When someone admits to being an atheist they destroy any chance to be president

[DOC]

Yes, to my knowledge, there has never been or can be a publicly admitted atheist president. In the land of "In God we Trust" it is just impossible in my opinion. Does it bother atheists to know they can never be president. Or maybe never be a Senator for that matter.

[CFLarsen]

It should bother theists more.

[Piscivore]

Yes, to my knowledge, there has never been or can be a publicly admitted atheist president. In the land of "In God we Trust" it is just impossible in my opinion. Does it bother atheists to know they can never be president. Or maybe never be a Senator for that matter.

Given the calibre of people that routinely fill such offices? No.

[Mojo]

Yes, to my knowledge, there has never been or can be a publicly admitted atheist president. In the land of "In God we Trust" it is just impossible in my opinion. Does it bother atheists to know they can never be president. Or maybe never be a Senator for that matter.does it bother you that there are an awful lot of religious bigots in the USA?

[kmortis]

Someone wake me when he comes to a point, k? I'm worn out from makin all those pancakes.

[DOC]

Someone wake me when he comes to a point, k? I'm worn out from makin all those pancakes.

I did make a point -- a publicly admitted atheist can never be president. If you are an atheist does that bother you.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Just lie. Then when elected reveal your Satanic plans for destruction of Mum, God and Apple Pie.

[Ladewig]

Yes, to my knowledge, there has never been or can be a publicly admitted atheist president. In the land of "In God we Trust" it is just impossible in my opinion. Does it bother atheists to know they can never be president. Or maybe never be a Senator for that matter.

We are very aware of the situation as evidenced by the number of JREF threads concerning political polls that ask

If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be a 'X' would you vote for that person?"

results from Gallup's 1999 poll: (http://www.religioustolerance.org/amer_intol.htm)

Black ---------- 95
Baptist -------- 94
Catholic ------- 94
Jewish --------- 92
Woman -------- 92
Homosexual -- 59
Atheist --------- 49

Does it bother me that over half of the voting electorate consists of small-minded people would not vote for a well-qualified atheist? A little bit. Does it bother me that I cannot be president becasue of my position? No.

Why do you ask?

[DOC]

does it bother you that there are an awful lot of religious bigots in the USA?

Wouldn't you call all the atheists in this forum who make fun of and ridicule Christians, bigots?

[Cello Man]

The common knowledge that an avowed atheist would likely lose a presidential election does not reflect badly on atheism. That simply shows that the voting public is largely irrational, and they don't base their decisions on a candidate's qualifications for the actual job.

Speaking of unlikely presidential candidates, there is a lot of speculation in the media that shades of this country's racist past would keep us from electing a black president. Your not so subtle implication that atheists are inherently inferior political candidates is morally no different than saying blacks shouldn't hold office. Apples and oranges you might say, but while religious bigotry and racist bigotry may have different motivators, but they are still rooted in the same rotten ideal.

By the way DOC, when are you going to answer the questions in this thread? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88044 If you raise questions on this forum it only seems fair to expect you to answer ours in turn. If your goal is to save souls then you're functionally asleep on the job.

So I'm left wondering...are you here to save souls, or are you simply a coward?

Prove me wrong.

[Cleon]

In the land of "In God we Trust" it is just impossible in my opinion. Does it bother atheists to know they can never be president.

So you're asking if atheists are bothered by your opinion? I'm guessing the answer is "no."

[Cleon]

Wouldn't you call all the atheists in this forum who make fun of and ridicule Christians, bigots?

Not necessarily, no.

[brodski]

Wouldn't you call all the atheists in this forum who make fun of and ridicule Christians, bigots?
Is making fun of someone the same as declaring that they should not be in the ultimate position fo authority?

Show me a poster who says that they will never vote for a religious president, and I'll show you a bigot. Unless you can meat that standard your comparison is invalid.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I would never vote for a religious person for President.

I would vote for state electors pledged to a religious candidate, though, particularly if he were unnecessarily pedantic.

[JoeEllison]

Yes, to my knowledge, there has never been or can be a publicly admitted atheist president. In the land of "In God we Trust" it is just impossible in my opinion. Does it bother atheists to know they can never be president. Or maybe never be a Senator for that matter.
"Never"? Please.

Your point is a strong one against religious ignorance, not against atheists. Doesn't it bother you that so many people have an anti-American attitude towards atheists?

[DOC]

The common knowledge that an avowed atheist would likely lose a presidential election does not reflect badly on atheism. That simply shows that the voting public is largely irrational, and they don't base their decisions on a candidate's qualifications for the actual job.


So would you say Congress was irrational when they made the phrase "In God We Trust" the official motto of the United States in 1956.

[tkingdoll]

Pft. The most qualified presidential candidate is the one best able to play the political game and tell people what they want to hear. If the majority of the population is Christian, then declaring one's atheism is not playing the political game properly. Therefore that candidate isn't best qualified to do the job.

Anyone who can't give the public what they want won't last long in politics. Therefore any atheist candidate who knows what he's doing will feign religious belief in order to get along.

Which is fine, it's all BS anyway.

[Cleon]

So would you say Congress was irrational when they made the phrase "In God We Trust" the official motto of the United States in 1956.

Irrational?

Well...That was adopted not out of any religious adherence so much as Cold War-era propaganda showing up those "godless commies." This was the same reason that "under God" was inserted into the up-until-then secular Pledge of Allegiance.

So maybe "irrational" isn't the right word, so much as "completely insane."

[Katana]

So would you say Congress was irrational when they made the phrase "In God We Trust" the official motto of the United States in 1956.


Oh, is that the motto that originated during the time of McCarthy's witch hunts? Thought so. Yes. Most definitely irrational.


ETA: Or what Cleon said.

[jimlintott]

I admit that I'm Canadian. That means I can never be president.

Does it bother anyone that a Canadian can't be president?

I like to think that being atheist would not prevent anyone from being our Prime Minister. While the religious feelings of politicians comes up from time to time it doesn't seem to be an issue unless they are quite fundy.

I notice that in the U.S. it sometimes seems like the only issue. That's a shame really.

[Katana]

I admit that I'm Canadian. That means I can never be president.

Does it bother anyone that a Canadian can't be president?

I like to think that being atheist would not prevent anyone from being our Prime Minister. While the religious feelings of politicians comes up from time to time it doesn't seem to be an issue unless they are quite fundy.

I notice that in the U.S. it sometimes seems like the only issue. That's a shame really.


Yes. It is. Isn't it?

:(

[DOC]

Your point is a strong one against religious ignorance, not against atheists. Doesn't it bother you that so many people have an anti-American attitude towards atheists?


In a land where the official motto is "In God We Trust" I wouldn't call it an anti-American attitude. Some of the atheists' attitudes toward Theists (in this forum) in a land where the official motto is "In God We Trust" could be called anti-American though.

[Cello Man]

So would you say Congress was irrational when they made the phrase "In God We Trust" the official motto of the United States in 1956.

Are you implying that it was rational for them to do so? If that's the case, state your reasons.

[hgc]

In a land where the official motto is "In God We Trust" I wouldn't call it an anti-American attitude. Some of the atheists' attitudes toward Theists (in this forum) in a land where the official motto is "In God We Trust" could be called anti-American though.


So, bigotry towards atheists is as American as apple pie?

Would you vote for a well qualified atheist for president?

[Katana]

In a land where the official motto is "In God We Trust" I wouldn't call it an anti-American attitude. Some of the atheists' attitudes toward Theists (in this forum) in a land where the official motto is "In God We Trust" could be called anti-American though.


Just because it is the motto doesn't mean that it should be.

[JoeEllison]

In a land where the official motto is "In God We Trust" I wouldn't call it an anti-American attitude.


So, you're ignorant of the Constitution? Or do you disagree with the Constitution?

[strathmeyer]

Yes, to my knowledge, there has never been or can be a publicly admitted atheist president. In the land of "In God we Trust" it is just impossible in my opinion. Does it bother atheists to know they can never be president. Or maybe never be a Senator for that matter.

So, DOC, what are religious people doing to end this bigotry?

[jimlintott]

In a land where the official motto is "In God We Trust" I wouldn't call it an anti-American attitude. Some of the atheists' attitudes toward Theists (in this forum) in a land where the official motto is "In God We Trust" could be called anti-American though.

I've noticed that free speech seems to be becoming more anti-American.

[Complexity]

I don't 'admit' to being an atheist - I take pride in being an atheist.

[Foster Zygote]

Pft. The most qualified presidential candidate is the one best able to play the political game and tell people what they want to hear. If the majority of the population is Christian, then declaring one's atheism is not playing the political game properly. Therefore that candidate isn't best qualified to do the job.

Anyone who can't give the public what they want won't last long in politics. Therefore any atheist candidate who knows what he's doing will feign religious belief in order to get along.

Which is fine, it's all BS anyway.

Too true. And if the public wants to maintain a culture of bigotry then it helps to publicly state one's own bigotry.

[Lanzy]

There's hope, I used to think we would NEVER elect a drunken stupid frat boy.

[Oualawouzou]

I admit that I'm Canadian. That means I can never be president.

Does it bother anyone that a Canadian can't be president?

I like to think that being atheist would not prevent anyone from being our Prime Minister. While the religious feelings of politicians comes up from time to time it doesn't seem to be an issue unless they are quite fundy.

I notice that in the U.S. it sometimes seems like the only issue. That's a shame really.

Didn't PM Harper caused somewhat of a malaise in one of his first speeches when he ended it with a hearty "God bless Canada"?

ETA: Looked it up, and turns out "God bless Canada" has become his "signature phrase" with which he ends his speeches. So in Canada, ending yoru speech with "God bless Canada" makes you the exception, not the rule.

[Foster Zygote]

In a land where the official motto is "In God We Trust" I wouldn't call it an anti-American attitude. Some of the atheists' attitudes toward Theists (in this forum) in a land where the official motto is "In God We Trust" could be called anti-American though.

I've noticed that intelligent, polite, tolerant and open-minded Christians are treated with respect and even friendship by the majority of forum members.

[tsg]

In a land where the official motto is "In God We Trust" I wouldn't call it an anti-American attitude. Some of the atheists' attitudes toward Theists (in this forum) in a land where the official motto is "In God We Trust" could be called anti-American though.

I make a motion that the official motto of this thread be "DOC is a troll".

[Herzblut]

Does it bother me that over half of the voting electorate consists of small-minded people would not vote for a well-qualified atheist? A little bit.

I think it should.

Why should I vote for somebody* calling me small-minded, bigot and so on? If I did so, that would be pretty small-minded, if not downright stupid. :D

Herzblut

* belonging to a social group that is

[Katana]

I make a motion that the official motto of this thread be "DOC is a troll".


:notm

[MelBrooksfan]

Well, a side question: How many of us godless atheists actually want to be president?

[Tanstaafl]

I make a motion that the official motto of this thread be "DOC is a troll".


We should modify the pledge too:

"...and to the forum, for which it stands, one thread, DOC is a troll, indivisible..."

[Sun Jester]

It doesn't bother me that I can never be president.

It does bother me that a qualified atheist would not be considered as a possible candidate by more than half of the population of the country.

But, there are many things that bother me. This probably isn't on the top 1000 list.

[Marquis de Carabas]

But, there are many things that bother me.
Does it bother you when people ask you questions and don't give you a chance to respond before prodding you for your answer?

Well, does it?

Is it even more bothersome when the questions are recursive?

Is it?

Come on, it is. Isn't it? You can tell me.

Are you blind or something? I'm talking to you.

[andyandy]

If polls are your thing, there's some hope....at least with regards to less religiousity....

A new opinion poll shows that Canadians would be more likely to vote for a party lead by an atheist or a Muslim than an evangelical Christian. The survey was conducted for CanWest News Service late last week, less than three months after Canadians voted for a government led by Stephen Harper, an evangelical Christian and one of the country’s most openly religious leaders in decades.

