American Citizenship Requires Belief in God
Posted in the Atheism Forum
Since: Feb 11
Pale Blue Dot
#1 Oct 6, 2012
Washington Post’s Sally Quinn: American Citizenship Requires Belief in God
"What is Sally Quinn thinking?
She wrote a piece for the Washington Post offering her take on the Presidential debate. Had she said the following, I probably would have agreed with her:“Mitt Romney made several references to God during the debate and President Obama didn’t. Whether you like it or not, if you want to get votes from religious Americans, you’ll want to mention God as much as possible.”
But she didn’t just say that. Instead, she took the opportunity to kick atheists right in the gut:
That’s about 85 percent of the country [Romney] was talking to. That should have been President Obama’s constituency but he let Romney have it as he let Romney have the debate.
This is a religious country. Part of claiming your citizenship is claiming a belief in God, even if you are not Christian. We’ve got the Creator in our Declaration of Independence. We’ve got “In God We Trust” on our coins. We’ve got “one nation under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance. And we say prayers in the Senate and the House of Representatives to God.
Wow. Got that, atheists? Sally Quinn doesn’t think we’re real citizens. Apparently, the fact that Congress pushed God into the Pledge in the 1950s out of fear of Communism is one indication that this country is for religious people only. Separation of church and state, the Treaty of Tripoli, the First Amendment… those mean nothing to her. Leave your atheism at the door or get out.
Maybe after watching the debate, Mitt Romney’s tactics wore off on her and she felt the urge to lie about what makes someone a True American.
Religious belief isn’t one of the qualifications.
Here’s a potential solution to Quinn’s dilemma: Just take God out of the Pledge, off the money, and out of Congress. We never should have allowed those things to happen in the first place. See? Problem solved.
Seriously, though, this is as bad as saying “There are no atheists in foxholes.” It’s a stereotype, it’s a lie, and it’s demonstrably false.
We are the 15%(PDF). You can pretend we’re not here, but you’d be ignorant. You can say we’re not “real Americans” and call us unpatriotic, but it’d be slander. We’re in the military, we teach in your schools, we’re running for Congress, and we’re not going anywhere. In fact, we’re only becoming more popular.
How Quinn, who managed the “On Faith” section of the Post, can make comments like that and still call herself a journalist is beyond me."
#2 Oct 6, 2012
The declaration of independance is unscienficic. For such anation like the United States of America it is ludricous to ignore science at all in their constitution.
“Fortes Fortuna Juvat, ”
Since: Dec 09
#3 Oct 6, 2012
“God=Registered Sex Offender!”
Since: Jul 12
#4 Oct 6, 2012
I'm over here in Texas bustin' a gut laughing at Miss Quinn's stupidity. No, not all theisms are equal and just because you bray "GOD" does not make you a TRUE Christamerican. Glory!
Mitt Romney might as well be brayin' to Satan because he is NOT A TRUE CHRISTIAN! Mormonism is America's favorite religious fantasy role-playing game that does not include a GENUINE invisible God. This is what Romney believes:
He believes that Jesus Christ is Satan's brother.
He believes that God lives near a planet called "Kolob."
He believes in baptizing dead people.
He believes that Jesus is married to a goddess wife.
He believes that The Garden of Eden was in Missouri.
He believes that it was impossible for blacks to go to Heaven before 1978.
He believes that Jesus has children from his wife or wives.
He believes that he is going to become a god.
He believes he will own his own personal planet after he dies.
He believes the real Christian God is not eternal but rather that He was once a man on some other planet besides Earth!
He believes he needs to wear magical underwear created by Mormons and he is never to take it off unless he is bathing.
He believes it is a sin to drink anything containing caffeine.
He believes children between the ages of 18-21 should wear name badges, ride bicycles and always smile.
Since: Feb 11
Pale Blue Dot
#5 Oct 6, 2012
A blogger at Esquire Magazine has weighed in:
Sally Quinn Wants Obama to Wear God, Has Gone Mad
The continued authorship of something called "On Faith" by Beltway social-climber and Hall of Fame trophy wife Sally Quinn remains the most hilarious thing about The Washington Post, a once-great newspaper now d/b/a an adjunct to the educational testing institute. In her dotage, Sal has become a spiritual explorer, a religious quester, and a thoroughgoing loon. Reading her stuff is like showing up at Lourdes and finding Bernadette Soubirous standing there, dressed in Prada, chilling the champagne and offering the Blessed Mother a couple of seats at the owner's box at the next Redskins game.
