If You Support Ted Cruz...

[Yamato]

he did his postgraduate in Theology for this reason. Today he would be classified as a Deist Episcopalian.

If that were even true, that doesn't make him religious it makes him academic. Is Reza Aslan religious?

You would be way... way... way wrong on that... had he not gone in to patriotism and politics, he would have been a member of the clergy...

I'd check your sources. You got some very bad information from somewhere.

https://www.montpelier.org/james-and-dolley-madison/james-madison/bio

http://millercenter.org/president/biography/madison-life-before-the-presidency

[Dredimus]

If that were even true, that doesn't make him religious it makes him academic. Is Reza Aslan religious?

I'd check your sources. You got some very bad information from somewhere.

https://www.montpeli...mes-madison/bio

http://millercenter....-the-presidency

Those cover his career and little of his personal life... he made his interest in theology and the clergy very clear while he was at University of NJ (Princeton).

An excellent scholar though frail and sickly in his youth, in 1771 he graduated from the College of New Jersey (later Princeton), where he demonstrated special interest in government and the law. But, considering the ministry for a career, he stayed on for a year of postgraduate study in theology.

Link.

[Paranormal Panther]

Hillary supporters seek a spiritual Babylon where the God of Israel is rejected. They embrace all demons and perverts. They shun the Creator of the Universe. I can beat the leftists at their own game of hyperbole.

[Uncle Sam]

Hillary supporters seek a spiritual Babylon where the God of Israel is rejected. They embrace all demons and perverts. They shun the Creator of the Universe. I can beat the leftists at their own game of hyperbole.

Religion and Logic don't mix, people who are religious ignore the facts that don't fit in their fantasy world. It defies all logic and reason, leading to ill-rational actions by those who have faith in it. They feel like they can be forgiven for any sin they commit if they pray to a imaginary character from a fictional book. Take religion away and they are no different form mental institution patient. They think atheist's are the sum of all evil, but they commit more evil acts because they believe they can be forgiven just by praying. Some of the worst people in history were religious individuals who follow their holy textures to the extreme or use it to justify things like genocide. If you want to bash on atheist, take a long look at the most religious figures throughout history and then compare them to the most famous atheists.

Also look towards those who surround the person you vote for, you will have a better picture who they are and what they want from being president.

https://amp.twimg.com/v/adf2fa8b-2b00-42d4-a9ac-3e922a3be22d

Edited March 12, 2016 by Uncle Sam

[Yamato]

Those cover his career and little of his personal life... he made his interest in theology and the clergy very clear while he was at University of NJ (Princeton).

Link.

That doesn't cover his personal life either. If you looked into his personal life or actually read a biography, you'd know better.

Madison had no religiosity in his personal life. Madison never became a member of a church. He believed in religious liberty, and believed that government was made better by keeping the church out, and the church made better by keeping government out.

[Jarocal]

And with things like "One Nation Under God" and laws in states that insist on belief in a creator, they seem to have removed the original ideals of separating The Church and Religion and paved the ways for people like Cruz and Bush, another religious bigot.

Other than "One Nation under God" still being in the pledge (that is rarely said anymore) and on an increasingly worthless fiat currency, What pervasive, nefarious religious conspiracy do you see? All I hear (idotic)Christians bleating about is how it has become totally divorced from public institutions. So who is correct? You or them? I have no doubt there are archaic laws on the books that infringe with what is considered separation of church and state today and they are ignored until something brings them to light where a court strikes them down? Or are you suggesting that judicial resources be spent going through all laws on the books to find some that may need struck down then letting the court battle play out out each pools those cases before the issue is just naturally stumbled upon.

It is a genuine concern. Academic achievements are correlated with non-religious affiliation eg.

Please provide peer reviewed documentation for this assertion. As Pagan, Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic, and Christian academics have in the past and today continue to contribute to scientific understanding I find it odd you would carelessly assert people of faith are unable to objectively

Yet an Atheist is one of the least likely candidates to be elected. So in order to have the best minds the US produces in position of importance, they either have to lie to the public or understand that their chances are severely curbed. That does not strike me as a balanced or fair process. It is loaded on the side of relgion.

Perhaps my personal voting criteria is to refrain voting for any female candidate who refuses to have sex with me. As idiotic and petty as that is, it is a right I have. What I don't have is the right to enshrine in law such a premise.

If some candidate thumps on their religious stances to heavily where I think they may try to pass such legislation I don't vote for them. By the same token I don't vote for socialist candidates who want the enshrine their religion of forced charity or oppressive regulations dedicated to the altar of "public good" (gun restrictions, zoning ordinances, small business regulations/liscensing/inspections that curb entrepeneurs in our poorest communities from having upward mobility). How is it any less evil or not infringing on personal liberties to coerce our poor into purchasing substandard cheap food from international corporations than allowing them the free choice to purchase it from their neighbor where the conditions the animals are kept in and how employees are treated is transparent plus wealth remains in the community?

I find the socialist cult far more oppressive than "religous" ones because though they pursue it with a fervor paralleled only by the most extreme of religious fanatics, somehow their faith is allowed to be exempted from the ban on infringement of personal liberties that cause "religious laws" to be struck down.

[Gromdor]

Normally I wouldn't care about a person's religion. But when Cruz came here to Iowa he attended rallies hosted by pastor Kevin Swanson. He is rather famous around here for his, "Kill the gays" statements. I don't know about you, but I get a little worried about candidates that embrace supporters that want to kill certain groups of people off.

[Deleted]

Hillary supporters seek a spiritual Babylon where the God of Israel is rejected. They embrace all demons and perverts. They shun the Creator of the Universe. I can beat the leftists at their own game of hyperbole.

And is that an ad for hillary supporters or would that be something negative ? As far as I am concerened it sounds like an ad to vote for hillary.

[Likely Guy]

The Election shouldn't be choosing between the two of the shiniest turds. I hate when I can't edit and fix my grammar mistakes. Hate it with a passion, it bugs me like crazy.

You only get an hour.

[Yamato]

Nobody should be voted in because they are Atheists or Religious people, we should vote on them the way we should have for the longest time. Based on their goals, agenda, and what they hope to accomplish for United States. Basically what they can do for all groups in United States instead of just one group of people above everyone else. That is what we should strive for, upholding the constitutional values, instead of striving for complete control of united states. I just want Separation of Church and State enforced, Religion out of politics, and finally no threat to freedom of religion or freedom from religion.

What if the group is Veterans? What if the group is Women? What if the group is Police? What if the group is Muslims? What if the group is Mexicans? What if the group is Blacks? I agree with your bolded statement, that's why I don't prefer Presidents who want to do things for groups over individuals. I want the First Amendment enforced too, but Ted Cruz is FAR from the only one to watch out for here now that we agree.

"It is commonplace for politicians and those desiring special privileges to refer to: black rights, Hispanic rights, handicap rights, employee rights, student rights, minority rights, women’s rights, gay rights, children’s rights, student rights, Asian-American rights, Jewish rights, AIDS victims’ rights, poverty rights, homeless rights, etc. Unless all the terms are dropped & we recognize that only an individual has rights, the solution to the mess in which we find ourselves will not be found. The longer we lack of definition of rights, the worse the economic and social problems will be." ~ Ron Paul

[psyche101]

Other than "One Nation under God" still being in the pledge (that is rarely said anymore) and on an increasingly worthless fiat currency, What pervasive, nefarious religious conspiracy do you see? All I hear (idotic)Christians bleating about is how it has become totally divorced from public institutions. So who is correct? You or them? I have no doubt there are archaic laws on the books that infringe with what is considered separation of church and state today and they are ignored until something brings them to light where a court strikes them down? Or are you suggesting that judicial resources be spent going through all laws on the books to find some that may need struck down then letting the court battle play out out each pools those cases before the issue is just naturally stumbled upon.

I am right not them, there would not one nation under god, or IN God We Trust without them. Pledge allegiance in school or government, as pointed out on money - which people see every day, sports events, any place where many people gather. The polls directly reference the theocratic tendencies of the US, if the laws are archaic, why do people band behind them and support them?

