In America, atheists are still in the...

In America, atheists are still in the closet

There are 51425 comments on the Spiked story from Apr 11, 2012, 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.

SupaAFC

Stirling, UK

#48526 May 3, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Call me when they change the outcome of any election.
Dancing again.

Manchild claimed the people vote for the president.

Wrong.

Manchild then claimed that the people vote for the electors who elect the president.

Now he claims that the Electoral College don't, and can't, vote for whoever they want.

Dance, dance and dance some more, manchild.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
YOu don't have an constitution.

I do.
And it includes the twelfth amendment. Which states you do not vote for the president.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You insist I didn't vote and now you insist the vote I cast didn't matter.
Show me where I ever claimed you did not vote.

Don't bother - you will not find it because once again you are making up strawmen.

Face it, manchild: the twelfth amendment owns you.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Odd that the UK would have a monarch if it wasn't a monarchy.
Which is like saying "odd that Jeff would have a car if he wasn't a car".

Odd that manchild has a computer if he wasn't a computer.

Odd that the United States would have a president if it was not a republic.

And so on, and so on, and so on.

Analogies: the holy water of manchildren.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how the Parliament would submit the bills to the Queen and Prince Chuck and ask before they passed them.

If the monarch disapproves, the Parliament withdraws the bills or changes them.

I guess you skipped over that, eh?
If the monarch disapproves then she would veto the bills.

To date she hasn't.

What is there to skip over?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>No, SuperFAG.

Knowing the monarch can refuse anything they send to him or her means they consult with the monarch and ask pretty please, will you sign this bill? and if the monarch sas NO... they don't send it or they change it.

"in one instance the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member's bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament."

Gosh... looks like assent to people who speak English.
I knew that you would run to this sooner or later.

Read some more:

"The Queen, acting upon the advice of her government, refused to grant her consent for the Bill to be debated. The second reading was initially postponed from 16 April until 23 July 1999.[4][5] Due to the Crown's continuing refusal to signify its consent to the Bill being debated, it could not receive its second reading on 23 July 1999. In the absence of a request for a further postponement, the Bill was automatically dropped before it obtained its second reading.[6][7][8]

When military action against Iraq was eventually organised in 2003, the government sought Parliamentary approval on 18 March 2003, one day before the invasion began, although no powers under the royal prerogative were thereby transferred to Parliament."

What was that?:

"The Queen, acting upon the advice of her government..."

Once again, like with Macmillan, you think the Queen acted on her own when she did not.

The bill you cling to was a private member's bill by a rebel group of Labour backbenchers. The same party that was in government at the time.

Blair and his cabinet specifically told the Queen to reject the bill and she obliged.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>SuperFAG writes:
Still lying like a coward.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48527 May 3, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Dancing again.
SuperFAG writes:
Thus, Britain's system of government is not a monarchy.
++

SuperFAG writes:
Nobody, despite your continual spin, denies that Britain has a monarchy.
+++

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48528 May 3, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Manchild claimed the people vote for the president.
SuperFAG claimed the citizens of the United States did not vote for President.

News to the 120+ million who did precisely that in November.

I guess not every- not ever- voting for any office of significance in his life makes him green with jealousy.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48529 May 3, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Now he claims that the Electoral College don't, and can't, vote for whoever they want.
The Electoral College is an is, SuperFAG.

There is ONE Electoral College.

Per election.

Wipe your chin, boy.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48530 May 3, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
"The Queen, acting upon the advice of her government..."
Ah... so the Parliament gives the monarch there suggested choice, and the monarch can take that suggest...

Or not.

And she can ignore that suggest because she is the head of state.

In the United KING_dom... which is a monarchy.
SupaAFC

Stirling, UK

#48531 May 3, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
SuperFAG writes:
<quoted text>
++
SuperFAG writes:
<quoted text>
+++
I have refuted this lie already. Why are you still arguing that people like Jeff are cars?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>SuperFAG claimed the citizens of the United States did not vote for President.

News to the 120+ million who did precisely that in November.

I guess not every- not ever- voting for any office of significance in his life makes him green with jealousy.
News to the Constitution and the twelfth amendment.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>The Electoral College is an is, SuperFAG.