In a strange echo of the situation in Britain, Andrew Grenville, a senior vice-president of the polling firm Ipsos Reid said: “There’s an increasing discomfort with a mixture of religion and politics, which is occurring at the same time as religion and politics are becoming increasingly intertwined.”

Only 63 per cent of Canadians said they’d vote for a party leader and potential prime minister who is an evangelical Christian, even if they liked the party and its views. That dropped from 80 per cent a decade ago. Canadians appear to be slightly more accepting of a potential prime minister who is a Muslim or atheist. Sixty-eight per cent said they would vote for a candidate in either of those categories, a drop from 74 per cent and 72 per cent, respectively, in 1996. The poll also indicates support has slipped for traditional Christian values playing a major role in politics.

Mr. Grenville said “It’s the U.S. example that has really turned people off.. Another part of it is probably the Stephen Harper factor, but I don’t think he has been really wearing his religion on his sleeve, nor really embraced strong moral stances that can be traced back to religious belief.”

Americans who took part in the survey also appear to be less inclined than they were a decade ago to vote for a leader who is an evangelical Christian, even if they liked the party and its views. Only 64 per cent would do so, compared with 78 per cent 10 years ago. The results also suggest Americans would be more likely to vote for atheists or Muslims as leaders than they would have been in 1996.

In Canada, there was also a slip in the belief that Christians should get into politics to protect their values, with only 39 per cent agreeing with the idea, compared with 46 per cent a decade ago. There was also a five per cent drop — to 40 per cent from 45 per cent — in the number who believe it’s essential for Christian values to play a major role. Mr. Grenville said he believes there's been a bit of a backlash against the divisive political debate in the last couple of years over same-sex marriage. “To me it suggests a growing divide in Canadian culture where religion can become that wedge that pushes people apart,” he said.http://www.secularism.org.uk/religionandpoliticsnothankssayca.html

[Foster Zygote]

* belonging to a social group that is

So you would vote based not on the individual, but rather on the candidate's "social group"? Because you have encountered atheists who have offended you you would regard all atheists as unworthy of your vote?

[Sun Jester]

Does it bother you when people ask you questions and don't give you a chance to respond before prodding you for your answer?
Ah....:confused:
Well, does it?
Uhmm.......:boggled:
Is it even more bothersome when the questions are recursive?
Ahhhh.......:scared:
Is it?
Well.....:wide-eyed
Come on, it is. Isn't it? You can tell me.
I....:drool:
Are you blind or something? I'm talking to you.
I'm so sorry!?!:faint:

[bobcarp]

I'm no US history expert, but I certainly do recognize some of these atheists' names below as pretty good Presidents. There must be some reason we get the birthdays of two of them off.

George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
John Adams
Abraham Lincoln
Ulysses S. Grant
Theodore Roosevelt

[Herzblut]

So you would vote based not on the individual, but rather on the candidate's "social group"? Because you have encountered atheists who have offended you you would regard all atheists as unworthy of your vote?
I would be highly reluctant to vote for a candidate belonging to a social movement carrying vociferous extremist and discriminatory elements. Especially if they discriminate my own social environment. I find it rational to strictly refuse to vote for that candidate and, in case of no acceptable alternative, not vote at all.

This is totally legimite voting behaviour, as legimite as any other btw.

The obvious social phenomenon in the US&A - this extreme lack of popularity of atheism - should be seriously addressed. Voter bashing is counterproductive and unfair.

Looking into this thread, I became curious what I could find out about the religious denomination of Gerhard Schröder. I voted for him not giving a damn about that topic, like most Germans don't.

As a matter of fact the German article in Wikipedia

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der

does not even reveal his confession! It says nothing about it whatsoever!

The English article though

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der

came up with the following statement

Schröder identifies himself as a Protestant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant), but does not appear to be religious. He did not add the optional phrase So wahr mir Gott helfe formula (so help me God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God)) when sworn in as chancellor for his first term in 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998).

(The corresponding phrase in the German article says Schröder was so far the only Chancellor who choosed to be sworn in without the optional religious phrase.)

My point is that confession is regarded as a private affair here, also for people in public.

And that German Wikipedia articles don't spread crude speculations about what appears to be the case because this is crap. :D

Herzblut

[triadboy]

Just lie. Then when elected reveal your Satanic plans for destruction of Mum, God and Apple Pie.

I heard a funny story or joke - I don't know which - or if it's true:

When Bush was elected President, the whole Bush family came up on stage to celebrate. The Bush girls saw some fellow Texans in the audience and gave them the "Hook Em Horns" of the University of Texas. Immediately, the whole Bush family and much of the audience started giving the Texas Horns on live TV going all over the world.

Apparently in Scandinavian countries - the "Hook Em Horns" is exactly like the sign of Satan.

Imagine their shock. :)

For one day, they led the world in 'spit takes'.

[parrotslave]

If Jesse Ventura hadn't self destructed as governor of Minnesota, he could have been elected president. He was able to mobilize younger voters who don't normally vote.

[Foster Zygote]

I would be highly reluctant to vote for a candidate belonging to a social movement carrying vociferous extremist and discriminatory elements.

So you won't be voting for any Christians then?

BTW, how is atheism a social movement?

[Herzblut]

So you won't be voting for any Christians then?

Why not? Christian churches in Europe don't discriminate me.


BTW, how is atheism a social movement?
I didn't say that.

Herzblut

[IMST]

Gallup's 1999 poll:
Black ---------- 95
Baptist -------- 94
Catholic ------- 94
Jewish --------- 92
Woman -------- 92
Homosexual -- 59
Atheist --------- 49

Hey, I'm the second most hated group according to this! With distinct leanings toward the most hated too! I wonder where "Vegetarian" would show up so I could feel less welcome.

Freaking fellow americans


Why can't Canada get around to annexing my home state?

[Foster Zygote]

Why not? Christian churches in Europe don't discriminate me.


I didn't say that.

Herzblut

Your games bore me.

[UnrepentantSinner]

When DOC starts a great are we assured it's going to be inane?

(well, that question has just as obvious an answer as the OP)

Wouldn't you call all the atheists in this forum who make fun of and ridicule Christians, bigots?

I would. I'd label people who make fun of and ridicule you though, "doing their job."

[Foster Zygote]

Hey, I'm the second most hated group according to this! With distinct leanings toward the most hated too! I wonder where "Vegetarian" would show up so I could feel less welcome.

Freaking fellow americans


Why can't Canada get around to annexing my home state?

They don't take kindly to us Shatner-stealing Mexico-touchers.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Apparently in Scandinavian countries - the "Hook Em Horns" is exactly like the sign of Satan.

Actually the Baphomet had sign is well known throughout the west. We used to see it at rock concerts, back in the day, all the time.

I think there's a snopes page on this incident.

[Hokulele]

I prefer the motto chosen by those founding fathers DOC is so fond of . . .

E Pluribus Unum

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm no US history expert, but I certainly do recognize some of these atheists' names below as pretty good Presidents. There must be some reason we get the birthdays of two of them off.

George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
John Adams
Abraham Lincoln
Ulysses S. Grant
Theodore Roosevelt

You might want to rethink at least 5 of these. Especially the last one.

{preemtion}Not saying they were Christians, but they weren't atheists{/preemption}

[Herzblut]

Your games bore me.
I'm not here to entertain you.

[tsg]

Black ---------- 95
Baptist -------- 94
Catholic ------- 94
Jewish --------- 92
Woman -------- 92
Homosexual -- 59
Atheist --------- 49


Personally, I'm willing to bet a black, jewish, lesbian gets elected President before an open atheist.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Personally, I'm willing to bet a black, jewish, lesbian gets elected President before an open atheist.

Dallas County elected a lesbian Latina Democrat for Sheriff, but I don't think an open atheist could be elected dog catcher here, so your bet is probably a safe one.

[SezMe]

Why won't the MdC post in this thread?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Personally, I'm willing to bet a black, jewish, lesbian gets elected President before an open atheist.

But will she be in a wheelchair?

[tsg]

But will she be in a wheelchair?

I'm thinking that would work for her.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Why won't the MdC post in this thread?
I have. Twice.

If you're wondering why I haven't directly addressed the OP, it's simple: I wouldn't pith on DOC if he was on fire.

[LostAngeles]

Actually the Baphomet had sign is well known throughout the west. We used to see it at rock concerts, back in the day, all the time.

I think there's a snopes page on this incident.

According to Dio, isn't it the sign of the evil eye and he took it from his grandmother?

But Gene Simmons invented it?

[arthwollipot]

It is a source of some distress to me that the Australian Prime Minister Mr Howard has recently begun wearing his faith on his sleeve - much like the Opposition Leader Mr Rudd has been for some time.

Of course, I don't think Mr Howard stands a whelk's chance in a supernova of getting reelected this year, so I'm not sure it matters.

[vexed]

DOC are you upset that you'll never be president?

[UnrepentantSinner]

According to Dio, isn't it the sign of the evil eye and he took it from his grandmother?

But Gene Simmons invented it?

I think the Dio anecdote is probably correct, but I think it was being used before KISS came on the scene. A quick Wiki check didn't give me what I was looking for and I don't want to do too many Satanism related searches while I'm at work. ;)

[Zep]

In a land where the official motto is "In God We Trust" I wouldn't call it an anti-American attitude. Some of the atheists' attitudes toward Theists (in this forum) in a land where the official motto is "In God We Trust" could be called anti-American though.USAians, please help here: Is this REALLY an "official" USA state motto of any sort? I know it's on some coins, but I don't recall seeing it on other official emblems and occasions.

Anyway, I thought the "official" USA motto was actually "E Pluribus Unum" (which is actually fairly "socialist" if you think about it).

But clearly I'm far removed from the situation. Clarification, please!

[UnrepentantSinner]

The Wikipedia entry seems to cover it pretty well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust

[Cleon]

USAians, please help here: Is this REALLY an "official" USA state motto of any sort? I know it's on some coins, but I don't recall seeing it on other official emblems and occasions.

Anyway, I thought the "official" USA motto was actually "E Pluribus Unum" (which is actually fairly "socialist" if you think about it).

But clearly I'm far removed from the situation. Clarification, please!

E Pluribus Unum, "out of many one," has sort of been the "De facto" motto since the earliest days of the Republic, but "In God We Trust" was declared The National Motto(tm) in 1956.

[Roboramma]

I would be highly reluctant to vote for a candidate belonging to a social movement carrying vociferous extremist and discriminatory elements. Especially if they discriminate my own social environment. I find it rational to strictly refuse to vote for that candidate and, in case of no acceptable alternative, not vote at all. What does that have to do with an unwillingness to vote for atheists?

[Hokulele]

Dallas County elected a lesbian Latina Democrat for Sheriff, but I don't think an open atheist could be elected dog catcher here, so your bet is probably a safe one.


Of our two representatives to the US Congress, one describes himself as not being affiliated with any religion, and the other describes herself as a Buddhist (take that yrreg!). Hah, we are way ahead of the rest of the country in terms of religious tolerance. ;)

[arthwollipot]

I wouldn't mind seeing stats for Hawaii and Alaska as compared to the other states. I think it would be interesting.

[Hokulele]

I wouldn't mind seeing stats for Hawaii and Alaska as compared to the other states. I think it would be interesting.


According to Wiki, less than 30% of the state are some form of christian, 9 percent are buddhists, and over 60% are "something else".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii#Religion

I do not know if there is any reliable study done on this, as the US government does not ask questions regarding religion on any official census (that whole separation of church and state that gets DOC in such a lather ;) ).

[Damien Evans]

oh look, another DOC "so what?" thread, how cute

[Miss Anthrope]

Well, Doc, an atheist would have to be willing to lie in order to get elected. Perhaps the avowed atheists are too moral to do so in order to pander to such religious bigotry.

