In America, atheists are still in the...

In America, atheists are still in the closet

There are 51414 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.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48549 May 4, 2013
EdSed wrote:
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.
Why?

And of course, that is presuming the UK would- after many hundreds of years- become a republic instead of "Democratic Republic" which is not a republic (even though the Swedish meatball seems top think it is... but then he denies Sweden to be a monarchy).

I would "nationalize" whatever property I wanted, seeing the subjects of the monarchies have paid for the land over the years.

Leave the monarchy a castle and maybe a cottage on the coast.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48550 May 4, 2013
EdSed wrote:
2. An elected figurehead
why would you want a figurehead?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48551 May 4, 2013
EdSed wrote:
3. People think that security wouldn't need to be provided for the Queen or royals any more.
The monarchy are billionaires.

Pay their own security. Bill Gates does.

And once not part of the government... who cares?

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#48552 May 4, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
You have much to learn about "debating" with Barefoot. He has been told, and shown, various evidence that points towards our monarchy being figureheads and respectful of the democratic process of our government, yet he continually changes his arguments and even contradicts them if need be.
What you will find is that Barefoot will demand you show him a Constitution. For reasons known only to him, he believes that in order to be considered a Constitutional monarchy the country must have a physical Constitution - our scrapbook of laws and treaties somehow do not count.
He will keep pointing to the "powers" of the Queen, but turn a blind eye to how they are used in reality.
Simply, do not expect Barefoot to ever accept being plain wrong. He is excellent for playing whackamole when you have got free time, however. The challenge is to get him into a tantrum faster than last time.
Thanks for that explanation. I was beginning to wonder if he had difficulty understanding the English language.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#48553 May 4, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
debate?
I suggest it is not so much a debate as me repeating the matter of record, and others refusing to acknowledge they are wrong.
The UK is a monarchy: matter of record. The monarch: appoints the PM. Matter of record. The UK has a state religion: no debate, matter of record. The UK has a law requiring requiring collective worship, Christian religion": not a debate.
Matter of public record.
If you say so. From what I have heard only about 5% of people in the UK are religious, so it looks like a lot of people are breaking their laws there. Have not been there nor will I likely be.

You might want to acquaint yourself with what actually exists in the UK (and Canada) rather than what is a "matter of record". Just a thought.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#48554 May 4, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Look it up.
Over here in the USA, you can do that because we have a Constitution.
you two who are in the midst of an argument are not on topic, which is OK, but would you mind commenting a bit on something slightly related to the topic, so one knows where you stand on important matters - rather than merely in opposition to each other? Some of the matters you discuss are slightly interesting - the political stuff especially - but since you seem to be mroe interested in a battle with each other, your hostilities seem to prevail over the points you want to make or actually believe in. It could actually be interesting to an outsider if you stated your views a bit more briefly and dispassionately, issue by issue. For example, the question of what is a democracy is interesting, and so is the matter of whether majority rule is a good thing. The Electoral College is an issue right now, since many Republicans in states with gOP Governors and legislatures want to change their method of selecting electors - by basing it on Congressional Districts, which are gerrymandered to favor the gOP - or by dividing Electoral votes based on proportion of popular vote in those states - mainly blue states like Ohio, Pa.& Wisconsin -whereas they would not be so divided in red states, where the gOP would still get all the Electoral votes. And the Constitution includes the Bill of rights which is anti-majoritarian, because the majority often wants to violate the rights of individuals and majorities.

If you would rather insult each other, carry on. Seems like a waste of whatever intelligence either of you have. Lots of smart folks on this forum, and you seem to be wasting your time, with hostilities to each other, seemingly more personal than rational, when there are better alternatives.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48555 May 4, 2013
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
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,
You are conflating the roles of the monarch in Canada & "England".

I am not aware of anyone in Canada going to the Queen and asking for input on what bills they going to pass.

As the legislature does in the UK.

Canada is a constitutional monarchy largely because they have other fish to fry and the UK monarch has the good sense to not remind them.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48556 May 4, 2013
boooots wrote:
putting her signature on things that the government has decided on
I've already linked to the whitepaper that shows the Parliament consults with the monarchy and always has (but specifically, most recently, 39 bills including the one defining "domestic relations", aka, gay marriage).

The threat of "veto" influences the laws created in the UK and here.

At least here: if the POTUS uses the veto threat and the citizens tire of it, he won't win reelection.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48557 May 4, 2013
boooots wrote:
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..
Canada is not England.

Canada has a written constitution and though it is still a monarchy, the UK monarch cannot disband the Canadian Parliament.

Non-entity? I don't know if Canada has an official food, let's say it's maple syrup, I would say the Queen has about equal footing as the state food or the state bird... if you excuse the pun...

Not so in 'England'.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48558 May 4, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> you two who are in the midst of an argument are not on topic, which is OK, but would you mind commenting a bit on something slightly related to the topic,
If you follow the thread... if you wanted to go back in time... this started with comparing the US not having a state religion and the UK having a state religion.

If the NotBots here insist the UK isn't even a monarchy, you can see how they would (and did) react to me pointing out that they have (and they do) a state religion.

You are not required to participate in either discussion.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48559 May 4, 2013
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
If you say so. From what I have heard only about 5% of people in the UK are religious,
According to the relevant UK census (when this thread started) it was over 70 percent considered themselves Christian.

If only five percent of the subjects in the UK were religious, it seems odd that they would insist (by law) that collective Christian worship would be required.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48560 May 4, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
If you would rather insult each other, carry on..
Thanks for your permission to carry on expressing my opinion.

If you post your email address, in the future I shall be sure to ask if I decide to take my opinion in another direction.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48561 May 4, 2013
boooots wrote:
You might want to acquaint yourself with what actually exists in the UK (and Canada) rather than what is a "matter of record". Just a thought.
You mean the law requiring collective Christian worship in the UK I have posted (verbatim, in its entirety) several times and was told by SuperFAG (et al.) that the law did not exist for weeks and then... that well.. it existed but it didn't actually count?

Not unlike when I point out by law the monarch in the UK can shut down the government (in the UK) with a stroke of the pen?

Or when I pointed out the PM is appointed to that office (which was denied by NotBots, mentioned above) by the monarch?

It seems I am more acquainted with UK laws than those who live there.

Either that or they are just pathological liars.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#48562 May 4, 2013
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>If you say so. From what I have heard only about 5% of people in the UK are religious, so it looks like a lot of people are breaking their laws there. Have not been there nor will I likely be.

You might want to acquaint yourself with what actually exists in the UK (and Canada) rather than what is a "matter of record". Just a thought.
The voting public appoint the prime minister.Not the Queen

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#48563 May 4, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
If and buts and candy and nuts.

I am more inclined to look out the window and see what is happening in this universe and this time line, not to waste time on what might have been and what could be.
Is the United KING_dom a monarchy? Yes or no?
I don't have a problem saying NO.
In theory perhaps, but in practice no. No monarch has exercised their 'right' to veto any act of government in 300 years, according to what I can find online. If they are doing something completely behind the backs of everyone, which I kind of wonder how they would pull that off with no one to support them, then that is beyond my knowledge and that of the citizens of that country.

In Canada, we hold elections for positions in our federal government. Usually the party which gains the most seats in parliament, through the election process forms the ruling government. If the combined seats of several other parties are greater than their total members, then unless they can convince one or more of the other parties to agree to back them, they are rather limited by what measures they can take, because a vote in parliament by all the members would always go against them. Party members do not always vote with their own party, depending on their own particular wishes, those of their constituencies, or someone else whose pockets they are into.

If two opposing parties to the winning party in an election decide to join together they can theoretically form a government, though neither of them individually has a majority, but the sum of their two parties would be more than the party which won the most seats.

