Secular folks should worry.

[Doctor Steuss]

Of course government-sanctioned atrocities could happen in the "good ol' USA." They have already happened. Slavery, Jim Crow, Native American genocide, etc. These weren't done under "State atheism," or so-called "godless" people taking ahold of government institutions. It wasn't so-called secular humanist liberal progressive Marxist [insert snarl buzzword salad continuation]. These were done primarily by Christians. In many instances (like that of France) the pull towards a state atheism was specifically because of the corruption of religious originations and government (particularly in that instance, Christianity).

I’m assuming that you are not a supporter of state supported atheism and/or Marxism? And that you might have cause for concern for any cultural/societal indicators that would lead one to believe that this could be the path we are on?

No, I am not a supporter of either. And yes, I have great concern for indicators that would lead one to believe that this could be a path we are on.

First Amendment concerns.
Academic Institutions with a leftest/liberal leaning.

I agree. Government shouldn't be able to dictate what private institutions, with their own academic boards and oversight, should teach. That Republican legislators and voters are attacking the First Amendment by doing this is of great concern.

ESG in Government and business/corporate institutions.

I agree. People should have access to information regarding the things they invest into. That Republican legislators and voters are attacking the rights of people to have access to this information is of great concern.

Legacy media and social media with a leftest/liberal slant in reporting the news having close ties with government ‘players’.

I agree. Private corporations should be able to have levels of self-governance that reflects their core beliefs, and how they feel they can be most responsible to their investors. The "invisible hand" of the market should be allowed leeway to correct and direct how social media corporations operate, granting as much freedom as possible. That Republican legislators and voters are attacking the First Amendment by trying to expand government regulations and oversight is of great concern.

The list could go on.

Indeed. Book bans, intrusions on personal medical care choices, recreational drugs, personal expression and identify. Republican legislator and voter attacks on the First Amendment, liberty and freedom are very concerning.

My point is that there are indications that as a society we are going down a path towards secular humanist progressive politics and support for government control over our lives, liberties, and freedoms. We ALL ought to be concerned with that rather than succumbing to forces that could ultimately lead towards any form of state sponsored atheism.

Indeed. Historically, the religious overreach into the personal lives of citizens taking away liberties and freedoms via the government (often by legislating morality) has led to state sponsored atheism. Hopefully religionists can stop their promoted march towards theocratic authoritarianism. That Republicans and so-called conservatives are currently blaming the left for their own attacks on freedom and liberty ("stop hitting yourself") doesn't fill me with much hope.

[MG 2.0]

…there is a coordinated effort to legislate against the 1st Amendment, and individual freedom and liberty by the purported "conservative" governments.

I’d be interested in having you flesh this out in particulars.

Are you saying this in response to the “Twitter Files”? Ha ha

Joking aside, I would be interested in why you made this statement.

The Twitter Files controversy seems to be taking place during a Democratic administration.

Watching the House Committee hearing on Weaponization of Government recently was an eye opener.

Anyway, not to get too far off track…would you ‘flesh out’ why you made this statement?

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

https://www.americanprogress.org/articl ... ous-wisdom

The genius of the founding fathers is they understood that Christianity could not only stand on its own but would thrive without being written into the laws and founding documents of the country. In fact, it was likely their own “faith” that led them to this conclusion. Many of the founding fathers—Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and Monroe—practiced a faith called Deism. Deism is a philosophical belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems. Deists believe in a supreme being who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws—and after creation, is absent from the world. This belief in reason over dogma helped guide the founders toward a system of government that respected faiths like Christianity, while purposely isolating both from encroaching on one another so as not to dilute the overall purpose and objectives of either.

Regardless, I still suspect that they would be horrified at the modern Republican party - especially in the southern states, and places like Utah and Idaho. I cannot imagine what they might think of a party that chose Trump twice as candidate for President, and might well choose him for a third time.

[Res Ipsa]

To answer your last point first: I would say that while I may have thought that I had some appreciation for MG about 8 or 9 years ago, as a reasonable and decent guy, it's like MG 2.0 is not the same person I met. Perhaps you feel the same way about the malkie you met back then compared to the one you see now.

Anyway, since I should "know better than to even ask this question" - I assume meaning that you feel it's outrageous that I did so - I wonder how I can fix it. By the way, please excuse me if I am not familiar with how you see the 1st Amendment - it's not a Canadian thing, and like several of the posters here, I'm not an American.

Is it the case, then, that your references to god and religion are not intended to privilege the particular god and religion you subscribe to over all others? You're happy with all gods and all religions being treated equally. The gods of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, New Age Spirituality, Buddhism, Satanism, Scientology, etc. are all fine in your eyes, and you would be happy having the preferences of any of these religions take the place of Christianity, including in the influence that they have in public life, lobbying for and making of laws?

If the influence of Mormonism in Utah were replaced by an equally strong influence of Islam, or Judaism, you'd be OK with that?

A few years ago a Utah legislator held back a law he was drafting because Elder Oaks asked him to do so - Oaks thought that his ideas were superior to those of the State Senator. Are you saying that you would be no more or less happy or unhappy if the legislator had acted that way based on the preference of a Catholic priest, or an Imam?

Is it only non-religious people you have no trust or faith in? Or should they also be allowed to wield the same level of influence?

malkie, I had a long and detailed response put together and it somehow got ‘trashed’ as I went to preview it (I’m on an iPad). I don’t want do go back through point by point all over again. It probably wouldn’t make much difference anyway. We’re both set in our ways of viewing the world and the church.

I will say that I see the world as it is. Utah has its religious impulses and influences. Same with other places. It is what it is. Hypotheticals are rather meaningless.

Except for the many scary hypotheticals MG 2.0 goes on to raise.

What is of major concern moving forward is whether or not the protections regarding freedom of religion and/or freedom from religion will remain as guiding principles not only in the United States but throughout the world as we move into the future. The concerns I and many others have is what the outcomes will be if a ‘godless’ majority took over the reigns of government. Would the free exercise of religion remain?

Hypotheticals are rather meaningless, unless they're MG 2.0's hypotheticals.

As it is, the laws of the land protect both the religious and the non religious folks. And that is as it should be. And this is with religious folks, on the whole, in the majority in both state and federal government. Atheists and other folks of all different ‘stripes’ in regards to belief have the freedom to move about in society with equal protections.

Unfortunately the track record is mixed when ‘godless’ individuals take hold of government institutions. This should be a concern for everyone no matter what your ‘stripes’.

I.e., all godless people are Stalin, Mao or Hitler. The list of democratically elected atheist leaders of countries I provided above is ignored. Because Stalin.

Personally I think that freedom of conscience and free exercise OF that conscience has a much better chance when protections are in place that prohibit interference by governmental institutions in the free exercise thereof. If we were absolutely sure that these protections would remain in place indefinitely if the ‘nones’ and or others that have a non theistic worldview were to take the reigns of power, then folks like me and millions of others would be able to sleep at night with little or no worries.

Why is he worried? Pure bigotry. Atheists cannot be as committed to the constitution as god-fearing Americans. Because Stalin.

But again, the track record is mixed. Free exercise of religion is and has been under attack many times throughout the world and its history by those who would ‘root out’ the “opium of the masses’.

Yep. American non-believers are all communists.

Millions have been subjected to a loss of their individual liberties and freedom of conscience. This unfortunate ‘curse’ can potentially happen anywhere. We are not free from the risks of a gradual decline into a society devoid of religious freedom and liberty. Of course the secular humanists and/or atheists (the minority at this point in time) say, “No worries!”

Of course, we just won't talk about how much of that loss of those individual liberties and freedom of conscience is occurring today in countries run by the religious:

Burma: persecution of Muslims and Christians by Buddhists.
Iran: persecution of Bahai's, Christians, Sufi Muslims and Sunni Muslims by Shia Muslims
Saudi Arabia: persecution of anyone other than Sunni Muslims
Central African Republic: persecution of Muslims by Christians
Egypt: persecution of Coptic Christians, non-Muslims and atheists by Muslims
Iraq: persecution of Sunni muslims, Yadizis, and Christians by Shia Muslims
Pakistan: persecution of Shia Muslims, Christians, Hindus, and Ahmadiyya Muslims by Sunni Muslims
India: persecution of Christians, Muslims, and Sikhs by Hindus

But we don't have to go that far afield. Here's an interesting piece by S.E. Cupp, a conservative atheist, on the GOP's weaponization of religion. https://starherald.com/opinion/columnis ... 09c37.html

The insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6 was in many ways a Christian nationalist event. Crosses, Christian banners and signs reading “Jesus is my savior, Trump is my president,” were unavoidable. Michael Sparks, charged by the FBI for entering the Capitol through a broken window, wrote on Facebook that “Trump will be your president four more years in Jesus’ name.” Many touted Jesus — and Trump — as their reason for being there. The “QAnon Shaman,” having breached the Senate chamber, led a group in prayer thanking “Heavenly Father” for allowing them to “send a message to all the tyrants, the communists, and the globalists that this is our nation, not theirs.”

The threatening rhetoric has permeated parts of Congress, where posing with guns, often in the name of Christianity, has become de rigueur for far-right electeds and candidates. Last year Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie and Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert traded Christmas cards on Twitter with their arsenals of firearms.

In 2020, Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene posed on Facebook with a gun and images of three Democratic members of Congress, writing, “We need strong conservative Christians to go on the offense against these socialists who want to rip our country apart.” Facebook removed the post for violating its policies. Meanwhile, in Texas, the state Republican Party is voting on a new platform, which puts God and guns front and center. The first five words are “Affirming our belief in God.” The platform includes 10 mentions of guns and 16 mentions of God, including the belief in “the laws of nature and nature’s God,” giving schools the option to display the national motto “In God We Trust,” affirming “God’s biblical design for marriage and sexual behavior,” and declaring “all gun control” a “violation of the Second Amendment and our God-given rights.” You’d almost think we were a theocracy. All of this — the rise in Christian nationalism and the literal and metaphorical weaponizing of faith to intimidate opponents — while the country grows less and less religious. A new Gallup poll found 81% of Americans now believe in God, down from 87% in 2017, and a new low in Gallup’s trend.

With nearly 20% of the country considering themselves non-believers, it’s hard to believe there aren’t more open atheists in Congress. The closest we get is Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, who identifies as religiously unaffiliated (her spokesperson says she is not an atheist). And California Rep. Jared Huffman, who announced in 2017 that he was a humanist, and has also called himself a “non-believer” and a “skeptic.”

That news wasn’t met with much fanfare. When appearing on Stephen Colbert’s show, the host jokingly said, “I’ll just put you down for ‘heathen-slash-hell-bound.’ “

Perhaps another poll shows why we’ve had no avowed atheists elected to Congress since the late Pete Stark, the brash California congressman who served from 1973 to 2013.

A 2019 Gallup poll asking Americans who they were willing to vote for revealed 60% said they would vote for an atheist, compared to 96% who would vote for a Black candidate, 94% for a woman, 76% for a gay or lesbian candidate and 66% for a Muslim. The only category an atheist beat out was a socialist (47%).

The absence of "out" atheists in Congress and other political office is due to one thing and one thing alone: religious-based bigotry. If one doesn't at least genuflect in the direction of religion, it's extremely difficult to be elected to national office. I think that what MG 2.0 is really afraid of is that, if atheists become a majority, we'll treat believers exactly the way they've treated us.

Christian dominionists can now impose their religious beliefs about health care decisions on non-Christians and legally impose their bigotry against LGBT+ folks in public schools. They don't just want to exercise their religion freely: they want to impose their religions beliefs on all Americans. And they're not done yet. So, while the Christian dominionist GOP is today -- right now -- taking away Americans' freedoms by imposing Christian religious beliefs on all Americans, MG 2.0 wants to portray nonbelievers as a threat to freedom of conscience?

Occurrences such as the bakery owners being forced to bake wedding cakes for those in whose views of morality they disagree with on religious principles are just a tiny slice of what we might see if religious liberty and free exercise were to be curtailed and/or done away with. The radical left would have government step in and force its way into the free exercise and practice of religious conscience and principled behavior regardless of constitutional protections.

And that kind of gives the whole thing away. MG 2.0 wants the law to enforce religious based bigotry that in no way interferes with anyone's free exercise of religion. Refusing to serve "sinners" in commerce is antithetical to Christianity according to Jesus. Does the bakery in question serve atheists? Does it serve adulterers? How about people who fail to honor their parents? How about people who lie? Naw, the notion that baking a cake has anything to do with the free exercise of religion is an absurd, paper-thin excuse to imposed religious-based bigotry on a disfavored minority.

But that's what has MG 2.0 quaking in his boots. Meanwhile, we won't even talk about religious-based interference with access to health care or religious-based restrictions on teaching in public schools. Let's not talk about the actual losses of freedom that are occurring today because of Christian domination of governments. Let's talk about cake.

Whether or not GenZ and their children and their children’s children would continue to hold up freedom and liberty FOR ALL is an open ended question. But we do have examples of countries and nations that have fallen prey to systems of suppression and oppression due to the ‘godless’ nature of individuals who took hold of society and institutions, governmental and academic.

Yes, yes. We can totally trust the Christians in government who are currently taking away our freedoms by imposing their religious beliefs with the force of law, but we can't trust nonbelievers because only religious people can be trusted to uphold the Constitution. Get it? If you're not a "religious American," you just can't be trusted. Because Stalin.

And you don’t have to be ‘far right’ or a Trump acolyte to have concerns. Everyday people who find themselves in ‘the middle’ have the same concerns. That would be me.

Narrator: And it was true. He was in the middle. Of the far right.

That’s the whole point of why I started this thread. And I knew full well that I would be stepping on a hornets nest with the majority of folks here being of a certain and/or similar ‘stripe’.

Regards,
MG

Of course he knew it. Because, despite all his denials, he knows that he holds views about nonbelievers that are pure bigotry and that non-bigots object to that kind of thing.

I want to be crystal clear: I don't think religious folks are per se less trustworthy in terms of holding political office. Far from it. I don't think that religious belief says anything about an American's commitment to uphold the Constitution. I think I'm one of the most outspoken defenders of the First Amendment, sometimes to the dismay of others on the left. That includes the free exercise and establishment clauses. To claim (or worse, insinuate) that an American is less trustworthy in terms of upholding the Constitution simply based on religious belief would be bigotry -- pure and simple.

And the reverse is exactly the same thing.

[MG 2.0]

I’m assuming that you are not a supporter of state supported atheism and/or Marxism? And that you might have cause for concern for any cultural/societal indicators that would lead one to believe that this could be the path we are on?

No, I am not a supporter of either. And yes, I have great concern for indicators that would lead one to believe that this could be a path we are on.

First Amendment concerns.
Academic Institutions with a leftest/liberal leaning.

I agree. Government shouldn't be able to dictate what private institutions, with their own academic boards and oversight, should teach. That Republican legislators and voters are attacking the First Amendment by doing this is of great concern.

ESG in Government and business/corporate institutions.

I agree. People should have access to information regarding the things they invest into. That Republican legislators and voters are attacking the rights of people to have access to this information is of great concern.

Legacy media and social media with a leftest/liberal slant in reporting the news having close ties with government ‘players’.

I agree. Private corporations should be able to have levels of self-governance that reflects their core beliefs, and how they feel they can be most responsible to their investors. The "invisible hand" of the market should be allowed leeway to correct and direct how social media corporations operate, granting as much freedom as possible. That Republican legislators and voters are attacking the First Amendment by trying to expand government regulations and oversight is of great concern.

The list could go on.

Indeed. Book bans, intrusions on personal medical care choices, recreational drugs, personal expression and identify. Republican legislator and voter attacks on the First Amendment, liberty and freedom are very concerning.

My point is that there are indications that as a society we are going down a path towards secular humanist progressive politics and support for government control over our lives, liberties, and freedoms. We ALL ought to be concerned with that rather than succumbing to forces that could ultimately lead towards any form of state sponsored atheism.

Indeed. Historically, the religious overreach into the personal lives of citizens taking away liberties and freedoms via the government (often by legislating morality) has led to state sponsored atheism. Hopefully religionists can stop their promoted march towards theocratic authoritarianism. That Republicans and so-called conservatives are currently blaming the left for their own attacks on freedom and liberty ("stop hitting yourself") doesn't fill me with much hope.

I was talking with my dad a couple of weeks ago. He’s ninety. He earned a Phd at UCLA years ago in neuroscience. He brought up the point that two people can observe common phenomena and yet have such different perceptions and reach such conflicting/differing resolutions and/or conclusions based on information that is readily available to both.

It’s amazing.

Your post is a prime example of that. I DO appreciate your point of view. It clearly highlights the divide we observe in our country even as we speak. I hope to God we can resolve the divergent perceptions/observations that we have and come up with comprehensive compromise that will allow EVERYONE to flourish.

For the sake of our great nation and ALL of its people.

This board seems to be a microcosm of divergent views and what happens when a ‘majority voice’ is controlling the helm.

But it’s important that YOUR voice is heard along with mine. Thank you for your comments.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

I’m assuming that you are not a supporter of state supported atheism and/or Marxism? And that you might have cause for concern for any cultural/societal indicators that would lead one to believe that this could be the path we are on?

No, I am not a supporter of either. And yes, I have great concern for indicators that would lead one to believe that this could be a path we are on.

First Amendment concerns.
Academic Institutions with a leftest/liberal leaning.

I agree. Government shouldn't be able to dictate what private institutions, with their own academic boards and oversight, should teach. That Republican legislators and voters are attacking the First Amendment by doing this is of great concern.

ESG in Government and business/corporate institutions.

I agree. People should have access to information regarding the things they invest into. That Republican legislators and voters are attacking the rights of people to have access to this information is of great concern.

Legacy media and social media with a leftest/liberal slant in reporting the news having close ties with government ‘players’.

I agree. Private corporations should be able to have levels of self-governance that reflects their core beliefs, and how they feel they can be most responsible to their investors. The "invisible hand" of the market should be allowed leeway to correct and direct how social media corporations operate, granting as much freedom as possible. That Republican legislators and voters are attacking the First Amendment by trying to expand government regulations and oversight is of great concern.

The list could go on.

Indeed. Book bans, intrusions on personal medical care choices, recreational drugs, personal expression and identify. Republican legislator and voter attacks on the First Amendment, liberty and freedom are very concerning.

My point is that there are indications that as a society we are going down a path towards secular humanist progressive politics and support for government control over our lives, liberties, and freedoms. We ALL ought to be concerned with that rather than succumbing to forces that could ultimately lead towards any form of state sponsored atheism.

Indeed. Historically, the religious overreach into the personal lives of citizens taking away liberties and freedoms via the government (often by legislating morality) has led to state sponsored atheism. Hopefully religionists can stop their promoted march towards theocratic authoritarianism. That Republicans and so-called conservatives are currently blaming the left for their own attacks on freedom and liberty ("stop hitting yourself") doesn't fill me with much hope.

Masterful, Dr. Steuss. I tip my cap to you.

[MG 2.0]

malkie, I had a long and detailed response put together and it somehow got ‘trashed’ as I went to preview it (I’m on an iPad). I don’t want do go back through point by point all over again. It probably wouldn’t make much difference anyway. We’re both set in our ways of viewing the world and the church.

I will say that I see the world as it is. Utah has its religious impulses and influences. Same with other places. It is what it is. Hypotheticals are rather meaningless.

Except for the many scary hypotheticals MG 2.0 goes on to raise.

What is of major concern moving forward is whether or not the protections regarding freedom of religion and/or freedom from religion will remain as guiding principles not only in the United States but throughout the world as we move into the future. The concerns I and many others have is what the outcomes will be if a ‘godless’ majority took over the reigns of government. Would the free exercise of religion remain?

Hypotheticals are rather meaningless, unless they're MG 2.0's hypotheticals.

As it is, the laws of the land protect both the religious and the non religious folks. And that is as it should be. And this is with religious folks, on the whole, in the majority in both state and federal government. Atheists and other folks of all different ‘stripes’ in regards to belief have the freedom to move about in society with equal protections.

Unfortunately the track record is mixed when ‘godless’ individuals take hold of government institutions. This should be a concern for everyone no matter what your ‘stripes’.

I.e., all godless people are Stalin, Mao or Hitler. The list of democratically elected atheist leaders of countries I provided above is ignored. Because Stalin.

Personally I think that freedom of conscience and free exercise OF that conscience has a much better chance when protections are in place that prohibit interference by governmental institutions in the free exercise thereof. If we were absolutely sure that these protections would remain in place indefinitely if the ‘nones’ and or others that have a non theistic worldview were to take the reigns of power, then folks like me and millions of others would be able to sleep at night with little or no worries.

Why is he worried? Pure bigotry. Atheists cannot be as committed to the constitution as god-fearing Americans. Because Stalin.

But again, the track record is mixed. Free exercise of religion is and has been under attack many times throughout the world and its history by those who would ‘root out’ the “opium of the masses’.

Yep. American non-believers are all communists.

Millions have been subjected to a loss of their individual liberties and freedom of conscience. This unfortunate ‘curse’ can potentially happen anywhere. We are not free from the risks of a gradual decline into a society devoid of religious freedom and liberty. Of course the secular humanists and/or atheists (the minority at this point in time) say, “No worries!”

Of course, we just won't talk about how much of that loss of those individual liberties and freedom of conscience is occurring today in countries run by the religious:

Burma: persecution of Muslims and Christians by Buddhists.
Iran: persecution of Bahai's, Christians, Sufi Muslims and Sunni Muslims by Shia Muslims
Saudi Arabia: persecution of anyone other than Sunni Muslims
Central African Republic: persecution of Muslims by Christians
Egypt: persecution of Coptic Christians, non-Muslims and atheists by Muslims
Iraq: persecution of Sunni muslims, Yadizis, and Christians by Shia Muslims
Pakistan: persecution of Shia Muslims, Christians, Hindus, and Ahmadiyya Muslims by Sunni Muslims
India: persecution of Christians, Muslims, and Sikhs by Hindus

But we don't have to go that far afield. Here's an interesting piece by S.E. Cupp, a conservative atheist, on the GOP's weaponization of religion. https://starherald.com/opinion/columnis ... 09c37.html

The insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6 was in many ways a Christian nationalist event. Crosses, Christian banners and signs reading “Jesus is my savior, Trump is my president,” were unavoidable. Michael Sparks, charged by the FBI for entering the Capitol through a broken window, wrote on Facebook that “Trump will be your president four more years in Jesus’ name.” Many touted Jesus — and Trump — as their reason for being there. The “QAnon Shaman,” having breached the Senate chamber, led a group in prayer thanking “Heavenly Father” for allowing them to “send a message to all the tyrants, the communists, and the globalists that this is our nation, not theirs.”

The threatening rhetoric has permeated parts of Congress, where posing with guns, often in the name of Christianity, has become de rigueur for far-right electeds and candidates. Last year Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie and Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert traded Christmas cards on Twitter with their arsenals of firearms.

In 2020, Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene posed on Facebook with a gun and images of three Democratic members of Congress, writing, “We need strong conservative Christians to go on the offense against these socialists who want to rip our country apart.” Facebook removed the post for violating its policies. Meanwhile, in Texas, the state Republican Party is voting on a new platform, which puts God and guns front and center. The first five words are “Affirming our belief in God.” The platform includes 10 mentions of guns and 16 mentions of God, including the belief in “the laws of nature and nature’s God,” giving schools the option to display the national motto “In God We Trust,” affirming “God’s biblical design for marriage and sexual behavior,” and declaring “all gun control” a “violation of the Second Amendment and our God-given rights.” You’d almost think we were a theocracy. All of this — the rise in Christian nationalism and the literal and metaphorical weaponizing of faith to intimidate opponents — while the country grows less and less religious. A new Gallup poll found 81% of Americans now believe in God, down from 87% in 2017, and a new low in Gallup’s trend.

With nearly 20% of the country considering themselves non-believers, it’s hard to believe there aren’t more open atheists in Congress. The closest we get is Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, who identifies as religiously unaffiliated (her spokesperson says she is not an atheist). And California Rep. Jared Huffman, who announced in 2017 that he was a humanist, and has also called himself a “non-believer” and a “skeptic.”

That news wasn’t met with much fanfare. When appearing on Stephen Colbert’s show, the host jokingly said, “I’ll just put you down for ‘heathen-slash-hell-bound.’ “

Perhaps another poll shows why we’ve had no avowed atheists elected to Congress since the late Pete Stark, the brash California congressman who served from 1973 to 2013.

A 2019 Gallup poll asking Americans who they were willing to vote for revealed 60% said they would vote for an atheist, compared to 96% who would vote for a Black candidate, 94% for a woman, 76% for a gay or lesbian candidate and 66% for a Muslim. The only category an atheist beat out was a socialist (47%).

The absence of "out" atheists in Congress and other political office is due to one thing and one thing alone: religious-based bigotry. If one doesn't at least genuflect in the direction of religion, it's extremely difficult to be elected to national office. I think that what MG 2.0 is really afraid of is that, if atheists become a majority, we'll treat believers exactly the way they've treated us.

Christian dominionists can now impose their religious beliefs about health care decisions on non-Christians and legally impose their bigotry against LGBT+ folks in public schools. They don't just want to exercise their religion freely: they want to impose their religions beliefs on all Americans. And they're not done yet. So, while the Christian dominionist GOP is today -- right now -- taking away Americans' freedoms by imposing Christian religious beliefs on all Americans, MG 2.0 wants to portray nonbelievers as a threat to freedom of conscience?

Occurrences such as the bakery owners being forced to bake wedding cakes for those in whose views of morality they disagree with on religious principles are just a tiny slice of what we might see if religious liberty and free exercise were to be curtailed and/or done away with. The radical left would have government step in and force its way into the free exercise and practice of religious conscience and principled behavior regardless of constitutional protections.

And that kind of gives the whole thing away. MG 2.0 wants the law to enforce religious based bigotry that in no way interferes with anyone's free exercise of religion. Refusing to serve "sinners" in commerce is antithetical to Christianity according to Jesus. Does the bakery in question serve atheists? Does it serve adulterers? How about people who fail to honor their parents? How about people who lie? Naw, the notion that baking a cake has anything to do with the free exercise of religion is an absurd, paper-thin excuse to imposed religious-based bigotry on a disfavored minority.

But that's what has MG 2.0 quaking in his boots. Meanwhile, we won't even talk about religious-based interference with access to health care or religious-based restrictions on teaching in public schools. Let's not talk about the actual losses of freedom that are occurring today because of Christian domination of governments. Let's talk about cake.

Whether or not GenZ and their children and their children’s children would continue to hold up freedom and liberty FOR ALL is an open ended question. But we do have examples of countries and nations that have fallen prey to systems of suppression and oppression due to the ‘godless’ nature of individuals who took hold of society and institutions, governmental and academic.

Yes, yes. We can totally trust the Christians in government who are currently taking away our freedoms by imposing their religious beliefs with the force of law, but we can't trust nonbelievers because only religious people can be trusted to uphold the Constitution. Get it? If you're not a "religious American," you just can't be trusted. Because Stalin.

And you don’t have to be ‘far right’ or a Trump acolyte to have concerns. Everyday people who find themselves in ‘the middle’ have the same concerns. That would be me.

Narrator: And it was true. He was in the middle. Of the far right.

That’s the whole point of why I started this thread. And I knew full well that I would be stepping on a hornets nest with the majority of folks here being of a certain and/or similar ‘stripe’.

Regards,
MG

Of course he knew it. Because, despite all his denials, he knows that he holds views about nonbelievers that are pure bigotry and that non-bigots object to that kind of thing.

I want to be crystal clear: I don't think religious folks are per se less trustworthy in terms of holding political office. Far from it. I don't think that religious belief says anything about an American's commitment to uphold the Constitution. I think I'm one of the most outspoken defenders of the First Amendment, sometimes to the dismay of others on the left. That includes the free exercise and establishment clauses. To claim (or worse, insinuate) that an American is less trustworthy in terms of upholding the Constitution simply based on religious belief would be bigotry -- pure and simple.

And the reverse is exactly the same thing.

Thank you for your response, Res Ipsa. I’ll answer in the same vein as I did to Dr. Steuss. All thoughts and ways of viewing the world should be put out there in the marketplace of ideas. It never ceases to amaze me how different folks with the opportunity to look at and assimilate all the information available can come up with such conflicting ideas.

To the point of calling out the ‘other’ as a bigot. Even if untrue.

But thank you for your point of view also along with Dr. Steuss. It does help lay out some of the lines of demarcation we see in our country between theists and non theists.

It will be interesting to see where things go.

We, of course, will find ourselves on opposite sides of the line along with many others of differing views in regards to God and the Universe.

I hope we can retain a civil society in the larger world and that this thread is not an indicator of the misunderstanding and misrepresentation that seemingly occurs between people that have divergent schools/ways of viewing the world.

I would be happy to have you as my neighbor.

Best Regards,
MG

[Doctor Steuss]

…there is a coordinated effort to legislate against the 1st Amendment, and individual freedom and liberty by the purported "conservative" governments.

I’d be interested in having you flesh this out in particulars.

Are you saying this in response to the “Twitter Files”? Ha ha

Joking aside, I would be interested in why you made this statement.

The Twitter Files controversy seems to be taking place during a Democratic administration.

Watching the House Committee hearing on Weaponization of Government recently was an eye opener.

Anyway, not to get too far off track…would you ‘flesh out’ why you made this statement?

Regards,
MG

A handful of recent examples:

Florida Republicans have proposed a bill that would require bloggers to register with the state if they are paid for their blog posts, and those posts mention Florida Republican government representatives. The bill includes fines for even being late in registering with the government in order to engage in a First Amendment right.

Idaho Republicans NPFAA law was recently used as a cudgel to censor an art exhibit at a college.

I could likely devote an entire page to the book ban extremism of Republicans right now. Ironically, there have been books banned that no one even read (they just assumed it was "woke," or whatever thought-terminating boogey-man is fashionable, because the main characters weren't white).

The various laws targeting drag performances, or attempting to limit the ability to mention sexual orientation in schools (ummmm... they do know that most famous Americans have wives and/or husbands that are regular discussed, and have been since the dawn of our nation, right? Lol.)

There have literally been proposed legislation dictating what pronouns teachers can use. Republicans are literally trying to legislate the use of specific words. Holy crap, how much more of an attack on basic liberty can you get?

Idaho tried to get a full on ban of people under 18 from being able to testify in the House Judiciary and Rules Committee. I'm not talking about something reasonable like requiring parental consent. Nope. Just a full-on outright ban on people under 18 having the right.

There's a vast swath of Republican state lawmakers who have been attempting to pass anti-protest laws for years now. Freedom-loving Florida made it a third-degree felony "riot" when as few as three (THREE) people "commit a breach of peace." That's five years in prison, and forever losing your right to vote.

I'm in no way suggesting that Republicans have a monopoly on attacking freedom and wielding the righteous sword of censorship. Some Washington state Democrats tried to get a hotline established via legislation that people could report "offensively biased statements." However, it's like modern-day Republicans look to their past, see Joseph McCarthy, and think "hold my beer... just not Bud Light."

[Morley]

The founders of your nation seemed to think that it wasn't a good idea to bind government and religion together.

The founding fathers:

The denominational affiliations of these men were a matter of public record. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists–Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin–this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith.[1]

This is a revealing tally. It shows that the members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were almost all Christians, 51 of 55–a full 93%. Indeed, 70% were Calvinists (the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and the Dutch Reformed), considered by some to be the most extreme and dogmatic form of Christianity.

https://thedailyhatch.org/2012/05/23/we ... christian/

Regards,
MG

Are you serious, MG 2.0? You quote someone's Wordpress blog, who in turn is quoting Gregory Koukl. This is hardly an informed, unbiased opinion. Koukl's qualifications are that he's a radio talkshow host with a M.A. in Christian apologetics. You had to filter a lot of general information and academic stuff to come up with this one, didn't you?

How about we try something a little less biased? You used the Britannica before, to bolster some of your arguments. Let's try that again:

Founders who fall into the category of Christian Deists include Washington (whose dedication to Christianity was clear in his own mind), John Adams, and, with some qualifications, Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was more influenced by the reason-centred Enlightenment than either Adams or Washington.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Fo ... ty-1272214


The whole article is pretty revealing in talking about the religious proclivities of various of the founders. An easy reading lists more than these few as deists.

Hmm, Deists? What is a deist?

Deism (/ˈdiːɪzəm/ DEE-iz-əm [1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/ DAY-iz-əm; derived from the Latin deus, meaning "god")[3][4] is the philosophical position and rationalistic theology[5] that generally rejects revelation as a source of divine knowledge, and asserts that empirical reason and observation of the natural world are exclusively logical, reliable, and sufficient to determine the existence of a Supreme Being as the creator of the universe. More simply stated, Deism is the belief in the existence of God, specifically in a creator who does not intervene in the universe after creating it,[9][10] solely based on rational thought without any reliance on revealed religions or religious authority

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism


My god. That has more than a little in common with secular humanism.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

How many people did this religionist kill?



Guess MG can’t worry about facts when it doesn’t suit him. by the way, anyone catch the name of the seminary Stalin attended? Oh, and could someone be a good chap and get me the name of the church Hitler was baptized in? Also, while we’re at it, does anyone remember the name of Mao’s buddhist temple he attended?

Thanks in advance.

- Doc