Most career politicians are, IMO, lying pond scum anyway. How many of those investigated for corruption climbed to their position on the backs of believers? Some small part of me is happy that few avowed atheists are in a position of power, which goes hand in hand with dishonesty and in some cases, crimes. But hey, we live in a country where people vote on a handful of issues--issues that are hardly relevant to the actual power and duty a president has.

[Miss Anthrope]

Someone wake me when he comes to a point, k? I'm worn out from makin all those pancakes.

When? When!?!? What is this "when" you speak of?

[Miss Anthrope]

I don't 'admit' to being an atheist - I take pride in being an atheist.

:eusa_clap:


:wave1

:eusa_clap::eusa_clap::eusa_clap:

[joobz]

When someone admits to believing that native americans are better off because of the christian conquestors, they destroy any chance of being considered a good, moral, trustworthy, decent, honorable person.

[Herzblut]

What does that have to do with an unwillingness to vote for atheists?
See post #35.

[joobz]

USAians, please help here: Is this REALLY an "official" USA state motto of any sort? I know it's on some coins, but I don't recall seeing it on other official emblems and occasions.

Anyway, I thought the "official" USA motto was actually "E Pluribus Unum" (which is actually fairly "socialist" if you think about it).

But clearly I'm far removed from the situation. Clarification, please!
It actually is our official motto since 1956.
E Pluribus Unum was the motto from 1781 up until that point. I am left to believe that your observation is why it was changed. the 50s was very "anticommie", so any socialist statements would be taken away.
Before 1891, the closest official motto would have been "Don't tread on me."

Again, this just highlights the fact that the founding fathers were secular in government and the addition of "god" was an add in during the cold war.

DOC will use this as proof of nothing but his own whims. Again, the god he worships is one of evil and hate. I'm glad he and his god are powerless.

LOVE LIVE THE SECULAR AGENDA!!!!

[wollery]

The only thing this proves is that a majority of US citizens are bigoted morons.



Like that was news.

[slingblade]

So would you say Congress was irrational when they made the phrase "In God We Trust" the official motto of the United States in 1956.

Yes.

[aries]

Any elected official bears the will of the people in his or her country. Thus, in the US, an atheists might not have many chances of becoming President, but in Denmark we might have had an atheist for Prime Minister, and not even know this.

Bear in my mind, please that the common will of the people, is needed in order to legitimate the state's business, so what the majority of the people wants, the politicians deliver. However, lately, there has been a very disturbing trend, the politicians have discovered they can sway the people into thinking they want (the correct word is maybe feeling??) more security etc. so the politicians can stay in control longer etc. and use fear etc. to control the (common) people's will...

As for an atheist for Prez. in the US, personally I would like to see this, maybe then we can get rid of of Prez. that thinks he is a King, and who ask his father in heaven what to do....politically...

[Roboramma]

Does it bother me that over half of the voting electorate consists of small-minded people would not vote for a well-qualified atheist? A little bit.
I think it should.

Why should I vote for somebody* calling me small-minded, bigot and so on? If I did so, that would be pretty small-minded, if not downright stupid. :D

Herzblut

* belonging to a social group that is
Okay, so why do you conclude that because someone is an atheist he/she is calling you a small-minded, bigot and so on?

[Herzblut]

Okay, so why do you conclude that because someone is an atheist he/she is calling you a small-minded, bigot and so on?
Because there is no reason to belief that frequent and continous religion bashing of an atheist person is totally unrelated to her atheism but rather caused by her ..eh.. family problems.

Herzblut

[DOC]

Well...That was adopted not out of any religious adherence so much as Cold War-era propaganda showing up those "godless commies." This was the same reason that "under God" was inserted into the up-until-then secular Pledge of Allegiance.

The above implies that the US Congress believed that the belief in God was quite superior to atheism.

So maybe "irrational" isn't the right word, so much as "completely insane."

No comment.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC View Post
So would you say Congress was irrational when they made the phrase "In God We Trust" the official motto of the United States in 1956.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States[

Are you implying that it was rational for them to do so? If that's the case, state your reasons.

Your responding to my question with a question.

[DOC]

Would you vote for a well qualified atheist for president?

It is my opinion an atheist could never be qualified to be president in a country where most of the citizens are Christian (like the US).

[wollery]

It is my opinion an atheist could never be qualified to be president in a country where most of the citizens are Christian (like the US).Why not?

The job of a president is to maintain the security, economic stability, educational & scientific standards of the country, and to maintain relations with other countries. Why can an atheist not do these things representing a secular country such as the US?

[DOC]

So, DOC, what are religious people doing to end this bigotry?

Voting against someone because you believe they are not good for the country is not bigotry.

[Lothian]

Therefore any atheist candidate who knows what he's doing will feign religious belief in order to get along.
WHAT ? You are suggesting that a politician lies. These are a bunch of fine upstanding people with impeccable morals. A politician would never lie.

[Lothian]

It is my opinion an atheist could never be qualified to be president in a country where most of the citizens are Christian (like the US).The certainly could be qualified. Elected, not yet.

[JoeEllison]

Voting against someone because you believe they are not good for the country is not bigotry.

People like you aren't good for this country. You're not only a bigot, but you're anti-American as well. You claim that there should be(and really already is) a religious test for politicians, which flies directly in the face of the Constitution.

In reality, that place that you avoid, the president is not a religious leader, and their religious beliefs are irrelevant. Really, the fact that you look to political leaders to be religious leaders as well makes you a bad citizen AND a lousy Christian.

[UnrepentantSinner]

The above implies that the US Congress believed that the belief in God was quite superior to atheism.

Actually it implies no such thing because we know the motivations of Congress and it was nothing more than a theatrical knee-jerk reaction against the Soviet Union. Theatrical in the sense that it was a farce.

It is my opinion an atheist could never be qualified to be president in a country where most of the citizens are Christian (like the US).

The Constitution is quite clear what qualifies one to be president, atheism or belief is not listed.

Why didn't the Framers put a religious test for President in the Constitution DOC?

[Cleon]

The above implies that the US Congress believed that the belief in God was quite superior to atheism.

No, it doesn't.

But even if that was the case, so what?


No comment.

No care.

[Herzblut]

It is my opinion an atheist could never be qualified to be president in a country where most of the citizens are Christian (like the US).
Just wait a few years, DOC. Have a look:

The United States appears to be going through an unprecedented change in religious practices. Large numbers of American adults are disaffiliating themselves from Christianity and from other organized religions.

Polling data from the 2001 ARIS study, described below, indicate that:
76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian (http://www.religioustolerance.org/christ.htm). This is a major slide from 86.2% in 1990. Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years -- about 0.9 percentage points per year.

14.1% do not follow any organized religion. This is an unusually rapid increase -- almost a doubling -- from only 8% in 1990. There are more Americans who say they are not affiliated with any organized religion than there are Episcopalians, Methodists, and Lutherans taken together.
A USA Today/Gallup Poll in 2002-JAN showed that almost half of American adults appear to be alienated from organized religion. If current trends continue, most adults will not call themselves religious within a few years.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

Never say never. :D

Herzblut

[kmortis]

You might want to rethink at least 5 of these. Especially the last one.

{preemtion}Not saying they were Christians, but they weren't atheists{/preemption}

You're right, most were Deists/Unitarians. There's some evidence putting Washington squarely in the Anglican camp. Thomas Jefferson was the closest to being an atheist, and got called such in the contemporary press.

According to the US Treasury website (http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html) (who's authors may know a thing or two about what is, or is not, a motto) says:
The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861.

and

A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States. IN GOD WE TRUST was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-dollar silver certificate. The first paper currency bearing the motto entered circulation on October 1, 1957. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) was converting to the dry intaglio printing process. During this conversion, it gradually included IN GOD WE TRUST in the back design of all classes and denominations of currency.

So, "In God We Trust" has been around for a bit. Not that it lends any credability to it, but it's a fallacy to think that it came about whole cloth during the McCarthy era. "E Pluris Unum" was more commonly used up to that point, and, IMHO, is a better representation of the country as a whole, as religion is only one aspect of a society.


ETA: From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+36USC302)
CHAPTER 3--NATIONAL ANTHEM, MOTTO, FLORAL EMBLEM \1\ MARCH, AND TREE

Sec. 302. National motto

``In God we trust'' is the national motto.

BTW DOC, this is what's called being honest. I could have ignored this, as it's not a comfortable fact tha my country seems to ignore my personal beliefs. But I present it anyway for accuracy's sake. Try it sometime.

Oh, it's also a PRIMARY source. Can't get much more primary when dealing with what's Official or not than the law itself, eh?

[kmortis]

Ok, who wants pancakes? St. Alphonso's is now open again. I got fresh butter and sausages. And the Utility Muffin Kitchen is fully operational as well.

[Zep]

The Wikipedia entry seems to cover it pretty well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust

E Pluribus Unum, "out of many one," has sort of been the "De facto" motto since the earliest days of the Republic, but "In God We Trust" was declared The National Motto(tm) in 1956.

It actually is our official motto since 1956.
E Pluribus Unum was the motto from 1781 up until that point. I am left to believe that your observation is why it was changed. the 50s was very "anticommie", so any socialist statements would be taken away.
Before 1891, the closest official motto would have been "Don't tread on me."

Again, this just highlights the fact that the founding fathers were secular in government and the addition of "god" was an add in during the cold war.

DOC will use this as proof of nothing but his own whims. Again, the god he worships is one of evil and hate. I'm glad he and his god are powerless.

LOVE LIVE THE SECULAR AGENDA!!!!

Thank you very much, folks! I'm somewhat the wiser...and I hope DOC is too.

Now here's the next question, this time for DOC: Which God is being referred to in that motto (and in the pledge of allegiance)? It clearly is not specific as to the religion, just that it refers to a deity. Which one, pray tell?

[This Guy]

I'm gonna answer the question in the OP, though many others have given some great replies. Some have even pointed out why anyone that confessed to be atheist shouldn't be elected (it wouldn't be the politically correct thing to do), and I agree pretty much with that, with reservations, mostly based on idealistic/unreasonable views of how things SHOULD work.

But, I want to get my $.02 worth in anyway :)

It does bother me that the US society has such a mindset that an admitted atheist is not likely to ever be elected to any high government office, and (while likely it would be over ruled in a court) can't even legally run for offices in some states, because of state constitutions that have some religious declaration required for office seekers.

I doubt that most of us living today will see this change much. But I hope that someday religion is viewed as a personal thing, and kept out of politics completely.

[Wings]

Yes, to my knowledge, there has never been or can be a publicly admitted atheist president. In the land of "In God we Trust" it is just impossible in my opinion. Does it bother atheists to know they can never be president. Or maybe never be a Senator for that matter.

For right now in our current time, I would agree that an atheist president is highly unlikely. However, the questions in my mind would be "does this reflect more upon the mindset of those who would support an atheist president, or on those who would oppose an atheist president?" and "Is this a positive, negative or neutral reflection that religious affiliation would be so important?"

As for whether it bothers me, that's a complicated question. While I believe that a president's religious affiliation would have an effect upon the policies that said president endorses, I would state that even an atheist president would not be free from influences and so forth. I can't say for certain whether an atheist president would be a "better or worse" president than a religious president, due to many factors and the uniqueness of each individual. So, no, it doesn't bother me.

EDIT: When I state that I am not bothered, I mean that I am not distressed. While I do have some concerns about the problems regarding an atheists ability to become president, I really haven't considered the issue enough to truly recognize whether it is distressing or not, I'll have to consider it more.

[tsg]

Voting against someone because you believe they are not good for the country is not bigotry.

Believing someone is not good for the country solely based on their religious beliefs is bigotry.

[Foster Zygote]

Voting against someone because you believe they are not good for the country is not bigotry.

No, but not voting for someone because they have a different position on religion is. I define a qualified candidate (as regards religion) as someone who will uphold the law and the Constitution regardless of his/her private religious beliefs. If an atheist candidate made clear his/her intent to serve all citizens of every faith or lack thereof and someone still voted against said candidate out of a belief that atheists are bad people then that is bigotry. It would be no different than refusing to vote for a Catholic candidate simply out of a belief that Catholics are bad people.

