I thought mods were supposed to be impartial.

I guess they don't like it being pointed out that they aren't.

I didn't delete your posts and close the thread because you accused me of not being impartial. For what it's worth, I haven't even read the Romney thread other than the last three pages. I closed the thread because I wanted to make a point about the comfort of the users of this site and you and Feanor wanted to hijack the thread and fill it with your negative comments.

I made my point and deleted everything else, including a negative comment about you.

This is probably one of the least moderated sites as far as giving much leeway. We rarely ban anyone, we seldom close a thread and do not get overly concerned when threads go too far off topic.

Mark if you have an accusation to make, make it and show what you see as partiality.

good moderation is never impartial when it comes to the well being of the forums...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn

I didn't delete your posts and close the thread because you accused me of not being impartial. For what it's worth, I haven't even read the Romney thread other than the last three pages. I closed the thread because I wanted to make a point about the comfort of the users of this site and you and Feanor wanted to hijack the thread and fill it with your negative comments.

I made my point and deleted everything else, including a negative comment about you.

---

You have shown impartiality, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnMichael

This is probably one of the least moderated sites as far as giving much leeway. We rarely ban anyone, we seldom close a thread and do not get overly concerned when threads go too far off topic.

Mark if you have an accusation to make, make it and show what you see as partiality.

---

I agree that moderators here are forbearant as well as impartial, and the recent Romney thread is good example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnMichael

This is probably one of the least moderated sites as far as giving much leeway. We rarely ban anyone, we seldom close a thread and do not get overly concerned when threads go too far off topic.

Mark if you have an accusation to make, make it and show what you see as partiality.

---

It's strange that you chose to finally close that "Romney" thread when it encroached on a subject close to your heart. Had you left it closed when you initially did, this would not have been an issue but, I guess since up to that point it consisted of mainly religion-bashing, a subject you tangentially support, I gather you had no problems with reopening it on request.

Does that answer your question?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

It's strange that you chose to finally close that "Romney" thread when it encroached on a subject close to your heart. Had you left it closed when you initially did, this would not have been an issue but, I guess since up to that point it consisted of mainly religion-bashing, a subject you tangentially support, I gather you had no problems with reopening it on request.

Does that answer your question?

---

No it does not. my opinions as a member are different than my actions as a mod. I am not always impartial in beliefs but when it comes time to close a thread it is not one comment or theme. I first closed it when the inbred comments began. Next I gave everyone a 24 hour warning because the thread had become so hate filled that they had that time to get the hate out. I also wanted to give everyone a chance for a final say. Sounds impartial to me.

Again what in your mind thinks something was close to my heart that caused me to close the thread? Out with it man.

Romney thread,post 415: Comment is made for me to "bend over and turn the other cheek.

Post 416: I note the offensive nature you might see in that terminology. I surely saw it. If you try to deny it, I'll outright call you a liar to your face.

Post 418: In you come, jumping in with both feet playing the big, bad mod. It's odd that you didn't say a word with all the religion bashing but, let one a gay allusion is made, you come running in, all huffing and puffing.

So, as I said before, it all depends on whose bull is being gored, doesn't it?

Happy now?

Mark that comment was not directed at me. It was you that tried to bring me into it. You took a comment directed to you and tried to divert it to my attention. He did not tell you to bend over and spread the other cheek. It would be silly to think I would be offended by it. You have an interesting preoccupation with me, I hope you can get over it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnMichael

Mark that comment was not directed at me. It was you that tried to bring me into it. You took a comment directed to you and tried to divert it to my attention. He did not tell you to bend over and spread the other cheek. It would be silly to think I would be offended by it. You have an interesting preoccupation with me, I hope you can get over it.

---

Please note I said "turn", not spread.

From that "slip", I can see where you saw where this came from, and was going so thank you, I feel vindicated here,

IIRC, I made a similar joke a few weeks ago in a different thread,on a totally benign subject, not even in the steam vent, and you got yer panties all in a wad over it so I guess can take as a personal thing with you. So be it.

