Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What would actively atheist entail?

purplefood wrote:What would actively atheist entail?

Someone who does not claim any affiliation to religion in order to get elected and openly states their atheism when asked, rather than, say, pretending to be a church going type even if you don't actually believe.

SilverMK2 wrote:

purplefood wrote:What would actively atheist entail?

Someone who does not claim any affiliation to religion in order to get elected and openly states their atheism when asked, rather than, say, pretending to be a church going type even if you don't actually believe.

Yeah but wouldn't that be passive atheism?
Active atheism would imply some form of... well activity on the part of the atheist in question...

purplefood wrote:Yeah but wouldn't that be passive atheism?
Active atheism would imply some form of... well activity on the part of the atheist in question...

Which is why I put "actively" in quotation marks. I am sure there is more than one person in high office in the USA who is nominally [insert religion here] who is actually as close to makes no odds a non-believer, or even non-believers who only claim a religion because it makes things easier for them.

I think "openly" might have been a better choice of word.

What we need is a lesbian atheist candidate.
I would love to see the reactions from the right wingers and the bible bashers.

SilverMK2 wrote:

purplefood wrote:Yeah but wouldn't that be passive atheism?
Active atheism would imply some form of... well activity on the part of the atheist in question...

Which is why I put "actively" in quotation marks. I am sure there is more than one person in high office in the USA who is nominally [insert religion here] who is actually as close to makes no odds a non-believer, or even non-believers who only claim a religion because it makes things easier for them.

I think "openly" might have been a better choice of word.

It would speak highly of the US if a openly atheist person could be elected president. But before that happens, I think the order will go something like:

obama 2012
republican white woman 2016 & 2020
democrat full black 2024,2028
republican hispanic or native american 2032,2036
democrat jew 2040

then some time later an atheist. 2044ish or later.

SilverMK2 wrote:

purplefood wrote:Yeah but wouldn't that be passive atheism?
Active atheism would imply some form of... well activity on the part of the atheist in question...

Which is why I put "actively" in quotation marks. I am sure there is more than one person in high office in the USA who is nominally [insert religion here] who is actually as close to makes no odds a non-believer, or even non-believers who only claim a religion because it makes things easier for them.

I think "openly" might have been a better choice of word.

Ahh right...
Makes more sense to me now

sirlynchmob wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

purplefood wrote:Yeah but wouldn't that be passive atheism?
Active atheism would imply some form of... well activity on the part of the atheist in question...

Which is why I put "actively" in quotation marks. I am sure there is more than one person in high office in the USA who is nominally [insert religion here] who is actually as close to makes no odds a non-believer, or even non-believers who only claim a religion because it makes things easier for them.

I think "openly" might have been a better choice of word.

It would speak highly of the US if a openly atheist person could be elected president. But before that happens, I think the order will go something like:

obama 2012
republican white woman 2016 & 2020
democrat full black 2024,2028
republican hispanic or native american 2032,2036
democrat jew 2040

then some time later an atheist. 2044ish or later.

What about a Republican Asian and a pagan of some kind? I think you might need to push the date back

sirlynchmob wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

purplefood wrote:Yeah but wouldn't that be passive atheism?
Active atheism would imply some form of... well activity on the part of the atheist in question...

Which is why I put "actively" in quotation marks. I am sure there is more than one person in high office in the USA who is nominally [insert religion here] who is actually as close to makes no odds a non-believer, or even non-believers who only claim a religion because it makes things easier for them.

I think "openly" might have been a better choice of word.

It would speak highly of the US if a openly atheist person could be elected president. But before that happens, I think the order will go something like:

obama 2012
republican white woman 2016 & 2020
democrat full black 2024,2028
republican hispanic or native american 2032,2036
democrat jew 2040

then some time later an atheist. 2044ish or later.

You are more likely to see the Republicans elect a black male than a white female; also "full black" is pretty racist of you. There are a number of strong Hispanic politicians in the national arena right now. I fully expect a Hispanic president sooner rather than later; you are likely right that it will be a Republican: his name may be Bush...
I doubt you'll see a Jewish or Athiest president in my lifetime (I'm not terribly old either). Mostly because Jews aren't exactly plentiful and few have aspired to the presidency, and because Atheists would have a great deal of difficulty mobilizing the American base.

Last was my first reaction based on your origin flag but I remembered you might have mentioned being an American; so directed at Canadians anyways: you first. You beat us to women, we beat you to black let's race to atheist or Jew.

AustonT wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

purplefood wrote:Yeah but wouldn't that be passive atheism?
Active atheism would imply some form of... well activity on the part of the atheist in question...

Which is why I put "actively" in quotation marks. I am sure there is more than one person in high office in the USA who is nominally [insert religion here] who is actually as close to makes no odds a non-believer, or even non-believers who only claim a religion because it makes things easier for them.

