Atheist Candidates Project with Aron Ra

This is what you've been brainwashed into believing.
The number of Christians involved in shaping America is overwhelming:

http://churchvstate.blogspot.com/2007/10/our-founders-were-they-christian.html

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

I respect the Establishment Clause, but this does not give Godless people in the minority and the courts the right to remove Christian monuments, pictures and other teachings from "public" property.

If the Founders, the very people who wrote the laws, thought that Christian influences should be abolished----then please give me the evidence when they demanded it be removed.

Don't mistake the modern actions of Leftwing Activists in the Courts with Constitutional law.

 

Yeah I'm not exactly enamored of atheistic governments so far. It sounds fine in theory, but in practice always seems to come down to mass murder.

 

If you counted the millions religious governments killed over the eons you might want to reconsider. Atheists are not predetermined killers, devout religious people are by definition. Just read their texts.

 

I really don't give a rats arse what people thought in 1790. Our founders were vehemently against a theocracy. Wake the f up.

 

"Christian people" (who nevertheless were not a bunch of bible-thumpers, and some of whom at least were more deist than theist) are not the same thing as Christianity the ideology and religion shaping the US constitution and overall government.

The Founders did not feel compelled to enshrine the Ten Commandments in front of court houses...

 

Setting aside your anti-religious bias, the USA needs people who will follow the Constitution. The USA does not need people running the government who want to mandate a national religion or who are on an anti-religion crusade.

 

You do know the "Golden Rule" was stated by Jesus, don't you? First you write that the "government and religion need to be separate" and then in your very next line write that we all need to follow a religious doctrine.

 

I don't know what the religious beliefs of a single one of my local or state representatives are. I don't care. If someone were running on the platform they are an atheist, I wouldn't vote for them because I would see that as a sign that the person is more worried about red-herrings than things that actually affect me.

 

So, you wouldn't vote for Pence, who proudly describes himself as "Christian, conservative, and republican, in that order".

 

I didn't vote for Pence, and the only way I probably would in the future would be if he were running against Hillary and there were no third party candidates that were colorful enough for me to vote for just to be pretentious and quirky in my resistance to two-party dominance.

 

If you can get 2/3rds majority to agree - I have no problem with that. I think the whole xmas tree thing is retarded as well.

 

That's a fine theory, but I'm looking at what atheistic governments have actually done, not what these mass murdering regimes good intentions were.

And really, who killed more, religious governments or atheistic ones is an interesting question. The state sponsored mass murders of the 20th Century by atheistic governments probably exceed the state sponsored mass murder of religious governments in all of history. State sponsored murder in the 20th Century is mind boggling.

 

There are some people who blindly guess there is a god.

There are others who blindly guess that there are no gods.

There are others who do not guess in either direction. (I am one of those.)

I am more interested in the political agenda of the candidate than in which category he/she falls with regard to those things.

Anyone who suggests that an atheist should not be allowed to hold office is, in my opinion, a jerk.

 

Atheists are a danger to liberty because their highest authority is man.

 

I agree with the added stipulation that I don't care which category as long as they don't try to pass laws favoring their religion.

I have a question for those who still have an imaginary friend:
IF there is a god, how can he/she allow such vermin as ISIS commit atrocities IN HIS/HER NAME - why wouldn't she/he appear and say - "NOT IN MY NAME" - or some such intervention???? The answer is there is no god.

Religion is the world's oldest and biggest scam.

 

Well it's good for him, then, that he spoke about other things in the video. Judicial impartiality, jobs jobs jobs, freedom of assembly, bridge building between the polarized left and right, and other things were all covered in his speech.

 

Theists are a greater danger to liberty because their highest authority is an imaginary construct which limits liberty in ways that pre-enlightenment bronze age people thought was appropriate.

 

He advocated taxation by Rome without stipulating any tax rate or what it would be spent on (render unto Caesar).

 

The video was too long, I didn't watch it. He's not representing my district. I heard "I'm an atheist and this is going to be an unusual campaign" and I was like next...

 

If he actually had any moral compass he would not have associated himself with swindling liar and *****-grabber. A no brainer.

 

Sorry, but Christian influence cannot be explained away by secular progressives.
Our Supreme Court Building as the Ten Commandments written upon it.
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg8.htm

Public Institutions
Liberty Bell Inscription:
“ Proclaim liberty throughout the land and to all the inhabitants thereof” [Leviticus 25:10]

​

The Liberty Window
At its initial meeting in September 1774 Congress invited the Reverend Jacob Duché (1738-179, rector of Christ Church, Philadelphia, to open its sessions with prayer. Duché ministered to Congress in an unofficial capacity until he was elected the body’s first chaplain on July 9, 1776. He defected to the British the next year. Pictured here in the bottom stained-glass panel is the first prayer in Congress, delivered by Duché. The top part of this extraordinary stained glass window depicts the role of churchmen in compelling King John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215.

Proposed Seal for the United States
On July 4, 1776, Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams “to bring in a device for a seal for the United States of America.” Franklin’s proposal adapted the biblical story of the parting of the Red Sea (left). Jefferson first recommended the “Children of Israel in the Wilderness, led by a Cloud by Day, and a Pillar of Fire by night. . . .” He then embraced Franklin’s proposal and rewrote it (right). Jefferson’s revision of Franklin’s proposal was presented by the committee to Congress on August 20. Although not accepted these drafts reveal the religious temper of the Revolutionary period. Franklin and Jefferson were among the most theologically liberal of the Founders, yet they used biblical imagery for this important task.
https://americasfoundingfathers.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/biblical-inscriptions-on-public-buildings/

The more you know, the more you can...

 

Why 2/3rds? Almost all votes are majority.

 

Which is an excellent example of what he was talking about when he said religious people will often judge your case before they've heard it.

 

Not really because I'm an Atheist too.

 

So then why was him being an atheist such a turn off? Or were you turned off by him saying it would be an unusual campaign?