Atheist Billboard Slams Romney's Faith

[-0-]

Taken from here: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/21/atheist-billboard-attacks-romneys-faith-but-mormons-say-its-misleading/?hpt=hp_t2

Washington (CNN) – When he campaigns in southern Florida on Monday, Mitt Romney will have an unwelcome traveling partner: a mobile billboard attacking his religion.

The billboard on wheels, sponsored by American Atheists, attacks the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for its treatment of African-Americans and gays, though the church says the attacks are inaccurate.

The billboard, which American Atheists says will follow the Romney campaign for seven days, features two messages on Mormonism: “No Blacks Allowed (until 1978)” and “No Gays Allowed (Current).”

The first line is a reference to the church’s practice of denying lay priesthood to black male members until 1978.

Though the church did not allow black male members to be ordained before that year – when the church head says he received a revelation to reverse the policy – it did allow blacks and members of all racial and ethnic groups to be church members. According to The Second Book of Nephi, a part of Mormon doctrine, “Black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God.”

The billboard’s second line refers to what American Atheists President David Silverman says is the religion's “intolerance” and “bigotry” when it comes to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

But the church denies such categorizations. It accepts gay members, though church doctrine condemning homosexuality has not changed and the church strongly opposes same-sex marriage. Some gay rights activists say the church is subtly growing friendlier toward the LGBT community, including voicing support for some gay rights.

"People are surely free to disagree with us on the facts," Dale Jones, a church spokesman, wrote in an e-mail to CNN. "This group seems not to know that there have been black members of the Church since our earliest history, and there are many faithful gay members of the Church today."

Jones continued: "We would be happy to introduce the (American Atheists president) to any of our millions of members of different ethnicity who would be happy to educate him on our racial diversity."

Silverman denies the billboard, which is costing the group $8,000, is an attack on Romney specifically. A spokeswoman for the Romney campaign said she would not comment on the sign.

“Nobody seems to be talking about the implications of having a very religious Mormon president,” Silverman said. “There are a lot of things about Mormons that people don’t know, including the fact that racism is an important part of their dogma.”

The LDS Church has largely tried to stay out of the politics surrounding the presidential campaign, even though it has received increased attention due to Romney’s candidacy. This billboard, writes Jones, is "obviously" about the "personal politics" of American Atheists.

"We have consistently kept out of the political campaign," Jones wrote. "People can see this (billboard) for what it is."

American Atheists has a long history in using billboards to call out religion and get its message out. During the political conventions in August and September, the group put up billboards attacking Mormonism and Christianity, taking aim at the faith of both presidential candidates.

This mobile billboard, however, is a departure from the standard American Atheist tactic of multiple billboards on multiple religions. According to Silverman, this is because Romney’s faith hasn’t been addressed enough in the 2012 election.

“We all understand the implications of having a Christian president. We do not understand the implications of having a Mormon president,” Silverman said. “We are not taking a position on the election, we are taking a stance on ignorance.”

I'd like to remind everyone of Christopher Hitchens' comments on the subject on slate.com: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2011/10/is_mormonism_a_cult_who_cares_it_s_their_weird_and_sinister_beli.html

Genghiz Cohen

Well the billboard is inaccurate....
Or at the very least misleading.

Beruthiel

Hitchens wrote:

Since Romney comes from a dynasty of his church, and spent much of his boyhood and manhood first as a missionary and then as a senior lay official—it is safe to assume that the influence is not small

It makes me very uncomfortable when someone in a position of great power strongly believes in fairy tales.
All appendages crossed that Romney fails miserably in the upcoming election!

Gbear

Beruthiel wrote: »

It makes me very uncomfortable when someone in a position of great power strongly believes in fairy tales.
All appendages crossed that Romney fails miserably in the upcoming election!

And it's depressing that the only challenger still says "God Bless 'Murica" every other sentence as well, either because he believes it (which seems the most plausible, given there's no evidence to suggest otherwise) or because he's a liar.