As I said before, I calls 'em like I sees 'em. Deal with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

Please note I said "turn", not spread.

From that "slip", I can see where you saw where this came from, and was going so thank you, I feel vindicated here,

IIRC, I made a similar joke a few weeks ago in a different thread,on a totally benign subject, not even in the steam vent, and you got yer panties all in a wad over it so I guess can take as a personal thing with you. So be it.

As I said before, I calls 'em like I sees 'em. Deal with it.

---

Mark the longer this goes on the harder I am laughing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnMichael

Mark the longer this goes on the harder I am laughing.

---

As I said, I calls 'em like I sees 'em. Deal with it.

is why I rarely discuss politics withe FRIENDS in person and NEVER online. Like any true person engaged in the wider world I've friends that are conservative, friends that are Republicans, I don't think I've any T-party associates in that they're not very sociable for reasons of their own. I've friends that are liberal, independents, like myself, and some folks to the right of Marx. What matters most is NOT our ideology but how we treat one another. Online and offline I live by the simplest rules there are...

Treat everyone as I'd like to be treated.

Do good when I can, where I can.

Simple as that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not Cain from "Kung Fu" nor am I a saint. But having seen violence up close and personal, both in and out of uniform, I pick and choose my fights VERY carefully. When I saw the way that the original thread was headed, I stopped reading it, stopped commenting. I've enough drama that I can avoid with taking on any I can. It's not that I'm apolitical or uninformed either, but I prefer to keep my politics and my cards close to my chest.

I hope we can see our way clear to continue to be kind to one another irrespective of the outcome of this divisive political contest.

Worf

Personally having been a moderator here, I have strong respect for the moderation staff here. They are all far better the EricL ever was, and they are definitely not heavy handed in closing threads or deleting posts. At first I asked JM NOT to close the Romney thread, now I am glad it got closed.

One of the stupidest things one can do is engage in religion bashing. After reading what some have said, I have lost respect and a positive opinion about some folks here, and that is a shame.

Worf, you are an extremely wise individual. I do not EVER discuss my religious views EVER in public. I will only go so far on politics. The quickest way to turn a friend into an enemy(are you reading this Bill) is to insult people's religious views, and essentially tell them they are crazy and weak for believing is what Richard calls a "sky God". Certain people I will never have respect for again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

Personally having been a moderator here, I have strong respect for the moderation staff here. They are all far better the EricL ever was, and they are definitely not heavy handed in closing threads or deleting posts. At first I asked JM NOT to close the Romney thread, now I am glad it got closed.

One of the stupidest things one can do is engage in religion bashing. After reading what some have said, I have lost respect and a positive opinion about some folks here, and that is a shame.

Worf, you are an extremely wise individual. I do not EVER discuss my religious views EVER in public. I will only go so far on politics. The quickest way to turn a friend into an enemy (are you reading this Bill) is to insult people's religious views, and essentially tell them they are crazy and weak for believing is what Richard calls a "sky God". Certain people I will never have respect for again.

---

Sorry, Sir Terrence. I shouldn't take my lead from RGA (though he and I a pretty close on the subject).

I agreed early on that nobody was likely to dissuade you of your religion: I should have left it at that. I was insensitive but didn't set out to be insulting.

There is a member here who is a whole different order of insulting and methinks he means to be.

If a person says they're an Atheist - you pretty much know exactly what they're religious views are and what they think about people who believe in a sky-God. They may be tactful, they may be polite, they may not call it out in person or on forums - but they all think it's sheer and utter nonsense - otherwise they'd call themselves something else.

Someone once said "never discuss religion or politics on a first date." And that is odd to me. I don't want some person who is going to try and convert me nor do I want Ann Coulter. Better to know early on what you're getting.

To me religion and politics are closely linked. And they affect everyone. If you're a lefty and the right wingers get in that effects you negatively. If the left wingers get in that effects right wingers (well positively mostly except they rage and use false facts to shoot themselves in the foot). But in general left leaning parties don't take things away like the right to have an abortion. Right wing parties want to tell everyone how to run their lives and wish to (or do) close off options for people who did not vote for them. Right wing parties get their beliefs from a religious book. So in fact do many of the lefties but they're smart enough to "compartmentalize" their personal beliefs from imposing it on others.

I've said this probably a dozen times - I don't care what a person believes in their home. You want to be Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Wicka, Scientologist, Mormon, or any of the other 1000 religions out there it's all fine by me - you're gay, straight, bi, pansexual, polyamorous - I really don't care.

You want have to have Christmas and light up the city or you want a Gay pride parade not a big deal (hard to drive down the street is a minor inconvenience) and (wasting tons of electricity and killing more turkeys (but saves chickens and cows) than usual is more of an issue but the boost to the economy makes up for it and the kiddies like it so no problems).

Churches being tax exempt = problem
Churches influencing schools to not teach Evolution in science = problem
Churches promoting intolerance and racial superiority that leads the more "devoted" to beat and murder African Americans and homosexuals = problem
Religions that all claim "thou shalt not kill" and proceed to start wars (killing) with people who believe in something else = problem
Religions telling others how to care for their body = problem
Religions denying the effectiveness of 2000 year old contraceptive (and denying medical options at religious run hospitals) = problem

I have absolutely no problem if someone believes in God - wants to go to church, finds meaning in the teachings, benefits from it. I may question the logic but as is often pointed out to me - for them - faith trumps the logic for them. Fine by me - so long as the logic enters into, and is the ONLY, consideration when deciding public policy.

It's disturbing that people of faith seem to get very easily offended by Atheists as if being attacked. How? We don't lobby government to ban churches, and we don't go to your house to beat you with a bat because you're Muslim (we let the Christians do that :lol:

Seriously. Atheists make up the largest minority in the U.S. And can't run for office in 7 U.S. States? Whaaaaat?

"Intolerance is a bitter beast. There are many groups in America that are subject to discrimination and prejudice, but none are more hated than atheists. Research conducted a couple years ago at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis found that atheists are more distrusted than muslims or homosexuals in the US.

Austin Cline from about.com writes, “Every single study that has ever looked at the issue has revealed massive amounts of bigotry and prejudice against atheists in America. The most recent data shows that atheists are more distrusted and despised than any other minority and that an atheist is the least likely person that Americans would vote for in a presidential election. It’s not just that atheists are hated, though, but also that atheists seem to represent everything about modernity which Americans dislike or fear.

The most recent study was conducted by the University of Minnesota, which found that atheists ranked lower than “Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in ‘sharing their vision of American society.’ Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.” The results from two of the most important questions”

This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society…

Atheist: 39.6%

Muslims: 26.3%

Homosexuals: 22.6%

Hispanics: 20%

Conservative Christians: 13.5%

Recent Immigrants: 12.5%

Jews: 7.6%

I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group….

Atheist: 47.6%

Muslim: 33.5%

African-American 27.2%

Asian-Americans: 18.5%

Hispanics: 18.5%

Jews: 11.8%

Conservative Christians: 6.9%

Whites: 2.3%

The degree of this intolerance is a bit surprising. My experience has taught me that atheists tend to be very intelligent, thoughtful people with a high standard of ethics that they carry through to their everyday lives.

So why the fear, why the hatred? This situation is not the norm for most of the planet. Most East and South Asian countries don’t exhibit this fear of atheists or agnostics. In fact, many of these countries have a significant portion of their population that does not believe in any deity.

European countries have large portions of the population that are atheist. There is not the mass discrimination there based on one’s freedom to believe or not to believe. About the only places in the world that tend to have intolerant attitudes are nations with strong monotheistic cultures, such as both latin and anglo America, and the Islamic countries (particularly Turkey).

Considering that atheist nations are more peaceful, it seems particularly odd that there would be a predilection towards animosity towards atheists. When one group is being discriminated against, it detracts from the freedoms of every group. A society based on tolerance must support the rights of minority groups, including atheists." Research Finds that Atheists are Most Hated and Distrusted Minority | NEWS JUNKIE POST


40 Million Nonbelievers in America? The Secret Is Almost Out | Alternet

Richard, you're a perfect example of why athiests are the most hated and distrusted minority. Keep it up.

Let's end this with a little humor, shall we?

An atheist was seated next to a little girl on an airplane and he turned to her and said, "Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."

The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total stranger, "What would you want to talk about?"

" Oh, I don't know," said the atheist. "How about why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death?" as he smiled smugly.

"OK," she said. "Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?"

The atheist, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, that’s a very good question. I have no idea."

The little girl replied, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death, when you don't know s**t?" And then, smiling,she went back to reading her book.

How long do you think this thread will stay open now that you've seen fit to reopen old wounds with your trademark verbose virtol?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

Richard, you're a perfect example of why athiests are the most hated and distrusted minority. Keep it up.

Let's end this with a little humor, shall we?

An atheist was seated next to a little girl on an airplane and he turned to her and said, "Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."

The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total stranger, "What would you want to talk about?"

" Oh, I don't know," said the atheist. "How about why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death?" as he smiled smugly.

"OK," she said. "Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?"

The atheist, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, that’s a very good question. I have no idea."

The little girl replied, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death, when you don't know s**t?" And then, smiling,she went back to reading her book.

How long do you think this thread will stay open now that you've seen fit to reopen old wounds with your trademark verbose virtol?

---

There has been much vitriol on both sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnMichael

There has been much vitriol on both sides.

---

Note well who always manages to turn threads towards sh*t flinging threads on religion. ...always.

..and who lets them continue unabated.because it suits their agenda and beliefs.

Let me repeat once again:

"I've said this probably a dozen times - I don't care what a person believes in their home. You want to be Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Wicka, Scientologist, Mormon, or any of the other 1000 religions out there it's all fine by me - you're gay, straight, bi, pansexual, polyamorous - I really don't care."


The only thing I care about is when your beliefs affect me in any way shape or form. The reason there is so much vitriol on the net and in the world about religion is because religion has allowed the nutwings to take over and become "powerful."

That is the real problem - not that some guy believes in God - I don't care if you believe in God and don't believe in evolution - I 100% could care less. I do care that a president attacks Iraq because apparently he hears voices from his Lord telling him to do it and other people (not him or his family) goes to war and dies because he hears voices.

Why is that difficult for you to understand? You don't want me telling you how to run your life - you don't want me telling your wife or daughter what she should do if she's in the hospital after a rape - all I ask is for autonomy over my life such that it does not negatively impact others. That's the ONLY thing non-believers want. Stay the hell out of my life and I am more than happy to reciprocate.

I did not know we where the most hated group. I asume this is only for red states in the USA?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

...To me religion and politics are closely linked. And they affect everyone. If you're a lefty and the right wingers get in that effects you negatively. If the left wingers get in that effects right wingers (well positively mostly except they rage and use false facts to shoot themselves in the foot). But in general left leaning parties don't take things away like the right to have an abortion. Right wing parties want to tell everyone how to run their lives and wish to (or do) close off options for people who did not vote for them. Right wing parties get their beliefs from a religious book. So in fact do many of the lefties but they're smart enough to "compartmentalize" their personal beliefs from imposing it on others....

---

BTW, the case the right-wingers are religionists while left-wingers are atheists and/or secular humanists is weak. In most countries -- and that certainly includes the USA and Canada -- the agenda of the right-wing power brokers is one of secular greed. Appeals to religion and socially conservative "values" are entirely for show, that is, designed to co-op the gullible average people to support policies that are ultimately contrary to their own best interests.

I agree do that atheists are the most despised minority. I never felt uneasy about saying, "I'm Presbyterian", but I'm very careful when & where I say, "I'm atheist". (That's why even today I often just say the former when asked about religion.)

Feanor

I tend to agree that many of these greedy people use religion merely to get people on board - unfortunately we can't know "for sure" but if we want to take the "Morality of Jesus" he'd hardly vote Republican. Yet somehow that party seems to own this religion.

I know this is silly but I was watching Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade the other night and Indy has that scene where he picks the cup of Christ which of course is a plane cup in a sea of brilliant gold. He was about helping the downtrodden and give of yourself - the EXACT opposite of the accumulation of wealth is the most important "goal."

But Mormons don't choose that religion to "look good" by being religious. Romney is 'FULLY" Mormon all the way. So I don't believe in this case that he's just using religion as a prop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

The only thing I care about is when your beliefs affect me in any way shape or form.

---

Well, we live in a Society so we all impact one another regardless of what we believe or what those beliefs rest on. It is possible to respect, but differ. Set a good example and over time people may follow it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

An atheist was seated next to a little girl on an airplane and he turned to her and said, "Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."

The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total stranger, "What would you want to talk about?"

" Oh, I don't know," said the atheist. "How about why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death?" as he smiled smugly.

"OK," she said. "Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?"

The atheist, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, that’s a very good question. I have no idea."

The little girl replied, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death, when you don't know s**t?" And then, smiling,she went back to reading her book.

---

LOL! That's pretty funny, I must say.

Well, since it looks like some of you have unresolved issues on this topic I have moved this to the Steel Cage. Even though we haven't quite reached that stage yet...I can't help but feel it's inevitable. So go at it again if you must.

And BTW, impartiality is not my goal here. The well-being of this site and the participants here is. If you don't feel like the mods are treating you fairly, take it up with management. :p Having said that, I'm not your baby sitter. You're all grown men and should behave accordingly.

That is all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

Atheists...can't run for office in 7 U.S. States?

---

Is that true? It seems to me that would go against First Amendment rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn

Is that true? It seems to me that would go against First Amendment rights.

---

I'd like to see some proof of that, too. But, since it's more of rich's delusional BS, I doubt it'll be forthcoming.

From Wiki (Discrimination against atheists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The constitutions of these six US states ban atheists from holding public office:

Arkansas:

"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."[78]

Maryland:

"That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.”[79]

Mississippi:

"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state."[80]

South Carolina:

"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."[81]

Tennessee:

"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."[82]

Texas:

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."[83]

A seventh state constitution discriminates against atheists by affording special protection to theists only.

Pennsylvania:

"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."[84]

Perhaps we could all try to use our heads instead of calling BS (both ways)

Thanks noddinOff. The silly thing about this is that's it's impossible to prove someone's religious beliefs (or lack thereof). If I wanted to run for office in any of these states, and it was important enough to me, I would just join a church, become very active in the church community, and claim that I found religion. Whether I actually truly believed in a "Supreme Being" would up for the voters' interpretation.

But I also wonder about my original question...how is this not going against the First Amendment? Or is it just that since nobody has ever challenged the laws in these States they remain on the books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noddin0ff

From Wiki (Discrimination against atheists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The constitutions of these six US states ban atheists from holding public office:

Arkansas:

"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."[78]

Maryland:

"That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.”[79]

Mississippi:

"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state."[80]

South Carolina:

"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."[81]

Tennessee:

"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."[82]

Texas:

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."[83]

A seventh state constitution discriminates against atheists by affording special protection to theists only.

Pennsylvania:

"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."[84]

---

Apparantly, no atheist has ever shown an interest in serviig the public by running for office in any of those states. If they had, this issue would have been brought up sooner. So, obviously, it's a moot point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

Apparantly, no atheist has ever shown an interest in serviig the public by running for office in any of those states. If they had, this issue would have been brought up sooner. So, obviously, it's a moot point.

---

Or an atheist walks among you. :yikes: I mean, if an atheist wanted to run for office in one of those states it's not likely they would show their horns. :devil:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn

Or an atheist walks among you. :yikes: I mean, if an atheist wanted to run for office in one of those states it's not likely they would show their horns. :devil:

---

Can you find any athiests that hold any office in any state at all? I can't. And I'm not just looking in those seven states.

So, it's a moot point. They simply aren't interested in running for office anywhere AFAICT.

Interesting is that many of the USAs founding fathers were Unitarian.

Some of the beliefs are:
One God and the oneness or unity of God.

