Atheist President

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

What would he change?

Here's some good suggestions I gathered so far:

Tax all churches, and any other organization which accumulates money.

Refusing to allow churches or other religious entities to participate in electoral politics.

Remove all references to deities or religions from all government activities.

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Thursday, 29 July 2004 02:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Assuming you're talking about US presidency, Kerry's an atheist?

― Careful with that Almanac Eugene (Autumn Almanac), Thursday, 29 July 2004 02:31 (twenty-one years ago)

you might want to familiarize yourself with the U.S. Constitution

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 29 July 2004 02:31 (twenty-one years ago)

A crunk album for every kindergarten, a thong for every toddler, a lowrider for every little league team.

― AdamL :') (nordicskilla), Thursday, 29 July 2004 02:31 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think kerry's an atheist. It's a "what if" sort of question.

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Thursday, 29 July 2004 02:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Australia could do with an atheist president.

― Careful with that Almanac Eugene (Autumn Almanac), Thursday, 29 July 2004 02:33 (twenty-one years ago)

you might want to familiarize yourself with the U.S. Constitution

could you elaborate? maybe others more familiar than me might answer you.

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Thursday, 29 July 2004 02:33 (twenty-one years ago)

AdamL atheism isn't synonym with bad taste !

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Thursday, 29 July 2004 02:35 (twenty-one years ago)

(my look nowadays is crunk'd weekend at bernies)

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Thursday, 29 July 2004 02:39 (twenty-one years ago)

I'd rather an agnostic president.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 29 July 2004 02:41 (twenty-one years ago)

What about...an artist president?

― AdamL :') (nordicskilla), Thursday, 29 July 2004 02:42 (twenty-one years ago)

...albino president.

― x j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Thursday, 29 July 2004 02:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, that'd be nice, but an agnostic president would wisely NOT BE BOTHERED with such a silly thing as religion (instead of being in atheist...who goes well out of his way to preach against religion -- something that can get as tiring as religion itself). I'd prefer the president take a "yeah, whatever, next?" stance towards organized religion.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 29 July 2004 02:45 (twenty-one years ago)

...al fresco president.

― Careful with that Almanac Eugene (Autumn Almanac), Thursday, 29 July 2004 02:46 (twenty-one years ago)

animal president?

A smart animal, like a dolphin or a dog.

― AdamL :') (nordicskilla), Thursday, 29 July 2004 02:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Since when does atheist imply active rallying against religion? I'm an atheist in the truest sense, but I get along quite well with religions.

― Careful with that Almanac Eugene (Autumn Almanac), Thursday, 29 July 2004 02:47 (twenty-one years ago)

I guess an agnostic prez would still do what I wrote in my first post. I think it's the fair and balanced thing to do.

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Thursday, 29 July 2004 02:47 (twenty-one years ago)

sounds good to me

― roger adultery (roger adultery), Thursday, 29 July 2004 02:48 (twenty-one years ago)

The US needs to replace all references to 'God' with 'Barry Manilow'.

― Careful with that Almanac Eugene (Autumn Almanac), Thursday, 29 July 2004 02:48 (twenty-one years ago)

a·the·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.
1.
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

2. Godlessness; immorality.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 29 July 2004 02:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, but that doesn't mean said God-denier then goes off and tells other religions to 'stop it'.

― Careful with that Almanac Eugene (Autumn Almanac), Thursday, 29 July 2004 02:50 (twenty-one years ago)

It's up to the individual to separately not believe in any religion, and demonstrate against religion.

― Careful with that Almanac Eugene (Autumn Almanac), Thursday, 29 July 2004 02:51 (twenty-one years ago)

sebastian are you canandian or portuguese? i forget.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 29 July 2004 02:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Being that said God-Denier's personal convictions are wholly and diametrically opposed to the whole concept of religion, I fail to see how he could forge a meaningful or sincere relationship with a person of faith.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 29 July 2004 02:52 (twenty-one years ago)

But I've forged loads of meaningful or sincere relationships with persons of faith.

― Careful with that Almanac Eugene (Autumn Almanac), Thursday, 29 July 2004 02:55 (twenty-one years ago)

Being that said [Killing Joke]-denier's personal convictions are wholly and diametrically opposed to the whole concept of [honoring the fire], I fail to see how he could forge a meaningful or sincere relationship with a person of faith.

-- Alex in NYC (vassife...) (webmail), July 28th, 2004 8:52 PM. (vassifer) (later) (link)

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 29 July 2004 02:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Does your average contemporary US president conspire to expel anyone who isn't Christian? [ignoring Bush's rampant stupidity obv]

― Careful with that Almanac Eugene (Autumn Almanac), Thursday, 29 July 2004 02:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Hate the game, not the playa.

― oops (Oops), Thursday, 29 July 2004 03:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Bush is fair game.

― Careful with that Almanac Eugene (Autumn Almanac), Thursday, 29 July 2004 03:03 (twenty-one years ago)

(amateur!st, first and foremost I'm a self-sovereign individual. Legally I'm canadian and québecker)

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Thursday, 29 July 2004 03:04 (twenty-one years ago)

amateur!st, first and foremost I'm a self-sovereign individual

oh, brother.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 29 July 2004 03:06 (twenty-one years ago)

You two are related? Blimey, that's a turn-up for the book.

― Careful with that Almanac Eugene (Autumn Almanac), Thursday, 29 July 2004 03:07 (twenty-one years ago)

the brotherhood of anarchy!

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Thursday, 29 July 2004 03:08 (twenty-one years ago)

I think an atheist/agnostic president/prime minister/etc would prevent school boards to try to ban the teaching of evolution in schools.

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Thursday, 29 July 2004 03:33 (twenty-one years ago)

why do you imagine that presidents have absolute power over the goings on in their countries?

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 29 July 2004 03:37 (twenty-one years ago)

why are you a prick? You bring food for thought to what I said but it's a shame about the prick-like delivery of content.

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Thursday, 29 July 2004 03:40 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm imagining shish-ke-bab.

― Maria D. (Maria D.), Thursday, 29 July 2004 03:41 (twenty-one years ago)

sheesh-ke-bab, yes.

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Thursday, 29 July 2004 03:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Not to mention that if a president made that one of his primary causes, he could affect what is taught in public schools, no?

― oops (Oops), Thursday, 29 July 2004 03:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Didn't Scatman John do that one?

x-post

― gramps, Thursday, 29 July 2004 03:44 (twenty-one years ago)

sorry for being a prick but i'm turned off--on boards as in real life--by people who announce their "self-sovereignty" (and suchlike) and ideological affiliation without prompting.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 29 July 2004 03:45 (twenty-one years ago)

is simply saying "i am canadian" an announcement of an ideological affiliation without prompting? yes it is Mr.Pal!

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Thursday, 29 July 2004 03:48 (twenty-one years ago)

no, it means you live in canada.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 29 July 2004 03:49 (twenty-one years ago)

it's night of the wilfully impenetrable on ILX!

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 29 July 2004 03:49 (twenty-one years ago)

do you know about anarchy?

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Thursday, 29 July 2004 03:50 (twenty-one years ago)

anyway it's not the topic of this thread.

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Thursday, 29 July 2004 03:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Could an atheist be elected president?

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Thursday, 29 July 2004 03:55 (twenty-one years ago)

not yet. give it a few years.

― Maria D. (Maria D.), Thursday, 29 July 2004 03:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Probably not. The premise of presidency, of the law itself, resonates most with someone of a monotheistic background I would think.

― mouse (mouse), Thursday, 29 July 2004 04:00 (twenty-one years ago)

a few years as in at least 100. it wasn't that long ago that Kennedy was perceived as a questionable canidate because he was Catholic.

― oops (Oops), Thursday, 29 July 2004 04:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Highly unlikely, given how well organized the U.S. religious right is.

― j.lu (j.lu), Thursday, 29 July 2004 04:03 (twenty-one years ago)

why do you imagine that presidents have absolute power over the goings on in their countries?

I just got that link quickly so I admit to not having read it in full but it's a less common response than your typical Article 48 fuxors.

"Absolute power" is a pretty extremist term that I imagine is not exactly representative of the point of view of the thread, though I could be wrong.

xpost topic at hands, oops is correct, as is j.lu (this goes for countries not called America as well)

― Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Thursday, 29 July 2004 04:06 (twenty-one years ago)

(note the link above is not me admiring her viewpoint nor agreeing with her conclusions towards more recent presidential behaviors, it was merely the shortest page that brought up the emergency rule clause and abuse of such)

― Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Thursday, 29 July 2004 04:08 (twenty-one years ago)

well... you never know

― what this is a post?, Thursday, 29 July 2004 06:18 (twenty-one years ago)

We've had atheist presidents before and may have them again, but nobody's really been out of the closet. An atheist candidate would be unelectable; an atheist president who does the things Sébastien suggests would be assassinated.

― Colin Meeder (Mert), Thursday, 29 July 2004 06:22 (twenty-one years ago)

OTM.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 29 July 2004 06:38 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm back from a little walk where I checked an outside exposition of pictures about peace. It was featuring many good quotes from many different people, that were inspiring. I think I'll get back again tomorrow to write them down. Anyway;

"Absolute power" is a pretty extremist term that I imagine is not exactly representative of the point of view of the thread, though I could be wrong

Allyzay you are not wrong I was not talking about an absolute power of the political leader, but by default, alluding to the platform of his party, that he is liable of. It's an "alternate reality" type of thread, I have to say I didn't think about that line of thought or what might be the opposition's reaction about these secular points etc but I'm glad it was brought up because it makes the speculations more realistic.

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Thursday, 29 July 2004 06:44 (twenty-one years ago)

I dunno, we have a non-religious president right now (though she's never said she's an atheist), and that hasn't changed anything. Admittedly, nowadays the Finnish president has little real power (which is a good thing, in my opinion), and is more of an symbolic figure. But we've had atheist prime ministers too (like the previous one, who was in power for eight years), and they haven't made that many anti-religion moves either. Then again, Finland already is a pretty secular country, for example Sébastien's suggestions 2 and 3 have already taken place here here years ago.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 29 July 2004 07:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Fortunately the province of Québec is pretty secular too since the Tranquil Revolution, in which Québec intellectuals appropriated the power of the state from the Catholic church. There is nothing as dramatic here as banning the theory of evolution or saying that stem cell research is immoral science etc

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Thursday, 29 July 2004 08:12 (twenty-one years ago)

One of the nicest thing about an atheist president = won't say that god spoke to them and told them to go to war. This sort of discourse sounds so unpredictable it's downright scary, esp if it's made by the leader of a nuclear superpower. I know in the best of cases it is a façade but still, diplomacy shouldn't have to deal with this extra layer of confusion.

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Thursday, 29 July 2004 08:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Sébastien, please realize that this American president to a very large extent, and all American presidents to a certain extent, isn't concerned with how God talk sounds to you but how it sounds to voting Americans -- and most voting Americans LIKE God-talk.

― Colin Meeder (Mert), Thursday, 29 July 2004 09:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Tax all churches, and any other organization which accumulates money.

So this would include all non-profits, including charities? Sounds like a bad idea to me.

Refusing to allow churches or other religious entities to participate in electoral politics.

This is already true to a certain extent. Religious entities cannot spend money to support a specific candidate or party. I don't think these restrictions could really be tightened any further without denying religious people their freedom of speech.

Remove all references to deities or religions from all government activities

This statement is so vague that I'm not sure what it means. What counts as a "government activity"? Does this mean that history classes in public schools would not be able to teach the history of religion, for instance? Sounds like a terrible idea.

― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 29 July 2004 12:40 (twenty-one years ago)

those three suggestions would be in pretty clear violation of the first amendment. Freedom of religion, not freedom from (although the former sorta implies the latter).

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 29 July 2004 13:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Does this mean that history classes in public schools would not be able to teach the history of religion, for instance?

Not radical enough. Everybody's tongues would have surgical incisions so they wouldn't be able to pronounce words like "religion" and "god".
Seriously what I meant by "remove all references to deities or religions from all gov activities" is to be like other secular states: for the usa that would mean no more "in god we trust" anywhere, prayers are out of school and stay out, passing laws so just like muslims bhuddists jews etc the christians won't have a special treatment when it comes at the calendar, holidays, and events so what they do in private isn't in anybody's face. Stuff like that.

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Thursday, 29 July 2004 13:03 (twenty-one years ago)

good luck with that.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 29 July 2004 13:07 (twenty-one years ago)

there's a point where this is impossible, cos the centuries of encrusted habit may have a religious core underneath, cf. this issue: is not letting muslim students/employees out early every friday a violation of their 1st amendment rights? the western workweek hinges on the sabbath.

― g--ff (gcannon), Thursday, 29 July 2004 13:07 (twenty-one years ago)

is not letting muslim students/employees out early every friday a violation of their 1st amendment rights?

No, only if the government is the employer. But even then I'm sure there are some provisions (like time for prayer at work, etc.).

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 29 July 2004 13:09 (twenty-one years ago)

If an employer started giving it's employees friday and saturday off, and working sundays, don't you think there would be lawsuits out the ass?

― g--ff (gcannon), Thursday, 29 July 2004 13:10 (twenty-one years ago)

no, because 1. there are no regulations as to when an employer can or can't ask an employee to work (though there are against asking an employee to work too much, or not compensating them, etc.) and 2. plenty of Americans work on Sunday already.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 29 July 2004 13:12 (twenty-one years ago)

and yes i know millions of ppl work on sunday (restaurants, etc). by "employer," above i mean a large scale office or factory firm.

haha xpost.

― g--ff (gcannon), Thursday, 29 July 2004 13:12 (twenty-one years ago)

uh, there's a reason we get sunday off! (to which the labor struggle has added saturday.) tho i admit i don't know what workweeks look like in muslim countries.

― g--ff (gcannon), Thursday, 29 July 2004 13:14 (twenty-one years ago)

above i mean a large scale office or factory firm.

you do realize that the service industry is the fastest growing sector in the US economy?

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 29 July 2004 13:14 (twenty-one years ago)

holy st francis stencil, this point is not that contentious! sunday off = relic of xtian social life

― g--ff (gcannon), Thursday, 29 July 2004 13:19 (twenty-one years ago)

So this would include all non-profits, including charities? Sounds like a bad idea to me.

Good point. I guess the law should take in consideration the size of the operation in question: small non-profits wouldn't pay taxes but those that are catholic church size would.

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Thursday, 29 July 2004 13:20 (twenty-one years ago)

xpost to g__ff- all's I'm saying is that, yeah, I agree with you, it's a relic of social life, not a government regulation. And it's pretty much moot in our just-in-time 24-hour global economy now.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 29 July 2004 13:21 (twenty-one years ago)

An atheist president would simply replace one set of arguably silly beliefs with another.

― St. Nicholas (Nick A.), Thursday, 29 July 2004 13:21 (twenty-one years ago)

There seems to be an assumption on this thread that an atheist president would naturally want to limit the role of religion in public life. But isn't in possible that an atheist, while not believing themselves, could view religion as a salutary influence on society: encouraging morality, strengthening the social fabric, providing assistance to the needy, etc? An atheist who wants to make everyone else just like themselves sounds just as obnoxious as the most evangelical religious person.

― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 29 July 2004 13:32 (twenty-one years ago)

That seems contrary to the very nature of atheism, though.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 29 July 2004 13:33 (twenty-one years ago)

no, it just seems contrary to a dictionary definition of atheism. You can be an atheist and not hate religion.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 29 July 2004 13:35 (twenty-one years ago)

FIGHT THE REAL ENEMY: merriam-webster!

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 29 July 2004 13:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Alex, the very nature of atheism isn't being anti-religion. It's not believing in a god. There are highly anti-religious atheists, and there are tolerant ones.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 29 July 2004 13:36 (twenty-one years ago)

By atheist, I just mean someone who doesn't believe in God or a higher power. An agnostic is someone who believes that God may exist but is unknowable.

― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 29 July 2004 13:39 (twenty-one years ago)

an atheist shouldn't even say ve "doesn't believe" he'll say "there is no god"

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Thursday, 29 July 2004 13:40 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm not sure if I see much of a difference between the two statements.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 29 July 2004 13:42 (twenty-one years ago)

using the word "believe" = implies they might be a god, and someone else might believe in it, that would be agnostism.

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Thursday, 29 July 2004 13:44 (twenty-one years ago)

I disagree. Most xians I know speak of "believing" in God, not that there is absolutely a God, since their belief is essentially unknowable but a component of faith. Then again, I know a lot of Episcopalians.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 29 July 2004 13:46 (twenty-one years ago)

not that there is absolutely a God

? they are agnostic xians?

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Thursday, 29 July 2004 13:48 (twenty-one years ago)

no, they mean that faith is something that is beyond proof, and they're cool with that.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 29 July 2004 13:49 (twenty-one years ago)

I thought the bible left very little interpretation about the existence of their god.

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Thursday, 29 July 2004 13:49 (twenty-one years ago)

not all xians are bible literalists. And the bible relates God as mystery as well as presence.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 29 July 2004 13:52 (twenty-one years ago)

for the record i was talking about the people backing up the views of the vatican.

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Thursday, 29 July 2004 13:54 (twenty-one years ago)

no, it just seems contrary to a dictionary definition of atheism.

Silly me. What would a dictionary know, eh?

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 29 July 2004 14:11 (twenty-one years ago)

I dunno Alex, but I'd say interpreting a dictionary strictly literally seems not too far afield from interpreting the bible strictly literally. If there are athiests in practice who don't actively hate or wish for the suppression of religion, perhaps their experience should be important to a definition of it as well? Y'know, speaking myself as an athiest who doesn't really care if other people practice.

for the record i was talking about the people backing up the views of the vatican.

Catholicism /= the entire realm of Christian experience, practice or beliefs.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 29 July 2004 14:18 (twenty-one years ago)

I believe that atheism requires as much a leap of faith as religious adherence. Strictly speaking, this makes me an agnostic as opposed to a true atheist. I'm fully unconvinced by Judaism and post-Judaic religions like Xianity and Islam but I have no proof one way or the other that there isn't some kind of 'deity'. I don't much care either. This genuinely seems of secondary importance to the point of a secular republic and the respect and tolerance for the 'other'.

Sébastien, as to your points:

Tax all churches, and any other organization which accumulates money.

Churches and other religious organizations are considered non-profit charities and thus are not taxed. This is why my idea of being the high priest of Mammon will never make the kind of money I was hoping for. Seriously though, I am very uncomfortable with any 'tyranny of the majority' which attempts to impose orthodox thinking on individuals' consciences.

Refusing to allow churches or other religious entities to participate in electoral politics.

Tricky, this one isn't it. Technically, they are forbidden from saying, "Vote" or "Don't Vote" for a candidate. They are permitted to express their opinion about policy though, i.e. opposition to abortion or stem cell research. Inderdiction seems very heavy handed to me as the best way to change society is through slow organic change. Also let's not forget the importance of religious organizations in progressive causes from female suffrage, civil rights, abolitionism, to workers' rights. Sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I don't. This would be true of my attitude vis à vis atheists too.

Remove all references to deities or religions from all government activities.

It strikes me as particularly injust that we have so imposed Xianity on our subjects through "In God We Trust", references to God in the Pledge of Alliegeance, etc... As to the work week, I think changing it will simply disfavor the present majority which is not only unlikely but somewhat overly punitive. It might also screw up the football season and if you want to find your ass out on the pavement as a politico, this is the way to do it. However, a guaranteed, explicit right to take religious holidays off and to make it illegal to discriminate against someone based on the day of their Sabbath would have my whole-hearted approval.

― Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 29 July 2004 14:28 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm not sure what part of Alex's dictionary definition of atheism precludes an acceptance of other people's theism:

1.
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Point a. seems pretty clear in implying a personal disbelief or denial of God, which would still allow one to accept others' belief as a valid choice. And point b. is really only relevent to the noun "atheism," that is, the doctrine itself, not the person who follows that doctrine. A person can follow a doctrine but not have to believe that everyone else has to follow that doctrine.
My Webster's New College Dictionary defines an atheist as "One who denies the existence of God," (which in itself is pretty interesting for its monotheist-centric wording), which doesn't imply to me an inability to accept another person's belief as valid.
Really, it comes down to whether a person can strongly believe something (either in the existence of God or gods or the lack of a God or gods), yet still accept the possibility (however small) that they could be wrong. I think this is unacceptable to a lot of atheists because it implies a "faith" in the nonexistence of God.

― St. Nicholas (Nick A.), Thursday, 29 July 2004 14:30 (twenty-one years ago)

However, a guaranteed, explicit right to take religious holidays off and to make it illegal to discriminate against someone based on the day of their Sabbath would have my whole-hearted approval.

I would imagine there are probably some local, state and federal statutes on these points so I'm not sure if they would need to be codified in, say, a Constitutional amendment.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 29 July 2004 14:31 (twenty-one years ago)

"? they are agnostic xians?"

I've met at least one agnostic priest.

― Colin Meeder (Mert), Thursday, 29 July 2004 14:33 (twenty-one years ago)

i've been overposting, so just one note:

i think it's a mistake to associate peacelike or warlike tendencies with any religious or nonreligious affiliation. (athiesm was state-enforced in soviet russia. athiesm continues to be the official state nonreligion in china [sort of].)

i think what we have to worry about are political leaders who are doctrinaire and lack empathy. i can as easily imagine an "athiest" politician meeting that description as an evangelical christian or whathaveyou.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 29 July 2004 16:10 (twenty-one years ago)

I think people who are really "spiritual" would agree to drop their historical privileges in favor of equity, to respect other people's spiritual life.

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Thursday, 29 July 2004 16:15 (twenty-one years ago)

one month passes...

On atheism as a civil rights issue,Discrimination Against Atheists
The Facts

one month passes...

speaking of republican frauds in florida , how about Jeb Bush violation of the first amendment by funding christian-based prisons?

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 01:02 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.