[triadboy]

It is my opinion an atheist could never be qualified to be president in a country where most of the citizens are Christian (like the US).

I'm pretty sure the rest of the world would like an Atheist President more than a Armageddon-believing, 'talking-to-God' President.

[triadboy]

Voting against someone because you believe they are not good for the country is not bigotry.

Voting against someone because they don't believe in the same invisible creature as you is bigotry.

[gypsey]

kmortis
Ok, who wants pancakes? St. Alphonso's is now open again. I got fresh butter and sausages. And the Utility Muffin Kitchen is fully operational as well.

:bounce2
me me me please with extra buter and maple syrup :cool:

[joobz]

It is my opinion an atheist could never be qualified to be president in a country where most of the citizens are Christian (like the US).
According to DOC, any argument..
Without a reasoned explanation this statement means nothing.

DOC's statement has no supporting evidence and no reasoned explanation.

Therefore, DOC's statement means nothing according to DOC.
Or
DOC believes DOC is meaningless.

Something I can finally argee with him on.

[Foster Zygote]

Because there is no reason to belief that frequent and continous religion bashing of an atheist person is totally unrelated to her atheism but rather caused by her ..eh.. family problems.

Herzblut

So you define the simple lack of belief in gods as "religion bashing"?

[gypsey]

bobcarp
I'm no US history expert, but I certainly do recognize some of these atheists' names below as pretty good Presidents. There must be some reason we get the birthdays of two of them off.

George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
John Adams
Abraham Lincoln
Ulysses S. Grant
Theodore Roosevelt

Abraham Lincoln, American president (1809-1865).
In 2000 Years of Disbelief by James A. Haught, Lincoln is mentioned on pages 125 through 127. From the material presented it would seem that Lincoln as a young man was an avid anti-christian and most likely an atheist. In his later years, he came to believe in God, but still was anti-religious in the sense that he rejected organized religion. Some selections from Haught:
John T. Stuart, Lincoln's first law partner: "He was an avowed and open infidel, and sometimes bordered on Atheism...He went further against Christian beliefs and doctrines and principles than any man I ever heard."
Joseph Lewis quoting Lincoln in a 1924 speech in New York: "The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."
Lincoln in a letter to Judge J.S. Wakefield, after the death of Willie Lincoln: "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."
As a young man Lincoln apparently wrote a manuscript that he planned to publish, which vehemently argued against the divine origin of the Bible and the Christian scheme of salvation. Samuel Hill, a friend and mentor, convinced him to drop it, considering the disastrous consequences it would have on his political career.
William H Herndon, a former law partner, wrote a biography on Lincoln titled: The True Story of a Great Life. In it Herndon discusses Lincoln's religious views extensively.
Gordon Leidner has collected some quotations from Lincoln's later years in which he invokes God, and he makes the argument that Lincoln became a sincere believer. It seems to me he did come to believe in God but never accepted organized Christianity.

from here http://skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id14.html
i had always thought lincoln was a non believer if not a full blown atheist but i never really looked into it

[strathmeyer]

Voting against someone because you believe they are not good for the country is not bigotry.

Believing an arbitrary group of people are not good for the country is the definition of bigotry.

[Hokulele]

DOC, would you vote for a Jewish candidate for president? Muslim? Hindi? How far does your bigotry extend?


ETA: Kmo, I'll take some pancakes. Extra-crispy bacon on the side please?

[kmortis]

:bunpan :bunpan

I couldn't find a bacon smilie, but I assure you that it's NICE and crisp.

[Marquis de Carabas]

How far does your bigotry extend?
Try the new Bigotry5000, now with flexible telescoping neck to hate even those hard-to-reach groups.

[tsg]

I couldn't find a bacon smilie, but I assure you that it's NICE and crisp.

But not too crisp?

[Tanstaafl]

Kmo, I'll take some pancakes. Extra-crispy bacon on the side please?


Ooooh, Ooooh, me too!

[Marquis de Carabas]

Ooooh, Ooooh, me too!
You want to be extra-crispy, as well?

[Hokulele]

Tan lives in Phoenix. How can he be anything other than extra-crispy in August?

[Miss Anthrope]

The above implies that the US Congress believed that the belief in God was quite superior to atheism.


Congress thinks god is superior=God is real.

I wonder if we should apply this "logic" regarding everything congress appears to have thought was superior. Ever.

[Miss Anthrope]

Ok, who wants pancakes? St. Alphonso's is now open again. I got fresh butter and sausages. And the Utility Muffin Kitchen is fully operational as well.

Extra fluffy, hold the pig.

[Marquis de Carabas]

We can still hold pigs here?

[Herzblut]

So you define the simple lack of belief in gods as "religion bashing"?
No, religion bashing I call the immature behaviour of some atheist board users:

there are an awful lot of religious bigots in the USA
half of the voting electorate consists of small-minded people
the voting public is largely irrational

This may create a catch 22 situation:

Angry Atheists: You are small-minded, irrational, religious bigots because you woudn't vote for us.

Theists: We are not voting for anybody calling us small-minded, irrational, religious bigots.

This might be one of the contributing factors for the social hostility against atheists in the US. What's your point here, if I may ask?

Herzblut

[kmortis]

Extra fluffy, hold the pig.

But if I'm holding the Marquis, then I can't make pancakes, nor would I be able to until after the NRC gave me the OK after I put him down.

[Miss Anthrope]

But if I'm holding the Marquis, then I can't make pancakes, nor would I be able to until after the NRC gave me the OK after I put him down.

All those appendages but you still can't manage? Oh well.

[Miss Anthrope]

Well, Doc, an atheist would have to be willing to lie in order to get elected. Perhaps the avowed atheists are too moral to do so in order to pander to such religious bigotry.

Most career politicians are, IMO, lying pond scum anyway. How many of those investigated for corruption climbed to their position on the backs of believers? Some small part of me is happy that few avowed atheists are in a position of power, which goes hand in hand with dishonesty and in some cases, crimes. But hey, we live in a country where people vote on a handful of issues--issues that are hardly relevant to the actual power and duty a president has.

For Doc.

XOXOX
Miss A

[kmortis]

All those appendages but you still can't manage? Oh well.

I'll give you a hint. Yuo NEED 47 extra tentacels to hold the Marquis de Carabas. If for nothing else to help keep Puss at bay. That lil' cat is a wiley scamp, I tells ya.

[Foster Zygote]

No, religion bashing I call the immature behaviour of some atheist board users:

there are an awful lot of religious bigots in the USA
half of the voting electorate consists of small-minded people
the voting public is largely irrational

This may create a catch 22 situation:

Angry Atheists: You are small-minded, irrational, religious bigots because you woudn't vote for us.

Theists: We are not voting for anybody calling us small-minded, irrational, religious bigots.

This might be one of the contributing factors for the social hostility against atheists in the US. What's your point here, if I may ask?

Herzblut

My point is that you seem determined to hold all atheists accountable for the actions of some. Your statements indicate that you would not vote for an atheist candidate, even if said candidate was respectful and polite to theists, simply because some other atheists have offended you. Is this not what you have stated? If your point is that you would not vote for an angry atheist who is insulting to theists then I can understand as I would not vote for such a candidate either. But if you are stating that you would not vote for any atheist because some atheists have offended you then I see that as little different from stating that you would never vote for any Catholic candidate because a Catholic man had once offended you.

[Herzblut]

My point is that you seem determined to hold all atheists accountable for the actions of some.

No, I am exclusively talking about electing. And find it reasonable to blatantly refuse giving any vote to somebody who is unable to stop the continous stream of insult and mockery from his culture against values, beliefs and worldviews of my culture.

If you honestly beleive, people are not reacting like this, you are naive and quixotic.


But if you are stating that you would not vote for any atheist because some atheists have offended you then I see that as little different from stating that you would never vote for any Catholic candidate because a Catholic man had once offended you.

That's because you are arguing from an abstract theoretical position, completely untouched by social reality in the US&A, which is apparantly not adequate to describe social behaviour.

In short: if you* are throwing crud to others, don't be surprised if they don't elect you*. And, hey, reading this thread it get's clear to me that you're ignorant to why 50% of the voters forcefully reject you*. Thus, you* don't give a damn. Then live with the consequences.

Let me repeat: in a democracy the voter has no obligation whatsoever to justify who and who not he elects. If I* don't vote for someone because I* don't like his nose, that's my decision and period. I'm answering you only because I'm such a nice guy. :D

Herzblut

* US atheists
* US voters

[Ladewig]

No, religion bashing I call the immature behaviour of some atheist board users:

half of the voting electorate consists of small-minded people


That one was mine. I'll stand by it and insist that it is not immature behavior. The poll I quoted said that 5% of the population would not vote for a well-qualified black candidate. I consider those people to be small-minded. Eight percent said they would not vote for a well-qualified Catholic (despite the U.S. previously electing a Catholic president). Those people are also small-minded. And half the people said they would not vote for a well-qualified atheist. Not voting for someone who is well-qualifed because that person has a characteristic not shared by you is, in my opinion, most assuredly small-minded.

[Hokulele]

No, I am exclusively talking about electing. And find it reasonable to blatantly refuse giving any vote to somebody who is unable to stop the continous stream of insult and mockery from his culture against values, beliefs and worldviews of my culture.


(Bolding mine.)


Why do you hate free speech?

[joobz]

That one was mine. I'll stand by it and insist that it is not immature behavior. The poll I quoted said that 5% of the population would not vote for a well-qualified black candidate. I consider those people to be small-minded. Eight percent said they would not vote for a well-qualified Catholic (despite the U.S. previously electing a Catholic president). Those people are also small-minded. And half the people said they would not vote for a well-qualified atheist. Not voting for someone who is well-qualifed because that person has a characteristic not shared by you is, in my opinion, most assuredly small-minded.
well, using herzblut's reasoning,
The 5% are justified, becuase the black candidates can't/won't stop all black people from commiting crimes (ignoring the fact that crimes are committed by all races)
and the 8% are justified, because the catholic candidates can't/won't stop all catholic preists from molesting children (ignoring the fact that there are child molestors who are not catholics)
and the 50% are justified, because the athiest candidates can't/won't stop all other atheists from belittleing religion (ignoring the fact that religous people will belittle other faiths and atheists)

[tsg]

No, I am exclusively talking about electing. And find it reasonable to blatantly refuse giving any vote to somebody who is unable to stop the continous stream of insult and mockery from his culture against values, beliefs and worldviews of my culture.

By that argument, atheists are perfectly entitled to refuse to vote for any Christian, regardless of qualifications, based on the fact that some Christians believe atheists are inherently evil.

[joobz]

By that argument, atheists are perfectly entitled to refuse to vote for any Christian, regardless of qualifications, based on the fact that some Christians believe atheists are inherently evil.
In his defense, they are entitled to do that.

It just means that people are free to make voting choices for really horrible, stupid reasons.

[Herzblut]

(Bolding mine.)

Why do you hate free speech?
I don't. As long as you don't expect anything from me, like e.g. my vote. Keep bashing, keep blaming.

I personally dislike this kind of behaviour, because it's infantile and stupidely self-damaging. But, well, atheists here in Europe are not the most disgusted group around. It's your problem. Deal with it, or not. I don't care.

Herzblut

[tsg]

In his defense, they are entitled to do that.

It just means that people are free to make voting choices for really horrible, stupid reasons.

I don't disagree. But I thought this was a discussion about whether they were really horrible, stupid reasons and not whether they should be allowed.

[joobz]

I don't disagree. But I thought this was a discussion about whether they were really horrible, stupid reasons and not whether they should be allowed.
true, I was just saying...:o

[Hokulele]

I don't. As long as you don't expect anything from me, like e.g. my vote. Keep bashing, keep blaming.


