Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[MetalSlimeHunt]

His Imperial Majesty Rick Perry establishes religion in Texas schools.

Look, I'm sorry, I'm an agnostic...but nobody is hurt by people saying "Merry Christmas." As for the symbols...I mean, it would be better if they weren't represented, but jeez, if you're putting up a tree and not a crucifix...

This isn't /r/atheism, is what I'm saying.

This is a secular state with secular schools. Putting up religious symbols in them is never good. As for your second point, this law makes it so putting up a tree means they can put up a crucifix, in the classrooms of supposedly secular schools. I'm real tired of Christian groups thinking they can walk all over everyone else.

/r/atheism is shit alongside the rest of reddit, but that has nothing to do with this.

[Owlbread]

The United States is secular in name only. No president can get into office without believing in god and references to god and christianity are everywhere.

It's interesting, on paper the churches have less legal power in the United States than they do in the UK (they are a part of government here), but in the USA churches and christianity as a whole have a far greater influence on politicians than they do here. There is a tendency nowadays here towards disdaining organised religion. Churches where I live are mostly for the elderly and middle aged (though they're rarer now), but in the USA I see congregations full of kids and young people.

[Loud Whispers]

His Imperial Majesty Rick Perry establishes religion in Texas schools.

"Texas still in fuego."
If only we had more pray-
We do?
If only we had more icono-
We do?
If only we had more patrio-
An oath every morning?

Shit, I guess God just hates us.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The United States is secular in name only. No president can get into office without believing in god.

The United States is most certainly not secular in name only. The US has historically been one of the most powerful secular forces out there, about the same as France has been. The UK certainly isn't one to talk, being that it still has a state religion and priests in the legislature.

You can be President without believing in god. There is no legal standard against it. It is no different from the belief that you can't be President unless you're a white male.

[Owlbread]

The United States is most certainly not secular in name only. The US has historically been one of the most powerful secular forces out there, about the same as France has been. The UK certainly isn't one to talk, being that it still has a state religion and priests in the legislature.

I don't know why you said that as if I'm disdaining America from my "British" high horse. You know how I feel about Britain and our wretched governmental system and all the rest of it. As I said in my edit though - it's interesting that even though the church is actually a part of government here, our population is becoming less and less tied to organised religion. In the USA churches are full of young people.

By way of laws and the rest of it, the USA is indeed quite a secular country. That's why I said "in name only". It should really have been "on paper". In practise it is not secular.

You can be President without believing in god. There is no legal standard against it. It is no different from the belief that you can't be President unless you're a white male.

My point was that the people would never elect them. I'd actually be more impressed if an atheist got the presidency in the USA than a woman, hispanic person or another black fellow.

In fact, fuck it, I'll wait for an atheist, gay hispanic woman.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I don't know why you said that as if I'm disdaining America from my British high horse. You know how I feel about Britain and our wretched governmental system.

Sorry then, it's just not the first time I've had people from Britain claim the US isn't secular, as if Britain was.

Anyway, my point is that the US maintains a strong secular tradition that has been maintained by the courts, and the lack of atheists in the Presidency is not evidence against that. Atheists have only started to get big in the United States as of the past 30 years, and there have only been 44 US Presidents total. The odds are against it much more than society is.

My point was that the people would never elect them. I'd actually be more impressed if an atheist got the presidency in the USA than a woman, hispanic person or another black fellow.

I think you're wrong. There's rarely been a concerted effort to get such individuals elected. Nobody has gotten a Presidential nomination and then failed because of whom they were. Barrack Obama was the first black man nominated, and sure enough, the first black man elected. I see the same happening in most other categories as well.

There's a lot more to becoming President than being a white man who says what everyone feels like hearing.

By way of laws and the rest of it, the USA is indeed quite a secular country. That's why I said "in name only". It should really have been "on paper". In practise it is not secular.

And where are you getting this from? There's no religion in schools outside of Rick Perry's theocracy, and none in government outside of an assortment of annoying but ineffectual and unofficial oaths. The Supreme Court and lower courts have struck down violations of the establishment clause time and again.

[Owlbread]

Sorry then, it's just not the first time I've had people from Britain claim the US isn't secular, as if Britain was.

Except I wasn't. You just saw it that way. I also barely even consider myself "British" in the traditional sense beyond living on the same island as them.

