Come out of your closet and take your licks. How can you back an explicitly pro-religion party that thinks women are second-class citizens, chattels of their husbands and The State, and who favors widening the gap between the rich and non-rich even more?

Views: 3646

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Oddly enough the original intent of the Tea Party was to get the Republicans to _actually_ focus on fiscal conservatism, instead of just paying it lip service.

Depending on the local organization, of course, hijackings of the Tea Party occurred; there were "Abortion Is The Only Thing That Matters" pukes waiting in the wings from day one, for their opportunity to take over.

Now it appears that, "No Obama Second Term" is the uniting agenda. It would be interesting to see how the make-up changes, should Obama be reelected.

We can all make sure that this happens by simply voting for the democrats (or, at least, against republicans) until the republicans get the message and get rid of the crazies.

It always puzzles me, the word atheist simply means non-theist and yet forums or (fora if you prefer) with the formal word Atheist in the title seem to contain many contributions which attach the contributors personal ideology to the word.

This thread for example starts off implying that if one chooses to wear the label "Atheist" then one is automatically not a Republican (another label), this type of logic further implies there are no Theist Democrats, which as I said is puzzling.

Given that the current republican party is the party of theocracy, it would be insane for an atheist to support them.  Consequently, it is logical to assume that most atheists do not support them.  This does not at all imply that there are no theist democrats.

As the original poster, let me comment (not that you can stop me).

You say 'This thread for example starts off implying that if one chooses to wear the label "Atheist" then one is automatically not a Republican (another label),...'

but since you are talking implications rather than overt statements, wasn't the implication there elliptically that "Since today the Republican Party is so overtly pro-religion, why would an atheist be Republican."

As for the Democrats, sure, a majority of them would probably claim to be religions, BUT they don't want turn the U.S. into a virtual theocracy.

RE: "(not that you can stop me)" - don't we ALL know that --?

I am not American, but do pay some attention to US politics. For myself, I could not vote for a party whose platform contained the premise of "god". Even if there were other principles and ideals that appealed to me, or my vision for the direction the policies of my nation needed to go in, that premise would be a dealbreaker. I think a person (voter) can reasonably assume that if an idea is important enough to a party to be part of their official platform, it will come into play regarding the formation of policies.

Maybe I am guilty of bigotry towards the religious, however, I could not respect a leader who professed to believe in a higher power, ergo refuting logic and reason. I also believe there are many Atheist politicians, who would never admit so, as it would be considered political suicide.

@paradigm - that's not even the most ridiculous part - Google the Mormon religion, THEN come back and we will share a great laugh over how such a gullible, deluded nincompoop could possibly hope to run a country!


I have been laughing since he received the nomination, however the trend of growth in the Mormon religion is no laughing matter. I find it scary.

It has mainstreamed enough that a presidential nominee adheres, and is presumably accepted upon that premise, at least enough to secure(until recent bungles) almost half the electoral votes. Maybe the US is only 50 years away from a Scientologist nominee, something I would have thought downright impossible 10 years ago

This, from the Totally Off-Topic Department (look it up!):


Jury hears Los Angeles chef say how he cooked wife
Associated Press – Wed, Sep 19, 2012

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A chef won't take the stand in his own defense in a trial where he's accused of killing his wife and then cooking her body for four days in boiling water to get rid of the evidence, according to his attorney.

(I can't seem to get that Campbel's Soup tune out of my head --)

Was she a young and tender thing? Were Fava beans somehow included? LOL


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service