In America, atheists are still in the closet

There are 20 comments on the Apr 11, 2012, Spiked story titled In America, atheists are still in the closet. In it, Spiked reports that:

So do many other interest and identity groups. Complaint is our political lingua franca: it's what Occupiers, Tea Partiers, Wall Street titans, religious and irreligious people share.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Spiked.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#39199 Sep 28, 2012
SupaAFC wrote:
Nope; you are a dishonest sham who picks and chooses which laws to interpret literally
HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAH!

Oh, yes, Lamb Chop... I do tend to interpret laws literally.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
(quote)
lit·er·al·ly/ˈlit ərəl&#27 5;/
Adverb: In a literal manner or sense; exactly: "the driver took it literally when asked to go straight over the traffic circle"

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#39200 Sep 28, 2012
SupaAFC wrote:
-That- is why you keep running away from the presidential election because you -know- that the twelth amendment of the Constitution declares that the Electoral College votes for the president; not the people.
We vote for representatives who vote for the people vote for the President and the VIce President, yes, Lamb Chops.

Compared to the Church of England who appoint members to the Parliament: you have no voice, none.

Compare to the monarch: when did you get to vote for her, Lamb Chop.

If you go back though this thread, you will see I said we voted for electors; I never said we voted directly for the President/VP. When I say I vote for (e.g.) Obama, what that means is I vote and my neighbor votes and the guy across the street votes and they total up all the votes that are cast in my state, and then they are used to chose the electors who then award my vote to the person who got the most votes in my state... the exact legal nature of this decided in fifty different ways... ah, I beg your pardon, 51 different ways.

In shorthand, when Americans say they voted for Obama (e.g.) rather than follow that with a paragraph explaining how that vote ended up in the Obama column... we say "I voted for Obama".

Compared to... you not getting to vote at all for those who are appointed in the House of Lords.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#39201 Sep 28, 2012
SupaAFC wrote:
It is the exact same argument that you use regarding the Queen.
It is not anything like that.

It's like when you get confused by the word "literally" and mixed it up with the word "figuratively".

I expect you to be explaining soon you meant literally in a figurative sense.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#39202 Sep 28, 2012
SupaAFC wrote:
-That- is why you keep running away from the presidential election because you -know- that the twelth amendment of the Constitution declares that the Electoral College votes for the president; not the people.
And next you will be saying it isn't the electoral college that votes for the president, it is the voting machines that vote for the president.

Tell me: what input did you have in the election of Queen Elizabeth?

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#39203 Sep 28, 2012
What ifs do not matter what is does matter. We still have laws in some US states forbidding a non believer from holding office. Fact.

But believe whatever the voices tell you to.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>It's moot.

If the state of Alabama had a law saying it was legal to own slaves, do tell me: what would be the impact of such a law?
Fuddle

Burbank, CA

#39204 Sep 28, 2012
Listen to this crap that Obama is spreading about Athiests, this offends me ALOT!:

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#39206 Sep 28, 2012
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Hehehe.
Snap.
Lol

I know that the US federal system trumps the power of these state laws in very much the same way that our system trumps the power of the monarch.

I just posted the links to show the hypocrisy of barefoot.

He claims that our monarch's power is unchecked and that she can, of her volition, dissolve parliament without the consent of government. That's the same as me claiming that those state laws are unchecked and that they discriminate against atheists. Except that unlike barefoot, I'm not hypocritical enough to actually claim something like that.

Over many centuries, our system of laws and enactments have developed in various ways, one of which checks the power of the monarch. These days the Queen is little more than a figurehead that remains in place for reasons relating to tradition, culture and silly ceremony.

Of course the US constitution is there to protect America. Good job it's there, because without it the USA would probably become a theocracy.

We have no need of a constitution that keeps religion at bay. Levels of religion over here are nowhere near the fever pitch that they are in America.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#39207 Sep 28, 2012
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
And as the old saying goes, actions speak louder than words.
You know fully well what I mean with reality. In reality, outwith the words of the law, the Prime Minister pays lip service to a Queen who is nothing more than a figurehead. He, not her, decides when the Parliament will be dissolved.
But of course, based on your own logic, the Constitution of the United States, amendment twelve, clearly states that the Electoral College shall convene within their respective States to vote for the president and his running mate.
There is no mention of the people anywhere. Just the College.
Conclusion? The Electoral College vote for the president of the United States.
Interesting.

