The News
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/no-atheists-in-congress_us_586c074ae4b0de3a08f9d487
"But condescension is not flattering. Please try and avoid it." - FilmFlaneur
That's hardly news is it.
share
MovieChat Forums > God's Not Dead 2 (2016) Discussion > The News
And I was checking to see if USA was still the biggest worldwide producer of porn? We are NOT! That's China! That's a change from 2012 (4 years) And the Muslim countries are now topping the list of the biggest consumers of porn. So hopefully God will show us his grace and mercy if we move towards him again.
Galena
kurt, could you do me a favour and ask Lena where she's getting her information from please because a quick Google search only offered links to sites that completely disagree with her? Also while you're at it, could you ask her how porn is relevant to the US still being bigoted against atheist?
Cheers.
US still being bigoted against atheist?
Show me the law where atheists are prohibited from running for public office, cosmo drama queen. They simply can't get elected. That's not bigotry. That's called voter freedom of choice. I wouldn't vote for you either cosmo, and I'm use to you.
Thank you for playing 'cosmo is once again clueless'.
share
Show me where I said anything about legalities.
They simply can't get elected.
And why is that? Because atheists aren't trusted, they're looked down upon etc. Bigotry by a population that, much like yourself, still seems to be largely opposed to non-Christians, particularly atheists. Also recognised as bigotry.
Don't worry kurt, even if I could run for office in the US I wouldn't. Your country is too obsessed with guns and too opposed to universal healthcare for my liking.
Thank you for once again playing the 'kurt turns a blind eye to prejudice and bigotry against those who aren't his particular brand of Christian/people of faith whilst also focusing on a point (the law) that was never even made in the first place'. share
And why is that? Because atheists aren't trusted, they're looked down upon etc. Bigotry
People vote for individuals they can relate to. If I attend a church and I can relate to a candidate that attends church, I might decide to vote for that candidate. Why would Christians vote for atheists who've condemned themselves to hell by not believing in God?
You make no sense cosmo.
too opposed to universal healthcare for my liking.
Agreed.
And that doesn't happen very often.
share
Why would Christians vote for atheists who've condemned themselves to hell by not believing in God?
Yet according to Pew research, Christians admit they'd be more likely to vote for a Muslim than an atheists, which suggests it has a little more to do with simply condemning one's soul. They've got the 'wrong' God, but the wrong God is apparently better than no God.
The bigger issue should be why isn't Congress representative of the US public? The religious unaffiliated (atheists, agnostics, those that don't identify with any religion) account for an estimated 18-23% of the US population. Christians are around 71-75%.
Only one member of Congress [publicly] considers themselves religiously unaffiliated (Krysten Sinema), while 91% of Congressmen and women call themselves Christian. So one group is hugely over-represented while the other is barely represented at all.
Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if there are more unaffiliated in Congress. The fact it's political suicide to admit such a thing is tragic, but an understandable (while still unreasonable) reason for people to hide it. share
So one group is hugely over-represented while the other is barely represented at all.
Based on the extremely low percentage of active atheists, who are up in arms about the issue, I'd say they're accurately represented.
Most of the atheists I know on Facebook drown themselves in foul language and obscene graphic contempt for religion. Not exactly a vote getting agenda.
share
Based on the extremely low percentage of active atheists, who are up in arms about the issue, I'd say they're accurately represented.
Is this another instance where you think your anecdotes are worth more than actual research? In any case, in addition to backing up what I wrote with some evidence, the group I referred to was not just those who self-identify as atheists. Care to address that point?
share
Most of the atheists I know on Facebook drown themselves in foul language
You are undoubtedly the worst offender for use of foul language on here kurt, so if atheists on Facebook are representative of the wider population then you, particularly as you seem to think yourself the chief spokesman for Christianity (in spite of being opposed to religion), must be representative of all American Christianity. What vote winning agenda do you think think your foul language is then, seeing as how you've already made it ridiculous? share
You are undoubtedly the worst offender for use of foul language on here kurt,
I don't curse on IMDb or on FB.
as you seem to think yourself the chief spokesman for Christianity
This has been your assertion and never mine. I've quoted Christians, but not claimed to be their spokesperson.
your foul language
When did I drop the 'F' bomb or used other swear words?
Have you been watching the series 'Victoria' on Brit TV, and why isn't it showing in America?
share
I don't curse on IMDb or on FB.
Whether you use recognised swear words or not, and you do fairly regularly say "bs" so don't pretend you don't know what that means, you are absolutely vulgar at times and you constantly insult others which constitutes foul language as far as I'm concerned.
I've quoted Christians, but not claimed to be their spokesperson.
I'm aware of this, but it's the way you speak about Christianity and take offence on behalf of Christians who, as you like to remind everyone, are nothing to do with you as a committed non-Christian who does not advocate religion, which makes it seem as if you think yourself some kind of spokesman.
Have you been watching the series 'Victoria' on Brit TV, and why isn't it showing in America?
To be honest I'm not even sure I've ever heard of it. I don't really watch all that much telly anyway and if, as I'm assuming it is, it's a show about the royals then I've got less than no interest in watching it. share
you do fairly regularly say "bs"
That's not swearing you wussy.
And I didn't even call you a wanker full of spunk. Which would be profane in a Brit establishment if the room was full of Brit Christians. But Brit atheists are the biggest foul mouths on Facebook, for example. So it's ironic that cosmo is making accusations. lol
you are absolutely vulgar at times and you constantly insult others which constitutes foul language as far as I'm concerned.
It doesn't take much to send a wussy into a dramatic tear shedding hysteric. No Emmy for you cupcake.
but it's the way you speak about Christianity and take offence on behalf of Christians who
Now here is cosmo attempting to speak on behalf of Christians. Hypocrite.
it's a show about the royals then I've got less than no interest in watching it.
Maybe you Brits should get rid of your royal titles then, and draw up a new constitution. Oh wait....that's right. You, deviates and Film are the minority on your little island.
Bwaahahahahaha! share
That's not swearing you wussy.
Playing innocent are we? Hey kurt, 'bs' means bullshít, as you well know, and that is a swear word. The only thing you've done there is find a short form means of getting around the swear filter.
And I didn't even call you a wanker full of spunk.
Wanker and spunk have sexual connotations kurt. Funny how you so often go down the route of things that are sexual in nature, which itself is vulgar.
So it's ironic that cosmo is making accusations.
But you do fairly regularly say 'bs', that's factual so it's not an allegation. I also don't see how pointing out your ongoing hypocrisy is ironic as your original point about Brits on Facebook has no bearing on me at all.
It doesn't take much to send a wussy into a dramatic tear shedding hysteric.
You're still projecting kurt.
Now here is cosmo attempting to speak on behalf of Christians. Hypocrite.
Show me where I'm speaking on behalf of anyone there?
Bwaahahahahaha!
Are you sure you're not a child? Big deal, some of us don't agree with the Monarchy, just because you've got your wish of Trump and the Republicans being in charge of the US, doesn't mean that we all get what we want out of our national politics. share
bullshít, as you well know, and that is a swear word.
No it's not. You're a cream puff.
Wanker and spunk have sexual connotations kurt. Funny how you so often go down the route of things that are sexual in nature, which itself is vulgar.
You suggested an example of foul language and I provided the Brit version. 'Spunk' means energetic to Americans, and 'wanker' isn't even a word in America. Get a clue wimp.
You're still projecting kurt.
You're still hyperbolic, clueless.
Show me where I'm speaking on behalf of anyone there?
You spoke on behave of atheists yesterday by defining them. Incorrectly I might add.
some of us don't agree with the Monarchy
A majority of insecure Brits cling to the Queen, and you can't do anything to change that, since you're the atheist minority. Now that's funny stuff.
your wish of Trump and the Republicans being in charge of the US
More suggestive proof that you run a Brit meth lab. share
No it's not.
Ok then kurt, and I'd appreciate it if you actually answer this, if bullshít isn't a swear word then what is it?
You're a cream puff.
Urban dictionary is bringing up a load of differing definitions over this particular insult, Which one are you going for, and it surely can't be yet another homophobic slur can it?
Get a clue wimp.
But you weren't using the US meaning, you were specifically using the British meanings. So I do have a clue. And you still chose, with no suggestions to do so by me, to pick words that have a sexual connotation to them, so my point still stands.
You're still hyperbolic
Go on then, what exactly am I being hyberbolic about?
You spoke on behave of atheists yesterday by defining them. Incorrectly I might add.
The only thing I've done recently is explain to someone else how atheism is simply the lack of belief in deities. A couple of points for you there: 1) that's not speaking on behalf of anyone. 2) that is a factually correct definition. Why don't you go against your usual style and explain how that is incorrect, and what it is you believe that atheism is? I really am curious.
you can't do anything to change that, since you're the atheist minority.
How do you figure my being an atheist has anything to do with that? Or that I'm so bothered I feel the need to do anything about it? Anyway, depending on which surveys you're taking notice of, and we likely won't know until the next census anyway, it would appear that atheism, or at least no religion, is fast becoming the majority in the UK. Now that's funny stuff, except it's not funny it's relatively serious.
More suggestive proof that you run a Brit meth lab.
What do you mean more, this is an entirely new insult for you that you've never used before? share