Scandal: Nearly Half of America Would Vote for a God-Denier for President!
World Net Daily is hyperventilating over the fact that atheists aren't any more reviled than is currently the case:
The signs are everywhere. Many of America's top-selling books right now are angry, in-your-face, atheist manifestos. Judges try to outdo each other in banning references to God like the Ten Commandments and the "Under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance. And nearly half of Americans, according to a recent Gallup poll, would be willing to vote for an atheist for president of the United States of America – a nation founded by devout Christians.
America was also arguably "founded" by white people — does this make it scandalous that white Americans would be willing to vote for blacks, Latinos, or Asians? In fact such an attitude was once common. White Supremacists today continue to complain about "race traitors," by which they mean whites who "betray" their race by supporting racial equality and treating members of other races as equals. The comments above about Americans being willing to vote for atheists reads like a very similar complaint.
Keep in mind that if the alleged "Christian origins" of America make it scandalous that Americans would vote for an atheist, it is ultimately just as scandalous that Americans would be willing to vote for any non-Christian. World Net Daily doesn't spell that out, though, because the bigotry of complaining about people's willingness to vote for Muslims, Jews, or Hindus would be obvious. Because atheists are already so widely despised, though, the bigotry of the above complaints isn't so clear to most people.
In earlier eras, atheists were on the fringes of society, mistrusted by the mainstream. Those few who dared to publicly push their beliefs on society, like Madalyn Murray O'Hair, were widely regarded as malevolent kooks. ... Today, however, many Americans are infatuated with outright, full-bore atheism. ...Somehow, atheism – just like homosexuality, which used to be considered shameful and something to hide – is now becoming hip, sophisticated, enlightened, even a badge of honor.
Ah, the good old days when gays, atheists, and other kooks were all too ashamed of not being heterosexual Christians to publicly admit to their heresies, impieties, and indecencies. Notice that it isn't so much atheism itself which is the target here, but open, public, and unapologetic atheism. Although the presence of atheists in society may be bad enough, the presence of atheists who aren't ashamed of their atheism and aren't willing to hide their atheism from the eyes of decent Christian folk is intolerable.
Remember, though, that some atheists, secularists, and alleged "allies" of secular atheists keep telling us that atheists' problems today are all just a public relations or image issue. If atheists were simply more "civil," "respectful," and "tolerant," then they wouldn't be so despised... but as compared to what? An important but unstated premise of this argument is that atheists' problems are worse than before, but the above helps reveal the fact that this premise just isn't true.
Atheists were not better loved, admired, or respected in the past — and not even in the recent past. Matters have actually improved for atheists in the past couple of years and it's arguable that this is due in part to atheists who are public, unapologetic, and unwilling to be deferential towards religion. Refusing to directly engage religion and offer pointed criticisms is part of what creates the impression that there is something about secular atheism to be ashamed of.
"How can this be happening?," you might wonder. "Hasn't America always been a Christian nation?"
No question about it. America was founded by Christians. Its very purpose for being was the furtherance of biblical Christianity, according to the Pilgrims and succeeding generations. The nation's school system was created for the express purpose of propagating the Christian faith. ...
Here we have a clear, straightforward expression of the most fundamental principle of Christian Nationalism: America was founded for (and therefore must exist for) the purpose of furthering "biblical Christianity." It is true that some small Christian groups came to North America in order to establish a more theologically correct society, but it's also true that many Christians came to America for entirely different reasons — often economic and business.
There was no consensus among Christians in the early American colonies that they had a divine task to create a new society based on the principle of furthering "biblical Christianity." Such a principle can also not be found in either the Constitution or even in the Declaration of Independence. One would think that if the founders thought that America's political task was in any way religious, they'd have mentioned it somewhere.
Furthermore, even those early colonists and Americans who were religious did not necessarily follow the sort of "biblical Christianity" meant in the above statement. Many were Deists, and those who were Christian or at least Christian Deists didn't have all the same theological, moral, political, or social beliefs as conservative evangelical Christians today. The above statement is clearly trying to impose contemporary theological and political beliefs on people who died centuries ago — and all for the sake of a modern own political agenda.
"Many Americans are becoming attracted to atheism," said WND Managing Editor David Kupelian, "and there are real reasons for it – reasons we need to understand if we ever hope to see a return to 'faith, hope and love.'
David Kupelian is a bigot for implying that atheism leads one away from hope or love — and such anti-atheist bigotry on the part of the managing editor explains a lot about the sort of material which appears in World Net Daily. You can no more expect fair, serious, or honest information about atheism from a publication managed by a person like David Kupelian than you can expect fair, serious, or honest information about race relations from a White Supremacist publication.
Comments
Great article. Your clear and concise arguments are second to none.
Excellent work, Austin. I’ll simply add that it wasn’t only non-Christians who suffered under the founding generations referenced in this article.
Minority Christian groups like the Baptists, Quakers, and Catholics were prevented from holding public offices and at times could even be imprisoned or executed for entering a city governed under the control of a rival Christian sect.
When I was Catholic, I never knew that my religion would once have limited my rights. The religious ecumenicalism which enables believers to join together against us so effectively exists in part because this information has been suppressed. We need to start teaching this history to believers or its lessons will be wasted.
Hey that picture of you is like ten years old. I’ll bet you are a compltely bald homosexual now. Don’t deny that you are gay, that’s why you’re an atheist.
***.
Hey Frank,
how’s that shaky faith holding up? You seem really angry, atheism really bothers you doesn’t it? Could it be you have your own doubts ans just can’t bring yourself to admit it? What are you hiding?
Hey tubby, I’ve got way more apologetics experience under my belt to be shakey. Unlike this weak hack Austin Cline. Plus I hear he doesn’t even write his own stuff. I hear he has several guys writing for him. Hows that for shakey idiot.
http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com
Frank Walton
Hi, I just don’t think it’s cool to be insulting. Have a nice day.
>… Those few [atheists] who dared to publicly push their beliefs on society, like Madalyn Murray O’Hair, were widely regarded as malevolent kooks.
“who dared to publicly push their beliefs on society…”
Pot…kettle?
>… there are real reasons for it [many Americans becoming attracted to atheism] – reasons we need to understand if we ever hope to see a return to ‘faith, hope and love.’
There’s a funny irony to this statement. First of all, he’s right. There are “real reasons” why people are attracted to atheism. Would that there was any “real reason” for being attracted to his religion.
I think he’s right as well that the more people come to understand these “real reasons” for atheism—the better our odds of returning to hope and love (although I can’t say “faith”). The more people respect one another, and stop paying homage to a fantasy that would have us sell out our fellow humans as vile scum who deserve eternal punishment, the better our odds of _really_ caring about one another and making _this_ world a better place (rather than despising it as the screwed-up temporary Hell-hole we’re condemned to before we go to Heaven).
Frank, Changed my mind. Out of curiosity, Do Christians still practice that primitive cannibalism ritual? [communion] That wasn’t a very intelligent way to respond, was it? I’m sure Austin could have done much better!
Austin:
Totally your forum, but I can’t imagine most visitors here wouldn’t sympathize if you were to use whatever powers of moderation you have regarding Frank Walton. In my opinion his comment above amounts to using the “N” word toward an African American.
I’m all for freedom of speech, but that doesn’t mean that everyone can say anything anytime anywhere. At a forum such as this one, the host has ultimate authority over what is allowed in his area.
I certainly wouldn’t accuse you of going to far to moderate in such a case–but I’m also not asking or even recommending that you to do so. I’m just offering my support in case you were considering it. If FW wants to go on like that–he is welcome to post that sort of thing on his own blog, or anywhere that will have him. I support his right to say it–but not his right to say it using someone else’s comment section (again, unless you have that sort of broad tolerance–I wouldn’t know, because in the few months I’ve been here, I’ve never seen anyone be so vulgar and uncivil during dialogue; all the other visitors here–even those disagreeing with you–seem to be capable of intelligent and well spoken presentations, so I’m not sure how you normally deal with someone who communicates on such a childish level, completely void of any sort of actual content?).
I support whatever you do in this case, just fyi.
On the other hand, using it as an blaring example of how religion feeds off the most insecure individuals in our population could be an excellent reason to tolerate it and leave it up?
Your call.
Frank, I’m sure Austin could have done much better! Looks like tracie can do it better Too!
A very sophisticated LADY with class.
Again, Have a nice day.
Why do you keep saying Austin could have done better? I’m just curios, I’m not getting that. Here’s the thing I’ll bet Austin doesn’t want yo to see this. It’s pretty obvious he didn’t take any time examining the CONTEXT see this:
http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2005/08/thank-you-austin-cline.html
He totally took me out of context:
href=”http://atheism.about.com/b/a/190998.htm
Hey Austin started it with me.
Alright? No jokes about being able to park an SUV on his head in this post
You know, for believing in God these theists tend to get very angry at atheism? Me thinks they protest too much… I mean we laugh at people who say the world is flat, and for good reasons. But, when people say God doesn’t exist- Anger.
Is it just me or does World Net Daily sound like a bunch of conspiracy theorists ? Just reading the stuff on that website evokes the second gunman on the grassy knoll, aliens are really in cahoots with the federal government, etc.
Tracie: I’ll edit specific language, and I did in this case, but I’ll leave the comment because it helps demonstrate the sorts of things atheists are working against. Comments from people like Frank Walton are sometimes the best arguments against people like Frank Walton.
Austin: Understood and supported.
I would like to add, as well, to be fair, that FW, in this thread, did eventually begin to post comment with content, and that’s much more appropriate here. I appreciate the quick improvement. Now, at least people know why he’s upset and can judge the merits of his _actual_ complaint for themselves (as opposed to scratching their heads wondering who this guy is and why he’s being such a pistol).
