Why The Atheists Fight

[Theocrat]

How Unfortunate

Sure, that's possible. Just as it's possible under a so-called Christian president, just as it was the case under the Taliban...

An anarchical or totalitarian government would be more possible and probable under an "atheist" leader than a so-called Christian one (key word: so-called).

I disagree with pretty much your entire post, Theo. Sorry. It sounds like church rhetoric to me. It's exactly this kind of thinking that gave us Bush twice.

Please don't misunderstand my position. I am in no wise an ecclesiocrat, which is governmental rule by the Church. I'm libertarian in political philosophy, but I also believe what the Bible says civil government should do to be true, and I do respect the admonitions of our Founding Fathers.

George Bush is an incompetent, hypocritical President on my account. Sadly, he does not have the slightest clue of what limited government is nor means. So, I don't know why you would attribute theocratic notions of government to his "successes" in Presidential nominations because his political philosophy is nowhere near that of a theocracy proper.

 

[LittleLightShining]

And think about how much Bush pandered to the Christian crowd, all a bunch of crap. If I were Christian, I would be rather miffed.

Have you seen this? This is my favorite part:

Let's impeach the president for hijacking
Our religion and using it to get elected

 

[Hiki]

Our rights come from God. God does not give any man the right to deny His existence, especially in the face of obvious evidences. I would have a serious problem if our country had an "atheist" for a President. To me, that would be further indication that God has this country under fierce judgment. I'm serious about that.

Because "atheists" deny God's existence, they have no objective, absolute way of establishing nor accounting for human rights. One need only think of immoral dictators like Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin to understand what I mean. As "atheists," they established what rights their citizens had, and they ruled over them without any divine or moral restraints. This is not to say that every "atheist" is a Hitler or Stalin, in any sense. I'm simply drawing out the point that "atheists" are philosophically, and therefore, politically arbitrary when it comes to establishing right and wrong. A society run by "atheists" will lead to either anarchy or totalitarianism.

Governments are established to protect God-given rights, and without acknowledging God's existence, one cannot make sense of rights to life, liberty, property, transportation, or anything else in a final, right, true, and consistent fashion, necessary to have a stable and enduring government. This is the fundamental problem of the belief system of "Atheism." Therefore, I could not and will not ever vote for an "atheist" to office, no matter how well he knows the Constitution or claims to honor his oath of office.

Having said that, I still have respect and love for "atheists" because they are created in God's image, and they still have rights to exist on His earth as creatures of God. But as for them taking public offices in our constitutional republic of these united States, I strongly believe they should refrain from such a privilege. That's why so many of our Founding Father and founding documents assured that those who would be elected in our form of government should be men of faith, who feared God, and acknowledged that our rights only come from His precious and providential hand. As William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, once said, "Men must be governed by God, or they will be ruled by tyrants."

I'm really sorry but

This is ONLY aimed at one person in this thread, and everyone knows who he is.

 

[Kade]

An anarchical or totalitarian government would be more possible and probable under an "atheist" leader than a so-called Christian one (key word: so-called).



Please don't misunderstand my position. I am in no wise an ecclesiocrat, which is governmental rule by the Church. I'm libertarian in political philosophy, but I also believe what the Bible says civil government should do to be true, and I do respect the admonitions of our Founding Fathers.

George Bush is an incompetent, hypocritical President on my account. Sadly, he does not have the slightest clue of what limited government is nor means. So, I don't know why you would attribute theocratic notions of government to his "successes" in Presidential nominations because his political philosophy is nowhere near that of a theocracy proper.

You believe that the government should put to death homosexuals Theocrat, if others allow you to maintain the "libertarian" moniker, then I will never call myself a libertarian again.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Having said that, I still have respect and love for "atheists" because they are created in God's image, and they still have rights to exist on His earth as creatures of God. But as for them taking public offices in our constitutional republic of these united States, I strongly believe they should refrain from such a privilege. That's why so many of our Founding Father and founding documents assured that those who would be elected in our form of government should be men of faith, who feared God, and acknowledged that our rights only come from His precious and providential hand. As William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, once said, "Men must be governed by God, or they will be ruled by tyrants."

Problem here, is that the Gov't is not a church. What you say would make perfect sense if you asked atheists to refrain from pastoring a church. However, our gov't is "of the people for the people by the people" so if we had a 60% majority of atheists in this nation, we would probably have an atheist president.

Our gov't was designed to reflect the people. To artificially restrict that reflection as a test of religion would be an abomination to the gov't that the Founders designed.

I happen to agree with you, in that I believe if an atheist became President, and atheists took over the majority of Congress, our nation would be in serious serious trouble. But I would not subvert the will of the population -- the whole purpose of our form of gov't is to give the people what they deserve.

Now, that process has (I believe) been subverted in the case of Ron Paul by all the media propaganda, and I firmly believe that if all Americans truly knew what RP was all about, he'd be the next President. Thus I say the process has been subverted here.

However, if the population, fully knowing that a candidate was an atheist, elected him anyway, then they will get what they want and what they deserve.

The "no religious test" clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, section 3, and states that:
“ ...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. ”

The Founders didn't put that clause in there by accident.

 

[Theocrat]

Points of Clarity

So even though a man would share the great policies and ideas of Ron Paul, they dont matter at all if his personal belief isnt labeled as "Christian" ?

No, for three reasons:

1. A man with great policies himself needs to be self-governed, and the only way a man can rightly govern himself is by God's Holy Spirit abiding within him.

2. A man who has such great policies and ideas as Congressman Paul does would most likely be a Christian because only those with a Christian outlook on life and government could obtain those philosophical/political ideas in an a priori fashion.

3. Just because someone claims to be a Christian exclusively doesn't mean I'm going to vote for them. They must meet certain criteria which proves that they are indeed a Christian, thus possessing maturity and wisdom from God's Word to know how to rightly govern and preserve those God-given rights which they are sworn to uphold and protect in office. I recognize that there are many Christians in office who are not Constitutionalists nor have a good understanding of limited government, as Dr. Paul does. Even those Christians I would not vote for. I hope I've made myself clear.

 

[AutoDas]

Hitler, Mao and Stalin were both left-wing dictators. Religion is a left-wing ideology. The individual has to subvert his will to appease a doctrine that believers today cherry-pick what a "true" Christian is. Young people today join the Democrats because all that the Republicans talk about is religion. I used to think I was a Democrat only because I was against religion.

 

[amy31416]

Have you seen this? This is my favorite part:

Let's impeach the president for hijacking
Our religion and using it to get elected

Honestly, that's one of the things that irritates me most about Bush. He'll do anything for power, even use the people he claims to be most sympathetic with. Reminds me of some of those scumbag televangelists who take money from little old ladies while promising them a good afterlife.

Sociopaths. All of them.

I think you are a good example of a Christian. I hope that someday other Christians won't be so bamboozled by Bush and Huckabee types. Bush is no Christian if he'd start a pre-emptive war.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

No, for three reasons:

1. A man with great policies himself needs to be self-governed, and the only way a man can rightly govern himself is by God's Holy Spirit abiding within him.

2. A man who has such great policies and ideas as Congressman Paul does would most likely be a Christian because only those with a Christian outlook on life and government could obtain those philosophical/political ideas in an a priori fashion.

3. Just because someone claims to be a Christian exclusively doesn't mean I'm going to vote for them. They must meet certain criteria which proves that they are indeed a Christian, thus possessing maturity and wisdom from God's Word to know how to rightly govern and preserve those God-given rights which they are sworn to uphold and protect in office. I recognize that there are many Christians in office who are not Constitutionalists nor have a good understanding of limited government, as Dr. Paul does. Even those Christians I would not vote for. I hope I've made myself clear.

If I knew that someone was not a believer, then I would never vote for them. That said, the idea of actually restraining non-believers from holding office is repugnant to the principles embodied in the US Constitution.

 

[Theocrat]

You're Only 16 Years Old and Have a Lot of Growing Up to Do...

I'm really sorry but

This is ONLY aimed at one person in this thread, and everyone knows who he is.

That's not Christianity, Hiki. Do some homework before you come on these forums and embarrass yourself due to your straw man arguments which display your own ignorance and irrationality. Now back to the regularly scheduled program of "Why 'Atheists' Fight."

 

[Theocrat]

I'm Sorry to Hear That

If I knew that someone was not a believer, then I would never vote for them. That said, the idea of actually restraining non-believers from holding office is repugnant to the principles embodied in the US Constitution.

Then you have a serious problem with many of our Founding Fathers, GunnyFreedom.

 

[micahnelson]

I think I'm seeing the death of theocrat unfolding in this thread...

 

[Kade]

No, for three reasons:

1. A man with great policies himself needs to be self-governed, and the only way a man can rightly govern himself is by God's Holy Spirit abiding within him.

2. A man who has such great policies and ideas as Congressman Paul does would most likely be a Christian because only those with a Christian outlook on life and government could obtain those philosophical/political ideas in an a priori fashion.

3. Just because someone claims to be a Christian exclusively doesn't mean I'm going to vote for them. They must meet certain criteria which proves that they are indeed a Christian, thus possessing maturity and wisdom from God's Word to know how to rightly govern and preserve those God-given rights which they are sworn to uphold and protect in office. I recognize that there are many Christians in office who are not Constitutionalists nor have a good understanding of limited government, as Dr. Paul does. Even those Christians I would not vote for. I hope I've made myself clear.

As long as you are a walking bastion of consistency, this means you wouldn't have ever voted for:

Abraham Lincoln
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
John Adams
James Monroe
John Quincy Adams
George Washington
Martin Van Buren
William Howard Taft
John Tyler
Millard Fillmore

*All of which were indisputably non-Christian.

 

[Theocrat]

Stones Only Hurt For a Little While

I think I'm seeing the death of theocrat unfolding in this thread...

Just remember that after every death, there is a resurrection.

 

[Kade]

Then you have a serious problem with many of our Founding Fathers, GunnyFreedom.

Article VI Section 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

 

[Kade]

If I knew that someone was not a believer, then I would never vote for them. That said, the idea of actually restraining non-believers from holding office is repugnant to the principles embodied in the US Constitution.

You would not vote for someone solely based on their faith? I expect that from Theocrat, but I thought you were a bit more fair minded than that...

 

[Theocrat]

Please, Kade

Article VI Section 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Give me the drafters of the Constitution's definition of "religious test."

 

[Kade]

Give me the drafters of the Constitution's definition of "religious test."

I can give you Jefferson's idea of what the Establishment Clause means, if you think we should use side notes and letters...

Do you really want to go there? It says religious test... as in NO. This is ridiculous. To twist that in anyway other than what it clearly says is monstrous.

 

[micahnelson]

Just remember that after every death, there is a resurrection.

Excellent. You will be reborn into a libertarian =)

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Then you have a serious problem with many of our Founding Fathers, GunnyFreedom.

Have you read Article 6 section 3 of the US Constitution?