There is ONE Electoral College.

Per election.

Wipe your chin, boy.
And that ONE Electoral College elects the president.

You are not involved; your vote does not count. That is why all you can do is pounce on wordplay.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Ah... so the Parliament gives the monarch there suggested choice, and the monarch can take that suggest...

Or not.

And she can ignore that suggest because she is the head of state.

In the United KING_dom... which is a monarchy.
Yet funnily enough the Queen never seems to ignore the Parliament.

That is because, manchild, Parliament is elected based on the will of the people.

The Queen respects this and acts accordingly.

Does it not just hurt, manchild, when you think you have a breakthrough only to realise that even in cases such as that bill the Queen still acts in line with the government rather than vice versa?

Tell us again about how having a monarch means a country is not a democracy even when these monarchs seem to act completely in line with such principles.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48532 May 3, 2013
[QUOTE who="SupaAFC"
I have refuted this lie already.
[/QUOTE]

I guess Topix must keep on deleting it.

Funny how they leave all the other [email protected] you put up.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48533 May 3, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Why are you still arguing that people like
Why are you pretending anyone in this universe follows this line of defense?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48534 May 3, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
News to the Constitution and the twelfth amendment.
The sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

And 120+ million voted in the last election for the US head of state.

What was the last year anyone in England voted for a head of state?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48535 May 3, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
And that ONE Electoral College elects the president.
Americans elect the electoral college.

We have a Republic.

You have a monarchy.
drinK the Hive

Anonymous Proxy

#48536 May 3, 2013
Dude - U Need 2 Spend As Much Time As Possible Outside - Quit All Television & Internet - Work On Blacksmithing - Weed Hunt More - And Spend A Good Amount Of Time With U Doctor...

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfwu50iNiP1...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48537 May 3, 2013
drinK the Hive wrote:
Dude - U Need 2 Spend As Much Time As Possible Outside
I put in two raised beds, a patio for the swing chair, and cut down a tree.

What did you do?
SupaAFC

Stirling, UK

#48538 May 4, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess Topix must keep on deleting it.
Funny how they leave all the other [email protected] you put up.
Or the most likely alternative is that you run away from it like a coward.

Claims to be paraphrased; never explains what he "truly" meant.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Why are you pretending anyone in this universe follows this line of defense?
Why can you not refute it?

I know why, you know why: because you are lying.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>The sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
And the twelfth amendment says what the twelfth amendment says...
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
And 120+ million voted in the last election for the US head of state.
... and it is not that the citizens elect the president.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
What was the last year anyone in England voted for a head of state?
Why waste time voting for an ornament?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Americans elect the electoral college.
Is the Electoral College the president? Yes or no?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
We have a Republic.

You have a monarchy.
Therefore neither countries are democracies by your playbook.

Tell us again about how things can only belong to one family, be defined by one word, and so on, and so on.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48539 May 4, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Or the most likely alternative is that you run away from it like a coward.
Cowardice is a British thing, honey.

Like bad teeth.

Your most famous 'battles' are retreats.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48540 May 4, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
And the twelfth amendment says what the twelfth amendment says...
Look it up.

Over here in the USA, you can do that because we have a Constitution.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48541 May 4, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
... and it is not that the citizens elect the president.
Is.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48542 May 4, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Therefore neither countries are democracies by your playbook.
Funny how you can never find the quote.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#48543 May 4, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not the same as Canada.
I don't understand, and I don't know you, by that name, at least, what is the point you are trying to get across. I have never given a lot of thought to what role the Queen plays, other than I know she has nothing to do with the governing of Canada or England, other than the ceremonial, opening of Parliament, putting her signature on things that the government has decided on, and being a terrible expense to wherever she happens to be.

I think some people have become so accustomed to England having had monarchy for so many years, that it is just one of the things one identifies with that place, but in my opinion, it is more of a joke than some supreme power we need fear.

When we have elections in Canada and make comments about how our leaders are running the country, the queen or the Monarchy never enter into our thoughts, because in that context, she is a non-entity.