Hey Frank, an apologist does not need credible grounds. Man, you’re still clinging to ancient arguments from dead people and still can’t provide solid arguments against the atheist questions.
That sounds like one hell of a shaky foundation there Franky boy, so be careful the head doesn’t wobble too hard it might just come tumbling down all around you.
So what are you studying Frank? You seem like a real *******, I wonder what kind of occupation or employer would want to have a complete angry prick like you working for them.
Hey Frank,
You truly are a charitable christian. Man, I wish I was just like you.
Hey Frank,
Actually you look more like a pimp, does god need pimps to do his work?
You should be called “Queer eye for the God guy”.
*Chuckles* Franks grudge goes back to ‘05? Are you kidding me? This is almost as pathetic as Limbaugh still going ape-sh*t over Bill Clinton - who hasn’t been in office for almost two whole presidential cycles! How’s that for turning the other cheek? Cheeky Christianists…
Actually, I read on MSN that 61% wouldn’t vote for an atheist. Austin, why do you think MSN’s statistics are different from wherever your statistics come from, and which one do you think is more trustworthy?
The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Woods (undated), referring to “our particular superstition,” Christianity, from John E Remsburg
I think these quotes fit in nicely here. When people learn to think for themselves, the world will be a better place.
That’s a bit higher than other surveys, but still fairly consistent with them.
What numbers, exactly, do you think MSN’s numbers are different from?
Never take the other side’s definitions for granted.
The only “America” that actually exists now, and the only “America” that we actually live in, is the “America” that was created by the American Revolution and the men who made that Revolution, not the Pilgrims or anybody else who lived one, or two, or eighteen, centuries earlier. This is why it is never appropriate to let pass Christianist claims about “the Pilgrims” or whatever other group of pre-modern theocrats they want to suit up on their sideline.
The Christianists and Christian Nationalists realize this, whether consciously or not. How often, if ever, do they themselves bring up, or even mention, the Founders and the Revolution as the historical “source” of their notions? (I mean, except for the fraudulent one-liners and “quotations” they occasionally impute to Franklin, Washington, or whoever.)
And to make the point more specific, how many of the 50 states, anytime after 1776, or anytime after 1787, actually established some church for the first time? How many states after 1776 eliminated the established churches they had before 1776? And how many of those states, having disestablished their church, went back and established it again?
The Christianists and Christian Nationalists routinely evade having to distinguish between a “Christian nation” (or state) and a state that has a state-established church. But Enlightenment liberals should always insist that the two things are one and the same until shown otherwise.
I wouldn’t vote anybody for president. Whether he’s an atheist or a fanatical evangelist, he is still forcing you to hand over your money to him.
I read in a biography of Jefferson that his second proudest accomplishment was to remove the yearly transfer of funds (derived from taxes) from the Virginia Treasury to the Anglican Church of Virginia.
>>America was also arguably “founded” by white people — does this make it scandalous that white Americans would be willing to vote for blacks, Latinos, or Asians?
This is the World Net Daily we’re talking about, so I’m unsure that example will phase them. I’m sure a lot of their readers do find that prospect scandalous.
@ 411314
Those weren’t Austin’s numbers. He quoted World Daily Net directly, who claimed that 50% of the US would vote for a non-believer.
Yesss, sometimes, Austin, you say ‘No one would say something like that about (some other minority)’ and I think ‘Oh yes they would’
All religionists should know: If I had a wife, I would be beating her. All of your lies are true.
We all know that you would assassinate any atheist who won an honest election for President. God and I Thankyou for the protection.
Based on our politicians’ penchant for pandering, I doubt we’d even know if we could vote or have voted for a non-theist.
Is this the same David Kupelian who wrote “The Marketing of Evil”?
Frank Let me be the First to give you a hearty THANK YOU For all of your tireless efforts to swell the ranks of Atheists/Agnostics. Frank your Parody of an intolerant Off the wall Bible Thumper is Hilarious!!( A bit over the top but nonetheless hilarious.) In fact I would suggest that Atheists create the Frank Walton Award for those who do the most to contribute to advancing the cause of Atheism by showing how ridiculous Organized Religion is. Atheists need only to sit back and let Frank do their work for them showing how repugnant and hypocritical Organized religion and it’s supporters really are. Frank I must say you probably are one of the greatest recruiters that Atheism could have on this site. Oh and Frank while you sit back and bask in your Glory chew on this; Our FOUNDING FATHERS in 1796 UNANIMOUSLY Ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship (Otherwise known as the Treaty of Tripoli) Which Clearly states in Article 11 “The United States is in NO WAY founded upon Christianity.” And frank in case you are going to comment; So What it’s only a treaty it’s not law. Here is article 6 par. 2 of the US Constitution; This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;AND ALL TREATIES MADE, OR WHICH SHALL BE MADE, UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. Also you may like to look at the next paragraph; 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.
Well Frank I must go but again my heartfelt thanks to you for all of your hard work to turn people away from Organized Religion and towards the truth.