In America, atheists are still in the closet

There are 47711 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 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

Newtownabbey, 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

Newtownabbey, 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

Newtownabbey, 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?
SupaAFC

Newtownabbey, UK

#48570 May 4, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, in the monarchy in the UK, they still have the state church.
Which is irrelevant considering the British public tend to be liberal on social matters and as such have no problem with others following different faiths or not having one.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48571 May 4, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
If we must take British law literally
I know, the exact and true definitions make it hard for you, e.g., that the PM is *appointed*... literally... instead of your figurative 'elected', that unanimous means 'everybody' instead of your figurative 'almost everybody', that the law in the UK requires collective worship 'literally' instead of your figurative 'there's no law requiring Christian worship', and that the UK is only 'literally' a monarchy instead of your figurative 'sometime it is a monarchy and sometimes it isn't'.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48572 May 4, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is irrelevant considering .
It is the law.

You have problems with English.
SupaAFC

Newport Pagnell, UK

#48573 May 5, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should I be different from everyone else you drove out of this thread?
Projection gets you nowhere, manchild.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>I know, the exact and true definitions make it hard for you, e.g., that the PM is *appointed*... literally... instead of your figurative 'elected', that unanimous means 'everybody' instead of your figurative 'almost everybody', that the law in the UK requires collective worship 'literally' instead of your figurative 'there's no law requiring Christian worship', and that the UK is only 'literally' a monarchy instead of your figurative 'sometime it is a monarchy and sometimes it isn't'.
And added to that list of "exact and true definitions" is the twelfth amendment.

You can't have your cake and eat it, manchild. If we must take British laws literally, we must take American law literally.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>It is the law.

You have problems with English
And the title of the thread is "In America, atheists are still in the closet".

Let me highlight the key word again:

"America".

Your literal British laws have nothing to do with it.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48574 May 5, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Projection gets you nowhere, manchild.
Wipe your chin, SuperFAG.

You are a frightful mess.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48575 May 5, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
And added to that list of "exact and true definitions" is the twelfth amendment.
We have 27 amendments, SuperFAG.

and a Constitution.

You have a Queen.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48576 May 5, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
And the title of the thread is "In America, atheists are still in the closet"..
I am sure you are out of the closet, SuperFAG.
SupaAFC

Newport Pagnell, UK

#48577 May 5, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wipe your chin, SuperFAG.
You are a frightful mess.
Once again stop projecting. Facts, not projection, will help you.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>We have 27 amendments, SuperFAG.

and a Constitution.

You have a Queen.
Stop running away from the twelfth amendment. If we must take British law literally, all law - including yours- must be taken literally also.

No matter how hard you try you cannot keep your cake after eating it.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>I am sure you are out of the closet, SuperFAG.
In other words, manchild could not admit that his army of red herrings and strawmen about Britain has no relevance to the thread.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48578 May 5, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again stop projecting.
Once again, you are dripping on the floor.

Wipe your chin, SuperFAG.

We knew who was dealing in the minute you decided to deny the fact the United KING_dom was a monarchy.

Well... what else do you have? the "Kingdom" is now a single time zone.

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48579 May 5, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Stop running away from the twelfth amendment.
Stop pretending you have an amendment you can run away from.

Wipe your chin, SuperFAG.
Tom

Beacon, NY

#48580 May 6, 2013
Neal P wrote:
<quoted text>
The voting public appoint the prime minister.Not the Queen
NEW LINK. HE HAD THE OTHER ONE REMOVED...

Prophet of JC is a Fraud...



His name is Ralph Stair FRAUD and PEDOPHILE
SupaAFC

Newport Pagnell, UK

#48582 May 6, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
We knew who was dealing in the minute you decided to deny the fact the United KING_dom was a monarchy.
And do this day you cannot refute my arguments. That is because, manchild, you have no argument.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop pretending you have an amendment you can run away from.
Stop being obtuse. Explain why British law must be taken literally, but American law - such as the twelfth amendment - can be ignored.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48583 May 6, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
And do this day you cannot refute my arguments.
Refuted on day one, SuperFAG.

Is the United KING_dom a monarchy?

Wipe your chin, SF.

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Islamic State Is Winning 6 min yup 10
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 6 min ritedownthemiddle 53,461
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min Incognito4Ever 1,233,452
News Meet the Candidate: Carly Fiorina 6 min barefoot2626 603
News Pat Robertson Tries To Explain Polygamy In The ... (Jul '14) 6 min Swedenforever 17
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 7 min Phil Donahue 309,893
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 8 min McDermott 182,549
News Riots in Baltimore raise questions about police... 8 min Chicagoan by Birth 2,377
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 11 min Coffee Party 190,021
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 16 min MikeF 164,118
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 24 min American Lady 328,511
More from around the web