We often have governments here, and members of ridings who won far less than a majority of the votes of the electorate, but because all of the other candidates split the majority votes, no other member had enough to beat the winner.

In many ways that also applies in the USA, as the majority of the people could want one man to be President, but the electoral college votes put another man in instead. Likely that was the case when George W was elected there, as considering how much that man is/was disliked, it is rather difficult to believe that he had the support of the majority of the US citizens. Also aside from his veto powers, if both of the houses there were from the other party or even one house were from it, then his power is greatly reduced.

I highly suspect if a President was be become too tyrannical in the USA, someone would arrange to have him removed, as happened, with JFK, and Nixon, and almost happened with Clinton, one of the most favored of your Presidents, in spite of his sloppiness in spilling his seed on the dresses of his interns. That was clearly not a man thinking at the time with the brain in his head, but he had other more pressing things driving him.

One can't help but admire the man, though, who is around my age, got caught, literally, with his pants down, and managed to keep his position in government of what is currently the leading military power of the world. Wisely, as with many other Presidents, who had a weakness to be spilling their seed in unconventional places, his work doing the work of President outweighed his personal weaknesses.

The PM is the member of the ruling party, an elected member, who has been voted to be the leader of the party by party members, usually at a leadership convention, which is held outside the government itself, by the party which is trying to find a leader.

If the Queen has anything to do with that, it is strictly a symbolic thing as she signs whatever the government passes, or at least that is how it has been done.
SupaAFC

Stirling, UK

#48565 May 4, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> you two who are in the midst of an argument are not on topic, which is OK, but would you mind commenting a bit on something slightly related to the topic, so one knows where you stand on important matters - rather than merely in opposition to each other?
Sure. I would say that atheism and openness about it in the United States is based on which state you live in. On a political level, however, religion is an important issue for many voters particularly of the GOP. It seems that many politicians go out of their way to appear at least a member of a church to establish some kind of legitimacy with the general electorate.

I wouldn't say that atheists are afraid of being atheist, it is rather that there is still an active religious right in the United States trying to combat this perceived "threat" to what they see as traditional Christian-American values. As such they, rather than the atheists, are the ones trying to make an issue out of it.
SupaAFC

Stirling, UK

#48566 May 4, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
here: if the POTUS uses the veto threat and the citizens tire of it, he won't win reelection.
You mean, if the Electoral College tire of it.

I see you ignored my most recent post; how unfortunate.
SupaAFC

Stirling, UK

#48567 May 4, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean the law requiring collective Christian worship in the UK I have posted (verbatim, in its entirety) several times and was told by SuperFAG (et al.) that the law did not exist for weeks and then... that well.. it existed but it didn't actually count?
When did I ever claim that this law did not exist?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not unlike when I point out by law the monarch in the UK can shut down the government (in the UK) with a stroke of the pen?
Or when I pointed out the PM is appointed to that office (which was denied by NotBots, mentioned above) by the monarch?
It seems I am more acquainted with UK laws than those who live there.
Either that or they are just pathological liars.
Way to go by proving the OP's point. Evidently his/her post flew completely over your head.

If we must take British law literally, we must take your laws literally.

That includes the twelfth amendment.

You know the rest, manchild. Time for your weekly tantrum.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48568 May 4, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
I wouldn't say that atheists are afraid of being atheist, it is rather that there is still an active religious right in the United States trying to combat this perceived "threat" to what they see as traditional Christian-American values.
Of course, in the monarchy in the UK, they still have the state church.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48569 May 4, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<
I see you ignored my most recent post; how unfortunate.
Why should I be different from everyone else you drove out of this thread?

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
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) 1 hr Eagle 12 - 115
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 3 hr Subduction Zone 5,005
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr Dogen 85,630
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Jan 17 ChristineM 4,026
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Jan 16 Into The Night 5,146
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Jan 15 Dogen 33,127
News Egypt's parliament takes serious actions to com... Jan 14 emperorjohn 1
More from around the web