Feed on Posts or Comments 20 October 2014

Christianity &Islam &Judaism Thomas on 29 Oct 2011 12:43 am

Complete religious hypocrisy in the United States

Recently on the whitehouse.gov website there has been a place for people to sign petitions. One petition asked that the phrase “Under God” be removed from the pledge of allegiance, while the other asked to remove “In God we trust” from coins and currency.

Here is the White House response:

Religion in the Public Square

While the President strongly supports every American’s right to religious freedom and the separation of church and state, that does not mean there’s no role for religion in the public square.

Actually, that is exactly what it means. The only way for there to be religious freedom is for the nation to favor no religion or non-religion. The fact that the pledge says “under God” is repulsive to every person who knows that “God” is a completely imaginary being worshiped by delusional adults and foisted upon innocent children.

Religion hurts America. Religion should be banned from the public square. This video explains the reality of the situation:

26 Responses to “Complete religious hypocrisy in the United States”

  1. on 30 Oct 2011 at 7:14 pm 1.RC said …

    The Prez is correct (for once) and our history shows this to be true. There is no such thing as separation of church and state only an establishment clause.

    The establishment clause does not give the offended freedom from religion. This is once again proven throughout our history. The mention of God has never been considered an act of establishment. The establishment clause was used to protect from a state church, not the mention of God.

    There would seem to be more pressing matters to be entertained however some like to major in the minor.

  2. on 31 Oct 2011 at 11:15 am 2.Garstor said …

    It is splendid that RC shares opinions without providing any evidence to back up the claims made.

    This creates more background noise for this issue.

  3. on 31 Oct 2011 at 11:55 am 3.Anonymous said …

    Garstor, this is the method Barton and many of the apologists take. They make claims that as something was done in a particular way in the past, then that supports their revisionist view of events. Using RC’s justification of “This is once again proven throughout our history” we’d still be a nation of slave owners.

  4. on 31 Oct 2011 at 5:41 pm 4.Cleo said …

    “There is no such thing as separation of church and state only an establishment clause.”

    It is quite amazing how many Americans think this to be in the Constitution. It shows how if you say something enough times people will believe it.

    It is the same tactic as used by the historical revisionist. The founders had no problem with all the God references and their actions prove this to be true. They prayed on government property, they referenced God, they taught God in schools, etc. But the revisionist know if they continue a campaign of revision they can change America into the EU.

  5. on 31 Oct 2011 at 7:45 pm 5.Anonymous said …

    15% of Americans have abandoned religion today. Soon it will be 50% and then 90%. The remaining 10% that clings to religion, also known as the religious nuts, will be shunned as delusional loons. America will be a much better place when that happens.

  6. on 31 Oct 2011 at 7:55 pm 6.DPK said …

    “It shows how if you say something enough times people will believe it.

    Like, “God answers prayers.” “jesus dies to save us from sin.” and “America was founded as a Christin nation.”

    True enough.

    But, the Supreme Court, who’s job it is to interpret the constitution, has ruled consistently and repeatedly that government endorsement of any religion is indeed, unconstitutional, under the exact establishment clause you site.

    So yeah, say something enough time and people will start to believe it.

  7. on 31 Oct 2011 at 7:55 pm 7.Rostam said …

    “15% of Americans have abandoned religion today.”

    With this claim aside add, Along with her unremarkable and continued decline in morality, stature and greatness. No surprise.

  8. on 31 Oct 2011 at 8:17 pm 8.Lou (DFW) said …

    7.Rostam said …

    “15% of Americans have abandoned religion today.”

    “With this claim aside add, Along with her unremarkable and continued decline in morality, stature and greatness. No surprise.”

    Have you ever considered that you have cause and effect reversed? People are abandoning religion because it doesn’t provide morality, stature, or greatness. They understand that prayers aren’t answered and religious leaders are hypocritical frauds. If religion and prayer “worked,” then NOBODY would abandon it. But it doesn’t “work.”

    It’s that simple.

  9. on 31 Oct 2011 at 8:30 pm 9.DPK said …

    Yes, the US had much more morality, stature and greatness back when we were building our wealth and greatness on the backs of slaves, as god intended.

  10. on 31 Oct 2011 at 10:50 pm 10.Anonymous said …

    So, Rostam, how do you account for the fact that America has the highest per-capita rate for prison population in the world? You don’t get there overnight, you know and you certainly don’t get there on great morals.

    It’s somewhat hard to see how one can claim morality from the bible yet be a world leader in crime statistics. It’s also awfully weird that Sweden, where less than 1/4 of their population believes in a god, has 9 times less than the USA of its population (per capita) behind bars. What’s that about?

  11. on 31 Oct 2011 at 11:13 pm 11.Suh said …

    Does anonymous believe that jail population is the indicator of immorality?

    It is funny how atheist always go to Sweden as their atheist haven and never the USSR, China or Cuba as their bastion of atheist bliss.

    Why would that be Anonymous?

    If we took the attitude of Sweden there would be:

    No illegal aliens
    Very little legal immigration
    Nobody to slow down the world genocide
    Nobody to feed the world hungry
    Nobody to aid in world disasters
    We would need to kick out 90% of the US population and then lock down.
    Everyone must work.
    86% would believe in God or a spirit life force. Does spirit life force count as atheist?

    I don’t think the liberals would go for these policies. They would be out of power.

  12. on 01 Nov 2011 at 3:16 am 12.Anonymous said …

    Interesting how you avoid the point that Rostam made. I’ll explain it for you. Slowly.

    Christians claim that morality is impossible without their god and without their bible – hence this is about what Rostam believes, so stop trying to turn it into a strawman. Only one example is needed to show how ludicrous Rostam’s point is. By the argument from morality all countries with less religious people than the USA should be havens of “sin”. Yet, we see America is a violent and dangerous place. Got it yet?

  13. on 01 Nov 2011 at 8:58 am 13.Anonymous said …

    America is super religious compared to other developed nations:

    U.S. Stands Alone In Its Embrace of Religion Among Wealthy Nations

    “Religion is much more important to Americans than to people living in other wealthy nations. Six-in-ten (59%) people in the U.S. say religion plays a very important role in their lives. This is roughly twice the percentage of self-avowed religious people in Canada (30%), and an even higher proportion when compared with Japan and Western Europe. Americans’ views are closer to people in developing nations than to the publics of developed nations.”

    Yet America has so many problems. Statistically, America is a terrible place compared to other developed nations:

    A COMPARISON OF THE U.S. TO OTHER RICH NATIONS ?

    “what may depress many conservatives is that these nations beat us on statistic after statistic after statistic”

  14. on 01 Nov 2011 at 11:34 am 14.Suh said …

    Anonymous

    You still failed to answer the question of why you didn’t point to the USSR, Cuba and China as examples?

    America is not a Christian nation, it is secular. This is the common atheist argument. There is no state church, Yes? Check out Sweden and see what you find. Therefore religion is moot. To further your strawman you went to incarceration as an example of immorality in Christiananity/America. Unfounded.

    Second, Sweden has not had success do to religion, or the lack thereof. Sweden has success due to a whole host of policies namely economic, isolationism and strick immigration. This keeps her small and only allows in those who can contribute.

    Last, America is a “terrible place” is not fact, it is opinion. Having traveled as much as I have, I don’t find this to be true. Try Korea, an atheist nation, on and then reassess. To be honest in your assessment, deal with these issues anonymous.

  15. on 01 Nov 2011 at 3:32 pm 15.Severin said …

    11 Suh
    “Does spirit life force count as atheist?“

    Almost!