LINK - Councilman under fire for atheism

Cecil Bothwell, a member of the Unitarian Universalist church, declined to mention God in his swearing-in ceremony. Angry conservatives say his stance violates the state constitution.

I am sure you have heard of Cecil Bothwell? That very reaction shows that the laws are well supported by the public and they want to see a Theocratic Nation.

LINK - Breaking News: 34% of Your Fellow Citizens Want a Theocracy

That knock on effect from all that subliminal advertising has worked. Bush Snr. stated:

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

LINK

Now it is not just bad that Bush made such a bigoted statement, it is the very fact that he knew it did not hurt his election chances.

And Here we have Ted Cruze who is speeding along at great pace on a Theocratic premise.

LINK - 57% Of Republicans Say Dismantle Constitution And Make Christianity National Religion

LINK - Mike Huckabee Pushes for an American Theocracy

“We cannot survive as a republic if we do not become, once again, a God-centered nation that understands that our laws do not come from man, they come from God,” he said on the show “Life Today.”

Several states insist on a belief on God, it is one everyone's money, it is a pledge heard time and again and as I say, this has had a knock on effect, the polls state that an Atheist is the least, or second least likely candidate to be voted in. A socialist is the only ranks lower on the list than atheist, which was the bottom of the list for years beforehand.

LINK

That all smells very theocratic to me.

Please provide peer reviewed documentation for this assertion. As Pagan, Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic, and Christian academics have in the past and today continue to contribute to scientific understanding I find it odd you would carelessly assert people of faith are unable to objectively

I cannot see where their faith assisted, or was the reason they made any inroads. It seems more in spite of it considering how the CHurch stifled so many scientists in history. I cannot say I can think of one instance whereby someone has made a groundbreaking observation like Evolution that the Church has actually got behind and promoted.

Paul G. Bell from Mensa put together a meta analysis from which he concluded:

"Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between religious belief, and one's intelligence or educational level, all but four found an inverse connection."

Professor Miron Zuckerman found a very similar same result from an independent study, of the 63 studies, 53 showed a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity, while 10 showed a positive one.

LINK - Religious people are less intelligent than atheists, according to analysis of scores of scientific studies stretching back over decades

The relationship between countries' belief in a god and national average IQ.

LINK

So why do more intelligent people appear to be less religious? There are three possible explanations. One possibility is that more intelligent people are less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma. A 1992 meta-analysis of seven studies found that intelligent people may be more likely to become atheists when they live in religious societies, because intelligent people tend to be nonconformists.

The most common explanation is that intelligent people don’t like to accept any beliefs that are not subject to empirical tests or logical reasoning. Zuckerman writes in the review that intelligent people may think more analytically, which is “controlled, systematic, and slow”, as opposed to intuitively, which is “heuristic-based, mostly non-conscious, and fast." That analytical thinking leads to lower religiosity.

The final explanation is that intelligence provides whatever functions religion does for believers. There are four such functions as proposed by Zuckerman, Silberman, and Hall.

There seems to be little doubt from the studies carried out.

Perhaps my personal voting criteria is to refrain voting for any female candidate who refuses to have sex with me. As idiotic and petty as that is, it is a right I have. What I don't have is the right to enshrine in law such a premise.

If some candidate thumps on their religious stances to heavily where I think they may try to pass such legislation I don't vote for them. By the same token I don't vote for socialist candidates who want the enshrine their religion of forced charity or oppressive regulations dedicated to the altar of "public good" (gun restrictions, zoning ordinances, small business regulations/liscensing/inspections that curb entrepeneurs in our poorest communities from having upward mobility). How is it any less evil or not infringing on personal liberties to coerce our poor into purchasing substandard cheap food from international corporations than allowing them the free choice to purchase it from their neighbor where the conditions the animals are kept in and how employees are treated is transparent plus wealth remains in the community?

Exactly right, and if you had several hundred people running around saying women should have sex with you, some will believe it, keep saying that, putting it on billboards and in a few decades, it will be a household phrase, as silly as that sounds, we see things like that happen all the time, and the US is subject to religious influences from so many sources. More than other Western Countries. Britain's Ten Pound Note has Darwin on it. Moving forward as a nation, and accepting progress at every level.

