignorance; If that implies a singular god, then, no.

Actually if it implies worship of any kind, then, also no.

quite-happy-believing-selected-weird-shit-that-disqualifies-me-from-being-an-atheist-ist?

Theist implies belief in a Supreme, Seperate Force that may or may not care about you (if it even still exists).

Pardon my ignorance; If that implies a singular god, then, no.

Actually if it implies worship of any kind, then, also no.

quite-happy-believing-selected-weird-shit-that-disqualifies-me-from-being-an-atheist-ist?

A theist is someone who believes in a god or gods. An atheist is someone who does not believe in a god or gods. There are no other terms needed, since that covers all grounds.

Silly person, Catholicism is a subset of Christianity.

Not quite. It is that now, but it is also the originating church designed around Christ. So it has a kind of dual status as originator and sect.

Look on the bright side. You're not an atheist, so you would have a chance-- just a slim one.

I think Hindus would have the 3rd slimmest chance behind a Wiccan and a Muslim in that order.

Pardon my ignorance; If that implies a singular god, then, no.

Actually if it implies worship of any kind, then, also no.

quite-happy-believing-selected-weird-shit-that-disqualifies-me-from-being-an-atheist-ist?

I think deism covers that. Personally, I came to believe in what I call the Divine when I realized that there was absolutely no evolutionary or scientific reason for me to get chills down my spine and become moved by voices singing four+ part harmony in tune, or spectacular views, or the ocean. I don't pray to it, except to be thankful for it, and it doesn't care that I don't go to a special building every week to compare clothing (okay, slightly unfair, but some of the churches I've been taken to in my life have seemed like that).

I think Hindus would have the 3rd slimmest chance behind a Wiccan and a Muslim in that order.

4th. No atheist will ever win the US Presidency.

What are your takes on this whole "Christian-majority-has-uber-voting-power" situation in the United States?

You are asking the question as if implying there is something wrong with it?
Right?

What kind of power do you think a majority of people who may vote similarly should have?

Honestly, if you are trying to say people should listen to the minority of voters simply because the majority may be Christians, you have a really bad argument for it.

Not quite. It is that now, but it is also the originating church designed around Christ. So it has a kind of dual status as originator and sect.

Quite.

4th. No atheist will ever win the US Presidency.

Lincoln did.

A theist is someone who believes in a god or gods. An atheist is someone who does not believe in a god or gods. There are no other terms needed, since that covers all grounds.
Many agnostics would like a word with you.

Lincoln did.

You realize that America has been hijacked by Jesus since then, right? Atheists are currently the most distrusted minority in America. The most popular example, though I don't remember the exact numbers, it was something like only 30% of Americans would vote for a well-qualified atheist who agreed with their political views.

Lincoln did.

Yes, and how much of a big deal was that in Lincoln's time? Now that your head is out of the past and looking around at the US as it is in this millennium, I stand by my statement. Then again, I'd give a limb to get someone who managed to do what Lincoln did into office again.

Lincoln did.

Lincoln was Deist. Also, back then, people didn't care about religion as much as they do today.

You realize that America has been hijacked by Jesus since then, right?
Oh yes.

Atheists are currently the most distrusted minority in America. The most popular example, though I don't remember the exact numbers, it was something like only 30% of Americans would vote for a well-qualified atheist who agreed with their political views.

48%, it was. I can dig up the poll in a bit.

Lincoln was Deist. Also, back then, people didn't care about religion as much as they do today.

Well, he was a deist by the time he took office. He was an atheist prior to then.

You are asking the question as if implying there is something wrong with it?
Right?

What kind of power do you think a majority of people who may vote similarly should have?

Honestly, if you are trying to say people should listen to the minority of voters simply because the majority may be Christians, you have a really bad argument for it.

The majority of voters for the US Presidency are whites, yet most (95% from my 100% estimation-policy) whites are willing to allow a black in as President of the United States. The majority of the Christian Right (95% from my 100% estimation-policy again) probably won't allow a non-Christian/non-Jew into office.

Many agnostics would like a word with you.

Agnostics take the position that it is impossible to know whether or not a god or gods exist. Which means that they are all either theists or atheists.

You're kidding me, right?

Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington were deists. Let's not forget the fact that the philosophy expounded in the Declaration of Independance and the US Constitution are based on the philosophies of such Deists as John Locke and Voltaire.



I'm not sure about John Locke, I'm thinking he said he was a Christian actually. But he certainly did have some beliefs that were shared by later deists.

The majority of voters for the US Presidency are whites, yet most (95% from my 100% estimation-policy) whites are willing to allow a black in as President of the United States.
You mean, they would vote for a black person if they agreed with their policies? It isn't like the 5% who 'wouldn't allow it' would revolt and form a new country.
The majority of the Christian Right (95% from my 100% estimation-policy again) probably won't allow a non-Christian/non-Jew into office.
How is this an issue? It is supposedly a government by the people, for the people, so whatever the majority votes for, thats what the people get. If the majority of Americans don't want a non-Christian/non-Jew as president, so be it. In no way does it violate anyone's rights or anything like that.

As a non-christian and a non-atheist (and, if "atheist" is a silly way to refer to oneself, "non-atheist" must surely be sillier) the main thing that has always bugged me about christianity is that they call their god "God".


What do you think Allah means?

4th. No atheist will ever win the US Presidency.

In about thirty years or so I'm going to make an attempt. With any luck you'll be happily eating those words. :)

If I wanted to be the President of the United States of America, it'd be impossible. Why? Because I'm Hindu and the Christian majority would see me as a "Polytheistic Devil Worshiper" (what an oxymoron).

Which Hindu God played the smallest violin again?

I'm not sure about John Locke, I'm thinking he said he was a Christian actually. But he certainly did have some beliefs that were shared by later deists.

Yes. John Locke was a very devout protestant Christian. This is a major factor to be taken into account when examining his thinking.

Well, he was a deist by the time he took office. He was an atheist prior to then.

See? Even back then, people had to moderate their stances in order to win public office.

In about thirty years or so I'm going to make an attempt. With any luck you'll be happily eating those words. :)

If I get to vote for you, I'll gladly chow down on my nay-saying. I'd vote for you in a heartbeat.

You mean, they would vote for a black person if they agreed with their policies? It isn't like the 5% who 'wouldn't allow it' would revolt and form a new country.

How is this an issue? It is supposedly a government by the people, for the people, so whatever the majority votes for, thats what the people get. If the majority of Americans don't want a non-Christian/non-Jew as president, so be it. In no way does it violate anyone's rights or anything like that.

Legally, no, there's no problem with not voting for somebody for any reason.

But not voting for somebody who agrees with you politically, just because they believe in a different fairy than you (or none at all) just reflects poorly on yourself, just like not voting for somebody for having more melanin in their skin reflects poorly on yourself. (You general, I don't mean you specifically. Unless you do that sort of thing, in which case I also mean you specifically)

If I get to vote for you, I'll gladly chow down on my nay-saying. I'd vote for you in a heartbeat.

Well, thank you for the sentiment.

Unfortunately because I have no idea what the electoral and political landscape will be like then--nor am anywhere near certain of my possible financial state--I can't guarantee I will actually be making an attempt. But for now it's the plan to try, and I'll be working towards it in one way or another. I want to help my country, and I'm damned well going to do it if I can.

Legally, no, there's no problem with not voting for somebody for any reason.

Quite so.
But not voting for somebody who agrees with you politically, just because they believe in a different fairy than you (or none at all) just reflects poorly on yourself, just like not voting for somebody for having more melanin in their skin reflects poorly on yourself.
It reflects poorly because it is stupid. What is more important? The policies that you care about, or what religious beliefs/lack thereof the person may, or may not hold? (Directed at all of NSG)
(You general, I don't mean you specifically. Unless you do that sort of thing, in which case I also mean you specifically)
Not yet I haven't.

Well, thank you for the sentiment.

Unfortunately because I have no idea what the electoral and political landscape will be like then--nor am anywhere near certain of my possible financial state--I can't guarantee I will actually be making an attempt. But for now it's the plan to try, and I'll be working towards it in one way or another. I want to help my country, and I'm damned well going to do it if I can.

You can always start small.
Mayor, Governor, Mod, or Representative.

You can always start small.
Mayor, Governor, Mod, or Representative.

That's very likely the path I'll be taking. That or something else that'll let me launch into it due to prior leadership experience in something else.

If I wanted to be the President of the United States of America, it'd be impossible. Why? Because I'm Hindu and the Christian majority would see me as a "Polytheistic Devil Worshiper" (what an oxymoron).

Why is it like this when the founding fathers weren't even Christian themselves (they were either Deist or Atheist)? What makes the Christian right think that this nation was founded on Christian principles just because "God" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence?

What are your takes on this whole "Christian-majority-has-uber-voting-power" situation in the United States?

I don't think they would call you "devil worshipper" (except for the extreme fundamentalists), just something like "(s)he doesn't represent us". Most people like to get a size-up of their politician's character (how honest, moral a candidate is, etc), and for most people in the US, that's how well they adhere to Christian values.

You can always start small.
Mayor, Governor, Mod, or Representative.

You must start small in order to become something big.

No innuendo meant there.

That's very likely the path I'll be taking. That or something else that'll let me launch into it due to prior leadership experience in something else.

Well, good luck.

Well, good luck.

Thank you.

You can always start small.
Mayor, Governor, Mod, or Representative.

I don't know that I'd call Governor small, especially depending on what state you're from. I certainly wouldn't call being the Governor of California or even the Mayor of New York "small".

On the bright side, Atheism is getting stronger. I think there are more Atheists in the world then there ever was before.

And we're not being burned at the stake for blasphemy against the 'holy spirit' BS.

I think we're winning this battle for civil rights as non-believers.

I don't know that I'd call Governor small, especially depending on what state you're from. I certainly wouldn't call being the Governor of California or even the Mayor of New York "small".

True, but I doubt I'd go for either of those positions first. Probably something much smaller.

It reflects poorly because it is stupid. What is more important? The policies that you care about, or what religious beliefs/lack thereof the person may, or may not hold? (Directed at all of NSG)

Considering the fact that I don't think anyone - including myself - should be trying to implement religion in government, I'd definitely go with the policies. The person's opinion on the relationship of religion and government can be important, if they're the type to try and implement it - at which point I'm unlikely to vote for them at all.

On the bright side, Atheism is getting stronger. I think there are more Atheists in the world then there ever was before.

Meh? This is more of a neutral developement than anything else.
And we're not being burned at the stake for blasphemy against the 'holy spirit' BS.
Rather progressive I think.
I think we're winning this battle for civil rights as non-believers.
Ookay then..
I am not entirely sure what civil rights athiests don't have, but...right...sure.

True, but I doubt I'd go for either of those positions first. Probably something much smaller.

I know, I was just taking issue with defining either of those positions as small.

When I think "small" I think Mayor of a small town, county commissioner, drain commissioner, that sort of thing.

I know, I was just taking issue with defining either of those positions as small.

When I think "small" I think Mayor of a small town, county commissioner, drain commissioner, that sort of thing.

Indeed.

When I think "small" I think Mayor of a small town, county commissioner, drain commissioner, that sort of thing.

Aye. That is what I meant by Mayor.

On the bright side, Atheism is getting stronger. I think there are more Atheists in the world then there ever was before.

And we're not being burned at the stake for blasphemy against the 'holy spirit' BS.

I think we're winning this battle for civil rights as non-believers.

When you finally give in to all the muslim immigrants in europe its back to burning.

hmmmm

we've had 43 presidents under the current constitution.

there is more than just religion to consider as a disqualifier eh?

If I wanted to be the President of the United States of America, it'd be impossible. Why? Because I'm Hindu and the Christian majority would see me as a "Polytheistic Devil Worshiper" (what an oxymoron).

Why is it like this when the founding fathers weren't even Christian themselves (they were either Deist or Atheist)? What makes the Christian right think that this nation was founded on Christian principles just because "God" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence?

What are your takes on this whole "Christian-majority-has-uber-voting-power" situation in the United States?

Jayate, I'm sure you're a good person and all, but how can you represent the people if you have such a negative outlook on them?

If I wanted to be the President of the United States of America, it'd be impossible. Why? Because I'm Hindu and the Christian majority would see me as a "Polytheistic Devil Worshiper" (what an oxymoron).

Why is it like this when the founding fathers weren't even Christian themselves (they were either Deist or Atheist)? What makes the Christian right think that this nation was founded on Christian principles just because "God" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence?

What are your takes on this whole "Christian-majority-has-uber-voting-power" situation in the United States?

To me, being a poytheistic devil worshipper is a point in your favor. :)

On the bright side, Atheism is getting stronger. I think there are more Atheists in the world then there ever was before.

There are also more raving loons who think the world is controlled by squirrels than ever before. Doesn't mean that thinking the world is controlled by squirrels is getting stronger. It means that the population is larger. In other words, go after percentages, not numbers. Last I checked, we're at about 14%, and have been for years.

Oh please, a native-born Hindu as a much better chance of winning a Presidential election than a Muslim would. Just look at the whisper campaign that was targeting Barack Obama (a Christian of all people) as an example of how anyone who's even perceived to be Islamic (i.e. with an Arabic name) will automatically be associated with terrorism and extremist Islamism.

Lincoln did.

I'm pretty sure Lincoln was a theist, albeit one with no affiliation. See here (http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/academic/americanpresident/lincoln/essays/biography/7), the third paragraph.

As for the OP's question: in a democracy, the majority should have the most power. If a majority of Americans really do fear a Hindu president, and I'm not sure that's true, than you should try to reverse that belief. In addition to being democratic, the US has free speech, and you are welcome to try to convince people they have nothing to fear even if you don't run for president.
If, at the end of the day, you still are unelectable, then it's the voters' loss. But I'm not sure you can chalk up your imminent defeat to a single issue like your religion.

Oh please, a native-born Hindu as a much better chance of winning a Presidential election than a Muslim would. Just look at the whisper campaign that was targeting Barack Obama (a Christian of all people) as an example of how anyone who's even perceived to be Islamic (i.e. with an Arabic name) will automatically be associated with terrorism and extremist Islamism.

I'm a convert from Islam.

'uber-Christians' in this country. They are extremely vocal and they present a solid voting block but it isn't a particularly large block.

I predict public opinion is shifting away from fundamentalist christian beliefs and within one generation they will return to being marginalized. I could be wrong but in the 1970's I predicted the rise of evangelism and it's subsequent negative effect on the political landscape so I'm one for one so far.

While a majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians, they do not mean 'I take the bible literally' and do not agree with those who do.

What do you think Allah means?

"God" of course. That's not the point. The name of any god in a monotheistic religious system translates to "God" in English. Because the name of the "default" (ha!) god is "God".

Now, if you tell me that in arabic, "allah" with a small A means any sort of god -- Thor, for example -- then perhaps you have a point.

Thanks for everyone that nailed the definitions of atheism, theism, etc.

I've been looking at the Wikipedia page, it has some real weird ones: "Kathenotheism: The belief that there is more than one deity, but only one deity at a time should be worshipped. Each is supreme in turn." I bet that would make an interesting President...

For the record, I believe that multiple thingies-that-you-can-call-gods exist, but I don't worship them. I think that you should live your life, as much as you can, as if god or gods do not exist. I think that logic is a fine tool but that it's okay to beleive in things that you can't prove, so long as you don't assume that others should believe exactly what you do.

I don't think that that fits any of the definitions that you kind folks, or Wikipedia, give. Which is sort of my point, really: these categories are sometimes useful, but the underlying truth is that belief systems come one-to-a-customer. (Atheism, too.)

Look on the bright side. You're not an atheist, so you would have a chance-- just a slim one.

No, he's right. He won't ever become president because he has resigned himself to failure. He has convinced himself of the impossibility of making a positive change. Anyone who possesses such negative convictions, consigning himself to failure even before he has begun, is not worthy to be president. The fact that there is a very powerful voting lobby in the Christian right is undeniable, but despite the fiery rhetoric on both sides of the debate, attitudes can and, more importantly, do change. It is not an immediate; indeed, it often takes generations of active pressure to change the views of a significant portion of society. But everything starts somewhere, with someone. So instead of asking "Why can't I be president?" it would be far more stimulating to ask "How can I alter the circumstances and become president?" Acknowledging that a task is difficult and not impossible, with the full knowledge that any visible effect may not be immediately apparent, is the only way in which changes are made.

Of course, the OP may only be seeking to rant, in which case my observations are misplaced (though no less relevant).

Since you failed to name a single atheist or reveal to us more than the three known theists out of the over a hundred signers of the Declaration of Independence, all you have done is reveal your own prejudice against Christians.

The United Sates elected a Catholic president and there is nothing christians fear more than a Roman Catholic.

Hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but Roman Catholics are Christians. If either group is more Christian, Catholics are more so than Protestants. We existed first, after all.:D
That's right. All you Protestants are HERETICS!!!MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
But really, Catholics are as Christian as Protestants of any denomination, except for the ones that commit mass suicide. Those are just wackos.
But you are right.
Anyway, to the point of the thread:
The reason Christians have such major power in the US is because there are a lot of them, and democracy is, by nature, majority rule. And the majority of the US is Christian of some denomination or another.


As for you people noting that atheism is becoming more prevalent: since when is that a good thing? YOU'RE ALL HERETICS! BURN THEM ALL! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Furthermore, I'm pretty sure being Christian isn't really enough to make you a realistic candidate. I'm pretty sure lots of people object to Mormons(though I can't imagine why. They're perfectly nice people) and Catholics (though not as much as they used to. All those who hate us are just anti-Spanish asses).

