In America, atheists are still in the...

In America, atheists are still in the closet

There are 51156 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

#48949 Jun 26, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
The pledge is REQUIRED of children and is LAW in 45 of the 50 states and commonwealths.
Nope.

A)*MOST* Laws are for SCHOOLS to lead the pledge
B) Students are required in FOUR states

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48950 Jun 26, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Prove it.
Skanque: it is up to YOU to prove "American" is a language.

That is how it works.

I have already refuted it, by the way.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48951 Jun 26, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
I have even refined that statement and brought to you attention the fact that the UK is a constitutional monarchy as specified by both the royal site and the government
Does that make you correct or does that make me correct?
I have always maintained that the United King_dom was a monarchy from the very first post.

Does that make me look like I have always been correct and that you have wasted everyone's time with hundreds of posts insisting that I was not?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48952 Jun 26, 2013
[QUOTE who="ChristineM"
Wrong again, it is law but it is not required
[/QUOTE]

So at least as far as you are concerned if it is law, it isn't required.

According to you, Skanque.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#48953 Jun 26, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have to break it down to understand it: it is a PLEDGE of ALLEGIANCE to this country made by citizens of the United States.
Maybe you subjects of the the Queen have difficulty with the concept.
Note the pledge is TO the country and not to any God.
Ignored on the grounds that you are a blithering idiot who ignores FACTS and the actual wording of the pledge even when they are pointed out to you in words of one syllable and pretty pictures.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You just told us things required by law aren't required.
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH!
Oh sorry, I thought I was replying to your post, not to mine.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
A)*MOST* Laws are for SCHOOLS to lead the pledge
B) Students are required in FOUR states
http://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php...

From what I see it’s seems a little more than 4 for both schools and students so we can assume you a lying to save face
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Skanque: it is up to YOU to prove "American" is a language.
That is how it works.
I have already refuted it, by the way.
You are confused, you don’t seem to be sure how this works do you? Let me explain, what happens is, if you make a statement then it’s up to you to provide the proof if that statement is called into question.

You made the statement that US English is not a language it is therefore up to you to prove your statement. I have already shown you the several incidences where US English is defined as a language, all you can do about these facts is pretend they don’t exist or lie even when they are displayed on your monitor. That is not my problem but yours, if you get off on deliberate and wilful ignorance and lies then it’s all fine.

Again you seem confused, stamping you foot and ranting is not the same thing as as providing evidence to refute, nope what it is is stamping you foot and ranting.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have always maintained that the United King_dom was a monarchy from the very first post.
Does that make me look like I have always been correct and that you have wasted everyone's time with hundreds of posts insisting that I was not?
This is true in your limited and childish way but consider that you have always gone into full meltdown mode when I have corrected you with the fact that the term as applied to the UK by both the British monarchy and the British government is “constitutional monarchy”. Now I realise that you believe that you know better about the UK than both the British monarchy and the British government but I am afraid I am going to have to disappoint you. In truth your delusional fantasy is simply an effect for rampant syphilis eating away at your cognitive functions
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
So at least as far as you are concerned if it is law, it isn't required.
According to you, Skanque.
Not just me, as I have repeatedly explained, it applies to every single resident of England as specified by the British government. I realise this is a concept that is beyond your limited comprehension but that’s just tough.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48954 Jun 26, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Yes all (maximum) 12 appointed by the church
Majority means half the total number plus one.

The UK Parliament has two houses, the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

Which is the larger House, Skanque?

Let me help, the House of Commons has 650 members.
The House of Lords has 818.

The number of members of Parliment is 1468.

The members of the House are (normally) elected.

So that would be 650.

Half of 1468 is 734... plus one is 735.

How many members of the House of Lords are elected, Skanque?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48955 Jun 26, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Note that the members of the house of parliament and the majority of members
(not all) of the house of lords are elected. A little revision of parliamentary procedure would do you well in your outdated and pedantic arguments
Kind of hard to talk fast when you are writing things down, isn't it Skanque?

Because that was a line of [email protected]

How many members of the House of Lords are elected... now?

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#48956 Jun 26, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Majority means half the total number plus one.
The UK Parliament has two houses, the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
Which is the larger House, Skanque?
Let me help, the House of Commons has 650 members.
The House of Lords has 818.
The number of members of Parliment is 1468.
The members of the House are (normally) elected.
So that would be 650.
Half of 1468 is 734... plus one is 735.
How many members of the House of Lords are elected, Skanque?
And of those 1488 there are 1384 elected members

It does not matter how you try to wriggle out of it 104 members out of a total of 1488 (even split into 2 houses)

IS NOWHERE CLOSE TO A MAJORITY OR EVEN CLOSE TO HALF
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Kind of hard to talk fast when you are writing things down, isn't it Skanque?
Because that was a line of [email protected]
How many members of the House of Lords are elected... now?
You may consider it whatever you like be we know you are confused and have problems with the English language but that’s besides the point. I have now asked two different english speaking people what they thought of the line, both say it’s fine. And I have asked one Palestinian, one Jew and one Spaniard, All three have English as their second (or third) language and they understood it without problem.