So who gets to be President is not determined by the votes of millions of Americans.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#39208 Sep 29, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol
I know that the US federal system trumps the power of these state laws in very much the same way that our system trumps the power of the monarch.
LOL.

The power of the Parliament does not trump the power of the Monarchy.

No matter how hard you stomp your hooves.

KowKow insisted the last mo0narch to dismiss the Parliament without their "consent" was beheaded; Edward VII dissolved the Parliament in 1910 and as of yet I cannot find where he was beheaded.

The fact remains: the power to dissolve the Parliament rests with the monarchy.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#39209 Sep 29, 2012
Khatru wrote:
Over many centuries, our system of laws and enactments have developed in various ways, one of which checks the power of the monarch.
And yet the fact remains the monarch can dissolve the Parliament for any reason whatsoever.

If that was not so, you would have posted proof five days ago.

This power is not "checked", it resides with the monarch.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#39210 Sep 29, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting.
So who gets to be President is not determined by the votes of millions of Americans.
It is.

AS we noted before: you have problems with the English language.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#39211 Sep 29, 2012
Khatru wrote:
We have no need of a constitution that keeps religion at bay.
Brits are subjects, not citizens. Subjects do not "need" a constitution because they serve the monarch and the government; as American citizens, our rights are defined and guaranteed and the government serves us.

If the Brits could keep religion at bay, they would not have a STATE RELIGION and they would not have a law requiring Christian collective worship in tax funded schools.

If Brits could keep religion at bay, their taxes would not go to pay for religious broadcast, and the state church would not be appointing members to their Parliament.

And their head of state would not be the head of the state religion.

The USA is of course a secular state where our constitution forbids the establishment of a state church.

The UK of course, is not; a state church is defined by law.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#39212 Sep 29, 2012
Fuddle wrote:
Listen to this crap that Obama is spreading about Athiests, this offends me ALOT!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =yPHQQzh17skXX
Not one word in there about Atheists ... watch it again. He was going after the Catholics like everyone else.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#39213 Sep 29, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually... I am not sure anyone knows what you mean.
I am a linear thinker, one thing follows the other in a straigh line.
It is the law that the monarch and only the monarch has the power to dissolve Parliament.
You waving your arms about doesn't change this law. There is no asterisks at the end saying "well... this law doesn't really count".
Pardon if I skip over stuff you have said fifteen times already today... I opened a five gallon can of paint...
Wouldn't pedantic and "linear thinker" mean pretty much the same thing?

“Jesus is Love”

Since: Jul 12

Hutchinson, MN

#39214 Sep 29, 2012
Why do atheists insist on being dishonest with themselves?

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#39215 Sep 29, 2012
Just Results wrote:
Why do atheists insist on being dishonest with themselves?
I ask myself that all the time. Wait ... no I don't.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#39216 Sep 29, 2012
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
Wouldn't pedantic and "linear thinker" mean pretty much the same thing?
Imagine where you could have gone in life if you hadn't peaked in the ninth grade?

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#39217 Sep 29, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting.
So who gets to be President is not determined by the votes of millions of Americans.
It is but isn't the winner of a state takes all the electoral votes
despite the fact the some of the counties voted for the other guy.

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

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#39218 Sep 29, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
It is but isn't the winner of a state takes all the electoral votes
despite the fact the some of the counties voted for the other guy.
That is how elections in democracy work: people chose. When winner takes all:(and this is the tricky part) they win all.

Compare to the "election" in the UK Parliament where members are APPOINTED, particularly, appointed by the Church of England.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#39219 Sep 29, 2012
[QUOTE who="Aura Mytha"...
despite the fact the some of the counties voted for the other guy..
[/QUOTE]

Imagine a state that votes 60/40 for a governor(s) and one gets to be governor... 60 percent of the time... the other 40...

If you are uncomfortable with the election concept, you should move to a country that appoints people to the legislature based on connections to the head of state... a hereditary basis... or what position they have within the state church.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 24 min James 238,111
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 39 min prophecydotorg 7,407
News The Consequences of Atheism 2 hr QUITTNER Apr 26 2015 1,318
News Who is an atheist? (May '10) 3 hr Freebird USA 9,329
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Zog Has-fallen 18,691
News Atheists open up: What they want you to know 21 hr Liam R will return 31
News Confessions of a black atheist 21 hr Peaks 399
More from around the web