I find the socialist cult far more oppressive than "religous" ones because though they pursue it with a fervor paralleled only by the most extreme of religious fanatics, somehow their faith is allowed to be exempted from the ban on infringement of personal liberties that cause "religious laws" to be struck down.

Well, they just beat Atheists to the bottom of the barrel as far as the average voter is concerned.

Are you referring to a party, individual, or movement overall?

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Lol yeah I remember something about that. As a matter of fact, I think some town resident in Texas asked a similar question to Ted Cruz in a town hall meeting somewhere in Texas last year. But if the highly religious really wanted most people to go to church in this country, all they would have to do is offer a financial incentive for attending\listening to someone preach. Simple as that. For example:

Years ago I saw this offer in a regional paper that offered couples two free nights at a hotel in Branson, Missouri with $50 dollars cash to spend and all a we had to do was sit down with a salesman and listen to him try to sale us timeshares for about 2 or 3 hours of our time. Let me tell ya, it was worth it! Didn't bite on the timeshares BTW, but had a fun weekend in Branson.

Yeah so if a church offered something like that for every attended sermon, you bet I'd go a number of times; and I'm not even religious. Well obviously except when it comes to money.

I guess, if they really were concerned for their souls and such. *shrugs*

But, despite an actually honest request to advertise and talk about a business endeavor, would churches goes against a policy of honesty to do that? ( Wait! Don't answer that! I think I know the answer. )

Well, my meaning, that would be totally opposite to what the religious institutes would have a message about, right?

Plus, I doubt there would be more people doing that, as oppose to a time share situation. ( yeah you would, but I wouldn't ) But then again, that is me, surmising. *shrugs*

If he is - implies question. You answered it for yourself, that does not remove that is was in question, when it never should be, people should be elected on how well they can perform for their country, not their belief system.

And yet are state laws that sorely need to be abolished to indeed have a free country. Too many are happy to see them enforced and that is due to the added indoctrination of being one nation under God.

I really do not think your constitution or ideals of your founding fathers are anything like "If you do not like relgion pack up and get out. What would Jefferson say huh?

You get what you give, as I said you are an out and out ahole Yam, When you posted the pick of the kid firing and automatic weapon and said "Aim For The Aussies Kid" You lost your right to courtesy. You deseve nothing less than the contempt you deserve.

Yeah yeah, we know who you are voting for without even going into the threads to look, this guy right?

The real concern that is Ted Cruz is elected that the US would become a Theocracy, especially if enough people are brainwashed and misguided enough to support him.

He looks like he always really needs to pee.

I would agree with certain aspects of your posts here. ( I wouldn't even think to agree on calling anyone an ***hole though. I think both you and Yamato are credible posters to me and have a lot to give )

Anyways, I have to remind myself, there is still a lot a President have to do, to get something passed, considering there is the congress and such to have pass it or not. I would think that most of the time, it's not a worry.

The photo of Cruz reminds of last night's episode of "Full Frontal" with Samantha Bee. (Why am I being persecuted?!?!?)

[Paranormal Panther]

Religion and Logic don't mix, people who are religious ignore the facts that don't fit in their fantasy world. It defies all logic and reason, leading to ill-rational actions by those who have faith in it. They feel like they can be forgiven for any sin they commit if they pray to a imaginary character from a fictional book. Take religion away and they are no different form mental institution patient. They think atheist's are the sum of all evil, but they commit more evil acts because they believe they can be forgiven just by praying. Some of the worst people in history were religious individuals who follow their holy textures to the extreme or use it to justify things like genocide. If you want to bash on atheist, take a long look at the most religious figures throughout history and then compare them to the most famous atheists.

Also look towards those who surround the person you vote for, you will have a better picture who they are and what they want from being president.

https://amp.twimg.co...ac-3e922a3be22d

My post was parody. I hope that your anti-faith screed is too.

[Yamato]

Singling out atheism as the alternative to theocracy doesn't make much sense when plenty of theists/deists are critical of religion too, much less theocracy.

[Paranormal Panther]

And is that an ad for hillary supporters or would that be something negative ? As far as I am concerened it sounds like an ad to vote for hillary.