So we can assume the problem is with you.

The number varies but the total number is approximately 760 to 800, and all but a maximum (this also varies) of 104 is elected. So about 675

Again, no matter how you carve that up, it in no way makes a majority.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48957 Jun 26, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
And of those 1488 there are 1384 elected members
House of Lords are: appointed.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48958 Jun 26, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
IS NOWHERE CLOSE TO A MAJORITY OR EVEN CLOSE TO HALF
House of Lords = political appointments.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48959 Jun 26, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
You may consider it whatever you like be we know you are confused and have problems with the English language
There is no "American" language.

It is a dialect.

would you like links to the people who insist the earth is flat?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48960 Jun 26, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
And of those 1488 there are 1384 elected members
How members are appointed
"Members of the House of Lords are appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister."
http://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/whos-...

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#48961 Jun 26, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
You favourite Brit. is doing just great
How’s my fav. Saffa doing?
Mandela is still critical, sadly.

But I am okay, too ;)
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#48962 Jun 26, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
And of those 1488 there are 1384 elected members
It does not matter how you try to wriggle out of it 104 members out of a total of 1488 (even split into 2 houses)
IS NOWHERE CLOSE TO A MAJORITY OR EVEN CLOSE TO HALF
<quoted text>
You may consider it whatever you like be we know you are confused and have problems with the English language but that’s besides the point. I have now asked two different english speaking people what they thought of the line, both say it’s fine. And I have asked one Palestinian, one Jew and one Spaniard, All three have English as their second (or third) language and they understood it without problem.
So we can assume the problem is with you.
The number varies but the total number is approximately 760 to 800, and all but a maximum (this also varies) of 104 is elected. So about 675
Again, no matter how you carve that up, it in no way makes a majority.
I don't think I agree with you Christine.

Most of the British Parliament aren't elected. Only the 650 of the house of commons. The Lords aren't elected. That is a shame on us and our system - no escaping it.

I went back a page, but maybe I missed you're reasoning. Anyway, you appear to have managed to make Barefoot sound reasonable! That is his style - he just keeps repeating misleading tripe until someone makes a factual error.

Proportionately fewer Lords are hereditary than in the past but most are government appointed. Currently there are 26 bishops. This UKGov found time to debate gay marriage and the PM has 'Faith meetings', but they claimed there was no time for reform of the House of Lords even with a bill ready for voting on that would at least make it more democratic. I think we should abolish the Lords. It is a mess and a national disgrace in my opinion.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48963 Jun 26, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
In truth your delusional fantasy is simply an effect for rampant syphilis eating away at your cognitive functions
It's too late for you, Shug.

Obviously.

PS:****YOU***** stated "American" is the language.

The proof is yours.

I've already refuted it, BTW.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48964 Jun 26, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think I agree with you Christine.
Most of the British Parliament aren't elected.
Oh goodness...

She doesn't like to be told she is wrong about anything.

After a year, she still has problems with my statement: the United King_dom is a monarchy.

You best have thick skin.

Best of luck!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48965 Jun 26, 2013
EdSed wrote:
Anyway, you appear to have managed to make Barefoot sound reasonable!
Yes, I said that the United Kingdom is a monarchy and for the last year and change:('you and') "yours" have insisted I was wrong.

Like I "insisted" that the UK has a law requiring collective worship in "public" schools, and after a year... Skanque has admitted that... yes, there is a law but being a law isn't a requirement.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48966 Jun 26, 2013
EdSed wrote:
Proportionately fewer Lords are hereditary than in the past but most are government appointed. Currently there are 26 bishops.
How many of the House of Lords are elected?

A) Most of them
B) Some of them
C) Not a single one

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48967 Jun 26, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
Good work god, but I could do a lot better. I would not kill 49 people for a start. That makes me instantly better.
Really?

One of those 49 people would end up becoming a dictator, and she would start a rebellion and her followers would run through the streets killing members of a minority and over three million people would die.

That would be your fault.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48969 Jun 26, 2013
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you spit in their faces like you should?
People like you make Jesus the Christ (praise be upon him) cry.

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, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 24 min Uncle Sam 13,347
News Millionaire Entrepreneur Wants to 'Make Atheism... 39 min par five 3
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 42 min scientia potentia... 31,395
Majority of Scots now have no religion 1 hr par five 10
News Speaking for God 12 hr Vaginal wall failure 594
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 17 hr Eagle 12 9,739
News Why I quit atheism Sun Aerobatty 1
More from around the web