In America, atheists are still in the closet

Apr 11, 2012 Full story: Spiked 47,711

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.

Read more

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44740 Dec 14, 2012
X Obama Supporter wrote:
Atheist are not in any "closet". They are running all over the country trying to find communities that can't afford law suits, schools, companies, and anyone else that is in no position to hire lawyers and spend thousands in court trying to defend themselves from the atheist whining that some cross is "offending" them
Most Americans understand the concept of 'freedom of religion' and separation of church and state. When religaholics try to foist their iconography on the rest of us, we here in the US have a normal path to have them removed legally, rather than the quicker resolution that occurs to many of us.

You want to put a cross up on your property, have a blast.

Don't try to put in on my property and state property is my property.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44741 Dec 14, 2012
X Obama Supporter wrote:
They are the biggest whiners I've ever heard of in my life. Offended by a cross, any symbol of religious belief, or any symbol of Christmas other than the "Santa" side of it.
Put them on your lawn, not on mine.
X Obama Supporter

Coffeyville, KS

#44742 Dec 14, 2012
Thinking wrote:
My eyesight is rather important to me so I try not to stick anything in my eyes.
I suggest you follow my friendly advice.
<quoted text>
Oh I'm sorry...I didn't realize I was posting to "special needs", I of course meant my eyesight. Is that better sweety?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44743 Dec 14, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
What has showing you do be a cocksucker got to do with temper?
Between the two of us, Skanque: you are the one that has had them banging against the back of the throat.

Temper, temper!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44744 Dec 14, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
I have never met you so donít notice the stains
I am sure you don't take names and I guess where your head is at never see faces.... and guys are reluctant to kiss after that.

Hey, but we appreciate everything you do, Honey.
X Obama Supporter

Coffeyville, KS

#44745 Dec 14, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Put them on your lawn, not on mine.
Gee, I guess that makes it my lawn as well, if it's state lawn that is. So I assume the problem is that atheist have over time become more sensitive. I'm sorry to hear that, it must make life so much more difficult. To be offended by something you don't even believe in is really difficult to understand.
Most people can just go on with their life knowing that a symbol for something you don't believe in sitting on the lawn of the local municipal building isn't changing their lives in the least. It doesn't take anything away from you and it won't change your day to day life in any way. So they don't bother with it or waste their time whining about something simply because they might have to look at something they don't agree with or like. Hell, just don't look at it if it offends you. Why make things so difficult over something that only effects your view if you choose to look at it. Some people believe in it and some people like it and then some just don't care that much. Not atheist.....no you're a sensitive bunch. If you don't like it and it bothers your view you get lawyers and spend all kinds of money to get it removed from your view. Effective I suppose, kind of stupid and childish, but effective.
Just doesn't make sense to be offended by something you don't even believe in. If you think it's all fiction then why even care? I mean I read fairy tales to my children, I didn't believe they were true, but I read them anyway. I didn't try to get fairytale books banned from libraries or stores or anything. If they offended me I just wouldn't have bought or read them. Seems pretty simple. Of course I'm not atheist so I'm not real sensitive I guess.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44746 Dec 14, 2012
X Obama Supporter wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee, I guess that makes it my lawn as well, if it's state lawn that is.
So you have cause for alarm should I insist that I want to erect a large lit swastika between the cross and the menorah.

Here's a thought: keep them all off the court house lawn.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44747 Dec 14, 2012
X Obama Supporter wrote:
I don't run around finding empty spaces crying "oh no, that is atheist, it's empty, it stands for and believes in nothing.
And you are thinking that this argument makes sense, eh?

If you want to live in a country that has an establish Christian state religion where no one objects to religious iconography on 'public' space, move to England.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44748 Dec 14, 2012
X Obama Supporter wrote:
Most people can just go on with their life knowing that a symbol for something you don't believe in sitting on the lawn of the local municipal building isn't changing their lives in the least.
I guess you aren't an American.

When did you move here? Help me understand so I can better address this 'question'- from where did you move?

Let me erect my religious symbol next to yours- some... municipalities... try to 'offset' the objections of citizens have to religious iconography by making space for 'everyone', so you put up your cross, and next to it... I put up my swastika.

Can you just go on with your life knowing that a symbol for something you don't believe in sitting on the lawn of the local municipal building isn't changing your life in the least?

