Controversy: Should American Atheists have been booted from CPAC?

CPAC2014

Nothing like a little controversy to spike attendance at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) an annual event attended by 10,000 faithful conservative activists. They will gather on March 6 – 8, just outside Washington D.C. to hear speeches from practically every leading Republican, including the entire bench of 2016 presidential hopefuls.

“Faithful” is the operative word here because a group without faith is generating many pre-CPAC headlines after being booted from an information booth they had recently purchased. That group is the American Atheists and their mission statement taken from their website says:

American Atheists fights to protect the absolute separation of religion from government and raise the profile of atheism in the public discourse.

Here are the facts surrounding this little kerfuffle between the American Atheists and CPAC.

On February 25, 2014 American Atheists announced via this press release that they “will sponsor an information booth” at CPAC. According to CNN,
American Atheists paid $3,000 for booth 439 in the event’s exhibition hall.

However, the Atheists led by their activist President, David Silverman (a nice Jewish boy who was “forced to do his Bar mitzvah”) was a little too excited about the CPAC booth and used it for bragging rights to CNN.

Here is exactly how the press release read:

Atheists March Into Lions’ Den at CPAC Organization     Confronts Conservatism’s Religious Image   

Does anyone besides me find it ironic that the headline in the Atheists’ press release used a Biblical reference from the story of Daniel in the Lions’ Den? After all, the God that Atheists believe does not exist miraculously saved Daniel from being devoured by hungry lions.

Moving along, on the evening of February 25, Silverman told CNN the following:

“Conservative isn’t a synonym for religious,” Silverman said. “I am not worried about making the Christian right angry. The Christian right should be angry that we are going in to enlighten conservatives. The Christian right should be threatened by us.”

Well, those “fightin’ words” were not kindly received by the American Conservative Union (ACU) the organization that sponsors CPAC. Thus, the Atheists’ next press release  read like this:

CPAC Boots Atheist Booth
Atheists: ‘This Is Exactly the Problem’

On Tuesday, American Atheists President David Silverman received a phone call from Executive Director Dan Schneider informing him that the ACU board is breaking its agreement to permit American Atheists to host an information booth at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), March 6-8.

According to Silverman, Schneider cited “the tone” in the quote “The Christian right should be threatened by us.”, which was in a Tuesday CNN article, as the reason for the revocation. This reversal came just hours after a press release from American Atheists announcing the booth, one week before the conference.

Now, this entire saga has been widely reported and is causing quite a stir bringing more attention to both CPAC and the Atheists. This is really good news for the Atheists because they will fundraise off the controversy, just in time for their annual convention to be held in April in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Seriously? Their annual convention in “Mormon Mecca?” Salt Lake City residents must rank among the most devout of any city in the USA.

Which begs the question, “What is with these people?” Either they are amazingly brilliant, savvy, strategic thinkers and what they are doing is beyond my comprehension — or they are completely clueless imbeciles who intentionally want everyone to despise them. You decide!

Personally, I believe that the ACU’s board should have let the Atheists keep their CPAC booth because there would have been some fascinating, passionate discussions stretching over those three days in early March.

Furthermore, according to the original press release, “A special promotion will allow anyone attending the conference who visits the American Atheist booth to sign-up for a free 1-year membership.” And who could have resisted that offer?

So now that you have all the facts and links to the pertinent source material, do you think the ACU board should have booted the American Atheists from their booth at CPAC?

Only God, who saved Daniel from the lions’ den, the God who Atheists do not believe in (but like to reference anyway) knows the correct answer to this question, but your answer will be appreciated.

For some CPAC humor read A CPAC survival guide for moderate Republicans also by Myra Adams.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed

Myra Adams

Myra Adams is a producer & political writer. She was on the 2004 Bush campaign creative team and 2008 McCain campaign Ad Council.

Writing credits include National Review, PJ Media and Daily Beast.
From Around The Web
About Myra Adams

Myra Adams is a producer & political writer. She was on the 2004 Bush campaign creative team and 2008 McCain campaign Ad Council.

Writing credits include National Review, PJ Media and Daily Beast.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/GodVlogger?feature=mhee GodVlogger (on YouTube)

    Many conservative ideas (small government, pro-defense, pro-gun, pro-life, etc,) could survive and thrive perfectly fine without being saddled with the baggage of bronze-age mythology/superstitions and an ancient ‘holy’ book that endorses slavery and tells us to kill gays, witches, and people who work on the sabbath.

    Over 30% of Americans under age 30 have ZERO religious affiliation, which is a HUGE and quickly GROWING population. It is a larger demographic than Jews, or blacks, or Hispanics, and individual gun-owners, or most other groups that get catered to.

    If the Conservative side of American politics ignores these folks, soon Conservatives will never again be able to win a national election.

    The religious right has hijacked Conservative politics and will run it into the ground if Conservatives allow that to happen.

    • SpeakTruth

      I was in the process of writing virtually the same post, but you saved me the trouble. I absolutely agree. I agree with much of the Republican platform, but I could no longer ignore the religious dogma and discrimination.

      • Bob A

        So you replaced it with anti-Christian, hate filled bigotry.

        • SpeakTruth

          Not hate. Knowledge, compassion, empathy, reason.

          • Steve Harmon

            Nope, it was hate.

          • SpeakTruth

            I can assure you, sir, it is not hate. I strongly disagree with discrimination and bigotry even if it is founded on religious principles.

          • Breezeyguy

            Atheism is against God, not religion. Being against God means it is opposed to the idea of God-given rights, on which this Nation was founded.

          • SpeakTruth

            Atheism is not against god no more than it is against Santa. Atheism is not even choosing not to believe in god. Many people cannot CHOOSE to believe in things. If that were the case I might choose to believe in fairies, or angels. Why don’t Christians believe Joseph Smith was a prophet and that Jesus came to America during his life? Why don’t most people believe in Elvis sightings or UFO’s? It isn’t a choice. I look at the facts, consider the evidence, and see if there is proof, then use logic, etc.

          • Breezeyguy

            “a” mean opposite, “theos” means god.

            Of course you choose which data to consider, and how to consider it. You are constantly choosing.

            Some Christians choose to believe in Joseph Smith and others don’t. They probably base their choices on different sets of data, but with some overlap. “Choosing” vs “facts” is a false dichotomy. Everybody does both.

            Logic! Funny. If you haven’t noticed, logic begins with premises… which are simply assumed.

          • SpeakTruth

            The word origin is correct however the vast majority of atheists do not adhere to that root meaning. I do think Christopher Hitchens was more of that belief as he pointed out the biblical god was jealous and vengeful. Most just don’t think there is credible evidence of any supernatural being. The alternative is much more likely and reasonable.
            The religious people I know do not describe their faith and belief as a choice. They claim to know for various reasons. Do you make a choice to believe things (other than god or religion) or do you question the validity or probability?
            No need to be snarky. I know perfectly well what logic means. I use it every day. However, the premise I begin with isn’t one “chosen” at random. I start with the one that has the most evidence supporting it. If someone today claimed to have been abducted by aliens during the night and returned the next morning, the premise that the story is true or false is not 50/50. I can’t just choose to believe the story or not.

          • Breezeyguy

            The evidence for supernatural being is the existence of natural being. Cause and effect. As soon as you talk about “Physics” as a thing, you are doing Metaphysics.

            Not trying to be snarky. Trying to be clear. If you start with a premise that has “the most evidence supporting it”, then that premise is already a conclusion based on your prior evidence, ie earlier premises.

            What is your very first premise? Believing your senses maybe? Or maybe Descartes’ “I think therefore I am”? (Actually Augustine said it first, to the skeptics, “You doubt, therefore you exist”. Descartes was educated by Catholics.)

            You don’t have to wrestle with the Bible. Try Aristotle, or Aquinas’ “Five Ways” (much more accessible). When he states “In the matter of causes and things caused, you cannot proceed to infinity”, I think he meant vertical causality, not chronological causality. Aristotle believed the universe was eternal, but still needed a vertical cause. Aquinas thought an eternal universe was reasonable, but rejected it due to Judeo Christian revelation. And he still accepted Aristotle’s argument, while rejecting some others such as Anselm’s Ontological argument.

            A man said to me once in all sincerity “Butter is good. But too much Butter is bad. Therefore there’s no such thing as good and bad”. After wrestling with the inanity of such an impossible syllogism, I realized if properly dismantled and investigated, it’s very profitable in the investigation of causality.

          • http://www.youtube.com/user/GodVlogger?feature=mhee GodVlogger (on YouTube)

            “a” often means “without”, as in “asymptomatic” (without symptoms, not against symptoms).

            “theism” is belief in god(s).

            Atheism is the absence of belief in any gods.

          • Breezeyguy

            Words can have several meanings. I accept your definition as a valid one.

            But same effect. If you don’t believe in any god, then you are invalidating the Declaration of 1776. The Declaration appeals to “Nature’s God”, the “Creator”, the “Supreme Judge of the world”, and “divine Providence”.

          • obadiahlynch

            Oops, I just said the same thing above, then scrolled down and found your post. My bad.

          • obadiahlynch

            Actually, “a” more means “without” than “opposite”.

          • Breezeyguy

            Been through this already. Here it is copied for you:

            “Words can have several meanings. I accept your definition as a valid one.

            But same effect. If you don’t believe in any god, then you are invalidating the Declaration of 1776. The Declaration appeals to “Nature’s God”, the “Creator”, the “Supreme Judge of the world”, and “divine Providence”.

          • obadiahlynch

            Yeah but everyone talked that way; there’s no evidence they took the existence or non-existence of an Actual God, one that Participates In The World, seriously. I mean, deists have the idea that God the Watchmaker set the universe in motion and now just observes it. Which is fine, but a God that doesn’t answer prayers or act further in the universe isn’t much of a God, you know?

          • Breezeyguy

            “Everyone talked that way”. Oh please, stop taking such a ridiculously dismissive attitude towards everything that matters. The document appeals to God. If they thought God “just observes”, then they wouldn’t have appealed, and certainly wouldn’t have put it in writing in the most important document of their lives.

            Don’t confuse Deists with Unitarians.

          • obadiahlynch

            I don’t see an appeal; I just see a declaration that The Creator wouldn’t have wanted the colonies to be subject to England, etc etc. Which is sort of the same thing as saying Providence would feel that way, or that there was a Natural Law that the colonies should be free. Y’know?

          • Breezeyguy

            For pete’s sake obadiah dude, stop saying you “don’t see” something when you haven’t even looked.

            It’s right there in English: “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world”
            http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

          • Breezeyguy

            For pete’s sake obadiah dude, stop saying you “don’t see” something when you haven’t even looked.

            It’s right there in English: “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world”
            http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

          • obadiahlynch

            Given, and I had not remembered the exact phrase. Thanks. This conversation has meandered, though. My original contention, and I still stand by it, was that not having faith in a God is not a faith in itself. And I don’t have to believe in a God (I’m not saying I don’t, just to be clear) for the DoD to be valid to me. It doesn’t matter, really, if they appealed their rectitude to ‘the supreme judge’ (which sounds pretty Deist to me, frankly). The vast majority of the document is secular.

          • Breezeyguy

            “document is secular” You’re missing the WHOLE point. The King was King by Divine Right of Kings. That was the old political theory. To escape the King justly you HAD to appeal to his boss, God. Got it?

          • FilmDoctor

            Most, if not all, premises are statements of fact – All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. The first two premises are statements of facts, and facts are true, false, or partly true.

          • Breezeyguy

            That’s exactly my point. Logic begins with assumptions of unproven premises. Unless you prove them. Prove all men are mortal. Prove Socrates is a man.

            So posing “logic” against “faith” is a totally idiotic non-starter.

          • John Grey

            Is gravity assumed or proven?
            Peer-reviewed science MAY begin with a premise, yet how does one begin to describe an event or phenomenon?
            Yes; LOGIC & questioning rule science. Do the same set of principals exist in Faith? And if it DOES, why is there a term we use called Heresy?

          • Breezeyguy

            As a premise it is assumed. As a conclusion, it is proven or disproven.

            All valid principles of thought are applicable to all types of knowledge, faith included. Science rests on faith in the senses, and on the intelligibility and repeatability and homogeneity of the universe.

            There are plenty of heresies to science, plenty of disagreements between scientists, and plenty of ridiculous controversies. The cold fusion fiasco comes to mind.

          • apf2

            Thus you chose to be god. You have decided that your knowledge is complete and your logic infalible and as such yours is the only belief that matters. That’s called sophistry and it is a failed belief/reasoning system–you are not god, you are not all knowing and you are far from infalible.

          • SpeakTruth

            With all due respect, your comments are so ridiculous I can only hope you made them in jest.

          • Tricia Anthone

            The trouble with atheism is that those who subscribe to it recognize no transcendent morality.

            Theists allow that there are objective, external limits on moral behavior and most atheists hold a “relative” view of morality. In the view of an atheist, “Morality is what those with the most power in society say it is.”

            Our country was founded on the conviction that the liberty of mankind is a natural, CREATED state. No government is just which fails to recognize the dignity of human liberty.

            This conviction dissolves in the face of “relative” morality intrinsic to the atheist worldview. That is what makes Atheism incompatible with the foundation of our Constitution.

          • SpeakTruth

            Why would you think atheists fail to recognize the dignity of human liberty? That is absurd. There are basic evolutionary reasons why human beings should care for their children, family members, communities, etc. The “golden rule” is pervasive in most cultures predating the bible. It is biologically advantageous to treat your fellow man as you would like to be treated. Humans did not need the promise of eternal life to decide it is good to help those in need. We would do it anyway (with the exception of psychopaths or other mentally diseased people).

          • Tricia Anthone

            Certainly the rewards attendant to treating others well are not lost even on a sociopath who requires the acceptance and trust of others to meet his own needs and get by in society.

            But people without a belief in an “ultimate authority” of some kind tend to feel that morality is relative – each person or group defines morality for themselves. When the question of moral behavior isn’t subject to any objective and agreed-upon standards you have things like the “man-boy love association” openly promoting pedophilia and some jackasses will be advocating for that.

            If there is no transcendent truth – a truth outside of oneself to which we’re all ultimately accountable, then morality is about expediency and it’s all in your own mind. Hence, it’s relative and subject to changing “with the times.”

          • SpeakTruth

            Well, yes, in some cases. It has already happened in this country. We should make adjustments to our morality with additional information about ourselves, our planet, and each other. You suggest there should be a certain never changing morality? Assuming you are a woman, you would be expected to obey your husband. It would be moral to burn it wouldn’t be immoral to own slaves. We do not look to the bible for a morality, and haven’t for a long time. We have changed our idea of what is and isn’t moral because of additional knowledge or trial and error, or better understanding of worldly and biological truths. It is at least reasonable to assume our idea of what is and is not moral will change again.

          • FilmDoctor

            Biracial marriage was never considered immoral under the Mosaic Code in the Hebrew Scriptures.

          • SpeakTruth

            I did not mean to suggest it was ever mentioned, only that morality has always been fluid with the addition of information.
            I would like to point out, however, that it is and was a reasonable position to assume biracial marriage to be a sin from verses in the bible describing black people as an inferior race. This was the justification of slavery and continued racism in the United States by Christians for many years. (Some continue to point to biblical verses to support racism today.)

          • John Grey

            The “Prophet” of Islam showed those Believers “how to live by Allah’s Laws” & “married a girl of prepubescent age. Agreed by those of that Faith as just…..”Beat your wife with a stick no thicker than your thumb”….again: same thing. Abraham was told to slaughter his son…..BUT “JUST IN TIME” the Lord said OK, you pass the “test”.
            Do you REALLY feel comfortable with a deity like that?
            Don’t you EVER question the morality of that sort of thing?
            If God were such a loving, forgiving god, would he not readily forgive the questioning of things that are at best immoral?

            Can the Lord create a stone so large & heavy he cannot lift it?

          • John Grey

            And the Founder’s of the U.S. owned slaves…. THAT is NOT a “relative” morality even in the Renaissance for the majority of Europeans who had “indentured servitude” fostered upon them by “kings” (or others) ordained by a “god” – & NOT intrinsic to the atheist worldview.
            PLEASE read the “Atheist Community dot org” & find out WHAT Atheists believe. It is a search for truth via logic & provable science. If a Deity came to Earth & preformed as a deity, the majority of Atheists I have spoken to would gladly believe that a deity exists – simple.
            A child dies tragically is “God’s Will” which WE cannot understand. We win the lottery, it’s “God’s Will”, etc. Making the claim that we “cannot understand” the deity’s Will is a scape-goat; an argument by obfuscation.

          • SickOf BeingCoddled

            there are moral people both religious and non religious. the evidence found, in what we deem moral behavior , shows its superiority over what we call immoral behavior. These tenets being universal, are attributed by some to have come from GOD, and others just attribute them to the evidence of the ages. To quote an infamous woman, “what difference does it Make?!”
            I would hope, and have seen evidence in personal encounters, that the bulk of Atheists have a much more peaceful way of trying to save the rest of us from our God path than was voiced by the Atheists who commented on this press release.

          • Ruby Marie Quinn

            You just enjoy the attention you get from religious people you insult.

          • SpeakTruth

            No ma’am. If I caused offense or insult, it was not my intent. I honestly see no way to achieve any form of peace for humanity as long as the majority of humanity clings to beliefs of rewards of eternal life for themselves and those of a like mind and punishments of eternal damnation for everybody else. There was a time when those notions were harmful only to themselves and those in their vicinity. It is different today because of the existence of nuclear weapons. It is not unreasonable to to think those groups holding opposing and mutually exclusive beliefs of what earthly behavior warrents this reward will annihilate us all. For when each of their ideologies promise a blissful eternal existance AFTER they die for adhering to their respective ideologies, there is a greater chance that a nuclear weapon will be used. So, no ma’am, it is not about my enjoyment of insulting people.

          • SickOf BeingCoddled

            please consider this: many of the blessings and curses found within a Religion are only believed,by the members, to be effective on those who believe what that religion teaches. Take the Latterday Saints-mormons. while I believe I will be damned if I rebel against the knowledge and spiritual witness that I have experienced in following this Faith, I also believe that anyone who has NOT chosen to follow this Faith will be judged by God according to the knowledge and understanding they have. Only God can judge the non followers. Those who follow have chosen to be subject to the Rules of the organization. They can Always choose to leave, and the church according to GOD’s law and the Constitution may only levy disassociation and revocation of membership. This withdraws blessings which are only available through acceptance of the rules. Some members Wrongly state that the cursing of rejecting by members applies to all. The cursings only apply to those who have partaken and then rejected, and are only dealt out by God himself and they are the withholding of Blessings. and non participation in Temple and leadership activities. They are not material punishments.

          • SpeakTruth

            I have several good things to say about Mormons. They do not push their beliefs on others (missionaries are respectful when met with disinterest). They seem to be very nurturing parents and family units seem to remain together. The practice of food storage is well known and wise. But my best compliment to the Mormon Church is they way it handled the Broadway musical, “Book of Mormon”! Although it was by far my favorite Broadway production, it made fun of Mormons and their church in a very profane way. The church, however, took the high road and went so far as advertising in the Playbill! Good for the Mormon church. The musical was funny, the songs were catchy and you left with a positive feeling about Mormons.

          • HonestToAtee

            Who gives YOU the authority to tell others WHO OR WHAT they must believe in? Atheists have been the cause of so much death in the history of man for the exact reasons that we see here! YOU FEEL YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTROL WHAT GOD FEARING PEOPLE THINK! I am NOT a Christian but I know that when you Atheists have finished with them you will come for me, it is time for all free men to fight these nuts and save our Constitution which gives ALL men the right to believe whatever wherever! Leave the Cross in Bladensburg MD alone you scumbag Atheists! http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2012/09/atheists-want-maryland-cross-removed/

          • SpeakTruth

            First off, let me apologize for not articulating my point as well as I could have done. When I said many “people cannot choose to believe” I did not mean, nor would I EVER want government suppression of religion. The first amendment is a priceless privilege for American citizens. What was meant by that phrase is that for many atheists, nonbelief is not a choice. Some may even wish they could believe. But when we analyze the information regarding the accuracy of the bible and combine it with logic and common sense, it is not possible to believe the bible is true.
            I realize this clarification probably will not change your feelings for me, I would just rather you dislike me for the correct reason.

          • HonestToAtee

            Good response, I only hate those that effect the rights and ability to be, of others.
            Gays are forcing Christians to bake cakes they have never offered to anyone, they are using the courts to force a woman photog to artistically photo a gay wedding something this photog can’t do from within due to her Christian beliefs. Atheists are forcing through the courts the removal of historic monuments that the vast majority love. When you have these miniscule minorities, many times just one idiot, forcing their will on the vast majority we got a problem. The Constitution has been burned by the Progressives and most of us know that this very document is at the heart of the problem for Atheists. Atheists hate that our laws are not dictated by men but formulated by the word of God.You don’t have to believe it and honest believers of the Abrahamic faiths,Islam NOT included, do not wish to impose it on others. Those Christians who proselytize in good faith are of no threat to me as again I am not Christian, but I would rather have them try to save me from hell then a Muslim try and remove my head from my torso and send me to hell. The reason I say this is because if you Atheists succeed in eliminating the Constitution you will rue the day once the Muslim threat reaches you front door! Sharia law is here and we MUST defeat it!

          • SpeakTruth

            I’m not saying there are no wacko atheists. Crazy is not discriminate. However, I have never personally known, read, listened to any atheist advocate for government sanctioned anything. I do support gay rights as I see them as civil rights. I do not view it as suppression of religious rights. The Rule of Reciprocity or Golden Rule predates the bible. I would argue the laws stated in our Constitution and the ideas in the Declaration of Independence are natural laws guaranteeing a free civilized society. I would also suggest there are few, if any, nations having a governing document so remarkably unreligious as the US Constitution. Other than murder and theft common to countless ancient and modern cultures, no other part of the Constitution comes from the bible. As a matter of fact, the Constitution guarantees freedoms and liberties that the bible specifically forbids (like freedom of speech). And if the 10 commandments are to be used as a guide to morality as the bible commands, should we also have to live by the corresponding punishments if one of the commandments is broken? It is fortunate our founders decided the bible was not the best source on which to base the laws of our country.

          • SickOf BeingCoddled

            the old testament does not give the full christian picture. the life of Christ and his atonement took away the need for MAN to wipe out Man for every perceived wrong. What the atonement does is open the path for us to forgive and be forgiven and to let God judge the final reward. We don’t have to worry about that. The discourses of Christ if read with knowledge of the culture do address nearly all if not ALL of the tenets in the constitution. Most of the constitution was written and understood to be a document that depended on the Character of Each Individual for it to be good and survive. That is why its restrictions on individuals are so limited and its restrictions on Government so specific. Any power NOT expressly given to Government is reserved to the PEOPLE!!

          • Sunshine Kid

            Exactly! I do not believe in “religion”, but I DEFINITELY believe in God! As Jesus said, “Be not as the hypocrites,” (Matthew 6) and as I see it, many religions are hypocritical. That is my opinion, of course, and I would never tell someone to change how they believe, unlike atheists.

          • Breezeyguy

            What was that some one said about churches being full of hypocrties? The reply was “Don’t worry. There’s always room for one more.”

            I’m a hypocrite. I sometimes fail to act as I believe I should. But that causes me to doubt my self, not my beliefs, and to try again. What’s the alternative? To stop believing anything just because it’s difficult?

            And because I believe in God, I have come to believe in religion also. Religion is a God-made appetite in man, and it should be directed not suppressed.

          • Tricia Anthone

            Thank you for raising the bar! Your comment is as brilliant as it is compassionate.

            The only way to keep from “being a hypocrite” is to “lower the bar” to conform to the lowest, smallest and weakest expression of our humanity. If we claim nothing but disdain for the pursuit of virtue then no one can call us a hypocrite.

            In our zeal to avoid hypocrisy it seems that’s what many of us have chosen.

          • Breezeyguy

            Thanks Tricia!

          • Julie Forrest

            Thinking themselves to be wise, they have become utter fools.

          • Julie Forrest

            That’s not directed at you!

          • John Grey

            Atheism is the lack of evidence / proof that a deity exists. It has NOTHING to do with HATE & everything to do with logic.
            Scripture in the Christian / New Testimate tradition was written by those who were not there at Christ’s death. Deity following of Islam was SUPPOSELY written by those who were dictated an oral tradition of tribal literature. Both structures loose ground to logical proof of an existence of a Deity.
            It is up to those MAKING THE CLAIM that a deity exists to prove that such an existence is inviolate. An Atheist simply “questions”. Many people confuse that with the term “Agnostic”. Neither of these philosophical principals “hate” believers.
            Do some research on “the Atheist Community dot org” & get a foothold on the reality of what Atheists believe. There are nuts in every crowd. There are some who had been abused by the Church, some who see what the Kansas based “church” does in picketing soldier’s funerals, & hate that action, yet any open minded person knows that some church do wonderful things for the poor & needy. We see Fundamental Islamist who hate just about everything the free world stands for yet only a non-thinking person believes that ALL Islamic individuals want to destroy the free world.

          • Steve Harmon

            Well, good for you.

          • adbj102

            Unless it’s Christian principles! It’s HATE by another name! Admit it…you hate Christians!

          • SpeakTruth

            I do not hate any group. There area many people, including some Christians, that I think are of bad character. Those people try to harm others or are otherwise immune to the suffering they cause. I greatly dislike hypocrites. For instance those that point fingers and judge others and restrict someone’s freedoms to perpetuate their feelings of sanctimonious superiority. I dislike those that are so incredibly narcissistic they cannot understand how their own views on god and the bible might be wrong and are not shared by everyone. There are many Christians I love dearly, but with whom I disagree. There are many Christians that disagree with you about homosexuality and gay marriage. There are many Christians that have a different interpretation of the bible than you.
            Why don’t you list the verses that discuss what kinds of sex are acceptable in the original King James. List the verses where Jesus says treat homosexuals with disgust and discrimination and refuse them a service. I request you use the original King James. More recent translations have increasingly been altered to suit a particular dogma.

          • Johnny Turner

            What knowledge you speaking of. I think it is meant to go just like it is going. How do you explain all the stuff that is happening that is fulfilling what the Bible speaks of and was written thousands of years ago? Whether you believe in God and Christ Jesus is your right , but what you going to do when you die and find out you made a terrible mistake and staying at Satan’s Hotel?

          • SpeakTruth

            I do not know what events that are happening that you consider biblical prophesy, so I can’t comment why or the cause.
            The knowledge that I have isn’t exclusive to me. The foundation of the Christian faith is the bible. If the historical inaccuracies, contradicting gospels, unfulfilled prophesies, errors in translations, redacted gospels, and clearly stories pieced together from earlier god myths lead me to believe the bible is not divine, then then the bible just becomes an ancient piece of literature. Atheists are not anti god. But just as you might find Scientology not credible, atheists find all religions not credible. As far as burning in hell, clearly I do not believe in hell so that poses no worry. Perhaps you do not fear an eternal punishment for not following the Quran.

          • Brian Robinson

            Here this is not exactly the he is refering to but listen to this from 1965.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3Az0okaHig

          • SpeakTruth

            I’m sorry, but I still don’t understand your point. I watched the video and certainly am familiar with Paul Harvey. You are not implying Mr. Harvey’s speech is biblical prophesy?

          • Brian Robinson

            HA-HA! no no no! That’s funny though! Just how the things he talked about then are happening now. Him being a believer and knowing the teachings of the bible had a good idea of how the Devil would work to gain power.

          • SpeakTruth

            Ok. Good, lol! It was quite accurate, but other astutely aware people could and may have made similar predictions, although probably not as eloquent as the talented Paul Harvey. Also, the accuracy of those predictions does not prove satan’s existence.
            And that’s the rest of the story. :)

          • FilmDoctor

            There are no contradictions in the Bible, as more than several scholarly books have shown. And, many alleged “inaccuracies” have been cleared up and confirmed, such as the existence of the Hittites. Also, the “earlier god myths” theories have been refuted by such scholars as J. Gresham Machen and Ronald H. Nash. Jesus is completely different than these other ancient stories. Finally, translation “errors” are accounted for in the most credible modern translations. SpeakTruth is sorely outdated, to the point of slander.

          • SpeakTruth

            Inaccuracies have only been “cleared up” by those trying to fit the pieces, i.e. those who already believe. The vast majority of scientists at best believe the bible should not be taken literally, but as stories for interpretation, OR, consider it discredited and merely literature. The ever growing huge body of evidence proves the earth is billions of years old and life has evolved for hundreds of thousands of years. There is no explanation of how various animals spread after Noah’s flood, not to mention to preposterous notion that two of every species including Noah and his family and food for all of them fit on one ship and lasted 40 days without animals killing and eating each other. The contradictions range from the obvious old and New Testament ideologies to the differences in and omissions of details in Jesus’s life story.

          • Brian Robinson

            There are no atheists in a fighting hole or on a death bed! They can argue that all they want to but I have seen it with my own eyes in both situations.

    • Jan McMullen

      Can you share a link on those stats? You should be appalled that the younger generation is willing to give up FAITH! And as far as hi-jacking goes seems to me the Atheists are CONDEMNING religious freedom and faith!

      • dskancer19
      • Joel Gibbs

        “appalled”? ‘Atheists are CONDEMNING religious freedom and faith!” The notion that Christians are a persecuted minority in this country is risible. I will grant you that Mr. Silverman likes to pay the fly-in-the-ointment more often than not, but most Atheist just want the country to be what the founders intended: a country where religious affiliation is not required for public office nor the guiding hand behind our laws and legislation. When I hear ignoramuses like Congress Broun or former General Boykin making blanket statements about the Christian nation that we live in it is disturbing and mendacious. Finally, keep in mind that while 10-15% of the country maybe Atheist, only .2% of the prison population is. Additionally, if you want biblical Laws, the next time your neighbor works on Sunday, please stone him to death.

        • auntielib

          “the founders intended: a country where religious affiliation is not required for public office nor the guiding hand behind our laws and legislation.”
          —–
          The founders “intended” no such thing as you just claimed, as their own writings make abundantly clear.
          Got any other lies you want to trot out, Joel?

          • Joel Gibbs

            “In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot … they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose.” — Thomas Jefferson, to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814

          • auntielib

            “In time of prosperity fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in Thee to fail; all of which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen. — Thomas Jefferson, March 4, 1805, A National Prayer for Peace

          • Breezeyguy

            Jefferson was anti-Catholic, but considered himself a Christian. He thought and hoped everybody would become unitarian eventually.

          • Debbie G

            And as president, I believe he supported missionary work with federal funds.

          • Breezeyguy

            There’s a tendency to pigeon-hole everything. If missionaries are making peace with the natives, for example, isn’t that a legitimately fund-able effort?

            If a president is a Methodist, say, so he believes that human beings have innate value and should not be killed, and signs a law based on that belief, is that “establishing a religion”? No, but the modern SCOTUS would say so.

            First the Fed government decides to fund schools, then they decide because they fund schools, that everything that schoold does is somehow an act of Congress, then they decide that students can’t pray because that would be Congress is establishing a religion. SCOTUS has no brains at all, but they are doing what Satan and the left want no matter how blatantly stupid it is. And they don’t seem to realize that by suppressing prayer, they are violating the “free exercise of religion” clause. But they say they can do it because the schools receive Fed money? Huh? Because you gave us money you can violate the First Amendment? It’s like I said – no brains at all.

          • Debbie G

            I’m not sure if you are reprimanding me or what. The conversation is regarding the founding fathers’ beliefs. I was just stating the fact that Jefferson, a Christian or not, still saw goodness in Christian missionary work. Are you saying he should have not used federal funds for this purpose? Or that he was right to do so?

          • Breezeyguy

            No – not reprimanding you at all. In your original post, you didn’t state whether you approved of Jefferson’s funds or not. So there was nothing to disagree with you about.

            The problem with the Fed, and with SCOTUS the last hundred years, is that once they fund something, they think they own it lock stock and barrel. And then if a State doesn’t “behave”, then they threaten its funding. Or, in the case of 501c3′s now, since Johnson, if a Church advocates for a candidate, the Fed will threaten it’s tax status.

          • Debbie G

            Agreed.

          • obadiahlynch

            Well, part of the problem is e.g. the Jewish kids, who were being forced to say Methodist prayers in a public school that their parents paid for. It makes more sense just to say the school isn’t going to lead prayers.

          • Breezeyguy

            No, it makes more sense to allow students to pray as they seem fit, taking turns etc, and allowing non-participation. That’s what freedom would look like.

          • obadiahlynch

            Kids can already pray in school, though. The school just can’t make them pray, or sort of ‘Jew-shame’ them (is that even a word? I guess it is now) by making them sit quietly while the other kids pray.

          • Breezeyguy

            Not true. Praying out loud by anybody has been forbidden.

          • obadiahlynch

            I suppose in some circumstances that’s reasonable. (If it’s disruptive, etc) But I volunteer at my local school and I know kids pray there because I see them doing it.

          • Breezeyguy

            I’m glad to hear it. Ignoring unjust rulings is at the heart of American democracy.

          • obadiahlynch

            I guess I wasn’t clear. Praying out loud in schools is not illegal, AFAICT. Schools can obviously prohibit disruptive behavior; I’m not surprised a court would have ruled so, if that’s what you’re talking about.
            .
            Requiring other kids to sit through your display, that probably is illegal, and I can understand why. Why should my taxes go to pay for my kid to have to listen to prayers I don’t want him to hear?

          • Breezeyguy

            Maybe one of us is ignorant of the facts. We decided not to put out kids in school when the teacher told my wife that the word “God” was not permitted there.

            Recent rulings are Santa Fe Independent School District v Doe (2000), and Lee v Weisman (1992).

            There’s plenty of stuff kids don’t want to listen to. Why is prayer treated differently than any other kind of speech? And why do schools teach artificial insemination of lesbians to kinder gartners? Have you ever actually looked at “Heather Has Two Mommies”? It’s gross. Nothing to do with tolerance. I certainly don’t want my taxes going to that.

          • Brian Robinson

            Not lead prayer is fine but to say kids can’t pray in school is wrong.

          • obadiahlynch

            Yeah, I’m with you there.

          • Joel Gibbs

            “History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose.” — Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

          • auntielib

            “I consider the doctrines of Jesus as delivered by Himself to contain the outlines
            of the sublimest system of morality that has ever been taught” — Thomas
            Jefferson, June 17, 1804, letter to Henry Fry

          • Joel Gibbs

            Jefferson considered Jesus a moral philosopher and as such he produced a bible without the mystical. Als ““When you pray, don’t be like the hypocrites who love to pray publicly on street corners and in the synagogues where everyone can see them. I tell you the truth, that is all the reward they will ever get. But when you pray, go away by yourself, shut the door behind you, and pray to your Father in private. Then your Father, who sees everything, will reward you.” Book of Matthew.

          • auntielib

            Yet Jefferson referred to Jesus Christ as “Lord”, and as the Lord of the American People, people living hundreds and hundreds of years after Christ walked the Earth! So clearly Jefferson did NOT merely view Christ as merely “a moral philosopher”.

            So there goes your argument, Joel.

          • Joel Gibbs

            Careful, amny of thes “quotes” from Jefferson are fabrications, but to be
            clear, Adams (not Quincy), Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, and Paine
            were all Deists. Paine more on the Atheist
            side and he was an articulate despiser of organized religion. We are all Atheists to all the previous
            Deities that have been invented by man, I just take it one God further. Were we really differ is your believe that
            morality is exclusively the product of Judaism and Christianity. I believe that morality is the natural inherent
            property of most humans,. The Golden Rule
            ins manifested in one way or another in almost all cultures. To that end, the Western countries with the highest
            percentage of non-believers also have the lowest rates of criminality. I do all the moral things that you might ascribe
            to you faith (I work hard, don’t murder, steal, cheat, cheat on my wife…etc.)
            not for fear of a vengeful god or for some reward in heaven, but because it is the
            right thing to do. I would argue that eh
            Old Testament is an amoral book about a jealous, murderous, vengeful deity. Time
            and tide is on my side so I don’t worry too much.

          • Bob A

            In the 13 colonies you were required to be a church going member of that colonies religion to hold office. It was the federal government that could not promote one religious sect over another.

          • fltflyer

            I believe in Pele does that count. I figure if I have to believe in something then a hot woman is the best thing to worship.

          • Breezeyguy

            Not sure if they considered themselves “Deists”. They were Unitarians, as opposed to Trinitarians.

          • Brian Robinson

            Bullshit I’m tired of heariing you people trying to say that the founding fathers were Deists. That’s BS

          • http://www.youtube.com/user/GodVlogger?feature=mhee GodVlogger (on YouTube)

            Ever hear of the Jefferson Bible, where he cut out all the supernatural/miracle stuff, which he considered to be silly superstitions?

          • Breezeyguy

            Again, Jefferson was anti-clerical and anti-Catholic, not anti-Christian. He did not believe in the Divinity of Christ, but hailed Jesus as the greatest moral teacher by far of all time.

          • Joel Gibbs

            “As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?” — John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

          • auntielib

            “I have myself, for many years made it a practice to read through the Bible once
            every year. … My custom is, to read four or five chapters every morning,
            immediately after rising from my bed. It employs about an hour of my time, and
            seems to me the most suitable manner of beginning the day.” — John Quincy Adams

          • Joel Gibbs

            He wasn’t a founding father.

          • grannykate62

            John Adams who paid bribery in the form of foreign aid to the bloody muslim Barbery Pirates? Keep reading what he said in his letters

          • Bob A

            No. Its the religion of humanistic atheism that is the bloodiest religion of all. In the 20th century more people were murdered by Godless humanists than in all the holy wars of the last 2000 years. Get your history right. Oh I forgot. Humanists, like muslims have no mandate to be truthful, as Christians do.

          • Joel Gibbs

            Hitler never disavowed Catholicism and often invoked God in his
            speeches. The German soldiers fought
            with “Gott mit uns” on their belt buckles.
            Stalin studied to be a priest before he was dictator and basically
            turned the state into religion, but as the new Russia show, while officially
            Atheist, the Orthodox Church was always beneath the surface. Mao, well, go to China and you see the same,
            religion not official, but not gone.
            Christians have a mandate to be truthful… you know, you have a mandate not to judge and that isn’t followed either.

          • Bob A

            You make up history better than your atheistic communist fellow travels comrade. LOL

          • Breezeyguy

            Ha. Since that time, Atheism has far surpassed any other religion as the most bloody that ever existed.

            “But should the people of America once become capable of that deep
            simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which
            assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising
            iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner
            the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is
            rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable
            habitation in the world; because we have no government armed with power
            capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and
            religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the
            strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our
            Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is
            wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams, to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, 11 Oct 1798.

          • Joel Gibbs

            I want to give you an example to demonstrated how your assertion
            is flawed. Firstly Atheism is not a
            religion, it is a philosophy. Save some community
            groups based on a shared non-belief, the lack of belief in god is not an organized
            entity. The Spanish Inquisition tortured
            and killed untold numbers. We don’t
            blame that on a believe in god, (Theism) but instead the blame is placed at the
            foot of religion, more specifically the Catholic religion and the agents of the
            Inquisition. By the same token, saying
            that the atrocities of Stalin’s regime were the result of the lack of a believe
            in god rather than the Authoritarian “Communist” terror state that he established
            is flawed. He didn’t wage terror and murder
            campaigns based on atheism nor on a hatred of Christians. They were attacked if his paranoia justified it. The Church in Russia had a close association
            with the deposed Czar. When Stalin deigned
            that the Orthodox Church useful, as during World War 2, he allowed it to resume
            services full tilt to help those in foxholes pray. The Russian Orthodox Church suffered under
            Stalin, to be sure, but didn’t disappear.
            It is now flourishing under Putin’s neo-Fascist reign. Hitler was considered by many Germans to be a
            “gift from God”. In countless speeches
            he invoked God and used the undercurrent of anti-Semitic Christianity to aid in
            the Final Solution. In China, where I
            lived for 2 years, there is little religious persecution and what there is
            focuses on Falun Gong and Radical Muslims (That would no doubt please you. While I was there they complete a brand new
            mini cathedral in Yuncheng (check it out on Google Earth). Taxi-cab drivers have statues of their
            favorite little deities fastened to their dashboards, and as their driving is frightening,
            I’ll take any help I can get. The Chinese
            Government is tolerant of Religious practice if it is not disruptive to the Country
            and is not influenced by outside agents.
            For my part I found so many Chinese to still wed of traditions of
            ancestor worship, spirits, and various omens, symbols, and portents of good and
            bad fortune Taoism and Confucianism. Mao’s
            Zedong’s personal beliefs were heavily rooted in Taoism and Confucianism
            despite the state’s official Atheistic stance.
            While the official status of both the Soviet Union and the PRC are that
            of Atheist Marxist Leninist States, the vast majority of the population at many
            levels is still rooted in religion and spirituality. That begs the question, could an Atheistic
            state force you to do something against your beliefs and was the violence in and
            from these States in the name of Atheism?
            I think not. You
            would have to agree with the or acquiesce to the overarching goal of the State.

          • Rick Caird

            Actually, Joe, atheism is a loosly organized religion with a very simple dogma that cannot be proven. Go to dictionary.com, look up “religion” and check out the first 3 definitions. Note, there is no requirement for a belief in God.

            Also, go to Merriam-webster .com and look at the 4th definition for religion. Atheism definitely fits. You will also find the last 4 examples of use which do not include the requirement of a God.

          • Joel Gibbs

            Let me correct then, organized religion. As for dogmas that cannot be proven, hearsay for Christianity and Judaism. God cannot be proven

          • auntielib

            “God cannot be proven”
            —–
            ??? And you know that how, Joel?
            Logic isn’t your strong suit, I see.

          • Joel Gibbs

            Loosely organized…very. I don’t get together with other athiestsa nd form policy. My MW defiions online

            re·li·gion

            noun ri-ˈli-jən

            : the belief in a god or in a group of gods NO

            : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods NO

            : an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group Hers the thing…it doesn’t come to mind and is not that important until the issues of the Religious come up. It is way down on my list of things to contemplate

            Full Definition of RELIGION

            1

            a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural(2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance NO

            2

            : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices Not Really

            3

            archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness NO

            4

            : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

            Ardor, a bit, Faith, no.

          • Breezeyguy

            The Spanish Inquisition? Blame the Spanish.

            Of course Hitler appealed to religious symbolism. He played the field just like Obama does.

          • Joel Gibbs

            The Spanish Inquisition was part of a larger Inquisition that started in France and was most active in Spain, but was not limited to that country.

          • auntielib

            “was most active in Spain”
            —–
            Yes, since Spain was perhaps the country that the Muslim invaders had most focused their invasion and assault on.

            As pointed out already, the Inquisition was basically a response to the invasion of Christian nations by Muslim attackers.

          • Joel Gibbs

            It started as reaction to the Cathars in France. In Spain and Portugal it was then directed against Muslims and Jews. In Germany it focused on witches.

          • auntielib

            “The Spanish Inquisition tortured
            and killed untold numbers.”
            —-
            Just as Stalin tortured and killed “untold” numbers. But, thanks to historians, we have pretty good estimates of how many people died due to the Inquisition versus due to the Atheist Stalin.
            Historians estimate that about 10,000 people died due to the Inquisition.
            Historians estimate that somewhere between 20,000,000 and 60,000,000 died due to the Atheist Stalin.
            That’s a ratio of 2,000 to 6,000 times as many people died due to the Atheist as due to the Inquisition.
            Keep in mind also that the Inquisition was basically a response by the Roman Catholic Church to the invasion of Christian countries by Muslim attackers.
            What was the Atheist Stalin’s excuse, Joel?

          • Joel Gibbs

            Calling Stalin an Atheist is without evidence and he, like Hitler, were dictators…despots. whixh historuians, show me your soruces…mine say otherwise and yours is too low even for the Spanish Inquisition alone. “Keep in mind also that the Inquisition was basically a response by the
            Roman Catholic Church to the invasion of Christian countries by Muslim
            attackers.” not true. It started as a way to seek out secret Jews. The first auto-de-fe was in 1481 and the Muslims had been largely expelled by that time and would be gone form there tenuous position in Granada by 1492. The remaining “Moriscos” were later persecuted, partly as they were though to be aiding Barbary pirates, but they did not suffer anything like Jews and Protestants
            did.

          • BJ001

            Stalin was an atheist you idiot. What, are you trying to wipe out religious freedom?

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

          • Joel Gibbs

            Stalin’s ideas about a “god” were complex. Even the Wikipedia article makes mention of this. Biographies of the man go into deeper details about this. Was he a Christian? No. if we are going to talk about mass murderes, if you are a literla beleiver in hte bible, waht about the god of the Old Teatamnet. According to exact numbers of the book there are 2,231,364. Add to this the estimates of the flod and other of his fune games the grand total comes to 25 million. For “God’s” sake, he killed the first born children of the Egyptians because he was mad a the Pharaoh, if you beleive the non-historical accounts. Hell, the Bible says he sent 2 bears to rip apart 42 children for making fun of Elijah’s bald head. Some morals there. “Am I trying t wipe out religious freedom?’. No. Insomuch as I believe freedom-from-religion is just as important as your freedom to be religious. To that end I do not any laws and other government mandated items based on your, or anyone’s, religion. As for being an idiot, it is so refreshing to see you and other Christians taking the high road; wait, or is it the judgmental part of your faith that you cherish?

          • BJ001

            My goodness you are a teacher and you can’t even spell.

          • Brian Robinson

            They aren’t judgmental, just stating the obvious!

          • Joel Gibbs

            Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” — James Madison, “A Memorial and Remonstrance”, 1785

          • Maria Daniela Perdomo

            What Joel said are not lies my friend. I invite you to watch a little less “DUCK DYNASTY” and read a little more AMERICAN HISTORY!

            Good day!

          • http://www.youtube.com/user/GodVlogger?feature=mhee GodVlogger (on YouTube)

            Have you ever read the Treaty of Tripoli, where the US Senate UNANIMOUSLY stated that the USA is in no way founded upon the Christian religion?
            Check it out.

        • Katherine Harms

          The founders intended a nation where people could live according to the tenets of their faith without fear of arrest or imprisonment. The founders would have hooted at the idea that a person ought to leave his faith and his convictions in the church building when he goes home.

          • Joel Gibbs

            You know this how?

        • crossingTheDelaware

          Morality is and should be the guiding hand behind our laws and legislation. Many people get their values an moral system in large part from religion (me, many of the Framers). Atheists get morality elsewhere. But I believe that a Conservative that happens to be a non-believer, and I, will share much in common w.r.t. to our values and what we consider to be moral.

          From my point of view, if you are a Conservative and are willing to stand next to me in the trenches against Leftist Progressive Liberalism, I welcome you there whether you are a believer or not.

          • Brian Robinson

            Ok but will probably kick them out of the trench or try to shut them up when they start to pray?

          • crossingTheDelaware

            The point is, I am not offended by a Conservative that happens to be a non-believer, based on that fact alone.

            Conversely, aren’t there many believers that offend you with their Progressive Liberalism (Al Sharpton, Nancy Pelosi, Jeremiah Wright, Diane Feinstein, Robert Menendez, Chuck Schumer, Jesse Jackson — all believers)

            So for me, that a person is a non-believer is not a cause, by itself, to exclude or shun them from Conservatism. And that a person is a believer is not a cause, by itself, to admire or approve of the political views of that person.

          • Brian Robinson

            Very true. Hell I was raised by an Athiest father so it has no bearing on the matter. What I have a problem with is people telling others how, who, or what to and not to believe in.

        • Bob A

          So only the opinions of atheists and other pagans can be put into law. That sounds like anti-Christian bigotry. I believe the 1st amendment applies to Christians too.

          • obadiahlynch

            Point of order here — atheists are not pagans.

        • Johnny Turner

          Stoning and that sort of thing is not in the New Testament. You have no grounds there. Jesus I do not believed taught that. The Old Testament is actually how it was during that day and put in the Bible kinda like a prelude to the New Testament, telling how it was then. But the Ten Commandants were meant to live on forever,which were written during that time.

        • BJ001

          About 3% of the country is atheist. Most killings and oppression has been conducted by atheistic governments. Stalin, Pol pot, Castro, Lenin, Mao, etc.

          • Joel Gibbs

            I addressed this red herring earlier. To some up, Theism didn’t cause say, for example. the Crusades. The Roman Catholic church did. Theism was not the motivation behind 9/11. Islam was. If you allowed to list 5 words that describe who and what you are, it’s likely “Christian” would be one of the words. Atheist, that’s not how I identify myself, it’s non-thing. Atheism was not the driving power behind Stalin’s purges or his Gulags. His paranoid drive to hold onto complete power was. His anti-religious stance was based on his hatred of the Orthodox Church’s support for the Tsar. in his personal life things were not so clear. At age 14 he earned a scholarship to seminary and he got some of his radical ideas from the Massamah Dassy, a group of priests that Advocated Georgian independence. He is quoted to have said he though Atheist literature was “anti-religious wastepaper” and he rejected Darwinism. During the Second World War he brought the Church back to acceptance to help in his fight against Hitler. I could go on about Mao, and Hitler, but as I said, I addressed it earlier. There are no firm numbers on the population of Atheists in the US. I have read numbers form 2 to 15%. Many, like myself, do not readily let others know do to the very real chance of it affecting our jobs and other aspects of our lives. I do know this; the number is growing, moreover, 30% of people under 30 have no religion having reject the judgmental and narrow-minded tenets of Christianity and Islam. We are winning.

          • BJ001

            Stalin and many other communist leaders imprisoned and murdered religious people. Mao, Pol-pot and others did the same thing. It had nothing to do with the Tsars. Are you a communist or something. Young people grow up and wise up. 30s isn’t old either.

          • obadiahlynch

            Sorry, but .. really? You don’t think Stalin’s actions had anything to do with the tsars?

          • BJ001

            The last of the Tsars had already been murdered by the communists before Stalin came to power.

          • obadiahlynch

            Well, the tsars did plenty of murdering on their own, which may have affected how the Bolsheviks felt about them, do you think maybe?

          • BJ001

            Are you some communist or something?? Communism as a whole has murdered more people than any type of government in the history of the world. I am including all communist governments here. Communism doesn’t work. I am not defending the Tsars, I am just saying that communism doesn’t work. It wasn’t just the Tsars who were cut down either, the Bolsheviks murdered their innocent children in cold blood as well.

          • obadiahlynch

            No, I am a historian. And Stalin didn’t just spring out of nothing — the world he grew up in made him what he was. Yeah, he was a monster. Lots of rulers were monsters. The tsars had been monsters before him. That part of the world had always bred monstrous leaders.
            .
            I suspect the Bolshies felt they had to wipe out the family too; tsarring was hereditary. You get rid of the tsar, you set up your replacement government, then in eighteen years some ‘long lost tsar heir’ shows up leading a Mongol army or something and upsets your plans. When you’re trying to build a Noble Experiment In The Progress Of Man, you can’t be having that, y’know?

          • BJ001

            Sounds like you are justifying it. The Bolshies were evil as well.

          • obadiahlynch

            I think more .. understanding, than justifying. Revolutions are violent. People get killed. The tsar had committed plenty of atrocities too; the Bolshies were about done with him.

            .

            You got to remember this place, even though it was the early 20th in the rest of the world, this place was still in the 17th or so, politically. Feudal system, all that stuff. Killing the royal family was how you did things then anyway, and the tsar was in that business.

          • BJ001

            Well hopefully we have moved on. The Bolshies were evil people too. Communism failed in Russia just like it did everywhere it was tried. Now we have a president trying to turn America communist. Really stupid.

          • BJ001

            Oh and BTW Karl Marx said that atheism was an important part of communism. Religion must be wiped out to achieve the utopian dream of communism. All communist leaders outlawed religion and murdered and imprisoned those caught practicing. You can say whatever you want. It doesn’t make what I said any less true.

          • Brian Robinson

            For it being such a non-thing to you you sure have a lot to say about it!

        • BJ001

          3% of this country is atheist.

          • Joel Gibbs

            That is just one estimate. Some estimates go as high as 15%. I think that’s high. You probably know some and do not know that they are. I have had students’ tell me that they are and it seems to be on the rise. As a teacher, I don’t share with them that I am as I feel it is unimportant. Oh, and if you want to try to search me out and find me and tell on me to my superiors, don’t bother; others have done so and they are aware.

          • obadiahlynch

            Hahahaha, someone tried to get you in trouble at work for being an atheist? Jeesh. That’s .. well, I was going to say ‘petty’ but let’s just go with ‘evil’ instead.

          • Joel Gibbs

            Yes, they contacted bout the Superintendent of Schools and my Principal. anonymously. Of course the Superintendent didn’t know me and the Principal had no idea. They were shocked that a godless man was teaching children.

        • FilmDoctor

          The Constitution says “in the Year of our Lord” at the end, an explicit acknowledgement of the deity of Jesus Christ. Also, the treaty that formally granted us our independence, the 1783 Treaty of Paris, explicitly pays homage to the “Holy” Trinity and was signed by Ben Franklin, John Adams, and John Jay. Until you pass a Constitutional Amendment, these two documents abrogate any other legal document that may contradict them.

          • Joel Gibbs

            You do know that what they were saying was AD. AD is Latin (Anno Domini) for “in the Year of or Lord” which was how we marked the passage of time on both the Julian and Gregorian calendars. It is now switching to ACE and BCE…After and Before Common Era. As for the Treaty of Paris, it just ended the war between the US and the UK. Making the argument that it established the US as a Christian Nation is a real stretch. Many Documents had this sort of phrasing as a matter of course at that time.

          • Joel Gibbs

            I ask you, if I grant we are a Christian nation…which
            sect? Wars throughout the centuries have
            been fought over differences between the various factions of Christianity. Add to that mix the new kid of Mormonism and
            I ask you again…what sect? Catholic,
            Baptist, Episcopalian, Jehovah’s witness.
            I would argue that the fact that America is secular has allowed an
            absolute flourishing in the religion department as we do not sanction any one
            faith. As John Tyler said I 1843 “The
            United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is
            believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent — that
            of total separation of Church and State.” To your benefit as well as mine.

      • brilea

        Faith is belief in spite of a lack of evidence, or evidence to the contrary. Why shouldn’t we give it up?

        • auntielib

          No, faith is the resting of the mind in the SUFFICIENCY of the evidence, brilea.

          For example, you most likely rest your mind concerning who your parents are.

          The evidence you have? Merely the fact that a particular man and a particular woman CLAIMED to be your parents, perhaps have shown you a “Certificate of Birth” (which of course may have been falsified, just as some militant Atheists claim that the Gospel record was “falsified”), and probably put in a fair amount of time feeding and clothing you over the years. But you’ve most likely never run a DNA test on yourself or on your supposed “parents”.

          So you end up with “mere” faith that they are your parents, brilea.

    • grannykate62

      Conservatism is about tolerance-american Atheists are not about tolerance, they are about self-grandizing. This has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with destroying anyone who has faith. They violated their agreement, they lose. It was a stunt and ploy as evidenced by the behavior on CNN which bathes in contempt of Christians and conservativism

      • Ole Man

        Modern conservatives are among the most intolerant people I know.

        • Abagail Spencer

          You apparently have never talked to an Obama supporting democrat

          • Ole Man

            Actually, Abigail, as a true, Independent Moderate, I talk to people on both sides of the spectrum.
            While I find that many republicans are indeed good, tolerant people, they are not the ones running the show at this time.
            They sit silently and allow a vocal, distorted minority to trash, destroy, and divide our nation along racial, economic, and social lines.

          • auntielib

            “They sit silently and allow a vocal, distorted minority to trash, destroy, and divide our nation along racial, economic, and social lines.”
            —-
            sniff…sniff…boo hoo….gee, if only we could all just be like you, so nice and “independent” and “moderate”, eh Ole Man?

          • Ole Man

            And you obviously belong in the group I spoke about.

          • Memphis Viking

            “They sit silently and allow a vocal, distorted minority to trash, destroy, and divide our nation along racial, economic, and social lines.” That would be the far left.

          • Ole Man

            If you can’t also include the far right in that accusation, then you are one of them and part of the problem.

          • Memphis Viking

            It’s not the right who tells blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and anyone else who’s listening that white people are their enemy. It’s not the right who tells the poor that the rich are to blame for all their problems. It’s not the right who encourages people to identify themselves by their sexual practices and tells them that anyone who disagrees with them is just a hater.

          • obadiahlynch

            Heh. No, the right just tries to take away their votes.

          • Memphis Viking

            Oh look, another ‘enlightened’ liberal who thinks minorities are incapable of simple tasks like obtaining a driver’s license.

          • obadiahlynch

            Meh. I don’t feel particularly enlightened nor am I particularly Iiberal. Suppressing votes is bad strategy though.

          • Ole Man

            SO, according to you, the right does no wrong?
            Gotcha.

          • Memphis Viking

            There are individuals on the right who do wrong. But it’s the left that as a group has as one of their primary tactics dividing people into groups to hatemonger for votes.

          • Breezeyguy

            “vocal, distorted minority”. That would be GLAAD and GLSEN and Planned Parenthood etc etc.

          • obadiahlynch

            PP a ‘vocal distorted minority’? Dude. They’re about as mainstream as it gets.

          • Breezeyguy

            They are about as evil as it gets.

            The vocal distorted minority was referring to the homo lobby, and I added PP to be more complete. Tell me, does “mainstream” only apply to the present time, or to all of history and human tradition and reality? When GLAAD and GLSEN silence all opposition, are you going to call them “mainstream”?

          • obadiahlynch

            Well, PP doesn’t have anything to do with GLAAD as near as I can tell. But what ‘opposition’ do you mean? I mean, it seems to me that all GLAAD wants is for the gay folks to be treated the same as everyone else, and that sounds reasonable to me. Mainstream, even.

          • Breezeyguy

            Being treated “equal” means you get to redefine marriage? It appears that some animals are more equal than others.

            Try to think independently about what things really are. Otherwise you are a slave to the sloganeers.

          • obadiahlynch

            I believe I am thinking independently. I realize that marriage equality is a new thing and that, for this society at this period of time, we are, in fact, redefining marriage. It just doesn’t bother me, is all. It won’t affect my marriage — I don’t want a divorce, I don’t want to kiss a dude. But I approve of people being able to marry people they love.

          • Breezeyguy

            How can it not affect your “marriage” when you undefine the word “marriage”? It’s actually a denial of something profound between you and your wife, that two men cannot replicate. Don’t forget, when you undefine something, you are undefining it for everybody. No, fight back. Make the government accept the fact that it didn’t create marriage and so it can’t uncreate marriage.

            “Marry people they love”? You mean, more than one? What about kids? Can I marry my kids? I love them. Or my Dad? What about my dog? Many lonely people love their pets, or their horses.

            If marriage isn’t the institution that unites parents with their kids, what institution DOES do that? Is there none then? Kids are born fully capable little libertarians with an income? “Same sex marriage” is a crime against humanity. Stop enabling them and using their language.

          • obadiahlynch

            But then we’re back to infertile couples. If marriage is only for kids, then infertile couples shouldn’t be able to marry either. If marriage is for passing down inheritances, and power of attorney, and all that other stuff, then there’s no reason to deny the option to gays.
            .
            No one’s talking about marrying horses or their dads here.

          • Breezeyguy

            No, no. Please try to think BEFORE the words pour out. Marriage isn’t “only for kids”. But it is the only institution that unites parents and kids. That is WHAT IT IS, per se. That is its “sine qua non”, not for every marriage individually, but WHAT IT IS.

            Nobody knows which marriages will be blessed with children, but to have children without marriage is gravely evil (although far too common these days).

            “Nobody’s talking about horses or Dads”. Yes they are. Why aren’t they? By what miracle do you exclude horses and Dads?

        • auntielib

          You apparently have never talked to an Atheist. Or to a militant homosexual.

          • Kibber_SF

            I can’t believe YOU have ever “talked” to a homosexual much less a “militant homosexual”. After all how can it be considered a conversation when you are yelling and they are screaming as you are beating them? and when was the last time you had a viable debate with an athiest about beliefs? My guess is NEVER since you would not be able to NOT tell him how wrong he is!

          • auntielib

            Poor Kibber! He ran out of gas very quickly in this conversation!

          • Kibber_SF

            at least I had gas to start with

          • auntielib

            “at least I had gas to start with”
            —-
            so lame….

          • Katherine Harms

            The homosexual agenda and the atheist agenda are not about truth or reality. They are entirely about power and the suppression of people’s rights. I don’t know where you live, but where I live, nobody pays any attention to the sexual orientation of other people, unless they start pushing for vocal approval. Non-homosexuals don’t beat homosexuals. Where did you get that idea? They just don’t emulate them, and that is what makes the militant ones angry.

          • Kibber_SF

            Ever heard of the term “hate crime”? didn’t think so! It was made a law BECAUSE non- gays were ATTACKING gays with violence…Where have you been? Maybe you should go back and let the adults play…

          • auntielib

            “Maybe you should go back and let the adults play…”
            —–
            Maybe YOU should take your head out of your a@@, Kibber? Or are the adult “gays” currently putting something else in each others’ a@@es, Kibber?

          • Kibber_SF

            What gives YOU the right to invade their PRIVATE lives???

          • Steve Harmon

            WAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MOMMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THEY”RE PICKING ON ME AGAIN!!!!!!!! WAHAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • https://www.facebook.com/ObamaMustGoat Rowan Green

            Antielib spends a lot of time thinking about what gay men do sexually. I’m sure that when he looks at a picture of Phil Robertson, he imagines him doing some of those things to him.

          • justme

            Invade their private lives….. REALLY??? We dont have “i put my penis in vagina parades” and our own symbol for being straight. Let them do what they want to do in the privacy of their bedroom but don’t try to shove that sh*t in everyone’s face!!!

          • Memphis Viking

            Hate crime laws came into existence solely to demonize straight white men. Assault was already illegal, whether the victim was gay or not.

          • Kibber_SF

            Hate crime is premeditated so there has to be a difference, much like 1st degree murder is different than involuntary manslaughter, there needed to be a law specific to the actual crime. At least that was a point of contention in the debate about the bill for the law…

          • Memphis Viking

            The difference between 1st degree murder and 2nd degree murder is premeditation, not motive. Hate crime laws make the motive itself illegal, but only motives that are politically incorrect. They’re nothing more than thought control laws.

          • Steve Harmon

            Hate implies intent. Do you have the ability to read minds?

          • Kibber_SF

            I didn’t make the law, I don’t enforce the law, or have any abilities over its formulation, ajudication or any other control over said law. Determining “intent” would be for the prosecution to establish per case not me, or are you not familiar with the procedure of law and enforcement. Oh wait, I read you just whine like a baby for your Momma…how’s that for “mind reading”!

          • Steve Harmon

            You seemed so wrapped up in this, “hate” crime thing that I thought you could read “intent” in someone’s mind. Okay then let’s try this, do you think prosecutors are mind readers?
            Also, I see you need to do some studying to learn what ” means. You see people use those to denote a statement attributable to someone else, at least, if you were the mind reader you claim to be, you would have known that, so, nice try, now back to mommy’s basement for you little one.

          • Kibber_SF

            Since you don’t have any literate responses to my points and all you can do is show your true lack of education by spouting slurs I leave to your self pleasure in your beliefs you are, somehow, smart…

          • Steve Harmon

            Okey Doke, been fun, buh-bye.

          • https://www.facebook.com/ObamaMustGoat Rowan Green

            So then, if a gang of atheists were stalking Christians and beating them up for being Christian, all they could be charged with is simple assault, right? After all, the fact that they were targeting Christians in an attempt to suppress their religious freedom does not make it any worse than two drunk in a bar getting in a fight over sports team preferences.

          • Memphis Viking

            The actions are worse, the motive is irrelevant. Your analogy is false because a gang of people stalking and attacking someone is clearly worse than two people getting into a fight; it’s not the ‘hate crime’ that makes it worse. Besides, hate crime laws are almost never enforced against those who attack people who aren’t politically correct, namely whites and Christians.

          • https://www.facebook.com/ObamaMustGoat Rowan Green

            Fine, I’ll give you a separate set of hypotheticals with solitary perpetrators. A town is struck by a serial firebug. He only torches Synagogues. When arrested, he is found to be a white supremest who intended to strike fear in the city’s Jewish community. Should that be viewed as a more serious crime then someone lighting fires at random? A local Tea Party group decides to have a rally downtown in front of a Federal office building on tax day. After the rally, many attendees discover that their cars have been keyed. Only cars with a conservative bumper sticker were damaged, and cars with liberal/Democratic stickers were not touched. Later, a security camera photo identifies the perpetrator as a known anarchist suspected of other politically motivated vandalism. Was keying the cars just vandalism, or something worse, a hate crime?

          • Memphis Viking

            No, and yes. This whole notion of ‘hate crime’ is just to get people used to the idea of certain ideas being punishable. When everyone accepts that idea, then the government has all kinds of leeway to make any thought they want illegal. Today, punching a black person because they bumped into you is assault, and punching them because they’re black is a ‘hate crime’, and considered worse, even though the actions are the same. Soon, just saying “I don’t like black people” will be considered a hate crime, Freedom of Speech be d*mned, or preaching that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin will be a hate crime regardless of Freedom of Religion, because hate crimes only exist to suppress thought that the left doesn’t agree with.

          • https://www.facebook.com/ObamaMustGoat Rowan Green

            Sorry Charlie, hate crime laws are intended to deter people from acting on their hate, not for holding the belief itself. They take an act that is already illegal, and increase the punishment based on the fact that people who target specific groups based on hate have a chilling effect on the community. Now, I could see a hate crime in both of your examples, if the people expressing those views were doing so in a residential neighborhood at night, with enough amplification that they were disturbing the peace in the criminal sense, and they were doing so to harass, inconvenience, or intimidate a perceived member of the group targeted by their hate.

          • Memphis Viking

            If they’re acting on their hate in an illegal manner, then what they’re doing is already illegal, and an extra ‘hate crime law’ isn’t going to deter them. If they’re acting on it in an otherwise legal manner, then they’re only being punished for their thoughts, not their actions.
            The hate crimes you see in my examples aren’t in my examples. Someone disturbing the peace or harassing or intimidating someone is already behaving illegally.

          • https://www.facebook.com/ObamaMustGoat Rowan Green

            Fortunately, your opinion has no bearing in law, and hate crime laws exist in most civilized parts of the country, and have stood up to judicial challenge. Fortunately, as the Affordable Care Act gets healthcare to more and more Americans, the mental illnesses that lead to racism and homophobia will get treated, and those odious symptoms will decline.

          • Memphis Viking

            You think Obamacare is going to mean more people get healthcare? There goes any credibility you had.

          • https://www.facebook.com/ObamaMustGoat Rowan Green

            I operate from a position of solid information and rational thought. That means I have no credibility with you wing-nuts to begin with.

          • Steve Harmon

            How can you say what their motive was unless they tell you? You can always say, ” it looks like they were targeting these… whatever, short of a confession, there is no proof, right? That’s what’s wrong with assigning the word, “hate” in front of any crime.

          • https://www.facebook.com/ObamaMustGoat Rowan Green

            That’s why hate crime charges are not filed in every case, not enough evidence to prove it. Still, a large number of perps either out and out confess to it, or uses derogatory slurs against the victim to such an extent animosity can be shown. A number have been convicted because they bragged to a friend who wasn’t quite so extreme in his hate.

          • Steve Harmon

            Thank God it doesn’t apply to black on white, huh?

          • Steve Harmon

            Why “hate” crime? Isn’t crime, crime?

          • Maria Daniela Perdomo

            “…where I live, nobody pays any attention to the sexual orientation of other people, unless they start pushing for vocal approval.” Can you please tell me where you live? I would love to move to that peaceful place you are describing where nobody cares about your sexual orientation! Do they accept people of all religions or atheists as well? Unfortunately, I cannot say the same thing about the place I live in (The United States of America)

          • Steve Harmon

            Oh boo hoo, poor baby, such a victim. Maybe your outlook on life just makes it seem as though you live in a hate filled world. Personally, I live a great, happy and joy filled life. I choose to surround myself with the same type of people. It’s your life, make of it what you choose.
            P.S. I live in the greatest nation ever conceived, These Great United States!!

          • Kibber_SF

            I live in California, we are the “tolerant right” ( “right” as in correct) of all walks of people. We don’t hate someone just because they look or think differently.

          • https://www.facebook.com/ObamaMustGoat Rowan Green

            The problem is that your definition of LGBT community rubbing their sexuality in people’s faces is them not hiding in a closet, and doing the same things heterosexuals do. If my sister casually mentions that she and her husband went on to a resort for the weekend, no one complains. If my brother mentions that he and his husband went to the same resort for the weekend, it’s rubbing people nose in their sexuality. If a heterosexual puts a picture of their partner on their desk at work, it’s normal, but when LGBT people do the same thing with a partner of apparently the same gender, it’s rubbing people’s face in their sexuality.

          • grannykate62

            what a bigot, your ‘belief’ is more important then somebody else’s?? why do assume you know who talked to whom and what was said. Why do you assume you have to yell if you disagree??

          • Kibber_SF

            Yes I am a bigot, I hate dumb people like yourself…with a passion!

          • fltflyer

            I understand now. You’re one of those liberal elitists that are so much smarter than us peasants. God forbid (am I allowed to say God when commenting to you) that we should deign to question your obviously superior intelligence. But then again you are much like your hero Obama, an arrogant a$$.

          • Kibber_SF

            You can use God when addressing me. I am not an athiest. and I did NOT vote for Obama and do not support him or believe in him but I do dislike him for “real” reasons not made up ones. He gives enough ammo with the true he non-delivers…and if you feel I am superior to you I am sorry for your insecurities around your level of education or intelligence…

    • Abagail Spencer

      There is nothing wrong with the bronze age

      • SpeakTruth

        Not if you lived during the time. But we have more information now. Most people of faith are happy to take advantage of all of the modern conveniences our learning and discoveries have provided. The same
        People that quote bible verses to discriminate against gays will say that other verses that do not suit them are outdated because of new knowledge or enlightenment (sacrifices, food restrictions, medical treatments, discrimination against women, etc.) The Bible was written by men that only had the knowledge of the day. It was written years after the said event. Even the gospels are conflicting, and the church establishment left out parts of their choosing. This is not even taking into account how many times the bible has been translated or the fact that meanings of words have changed through the years.

        • Steve Harmon

          Not if you lived during that time”? Really? Do you suppose that none of the people of that era were happy? What an ignorant statement. Think about it, you have no defense. You don’t think that the use of bronze tools were a welcome improvement to wood and stone”? I’ve found, in my life, that when new technology comes out, it makes my life easier, haven’t you?

          • SpeakTruth

            That is what I said, sir. I was responding to the poster that said there is nothing wrong with the Bronze Age. I agreed. If you lived during that time, those ideas and tools were very helpful. We have learned new things since then. Our new tools and ideas are helpful as well. To continue to make decisions based on the knowledge of a primitive time and ignore modern discoveries in medicine, geology, technology, etc. How could you have misunderstood my post?

          • Steve Harmon

            Oops, sorry, I re-read and realized I missed your meaning in that first sentence, my apologies Speak Truth.

          • SpeakTruth

            No worries!

        • Breezeyguy

          Actually, it seems to me that the age of science was pretty much caused by the Jesuits.

          • SpeakTruth

            I don’t know, but for sure they, and other religious clergymen were the educated elite.

      • Breezeyguy

        I like the bronze age. Wow – we have so much in common! So, like, what’s your, like, phone number? (Just kidding! Married.)

    • auntielib

      “Over 30% of Americans under age 30 have ZERO religious affiliation, which is a HUGE and quickly GROWING population.”
      —-
      Nope. The number of Atheists in the country went DOWN over the past year, actually.
      Nice try though. Got any other lies you want to trot out?

      • crossingTheDelaware

        But … would you reject a non-believer who otherwise aligns with you politically in every other way? Would you consider them an ally or an enemy in our cause to defeat Progressive Liberalism?

        • auntielib

          If someone intentionally makes an a@@ out of themselves (as those disciples of the Atheist Faith at CPAC did) then no, I do not consider them an ally.
          The Democrat Party, after all, and not the GOP, is home to a@@es.

          • crossingTheDelaware

            Forget about the American Athiests organization … CPAC did the right thing IMO because of the threatening and provoking statements AA made. My question was about how you felt about Conservative non-believers in general.

          • auntielib

            “Forget about the American Athiests organization …”
            —–
            Why should I do that?

          • crossingTheDelaware

            The bigger question is: should Conservatives shun all people that align with Conservatism but that happen to be non-believers. In other words, they believe wholeheartedly in small government, federalism, fiscal responsibility, individual liberty, low taxes, less regulations, a free market, capitalism, despise the nanny state, property rights, but just happen to be non-believers. Should those people be shunned from Tea Party groups seeking to defeat Liberalism?

          • auntielib

            “The bigger question is: should Conservatives shun all people that align with Conservatism but that happen to be non-believers.”
            —-
            Yes, I believe they should, if the American Atheists are fairly typical of those “non-believers”.
            Excellent question, and there’s the answer!

          • crossingTheDelaware

            For me, I take each person for what they are, and I try as best as I can not to prejudge. I don’t assume that American Atheists are typical of all non-believers. Further, I dont even assume that every member of American Atheists agrees with the position of its leader, David Silverman. I know I don’t agree with the positions of RINO leaders John Boehner or Mitch McConnell, yet we are all Republican. If there are Conservative non-believers that want to join me to defeat Liberalism, I welcome them.

          • auntielib

            OK, so what’s your point? The entire article is about tossing the American Atheists out of the convention. You seem to have ASSUMED earlier that means therefore that all Atheists have been tossed out of the Party. But now all of a sudden you seem to be backpeddling, and are trying to claim that the American Atheists may not be typical of all Atheists.
            So what’s your point, and what’s your beef? Your point appears to have turned into mush.

          • crossingTheDelaware

            I was not making a point, I was asking a question. The question on my first post to you had nothing to do with American Atheists:

            “Would you reject a non-believer who otherwise aligns with you politically in every other way?”

            Just wanted your thoughts regarding Conservative Atheists in general.

          • Memphis Viking

            It may not be typical of all atheists, but it is pretty typical of atheist political groups.

          • crossingTheDelaware

            I just hope other Conservatives don’t make Atheism a litmus test in a vacuum — we need all the help we can get to defeat Liberals.

          • Steve Harmon

            When have they made it a litmus test? Please tell me. Vote Conservative is all you have to do.

          • crossingTheDelaware

            I can only speak for myself, and I don’t use it as a test, and I do vote Conservative / Tea Party.

            When I asked above if Conservatives should shun all people that align with Conservatism but that happen to be non-believers, I got:

            Yes, I believe they should, if the American Atheists are fairly typical of those “non-believers”.

            And “Vote Conservative is all you have to do” is exactly what I want to hear from all Conservatives on this thread.

          • Steve Harmon

            Cool.

          • Breezeyguy

            Bill Clinton is a practical atheist, but he sure did carry a huge Bible into church for the cameras didn’t he?

          • Breezeyguy

            Can an atheist take an oath?

          • crossingTheDelaware

            I’m not an Atheist so I can’t answer. However, if I shake hands on something with person I trust, I expect them to do what they shook on, and I don’t have to provide them with an oath. Conversely, look at the throngs of Statists that do take the oath and then proceed to shred the Constitution.

          • fltflyer

            Actually it is pretty typical of tactics used by most all left wing groups and some right wing extremist groups.
            I know quite a few conservatives that are gay, agnostic, and atheists and if Christian conservatives are going to exempt them then Christians are going to have a real problem getting anything done.

          • Memphis Viking

            While I am a Christian and have an absolutely confident belief that atheists are dead wrong, I never said they should be excluded from the conservative side of politics. But this group expressed their intention to go to CPAC to be confrontational towards the Christians there, marking them as not an ally to conservatives, and I believe they were right not to put up with it.

          • fltflyer

            With that I can agree.

          • Breezeyguy

            Bingo memphis. Don’t toss out sincere (but illogical) atheists. Just toss out Atheism and Atheistic groups.

          • Breezeyguy

            Don’t toss out atheists.

            Toss out atheism. Toss out atheist groups.

            America is tolerant of atheists and atheism, but it was founded on Theism: that men have inalienable rights from God.

          • crossingTheDelaware

            I don’t toss anyone out that can help rescue this country from the Statists.

          • Breezeyguy

            Right. But you need to throw out -isms like atheism that say there is no authority greater than the State. God being greater than the King or State has been the fundamental idea of American political thought.

    • bowie1

      Except of course the bible does not endorse slavery. This is a false idea because of a lack of understanding of scripture.

      • obadiahlynch

        LOL wrong answer!

        • bowie1

          So, why then did God use Moses to free the Israelites from Pharaoh? Slavery was a punishment not something which God says is okay.

          • obadiahlynch

            He was a Jewish god; unsurprisingly he was fine with Jews owning slaves. Unsurprisingly yet again, he opposed the enslavement of Jews.

    • Steve Harmon

      So showing off and saying” they should be afraid of us”, is okay with you? Lets see what you say to the KKK having a booth at an NAACP convention. Come on man. You’re condemning Christians, ooh, how brave. You don’t have to harass to believe the way you do. Do you? I say ignore the little group of troublemakers.

    • Johnny Turner

      The only reason for that is they the younger people had no parents to take them as a child, which means the parents were non believers themselves and didn’t worry about their children . They didn’t actually have good parents to teach them.

    • Breezeyguy

      I disagree. The Declaration based the justness of the fight for Independence on human rights given by God and therefore inalienable.

      Atheism and Morals can coexist.
      Atheism, Logic, and Morals cannot coexist.
      Good atheists are just illogical.

      • obadiahlynch

        Uh? You kinda lost me there ..

        • Breezeyguy

          What part didn’t you get? Read it again carefully. Now, is your problem in the top half or the bottom half?

          • obadiahlynch

            No offense. But lines four and five don’t seem to follow.

          • Breezeyguy

            None taken.

            Line 4 states (in so many words) that atheists can have morals and act morally.

            Line 5 states that they do so illogically, ie, that atheism and morality are not logically consistent.

            Search “De Moralitate Atheorum”. Whether those who do not believe in God may act morally.

          • obadiahlynch

            Line four, I read atheism morals and logic cannot coexist. I don’t know why that’d have to be the case — there are plenty of moral atheists out there, and I don’t see why they wouldn’t be logical too.

          • Breezeyguy

            You mean Line five.

            Lines 4 thru 5 weren’t meant as a syllogism, but were just a juxtapositioning, to be clear what I was saying and what not saying.

            Yes, line 4 says plenty of moral atheists.
            Line five says moral atheists illogical.

            It’s not the easiest path to prove, I admit. But how about this; swap “atheist” for “modern scientific materialist”. For a materialist, there can be no good or evil, and without an afterlife there can be no final justice. No good, no evil, no justice = no morals, no right no wrong. There is no element “rightium”, no photon of “wrongium”.

          • obadiahlynch

            Mmmmm, dunno. I’m not particularly religious. I’m moral — I don’t cheat, lie, steal — and it’s not fear of helldamnation that makes me that way. I just know life works better if I am, y’know? And I think that’s pretty logical.

          • Breezeyguy

            Well, good for you. That’s more practical than logical.

            Hey, what do you think about so-called “same sex marriage”. To me, it looks like a violation of the Natural law, and must be rejected.

          • obadiahlynch

            Logical and practical are pretty close.
            .
            I’m not sure what ‘natural law’ would look like. Are we talking Hobbesian ‘nasty brutish and short’ law? Or divine right of kings law? Or ‘women shouldn’t vote’ natural law? I’m not sure how ‘natural law’ is distinct from the prejudices of the observer.
            .
            As far as marriage equality, my band plays weddings. I’m all for there being more weddings. They pay pretty well, and they generally feed the musicians.

          • Breezeyguy

            I’m talking about the natural law that is apparent in the fact that Children are the results of the union of a Man and a Woman (apparent in hard sciences like anatomy and biology and also in soft sciences like sociology and psychology.)

            The child has a right to both parents. By cooperating with a SSM wedding, you would be cooperating with an inherent child abuse and theft of child rights.

          • obadiahlynch

            I’m not seeing how that differs from mere prejudice. Lots of people get married and don’t have kids. Are those marriages somehow invalid?

          • Breezeyguy

            A marriage does not require the actual “having” of children, but it does require that the couple do the thing that causes kids. It’s called consummation. SSM “marriages” cannot be consummated, and are all invalid. Yes.

          • obadiahlynch

            So, if an elderly couple gets married but the guy can’t, um, function, then it’s not a real marriage? Or say some guy who was a soldier and got his relevant bits shot off, he can’t get married? That doesn’t really work, does it?

          • Breezeyguy

            Traditionally, the only requirement was that he get it in there. It’s not like anybody “checked”. Besides, not having the equipment by nature is different from losing it right?

          • obadiahlynch

            It just doesn’t seem that way to me. People get up to all sorts of weird things in the sack (or in the backseat, or in the neighbor’s garage, or down at the Motel 6) and who am I to tell them they’re doing it wrong? I mean, obviously, assuming they’re doing it with a consenting adult and not cheating on their wife or whatever. I just don’t see children, or the ability to have them, as the prime reason people get married. People get married for all sorts of reasons — financial security, companionship, sexual happiness, children, whatever. I don’t think it’s my place to judge them, and I don’t see any natural law that says who can get married.

          • Breezeyguy

            All human beings are the result of a union of man and woman. How’s that for natural law? Can you see that?

            Marriage always has been and always will be the institution that unites a man and a woman and the children that result from that marriage. That’s WHAT it is. It doesn’t matter that people may “do it” for other or further reasons.

          • obadiahlynch

            Sure. But it’s also a bidness partnership, and not in any way necessary for procreation. I don’t see any reason two dudes couldn’t marry if they wanted to. Pass along property, have a trusted partner to make medical decisions for you, etc etc. Why would we deny that to people? What’s the point?

          • Breezeyguy

            If you’re going to get married, you need to get married. You don’t get to do whatever you please and then call it “marriage”.

            We’re only refusing to allow the redefinition of Man / Woman / Child, the foundation of humanity. There are plenty of contracts in the world that aren’t marriage. An heir or executor is not automatically some kind of spouse.

          • obadiahlynch

            I agree. Where we break off is, I don’t see a single reason why two dudes shouldn’t be able to get married. I don’t see a single reason why we shouldn’t change the laws, the tax codes, the inheritance rules to facilitate that.

          • obadiahlynch

            And I got to go get to work; you have a good night, I’m out for a while.

          • Breezeyguy

            Because that’s not what marriage IS. That’s not what a dude is to a dude. That is what a Man is to a Woman and their kids.

            If you want to name the reason: it’s a contradiction.

    • sherry8260

      The Bible doesn’t say to ‘kill’ gays and witches LMAO you should actually read something before you try and quote it. Wow…ignorance is not ‘bliss’ in your situation. I just think it’s completely childish for grown people to argue over who is entitled to believe what. I’m sick of the Nazi regime in this country. But stop lying and being ignorant if you’re going to argue a point on Christianity if you know nothing about it. Perhaps the “growing” numbers of young people turning against God is because of ignorant people like you talking crap about something that you painfully obviously know nothing about. You’re lying to these young people, pretending to know what you’re talking about and attacking youthful inexperience. Shame on you!

      • obadiahlynch

        Yes it does.

    • http://sellingthesecondamendment.com/ Gregory Smith

      How the hell are we supposed to pay attention to the non-religious? I’m not religious although I do believe in God. I’m a devotee of Ayn Rand and right-libertarian, but I vote Republican because that’s the pro-gun party, and that’s my #1 issue. Either way, we need the religious and social conservatives to win elections, there are also millions of them if you haven’t noticed.

      With that said, CPAC should welcome all kinds of conservatives, but it should not become PC to please anybody. If an Atheist can’t vote Republican because he hates Christians, then he needs to see a shrink because the problem isn’t the party but him.

    • mogul264

      That those under 30 have little or no religious affiliation merely shows that they still think THEY are immortal, and do not yet fear death! Also, that they are STILL learning!

      Being non-religious and being an atheist are NOT the same! True atheists don’t care that others worship God….they just feel it’s foolishness! Non-religious or agnostics aren’t sure, still awaiting some sort of revelation.

      Most who are CALLED atheists are NOT! They blame God for their afflictions, therefore DO believe God Exists! These are the most virulent, savagely attacking ANY display of faith, having LOST theirs! They are bitter that OTHERS still maintain that faith, and lash out when ever presented with that display!

      These are the ones who are belligerent and angry that ANY such act is public, therefore offensive to THEM! They are angry whenever something like a Christmas creche is erected near publicly owned areas! They even desecrate or destroy evidences of the faithful being religious. But God forgives, lucky for them!

  • Mamatex

    Until such time as people realize that being a Conservative can have nothing to do with religious beliefs, there will be a problem. That being said, Atheists are hypocritical in pushing their lack of belief on those who believe.

    • gmhunt4

      Being a Constitutional Conservative has everything to do with religious beliefs, since the Constitution walks hand in hand with the Christian Bibile.

      • Kathy

        And once again, that is a belief. It doesn’t make it so. Why does anyone care what another believes about the bible? It’s a book written by man. What is in your heart is what matters, not what is in a book!!

        • gmhunt4

          Without Christain beliefs, you have no heart, just an empty shell.

          • SpeakTruth

            That is a ridicous statement. Just because we decide what is right and wrong through reason, logic, compassion, empathy, etc. instead of a book doesn’t mean we have no “heart and are empty shells”. The rule of reciprocity or “golden rule” long predates the bible. Human beings figured out that we should treat others as we would like to be treated all by ourselves, through logic and reason.

          • Memphis Viking

            Without a moral standard, there is no right or wrong. Man cannot be his own standard. And if there is no God, and we’re all just an accident, then you have no way of knowing that “reason, logic, compassion, empathy, etc” are anything more than random chemical reactions in your brain.

          • SpeakTruth

            To base a moral code on what people thought was right and wrong 2000 years ago is not the best idea. There are terrible things taught in the bible that we no longer believe is in our best interest.

          • Memphis Viking

            You would be correct, if you were also correct that the morals taught in the Bible were simply based on what people thought 2000 years ago. But you also fall into the trap of thinking that you are smarter than someone who lived back then just because they lived a long time ago. Without God, without a moral standard, your opinion on what’s right and wrong are no more correct than mine, or theirs.

          • SpeakTruth

            I am not necessarily smarter (perhaps, perhaps not) than people of ancient times. But I do have much more knowledge. We no longer bleed sick people, we no longer think of women as property, we no longer sacrifice animals, we no longer believe people claiming to be god’s son, we no longer burn witches, we no longer believe people claiming to be abducted by aliens. Now, we didn’t look to the bible to figure those things out. It was logic, reason, compassion, empathy, education, and evidence.

          • Memphis Viking

            So you have more logic, reason, compassion, and empathy than people who lived 2000 years ago? You think you have evidence that Jesus isn’t God’s Son? Some kind of evidence that trumps the eyewitnesses who saw him after he was raised from the dead? I’m not going to bother with the rest of your examples since they have nothing to do with Biblical Christianity.

          • SpeakTruth

            I have more information about natural laws than they did. The things you chose not to comment on were meant to point out that if someone claimed to be the son of god today, most peoples’ first thought would be that he was crazy because it is so improbable. There is evidence that the bible isn’t accurate. There is evidence that the eye witness accounts were written years after said event. The gospels conflict. The accounts do not match with other historical documents or what would have been common for the time, not counting the fact that natural laws would have had to be suspended for those things to occur, or that the text has been rewritten, edited, redacted, and translated countless times over many years by many different people.

          • Memphis Viking

            You think people in Jesus’ time just believed He was the Son of God because they were gullible primitives? You don’t think many of them thought he was crazy? What about His resurrection? Do you think people back then didn’t know enough about the natural world to understand how improbable that was? Jesus was crucified and buried in Jerusalem. His closest followers denied and abandoned Him and went into hiding, in fear for their lives. A couple months later, those same followers were preaching, in Jerusalem, that Jesus rose from the dead, and not only that, but was seen by hundreds of people. Do you really think those people were so unsophisticated they just accepted that story at face value? You don’t think anyone thought to verify it, since all of the reported witnesses were right there in that city? If it weren’t true, the Jewish religious leaders, who had had Christ crucified in the first place and were actively trying to stomp out the early church, could have simply produced His body to nip it in the bud right there.

            One of the things atheists do that I find interesting is using the argument “the fact that natural laws would have had to be suspended” as evidence against the accuracy of the Bible and the existence of God. That is a highly illogical argument. The Bible states God is all-powerful, therefore if He exists, then He is capable of suspending natural laws. Your other comments have all been answered elsewhere, much more thoroughly than I have the time or space to do here, and are available to anyone who cares enough to look for them.

          • gmhunt4

            SpeakTruth is Not a good handle for you, since you do not know the truth.

          • fltflyer

            Says the Muslim to the unbeliever.

          • gmhunt4

            I am NO muslim, he is your brother in the White House

          • fltflyer

            Funny because your comment sounds just like what a Muslim radical would say to an infidel. Your last comment sounds like you actually may be a liberal progressive trolling.

          • gmhunt4

            Constitutional Conservative heart & Soul….Senator Cruz is my Senator

          • SpeakTruth

            I disagree with the Christian interpretation of the bible and do not agree that there is any evidence that the bible is the divine word of god, and find the contradictions within the bible and with historical evidence that the bible is inaccurate at best, and I disagree that the bible is the best guide for moral conduct, or that there is any credible evidence of miracles or supernatural beings.
            The fact that some people feel in their heart that there is a god, is not compelling enough evidence for atheists. And a god is certainly not necessary for people to make moral value judgements.
            Why don’t Christians believe in Scientology? Why don’t Baptists believe the Pope is infallible? Why don’t Christians believe Joseph Smith was a prophet?
            I chose my handle for a reason, and I do speak truthfully. The fact that you disagree with me does not make my statements false.

          • Kathy

            Absolutely untrue!! Religion was designed to control the masses!! Just because someone is not a Christian has no relevance to caring about other people!!

        • TBW

          The heart is treacherous. It is Gods Word that is foundational to a moral society.

          I want to know what others believe so I know whom I can trust…

          • fltflyer

            You can never know what others believe, you can only know what they tell you and what they show in their actions. All of which may be lies.

      • Ole Man

        No, the Constitution does not “walk hand in hand…”
        The First Amendment makes that very clear.
        Our forefathers knew what religious persecution was doing in Europe, and deliberately made sure that no religion could become a “state supported” religion.

        • apf2

          But also that the state could not eliminate the religion from the people or the public space. And there is precisely the vicious lie perpetrated by the fanatic Atheist religion–not only their anti-God stance but the false belief that no other religion should be expoused publically.

          • Abagail Spencer

            Except Islam, you don’t see the atheists picketing mosques and pulling their crap on Muslims, I wonder why?

          • fltflyer

            ’cause they’d get killed. Christian used to kill you too but they finally got over that, mostly.

        • TBW

          You nearly have clarity, ole man. Clearly the FF’s intent was to keep the government out of establishing a state sponsored religion like Rome and England had, both examples perfectly understood by the well educated FF’s. Obviously, the Christian faith was the pillar of the new Constitution and the FF’s made that well known in all their writings…

      • Joel Gibbs

        Have you thought about taking your comedy act on the road?

        • auntielib

          Have YOU thought about pulling your head out of your rectal cavity, Joel?

      • crossingTheDelaware

        We Conservatives need to stop dividing ourselves on the basis of believing or not believing. We waste too much valuable time that could be better spent defeating the tyranny that is Liberalism.

    • Rick Caird

      Just to reiterate, atheism is a faith based religion.