It's how some psychotic progressives sound to me when they blow things out of proportion. They are beyond histrionic and hyperbolic. Some conspiracy theorists, on the far right, also are like this. They all sound like Chicken Little to me.

[Paranormal Panther]

Singling out atheism as the alternative to theocracy doesn't make much sense when plenty of theists/deists are critical of religion too, much less theocracy.

I'm tired of the bashing of Christians by anti-Christian bigots. I will tell you this. Some of these "fundies" helped me during the darkest, saddest days of my life, for which I am eternally grateful. By the way, *Sam*, where are all of the plentiful atheist charities and hospitals?

[Gromdor]

Bill Gate's Foundation, Make a Wish Foundation, American Cancer Society? There are also a lot of hospitals that are non-religious as well.

Of course charities and hospitals are inanimate things and can't really worship a deity anyways. They are defined by the people that support them. I'm an atheist and have given money to charity in the past. I would like to hope that my money was used to aid someone in need. My personal religious beliefs was not a condition of that aid and my aid did not make that charity athiest.

One of the things that disgusted me was a missionary friend who was saying some of his fellow missionaries were only giving aid/charity to those that embraced Christ. (He thought that was wrong too)

[Paranormal Panther]

Bill Gate's Foundation, Make a Wish Foundation, American Cancer Society? There are also a lot of hospitals that are non-religious as well.

Of course charities and hospitals are inanimate things and can't really worship a deity anyways. They are defined by the people that support them. I'm an atheist and have given money to charity in the past. I would like to hope that my money was used to aid someone in need. My personal religious beliefs was not a condition of that aid and my aid did not make that charity athiest.

One of the things that disgusted me was a missionary friend who was saying some of his fellow missionaries were only giving aid/charity to those that embraced Christ. (He thought that was wrong too)

Those aren't official atheist charities. Bill Gates may be an atheist, but his charity is not called the Bill and Melinda Gates Atheist Foundation. I notice that you take a dig and a swipe at Christian missionaries. These misguided individuals are the exceptions to the rule.

[Gromdor]

You missed my point in that Charities don't have a religion. Only the people that give them money have religions.

[Yamato]

Charities do have a religion. Plenty of charities are religiously identified non profits, and there are studies which confirm religious people give more than their irreligious counterparts. Apparently there is a correlation between religiosity and charitable giving. So PP still has a point. If people are going to come here effectually preaching how great their atheism is, there should be some atheist groups out there proving it somewhere.

I don't know what this OP needs to do with atheism, but I suspect the atheists are the component of the irreligious that give least of all for the simple reason that worm food isn't favored by the Gods. There's nothing greater to belong to or strive to emulate inherent in the group. Some atheists seem to pour their faith into government and think they're smarter for it. Fascinating.

If the discussion could have been kept at theocracy vs. non-theocracy (a moot point under the Constitution incidentally), or Ted Cruz vs. Whoever. But it derailed into the classical tangent atheism vs theism again, because that's what discussions about Christians and Christianity on UM do.

[Uncle Sam]

Charities do have a religion. Plenty of charities are religiously identified non profits, and there are studies which confirm religious people give more than their irreligious counterparts. Apparently there is a correlation between religiosity and charitable giving. So PP still has a point. If people are going to come here effectually preaching how great their atheism is, there should be some atheist groups out there proving it somewhere.

I don't know what this OP needs to do with atheism, but I suspect the atheists are the component of the irreligious that give least of all for the simple reason that worm food isn't favored by the Gods. There's nothing greater to belong to or strive to emulate inherent in the group. Some atheists seem to pour their faith into government and think they're smarter for it. Fascinating.

If the discussion could have been kept at theocracy vs. non-theocracy (a moot point under the Constitution incidentally), or Ted Cruz vs. Whoever. But it derailed into the classical tangent atheism vs theism again, because that's what discussions about Christians and Christianity on UM do.