Anyway, she seems to have been transported to something resembling ecstasy by the fact that Willard Romney took time out from stomping on the Ninth Commandment the other night long enough to mention a certain Deity, although not by name....
This is a religious country. Part of claiming your citizenship is claiming a belief in God, even if you are not Christian.. We've got the Creator in our Declaration of Independence. We've got "In God We Trust" on our coins. We've got "one nation under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance. And we say prayers in the Senate and the House of Representatives to God.
And, in the Beyond, Mr. Madison cracks another bottle of Madeira and drinks it down in two swallows. A belief in God has nothing to do with "claiming your citizenship." And, not for nothing, but Willard Romney's god happens to believe that Jesus came to America to smoke dope with the Iroquois.
Now it's God. The Republicans have claimed God as their own this entire campaign, each candidate trying to out-Christian the other. Even Obama, though 17 percent of registered voters think he is a Muslim, has talked about being a Christian as often as he can. Still, none of Obama's references have been in a debate. And there was Obama — grim faced, nervous, fumbling his words and wearing his American flag pin — letting Romney, confident and aggressive and in control, roll right over him at every turn. But the God thing clinched it. If Obama wants to win the next debate, he needs to wear God, as much as it offends him to do so, the same way he captured the flag for this one.
"He needs to wear God"? Apparently, the president stands no chance unless he becomes the Buffalo Bill of public Christianism.("It says the prayers or it gets the hose.") I tried on Quinn's conception of God once, and I found Him a little tight in the crotch.
This is some crazy-ass shit right here.
“I see quantum effects”
Since: Jan 11
In the macro world.
#6 Oct 29, 2012
And nearly half of this country is willing to vote for him.
This is mass insanity.
#7 Oct 30, 2012
Quote Sally Quinn: "This is a religious country. Part of claiming your citizenship is claiming a belief in God, even if you are not Christian. We’ve got the Creator in our Declaration of Independence. We’ve got “In God We Trust” on our coins. We’ve got “one nation under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance. And we say prayers in the Senate and the House of Representatives to God."
And England has an established church and 26 bishops in the UK's upper house. How humiliating for us all.
There is 'Fidei Defensor' on UK coins. The ScoutUK movement demands a "Scout Promise" that in a few groups is administered in a similar way to an oath.(Sensible groups, i.e. most, seem to turn a blind eye). Are we to separate Western nations into religionists and atheists? Some religionists would even segregate our children according to their religious faith or lack of any.
At least atheists aren't guilty of denying religionists their rights..
Religion is superstition. It's divisive and nothing but trouble.
#8 Oct 30, 2012
The Declaration of Independence is not the US constitution. They are two separate and very different documents. The Declaration of Independence is a political document crafted for the purpose of informing the world at large, and the English king in particular, that the colonies repudiated the rule of the English and asserted their independence. As such, science is essentially irrelevant to the purpose of the document.
Constitutions in general, and the US constitution in particular, are blueprints for government. They set out the basic structure of the government and define the relationship between the government and the governed and between the component parts of the government. To the extent that one recognizes political science as a soft science discipline, all constitutions have scientific content. Apart from that, it is probably best that the constitution merely mentions the need for a patent office to promote scientific progress and then gets out of science's way. I can only envision that if the science of the late 18th Century were enshrined in the constitution, the constitution would itself become an impediment to scientific progress. Imagine if the state of knowledge of life science were written into the constitution. Since the constitution was pre-Darwin, it would need to be amended to reflect the discovery of evolution. As we can see from this forum, there are a number of creationists still in America. We hardly need to give them a political platform, as the constitutional amendment process would.
Add your comments below
|Our world came from nothing? (Jul '14)||32 min||thetruth||1,233|
|Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera...||34 min||thetruth||2,841|
|"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12)||1 hr||thetruth||14,507|
|Christianity Created Hitler||1 hr||thetruth||129|
|Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09)||5 hr||Joe fortuna||234,525|
|Richard Dawkins needs to get a life||22 hr||Thinking||22|
|Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ...||Sun||polymath257||41|
Find what you want!
Search Atheism Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC