Imagine it: An atheist President.

[Taxloss]

He's a reasonable guy (or gal). He does stuff because s/he strongly feels it's the right thing to do. And s/he has very strong opinions, including the fact that his/her point of view is the way forward for America, backed up by the majority that voted for him/her.

However, s/he is surrounded by a poisonous clique of radical atheists. These atheists think that religion is not only contrary to their feelings, it also is intrinsically evil and needs to be driven from the face of the planet. They are quite happy to deploy the resources and means of the United States to achieve this aim. They consider all religionists to be so beyond their definition of humanity that they are not only happy to call them "anti-American", they are happy to countenance their utter destruction. They are willing to use force, and happily use murderous invective on an almost permanent basis from their prominent seats in the media.

And then it turns out the President isn't a reasonable guy (or gal) and is happy to entertain these fanatics in his or her house. And even endorse their talking points.

As a liberal atheist - you would vigorously criticisce them, right? You wouldn't leave it to someone else?

[Jokerman]

1. Absolutely!

I would oppose them just as I oppose the current government of criminals.

The bottom line is determined by actions, not stated beliefs.

[Warpy]

2. Militant atheists generally outgrow the militancy by the age of 30

but should such a man manage to find enough O'Hair types to form an administration, you bet I'd complain.

The last thing we need is a bunch of militants making us look bad. Religious types already think we can't possibly have compassion and ethics because we're not afriad a spook will punish us for not having them. The last thing we need is a bunch of clump footed types trampling all over them and proving it.

This is why I complain about mainstream churches dropping the ball for the last 3 decades because they've been pussyfooting around all their antichristian Repuglican members' sensibilities. Christians standing up for Christ's message is LONG overdue.

[Taxloss]

5. Well, that's quite right.

But I wasn't really talking about atheists.

[Modem Butterfly]

11. What exactly is a militant atheist?

Christians standing up for Christ's message is LONG overdue.

You mean it can get worse than the proto-theocracy we already have?

[Taxloss]

15. Much worse.

But where's the attacking from our allie?

[beam me up scottie]

3. .

:evilgrin:

[DavidDvorkin]

4. Oh, God, it sounds like Paradise!

Whoops, heh heh, of course I meant to write that I would oppose them.

Yes, I'd oppose them.

I'd also like to add that when I saw the subject line, before I'd read Taxloss's post, my reaction was, "I can imagine it, but I certainly don't expect it."

[onager]

6. Great! When can we build the Xian concentration camps?

:rofl:

Some dope actually brought that up, in MB's short-lived "God Is Dead" thread.

Meanwhile, the first thread I opened this morning was a Christer pity party, whining about all the "religion bashing." I forget which one. My response is probably deleted by now anyway.

[beam me up scottie]

7. HA !

Did you see this one ?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3921078&mesg_id=3921631

And this is weird compared to xtianity?

Nobody noticed I changed my sig line to a Simpson's quote....

[onager]

10. OK, thanks, added my Delete-Bait to that one...

:mad:

[beam me up scottie]

18. Some very intelligent posters on that thread.

I'm so proud...

[Gelliebeans]

20. I saw that thread last night

but I didn't have the strength ugh.... and yes BMUS I saw your new sig line. ;) :thumbsup:

[trotsky]

8. No, I would leave it for liberal Christians.

Why should we be expected to criticize our atheistic brethren? :sarcasm:

Fuck yeah, I'd speak out.

[YankeyMCC]

9. I hope I would

I have not supported democratic candidates who I felt were to susceptible to this sort of dangerous ideology even when they were on the "progressive" side of the fence.

The problem is not belief per se it's power and what it does to people, particularly the arrogant.

[fshrink]

13. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. nt

[fshrink]

12. I agree completely with the program. Not with the means.

Such means promote martyrdom and do not solve the problem. The only antidote to stupidity and fear is education. Instead of feeding them, it starves them.

[beam me up scottie]

16. Excellent point .

nt

[Modem Butterfly]

14. Religion IS an intrinsic evil and IS being driven from the planet

Science is doing it more thoroughly and more quickly than any world leader ever could.

[Taxloss]

17. Perhaps, but I'm using a metaphor

to expose another groups apparent complacence over direct threats to the atheist and nonxtian population.

[Gelliebeans]

19. It is my responsibility

to critisize them. I would feel an obligation to be the first one in line to make sure that all people were represented not just people who share my thinking.

I couldn't look at my neighbors and friends if I kept my mouth shut and let someone trash my constitution and say nothing.

The ends do not justify the means if you have to trample on peoples rights to get there.

If I stayed silent then I would be an accomplice. That to me is the biggest crime of all.

I don't think it's up to the religious people in your post to determine who their enemy is and who is there friend. They will know me because I will be the atheist out in the front lines screaming my head off at the injustice.

[GOPFighter]

21. I agree

The Bush administration has changed me in many ways. One of the most important changes is that I now acknowledge I am an atheist and that I have an obligation to my country and my family to firmly oppose the imposition of any theocratic laws or initiatives.

I've made enemies, lost friends, and alienated family members, but that's because they feel they have the right (no, obligation) to impose their religious beliefs on me but do not believe I have the same right to argue back.

At least my wife, kids, and two cats love me (though I'm not sure about one of the cats). :rofl:

[onager]

22. Very well said!

I've made enemies, lost friends, and alienated family members, but that's because they feel they have the right (no, obligation) to impose their religious beliefs on me but do not believe I have the same right to argue back.

I get into arguments every time I go back to visit the family in the Bible Belt. One of the most stunning questions I ever heard came up when I was working in Saudi Arabia. One of the cousins asked: "Them Muslims, they don't believe in God, do they?"

:banghead:

I wouldn't worry about the cat. I like the critters, but I'm pretty much convinced that cats only think about 3 things. And only 2 things if they've been neutered.