    Where do YOU count them?
    Ppeople believing in „spirit life“ do NOT believe in Biblical/Kuran/Talmud (etc) bullshits.
    Tthey DO NOT think there is a deity who is spying on them and measuring their deeds to evaluate their „faith“ to him/her/it (deity), so he/she/it (deity) could decide whether to put them in paradise or in hell.
    People believing in „spirit life“ DO NOT expect „spirit life“ to answer their prayers. They DO NOT PRAY to anyone.
    I know personally many people believing in „spirit life“. NONE of them has ANYTHING to do with any classic religion. They believe in „something behind“, that has nothing to do with bullshits that existing religions are spreading around.
    None of them prays, none of them goes to any church, none of them gives money to any congregation….
    Maybe they are delusional too, but their delusions do not harm anyone. They are „private/intimate believers“ in their „personal something“, they never force their beliefs to other people.
    Such people do NOT ruin buildings, do NOT kill people, do not support wars just because someone does not share their opinion, and most of them I know personally consider all existing (and historical) religions as bullshits.

    I wish the world more such „believers“!

  16. on 01 Nov 2011 at 4:04 pm 16.Severin said …

    11 Suh
    “It is funny how atheist always go to Sweden as their atheist haven and never the USSR, China or Cuba as their bastion of atheist bliss.“
    14 Suh
    “You still failed to answer the question of why you didn’t point to the USSR, Cuba and China as examples?“

    May I say a few words?
    If we do point USSR, China, Cuba, GERMANY, ITALY, and many other totalitar countries, what shall we see?
    We will see that, yes, “atheist” regimes, some of which became criminal regimes, came to power THANKS to religious masses that supported them and DIED for their ideas.
    Originally, no communist regime propagued openly their atheism at the time they were trying to get power.
    There were practically NO atheists in those countries when those regimes took power, but 99.9 % of very poor BELIEVERS, who were sick and tired of promisses in „happy afterlife“.
    Communists/fascists promissed to ggive them LAND, to enable poor people to educate their children for free, they promissed a sort of „egalite“: land, school, bread, work, for everyone, and NOW, not AFTER one dies.
    After they took power, they did not want to have competition, and suppressed religions, but after poor people „sobered up“, it was too late to go back.

    What do you have to say for Germany? How many atheists were there in Germany when Hitler made his poisonous speeches?
    CHRISTIANS voted for him, not atheists!

    Do you think masses in China and Cuba, when their leaders started their revolutions, were atheistic masses? If you think so, you are wrong!
    There were NO atheists in China and Cuba at those times.

    ALL those criminal regimes come to power thanks to religious masses.
    Period.

  17. on 02 Nov 2011 at 2:23 am 17.Anonymous said …

    Suh, your question has been answered. That you didn’t like it, didn’t understand it, got in a tiff because it didn’t let you move the goalposts, is really your problem. Severin added detail for you, again it was beyond you because it didn’t provide fuel for your rant. Stick to the point, Suh, we’re not here to entertain your attempts to get on your hobby horse.

    Now, let’s get back to you on with providing evidence for your god and do show a cause and effect for Rostam’s claim. Come on, you have some evidence right? You’re not just taking the word of goat herders are you?

    By the way, seeing as you are so hot whining that people didn’t answer questions, will you please take on Horatiio, Biff, Ben, Megabyte, YOU, and the horde of theists who NEVER produce ANY evidence for their claims. Meanwhile, do enjoy playing with your little baby Jesus dolly and your other imaginary friends.

  18. on 02 Nov 2011 at 7:43 pm 18.Suh said …

    Anonymous,

    I didn’t question Rostams’s claim. I questioned your claim. I will invite you to read #14 again.

    If you cannot provide a reasoned response I will accept you submission on this matter.

  19. on 02 Nov 2011 at 7:45 pm 19.Suh said …

    Oh, I just read you last paragraph. Yes, an insult in order to change the subject. I have seen the childish tactic before. I am embarrassed for you.

    Again, back on point. If you cannot provide a reasoned response I will accept you submission on this matter.

  20. on 02 Nov 2011 at 8:34 pm 20.Lou (DFW) said …

    19.Suh said …

    “Again, back on point. If you cannot provide a reasoned response I will accept you submission on this matter.”

    Yes, let’s get “back on point.” The point is that neither you nor anybody else EVER provides evidence for your imaginary god.

    If you cannot provide a reasoned response we will accept your submission on this matter (the only relevant one), that is, you don’t have any evidence for god.

  21. on 02 Nov 2011 at 9:32 pm 21.Severin said …

    18 Suh
    “If you cannot provide a reasoned response I will accept you submission on this matter.“

    So, as you started some points and did not provide any response to MY responses, I can accept your submission on this matter?

    To show you my benevolence, I will give you one more chance:

    1. Where do YOU count people who believe in some sort of “universal spirit”, or “force” that might have contributed “creation”, and/or might have governed natural laws, but do not follow any religion, do not pray, do not believe in afterlife, do not belong to any congregation, do not take biblical bullshits seriously, …?
    I count them as very reasonable people.
    You?
    Do you count them as being on YOUR side?

    2. WHO brought so called „atheist regimes“ to power in Russia, China, Cuba, Germany…
    Together with all members of communist/fascist parties, there were NO atheists in those countries. So called „atheists“ were present in totally negligible numbers. One in thousand or less.
    WHO, then, fighted and died for „atheist“ regimes to bring them to power?

    Theists did! No one else was present but theists!
    THEIST BROUGHT “ATHEIS REGIMES” TO POWER!
    If it was not sad, it would be funny!

    I don’t really need your submission. I would prefer you to use your brain before you say something.

  22. on 02 Nov 2011 at 10:00 pm 22.DPK said …

    Suh, why do you insist that Anonymous has not answered your question, when clearly he has? It is right there in black and white. How dense are you?
    He did not point to China or North Korea in response to Rostam’s claim because he did not need to. It takes only one example to disprove the claim that the decline of religion in America is the cause of the “decline in morality, stature and greatness.”
    Sweden is an example of why that line of reasoning is not sound. You continuing to insist he hasn’t answered you really makes you look even more foolish.

  23. on 03 Nov 2011 at 8:07 pm 23.Biff said …

    “You still failed to answer the question of why you didn’t point to the USSR, Cuba and China as examples?”

    Because they are huge failures and they are state atheist regimes. I would like to hear more about his Sweden analysis. They are not a state atheist regime and I think he attempting to imply they are.

  24. on 03 Nov 2011 at 8:14 pm 24.Lou (DFW) said …

    3.Biff said …

    “Because they are huge failures and they are state atheist regimes. I would like to hear more about his Sweden analysis. They are not a state atheist regime and I think he attempting to imply they are.”

    I would like to read your evidence for your imaginary god rather than irrelevant comments about so-called “state atheist regime[s]” or a “Sweden analysis.”

    Do you have any?

  25. on 04 Nov 2011 at 4:09 am 25.DPK said …

    Point is, even if all atheists were completely immoral, baby killing monsters (they’re not) that still wouldn’t mean that your imaginary god actually exists. So, pointing to someplace like North Korea is just a diversion to keep the discussion away from the complete irrationality of belief in gods.

    The theists here seem to be saying that it is better to keep people in line by having them believe a fairy tale that to accept reality? Is that it? Well now you understand the foundation and ultimate goal of every religion… control.

    But the fact is, there are problems in religious states and there are problems in secular states, and there are good things in religious states and good things in secular states. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that there is no real relation between morality and religion in a population.

  26. on 04 Nov 2011 at 9:31 am 26.Severin said …

    23 Biff at al.
    „Because they are huge failures and they are state atheist regimes.“

    What, (the hell), are „atheist regimes“?
    a) Regimes that govern in countries with predominantly atheist population
    b) Regimes that were brought to power on blood of religious masses, who massively (and VOLUNTARILY) died for their promisses (unsupported by religious masses such regimes could only brake winds, they would never come to power), but turned suppressive/dictatorial, when took power (like Russia, China, Cuba…)?
    c) Regimes that were legaly ELECTED by Christian masses (Germany, Italy), and NEVER declared atheism as their guiding “philosophy”?
    d) else

    DEFINE „atheist regimes“, please, to enable us further discussion.
    I have to know what we are talking about, but I do not know what “atheist regimes” are.

    Define the term for us, please.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply