I do not come to DU to be an atheist, I come to DU to be a liberal.

[Eko]

It is not important how I believe, but what I believe. I am a Atheist. So what. I have dear friends who believe in Christianity, Buddhism, or even spiritualism where they can see your aura. Your freakin aura!. Imagine how a scientific atheist skeptic looks at that, multiply that by a hundred and that is how we see all of your religions. All of them. But,, some of you believe in the same moral code that I do. Somehow you got to the same place I did while taking a different path. Cool. Very Cool. But, and very big But, I am the only minority in the great USofA that is a natural born American Citizen that cant hold office in a lot of places. Also!!!! we are the are most distrusted and despised minority and that an atheist is the least likely person that Americans would vote for in a presidential election. See http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheitsHated.htm for more. For you Christians, imagine you could not hold public office in a lot of places just because you were a Christian. So yeah, we're pissed off. You would be too. The first person I ever told I was an atheist replied, "so you believe in the devil right?". Whatever. But I come here to be a Liberal right? I don't come here to challenge the status quo, the one where you "religious people" fight for the rights of Iraqis but somehow overlook our fight. I mean your more apt to elect a muslim than one of us. So the next time an "Atheist" takes a swipe at your religious post try to remember, we are liberal like you but cant get elected in a lot of places. Name one minority of natural born citizens where that happens besides atheists.
Eko

[bitchkitty]

1. There are more atheists than you think.

Many of them just lie and say they believe, so as to not face the predjudice that you do.

[longship]

29. I am sure that is true.

Check out The Clergy Project, a safe haven for clergy who no longer believe in god but who dare not say so.

I am an out atheist because there's no down side for me, but I certainly understand why a person would not want to admit it.

I often ponder how many Congress critters are secretly non-believers. The only one I know of is former Rep. Pete Stark.

[hrmjustin]

32. That has got to be hard for someone to transition from believer to nonbeliever when they

are clergy. I have met clergy that has happened to and it is heartbreaking to some of them, but others find it liberating. The heartbreak is when they feel they can not do anything else with their life. I am glad that their is an organization that helps clergy transition to other work.

[Arugula Latte]

52. I was acquainted with a preacher dude who lost faith completely.

He was hilarious. He'd say things like: "This religious crapola really chaps my ass" or "this stuff frosts my balls" -- while he was still working as a minister.

[Eko]

2. Well now

That doesn't make me feel good at all, but you are probably right.

[Wabbajack_]

3. What?

" cant hold office in a lot of places."

You mean can't get elected?

[Eko]

4. Correct.

can not hold office in some states to be precise, against the law.

[Wabbajack_]

5. That is unconstitutional and sounds unenforcable

[demwing]

6. Agreed, not enforceable. OP, where is this the law?

And has it already been challenged?

[Act_of_Reparation]

15. So that makes it OK, I guess...

Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas all explicitly ban atheists from holding public office. Pennsylvania, meanwhile, prohibits discrimination solely against those who believe. It is unlikely they have been challenged, as atheists, no matter your location, are "unelectable".

[demwing]

18. Why would that make it OK?

Just gathering details here, sorry if that's not suitable to you.

BTW: Torcaso v. Watkins - 367 U.S. 488 (1961), ruled all such state laws as unconstitutional, so it has been challenged - by the SCOTUS.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/488/case.html

Some atheists that have held office:

Sean Faircloth: served five terms in the Maine Legislature including appointments on the Judiciary and Appropriations Committees.

Lori Lipman Brown: Nevada state senator from 1992 to 1994.

James Kennedy: Former mayor of Rahway, New Jersey

Culbert Olson: Governor of California from 1939 to 1943

Kyrsten Sinema: U.S. Representative (D-AZ), Member of the Arizona Senate (2011-2012), Member of the Arizona House of Representatives (2005-2011).[159]

Pete Stark: U.S. Representative (1973-2013) (D-CA), the first openly atheist member of Congress.

Jesse Ventura: Former Governor of Minnesota

[Dryvinwhileblind]

7. Go to www.godlessgeeks.com and peruse the 8 states declarations for yourselves...

...each one is eerily similar to the others, in effect, stating that any prospective public office holder must "acknowledge the existence of The Supreme Being". More holes than swiss cheese, with apologies to the cheese. Deny the existence, be disqualified. Acknowledge the existence just to be qualified, then later renounce said existence?, be disqualified. I say go w/ no. 2, lawyer up, and let the slow rolling wheels of "justice" be greased. Got sand?

[struggle4progress]

8. Torcaso v Watkins - 367 US 488 (1961)

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/488/case.html

[trotsky]

10. It's been settled in court! Discrimination doesn't exist anymore!

Add this to the list of topics atheists aren't allowed to discuss, eh s4p?

[struggle4progress]

13. The law is at least settled and has been for some time. Of course, I can't guarantee what

Tiddley Winks, county clerk of Zipville, might try -- but it's entirely clear where the matter will end if it heads to court

[trotsky]

14. And regardless of the law, fine Christians around the country not all that unlike yourself...

harbor significant hatred and distrust toward atheists, making it harder to win election as an out atheist than an openly gay or declared Muslim candidate.

[demwing]

19. No one here thinks that discrimination is OK

But the idea that discrimination against Atheists seeking office is legal in 7 or 8 states is inaccurate.

[trotsky]

21. I didn't dispute the legality.

It's also illegal to discriminate on the basis of race - does that mean racism doesn't exist anymore?

[demwing]

22. And I don't think anyone here disputed the discrimination

We all know that discrimination exists, codified or not, but you keep stressing the fact, as if no one gets it.

I get it, and if I get it, then the many people here who are smarter than I am must surely get it as well.

[trotsky]

24. Great, so what do you disagree with in my post #14? n/t

[demwing]

26. Why do you think I disagreed with you?

1. I wanted to underscore support and empathy
2. I sought to clarify that the law does not allow discrimination. It may not have been your point, but it was the OP's point.

You're kind of like a wigwam and a tee-pee.... (two tents)

[trotsky]

28. Your subject said: "No one here thinks that discrimination is OK."

I didn't accuse anyone here of thinking that. Then you said:

"But the idea that discrimination against Atheists seeking office is legal in 7 or 8 states is inaccurate"

That wasn't my claim.

It sure sounded like you were trying to correct me on two things that I didn't state, so color me very confused.

[demwing]

31. You wrote: "fine Christians around the country"

"not all that unlike yourself...harbor significant hatred and distrust toward atheists." and that sounds as if you may believe Duers, particularly struggle4progress, of harboring discriminatory sentiments.

[trotsky]

33. "around the country" ... "not all that unlike"

It was only last year that a survey finally indicated a majority of Americans would vote for an atheist, if they otherwise agreed with the candidate. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-07-26/athiest-poll-president/56516466/1

Yet still, 43% would NOT - simply because the candidate was an atheist. That's a vast number and isn't just confined to the right-wing dominionist nuts. So yes, Christians not all that unlike those here on DU are most certainly among those who discriminate against atheists.

And given what some DUers have said about atheists, I wouldn't actually be all that surprised if there were a few here.

[demwing]

35. So, there you have the reason for my post

You wrote:

"So yes, Christians not all that unlike those here on DU are most certainly among those who discriminate against atheists. And given what some DUers have said about atheists, I wouldn't actually be all that surprised if there were a few here."

So I apologize. I misspoke - because we do disagree, and that is the reason for my post.

[trotsky]

36. So you think there are absolutely no DUers that harbor prejudice against atheists?

Are you willing to stand by that blanket statement?

[demwing]

37. You know what, I originally posted as a measure of support for you

why are you trying to pick an argument?

Maybe Christian DUers (a group to which I do not belong) are not having a problem with your Atheism, maybe they are having a problem with your argumentativeness?

To answer your question - I wouldn't rule out DUers having prejudices. I would however, be very surprised to find any DUer that would refuse to vote for a liberal candidate based solely on their theism, or on their atheism. I can stand behind that comment without hesitation.

[trotsky]

38. What a strange way to show support, trying to correct two things I didn't say.

But if you have to make this personal now, so be it. Call me "two tents," call me argumentative, whatever. I call it defending my position, but you can slap whatever labels you want on it, because it's just an ad hom. For the record, I haven't flung any similar accusations at you, so there is no doubt in my mind who's got the moral high ground here.

Now, what you originally said to me was:

"No one here thinks that discrimination is OK"

Now you say:

"I would however, be very surprised to find any DUer that would refuse to vote for a liberal candidate based solely on their theism, or on their atheism. I can stand behind that comment without hesitation."

Those are quite different statements indeed. Are you withdrawing the first one from your first response to me, then? Or do you stand by both statements?

[demwing]

41. Yes I stand by both statements - I don't see them as mutually exclusive

But I no longer care to submit myself to your nitpicking. Congrats. You win. I'm sorry I walked into your arena.

[trotsky]

42. I'm sorry you had to resort to personal attacks.

I do see the statements as contradictory. Either there is "no one" (categorically, as you state), or there could be, but you'd be surprised.

For fun, check out this guy's deleted posts and see if you can guess how he feels about atheists: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=283371&sub=trans

And I don't feel the need to slam you, your tactics, or your motivations in order to make that point. That was your method.

[struggle4progress]

30. That seems to me an unfair and unnecessary personal attack. Upthread, I simply pointed out

the current state of the law regarding religious tests for office, which (in my understanding) are completely forbidden at each and every level of government by the explicit final clause of Article IV acting in concerted combination with the anti-establishment language of Amendment I and the expansive Amendment XIV

I fail to understand how you can read those remarks as evidence of some "significant hatred and distrust" directed towards either atheists or other religious minorities, such as Muslims. I believe I have repeatedly made clear, by numerous posts here over many years, that I disapprove of religious pandering in political campaigns and that a candidate's religion or lack of religion is usually of little interest to me, though I have also indicated more than once that candidates who showboat their religion, or lack thereof, rapidly lose my support compared to candidates who more appropriately address governmental policy issues. I also believe I have repeatedly made clear, by numerous posts here over many years, that I value secularism and humanism. I further believe I have repeatedly made clear, by numerous posts here over many years, that when considering my own religion I regard some atheistic interpretations of the texts to shed important light on the underlying message, and in fact I have now and again posted explicit examples of that

[trotsky]

34. The fact that 43% of those surveyed would not vote for a qualified atheist for public office...

tells me that a significant number of people harbor prejudice against atheists. And there is no doubt, with that large a percentage, that some of them are Christians not all that unlike yourself who consider themselves to be otherwise progressive and tolerant.

Unless you think that 43% of Americans are bigoted right-wing Christians?

Do you?

[struggle4progress]

39. That Gallup poll actually concerned votes for President, which IIRC is a somewhat difficult office

to win. Various people have obtained the Presidency without much public evidence of their beliefs or disbeliefs.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/atheists-muslims-bias-presidential-candidates.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_affiliations_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States#The_irreligious

[trotsky]

40. I notice you didn't answer my question.

Could you please do so?

[struggle4progress]

67. Being-an-asshole afflicts some definite fraction of the population, independent of all other

sociological variables such as gender, ethnicity, race, religious preference, or sexual orientation

And many people too readily generalize their experiences: a common reaction, after meeting an asshole, who seems to belong to a certain group, is to conclude that being-an-asshole is a characteristic of that group, rather than just an individual affliction suffered by that particular asshole. Lots of people, of course, are already inclined to believe that everyone else is an asshole. But since being-an-asshole also tends to cause asshole behavior in others, assholes often fail to recover quickly from being-an-asshole, since they continually feel themselves to be surrounded on all sides by assholes

Some groups work very hard to promote a public perception of atheists as assholes:

... American Atheists, a New Jersey-based organization, posted the two billboards in Charlotte with the intention of them being up during the Convention, which begins in September ... One billboard, geared toward President Obama, speaks of Christianity having a "Sadistic God" and "Useless Savior," among other things, and shows a piece of toast with the face of Jesus on it ...

Atheists Post Billboards in NC Attacking Presidential Candidates' Religious Views
By Michael Gryboski , Christian Post Reporter
August 14, 2012|4:38 pm

[trotsky]

68. So what's your answer to my question?

There are certainly more Christians, and certainly far more assholes who are Christians, than there are atheists. Yet Christians are easily elected to office, including those who are assholes.

Not to mention the minimal activity one must engage in to be an asshole atheist according to you (openly questioning religious beliefs) versus what it takes to be a Christian asshole (picketing a funeral?).

Good thing you're around to blame atheists for the hatred and intolerance that fine Christians not all that unlike yourself so consistently show them.

You have also left unanswered a question I posed to you elsewhere - what opinions do you believe atheists are allowed to hold (and express) on religious topics? At what point would you draw the line and state that an atheist deserves scorn and intolerance for expressing their opinion?

[Bradj5]

9. Why they are predjudice against us

Believers are paralyzed with fear when they are forced to confront they're entire belief system. They are taught throughout their lives that if they so much as question the existence of god, that they will be sentenced to eternal damnation. That is correct, the only sin that is unforgivable in Christianity is to question the existence of god... even in your own mind silently. (the sin of thinking for yourself or questioning authority) -Luke 12.10 -And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemes against the Holy Spirit it shall not be forgiven.- Mark 3.29- but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin." Therefore when confronted with reason by an non believer it scares them to their core. Religious superstitions like heaven & hell combined with the guilt & consequences of questioning the existence of god lead to fear & loathing towards open non believers.

[In_The_Wind]

11. I like the way you think ~ Bradj5.

[img][/img]


In The Wind
[img][/img]

[cbayer]

23. Many believers are never taught this at all.

Many believers are taught to question themselves and their beliefs throughout their lives. Blasphemy is not a concept that all believers embrace. Many believers think that people with other beliefs are just fine.

While your statements may be applicable to some, and particularly to fundamentalists of all stripes, your brush is way too broad and does not take into account all the different flavors of believers on this earth.

Welcome to DU and to the religion group.

[In_The_Wind]

12. I respect your right to be an atheist and a liberal.

[okasha]

16. Yout right to run for and hold office

has been settled law for half a century.

If you want to get elected, though, you won't do it by calling a large part of your constituency irrational, deluded bigots and child abusers responsible for every known evil from the Holocaust to acne. Nor will you get elected if you allow your constituency to believe you harbor such views but don't express them.

People won't vote for candidates they perceive as hating them. Bottom line. That's why rhe majority of people of color won't vote for Republicans. It's why liberal theists won't vote for Dominionists. If you want people to vote for you, you're going to have to convince them it's in their best interest to do so. The burden's on you, just as it is on every other candidate.

[Eko]

25. If you mean

settled law by appealing to the supreme court, yes. That still does not change the fact that there are states were atheists cant hold office. Nowhere in my post did I say anything about " irrational, deluded bigots and child abusers responsible for every known evil from the Holocaust to acne". Why would you attribute that to me? You kind of proved my point with that.

[okasha]

27. If you mean states where you are legally barred

barred ftom holding office, that is not true. SCOTUS struck down those laws with Torcaso.

I'm pleased to see that you don't hold the bigoted views expressed by many prominent atheists. My point was that a successful candidate will also need to distance him/herself from these views.

BTW, my former City Councilman is an atheist. He was repeatedly re-elected until he termed out because voters in his distict supported his outspoken environmentalism. Their religion, or his lack of it, was never an issue. And this was in Texas.

[Eko]

43. You are right from a certain perspective.

If those laws are challenged all the way up to the supreme court they will probably be knocked down. That does not change the fact that those laws are still on the books today. As an example, article 19 section 1 of the Arkansas constutition states "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court.". That is still there. So yes, Arkansas legally bars atheists from holding office. Would they enforce it? I don't know but that does not change anything. There are laws in states that bar atheists from office. Its that simple.
I am glad to see you don't hold the bigoted views of many of your prominent whatever you are. I'm sure all of their hate filled rants don't apply to you nor would I even think that is what you believe without hearing it from you first. I certainly would not ask you to denounce them when you have not said anything leading me to believe you have those views. Would a bigoted view include lumping someone together with someone else who says bad things just because of their religious, or non religious beliefs?. That would be silly. I would never ask someone who I just met and told me they were a Christian to denounce the views of John Hagee to prove they were not a bigot. For me to do that would imply that I have a certain prejudice against that type of people, or that I prejudge them based on a few sensational and highly mediaized few.
Lastly, I would like to know what bigoted views from prominent atheists you are aware of.

[okasha]

44. One More time.

Along with the Constitution, treaties, and acts of Congress, SCOTUS decisions are the supreme law of the land. An atheist can run for office in any of the fifty states where s/he is otherwise qualified--age, residency, citozenship status, whatever. Any state law that contradicts the SCOTUS decision is null and void.

At the moment, there are a number of prominent atheists who have declared that raising a child in a faith tradition is abuse--worse than sexual abuse, in fact. This is bigotry. It also creates a burden on an atheist candidate to make clear that s/he doesn' share that view. I was not asking you, personally, to renounce anything. But an openly atheist candidate will need to make clear to religious voters that s/he dos not consider them child abusers. Or lose. Simple as that.

[Eko]

45. The laws are there.

That is what I said, that states have laws that block atheists from office. When the laws are removed you would be right. When you go to do something and a state law blocks you, no matter what the supreme court may say on appeal, the law is still a state law. The state still has a law that blocks you from doing that thing. On appeal you may win that right, but until then (and that is even if you have the resources to go to the supreme court and that you win) the state law is in effect.
Which Atheists?
And because some atheists think something all atheists running for office need to denounce that? Do all christian candidates need to renounce Jerry Fallwell? If I thought that all Christians needed to denounce jerry fallwell to run for office then I would be a bigot and prejudiced wouldn't I?

[Eko]

46. Lets do an order of events thing here.

1. I, being an Atheist run for office in my state.
2. Tea party Tom decides to read the state constitution and finds out Atheists cant hold office in that state.
3. He informs his Republican state legislature.
4. They decide to uphold that.
I may either have the rescources and time to appeal to the supreme court, or I wont. If I dont/cant appeal the law has blocked me from running for office. If I do appeal and I win, it still doesnt change the fact that the state has that law, only the the federal government has power to over ride their law. If I lose, the state still has that law and I cant run for office.

The point to remember here is number 2. The state constution has that law and they can enforce it.

[okasha]

57. One more time.

5. Your legal counsel drops a copy of the Torcaso decision on the Tea Party Chair's desk.

6. Tea Party either backs off, or if having a particularly stupid day, sues for injunctive relief. In which case,

7. The Federal Court cites Torcaso as precedent, orders ballots printed with your name on them, and charges court costs to the Tea Party.

What you don't seem to be getting is that the anti-atheist laws you cite were appealed and nullified forty years ago. No further appeal is necessary. Theyre done. Toast. Past history. Over.

[Eko]

59. And Doma?

How are states getting around that?

[okasha]

66. They aren't.

DOMA does not prohibit marriage between same-sex spouses. It can't because regulation of marriage falls under the «other powers reserved to the states» clause of the Constitution.

What DOMA does do is:

1. Deny Federal benefits to same-sex spouses. They can't file joint income tax returns, receive insurance benefits through a spouse's Federal job coverage, receive Social Security survivors' benefits, etc.

2. Allow states to refuse to recognize valid same-sex marrisges or civil unions performed in other states.

DOMA is itself unconstitutional because 1 violates the right to equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment and 2 violates the full faith and credit clause.

When SCOTUS strikes this travesty down, Mississippi, for instance, can still forbid equal marriage, but will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages performed in New York. And the Feds will have to pay up.

[okasha]

48. Jesus Baldheaded Christ,

as my mother used to say. Look. Go get yourself a basic American Government book and read up on the powers of the Supreme Court and what it means for a law to be vacated. I give up.

And yes, any Christian running for office had better convince me s/he does not hold the sme views as the late unlamented Falwell or s/he will not get my vote.

[Eko]

49. States law vs Federal law

Is a favorite of the tea party. Think the Civil war, or when the president had to send the national reserves to Va for school segregation. Or I know one, states that allow same sex marriage go against DOMA, the federal law of the land. Are those marriages not legal or are they legal?
So, has every christian you have voted for expressed their opposition to Jerry Falwells views?

[Eko]

50. and you dont have to give up

I knew what you were saying from the beginning that it was the fact that federal law trumps states law but that is not always how it works. And you were wrong about the laws, there are state laws saying Atheists cant hold office. There are States that would stop that without the federal govt stepping in if they did. If the feds did not step in state law would be upheld as in actual evidence right now with gay marriage in some states. I love my history books, I even went and bought a high school history book and quite a few college history books. I have about 6 different ones. I probably have 20 or so books on history and probably about 50 history audio books. Why do you need to stoop to insults to make your point?

[Eko]

54. I'm sorry but I think you walked yourself into a corner.

I say states have laws against atheists holding office, that is provable.
You say Federal law is against that (I agree).
I show where historically and presently States law trumps Federal law. (DOMA).
I also think you may have a problem with Atheists. That's alright, I have a problem with some of them also, but you stated that for an Athiest to run for office they need to renounce these bigoted atheists that you have yet to produce and that you would not vote for someone who had not renounced Jerry Fallwell, can you name one person you voted for that has done that and show where they have done that? I am pretty sure you cant and that is alright. I just want to point out how you have impossibly high standards for an atheist that you dont have for anyone else. You have been very nice and I appreciate that but you have helped to prove my point, beyond a doubt really, how much easier it would be to get elected if I were another minority. Would you make a Muslim denounce Bin Laden? Al Quieda? Would you make a liberal denounce Stalin? A Christian denounce Hitler? Of course not. But those cursed Atheists? yes.

[SpartanDem]

61. It's not a law it's a SCOTUS decision

are you familiar with Loving v. Virginia(1967) which invalidated state laws against interracial marriage? Many of those laws remained of books for years, in fact, Alabama which the last state to do so didn't officially repeal it's law until 2004. It's does not matter if a is law on the books in a state, if it's been rule unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

[Eko]

62. Okay.

I just don't feel like arguing anymore. I am right that there are state laws that prohibit Atheists from running for office, you are right that federal laws trump state laws. Most of the time but not all of the time as evidence with gay marriage. Can we agree on that at least?

[Act_of_Reparation]

47. Continue flogging that dead horse...

Last edited Fri Mar 15, 2013, 01:22 AM - Edit history (1)

From Chapter 9 of Dawkins' "The God Delusion":

Once, in the question time after a lecture in Dublin, I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place. It was an off-the-cuff remark made in the heat of the moment, and I was surprised that it earned a round of enthusiastic applause from that Irish audience (composed, admittedly, of Dublin intellectuals and presumably not representative of the country at large). But I was reminded of the incident later when I received a letter from an American woman in her forties who had been brought up Roman Catholic. At the age of seven, she told me, two unpleasant things had happened to her. She was sexually abused by her parish priest in his car. And, around the same time, a little schoolfriend of hers, who had tragically died, went to hell because she was a Protestant. Or so my correspondent had been led to believe by the then official doctrine of her parents’ church. Her view as a mature adult was that, of these two examples of Roman Catholic child abuse, the one physical and the other mental, the second was by far the worst. She wrote

"Being fondled by the priest simply left the impression (from the mind of a 7 year old) as ‘yucky’ while the memory of my friend going to hell was one of cold, immeasurable fear. I never lost sleep because of the priest – but I spent many a night being terrified that the people I loved would go to Hell. It gave me nightmares."

It sure is fascinating how we can all agree, on objective grounds, that the religious objections to, say, birth control or abortion are unethical, yet when one questions the ethics of raising a child to believe his or her neighbors, friends or loved ones may spend an eternity roasting in a fiery pit for the sin of tithing to the wrong church he is quite obviously a bigot.

In any event, Dawkins makes an especially convenient scapegoat for believers in severe denial of their own prejudices.

[Eko]

53. Thanks.

[cbayer]

17. Welcome to DU and to the Religion group.

You will find a wide variety of people participating here. Some have clearly defined themselves as something, others have not. Some have hostility towards other groups, but many do not. Some see this as a team sport where one side wins and loses, but most do not.

And there are believers who are also secularists and committed to combatting the prejudice against atheists that causes many of the problems that you outline.

IMO, the choice one has to make is whether to build bridges or burn them.

[demwing]

20. I'd like to see an atheist run against a Hare Krishna

for a battle of who is more (or less) electable in America.

[Buzz Clik]

51. You will come to see here that some DU atheists are militant, almost evangelical in the disbelief.

[Eko]

55. Whew!!! I was worried for a second

That you guys weren't going to admit that Atheists were human just like everybody else. I also am glad to hear that we aren't as bad as the evangelicals. Imagine that, some of us are like some of you, amazing. I shall write a paper on in and title it, " There are a@@holes everywhere", I am sure it will change the world as we know it. I am glad you cleared that up for me Buzz Click.

[Eko]

60. If I get kicked off

then I get kicked off. I thought about posting this in the Atheist and Agnostic group, but I wasn't doing this for them. That would be like preaching to the choir. I was trying to explain a little of what it is like to be a liberal and a Atheist to those of religion. Why sometimes you get hostile replies from them. It may of worked to a small degree although I am hopeful if it did. People call me an Atheist militant, but at least I did not resort to labeling almost an entire group with a juvenile "bad word".

[mr blur]

63. No, you didn't but then you're not an enlightened believer like he is.

[trotsky]

65. LOL and whose transparency page is now visible, showing 42 star members ignoring him!

Truly a good judge of what it takes to be a nice guy!

[Eko]

56. I am at 728 views with 7 rec's.

That would be cool if probably 500 views weren't from just me. Thanks! Some of you understand what I am saying, some not so much. Some have argued that Federal law trumps State law and you are right most of the time. Think DOMA. Regardless!!!! The point I want to get across most even if it does not seem like it is that we all think differently, but we come to the same conclusion most of the time. I come here to be a liberal, not an atheist. Why do we need that baggage? I see posts all of the time with Christians and Atheists arguing with each other on DU. Why is there even a religion and spirituality group on DU? Do we not believe in the separation of church and state? Or is that just something we use to attack republicans with?. You can believe in anything you want, from Aphrodite to Zoolander. I don't care. If you use your belief to justify something political I will question it with logic. That is what liberals do.
Thanks everybody,
Eko.

[Meshuga]

64. Why not have a religion and spirituality group on DU?

What does that have to do with separation of church and state?

This is a private community for those who identify themselves with the Democratic Party. So we all have this in common.

But we are all individuals with different backgrounds (including religious an non-religious) and we all have different interests. That is where the groups come in. DU is a great place since it provides these services and allows its community to discuss the topics individuals are interested is discussing and to ignore stuff they dislike. We are liberal but also a diverse group that is allowed to disagree with each other.

If a person does not like to discuss religion (which is understandable) they can easily ignore this group. But there are those who like to discuss these things even when it gets heated sometimes. And some people probably like the heated discussions.

We have to remember that this is an online community where people write to each other without seeing facial expressions and emotions. Therefore, DUers can easily misunderstand each other and fall into the personal attacks. It happens to all of us. Without face to face interaction, it is difficult to know emotions and true context of posts so you will see more drama than in a face to face setting.

However, I am sure most people here would be friendlier to each other and more trusting of one another if they discussed things over a beer or coffee.

In any case, you can obviously be liberal and be Christian, Pagan, Jew, atheist, agnostic, etc. There is nothing wrong with embracing our differences on DU and to have our little shells to discuss topics that would not be appropriate to discuss in other DU forums.