I think "openly" might have been a better choice of word.

It would speak highly of the US if a openly atheist person could be elected president. But before that happens, I think the order will go something like:

obama 2012
republican white woman 2016 & 2020
democrat full black 2024,2028
republican hispanic or native american 2032,2036
democrat jew 2040

then some time later an atheist. 2044ish or later.

You are more likely to see the Republicans elect a black male than a white female; also "full black" is pretty racist of you. There are a number of strong Hispanic politicians in the national arena right now. I fully expect a Hispanic president sooner rather than later; you are likely right that it will be a Republican: his name may be Bush...
I doubt you'll see a Jewish or Athiest president in my lifetime (I'm not terribly old either). Mostly because Jews aren't exactly plentiful and few have aspired to the presidency, and because Atheists would have a great deal of difficulty mobilizing the American base.

Last was my first reaction based on your origin flag but I remembered you might have mentioned being an American; so directed at Canadians anyways: you first. You beat us to women, we beat you to black let's race to atheist or Jew.

full black wasn't meant to be racist, it was to point out, like most in the US are fond to do, that Obama is only 1/2 black. While he will always be publicly known as the first black president, but the day a full black (what is the pc term?) president comes along it will be brought up all over again and there will be many a pointless debate on who should really get credit for it. My time line is very skewed that's for sure, that was more of a my best guess on the order of minority presidents, but every white man getting in pushes the whole time scale back.

I'm really not sure what to think about an Asian president, of all the minorities that seem likely to get in, it's quite the toss up on who would win between an asian or an atheist. I would never vote for anyone based on their nationality, or religious beliefs, I look at the candidates and see what they have voted for and what their track record is. Ron Paul looks good on the surface even though he's a young earth creationist, but I could never vote for him because of his positions on topics. That's why lately I voted 3rd party, I can agree with their positions while at the same time voting no to the two party dictatorship we seem to be stuck with. People only seem to be aware of the 2 parties and will often state "I'm voting for the lesser of two evils" while totally ignoring the fact we don't have to put up with either party.

If I could change my flag I'd probably just remove it, Lately I feel like a man without a home and I claim allegiance to any nation. But I was born in a spot of land claimed by the US, so in that regard I'm an american. This will be the first presidential election I won't be voting in, so I'm still way to interested in what is going on down there. I'm sure it will pass with time

The separation of church and state means there is to be no "Church of America". They wanted to avoid the religious issues national churches and religions brought up. Like the religious civil wars that wracked Europe. It does not mean religion cant be a part of public life. Anyone who thinks the Founding Fathers weren't Christian, or didn't set up the country based on those principles, didn't want Christian leaders, simply hasn't read any of their writings.

40kFSU wrote:The separation of church and state means there is to be no "Church of America". They wanted to avoid the religious issues national churches and religions brought up. Like the religious civil wars that wracked Europe. It does not mean religion cant be a part of public life. Anyone who thinks the Founding Fathers weren't Christian, or didn't set up the country based on those principles, didn't want Christian leaders, simply hasn't read any of their writings.

Like the treaty of tripoli where president john adams wrote "Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" lets see john adams, where did I see that name before? Oh ya the declaration of independence. The man who helped form the US, who also said " Christianity had originally been revelatory, but was being misinterpreted and misused in the service of superstition, fraud, and unscrupulous power."

Very few of the founding fathers were christian, but it doesn't matter what religions the people who started this country belonged to, they realized that religions had no place in government. It is also why the word god or creator does not appear anywhere in the constitution.

The John Adams remarks in the treaty of tripoli have been referenced a few times in this thread but one must remember that John Adams was well know to be Obnoxious and Disliked and a Lawyer....

Disparagement is only disparagement if it involves egregious capitalization.

40kFSU wrote:The separation of church and state means there is to be no "Church of America". They wanted to avoid the religious issues national churches and religions brought up. Like the religious civil wars that wracked Europe. It does not mean religion cant be a part of public life. Anyone who thinks the Founding Fathers weren't Christian, or didn't set up the country based on those principles, didn't want Christian leaders, simply hasn't read any of their writings.

I think it's safe to say Thomas Jefferson would probably go into fits if he saw how the "christian" churches here interact with the government. I'll copy/paste someone's summary of Jefferson's beliefs here:

First, that the Christianity of the churches was unreasonable, therefore unbelievable, but that stripped of priestly mystery, ritual, and dogma, reinterpreted in the light of historical evidence and human experience, and substituting the Newtonian cosmology for the discredited Biblical one, Christianity could be conformed to reason. Second, morality required no divine sanction or inspiration, no appeal beyond reason and nature, perhaps not even the hope of heaven or the fear of hell; and so the whole edifice of Christian revelation came tumbling to the ground.

George Washington's religious beliefs are an apparently hotly debated subject. He rarely attended church (except to accompany his wife) and was a Freemason, back when they were a group dedicated to enlightment, science and learning.

Even Benjamin Franklin wasn't in line with modern "christians". While he did introduce a resolution to require daily prayer in the consitutional congress (a resolution met with such distaste that it never even went to vote), he also doubted the divinity of jesus christ:

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble....

That note in a letter one month beore his death. He's also behind the famous beer quote.


So to say that the founding fathers were a religious group is not untrue in the slightest. To say that they were "christian", especially when trying to compare them to modern religious groups, is a complete fabrication.

Ok, I understand the points made. It is probably not entirely accurate to say all Founding Fathers were dyed in the wool christians as we know them today. What I mean is a government run by free people must have a moral compass. I believe they saw faith as the compass. The documents which structured the government do not establish or endorse a religion because they did not want to alienate or persecute anyone. Not endorsing a religion does not mean no religion. You have to read the other documents of the day to understand the entire founding of America. Federalist Papers are good. Courts even site them.

We have amendments and language that sounds obvious or silly by todays standards. In the 1780's, it was revolutionary thinking. For instance, not allowing soldiers to stay in private a private residence or even cruel and unusual punishments and speedy trials.

On a more current note, when free peoples have no moral compass and are ignorant of current affairs (and I don't mean dumb I mean they don't know and understand) you get the crap that has been going on in my beloved America for the past 20 years or so. I am a conservative republican and I am not afraid to say the GOP is as much to blame as anyone else.

SilverMK2 wrote:I'd love for an "actively" atheist person to be president just to see how that would play out

Well our current Prime Minister is an atheist. I was surprised that there wasn't a really big deal made out of it. From what I've read in this thread it seems like it's political suicide in the US to show anything but Christian beliefs.

40kFSU wrote:Ok, I understand the points made. It is probably not entirely accurate to say all Founding Fathers were dyed in the wool christians as we know them today. What I mean is a government run by free people must have a moral compass. I believe they saw faith as the compass. The documents which structured the government do not establish or endorse a religion because they did not want to alienate or persecute anyone. Not endorsing a religion does not mean no religion. You have to read the other documents of the day to understand the entire founding of America. Federalist Papers are good. Courts even site them.

We have amendments and language that sounds obvious or silly by todays standards. In the 1780's, it was revolutionary thinking. For instance, not allowing soldiers to stay in private a private residence or even cruel and unusual punishments and speedy trials.

On a more current note, when free peoples have no moral compass and are ignorant of current affairs (and I don't mean dumb I mean they don't know and understand) you get the crap that has been going on in my beloved America for the past 20 years or so. I am a conservative republican and I am not afraid to say the GOP is as much to blame as anyone else.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "must have a moral compass". I'll agree that an immoral society probably won't last all that long, but if you're saying that they drew their morality from christianity, I'll point you back at Jefferson's biographer for Jefferson's thoughts:

Second, morality required no divine sanction or inspiration, no appeal beyond reason and nature, perhaps not even the hope of heaven or the fear of hell;

I'm saying that it would be nigh impossible to reconcile christianity of today, with the "christianity" known to our founding fathers. I'm decently aware of the circumstances and languages used in our founding documents. I understand why clauses like "not housing soldiers" and such were included. My whole point is that every christian group that cites "This country was founded as a Christian country!" is blatantly wrong, or at the very least misguided. Even if we were founded as a "christian country" (we weren't), the christianity we would have been founded under has next to nothing to do with the "christianity" practiced by modern groups and churches. You don't have to go much farther than the founding fathers themselves to see this.

40kFSU wrote:Ok, I understand the points made. It is probably not entirely accurate to say all Founding Fathers were dyed in the wool christians as we know them today. What I mean is a government run by free people must have a moral compass. I believe they saw faith as the compass. The documents which structured the government do not establish or endorse a religion because they did not want to alienate or persecute anyone. Not endorsing a religion does not mean no religion. You have to read the other documents of the day to understand the entire founding of America. Federalist Papers are good. Courts even site them.

you don't need any sort of faith for a moral compass. Morals are learned. pagans, polythiests, atheists, pretty much everyone on the planet has morals. That does not in any way mean they are divinely inspired. Its a simple matter of eon's of evolution at work and humans being a herd animal. Religions seem to be able to inspire people to ignore their own morals and allow for some horrendous events.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Jefferson may have said what he said but it doesn't nullify everything else. By moral compass I mean a common source of morality. Christianity has always been the source. If it wasn't, liberals wouldn't be he'll bent on tearing down all the Christian foundations or the country.

Look at our laws, what are they based on?

40kFSU wrote:I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Jefferson may have said what he said but it doesn't nullify everything else. By moral compass I mean a common source of morality. Christianity has always been the source. If it wasn't, liberals wouldn't be he'll bent on tearing down all the Christian foundations or the country.

Look at our laws, what are they based on?

So your argument is this:

I love Jesus and I don't like liberals, therefore Liberals don't like Jesus?

40kFSU wrote:I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Jefferson may have said what he said but it doesn't nullify everything else. By moral compass I mean a common source of morality. Christianity has always been the source. If it wasn't, liberals wouldn't be he'll bent on tearing down all the Christian foundations or the country.

Look at our laws, what are they based on?

It wasn't just Jefferson. Franklin, Washington, Adams... their views on christianity differ greatly from the views espoused today. None of them would have told me to accept "jesus as my personal lord and saviour" or whatnot. (I'm fully aware not all christian sects preach jesus as a personal saviour; it's merely one example.)

As to the source of morals, are you really saying that socities before the rise of Christianity had no morals at all? Or that non christian nations were all immoral? Surely not? There were laws against murder and theft long before Moses supposedly came down with the 10 commandments you know. I'm also hoping I misunderstand your last sentence... are you seriously saying that liberals want to destroy all morals in the US?

You Jesus people are so silly with this "New Testament" business.

/sips Sader wine

Liberal groups have led the charge against prayers in school, nativity scenes, and really any public displays of Christianity by any government body. That's why I said what I said. And they do not take similar actions with, say, Islam. This is not an attack or endorsement, just a statement. And I do think liberals want less morality. But that is another topic I suppose.

And I made no statement about any other civilization or their morals. I am talking about America. You have to read more than one document or one web site to understand the full context of the founding.

Anyway, I am not a big off topic forum guy and I have enjoyed our discussion, steamdragon. But I don't want to get in some back and forth with others dropping in mindless comments like d-usa's. Take care out there.

40kFSU wrote:I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Jefferson may have said what he said but it doesn't nullify everything else. By moral compass I mean a common source of morality. Christianity has always been the source. If it wasn't, liberals wouldn't be he'll bent on tearing down all the Christian foundations or the country.

Look at our laws, what are they based on?

I think you're new here. Here's the deal.

Dakka OT has approximately one Christian bashing thread every 4.75 days. If you ignore them and let the bashers circle jerk, er I mean discuss it with each other in a positive up-lifting fashion- and instead just post in other threads, then your time here will be much better.

Arguing with them is like being a conservative on a CHE blog. Its just not going to go well.

40kFSU wrote:
Liberal groups have led the charge against prayers in school, nativity scenes, and really any public displays of Christianity by any government body. That's why I said what I said. And they do not take similar actions with, say, Islam. This is not an attack or endorsement, just a statement. And I do think liberals want less morality. But that is another topic I suppose.

And I made no statement about any other civilization or their morals. I am talking about America. You have to read more than one document or one web site to understand the full context of the founding.

Anyway, I am not a big off topic forum guy and I have enjoyed our discussion, steamdragon. But I don't want to get in some back and forth with others dropping in mindless comments like d-usa's. Take care out there.

Not allowing prayer in public schools, or nativity scenes on public property is not an attack against christians, it's reenforcing the idea of separation between church and state. And that includes all religions, if you want your bible taught in school, then they should teach the Koran as well. so the way separation is applied today it prevents both. Keep your religious stuff to your church and your house, and off from public property. Otherwise your fight to get your religion promoted on public property will pave the way for Islam to be promoted as well, along with the flying spaghetti monster.

Our founding fathers had seen what having a state church did and how it persecuted most people to brave a 3 month trip they'd likely die on to try for a new life. They took the laws of all of Europe that worked and dumped the parts that didn't. Its an amalgamation of all the laws of Europe. Nothing god given, just a good dose of common sense and realizing that the laws should be equal for everyone. Even though getting the laws to apply to everyone took a while.

Christianity is the worst source for morality, and it could not always been the source as its only been around 2 thousand years now.

sirlynchmob wrote:Christianity is the worst source for morality.

ORLY?
Go on.

40kFSU wrote:
Liberal groups have led the charge against prayers in school, nativity scenes, and really any public displays of Christianity by any government body. That's why I said what I said. And they do not take similar actions with, say, Islam.

99.9% of your politicians and leaders are not followers of Islam, so it makes little sense to do so. Plus 99.9% of your politicians are already quite happy to take on Islam by themselves...

40kFSU wrote:
Liberal groups have led the charge against prayers in school

I hear that you're all for prayer in school.

So I know this satanist who would be glad to offer daily prayers to schools... perhaps I should schedule him the week after the bhuddist and hindu prayers?

AustonT wrote:ORLY?
Go on.

Contradictory and slightly insane directives (many of which are selectively ignored, some of which are based on prejudice rather than any concept of rational thinking, while others are blow out of all proportion) and based on being punished for doing bad and rewarded for doing good, rather than doing good simply because it is good, and not doing bad because it is bad?