[-0-]

Beruthiel wrote: »

It makes me very uncomfortable when someone in a position of great power strongly believes in fairy tales.
All appendages crossed that Romney fails miserably in the upcoming election!

There's a large enough number of people who don't want another four years of Barry O. It's a tragedy that their only alternative is Romney.

It's a big problem for Obama as well. The Republicans refuse to work with him and set out from day one to make him a one term president. They said he was trying to do too much two years ago, so they started denying everything he tried to pass - even when they were policies the Republicans initially came up with. Now in their campaign they are saying he hasn't done enough. It's ridiculous and people have very short memories here. It is a very distinct possibility that Romney will be the next president, and that scares the crap out of me because I live in the states.

[-0-]

[-0-] wrote: »

There's a large enough number of people who don't want another four years of Barry O. It's a tragedy that their only alternative is Romney.

Gary Johnson is on the ballot papers for most states, so no, their only alternative is not Romney.

[-0-]

bluewolf wrote: »

Gary Johnson is on the ballot papers for most states, so no, their only alternative is not Romney.

He was a Republican before 2011 and became a Libertarian simply because Romney was going to get the Republican slot.

While you are technically correct, he has no chance of being considered. None.

[-0-]

[-0-] wrote: »

He was a Republican before 2011 and became a Libertarian simply because Romney was going to get the Republican slot.

While you are technically correct, he has no chance of being considered. None.

He was Lib all along, just decided to run independently this time round.

Maybe, but if every fed up person who sighed "I don't want Obama but I don't want Romney either so I suppose I'll vote Obama" (etc) did something about it and went with GJ, it might make a difference
Not that I expect him to ever win this, just wanted to point out it's not A or B

The Mad Hatter

bluewolf wrote: »

Gary Johnson is on the ballot papers for most states, so no, their only alternative is not Romney.

The only credible alternative, then. There'll have to be a major overhaul of electoral politics in the US before any third party candidate stands a chance. It's a shame, really.

[-0-]

bluewolf wrote: »

He was Lib all along, just decided to run independently this time round.

Maybe, but if every fed up person who sighed "I don't want Obama but I don't want Romney either so I suppose I'll vote Obama" (etc) did something about it and went with GJ, it might make a difference

Yeah, GJ would get the annoyed-white-voters-who-don't-want-Obama, and that might make up a couple of percent.

Are you sure he was lib all along? Wikipedia says the following:

Political party Libertarian (2011–present)
Other political
affiliations Republican Party (before 2011)

[-0-]

[-0-] wrote: »

Yeah, GJ would get the annoyed-white-voters-who-don't-want-Obama, and that might make up a couple of percent.

Are you sure he was lib all along? Wikipedia says the following:

Personal libertarian afaik. Look at his governing of NM

Johnson served as the 29th Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003, as a member of the Republican Party, and is known for his low-tax libertarian views and his strong emphasis on personal health and fitness

Johnson announced his candidacy for President on April 21, 2011, as a Republican,[12] on a libertarian platform emphasizing the United States public debt and a balanced budget

Gbear

bluewolf wrote: »

He was Lib all along, just decided to run independently this time round.

Maybe, but if every fed up person who sighed "I don't want Obama but I don't want Romney either so I suppose I'll vote Obama" (etc) did something about it and went with GJ, it might make a difference
Not that I expect him to ever win this, just wanted to point out it's not A or B

I suppose the fear is that if Liberals did this they'd split Obama's vote, Johnson wouldn't get within a million miles and Mittens would win.

Given what a completely demented turn the Republican party has taken over the past few years it's far more important that they don't have power than it is important that Democrats do.

Beruthiel

[-0-] wrote: »

There's a large enough number of people who don't want another four years of Barry O. It's a tragedy that their only alternative is Romney.

This is what confounds me.
The size of America, the amount of people living there, how is it, that they cannot produce someone with half a brain as a candidate for the opposition?
Clearly, there is something very wrong with the way America runs it's elections.