PS: I would object in either case.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44749 Dec 14, 2012
X Obama Supporter wrote:
Just doesn't make sense to be offended by something you don't even believe in.
Swastika.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44750 Dec 14, 2012
X Obama Supporter wrote:
Of course I'm not atheist so I'm not real sensitive I guess.
Of course, some of us are offended as Americans, not as Christians or atheists or Jews or Muslims.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#44751 Dec 14, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said.
Dolt.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#44752 Dec 14, 2012
Why is your eyesight affected by crosses?
X Obama Supporter wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I'm sorry...I didn't realize I was posting to "special needs", I of course meant my eyesight. Is that better sweety?
SupaAFC

Sheffield, UK

#44753 Dec 14, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
No one said you would be able to admit you were wrong, SuperFAG.
So says the person who has never admitted to being wrong, ever, and resorts to ad homs when backed into a corner.

Case in point: now.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Review: Macmillan APPOINTED by Elizabeth, no election, none, WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Your problem, Barefoot, is that when you find a unique case you run to the thread and trumpet victory without looking for contradictions to your argument.

When JFK died, he was replaced by Johnson. No election, none, WAHHHHHHH!

When Nixon resigned, he was replaced by Ford. No election, none, WAHHHHH!

There are two presidential examples from your own country which were just an undemocratically-elected as Macmillan.

Here is your cue to start special pleading even though it follows your exact same logic. Go ahead, manchild; refuse to accept that you are wrong again.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44754 Dec 14, 2012
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
So says the person who has never admitted to being wrong, ever, and resorts to ad homs when backed into a corner.
HAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA HAH!

You need more stones, SuperFag?

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#44755 Dec 14, 2012
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
So says the person who has never admitted to being wrong, ever, and resorts to ad homs when backed into a corner.
Case in point: now.
<quoted text>
Your problem, Barefoot, is that when you find a unique case you run to the thread and trumpet victory without looking for contradictions to your argument.
When JFK died, he was replaced by Johnson. No election, none, WAHHHHHHH!
When Nixon resigned, he was replaced by Ford. No election, none, WAHHHHH!
There are two presidential examples from your own country which were just an undemocratically-elected as Macmillan.
Here is your cue to start special pleading even though it follows your exact same logic. Go ahead, manchild; refuse to accept that you are wrong again.
one could make the case that Johnson (both LBJ and Andrew) were hoisted to the Office of the Presidency democratically, as both were elected to the Vice Presidency....

However, your point about Ford is true in a sense, as he was selected by Nixon after Agnew resigned. However, he was confirmed by Congress, so there was some semblance of Democracy......

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44756 Dec 14, 2012
SupaAFC wrote:
Your problem, Barefoot, is that when you find a unique case
Not a unique case, SuperFag: a recent example.

I have offered you another case of the UK monarch APPOINTING a PM who did not go through the "election" process.

Putting aside you skipped over the FACT that Macmillian did not go through the election process: as I said.

I provide another example and you stop posting on this thread.

Since I continue to refute things that you post and you can't seem to acknowledge them...

Seems fair to me...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44757 Dec 14, 2012
SupaAFC wrote:
When JFK died, he was replaced by Johnson. No election, none, WAHHHHHHH!
Johnson was elected as Vice President.

When Americans vote for POTUS & VPOTUS, they do so knowing the role of the VPOTUS will step in if need be should the POTUS die or- as in Nixon's case- resigns or displaced.

Do you have a case of a POTUS who was appointed and not elected?

I'll wait.

But in the meantime, let me give you a list- the entire list, of prime ministers who were elected to that office in the UK:

.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44758 Dec 14, 2012
SupaAFC wrote:
There are two presidential examples from your own country which were just an undemocratically-elected as Macmillan.
Thanks for confirming that Macmillian was not elected democratically... or any other way, since he wasn't elected he was appointed, as are all (each and every) prime minister in the UK.

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#44759 Dec 14, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Johnson was elected as Vice President.
When Americans vote for POTUS & VPOTUS, they do so knowing the role of the VPOTUS will step in if need be should the POTUS die or- as in Nixon's case- resigns or displaced.
Do you have a case of a POTUS who was appointed and not elected?
I'll wait.
But in the meantime, let me give you a list- the entire list, of prime ministers who were elected to that office in the UK:
.
Gerald Ford is an example who was appointed to the office of Vice President by Richard Nixon after Spiro Agnew resigned

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 Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 7 min DebraE 6,400
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 27 min DebraE 14,498
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 51 min thewordofme 236,837
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr dirtclod 17,946
News Confessions of a black atheist 2 hr Samoan Irish 9
News The Consequences of Atheism 2 hr JesusWasNOTaJew -... 1,110
News Who is an atheist? (May '10) 4 hr Freebird USA 9,240
More from around the web