All I am saying I rather have religion to stay out of politics, in the homes and churches where it belongs. I am not anti-religion, I do hate the idea of people being lied to and lead around like sheep under false pretense of obtaining haven by preachers or using religion as a way to sway people's opinion in politics which it doesn't belong. I am against organized religion, I am not against the religious people themselves. It is where all you religious people get me and other atheist wrong. You so whole heartily believe we are out to destroy religion, that you are blind about my arguments and other my other fellow atheists try to explain over and over. Quickly to label me and other Atheists are Anti-Religious individuals, just because your church or other religious friends tell you other wise. I could rather care less what you think about me, I make my point and move on, simple as that. If you are not willing to even entertain my opinion or facts I throw your way, why should I even stay in the conversation. But I can't stay quiet when one religion tries to place itself above all other religions, violating the very foundation of this great nation.

As for the government part... I don't place my faith in the government. I place my faith in the constitution and the founding fathers. So really, get off your judgemental high horse and try for once to think reasonably. Try to act like you portray yourself as, someone who thinks they can hold a intelligent conversation. I have brought facts, I have posted even videos of Ted Cruz stating plainly his views, you and PP have done was bash me for my views on religion as well as attack other atheists.

Also here is the list of Atheist Charities... minus a few.

http://thaumaturgica...eist-charities/

Now let me plainly state this for you, your assumptions are very off-base, you have not a single clue what atheists are really are except that only we don't believe in a magical sky god who watches over us. From what I gathered from your posts; you think we are incapable of moral compass, we are incapable of compassion, and finally we are incapable of being good human beings. Makes me sad... that you are so delusional.

So now.. can we get back to the topic at hand or instead should we listen to you and PP atheist bashing?

Edited March 17, 2016 by Uncle Sam

[psyche101]

I would agree with certain aspects of your posts here. ( I wouldn't even think to agree on calling anyone an ***hole though. I think both you and Yamato are credible posters to me and have a lot to give )

You did not see him post a video of a kid with an Automatic weapon saying "Put the red dot on the Aussies" I take it?

I am more than disgusted in his racist remarks.

Did you see what he posted above?

Some atheists seem to pour their faith into government and think they're smarter for it.

The man has a paranoid agenda. And he is awfully rude.

Anyways, I have to remind myself, there is still a lot a President have to do, to get something passed, considering there is the congress and such to have pass it or not. I would think that most of the time, it's not a worry.

Not a worry, but an unfair race consider what the polls are telling us up there, and all engineered to secure votes. It strikes me that relgion is doing what it always has - "control the masses"

The photo of Cruz reminds of last night's episode of "Full Frontal" with Samantha Bee. (Why am I being persecuted?!?!?)

I still reckon he always looks like he really has to pee.

Edited March 17, 2016 by psyche101

[psyche101]

I'm tired of the bashing of Christians by anti-Christian bigots.

It is OK in the other direction though?

I will tell you this. Some of these "fundies" helped me during the darkest, saddest days of my life, for which I am eternally grateful.

Some of the "fundies" are the direct reason my parent divorced.

You do realise that things like ISIS are religion too?

Most try not to think about that, as it opens a can of worms.

By the way, *Sam*, where are all of the plentiful atheist charities and hospitals?

These do for a start?

Red Cross

Oxfam

UNICEF

Fred Hollows Foundation

Water Aid

Save The Children

Doctors Without Borders

The Gates Foundation

SHARE (Secular Humanist Aid & Relief Effort)

You have never heard of those organisations?

[psyche101]

Those aren't official atheist charities. Bill Gates may be an atheist, but his charity is not called the Bill and Melinda Gates Atheist Foundation. I notice that you take a dig and a swipe at Christian missionaries. These misguided individuals are the exceptions to the rule.

An Atheist can help people based on secular morals, but that doesn't make it an Atheist organisation unless it has "Atheist" in the title???

Surely you are not serious. That is plain ridiculous.

Religion might have helped you, but it seems it also blinded you to all the pain it causes.

[Uncle Sam]

These do for a start?

Red Cross

Oxfam

UNICEF

Fred Hollows Foundation

Water Aid

Save The Children

Doctors Without Borders

The Gates Foundation

SHARE (Secular Humanist Aid & Relief Effort)

You have never heard of those organisations?

Of course he hasn't, the churches and pastors try to not to let this information come out, because it goes against their narrative that all Atheists are bad people destined for hell.