[-0-]

bluewolf wrote: »

Personal libertarian afaik. Look at his governing of NM

Johnson served as the 29th Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003, as a member of the Republican Party, and is known for his low-tax libertarian views and his strong emphasis on personal health and fitness

Johnson announced his candidacy for President on April 21, 2011, as a Republican,[12] on a libertarian platform emphasizing the United States public debt and a balanced budget

Why the hell isn't he involved in the presidential debates?

[-0-]

Beruthiel wrote: »

This is what confounds me.
The size of America, the amount of people living there, how is it, that they cannot produce someone with half a brain as a candidate for the opposition?
Clearly, there is something very wrong with the way America runs it's elections.

The political system here is terrible Ruthie. Granted it can be crap in Ireland as well but at least we have several groups to chose from. When I tell friends and fellow proletarians how it works back home they are shocked at how bad it is here. Most people here don't really consider how things are run elsewhere unfortunately.

[-0-]

[-0-] wrote: »

Why the hell isn't he involved in the presidential debates?

They ruled him out - he's got a prominent judge to speak out and say it should never have been allowed to bar him. He has been fairly actively campaigning from what I can see on his FB updates, but they're doing their best to pretend there's only 2 candidates.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/10/01/two-sponsors-pull-out-from-debates-over-exclusion-of-gary-johnson-
At least two of the original sponsors of the 2012 presidential debates have pulled their support over the exclusion of Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson, arguing that the commission which runs the debates is locked into a two-party outlook.

Open Debate and Johnson supporters have been sounding the alarm for months that they believed the commission was too loyal to the Republican and Democratic parties....

The commission, which was created by the two parties in 1987...

PopePalpatine

The only solution to this duopoly is the introduction of Proportional Representation or Alternate Voting to the USA. Fat chance of that happening.

[-0-]

bluewolf wrote: »

They ruled him out - he's got a prominent judge to speak out and say it should never have been allowed to bar him. He has been fairly actively campaigning from what I can see on his FB updates, but they're doing their best to pretend there's only 2 candidates.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/10/01/two-sponsors-pull-out-from-debates-over-exclusion-of-gary-johnson-
At least two of the original sponsors of the 2012 presidential debates have pulled their support over the exclusion of Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson, arguing that the commission which runs the debates is locked into a two-party outlook.

Open Debate and Johnson supporters have been sounding the alarm for months that they believed the commission was too loyal to the Republican and Democratic parties....

The commission, which was created by the two parties in 1987...

I'm so frustrated right now.

[-0-]

I'm told it's majority candidates only, and it has always been that way. The yanks don't have a true representative democracy, they have a two party hegemony. The mind boggles.

Yep.
I think larry king is to host another third party one, and GJ seems to have responses to the debates on his own website

Sierra 117

bluewolf wrote: »

The commission, which was created by the two parties in 1987...

No conflict of interest there then.

joseph brand

Gbear wrote: »

And it's depressing that the only challenger still says "God Bless 'Murica" every other sentence as well, either because he believes it (which seems the most plausible, given there's no evidence to suggest otherwise) or because he's a liar.

I think he says "God Bless 'Murica", as little as possible. He never expands on the point or gets carried away in religious rhetoric (see Santorum, Bachmann, Gingrich, Perry, Palin)

As America's first black president, and considering it's a religious country, with plenty of redneck racists, it would be a bold step to announce his lack of faith.

As long as he keeps that mormon weirdo 'Robme' and his whipper snapper sidekick Ryan out of the White House, he can sing "Praise the Lawd, Hallelujah" all day long.
Far better than a mormon bishop and an Ayn Rand fanboy.

jank

joseph brand wrote: »

I think he says "God Bless 'Murica", as little as possible. He never expands on the point or gets carried away in religious rhetoric (see Santorum, Bachmann, Gingrich, Perry, Palin)

As America's first black president, and considering it's a religious country, with plenty of redneck racists, it would be a bold step to announce his lack of faith.

As long as he keeps that mormon weirdo 'Robme' and his whipper snapper sidekick Ryan out of the White House, he can sing "Praise the Lawd, Hallelujah" all day long.
Far better than a mormon bishop and an Ayn Rand fanboy.

I love this hypocrisy. Romney is the big bad wolf because he is a Morman, yet by all intents and purposes Obama is just as religious as him yet he gets a free pass because he suits your political view more. Cant make this up.

What did Joe Biden say in the VP debate, "Religion makes me the person I am"
Yet everyone loves a bit of Joe!!

If you were consistent then you would be pouring scorn over both of them rather than singling out one party for criticism.

Sierra 117

Sierra 117 wrote: »

No conflict of interest there then.

The two parties exist symbiotically. There's been cases where they'll collude to gerrymander states so no-one currently "in" will lose out.

The Mad Hatter

Actually, related to this discussion, an organisation called Free & Equal have set up a debate* between the third-party candidates, moderated by Larry King.





*Warning: hideous website alert

robindch

jank wrote: »

Romney is the big bad wolf because he is a Morman

One 'm' too many in that last word, jank.

Galvasean

Beruthiel wrote: »

This is what confounds me.
The size of America, the amount of people living there, how is it, that they cannot produce someone with half a brain as a candidate for the opposition?
Clearly, there is something very wrong with the way America runs it's elections.

It's not really that confounding. There are a lot of stupid people out there who vote. They don't want some smartypants running the show and making them feel simple. They want to vote for someone who reminds them of themselves - someone stupid.

ShooterSF

I don't have any reason to doubt Obama's religiousness nor would it gain him any added respect if I found out privately that he was a non-believer for then he would just be another example of liars and crowd pleasers that seems to make up a lot of successful political careers. Democracy only works properly when the people you and I elect are at least honest in their convictions even if we take no joy in the convictions of the people that eventually get elected.

The Mad Hatter

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Actually, related to this discussion, an organisation called Free & Equal have set up a debate* between the third-party candidates, moderated by Larry King.





*Warning: hideous website alert

That's what I saiiiiid!

The Mad Hatter

bluewolf wrote: »

That's what I saiiiiid!

Missed that - sorry.

joseph brand

jank wrote: »

I love this hypocrisy. Romney is the big bad wolf because he is a Morman, yet by all intents and purposes Obama is just as religious as him yet he gets a free pass because he suits your political view more. Cant make this up.

What did Joe Biden say in the VP debate, "Religion makes me the person I am"
Yet everyone loves a bit of Joe!!

If you were consistent then you would be pouring scorn over both of them rather than singling out one party for criticism.

Firstly, mormonism is a cult. They believe in blood atonement amongst other stuff. Plus, didn't Romney christen Ann's dead Atheist father, around 14 months after he was dead? Normal behaviour, by Charles Manson's standards. What exactly has Obama done that's as crazy as this?

There's plenty of 'catholics' here in Ireland who are no more catholic than I. But a mormon is a mormon. There's no lapsed or laissez faire mormons. Don't the Romney sons look like androids? That blank mormon stare and plastic head? /shudder

Romney chose to omit mentioning his church/ cult for obvious reasons. Obama sees an advantage in using religious rhetoric, although it's the bare minimum.

Beruthiel

joseph brand wrote: »

Plus, didn't Romney christen Ann's dead Atheist father, around 14 months after he was dead?

I never knew that!
What an utterly shocking betrayal of a parent to just completely ignore the fact that he was a atheist.
Not to mention that it's just a bizarre thing to do.
Did they dig him up to perform the ceremony?

[-0-]

Beruthiel wrote: »

I never knew that!
What an utterly shocking betrayal of a parent to just completely ignore the fact that he was a atheist.
Not to mention that it's just a bizarre thing to do.
Did they dig him up to perform the ceremony?

Read this: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2011/10/is_mormonism_a_cult_who_cares_it_s_their_weird_and_sinister_beli.html

Nodin

jank wrote: »

I love this hypocrisy. Romney is the big bad wolf because he is a Morman, yet by all intents and purposes Obama is just as religious as him yet he gets a free pass because he suits your political view more. Cant make this up.

What did Joe Biden say in the VP debate, "Religion makes me the person I am"
Yet everyone loves a bit of Joe!!

If you were consistent then you would be pouring scorn over both of them rather than singling out one party for criticism.

When Obama becomes a Bishop, you might have a point.

General Relativity

jank wrote: »

yet by all intents and purposes Obama is just as religious as him yet he gets a free pass because he suits your political view more. Cant make this up.

I'd be shocked if Obama was anything other then atheist or agnostic. He was raised by two Athiests. The religious stuff is more then likely an act to win votes.

ShooterSF

Again though, being a liar is worse than being a christian.

Nodin

General Relativity wrote: »

I'd be shocked if Obama was anything other then atheist or agnostic. He was raised by two Athiests. The religious stuff is more then likely an act to win votes.

...it being America, its actually more likely an act not to lose them, unfortunately.

SpatialPlanning

joseph brand wrote: »

There's plenty of 'catholics' here in Ireland who are no more catholic than I. But a mormon is a mormon. There's no lapsed or laissez faire mormons. Don't the Romney sons look like androids? That blank mormon stare and plastic head? /shudder

Romney chose to omit mentioning his church/ cult for obvious reasons. Obama sees an advantage in using religious rhetoric, although it's the bare minimum.

I have no religious affiliation of any kind. I was raised Catholic :eek:

The bold part of your statement is untrue. Quite a large number of Mormons, especially younger Mormons, no longer buy into the strict rules and regulations of the Mormon faith. Many remain to simply be a part of a community. They will appear to tow the line as a way of keeping their more traditional parents/relatives happy. I think that many would choose to leave the religion if it wasn't so difficult for them to do so. Imagine - your entire family are mormon, your friends and entire social circle are all mormon, you probably went to a mormom school/church. If you break away from this you are starting anew. That takes some amount of bravery and courage. I don't agree with any part of the Mormon religion, as a religion. As a religion, I think it's a complete farce and I wonder how intelligent people can be so fooled by it. But, as people, they have many admirable personality traits. Among other things, they have strong family values and they are ambitious and look to succeed in a personal and professional sense.

The underlined part of your statement probably says more about you than it does about them.

[-0-]

ShooterSF wrote: »

Again though, being a liar is worse than being a christian.

I'm sorry but, being a Christian is being a liar. At least Creationists believe the bible word for word. Christians cherry pick the good stuff and ignore the bad stuff by covering their eyes and ears and shouting "LALALALALALALA OLD TESTAMENT NONSENSE LALALALALALA".

ShooterSF

[-0-] wrote: »

I'm sorry but, being a Christian is being a liar. At least Creationists believe the bible word for word. Christians cherry pick the good stuff and ignore the bad stuff by covering their eyes and ears and shouting "LALALALALALALA OLD TESTAMENT NONSENSE LALALALALALA".

No it's self delusion. They honestly believe the bits they believe and not the bit's they don't. It's insane, weird but honest. Not that all religious people are honest about everything.

I just think for democracy to work properly, as in to give an honest representation of what the public want in a government people running for elections can't lie about what they believe. It's a hollow victory if the type of person you'd like to see get elected does so by duping a large portion of the electorate that wanted a different kind of person. And I can't support a dishonest action just because the ends justify the means or other such crap.

Now I'm not saying Obama is an atheist, I'm saying if he is and chose to hide it to get elected I'd actually think less of him, not more.

[-0-]

ShooterSF wrote: »

No it's self delusion. They honestly believe the bits they believe and not the bit's they don't. It's insane, weird but honest. Not that all religious people are honest about everything.

I dunno man. I believe they are just lying to themselves. My wife is Christian, and she lived in Tennessee from 8 years old until she was 22. Her family are from New York but they bought a farm down south and moved there. She was fairly devout when I met her, and the more we speak about religion and the bible the more she is seeing through the lies, and fabrications. Now, I'm not trying to turn her into a non believer. I'm just trying to show her an outside view because it's the way she was brought up and she never thought about things too deeply - for example if she was born in India she might be a Hindu, and her best friend is a Hindu so is she going to hell? And so on.