Anyway, my point is that the US maintains a strong secular tradition that has been maintained by the courts, and the lack of atheists in the Presidency is not evidence against that. Atheists have only started to get big in the United States as of the past 30 years, and there have only been 44 US Presidents total. The odds are against it much more than society is.

But you haven't even had an agnostic. I'm just reacting though to guys like Obama openly pandering to the religious crowd when he had much more agnostic/sceptical roots. He actually sounds strange talking about god like he does. I cringe when he does it because it's unnatural. I've seen it in the UK too of course, though people seem to care about it less.

Nobody has gotten a Presidential nomination and then failed because of whom they were.

I think a lot of people are going to challenge you on that. They might not have gotten Presidential nominations, but they would have been in the running for them.

There's a lot more to becoming President than being a white man who says what everyone feels like hearing.

Prove it. I see no evidence to suggest otherwise. Obama may be black, although he's no Jesse Jackson and he certainly says what everyone feels like hearing.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

But you haven't even had an agnostic. I'm just reacting though to guys like Obama openly pandering to the religious crowd when he had much more agnostic/sceptical roots. He actually sounds strange talking about god like he does.

You wouldn't be the first person to suspect Obama of secretly being atheist/agnostic/Not Christian. I don't buy into that stuff, though. Politicians pander. It's part of what they do.

I think a lot of people are going to challenge you on that.

They are welcome to.

Prove it. I see no evidence to suggest otherwise.

You want me to prove a negative? Look, let me put it to you this way: In 2007 people laughed at the notion that a black man could ever become President in the US.

Most of the perceptions of what it takes to become President are just perceptions.

[Owlbread]

But the fact that he had to pander in that way shows the state of things. He knew he had to to succeed.

Obama may be black, although he's no Jesse Jackson and he certainly says what everyone feels like hearing. That's basically all he does.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

He doesn't have to. He's just trying to appear as approachable as possible in order to stretch his popularity. It wouldn't make any real difference, especially considering most of these kinds of interactions happened after he was elected. And besides, he is ultimately a Christian himself.

I might remind you that Obama was part of the Christian system long before his election.

[Owlbread]

He doesn't have to. He's just trying to appear as approachable as possible in order to stretch his popularity. It wouldn't make any real difference, especially considering most of these kinds of interactions happened after he was elected.

I'll believe you when I see an atheist campaign successfully, that's all I can say. You say it doesn't make any real difference, but I look at the strength of organised religion among the populace and I just can't see how the effects are as minor as you're suggesting.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

He doesn't have to. He's just trying to appear as approachable as possible in order to stretch his popularity. It wouldn't make any real difference, especially considering most of these kinds of interactions happened after he was elected.

I'll believe you when I see an atheist campaign successfully, that's all I can say. You say it doesn't make any real difference, but I look at the strength of organised religion among the populace and I just can't see how the effects are as minor as you're suggesting.

Make no mistake, I do not deny that there is an effect. Nonetheless, people have never really been challenged as to whether they'd elect an atheist to be President because none has reached nomination.

Organized religion is faltering in the US. It will cease to be a powerful force sooner than you may believe.

[Owlbread]

I certainly hope so. I think it will aid America greatly when it happens.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Oh, it's already happening. Why do you think there are all these megachurches, evangelicals, and theocrats where there previously were so few? All the talk about the "degradation of America"? It's panic. Panic at the implicit social knowledge of where the trend is going, even if it is not consciously recognized.

[EnigmaticHat]

You can't be unbaised in reporting because all journalism requires deciding what to include and what to exclude.  It is impossible to report on everything, and basically everything you report will influence people in some direction.

Example: reporting on stupid shit politicians say.  Politicians say stupid things pretty often, some of them funny, some of them revealing, all of them making people think worse of that politician's side.  A journalist cannot report on all of them, due to time and relevance issues.  So they must decide which gaffes are most worth reporting on.  It isn't enough to, for example, report an equal amount of gaffes on both the Democrats and Republics, because both sides do not gaffe equally.  It would certainly be possible to report based on how interesting or relevant a given statement is, but that is subjective and thus a bad standard for unbiased.

Practically speaking, journalists report more of the stupid shit said by politicians they disagree with, if only because they find what those people have to say stupider.

Even if you report the unadulterated facts, which facts you chose to include are themselves a bias.  Opinions and subjective perspectives are going to slip into reporting.  There is no way to avoid it.  Journalists should be honest about where they stand and avoiding being unprofessional or manipulative, but they will always be biased.  Everyone is.