The life and teachings of Jesus Christ constitute the exemplar model for living one's own life.

Reason, rational thought, science, and philosophy coexist with faith in God.

Humans have the ability to exercise free will in a responsible, constructive and ethical manner with the assistance of religion.

Human nature in its present condition is neither inherently corrupt nor depraved (see original Sin), but capable of both good and evil, as God intended.

No religion can claim an absolute monopoly on the Holy Spirit or theological truth.

Though the authors of the Bible were inspired by God, they were humans and therefore subject to human error.

Traditional doctrines that (they believe) malign God's character or veil the true nature and mission of Jesus Christ, such as the doctrines of predestination, eternal damnation, and the vicarious sacrifice or satisfaction theory of the Atonement are rejected.

So it is of no surprise that no candidate has admitted to being an Atheist knowing very well they will be criticized, chastised, and and deemed unworthy so they may not admit it publicly and play the game it is.

Also I found this:

Can there be an atheist president?

Yes. Many countries do not have any state religion, i.e. they are secular and a specific religion is not prerequisite for being elected.

Answer 2:

In fact there have probably been several atheist or agnostic US presidents. Probably the most famous is Jefferson - although he may have been a deist. But Franklin Pierce, although brought up in a religious household, reportedly lost all belief after the death of his son and affirmed his presidential rather than swore it. There is no constitutional reason to prevent an atheist becoming president.

Answer:

Yes. In the United States there is a law stating that no religious test shall be required to run for office; however, due to religious bias in the USA, a person who is openly atheist is unlikely to get elected. (Take a look at the fiasco happening in North (?) Carolina because of an atheist in public office. Even with a federal court precidence in Torasco v. Watkins, they're still trying to get him removed from office using an unconstitutional (federal) law that is still in the state's constitution.

With the number of senators and people in the house of representatives, it is unlikely though that none are atheists. They simply are not open about it for fear of something happening like in Carolina.

Answer:
Depends on where you are really. In America, according to the constitution no religious faith is required for positions in office, ie separation of church and state. However, around 75% of Americans believe in God. A presidential candidate announcing his/her atheism would be committing political suicide. In countries like Iran, announcing one's atheism would actually be suicide.

Read more: Can there be an atheist president


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-conten...-billboard.jpg

If the above is true, Romney should already be disqualified

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

Apparantly, no atheist has ever shown an interest in serviig the public by running for office in any of those states. If they had, this issue would have been brought up sooner. So, obviously, it's a moot point.

---

Kinda like saying no gays ever showed an interest in being in the military until they were allowed to do so. ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

Can you find any athiests that hold any office in any state at all? I can't. And I'm not just looking in those seven states.

So, it's a moot point. They simply aren't interested in running for office anywhere AFAICT.

---

First of all, that's not a logical argument. (There are no atheists in office therefore no atheists are interested in running). There are all kinds of other reasons that an atheist may choose not to run. Or perhaps they ran for office and were not elected. Or perhaps there are atheists in office and you just don't know it.

Second, based on the strength of religious beliefs in the USA and the importance that it plays in politics, if I were an atheist who wanted to run for office I would not be waving my atheist flag (as I stated in my last post).

Third, just because you think it's true (AFAYCT) doesn't make it so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noddin0ff

Kinda like saying no gays ever showed an interest in being in the military until they were allowed to do so. ;-)

---

Well, it's been over a year since they were allowed in and I haven't heard of any breaking down the doors to the recruiting centers to enlist. Anoter moot point. Lotsa noise, all for nothing.

Gay NWI soldier re-enlists after repeal of Don

With don't ask, don't tell gone, gay man re-enlists in military - Chicago Tribune

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/us...anted=all&_r=0

The Repeal of Don

Maybe some people might find it interesting to learn how to do a google search or maybe it's just a reading-comprehension issue.

All you have to do is claim to believe in a Deity - any deity - so long as you believe in a creator.

And as Atheists we believe in a very special deity who we consume fairly regularly. He's a wonderful deity who allows us to eat the body of his being.

And there is now a church for Atheists Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster