Atheists Unfit for Public Office

I forget who asked but: Why do I think all atheists are assholes? The internet. Really just most are assholes.
 
uberrogo said:
I forget who asked but: Why do I think all atheists are assholes? The internet. Really just most are assholes.
Click to expand...

I still see no need to call them all assholes. Especially if based purely on their belief.
 
Shai Gar said:
There are gods within buddhism.
Click to expand...
Not the sect I study
We all have the potential to be Buddha's

We all have a Buddha Nature's

There is readings about the mythology that talks about demons and such. Buddhism is not monotheistic.

Not in Nichieren Buddhism
 
Nobody's fit for Public Office, if expected to become responsible for more than a couple of platoons.

In that case, they might as well appoint a horse, or Bob Saget. :deadhorse:

So I see their argument. You have to be delusional, in order to qualify for a level of responsibility beyond your physiological capacity. And when you honestly have no idea what's going on (and who's to blame you), then all is solved by saying: "God help us now".
 
Shai Gar said:
polytheistic
Click to expand...

LOL

I am not going to fight you on this.

Shai Gar whatever you say does not make it true.

So I will speak for you
Sookie: Buddha's are Human. It is not montheistic
Shai Gar: polytheisitic

Everyone else feel free to do your own research and think for yourselves

You can relax now. I said it for you :)
 
Last edited:
I don't understand why so many people are trying to pretend like the USA is a theocracy. People like to pretend that they live by the constitution. It really is quite quaint. An atheist would probably do the USA some good, depending on their view of ethics.
 
That's too bad.

If I am going to resign myself to trusting the ethics of anyone, I'd rather an athiest over a preacher any day... I don't like that religious or spiritual people declare things right and/or wrong by a code based on something unreasonable. At least with athiests, there is reasoning and generally, a more humanistic approach.
 
alt ctrl del said:
That's too bad.

If I am going to resign myself to trusting the ethics of anyone, I'd rather an athiest over a preacher any day... I don't like that religious or spiritual people declare things right and/or wrong by a code based on something unreasonable. At least with athiests, there is reasoning and generally, a more humanistic approach.
Click to expand...

I would rather trust the individual person than the label, but I am inclined to agree with you.
 
This sounds like an example of how subcultures and communities can forget they are part of a larger whole and operate increasingly independently until a conflict like this arises. The reason those laws ended up on those states books and possibly the reason they are attempting to enact them now is likely because they are just now bumping into the larger picture. It was inevitable, but quite good to be brought to the surface now (although I think this qualifies as later rather than sooner).

As a side note there is also a direct correlation between how small a community is and how directly the phrase "Almighty God" actually refers to the mayor or whomever runs the local show. (sort of joking - referring to the issue of wanting someone in public office who will vote for and enforce "god's will" which in interpretation tends to be the local leader's will.)
 
Last edited:
What is the big woop?

Wikipedia ".... In 1961, the United States Supreme Court explicitly overturned the Maryland provision in the Torcaso v. Watkins decision, holding that laws requiring "a belief in the existence of God" in order to hold public office violated freedom of religion provided for by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top