      • grannykate62

        yes, from the men who know-there are no atheists in foxholes

        • fltflyer

          There were two Marines that fought at Iwa Jima, one was an atheist and the other a believer. After the war they were interviewed about the battle, the atheist stated that during the battle with people being killed and maimed all around him he became a believer. The believer stated that when he saw the horror and destruction around him he became a non-believer as he couldn’t imagine a loving god allowing such to happen. So yes granny, there are atheists in fox holes.

      • Joel Gibbs
      • Mamatex

        Not sure how an atheist who denies or disbelievers the existence of a supreme being can be compared to a religion.

        • Rick Caird

          It is not hard. An atheist believes, but cannot prove, that God does not exist. They congregate together and have a simple dogma. You do not need a hierarchy to have a religion. Check out pantheism as an example.

          An example of an atheistic religion is human secularism.

          • fltflyer

            Good post

        • Rick Caird

          Disqus loses posts:

          It is not hard. An atheist believes, but cannot prove, God does not exist. The band together (as this essay shows) and have a simple dogma: No God, people who believe otherwise are wrong).

          An example is Human Secularism and the human potential movement. There is no need for a hierarchy. Just check out Pantheism

        • auntielib

          Simple, Mamatex.
          Atheism is the faith belief, “There is no God.”

          • obadiahlynch

            Faith is belief without, or in the face of, evidence. A lack of belief in a thing for which one has not been shown sufficient evidence is not a ‘faith’. I don’t believe in unicorns but that’s not a ‘faith’.

    • grannykate62

      They have jumped from pushing to forcing their agenda

      • gahnzo55

        similar to LGBT agenda?

        • grannykate62

          You betcha!

      • fltflyer

        Now that you’ve got correct. Along with LGBT, left wing blacks and Latinos, and illegal immigrants among others.

    • Katherine Harms

      I respectfully disagree. If a person has religious convictions, they shape everything that person does. The great myth about religion is that it has nothing to do with real life. Every religion teaches people how to act. Every religion expects that its teaching will be followed in every part of the believer’s life. People cannot live by several different standards depending on who is present at the moment. People who cannot live a life of integrity suffer personality disorders and huge relationship problems.

      • Mamatex

        I agree with all you have said regarding the benefits of religious beliefs. The point I was trying to make is that by definition Conservatism relates to retaining institutions and traditions as well as fiscal restraint, moderation etc. The Constitution was written by Conservatives to protect religious beliefs but best to read Webster’s definition . Extremism in any form does not fit the definition as I understand it.

        • auntielib

          And there’s nothing “extremist” about our country having been founded by Christians nor about our country being a Christian nation, so I don’t understand what you think your point is, Mamatex.

          • Mamatex

            My point was related to the definition of Conservatism which is not a word restricted to religion. An example is fiscal conservatism.

          • auntielib

            Correct, Mamatex. “Conservatism” is a word based on conserving or preserving truths that have been delivered once and for all time, in the past.

            Like the fact that God exists, that our nation was founded by Theists in general and by Christians in particular, for example.

    • SpeakTruth

      Some atheists push their beliefs and do some people of most groups, however, the majority of atheists would merely like to see policy based on logic and reason and have religious beliefs kept out of the decision, as those beliefs are not based on logic or reason but a faith in a particular religion based on ancient ideas and myths.

      • auntielib

        “have religious beliefs kept out of the decision, as those beliefs are not based on logic or reason”
        —–
        Actually, the Christian Faith is based on logic and reason, so your post is a bit off, Speak Truth.

        • SpeakTruth

          What logic or reason would that be? The Bible? Miracles? Feelings?

          • Memphis Viking

            The Bible is full of logic and reason. You’ve simply been indoctrinated to believe that religion=fantasy.

          • SpeakTruth

            Not at all. I was “indoctrinated” into Christianity. It was with higher education, much research, hard thinking, and years of watching and discussion. It is hard to let go of the ideology of your upbringing. But once I got to that point, I realized I had been there for a while. My questions started long ago. Inconsistent versus, inaccuracies in the bible regarding historical facts, lack of physical evidence, etc.

          • Memphis Viking

            “Higher education” is one of the prime sources of indoctrination against religion. After all, the left has to remove faith in God so they can instill faith in government.

          • SpeakTruth

            That is an excuse made by Christians and most religions. There is a direct correlation between higher education and higher IQ and atheism. The religious would like to spin it that colleges “indoctrinate” students. Nothing could be further from the truth. For many, it is the first time they have been made to think for themselves instead of being told from birth that you should believe and accept what you are told. There certainly “hippy” professors, but certainly not in the hard sciences or mathematics. To believe without question is cheating yourself. It one of the most brilliant memes of the Christian faith.

          • Memphis Viking

            The Christian faith does not teach belief without questioning. THAT is one of the most brilliant memes by those who oppose Christianity. And the idea that colleges teach people to think for themselves instead of being told what to think is absurd. Back in the days when colleges really did teach people to think, they weren’t churning out atheists. I agree that there is a correlation between higher education and atheism, because of anti-religious indoctrination, but there is no relationship between education and intelligence. Observe the highly educated yet unintelligent current occupant of the White House.

          • SpeakTruth

            It is not anti religion to teach students to think for themselves. To teach sound scientific theories, to teach history that doesn’t tell of the great flood is not anti religious.

          • Memphis Viking

            You’re still pretending colleges teach people to think for themselves. That is false. For example, you refer to “sound scientific theories”. I assume you mean evolution. The fact that you think it is sound is evidence of the squelching of any questioning about evolution. Students are NOT taught to think for themselves, they are taught to accept what they are taught.

          • obadiahlynch

            ‘Squelching’?

          • Memphis Viking

            Sorry, did I use a word too big for you?

          • obadiahlynch

            Oh, that’s unlikely to ever happen.

            No one’s ‘squelching’ creationists. Their stuff just doesn’t hold up in science class.

          • SpeakTruth

            I am not pretending, I know what is taught in the college I attend currently, and the colleges I attended previously. I have a child in college as well. Now, are there teachers and professors suggesting beliefs? Very likely. But every professor I have ever had has absolutely encouraged critical thinking, no, required it. I was not specifically referring to evolution, however, it is a sound theory based on current evidence. A great deal of time is spent on teaching what constitutes a theory, the scientific method, what evidence supports a theory, and how it is disproven. I do happen to agree with the majority of scientists that there is a large amount of sound evidence of evolution. To date, no evidence has been presented to discredit it.

          • Memphis Viking

            No evidence has been presented to discredit evolution? There has been plenty of evidence presented to discredit evolution. The problem is the scientific community is not unbiased, as many claim, and is dominated by evolution dogmatists who simply dismiss evidence contrary to their beliefs, giving people the illusion that there IS no contrary evidence. And I’ve heard too many first hand accounts of college professors and administrations mocking and actively suppressing conservative and Christian ideas to believe that they were isolated instances.

          • SpeakTruth

            What evidence has discredited evolution? A con man once made fraudulent claims about skeletal remains years ago, but scientists eventually discovered the truth. Errors have been made in the classification of remains. Some scientists disagree on where remains should be classified, but I am unaware of any evidence disproving evolution. The vast majority of scientists regard evolution as essentially fact and consider the evidence overwhelming.
            And if the conservative Christian idea to which you are referring is Creationism, it it should not be considered as a credible alternative as there is absolutely no evidence supporting it. As far as it being mocked, I have found there is no polite way to say creationism

          • SpeakTruth

            Sorry about the sentence cut off. My iPad will not let me edit or move my curser. The last phrase should say: I have found no polite way to say creationism is not based on scientific principles.

      • TBW

        Faith based upon religion is not “faith” but belief in man or a group of men.

        True faith is a gift from God to those that He determines worthy of it and its unintelligible to those outside of His gift.

        Faith has nothing to do with man-made religion. Faith comes from a direct relationship with the Almighty trough His Son Jesus Christ.

        Those that understand what I just wrote have faith, those that don’t understand it are outside trying to look in. Only one way in; through acceptance of Jesus Christ!

  • Old Uncle Bob

    Religious delusionaries claim exemption from scrutiny, disagreement, analysis, or disapproval. For them, religious delusions supersede freedom of speech. This is why the founders wrote the very first words of our Bill of Rights, “There shall be no establishment of religion”. Zealots are now working hard to establish religion in American law, draining taxpayer dollars as they do it while delivering flocks of anti-science voters duped into backing installed panderers for the fossil fuel kings, the financial magicians and the media propagandists. There is no god, get off of your knees, get to work. This message has been suppressed for too long, but the cat is out of the bag and she’s having kittens. Peace.

    • BAD BOB

      OLD UNCLE BOB I’M SORRY YOU ARE GOING TO HELL. I WILL PRAY FOR YOU.

      • gr8H8er

        When exactly did you feast your eyes on The Book of Life to know who is damned and who is granted Grace? Remember, we are each judged by the same measure we judge others.

    • Stryder51

      Atheists are such drama queens.

    • bdwatcher

      You mislead with the 1st Amendment. It specifically states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
      Any person, persons, org, entity, and my opinion any State, City or County can profess their religious beliefs. No one is forcing you to look at any Christian Cross. Just look away and ignore it. I do that with you. It is the fanatical atheists that are draining taxpayer dollars, just because they are offended..

      • Kibber_SF

        You are trying to “force” that on people NOW!

        • Rick Caird

          You have a strange definition of “force”. It seems to mean to you: “Doing something I don’t like where I can see it”. The force is being applied by you, not others.

        • auntielib

          “You are trying to “force” that on people NOW!”
          —–
          Why is it that so many of you self-admitted disciples of the Atheist Faith seem to believe in Vulcan Mind Control??

          You seem to actually believe that others can “force” you to adopt their faith beliefs.

          When you Atheists say things like you just said, it makes you appear quite weak-minded indeed, like little mindless robots who can be easily reprogrammed by the rest of us who do NOT believe ourselves to be mindless robots like you, Kibber.

          • Kibber_SF

            as you so stipulated, you are not Catholic, so let me stipulate that I am not an atheist

          • fltflyer

            I am beginning to think you are the Christian version of the radical Atheists. Neither of which is worth the powder to blow them to Hades.

      • SpeakTruth

        It isn’t about being offended (although sometimes that is the case). There is a difference in respecting your right to practice your religion and accepting the ideology as some higher moral code that should not be criticized. Should we not question a belief system that allows a parent to let their sick child die because her religious beliefs would not allow for medical care? Religion should not be a protected topic of discussion or debate any more than any other topic. Pointing out flaws in a religious ideology is not denying the freedom to practice that religion.

        • auntielib

          “Should we not question a belief system that allows a parent to let their sick child die because her religious beliefs would not allow for medical care?”
          —–
          Sure, you can “question” it if you want, just as we who believe in God question the belief system of you who do not believe in God.

          But in the end, we all die. Atheists, sadly, rarely are able to put forth any sort of reason why it is “better” to live longer than live shorter. Most Atheists seem to view Man as mere Machine, you see.

          The Christian, by important way of contrast to the typical Atheist, CAN say what is his or her reason for living.

          • SpeakTruth

            It is not a matter of what is “better”, but what the evidence shows. Some might think it would be “better” to believe in fairies or Santa, but most adults can no longer believe in those things because our brains refuse to allow us to ignore the lack of evidence. Yes, I would rather believe I will see my grandmother and other loved ones again. The idea is heartwarming. But I can’t make myself believe something just because it makes me feel good.

        • bdwatcher

          You are talking about a very small extreme segment of the religious population. That is like saying all gays are pedophiles or all atheists must have all crosses or religious articles out of their sight. It the extreme on both sides that gives each a bad rap. I would suspect 95% of religious peoples don’t really care if you are atheist at all. Perhaps sad and willing to show you the path they have chosen, but not force their views on you. Besides, why criticize something you don’t understand? All persons I know are extremely tolerant of most all lifestyles, just don’t want other lifestyles forced upon us. hehe, my dad always said religion and political discussions should be mostly avoided in public.. Passions do overcome sanity. Just let us alone and practice our faith and there wouldn’t be a problem.

          • SpeakTruth

            Thank you for your thoughtful response. I agree with the passions comment! Yes, my example was meant to be a more extreme belief just to make a point. However, there are others that less people would agree with. The new politically correct calls for respect for all religious beliefs in the name of tolerance. But, to what end? It seems insincere to equate all religions as equally deserving of respect and protection, my extreme example making that point. I consider religious freedom one of our most treasured guaranteed rights as citizens, and would fight to keep it even though I am an atheist. However, if those beliefs endanger someone else, or deny another citizen the right to marry, for example, I don’t think it is wrong to debate or question the basis so that belief.

          • SeriouslyThough

            Ok… so you believe that a belief which endangers someone else, regardless of your personal belief should be questioned and ruled upon by the government? So you are pro-life then correct?

          • SpeakTruth

            I am for legal abortion with conditions. For instance, in the earlier stage of pregnancy, in cases of rape or incest, or if the life of the mother is at risk. The brain and nervous system of an embryo has not developed enough to feel and/or recognize pain. I, like most other reasonable people, would love to see less abortions, and the best way for that to happen is to educate teens on sex and provide birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies. The religious seem to care more about the sin of premarital sex than reducing the number of abortions or the welfare girls or women.

          • SeriouslyThough

            I just think it sounds like your beliefs – that abortion should be legal endanger someone else. Hypocrite much?

          • SpeakTruth

            I do not think it is hypocritical as I do not consider an embryo a person. It is living tissue of course, but not a viable independent person. We remove people on life support with little to no brian activity.

          • SeriouslyThough

            So abortion is legal to 24 weeks. A premature infant can survive with little to no detriment to quality of life at 21 weeks. Your earlier assertion was that christian faiths which refuse to provide medical care should be governed rather than tolerated because their faith withheld medical care to those who would die without care. At the same time you asert that those who would LIVE (viable outside of the womb, show physical distress when subject to pain, etc.) Should legally be able to be terminated because the situation is awkward, uncomfortable or distressing to the woman carrying the child. Again. I can spell it out directly, but do you really not see the hypocrisy here?

          • SpeakTruth

            Indeed I do see hypocrisy, but that post would be too long to publish. But, to clarify: Firstly, I said nothing about 24 weeks. Secondly, I said nothing about me wanting medical care governed. Thirdly I never said religious beliefs should not be tolerated. Did you even read my posts?
            My earlier position was that we, as a society, should not respect beliefs or customs JUST BECAUSE they are religious. For instance, if some religion sacrificed a woman once a month. Yes, that is way over the top, but surely there is some limit reasonable people would say that religious belief is not enough to justify respect or tolerance. Fundamentalist Muslims believe in killing women for showing too much skin, adultery, etc. If they were citizens of this country, should we be tolerant? Hopefully, you get my point.
            As far as my position on abortion being hypocritical, I disagree. I didn’t say at what point I would limit abortion. Personally, 1st trimester is where I would draw the line, (except in rape/incest or life of mother is at stake) however, I could be argued out of it if medical science presented compelling evidence to extend or restrict the cut off period. But, no. Abortion in the first trimester is not even close to refusing medical treatment for a 10 year old child needing a blood transfusion causing her death.

    • Rick Caird

      That is crazy, old guy. CPAC is not the government. In fact, they are taking advantage of the Constitutional right of free association. I happen to think they are wrong, but it is their right to be wrong.

      Now, I think atheists are wrong, too. In fact, atheism is a faith based religion with a very limited dogma. But, it is faith based and not provable any more than any other faith based religion is provable. Perhaps your next suggestion will be to behead those of other faiths.

      • dskancer19

        no, the atheists should not be – beheaded, but plenty of duct-tape should be applied until they regain their ability to think – and read the Constitution. They like the LBTG, are not a separate “race” nor should they be treated as such. But they began interfering long ago in small numbers – just on personal opinion, screwing up the once-near-comfort zone for our children in school. Since then. the children have been sitting ducks to crazy self-interest groups, politicians, terrorist minded groups/individual and intent to erase actual fact replacing with fairy-tales (indoctrination).

        • gahnzo55

          And the next “agenda” that will be promoted to be “accepted” will be pedophilia…after all they can use the same dogma and catch phrases.. they can claim they were.. “born that way”.. how can society then NOT “accept” them.. I don’t buy it, but that will be the mantra used to get “acceptance”…..

          • Kibber_SF

            It will be based on the “dogma” of the Catholic church!

          • auntielib

            “It will be based on the “dogma” of the Catholic church!”
            —-
            OK, that would be a good start, Kibber! As you know, the Roman Catholic Church played a huge role in founding so much of what we now have in America, including schools, universities, hospitals, and even the state of Maryland.

            You are familiar with why it is called “Mary Land”, are you not?

            And no, I’m not even Roman Catholic, Kibber.

          • Kibber_SF

            Let’s not forget the other “accomplishments” of the Catholic church. Dogma of hiding pedophiles, hebephiles and euphebophiles from prosecution…and it’s called “Mary land” because that is where they sent all the fairy mary’s to be hidden…that was funny! I crack myself up!!!

        • Kibber_SF

          You have always had the right to take your kids out of public school and put them in religious based private schools. Just like athiests can home school or start their own private schools…

          • grannykate62

            saying the pledge, singing the star spangled banner, having manners and listening to the teacher are basic civility.

          • auntielib

            Just as we have the right to have the teachers read the prayers offered at the opening of Congress to our kids in public school. It’s called “teaching American History” to our kids, Kibber.

          • Kibber_SF

            and you have the right to teach your children all about religion on your dime, not mine! I will teach mine real history about the church and the bible and the Tora and Quran and all the other religions and let them formulate their own beliefs just like my parents did!
            How do you know your’s is the “right” way??? and the “only” way???

      • Kibber_SF

        In case you haven’t noticed (and by your comment I believe you haven’t) PAC, political action commitees, ARE the government. They control all the money and controll all the politicians. What you want doesn’t mean anything any more…
        and, just for your edification, atheism is NOT a religion. How stupid are you???

        • Rick Caird

          OK, here is a simple test to show how wrong you are. Take away the PAC’s. Will we still have a government? If the answer is yes (hint: the answer is yes), then your claim is wrong.

          Of course, atheism is a religion. It is based on faith (that there is no God) and is unprovable. Moreover, it has a simple dogma: There is no God and anyone who says differently is wrong. That, Kibber, is the definition of a religion.

          • Kibber_SF

            So you agree..if we take away the PAC’s “WE” will have a government, until then it is run by the money changers, as expressed in your “good book”…
            and It sure looks like you don’t have a clue what a religion is. Atheists don’t have “faith” that there is no god, their “belief” is that there is no god. That is, as you said, their dogma but dogma has little to do with religion as the definition of religion is about a “belief” in a “God” or “diety” not a dogma or principle. Dogma’s and principles are what set religions apart but it doesn’t define what a religion is or isn’t. It is what sets God beleivers apart because religion is all God beleivers…

          • Rick Caird

            Nice try. After I parse through your troll type insults, I see:

            1. You changed from PAC’s are the government to “we will still have government”. That of course indicates you have taken back your initial claim.

            2. You don’t understand “money changers”, unless you mean the Fed. But, I doubt you understand how that could be true of the Fed.

            3. I will grant you atheism is not a religion when you show me your proof there is no God. However, many bright people have tried to prove there is (or is not) a God and failed to do so. So, I will not hold my breathe while you work on this. I suggest, though, you consult Goedel’s incompleteness theorem.

            4. From “Dictionary.com”: Religion: “a set of beliefs concerning the
            cause, nature, and purpose of
            the universe …”.

            5. I love it when people who think they are smart, get every point wrong. Congrats on the Oh-fer.

          • Kibber_SF

            “We” as emphasised means that “we” the people get control back if the PAC’s are disposed of. Right now, “We the people” have NO control over the government. They do what the PAC’s tell them to do and that is all, nothing for “we the people”. What is so hard for you to understand?

            and I do understand “money changers”

            I am not an atheist so I am not here to prove or disprove God.

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

            “an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies and rules to worship a God or a group of Gods” you cited an athiests veiw not a religious one and I thought we were talking religion
            there’s your O’fer

          • Rick Caird

            Thanks for proving again that I always need to check a liberal’s links. In this case, you omitted a significant part from your quote. From your link:

            “4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith ”

            and they give examples:

            “Hockey is a religion in Canada.

            Politics are a religion to him”.

            This proves my point, once again. So, yes, you do have to disprove God to claim atheism is not a a faith based religion as you claimed earlier.

            Now, your point on PAC’s is the same point SCOTUS dispensed with in Citizen’s United. People can band together for political speech. It is a basic first amendment right and you want to take that away. You, btw, have the same right to band together with others and extol a political position. It always astonishes me how cavalier the left is with the Constitution.

            Your whole life seems to be based on a set of beliefs you deem to be sacred. PAC’s bad; Atheism does not require belief or faith.

          • obadiahlynch

            No it isn’t. That’s ludicrous.

          • Rick Caird

            It is only ludicrous if you don’t understand definitions. You must have majored in humanities where terms mean whatever you want them to mean.

          • obadiahlynch

            LOL. It’s almost a statistical certainty that my college is academically superior to yours, and that I got a better education than you did.
            .
            You seem fairly insecure in your ability to argue your point. People who are secure in their abilities to make points, or to just generally engage in conversation, don’t usually jump to baseless (and misinformed, by the way: you’ve no idea what humanities types do) personal attacks. No, someone who was confident that a case could be made that atheism is, in fact, a religion would have tried to make that case.
            .
            Your insecurity is, by the way, well placed. You’re right not to have much faith in your debating skills. Or, frankly, your beliefs — you’ve demonstrated two major fact errors in as many posts, and you’ve not shown much of a grasp on actual reality.
            .
            Debate away, but don’t come unarmed to a battle of wits. As they say.

          • Rick Caird

            So, you have not bothered to actually check the definitions. In the time it took you to write your nonsense, you could have discovered I am correct. Go consult dictionary.com for example and look at the 4th definition plus the examples (as in “Politics is his religion”).

            Clearly, you were a humanities major. I was a theoretical math major. Definitions matter in math.

          • obadiahlynch

            You’d be wrong about my major. But you sound like a guy that’s used to being wrong, so no worries.
            .
            You asserted your claim. You did not support your assertion.

          • Rick Caird

            So, I point you to the actual definitions (which you ignore) and those support my claim. You have posted nothing but a few ad hominems and no counter argument. And, then, you claim I didn’t support my assertions. You must be a humanities major: neither definitions nor examples nor proof have any effect on you. You have fallen to the status of a troll.

          • obadiahlynch

            What is it with you and hum majors? Did one steal your girlfriend? Jeesh. No, you used a silly definition to try to support your argument, which was that atheism is a faith which it is not.

          • Rick Caird

            Still no actual counter argument, eh, troll? Still don’t believe in definitions either? I’ll bet you still haven’t checked the definitions, even yet.

            Go ahead, just make up whatever makes you feel good. Bye.

          • obadiahlynch

            Why, you dribbling fool! A *lack* of faith is not a *faith*. I typed that very slowly, so maybe even You will get it this time.
            .
            Do you see where your error lies?

          • obadiahlynch

            You should google ‘appeal to authority debating error’. You might learn something fascinating. I’m still waiting for you to defend your ridiculous claim, and to do it without resorting to URLs and quotes you don’t understand, like that ‘politics is his religion’ kneeslapper you made earlier.
            .
            As I observed before, you seem very insecure. While you’re right to be, I’d encourage you to push yourself, just this once. We’re all pullin’ for ya.

    • grannykate62

      Ah, we are the ones working!
      Wrong in your quote, you purposely left out-
      ‘OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof’

      So cut the crap, Moron. Who is draining tax dollars to kill babies, insert crime and corruption in schools and on our streets? It ain’t the right!

      • Joel Gibbs

        .2% of the prison population is Atheist.

        • auntielib

          Or, as the old expression goes, “0.0% of the foxhole population is Atheist.”
          When the going gets rough, Atheists quickly discover how foolish their faith is, yes. Prison being no exception, obviously.

          • SpeakTruth

            The lack of believing in something is not a faith or religion. It the exact opposit. Not believing in Thor is not a religion. Not believing in fairies is not a religion or faith for that matter. It is true that some people seek religion in times of hardship but it is also true that some people lose faith for the same reason. Faith is believing on something without proof of existence.

          • auntielib

            “The lack of believing in something is not a faith or religion.”
            —–
            Of course it is! It is the belief that the “something” does not exist or does not align with The Truth.
            Please, we’ve all seen you Atheists play that little weasel game of yours before. It gets tiresome after a while, seeing you attempt to weasel like that, SpeakTruth.

          • SpeakTruth

            If you want to look at it that way, then you belong to the religion of not believing in Zeus, and the religion of not believing in Thor, or the religion of not believing in elves. It is ridiculous to think that way. It isn’t about trying to weasel out of anything. There is no guiding ideology of atheists, no atheist doctrine, no figurehead to offer guidance, nothing to hold us together as a group. There are of course activist atheists, but they no more speak for us all than the National Organization of Women speaks for all women.

          • Memphis Viking

            Atheists believe in the non-existence of God without proof. Therefore they have a faith-based belief system.

          • SpeakTruth

            That is ridiculous. We do not believe in a god BECAUSE there is no proof. Is it a faith that one does not believe in fairies? In every other aspect in most peoples’ lives they do not accept something as true without evidence. If someone claims to have seen Elvis, you would not call it faith that you didn’t believe. You would consider the news reports, doctors reports, gravesite, the fact that no one else witnessed Elvis with that person, etc. It isn’t faith that you wouldn’t believe the Elvis sighting.

          • Memphis Viking

            There is proof of God’s existence, atheists simply dismiss it out of hand because it’s not ‘scientific’ evidence. The problem with that attitude is that science, the study of the physical universe, is not suited to prove or disprove God, who exists beyond the physical.

          • obadiahlynch

            What proof would that be?

          • Memphis Viking

            The effect He has on people’s lives, for one thing.

          • obadiahlynch

            I think people are looking for more .. objective proof.

          • Breezeyguy

            There are plenty of proofs. Thomas Aquinas’ “Five Ways”, which he adapted from Aristotle, come to mind.

            Every hydrogen atom in the universe is evidence, both individually and collectively.

          • obadiahlynch

            Sorry, I don’t see atoms as proof of anything supernatural. To be fair, I admit I don’t know what I would accept as actual proof.

          • Breezeyguy

            Ha! That is very fair of you, yes. Note that I didn’t say “proof”, I said “evidence”. (To be fair, I almost did say “proof” at first.)

          • obadiahlynch

            Maybe God pre-empting the Super Bowl with a televised message.

          • JKellogg

            Actually, while it may not be a ‘proof’ it is part of the complexity argument. Recent research by astrophysicists indicates that during the inflation periods prior to and just after the big bang, there were huge confluences of events (so-called by some as ‘fine-tuning’) that ended up producing the laws of physics as they are.

            Even very minute changes could have meant that life would not be possible.

            All that said, definitive proof of the existence of God will not happen unless he changes the laws of physics (Which I believe he could do in the ‘blink of an eye’). Even the bible indicates this, 1 Cor 2:14 talks of how knowledge of God must be ‘spiritually discerned.’ And in Hebrews 11:1 the definition of faith says as much and more with, “the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.”

            By the way, generally I’m not one to ‘spout’ bible verses as it tends to discourage thoughtful discussion and an substantiative exchange of ideas. So to those of you who feel this way, it is not my intent to be disrespectful of your views.

            I included there references to make the point that the bible itself says that, at least for the present era, proof of God’s existence will not be found. Faith is required.

          • obadiahlynch

            Well put.

          • JKellogg

            Thanks, Obadiah. (Good biblical name, BTW)

            I would also posit that atheism is unscientific!

            The reason is this: When we consider the existence of a Supreme Being that exists outside of the known space/time constraints, and boundaries of the laws of physics… to consider that such a being on a macro basis spoke existence into existence… in order to quality as a scientific approach one would have to at minimum be an agnostic.

            The ball is back in your court, Sir.

          • obadiahlynch

            Everyone finds God in prison. They’re hoping it’ll get them released earlier.

        • grannykate62

          And that means?? Check out last night’s FOX CT report on assaults and battery in kindergarten and elementary schools in urban CT: >2000 in Bridgeport, >800 New Haven-something is now missing in the classroom! Rural areas 1.

    • Joel Gibbs

      Thanks for that Bob! Excellent. If Heaven is full of you intolerant, closed minded Christians, I’ll join Bob in hell.

      • grannykate62

        So you’ll be with friends!

      • auntielib

        “I’ll join Bob in hell.”
        —–
        Yes, I suppose you will, Joel.

    • tompro97


      Went off the meds again, didn’t you, Olde Uncle Boob???

    • Katherine Harms

      Sorry, but the words you put in quotation marks are not in the Bill of Rights. The first words of the Bill of Rights instruct Congress not to set up a religion supported by taxes, but the next words instruct Congress not to interfere with the exercise of religious conviction. Here are the first words of the Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
      prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” I admonish you to pay attention to every word, especially the two about “free exercise” of religion. The Constitution defined a nation in which all religions are to be treated with respect.

      • auntielib

        Old Uncle Bob is apparently quite ignorant when it comes to American History, in addition to being an Atheist.

  • helensimon

    Last year they kicked out those standing against islam because grover norquist didn’t like that, being married to a muslim…I would let the atheists come but not have a booth..preach the Gospel to those ignorant fools who are screaming for it..I should know, as I used to be one. Thanks to God someone saw past my stupidity and preached His Word to me…

    • grannykate62

      Guess you never been to CPAC! There’s room outside the building to set up table, don’t inhibit paying attendees from enjoying their days.

  • gmhunt4

    They should have NEVER been sold a booth space to start with……

  • J. C. Smith

    “absolute separation of religion from government ”

    No such separation exists in the Constitution. I have no problem with atheists attending anything they want to attend, but only an ignoramus would make that an element of their platform.

  • Cris Bessette

    I may be a non-theist but I have to agree with the author, this group should have have stuck to their original plan and not got all cocky and confrontational.
    Be nice, set up your little booth and hand out your non-tracks or whatever.

    I’ve done enough trade shows and conventions myself to know organizers want to avoid complications, confrontations, etc.
    Who sells flame throwers at a paper products convention?

  • veritasliberabit

    Actually, they got the punctuation right and you got it wrong. There were more than one lion. That aside, I’m glad this bitter, nasty group got booted from CPAC.

    • Myra Adams

      You are right and I took that out. Actually I see it on the web both ways. English is SO confusing!

  • grannykate62

    Who needs atheists at CPAC?? We already know how corrupt, mislead, and devious they are.

  • veritasliberabit

    Mmmmm, think someone has the wrong holy book… still looking for the party in the bible that tells me to go out and get slaves, kill gays and those who work on the Sabbath. Poster sounds as bitter and as deliberately disinformed as the whole American atheists group.

    • obadiahlynch

      Keep looking. You’ll find it.