On the bright side, Atheism is getting stronger. I think there are more Atheists in the world then there ever was before.

Since when was that necesarily a good thing? I wish to link the spread of atheism with the rise of immorality. That would be why we have such a high teen pregnancy rate. And divorce rate. And why people think it's ok to kill babies (referring to abortion). I am not trying to say that atheists are all immoral, it is just that where I live, people with no real religious beliefs tend to have lower moral standards than those with at least some religious values. I am sorry in advance if I have offended atheists. I am merely trying to point out a trend in the area where I live that I have noticed.

And we're not being burned at the stake for blasphemy against the 'holy spirit' BS.

Awww! But the burning is fun!:(
Before anyone blows up at me for that comment, I was kidding.

Also, just in case you didn't realize this...THAT'S BLASPHEMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;)

BTW: Please at least capitalize Holy Spirit in the manner used right here. Just as a matter of respect to the subject of people's worship. Even if you don't believe in them yourself. Just for future reference.


But I bet you aren't expecting this! NOONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION! Our two main weapons are FEAR AND SURPRISE!

When you finally give in to all the muslim immigrants in europe its back to burning.

All 5% of their total population.

Since when was that necesarily a good thing? I wish to link the spread of atheism with the rise of immorality. That would be why we have such a high teen pregnancy rate. And divorce rate. And why people think it's ok to kill babies (referring to abortion). I am not trying to say that atheists are all immoral, it is just that where I live, people with no real religious beliefs tend to have lower moral standards than those with at least some religious values. I am sorry in advance if I have offended atheists. I am merely trying to point out a trend in the area where I live that I have noticed.

Yeah, I'm sure high teen pregnancy rates and divorce rates are due to atheism, nothing wrong with good old force-fed religious fanaticism if you want a functioning society! And never mind that most pro-choicers in the US are probably Christians...you know, seeing as atheists/agnostics only compose 8-10 percent of the total population.

And what are your moral standards? No gays, pre marital sex, etc etc?

Silly person, Catholicism is a subset of Christianity.

Not according to Jack Chick. :D

Yeah, I'm sure high teen pregnancy rates and divorce rates are due to atheism, nothing wrong with good old force-fed religious fanaticism if you want a functioning society!


Uhm.. obviously they are.
Would you do any of that if you truly believed a man in the outer realms was watching everything you do?

4th. No atheist will ever win the US Presidency.

Ever? really? non-religious people make up between 20-30% of the US population, a comparable number to those who are evangelicals. Atheists specifically are one of the faster-growing demographics. The recent publicity around atheism has started to raise awareness and tolerance towards atheists, although admittedly there's a long way to go. And Pete Stark is my hero.

Also, I have my suspicions about James Madison. He was a unitarian, the de facto church for atheists in disguise. He publicly renounced the divinity of Jesus and was vehemently critical of christianity, both its doctrines and its role in history.

If I wanted to be the President of the United States of America, it'd be impossible. Why? Because I'm Hindu and the Christian majority would see me as a "Polytheistic Devil Worshiper" (what an oxymoron).

Oxymoron? In what way is it prima facie conflictive? I have no problem saying that you worship demons. There is one God and one God only. You don't worship that God. Yet, you worship "gods." You therefore worship demons, whether or not you admit that you do.

Why is it like this when the founding fathers weren't even Christian themselves (they were either Deist or Atheist)?

You're wrong. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Religion)

What makes the Christian right think that this nation was founded on Christian principles just because "God" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence?

What's this have to do with the American people not wanting to vote a heathen into office?

What are your takes on this whole "Christian-majority-has-uber-voting-power" situation in the United States?

Convert, deal with it, or leave. :)

Yeah, I'm sure high teen pregnancy rates and divorce rates are due to atheism, nothing wrong with good old force-fed religious fanaticism if you want a functioning society! And never mind that most pro-choicers in the US are probably Christians...you know, seeing as atheists/agnostics only compose 8-10 percent of the total population.

And what are your moral standards? No gays, pre marital sex, etc etc?

No casual premarital sex. If there's commitment, go right ahead(even if it probably is better to wait for marriage)
I oppose forcing marriage for gays to be religious(i.e. in a church, if that is against that congregation's beliefs.
Yes, I do believe that abortion is baby killing. Because it is.
And there's a big difference between clear religious values(which, in many cases are simple moral values that aren't impressed on young people as important) and religious fundamentalism. I believe science and religion can coexist. I don't think that the Earth was created in six literal days of 24 hours. I don't think Earth was created in 4004 BC. I don't think alcohol use should be banned. There are also plenty of people that, while claiming to be a member of a religion, don't actually believe on bit of it. And I'm referring to high school students. Not necessarily adults. Besides, I never said it was the government's job to ban abortion. I don't think the government should need to. I would think people would realize that it's murder if their code of ethics wasn't screwed up in that department.

Besides, I oppose communism. And one of the big elements of soviet communism is forced atheism on everyone. And before you say anything, it works that I hated communism first, then opposed the forced atheism bit especially. We all know Castro is as much of a mass-murdering douche-bag as Franco was.

I oppose forcing marriage for gays to be religious(i.e. in a church, if that is against that congregation's beliefs.

Before someone crucifies(lol) you for this, I should point out that, to my knowledge, this is neither planned nor pushed for by anyone.

I am not entirely sure what civil rights athiests don't have, but...right...sure.

Someone hasn't spent much time in the American south...

Someone hasn't spent much time in the American south...

Quite right.
However, I refer to the civil-rights in legal terms.

I would not consider someone punching someone else in the face to be a breach of the punchee's 'civil rights' exactly.. though I could make an argument for it.

Uhm.. obviously they are.
Would you do any of that if you truly believed a man in the outer realms was watching everything you do?

My point exactly.

Before someone crucifies(lol) you for this, I should point out that, to my knowledge, this is neither planned nor pushed for by anyone.

Exactly. I have no problems with legal marriages for gays, which effectivly deflates New Genoa's point.

hmmmm

we've had 43 presidents under the current constitution.

there is more than just religion to consider as a disqualifier eh?

The day will come when an autistic black/asian/middle eastern transvestite bisexual who was born outside the US to poor parents will be elected, you just wait!

Since when was that [the spread of atheism] necesarily a good thing?

Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt.

dead libertarians ftw

dead libertarians ftw

What circle of the inferno was that again?

Quite right.
However, I refer to the civil-rights in legal terms.

I would not consider someone punching someone else in the face to be a breach of the punchee's 'civil rights' exactly.. though I could make an argument for it.

Civil rights are also a tolerance issue too. Business' that refused service to blacks were well within they're legal rights, with no one being denied equality under the law, yet the ability of blacks to live their lives in a fair way was denied, although by their fellow citizens rather than the government.

A store owner usually can't tell i'm an athiest just by looking at me of course, but i've been refused service a few times for off hand remarks and the like. The worst, however, is public schools, where both teachers and students use whatever avenues they have to make atheists know that we aren't welcome.

That said, open atheists don't get appointed to public positions. It's not a legal precedent, just a tradition of appointing by bias.

All in all, thats what I think of when I hear someone talking about atheist civil rights. That and equal representation and all, but thats more of a long term political matter.

Civil rights are also a tolerance issue too. Business' that refused service to blacks were well within they're legal rights, with no one being denied equality under the law, yet the ability of blacks to live their lives in a fair way was denied, although by their fellow citizens rather than the government.

A store owner usually can't tell i'm an athiest just by looking at me of course, but i've been refused service a few times for off hand remarks and the like. The worst, however, is public schools, where both teachers and students use whatever avenues they have to make atheists know that we aren't welcome.

That said, open atheists don't get appointed to public positions. It's not a legal precedent, just a tradition of appointing by bias.

All in all, thats what I think of when I hear someone talking about atheist civil rights. That and equal representation and all, but thats more of a long term political matter.

Good luck down there.
Seems like you'll need it.

What circle of the inferno was that again?

He was definitely a heretic, so 6th level. on the other hand, libertarians can often be described as gluttonous, so maybe 4th level. He wasn't patriotic at all, though, and even if he never sold out his country, he would've been quite willing to if he thought it was a reasonable choice, so you may have to look all the way to the 9th level.

As for me personally, I get heretic.

http://www.4degreez.com/misc/dante-inferno-test.mv

Good luck down there.
Seems like you'll need it.

Oh I got the hell out of Texas to the tolerant state of... Virginia. Well comparatively, especially here on the coast, it's fine. Although Pat Robertson isn't too far away, and occasionally his influence is felt.

Not sure if anyone's mentioned it, but a Hindu was nearly elected governor of some state recently. A southern state, I believe. Governorships are powerful springboards to the presidency, historically. A Hindu following the usual routes could be elected.

Not sure if anyone's mentioned it, but a Hindu was nearly elected governor some state recently. A southern state, I believe. Governorships are powerful springboards to the presidency, historically. A Hindu following the usual routes could be elected.

If you are thinking of Bobby Jindal (sp?), the guy who was elected to be the governor of Louisiana (and will be taking office next year), you are in error. He is an Indian, and his parents were Hindu, but he is actually a Roman Catholic, and I think that the parents may have converted.

Check it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal#Early_life)

Therefore, I stick with my original sentiment:

Either deal with the fact that most of the country is Christian, convert to Christianity, or leave. :)

People want a candidate that will reflect their values and beliefs, and one of the ways happens to be through one's faith. Simple.

People want a candidate that will reflect their values and beliefs, and one of the ways happens to be through one's faith. Simple.

Or simplistic.

If you are thinking of Bobby Jindal (sp?), the guy who was elected to be the governor of Louisiana (and will be taking office next year), you are in error. He is an Indian, and his parents were Hindu, but he is actually a Roman Catholic, and I think that the parents may have converted.

Check it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal#Early_life)

Therefore, I stick with my original sentiment:

Either deal with the fact that most of the country is Christian, convert to Christianity, or leave. :)

Yeah! How dare we godless heathens get uppity and demand equal legal rights? :mad:

Either deal with the fact that most of the country is Christian, convert to Christianity, or leave. :)

I thought this country was all about the free markets, and combining christianity with the idea of what defines the country means the market of ideas is not being allowed to give consumers their rightful multiple choices.

Yeah! How dare we godless heathens get uppity and demand equal legal rights? :mad:

Damn right! The godless heathens have no right to demand rights that they either don't have or ought not have. ;)

so you are predicting your failure on your perceptions and using that as your only reason to blame a group for your imagined failure?

wow, this statement really stood out to me, i like this. especially the imagined failure. thinking about it now it kind of sounds like a name of an emo song.


but yeah i agree with what you said

Damn right! The godless heathens have no right to demand rights that they either don't have or ought not have. ;)

Go join the Klan, bigot. The fact that you seriously think that reveals that you'd belong there.

Go join the Klan, bigot. The fact that you seriously think that reveals that you'd belong there.

How do I go from "Heathens, if it matters so much to you, then convert" to "Down with black people and all them other minorities"?

How do I go from "Heathens, if it matters so much to you, then convert" to "Down with black people and all them other minorities"?

Saying a group should not have equal legal rights for their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) is equally bad as saying a group should not have equal legal rights for the color of their skin.

Saying a group should not have equal legal rights for their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) is equally bad as saying a group should not have equal legal rights for the color of their skin.

Honoring the One True God or refusing not to honor the One True God is an actus voluntatis. It is an act of the will, and it is one that imputes moral responsibility. If you refuse to honor the One True God who created you and redeemed you, then so far as I am concerned, I can care less about your being treated equally by other people. You can choose to convert.

A black guy doesn't choose to be black. The very fact that you compared the two shows who of us is the more bigoted.

Honoring the One True God or refusing not to honor the One True God is an actus voluntatis. It is an act of the will, and it is one that imputes moral responsibility. If you refuse to honor the One True God who created you and redeemed you, then so far as I am concerned, I can care less about your being treated equally by other people. You can choose to convert.