In your example, you suggested that the reason you would not vote for an atheist candidate was due to the fact that they are "unable to stop" others from bashing, not that they were engaged in bashing themselves. This implies that you believe one member of a group should have control of others, which is a direct limitation of free speech.

It still sounds to me like you are indulging in guilt by association.

[Bob Klase]

Let me repeat: in a democracy the voter has no obligation whatsoever to justify who and who not he elects. If I* don't vote for someone because I* don't like his nose, that's my decision and period.

All true. And the fact that you have no obligation to justify your bigotry makes you no less a bigot.

[Bob Klase]

As for whether it bothers me, that's a complicated question. While I believe that a president's religious affiliation would have an effect upon the policies that said president endorses, I would state that even an atheist president would not be free from influences and so forth. I can't say for certain whether an atheist president would be a "better or worse" president than a religious president, due to many factors and the uniqueness of each individual. So, no, it doesn't bother me.

Of course the whole point is that all those people are saying they'd refuse to vote for an atheist (or black, or catholic, etc) without consideration for the other factors or the uniqueness of the individual.

[Herzblut]

All true. And the fact that you have no obligation to justify your bigotry makes you no less a bigot.
And I have a heart of gold for the disadvantaged, like US atheists. Whenever one of them is begging me for money on the streets I give him a penny. After he's praised some gospels and performed a tap-dance for me, needless to say.

Herzblut

[Foster Zygote]

No, I am exclusively talking about electing. And find it reasonable to blatantly refuse giving any vote to somebody who is unable to stop the continous stream of insult and mockery from his culture against values, beliefs and worldviews of my culture.
How do you propose that an atheist candidate control the actions of others? Should the candidate promise to declare martial law once elected and punish and oppress the atheists who's behavior you find offensive? Should I not vote for an evangelical Christian candidate whom I otherwise find to be superbly qualified just because he/she cannot "control" the actions of Christian hate mongers like Fred Phelps?

If you honestly beleive, people are not reacting like this, you are naive and quixotic.
Oh I certainly believe that people react to candidates in a bigoted manner based on broad social trends and prejudices so I am hardly naive to the fact. But it would certainly be Quixotic of me to think that I could stop others from exercising their constitutional right to free speech just because I happen to share a lack of belief in gods with them.

That's because you are arguing from an abstract theoretical position, completely untouched by social reality in the US&A, which is apparantly not adequate to describe social behaviour.
No, I am arguing that refusal to vote for someone solely based upon his/her atheism is little different from refusal to vote for someone based on gender, skin color, ethnicity, religion, or whether that person has an inny or an outy belly button.

In short: if you* are throwing crud to others, don't be surprised if they don't elect you*.
I personally do not mock or belittle theists as a whole. Individual theists, yes, but I judge them by their individual actions, not as a whole.

And, hey, reading this thread it get's clear to me that you're ignorant to why 50% of the voters forcefully reject you*. Thus, you* don't give a damn. Then live with the consequences.
It is clear to me that you either miss the focus of the thread and the responses to it or you are being deliberatly obtuse.

Let me repeat: in a democracy the voter has no obligation whatsoever to justify who and who not he elects. If I* don't vote for someone because I* don't like his nose, that's my decision and period. I'm answering you only because I'm such a nice guy. :D
No one has argued that in a democracy anyone doesn't have the right to vote or not vote for a candidate because they like his hair or they think his wife is prettier than the other candidate's wife or because they grew up in a family that told racist jokes about the candidate's ethnic group. If you were to withhold your vote based on someone's nose then that is your right. But it doesn't mean it isn't a really, really stupid reason not to vote for someone.

Herzblut

* US atheists
* US voters

By the way, your use of asterisks is both unnecessary and confusing. For a couple of words like "US atheists" or "US voters" it is easier to simply use those words in the body of the sentence. You further confuse the matter by using asterisks to represent more than one word. One can use reason to determine what you probably mean, but when stating an argument it is best to be clear about what you mean so that your reader isn't left guessing.

And lastly, there is no "and" or ampersand in USA. Although it would be acceptable to write "US of A".

[Foster Zygote]

And I have a heart of gold for the disadvantaged, like US atheists. Whenever one of them is begging me for money on the streets I give him a penny. After he's praised some gospels and performed a tap-dance for me, needless to say.

Herzblut

What are you even saying? Are you implying that American atheists are cruel to the disadvantaged? If so, do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

[Hokulele]

What are you even saying? Are you implying that American atheists are cruel to the disadvantaged? If so, do you have any evidence to back up this claim?


No, I think he is suggesting that atheists in the US are disadvantaged, and if he ever encountered one, he would be properly condescending. I guess he thinks it is funny or something. *shrug*

[Foster Zygote]

No, I think he is suggesting that atheists in the US are disadvantaged, and if he ever encountered one, he would be properly condescending. I guess he thinks it is funny or something. *shrug*

Ah yes, that seems quite likely. But then again his sentence structure can be a bit of a challenge to parse. I guess it must just be American atheists that he is prejudiced against as he quotes a British atheist in his sig. It may be more of a nationalistic bigotry than bigotry against atheists in general.

[UnrepentantSinner]

* US atheists
* US voters

Heartblood, etc. Can I ask you all a favor. Since "US" is the usual abbreviation for my user ID, can you refer to the United States as "U.S." with the periods/punkts? Danke.

[Herzblut]

Heartblood, etc. Can I ask you all a favor. Since "US" is the usual abbreviation for my user ID, can you refer to the United States as "U.S." with the periods/punkts? Danke.
Yep. I can, US.

Frankly, I really didn't know the correct spelling was U.S. Why is it USA then, no punkts? No, it's OK, doesn't matter. (O.K.?)

Herzblut

[arthwollipot]

I'm pretty sure the rest of the world would like an Atheist President more than a Armageddon-believing, 'talking-to-God' President.

Speaking on behalf of the rest of the world, absolutely.

[Ladewig]

I'm pretty sure the rest of the world would like an Atheist President more than a Armageddon-believing, 'talking-to-God' President.

an Armageddon-believing, talking-to-God president who went on records as saying "the jury is still out on evolution."

[Ladewig]

No, religion bashing I call the immature behaviour of some atheist board users:


half of the voting electorate consists of small-minded people


If you consider my assertion to be an example of immature behavior, what words would you use to describe
George H.W. Bush when he said "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots"?

[Mobyseven]

No, I am exclusively talking about electing. And find it reasonable to blatantly refuse giving any vote to somebody who is unable to stop the continous stream of insult and mockery from his culture against values, beliefs and worldviews of my culture.

"...his culture?"

You are aware that we don't have a 'leader', right? There is no 'athiest pope'.

[Miss Anthrope]

Speaking on behalf of the rest of the world, absolutely.

Can one second a post by the rest of the world?

[arthwollipot]

I just realised - I probably don't have the authority to speak on behalf of the entire world, so I'll just speak on behalf of myself:

Absolutely.

[Wings]

Of course the whole point is that all those people are saying they'd refuse to vote for an atheist (or black, or catholic, etc) without consideration for the other factors or the uniqueness of the individual.

Yes, I've considered this issue more and it is bothering me more than I realized. I have to agree here, although I still need to consider it more before I can put my thoughts properly.

[DOC]

I prefer the motto chosen by those founding fathers DOC is so fond of . . .

E Pluribus Unum

Actually according to Wiki it was never voted on by a legislative body as our national motto.

E Pluribus Unum was, in fact, a motto that was one of three voted and approved for the national seal in 1782, but it was never voted, by any legislative act, as "the national motto."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust

[Ducky]

Actually according to Wiki it was never voted on by a legislative body as our national motto.

E Pluribus Unum was, in fact, a motto that was one of three voted and approved for the national seal in 1782, but it was never voted, by any legislative act, as "the national motto."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust

Well, unlike your Kennedy sources, this one is at least honest that it's in dispute:

The neutrality or factuality of this article or section may be compromised by weasel words.
You can help Wikipedia by improving these statements.

[DOC]

I'm no US history expert, but I certainly do recognize some of these atheists' names below as pretty good Presidents. There must be some reason we get the birthdays of two of them off.

George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
John Adams
Abraham Lincoln
Ulysses S. Grant
Theodore Roosevelt



This is all off the cuff. So there may be a mistake or 2. Too tired to verify right now. Check it out and let me know if any are not correct.

Washington said morning and evening prayers. Also read his 1st inaugural address.

Jefferson claimed to be a Christian in a letter to Dr. B. Rush

Madison wrote laws with Jefferson about punishment for Sabbath breakers.

John Adams referred to himself as a church going animal.

Lincoln - Read his 2nd Inaugural address

Grant asked for prayers in Inaugural address and went to church with his wife.

Theodore Roosevelt taught Sunday School at one time.

[Ducky]

This is all off the cuff. So there may be a mistake or 2. Too tired to verify right now.

So it's the same as every other post you make?

Check it out and let me know if any are not correct.


Why? You ignored every correction we gave you in the Jefferson thread about these points.

[DOC]

quote by doc

This is all off the cuff. So there may be a mistake or 2. Too tired to verify right now. Check it out and let me know if any are not correct.

So it's the same as every other post you make?


Why? You ignored every correction we gave you in the Jefferson thread about these points.


You haven't responded to me in weeks. Now your first message has 2 falsehoods.

Don't you have any regard at all for credibility. It's really getting laughable. You as well as a few others are obviously on a search and destroy mission. People have got to ask themselves why is this so?

The first sentence is obviously false because I've given countless sources in the Jefferson thread. Jefferson's letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush for example. Also Ben Franklin's letter to Thomas Paine just to name a few.

The second sentence is also obviously false because I admitted the mistake with the Rotunda and also I admitted Kennedy got the time of Jefferson's mom death wrong and maybe 1 or 2 other minor things wrong. Still not a bad record I think for 300+ posts.

As I said before this is all getting to the point of being laughable. I must admit it was an annoyance at first. Now its just getting plain absurd. It really is laughable.

[Ducky]

You haven't responded to me in weeks. Now your first message has 2 falsehoods.

Don't you have any regard at all for credibility. It's really getting laughable. You as well as a few others are obviously on a search and destroy mission. People have got to ask themselves why is this so?

The first sentence is obviously false because I've given countless sources in the Jefferson thread. Jefferson's letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush for example. Also Ben Franklin's letter to Thomas Paine just to name a few.

The second sentence is also obviously false because I admitted the mistake with the Rotunda and also I admitted Kennedy got the time of Jefferson's mom death wrong and maybe 1 or 2 other minor things wrong. Still not a bad record I think for 300+ posts.

As I said before this is all getting to the point of being laughable. I must admit it was an annoyance at first. Now its just getting plain absurd. It really is laughable.


Who are you to expect I have hours upon hours to devote to your drivel alone? Sorry, ace, I had other pressing matters in my life and you don't even rank on my list of important things.

Secondly, You're right, you have become laughable. But you're wrong that it's a recent development.

Why don't you tell me what your point is in attempting to piece all of this nonsense together? You have yet to actually do that, instead replying with coyness and non-sequitur.

Get to the point, DOC.

[ImaginalDisc]

I don't. As long as you don't expect anything from me, like e.g. my vote. Keep bashing, keep blaming.

I personally dislike this kind of behaviour, because it's infantile and stupidely self-damaging. But, well, atheists here in Europe are not the most disgusted group around. It's your problem. Deal with it, or not. I don't care.

Herzblut

What amazing gal. You think it's unconscionably rude to theists, who claim that atheists and non-believers will burn in fiery torment for all eternity for failing to believe in claims about a sky-fairy, to claim those beliefs are silly and harmful.

I take it you'd vote for a Catholic, even though Catholicism teaches the whole Non-Catholics don't go to the magic happy land theory of the afterlife? You'd vote for a Muslim despite similar doctrines, surely?

Yet, you refeuse to vote any atheists because they ridicule those beleifs? Ridicule is worse than condemming people to eternal torment to you?

[ponderingturtle]

What amazing gal. You think it's unconscionably rude to theists, who claim that atheists and non-believers will burn in fiery torment for all eternity for failing to believe in claims about a sky-fairy, to claim those beliefs are silly and harmful.

I take it you'd vote for a Catholic, even though Catholicism teaches the whole Non-Catholics don't go to the magic happy land theory of the afterlife? You'd vote for a Muslim despite similar doctrines, surely?

Yet, you refeuse to vote any atheists because they ridicule those beleifs? Ridicule is worse than condemming people to eternal torment to you?

Look being told you will spend eternity is torment is so much nicer and more polite than being told you are a fool.

[Carnegiea]

It's possible to find guidance, meaning and inspiration in religion, but you can find those in a lot of other things, as well. Some kind of belief in a god (whether or not you join up with an organized religion) is a social norm in America, and American voters aren't comfortable with unorthodox political leaders. Belief in a god isn't necessarily a bad thing in a president. It becomes a bad thing when his duty to god comes before his duty to his country and the world.

[Beanbag]

The only thing this proves is that a majority of US citizens are bigoted morons.



Like that was news.
Hoss, the majority of the citizens of ANY nation are bigoted morons.



Like that was news.

Beanbag

Hey! I broke 1000 posts, and didn't even notice it. Milestone? Or millstone? You be the judge.

[Foster Zygote]

Hoss, the majority of the citizens of ANY nation are bigoted morons.



Like that was news.

Beanbag

Hey! I broke 1000 posts, and didn't even notice it. Milestone? Or millstone? You be the judge.

I like the way George Carlin put it:

"Think how dumb the average idiot is and then realize that half the population is dumber than that."

[tsg]

I like the way George Carlin put it:

"Think how dumb the average idiot is and then realize that half the population is dumber than that."

[extreme pendantry][pet peeve] "Average" is not the same as "median".[/pet peeve][/extreme pedantry]

[Beanbag]

"In further news, President Eisenhower was troubled to learn that half the nation reads below the average level."

It's pretty much obvious when you think about it, but not too many people actually take the time to think about it.

Beanbag

[DOC]

DOC are you upset that you'll never be president?

With Christians and Theists being in the vast majority I might have a shot. Send all donations to "DOC IN 08". And like Jefferson I'll allow voluntary and optional church services in government buildings. But unlike him I won't order the Marine band to play at the services.

[Cleon]

With Christians and Theists being in the vast majority I might have a shot.

Normally, at this point I would insert the laughing dog.

However, given the result of the last two presidential elections, I will instead reserve judgment. :boggled:

[tsg]

With Christians and Theists being in the vast majority I might have a shot.

You may be right. I don't consider that to be a good thing, though.

[SezMe]

It is my opinion an atheist could never be qualified to be president in a country where most of the citizens are Christian (like the US).
So, DOC, do you think a male could never be qualified to be president of the USA where, in fact, most of the citizens are female?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Don't you have any regard at all for credibility. It's really getting laughable.

I ask again seriously... what is it like to go through life without a sense of irony?

[RandFan]

Yes, to my knowledge, there has never been or can be a publicly admitted atheist president. In the land of "In God we Trust" it is just impossible in my opinion. Does it bother atheists to know they can never be president. Or maybe never be a Senator for that matter.I'm late to the party so forgive me.

There was a time when it was said that person of color could never be president.

Doc,

What bothers me is your arrogance and bigotry. Can you imagine the white trash ass who asks African American's if it bothers them that they can never be president?

Now you know what you look like.

[kmortis]

[extreme pendantry][pet peeve] "Average" is not the same as "median".[/pet peeve][/extreme pedantry]

Yet, median is a kind of average.
The statistical median is an order statistic that gives the "middle" value of a sample. More specifically, it is the value such that an equal number of samples are less than and greater than the value (for an odd sample size), or the average of the two central values (for an even sample size). The Mathematica command Median[list] can be used to find the statistical median of the elements in a list.
From (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Median.html)

Sorry, didn't mean to dera....**looks up at thread title and starter**...

AND ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT A MEDIAN ISN'T AN AVERGE IS A FRELLING MORON! Take THAT you, you....MODEISTS!

[RandFan]

It is my opinion an atheist could never be qualified to be president in a country where most of the citizens are Christian (like the US).Could an African American never be qualified to be president in a country where most of the citizens are white?

Could a Jew never be qualified to be president in a country where most of the citizens are Christian?

Do you know what bigotry is?
Do you know what ignorance is?
Considering the dramatic change the nation has gone through in 50 years do you really believe that America immune to change?

[kmortis]

Could an African American never be qualified to be president in a country where most of the citizens are white?

Could a Jew never be qualified to be president in a country where most of the citizens are Christian?

Do you know what bigotry is?
Do you know what ignorance is?
Considering the dramatic change the nation has gone through in 50 years do you really believe that America immune to change?

RF,
Have you read any of DOC's other threads? He won't answer. Really. He won't. He may type in words after a mangled quote box that contains your post, but it won't be an answer. I understand the point of "preaching to the lurkers" but they've been driven away by his insipid ramblings.

In the meantime, have a bunnycake.
:bunpan

[RandFan]

Yet, median is a kind of average. As one who creates statistical programs I can tell you that if median was the same as average I wouldn't have to code for it. "Kind of"? I suppose that one could say that and I think many would. Median is often near the average.

1,000,000
1,000,000
999,999
2
1

Median: 999,999
Mean (Average): 600,000
Mode: 1,000,000
Range: 999,999

How's that for pedantry?

[RandFan]

RF,
Have you read any of DOC's other threads? He won't answer. Really. He won't. He may type in words after a mangled quote box that contains your post, but it won't be an answer. I understand the point of "preaching to the lurkers" but they've been driven away by his insipid ramblings.

In the meantime, have a bunnycake.
:bunpan

I know. :) It's practice.

[kmortis]

"Kind of"? As one who creates statistical programs I can tell you that if median was the same as average I wouldn't have to code for it. "Kind of"? I suppose that one could say that and I think many would. Median is often near the average.

1,000,000
1,000,000
999,999
2
1

Median: 999,999
Mean (Average): 600,000
Mode: 1,000,000
Range: 999,999

How's that for pedantry?

* kmortis bows before the mad pedantitry skillz




modeist

[tsg]

Yet, median is a kind of average.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. The point is that half the population are not below average by definition, which is the joke.

The numbers: 1,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,10 have an average of 5.1. That puts 90% of them below average. By changing the smallest number to -1, the average is now 4.9 making 90% of them above average. Obviously a contrived example, but I think you would be hard pressed to find any statistical measurement of a population where exactly half of them are below average.

[kmortis]

I know. :) It's practice.
<sigh> I know. and all the good ones are gone. I even miss Iacchus

[RandFan]

* kmortis;2830753 bows before the mad pedantitry skillz
modeist:o

Suddenly I feel like Napolean Dynamite. Let's not make too much out of those skillz? ;)

[kmortis]

Why not? I can make a hat, or a broach, or a pterodactyl.....

[RandFan]

Why not? I can make a hat, or a broach, or a pterodactyl.....Looks like I picked a bad week to quit drinking.

[Hokulele]

Surely you can't be serious!

[kmortis]

Yes I am, and stop calling me "Shirley"!

[Ladewig]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. The point is that half the population are not below average by definition, which is the joke.

The numbers: 1,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,10 have an average of 5.1. That puts 90% of them below average. By changing the smallest number to -1, the average is now 4.9 making 90% of them above average. Obviously a contrived example, but I think you would be hard pressed to find any statistical measurement of a population where exactly half of them are below average.

In principle, I am against thread derailments, but given this particular thread, I see no reason to avoid them.

Aren't the mean and the median virtually identical when measuring the IQ of a population in the hundreds of millions? Also, wouldn't height be another example of the mean and the median being so close that they could be counted as being the same?

[SezMe]

DOC, I presume you would include a state Governor in your list of high governmental positions that would never be occupied by an atheist. If so, then you would be 100% wrong. The state of California had an avowed atheist as Governor in the period 1938 to 1943. Read all about it here (http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/roots/olson/).

RandFan, if you are not aware of the Honorable Governor Culbert L. Olson, you will enjoy reading the above link. He was raised in a strict Mormon family and community. He, like you, found reason on his own. Your lives have interesting parallels, although I'm not sure you are fated to follow Ahhhnold. :)

[RandFan]

Aren't the mean and the median virtually identical when measuring the IQ of a population in the hundreds of millions? Also, wouldn't height be another example of the mean and the median being so close that they could be counted as being the same?Talk about a potential can of worms. Short answer, given Normal Distribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution), yes. FTR, normal distribution is what we find again and again throughout the universe. It's not just IQ's and height but distribution of matter and density of sea foam.

[DOC]

When someone admits to believing that native americans are better off because of the christian conquestors, they destroy any chance of being considered a good, moral, trustworthy, decent, honorable person.


Joobz you do have a way of coming into my forums and changing topics, but than again you are a man on a mission. If you were talking about me, I never said what you attributed to me. And who knows what other falsehoods your saying about me in the thread you've devoted to me. I'm not going to go in there though because I'm too busy creating and posting in my own threads and if people want to know about me they can read my posts and threads 1st hand and not have to read about them 2nd hand in your thread.


As for as the topic of NA's go I believe some NA (Native Americans) are worse off and some are better off. Those better off are those who would have died as a result of human sacrifice, cannibalism and tribal warfare (which was common) if the West had not came.

From the Wiki article on Endemic Warfare

For example, at Crow Creek in South Dakota, archaeologists found a mass grave containing the remains of more than 500 men, women, and children who had been slaughtered, scalped, and mutilated during an attack on their village a century and a half before Columbus's arrival (ca. A.D. 1325).

One half of the people found in a Nubian cemetery dating to as early as 12,000 years ago had died of violence. The Yellowknives tribe in Canada was effectively obliterated by massacres committed by Dogrib Indians, and disappeared from history shortly thereafter. Similar massacres occurred among the Eskimos, the Crow Indians, and countless others. These mass killings occurred well before any contact with the West.

The accounts of missionaries to the area in the borderlands between Brazil and Venezuela have recounted constant infighting in the Yanomami tribes for women or prestige, and evidence of continuous warfare for the enslavement of neighboring tribes such as the Macu before the arrival of European settlers and government. More than a third of the Yanomamo males, on average, died from warfare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endemic_warfare

Now let's get back to this thread's topic before we were interrupted.

[Zep]

I have no chance of ever becoming president of the USA. Regardless of my religious beliefs.

[wollery]

You want endemic warfare?

Read a history of Europe.

Or China.

Or Africa.

Or Asia.

War is part of the human condition, and occurs wherever we go. Of course, for wholesale slaughter, and the killing of millions you have to look to the Christian Europeans as the absolute masters of the game. World War I is a prime example of this. A few thousand Native Americans? A drop in the Ocean compared to the millions that died in that war, which was waged between several Christian nations.

Do you really want to go on with this line of reasoning? A few thousand Native Americans died at the hands of their fellow Native Americans. Hundreds of thousands died at the hands of the European settlers, and more to the diseases they brought, a virtual genocide. Better off? Are you serious? Can you not do basic arithmetic?

[kmortis]

I have no chance of ever becoming president of the USA. Regardless of my religious beliefs.

That's only cause you have to be human, not a rept...fi...amph...rept...an axolotl.

[Foster Zygote]

Joobz you do have a way of coming into my forums and changing topics, but than again you are a man on a mission. If you were talking about me, I never said what you attributed to me. And who knows what other falsehoods your saying about me in the thread you've devoted to me. I'm not going to go in there though because I'm too busy creating and posting in my own threads and if people want to know about me they can read my posts and threads 1st hand and not have to read about them 2nd hand in your thread.


As for as the topic of NA's go I believe some NA (Native Americans) are worse off and some are better off. Those better off are those who would have died as a result of human sacrifice, cannibalism and tribal warfare (which was common) if the West had not came.

From the Wiki article on Endemic Warfare

For example, at Crow Creek in South Dakota, archaeologists found a mass grave containing the remains of more than 500 men, women, and children who had been slaughtered, scalped, and mutilated during an attack on their village a century and a half before Columbus's arrival (ca. A.D. 1325).

One half of the people found in a Nubian cemetery dating to as early as 12,000 years ago had died of violence. The Yellowknives tribe in Canada was effectively obliterated by massacres committed by Dogrib Indians, and disappeared from history shortly thereafter. Similar massacres occurred among the Eskimos, the Crow Indians, and countless others. These mass killings occurred well before any contact with the West.

The accounts of missionaries to the area in the borderlands between Brazil and Venezuela have recounted constant infighting in the Yanomami tribes for women or prestige, and evidence of continuous warfare for the enslavement of neighboring tribes such as the Macu before the arrival of European settlers and government. More than a third of the Yanomamo males, on average, died from warfare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endemic_warfare

Now let's get back to this thread's topic before we were interrupted.

Yeah, it sure was lucky for those savages that the peaceful Europeans showed up to civilize their world.

[Foster Zygote]

You want endemic warfare?

Read a history of Europe.

Or China.

Or Africa.

Or Asia.

War is part of the human condition, and occurs wherever we go. Of course, for wholesale slaughter, and the killing of millions you have to look to the Christian Europeans as the absolute masters of the game. World War I is a prime example of this. A few thousand Native Americans? A drop in the Ocean compared to the millions that died in that war, which was waged between several Christian nations.

Do you really want to go on with this line of reasoning? A few thousand Native Americans died at the hands of their fellow Native Americans. Hundreds of thousands died at the hands of the European settlers, and more to the diseases they brought, a virtual genocide. Better off? Are you serious? Can you not do basic arithmetic?

DOC even claimed that North America had been peaceful since the arrival of Europeans. The American Civil War alone was one of the bloodiest conflicts of the 19th century, not to mention the many other wars fought in North America by Europeans. Of course he also claimed that the Pilgrims had had a friendly relationship with the Wampanoag. And they did, right up to the point where the Europeans killed or drove off most of them.

[Herzblut]

If you consider my assertion to be an example of immature behavior, what words would you use to describe
George H.W. Bush when he said "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots"?
Insane.

But that does not excuse your words, does it?

Herzblut

[joobz]

Joobz you do have a way of coming into my forums and changing topics, but than again you are a man on a mission.
DOC,
I was happy a couple days ago, when you were honest in your posts in the "peter thread". to see this posting is a rather disappointing and sad step backwards for you.

Yes, I am a man on a mission. That mission is to obtain truth and honesty from you. When you behave like a fool, I'll treat you as such. When you behave like a honest human, I'll treat you with respect.

But, I did not change topics here. I was referring to the fact that you can be christian and horrible. That being christian isn't enough to be good enough for presidency.
If you were talking about me, I never said what you attributed to me. And who knows what other falsehoods your saying about me in the thread you've devoted to me. I'm not going to go in there though because I'm too busy creating and posting in my own threads and if people want to know about me they can read my posts and threads 1st hand and not have to read about them 2nd hand in your thread.

Perhaps you should check through the threads, you will see:
1.) I do not lie
2.) If I make a mistake, I apologize and correct it.
3.) My thread I started in your honor is frequented by others who have been updating the list of other "facts" you have been presenting. No one is fooled.
4.) You have never apologized for your baseless attacks on anyone.
5.) I have thanked you and treated you with respect when you have been honest and forthright (not too often, unfortunately).
6.) When you deserve it, I'll attack your character.
7.) My attacks are supported by your posts and arguments.

So do not claim any moral highground. You have not earned any credit to assume such. Your claim that I change topics is a dodge. You are(most of the time) afraid to answer me. You won't visit that thread because you are a coward. It has nothing to do with time.


You will find that the people here are rather intelligent and kind people. They do not suffer idiots, but will help people learn. Do a search for the thread "Atheism is a faith" that I started a year ago. You'll see that when I behaved like a fool, I was treated as such. When I behaved like a man, I was given the respect due.

[Lonewulf]

Reading Herzblut's posts as people quote him, I'm very glad he's on my ignore list.

He's about as logical as DOC... and as honest.

[DOC]

Why not?

The job of a president is to maintain the security, economic stability, educational & scientific standards of the country, and to maintain relations with other countries. Why can an atheist not do these things representing a secular country such as the US?

I won't consider the US secular as long as its motto is "In God We Trust".

Also I saw one website that said no US college has an atheist college president which kind of surprised me since it seems most atheists consider themselves intellectuals. The site did not give a source for that info. Maybe if someone knows if there is one let us know with a source.

[DOC]

Thomas Jefferson was the closest to being an atheist, and got called such in the contemporary press.

Then why did he write "We our endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights".

I have a feeling Evolutionary scientists do not believe the primordial soup endows us with inalienable rights.

[RandFan]

I won't consider the US secular as long as its motto is "In God We Trust".I don't think anyone is surprised by that at all. You seem to be the kind of guy that makes his mind up about something and doesn't care about evidence or reasoned argument.

The moto, "In God We Trust" does not a theocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy) make. It's a silly claim. The moto is such tiny fraction of our government. It's like saying that sea water is gold because sea water is, in part, gold (http://www.goldfever.com/gold_sea.htm).

[Hokulele]

DOC, would you vote for a Jewish candidate for president? How about a Muslim or a Hindi candidate?

[RandFan]

Then why did he write "We our endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights".

I have a feeling Evolutionary scientists do not believe the primordial soup endows us with inalienable rights.No but they might believe that the god of Spinoza and Einstein so endows us. I don't and I'm not sure that Jefferson would so believe it today.

[Foster Zygote]

I won't consider the US secular as long as its motto is "In God We Trust".
So the US was secular up to that point? I know you've been asked this question many times before, but, what is your point? Is your point that the framers of the US Constitution intended to establish Christianity as an authority in matters of state?

Also I saw one website that said no US college has an atheist college president which kind of surprised me since it seems most atheists consider themselves intellectuals. The site did not give a source for that info. Maybe if someone knows if there is one let us know with a source.
So what? Even if this is true (could you provide some evidence?) it does not mean that intellectuals are universally theistic. As you are implying that intellectuals tend to be theists, what do you have to say to this (http://www.wonderfulatheistsofcfl.org/Quotes.htm) or this (http://www.jmarkgilbert.com/atheists.html) or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists)?

[Foster Zygote]

Then why did he write "We our endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights".

I have a feeling Evolutionary scientists do not believe the primordial soup endows us with inalienable rights.

He was a deist. Deists believe that the complexity of the universe must indicate a creator. This was a common position for intellectuals prior to the scientific understanding of how complexity can be generated by natural forces when energy is applied to the system. However deists do not believe that the creator participates in the workings of the universe in any way. They do not believe that the creator hears our prayers or intercedes on our behalf. Deists do not believe that Jesus was the son of God or that he was in any way divine. They do not believe in any "one true faith".

[DOC]

i had always thought lincoln was a non believer if not a full blown atheist but i never really looked into it

People go through stages in life. Even I wasn't a believer in my early 20's. But you ought to read Lincoln's 2nd inaugural address sometime. Here is a excerpt of it from Wiki:

"Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether'.

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln's_second_inaugural_address

[RandFan]

{snipped} sorry

[DOC]

DOC, would you vote for a Jewish candidate for president? Muslim? Hindi? How far does your bigotry extend.

The candidate I vote for would have to believe in One and only One God.

[kmortis]

The candidate I vote for would have to believe in One and only One God.

Oh, Discordia. Cool

[Hokulele]

The candidate I vote for would have to believe in One and only One God.


So it wouldn't matter which god?

[kmortis]

So it wouldn't matter which god?

So long as there was just one of them. No pesky triune gods here. Morrigan, you're right out. Norns, gone. Janus, yer outta here.

[Miss Anthrope]

Long overdue in this thread.

2Lj7m37FbXo

[kmortis]

Then why did he write "We our endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights".

I have a feeling Evolutionary scientists do not believe the primordial soup endows us with inalienable rights.

COwarD,
Not reading well today, are we? There's a reason I said that he was the "closest thing" that we've seen to an atheist president. He wasn't an atheist, no matter how much John Fenno and Peter Porcupine tried to label him as such. He was a Deist earlier on, and "converted" to Unitarianism later on. Neither one has a terriblly strong fundamentalist bend.

Also, he was strongly influenced by John Locke. IIRC, the "endowed by our Creator" line was lifted from Locke himself, or something very much like it. Besides, it sounds better than "we are endowed by a random fluctuation of probability fields".

Besides, many, many atheists still use religious language because it's part of the lingua franca of their culture. I still use "goddamnit" and "Jesus Christ!" when I need a quick invective. I've tried invoking the name of the Buddha, but "Guatma Siddartha!" just doesn't roll off the tounge.

[RandFan]

The candidate I vote for would have to believe in One and only One God.Yes, faith, a non-empirical concept, requires strict adherence to details that it can't possibly account for.

My fairytale is more true than your fairytale because I have faith that it is.

Ya gotta love the chutzpa of believers. Then we have a poster named Bri who swears up and down that there are few if any believers that are so dogmatic. They all just hope that their view is the correct one.

[DOC]

Not voting for someone who is well-qualifed because that person has a characteristic not shared by you is, in my opinion, most assuredly small-minded.

Well, having an atheist president would create some embarrassing situations. For example the White House Christmas tree lighting ceremony. I couldn't see an atheist president turning the lights on. And how about the celebration of the basically Christian US holiday of Thanksgiving.

Also the remembrance of the 911 victims was done in a big ceremony at the National Cathedral where the president spoke. That would be awkward.

[tsg]

Well, having an atheist president would create some embarrassing situations. For example the White House Christmas tree lighting ceremony. I couldn't see an atheist president turning the lights on. And how about the celebration of the basically Christian US holiday of Thanksgiving.

Also the remembrance of the 911 victims was done in a big ceremony at the National Cathedral where the president spoke. That would be awkward.

Assuming any of this is true (it's not, but just for the sake of argument), this is the best you have? Having an atheist president might be "awkward" at some public functions? Thank god you told me or I might have voted for one.

[tsg]

In principle, I am against thread derailments, but given this particular thread, I see no reason to avoid them.

This thread was derailed with the OP.

Aren't the mean and the median virtually identical when measuring the IQ of a population in the hundreds of millions? Also, wouldn't height be another example of the mean and the median being so close that they could be counted as being the same?

Sure, but it's not necessary. The joke is told as though the person who is concerned that "half are below average" doesn't understand what an average is. The assumption is that half will necessarily be below average by definition, and it isn't true. Yes, for the most part it does happen to be true, but that doesn't make the joke work. Yes, it is also extremely pedantic, but I did say it was.

[RandFan]

Well, having an atheist president would create some embarrassing situations. For example the White House Christmas tree lighting ceremony. I couldn't see an atheist president turning the lights on. :D OMG, can you just imagine an atheist lighting a pagan symbol used to celebrate Christ?

And how about the celebration of the basically Christian US holiday of Thanksgiving. Yep, that would be offensive to all of those Christian native Americans we so dutifully slaughtered. Good one.

Also the remembrance of the 911 victims was done in a big ceremony at the National Cathedral where the president spoke. That would be awkward.Ok, I give up, we can't have a president that doesn't absolutely represent every denomination like pagans, Jews and Muslims, oh, wait, they are minorities. Never mind.

[strathmeyer]

Joobz you do have a way of coming into my forums and changing topics, but than again you are a man on a mission. If you were talking about me, I never said what you attributed to me. And who knows what other falsehoods your saying about me in the thread you've devoted to me. I'm not going to go in there though because I'm too busy creating and posting in my own threads and if people want to know about me they can read my posts and threads 1st hand and not have to read about them 2nd hand in your thread.

DOC, where is your forum? I'd like to go there to disrupt you.

You do realize that we read your posts and can therefor tell for ourselves whether or not you said what he attributes to you? You keep expecting people to live in the same fantasy world that you do. If you stopped doing that, you may feel less antagonized.

We have read your posts and threads, and that is why we are posing questions to you. Your lack of answers says a lot about you.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Well, having an atheist president would create some embarrassing situations. For example the White House Christmas tree lighting ceremony. I couldn't see an atheist president turning the lights on. And how about the celebration of the basically Christian US holiday of Thanksgiving.

Or, maybe he or she would spending that time running the country rather than wasting it with meaningless holiday photo-ops.

Also the remembrance of the 911 victims was done in a big ceremony at the National Cathedral where the president spoke. That would be awkward.

Why? Do atheists melt or burst into flame when they enter a church? Is this some sort of vampire thing*?

*Hey, if he believes in God; ghosts, vampires, werewolves, and other ghoulies can't be too far fetched for the likes of DOC.

[UnrepentantSinner]

The candidate I vote for would have to believe in One and only One God.

Really, because according to the Jews and Muslims, you believe in Three. So you'd only vote for a Jew or Muslim?

Interesting.

[Miss Anthrope]

Well, having an atheist president would create some embarrassing situations.

Because the current sitting Christian president certainly hasn't embarrassed the nation?!?!

For example the White House Christmas tree lighting ceremony. I couldn't see an atheist president turning the lights on.

I'm an atheist. I'm half Jewish. I light a menorah and the lights on a tree. It's about cultural traditions. You know, the tree is a cultural tradition that has nothing to do with Christ.

And how about the celebration of the basically Christian US holiday of Thanksgiving.

Please see Randfan above. Covered it nicely.

Also the remembrance of the 911 victims was done in a big ceremony at the National Cathedral where the president spoke. That would be awkward.

Atheists are not uncomfortable attending functions like weddings and funerals in churches. This is a big so what?

Personally, I look for such trivial and unimportant qualities such as diplomacy, a good foreign policy strategy, the ability to select a good cabinet.........I had no idea I should worry about such major things like lighting trees and whether to give thanks for the turkey buffet.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Then why did he write "We our endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights".

We don't get our rights from the Declaration of Indepenance or its reference to a Deistic "devine provinance." We find them enumerated in the godless Constitution.

I have a feeling Evolutionary scientists do not believe the primordial soup endows us with inalienable rights.

No, they feel, like most sane people, that our rights are enumerated in the godless Constituion.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Personally, I look for such trivial and unimportant qualities such as diplomacy, a good foreign policy strategy, the ability to select a good cabinet.........I had no idea I should worry about such major things like lighting trees and whether to give thanks for the turkey buffet.

DOCs, er... "concerns" exhibit the child-like Weltanaschauung he seems to exhibit when it comes to almost every thing he discusses. To him, as it would be to a child, it's tremendously important that the President attend weekly prayer breakfasts, and he can't possibly imagine how an atheist could to that without making a big stink or even allow them to continue with the Cabinet/staff if the President didn't attend.

[Zep]

So here's a question, US: Is DOC a child perhaps?

[UnrepentantSinner]

BTW Big D, I still feel like an arse for misrecollecting your name the other night. I don't know where I got "Marc" from. :doh:

So here's a question, US: Is DOC a child perhaps?

People can post anything the want on the Internet, but I'm going to give this statement the benefit of the doubt...

People go through stages in life. Even I wasn't a believer in my early 20's. But you ought to read Lincoln's 2nd inaugural address sometime. Here is a excerpt of it from Wiki:

... and describe him as "child-like".

I mean an actual child would know that "threads" aren't "forums" and how to properly use the quote button. ;)

[kmortis]

I'm an atheist. I'm half Jewish. I light a menorah and the lights on a tree. It's about cultural traditions. You know, the tree is a cultural tradition that has nothing to do with Christ.

Plus, as I've already described, Jesus hates trees. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1330600#post1330600)

[DOC]

Assuming any of this is true (it's not, but just for the sake of argument), this is the best you have? Having an atheist president might be "awkward" at some public functions?

No, the best I have is that "he/she would be an atheist president". It just won't happen. Not, in my lifetime anyway. Maybe, not even a publicly admitted atheist Senator. I not saying this to put anybody down, I'm just talking reality.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC
So would you say Congress was irrational when they made the phrase "In God We Trust" the official motto of the United States in 1956.



Irrational?

Well...That was adopted not out of any religious adherence so much as Cold War-era propaganda showing up those "godless commies." This was the same reason that "under God" was inserted into the up-until-then secular Pledge of Allegiance.

So maybe "irrational" isn't the right word, so much as "completely insane."

OK, so your on record as saying that the United States Congress might have acted completely insane.

But what I'm curious about is what did you exactly mean by the phrase "showing up".

[RandFan]

No, the best I have is that "he/she would be an atheist president". It just won't happen. Not, in my lifetime anyway. Maybe, not even a publicly admitted atheist Senator. I not saying this to put anybody down, I'm just talking reality.Not 50 years ago many people declared that blacks would not be president in THEIR lifetimes. It's now a very real possiblity. Times change and often they change much quicker than we can anticipate. Your bigotry doesn't simply make you a small person it blinds you to possibilities.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by DOC
So would you say Congress was irrational when they made the phrase "In God We Trust" the official motto of the United States in 1956.I would say that they were reactionary and acted irrational. Not at all uncommon among humans.

[DOC]

Not 50 years ago many people declared that blacks would not be president in THEIR lifetimes. It's now a very real possiblity. Times change and often they change much quicker than we can anticipate. Your bigotry doesn't simply make you a small person it blinds you to possibilities.

Well then the US Congress must have been bigoted and small persons when they made "In God we Trust" our national motto. Because they surely knew there were atheists in the country.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC
No, the best I have is that "he/she would be an atheist president". It just won't happen. Not, in my lifetime anyway. Maybe, not even a publicly admitted atheist Senator. I not saying this to put anybody down, I'm just talking reality.

Not 50 years ago many people declared that blacks would not be president in THEIR lifetimes. It's now a very real possiblity. Times change and often they change much quicker than we can anticipate.


Yea, but those people didn't make our national motto, "In Whites We Trust".

[Hokulele]

Since DOC appears to have missed this, let's try again.

The candidate I vote for would have to believe in One and only One God.


So it wouldn't matter which god?

[RandFan]

Well then the US Congress must have been bigoted and small persons when they made "In God we Trust" our national motto. Because they surely knew there were atheists in the country.They acted in a small manner. They put nationalism above reason. And, BTW, you are appealing to authority.

[DOC]

I mean an actual child would know that "threads" aren't "forums" and how to properly use the quote button. ;)

Well actually for many years I was involved in discussions using another medium and the word forum was constantly used to describe those discussions so it was a hard habit to break.

And this thread if it just existed by itself could be described as a forum. I'm relatively new to the computer game and didn't even know how to copy and paste when I came on to Randi. I'm a late bloomer, I guess, but it least it gave some of you an opening to attack the messenger -- so you should be grateful for that.

[RandFan]

Yea, but those people didn't make our national motto, "In Whites We Trust".What exactly is this supposed to prove?

[Hokulele]

They acted in a small manner. They put nationalism above reason. And, BTW, you are appealing to authority.


He tends to alternate between that and appeals to popularity. I am assuming popularity is next.

[RandFan]

He tends to alternate between that and appeals to popularity. I am assuming popularity is next.I wouldn't be surprised.

[Carnegiea]

It's not like Congress has never passed bigoted and discriminatory legislation. For instance, there was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which stood for 60 years. I'll leave you to guess at what that law was all about.

[DOC]

They acted in a small manner. They put nationalism above reason.


God doesn't have anything to do with nationalism. Nazi Germany was very nationalistic.

[Hokulele]

I wouldn't be surprised.


Whoops! We were wrong, it looks like he took a Godwin turn instead.

[RandFan]

God doesn't have anything to do with nationalism. Nazi Germany was very nationalistic.:rolleyes: Ignorance on parade.


Non sequitur. One statement doesn't have anything to do with the other.
In any event the assumption is wrong. Hitler used religious rhetoric and iconography in his nationalism movement."God does not make cowardly nations free." -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

"God is with us" -- Adolf Hitler

Photographic proof. (http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm)

[RandFan]

Whoops! We were wrong, it looks like he took a Godwin turn instead.Not really in this case. Godwin predicts a comparison to Hitler or Nazism and not a counter example.

But that's ok, he's demonstrably wrong and ignorant of history anyway. The church was huge part of German Nationalism. :)

[Hokulele]

Not really in this case. Godwin predicts a comparison to Hitler or Nazism and not a counter example.

But that's ok, he's demonstrably wrong and ignorant of history anyway. The church was huge part of German Nationalism. :)


Whoops again! You are right. On both counts. ;)

[strathmeyer]

Well actually for many years I was involved in discussions using another medium and the word forum was constantly used to describe those discussions so it was a hard habit to break.

Oh? What medium was that?

And this thread if it just existed by itself could be described as a forum. I'm relatively new to the computer game and didn't even know how to copy and paste when I came on to Randi. I'm a late bloomer, I guess, but it least it gave some of you an opening to attack the messenger -- so you should be grateful for that.

If you want to get along in society perhaps you should learn the difference between an attack and a correction.

[Cleon]

God doesn't have anything to do with nationalism. Nazi Germany was very nationalistic.

And they too had a motto: Gott mit uns.

[DOC]

Since DOC appears to have missed this, let's try again.




So it wouldn't matter which god?


I believe Jews and Muslims have a partial knowledge of God but not a complete knowledge. A partial knowledge and belief in God is better than none. Once again I'm not putting atheists down, if they are truly sincere in their beliefs. But I also believe you'll never be truly happy (or a peace) until you find God's will for your life. I mean how many times have you heard someone say I thought this would make me happy but after I got it I still felt empty. Christians believe that only by finding God's will for your life will you have peace.

I believe this also goes for societies. A society can be out of God's will and will eventually pay a price in such things as crime, poverty, environmental problems etc.

This is why I believe the "atheistic" USSR collapsed.

[RandFan]

And they too had a motto: Gott mit uns.I'm guessing Doc is not to hip on translators (http://babelfish.altavista.com/).

DOC, copy the text, go to this site, past the text in the "Translate a block of text field" and choose German to English. I think you will be surprised.

[SezMe]

But that's ok, he's demonstrably wrong and ignorant of history anyway.
Indeed, and part of that ignorance extends to the Cold War. DOC, do a little reading about the Cold War, godless communism, and the fevered competition between competing political systems. Many, many ignorant actions were taken in the name of the USA, capitalism, etc. Joe McCarthy is one example. Changing the motto and coinage are others. If you take the time to understand the context of these changes, you'll be able to make better judgments about such matters.

[Hokulele]

I believe Jews and Muslims have a partial knowledge of God but not a complete knowledge. A partial knowledge and belief in God is better than none. Once again I'm not putting atheists down, if they are truly sincere in their beliefs. But I also believe you'll never be truly happy (or a peace) until you find God's will for your life. I mean how many times have you heard someone say I thought this would make me happy but after I got it I still felt empty. Christians believe that only by finding God's will for your life will you have peace.

I believe this also goes for societies. A society can be out of God's will and will eventually pay a price in such things as crime, poverty, environmental problems etc.

This is why I believe the "atheistic" USSR collapsed.


If this is the case, I feel very sorry for you, as your narrow world view will force you to miss much of value in diversity. You will never enjoy travel, learning about new cultures, or learning facts in history that may not support your views. This is, in my mind, a true loss.

And with that said, I will bow out of DOC's threads, as it is clear that he will never find value in the perspectives and life lessons others would try to share with him. Sad.