If people in England give her some sort of power over them, I guess that is their problem, as she would have no more power over me than an extremely rich jet set person, a famous movie actor, or the Pope had over me, as I would feel that they would expect from me some sort of particular way of approaching them, which I would not understand, and thus I would be uncomfortable. Also because they are exceedingly rich they would have the power with their money to have anything done to me, they so desired, because money talks.

It is all so artificial though.
SupaAFC

Stirling, UK

#48545 May 4, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Cowardice is a British thing, honey.
Like bad teeth.
Your most famous 'battles' are retreats.
Funnily enough the only person making retreats here is you.

For instance: you are asked to define democracy and you cannot.

Retreat some more, manchild.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Look it up.

Over here in the USA, you can do that because we have a Constitution.
I have looked it up - I have even posted it here, full text, for all to see.

Unsurprisingly, it does not say what an internet manchild claims it says.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Is.
"Santa Claus IS real, Daddy! Is is is is is!"

Twelfth amendment; I win. That is what happens when you take laws literally, manchild.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Funny how you can never find the quote.
Post a quote, manchild runs away.

Not post a quote, manchild runs away.

It makes no difference whatsoever, especially when you never go out of your way to deny such assertions regardless!

Can a country have a monarchy and be a democracy at the same time? Yes or no?
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#48546 May 4, 2013
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
....
I think some people have become so accustomed to England having had monarchy for so many years, that it is just one of the things one identifies with that place, but in my opinion, it is more of a joke than some supreme power we need fear.
When we have elections in Canada and make comments about how our leaders are running the country, the queen or the Monarchy never enter into our thoughts, because in that context, she is a non-entity....
Same in England.

I'm inclined to think the UK should ditch the Monarchy, but UK republicans (nothing to do with US Reps) often sound rather ingorant in debates.

For instance, you seem to be making the assumption that the Queen is expensive. This has not been demonstrated. Arguably, she is cheaper than an elected figure-head for a number of reasons...
1. She has considerable personal wealth which is used in the service of the State. For instance, should there be a UK republic declared, then the British taxpayer may have to buy Buckingham Palace as it may (in law) be the Queen's own property. Then she wouldn't pay for it, the taxpayer would have to pay its running costs.
2. An elected figurehead will require a salary commensurate with their duties. The Queen gets about £400,000 a year from UKGov for expenses. An elected figurehead may cost more. Although her family get expenses too, they only get them for state duties. Others would normally replace them in such work. If they wouldn't a policy would have to be declared by the political parties about how ending things like Royal promotions of UK businesses would be affect the economy.
3. People think that security wouldn't need to be provided for the Queen or royals any more. Think again. She would still be Queen, whether instituted as such or not. The royal family might be a target for terrorists for generations, so security will need to be provided for the new 'president' in addition (not instead of) security for the royals.
4. Theoretically, there is no legal means of getting rid of them. According to tradition, Parliament exists by consent of the Monarch,(not the other way around). This tradition could probably be abandoned without causing any problems but the UK cannot do that by itself. The UK Monarch is head of the Commonwealth, so how that would be affected needs consideration. At the moment the UK taxpayer pays for most of the Head of Commonwealth expenses. A new agreement would be required as to how the new head would be elected and from what country should they be drawn.

All these issues (and very many more) will arise. These are just examples. Obviously it can all be done, but taxpayers need to think about the expense and disruption involved. Arguably, the UK Monarchy continues primarily because of the problems of getting rid of it. She is also head of state for Australia and New Zealand. It only makes sense for all of these countries to discuss and think-through the costs and consequences and make the necessary agreements before countries start taking unilateral action. So, though I would happily be a UK republican, I have yet to hear an informed one speak. The nearest we have is this...
http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/i...
and, to be frank, they seem too daft and thoughtless. They don't answer the questions.

This was a hurried post and not thought-through. I'm just trying to point-out that ditching the UK's Monarchy isn't quite as straight-forward as it might appear.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Dogen 52,440
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 1 hr Dogen 541
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Dogen 24,926
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 2 hr ChristineM 11,463
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 3 hr Thinking 22,201
News Fox Friends Outraged Over Atheists 'Making Chri... 8 hr Bob Zanotti 232
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) 9 hr Passion of the Ma... 1,684
More from around the web