Incorrect. I can no more choose to believe that God exists than I can choose to believe that water is not wet. My beliefs are not an act of will; I do not choose unbelief as a matter of policy.
Rather, I am convinced by an argument or a claimed piece of evidence, or I am not convinced. To decide what to believe as an act of policy, independent of any evidence (or lack thereof) is a supreme act of intellectual dishonesty.
Provide me with evidence that your belief is true, and I will consider it. Until then, you shouldn't be surprised when I think it's silly.
In any event, it's irrelevant. The US Constitution explicitly states that our government "shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor restricting the free practice thereof."
If you're so keen to have a theocracy, why don't you leave? I hear they've got quite a few of those in the Middle East.


A black guy doesn't choose to be black. The very fact that you compared the two shows who of us is the more bigoted.

Michael Jackson. :p

Incorrect. I can no more choose to believe that God exists than I can choose to believe that water is not wet. My beliefs are not an act of will; I do not choose unbelief as a matter of policy.

I didn't say that you can choose to believe in God. Bl. John Duns Scotus outright says that the intellect is not controlled by the will, which is to say, that the will cannot force the intellect to give credence to a proposition which it otherwise holds to be false. Nonetheless, it is an act of the will not to have faith in that God in whom you don't believe, and not to honor that God in whom you don't believe. These are acts of the will, and for these you are culpable.

In any event, it's irrelevant. The US Constitution explicitly states that our government "shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor restricting the free practice thereof."

No law has been passed. The people don't want a heathen in the supreme office, and the law is that the people choose who they do want. Go cry about it. :)

Michael Jackson. :p

You've got me there. :rolleyes:

I didn't say that you can choose to believe in God. Bl. John Duns Scotus outright says that the intellect is not controlled by the will, which is to say, that the will cannot force the intellect to give credence to a proposition which it otherwise holds to be false. Nonetheless, it is an act of the will not to have faith in that God in whom you don't believe, and not to honor that God in whom you don't believe. These are acts of the will, and for these you are culpable.

No, it's not an act of will to not have faith. I am such that I could not take such a leap of faith even if I wanted to. I could go through the motions, but, supposing God did exist, he'd see right through it and send me to Hell anyway. Y'know, omniscience and all. ;)

Your religion is what you actually believe, not the motions you go through pretending. Therefore, religion is not an act of will.


No law has been passed. The people don't want a heathen in the supreme office, and the law is that the people choose who they do want. Go cry about it. :)

I was making a more general statement about rights. In several states, atheists are barred by state constitutions from holding public office, in direct violation of the Federal Constitution. In many places, non-discrimination laws are not enforced when the victim is an atheist. The fact that you disagree that this is a problem says a lot about you as a person.

And I certainly don't think they should be forced to vote for an atheist, but your assertion that it is inherently wrong for me to attempt to change bigoted opinions says almost as much about you as your opinion on discrimination. The fact that you agree with their bigoted opinion (that religious beliefs should disqualify somebody from office, even if they agree with your political views) says even more.
And none of these things say positive things.


You've got me there. :rolleyes:

:p

No, it's not an act of will to not have faith. I am such that I could not take such a leap of faith even if I wanted to. I could go through the motions, but, supposing God did exist, he'd see right through it and send me to Hell anyway. Y'know, omniscience and all. ;)

I'm not sure that faith, hope, or charity are of an intellectual nature. Suppose we define Faith as a supernatural trust in things for which the senses have no evidence? Is trust an act of the will, or of the intellect? Can you choose to trust or not to trust someone when the intellect says otherwise? I certainly think this is the case.

Can you consent to hope for something in which you don't believe? For example, can you not believe that the War on Terror is actually going to work, but nonetheless hope for it to do so? I certaintly think this is the case.

And love? Isn't love entirely an act of the will? Can't a person love something or someone even if the person doesn't know that the object of the love is able to receive it? For example, consider the atheist whose wife dies. Can he not nonetheless choose to love his departed spouse?

I was making a more general statement about rights. In several states, atheists are barred by state constitutions from holding public office, in direct violation of the Federal Constitution. In many places, non-discrimination laws are not enforced when the victim is an atheist. The fact that you disagree that this is a problem says a lot about you as a person.

And I certainly don't think they should be forced to vote for an atheist, but your assertion that it is inherently wrong for me to attempt to change bigoted opinions says almost as much about you as your opinion on discrimination. The fact that you agree with their bigoted opinion (that religious beliefs should disqualify somebody from office, even if they agree with your political views) says even more.
And none of these things say positive things.

As I said, I really don't care about your "rights." All good things come from God whose love you spurn. Why should you demand good things when you spit in the face of Him who gives them?

I'm not sure that faith, hope, or charity are of an intellectual nature. Suppose we define Faith as a supernatural trust in things for which the senses have no evidence? Is trust an act of the will, or of the intellect? Can you choose to trust or not to trust someone when the intellect says otherwise? I certainly think this is the case.
I cannot choose to trust somebody who I think is fictional. I can't choose to trust Harry Potter. I can't choose to trust Gandalf the Grey. They are imaginary. So my intellect tells me is the case with your God.


Can you consent to hope for something in which you don't believe? For example, can you not believe that the War on Terror is actually going to work, but nonetheless hope for it to do so? I certaintly think this is the case.

Certainly, I can hope that things will happen that I do not think will. I hope, for example, that this silly Evolution-Creation debate will end within the next decade. But I do not believe, nor do I have faith, that it will. And I certainly do not hope that your version of God exists because I do not hope that the vast majority of humanity will have to suffer unimaginable torture for all eternity.

Now, a part of me hopes that I am wrong about a God who is rather more merciful, one who does not punish anybody for victimless "sins," and those he does punish do not have to endure it for eternity. However, the fact that I would like such a God to exist has no bearing on my beliefs. There is no evidence for such a God, and so I must dismiss it along with Russell's Teapot and the fairies at the bottom of my garden. And along with your God, too.

Anyway, with your God, it doesn't matter if I hope, it doesn't matter if I go through the motions-- if I don't actually believe any of it, then I still go to Hell. Indeed, it would make me a hypocrite, which would hardly help the position of my immortal soul.


And love? Isn't love entirely an act of the will? Can't a person love something or someone even if the person doesn't know that the object of the love is able to receive it? For example, consider the atheist whose wife dies. Can he not nonetheless choose to love his departed spouse?


No, love is not a choice either. You love somebody or you do not. It's a feeling that you do not have conscious control over. But you don't choose who you love, or even what type of person you love. You end up realizing that you are in love with a person.

But to answer an adjusted version of the question, sure, he can love the memory of his departed spouse, but that's hardly the same as the case as with God. The atheist knows that his or her dead spouse lived, and that he misses said spouse, who was greatly beloved in life and is terribly missed in death. But there is no evidence that God exists, or has ever existed.

Furthermore, even if I could will myself to love, I do not think that I could will myself to love a fictional character--a category that, I have concluded, includes God. Demonstrate otherwise with actual evidence (the Bible doesn't count as evidence unless you accept circular reasoning as sound, in which case you're just stupid), and I may change that belief, though-- that's where you and I differ. I change my beliefs to fit the evidence.


As I said, I really don't care about your "rights." All good things come from God whose love you spurn. Why should you demand good things when you spit in the face of Him who gives them?

Your evidence that rights come from God? Put up or shut up.

Also, the fact that you have actually admitted that you would advocate religious persecution rather frightens me.

Honoring the One True God or refusing not to honor the One True God is an actus voluntatis. It is an act of the will, and it is one that imputes moral responsibility.

If you refuse to honor the One True God who created you and redeemed you, then so far as I am concerned, I can care less about your being treated equally by other people. You can choose to convert.[/QUOTE]

Believing in some fictional sky faerie or not believing in some fictional sky faerie is also a voluntary act. If you continue to believe in some make believe fantasy designed to terrorise people into allowing organizations to rule their lives, personally...I really can't be made to give much of a damn about you, either. You willingly got suckered into the biggest line of bullshit possibly and actually convinced yourself that some magic being created you. You can actual let logic and reason dictate, not bullshit fantasies.

The only redeaming quality of people like you, is that they are becoming less and less frequent, and more and more irrelevant, and it's only a matter of time that such a pathetic and silly belief system is consigned to the dustbin of history, where it deserves to be.

Believing in some fictional sky faerie or not believing in some fictional sky faerie is also a voluntary act. If you continue to believe in some make believe fantasy designed to terrorise people into allowing organizations to rule their lives, personally...I really can't be made to give much of a damn about you, either. You willingly got suckered into the biggest line of bullshit possibly and actually convinced yourself that some magic being created you. You can actual let logic and reason dictate, not bullshit fantasies.

The only redeaming quality of people like you, is that they are becoming less and less frequent, and more and more irrelevant, and it's only a matter of time that such a pathetic and silly belief system is consigned to the dustbin of history, where it deserves to be.

See, I dunno. I haven't chosen not to believe in a sky fairy, I simply find that I do not. I look at the evidence and it fails to convince me. It's not an act of will that I don't believe, I simply don't.

See, I dunno. I haven't chosen not to believe in a sky fairy, I simply find that I do not. I look at the evidence and it fails to convince me. It's not an act of will that I don't believe, I simply don't.

True enough, allow me to rephrase. Willingly suppressing all human intellect, rationality, and the ability to reason in order to force yourself to have faith in such a ridiculous fairy tale is a voluntary choice. Remaining willfully ignorant is a voluntary choice.

As I said, I really don't care about your "rights."

Right there, that's all I need to know about you, mate. Don't expect any reasoned argument from me. I'm just not going to bother talking to you from now on.

Many agnostics would like a word with you.
The English language would like a word with you, as you're misusing on of its children.
In about thirty years or so I'm going to make an attempt. With any luck you'll be happily eating those words. :)
You've got my illegal votes :)
I'm a convert from Islam.
I thought it was impossible to convert into Hinduism?
Since when was that necesarily a good thing? I wish to link the spread of atheism with the rise of immorality. That would be why we have such a high teen pregnancy rate. And divorce rate. And why people think it's ok to kill babies (referring to abortion). I am not trying to say that atheists are all immoral, it is just that where I live, people with no real religious beliefs tend to have lower moral standards than those with at least some religious values. I am sorry in advance if I have offended atheists. I am merely trying to point out a trend in the area where I live that I have noticed.
It's also a trend that as a young child's shoe size increases, their vocabulary increases. Correlation != causation


Oxymoron? In what way is it prima facie conflictive? I have no problem saying that you worship demons. There is one God and one God only. You don't worship that God. Yet, you worship "gods." You therefore worship demons, whether or not you admit that you do.
Awww, look who's back. Anyway, it is an oxymoron, because if one is a polytheist(someone who worships many gods), then one cannot be a Devil worshipper(one who worships the Christian Devil) since the Devil != many gods.

Convert, deal with it, or leave. :)
Not being able to get elected because the people don't like what you believe is one thing, but you don't have to leave the country because your beliefs don't fall in line with the beliefs of the majority.
Either deal with the fact that most of the country is Christian, convert to Christianity, or leave. :)
Ditto.

Since when was that necesarily a good thing? I wish to link the spread of atheism with the rise of immorality. That would be why we have such a high teen pregnancy rate. And divorce rate. And why people think it's ok to kill babies (referring to abortion). I am not trying to say that atheists are all immoral, it is just that where I live, people with no real religious beliefs tend to have lower moral standards than those with at least some religious values. I am sorry in advance if I have offended atheists. I am merely trying to point out a trend in the area where I live that I have noticed.



Awww! But the burning is fun!:(
Before anyone blows up at me for that comment, I was kidding.

Also, just in case you didn't realize this...THAT'S BLASPHEMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;)

BTW: Please at least capitalize Holy Spirit in the manner used right here. Just as a matter of respect to the subject of people's worship. Even if you don't believe in them yourself. Just for future reference.


But I bet you aren't expecting this! NOONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION! Our two main weapons are FEAR AND SURPRISE!

Um... you might want to know... the teen pregnancy and divorce rates are both higher in more conservative states...

You don't respect my worship, so why should I respect yours?

The political system in the US has indeed become corrupted such that only following a certain set of beliefs will get you elected.

Being a member of a church is part of it. There are plenty of sinners in congress, and more than a few atheists, but all of them do belong to a church somewhere. Otherwise they wouldn't be there at all.

But the real test for the highest office in the land is a little different. Yes, it helps to be christian or jew (as this pacifies the religious right-wing nuts) but you need more than that to win an election:

1. You need to be a member of the Carlyle group (the worlds biggest consortium of defence contractors) and promise to give huge pentagon defence contracts to most of its members.

2. You need to be good friends with Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries. These guys not only have the huge funds to pay for your campaign, but they also have a lot of raw political clout - they fund several right wing think-tanks, like the Cato institute and the Heritage foundation.

3. You need to be an obedient member of OPEC, and promise to stick to your OPEC oil production quota. This ensures that the oil price stays high, which means big profits for all the oil industries. Your friends within ChevronTexaco and ExxonMobil will be very happy with this, and give you a lot of funding for your campaign.

4. You need to be bestest buddies with the power pirates of Texas (such as Duke power, Reliant, etc.) Bush was also bestest friends with Ken Lay of Enron, but that's a little irrelevant since Enron imploded. But these guys will also give you a load of money for your campaign, provided that you include electricity deregulation and privatisation in your list of policies.

5. You also need to be a staunch supporter of NFIB - the National Federation of Independent Businesses. This group represents practically every small business in the land. You must remove from your manifesto any policies that could piss them off. For example, mandatory health insurance for employees was viciously lobbied against by NFIB.

There are probably some other aspects I could add to this list, but those are the main ones. If you do all this, then the presidency will be well within your reach, even if you aren't religious. Being a fundamentalist christian (or even pretending to be one) is just the icing on the cake.

Honoring the One True God or refusing not to honor the One True God is an actus voluntatis. It is an act of the will, and it is one that imputes moral responsibility. If you refuse to honor the One True God who created you and redeemed you, then so far as I am concerned, I can care less about your being treated equally by other people. You can choose to convert.

A black guy doesn't choose to be black. The very fact that you compared the two shows who of us is the more bigoted.

Your false god didn't create me. My parents fucking did.

Caring about people is conditional upon them agreeing with you like a bunch of sheep? How fucking Christian, what a great Samaritan you are.

Your false god didn't create me. My parents, fucking, did.


Commas added for a subtly different meaning. :D

Honoring the One True God or refusing not to honor the One True God is an actus voluntatis. It is an act of the will, and it is one that imputes moral responsibility. If you refuse to honor the One True God who created you and redeemed you, then so far as I am concerned, I can care less about your being treated equally by other people. You can choose to convert.Wow. That would be like discriminating against people that don't like the same type of cheese you do.

Wow. That would be like discriminating against people that don't like the same type of cheese you do.

The One True Cheese, no less.

This gets me curious why no one has ever tried to make a religion based around the One True Cheese. I can totally see the One True Cheese version of the Book of Revelation. It would end with "And the Cheese stood alone."

The One True Cheese, no less.

This gets me curious why no one has ever tried to make a religion based around the One True Cheese. I can totally see the One True Cheese version of the Book of Revelation. It would end with "And the Cheese stood alone."

Cheddar or Provolone?

Cheddar or Provolone?Meh. I only eat cheese on pizzas.

Honoring the One True God or refusing not to honor the One True God is an actus voluntatis. It is an act of the will, and it is one that imputes moral responsibility. If you refuse to honor the One True God who created you and redeemed you, then so far as I am concerned, I can care less about your being treated equally by other people. You can choose to convert.

I honor the One True God. At least I know that He wasn't originally an Egyptian war god.

Sigmund Freud ftw

Meh. I only eat cheese on pizzas.

An unbeliever! Persecute! Kill the heretic!
Brian: No! Leave him alone!

An unbeliever! Persecute! Kill the heretic!

Damn pagans.

Damn pagans.I prefer the term "Antifromagi."

The One True Cheese, no less.

This gets me curious why no one has ever tried to make a religion based around the One True Cheese. I can totally see the One True Cheese version of the Book of Revelation. It would end with "And the Cheese stood alone."

Fools do you not yet realise, all cheese are the same cheese?

Ik Paneer!

Which are the very first word in Guru Paneer Ji, and mean Cheese is 1, or quite litraly '1cheese'

Behold, the power of Cheesus!

http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/cheesus.jpg

Commas added for a subtly different meaning. :D

That's awesome. :p

Commas added for a subtly different meaning. :D

It works both ways.

Some say that a person's decision to believe in G-d or not shows their moral character. While I, as a religious person, might be expected to agree, I know this is far from the truth. A person may have the wrong idea about G-d and still be a good person at heart.

Fools do you not yet realise, all cheese are the same cheese?

Ik Paneer!

Which are the very first word in Guru Paneer Ji, and mean Cheese is 1, or quite litraly '1cheese'

Does this make Paneer Makhani the One True Curry?

idiots... it doesn't matter which cheese for all Cheeses are one.

the real question is "WHO WILL CUT THE CHEESE?"

Does this make Paneer Makhani the One True Curry?

Yes, yes it does, but always remember all curries are but manifestations, of 'the one':D

Chant with me now, "Sag aloo, sag aloo":D

idiots... it doesn't matter which cheese for all Cheeses are one.

the real question is "WHO WILL CUT THE CHEESE?"

Fool! Do you know that we are all responsible for the cutting of our own cheese?

A man can only be know by the measure of the cheese he cuts.