However, when we talk about the Bible she will openly say that they just concentrate on the New Testament in her church, and they actually only concentrate on the good parts as well. She brings her bible to Church and makes notes in it and she hasn't ever read the Old Testament. I showed her a few passages which say stuff like if a man shaves his face it's punishable by death and if a woman who marries isn't a virgin she should be killed. When pushed she admitted that she had looked in the Old Testament but it was too crazy that she ignored it. So she knows the bad stuff that is there, and she's just lying to herself by ignoring it.

Deep down I think they all know how nuts it is, but they're just terrified of the alternative of having no God, and they just love the thought of there being one.

Church is also a social event for lots of people. I met people down there who go to Church and aren't believers, they do it simply to meet people because they might live 5 miles from the nearest person.

The Bishop!

Funnily enough, when you look at all the Presidential candidates, the biggest fruitcake of the lot of them and the most dangerous in my view is also the least religious - Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party.

The Ayn Rand fan who wants to dismantle public healthcare, education and welfare. The man who wants to completely deregulate financial markets, abolish workers rights including minimum wage and child labour laws, abolish environmental regulations like cap-and-trade that control industrial pollution, slash taxes on corporations and the super-rich, cut off foreign aid, abolish all gun control laws.

As they say in the States, "go figure". I'd personally recommend voting for a candidate based on their policies and not their religious affiliations or lack thereof.

Nodin

The Bishop! wrote: »

Funnily enough, when you look at all the Presidential candidates, the biggest fruitcake of the lot of them and the most dangerous in my view is also the least religious - Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party.

The Ayn Rand fan who wants to dismantle public healthcare, education and welfare. The man who wants to completely deregulate financial markets, abolish workers rights including minimum wage and child labour laws, abolish environmental regulations like cap-and-trade that control industrial pollution, slash taxes on corporations and the super-rich, cut off foreign aid, abolish all gun control laws.

As they say in the States, "go figure". I'd personally recommend voting for a candidate based on their policies and not their religious affiliations or lack thereof.

...and if their religous affiliation determines their policies.....? Nobody gives a crap what Biden believes, because he's not going to be responsible for trying to ram it down peoples throats.

Gbear

General Relativity wrote: »

I'd be shocked if Obama was anything other then atheist or agnostic. He was raised by two Athiests. The religious stuff is more then likely an act to win votes.

I think atheists just lie to themselves and try to pretend Obama isn't religious.

Isn't the church he belonged to totally bat****?

The stigma that atheism faces in the US is an utter farce .
An awful lot of Republican representatives are an embarrassment to our species. How rotten does an institution have to get for so many Republicans to be either so incredibly ignorant or so incredibly cynical if they don't believe the utter infantile bollocks that they constantly spew?
I also don't get how people other than Fox and their zealots continue to refer to them as the Grand Old Party. Anachronistic Ignorant **** would be more apt.

America really represents the very best and very worst of humanity.

The Bishop!

Nodin wrote: »

Nobody gives a crap what Biden believes, because he's not going to be responsible for trying to ram it down peoples throats.

This is true. He's leaving his beliefs at the door so to speak. That's how it should be.

jank

General Relativity wrote: »

I'd be shocked if Obama was anything other then atheist or agnostic. He was raised by two Athiests. The religious stuff is more then likely an act to win votes.

No, they were not Athiests and anyway if they were does that mean one is automatically an athiest if raised by one?
I suppose when he was in his 20's he was "forced" to go to christian religious services as he knew one day he would be POTUS?

joseph brand

SpatialPlanning wrote: »

I have no religious affiliation of any kind. I was raised Catholic :eek:

The bold part of your statement is untrue. Quite a large number of Mormons, especially younger Mormons, no longer buy into the strict rules and regulations of the Mormon faith. Many remain to simply be a part of a community. They will appear to tow the line as a way of keeping their more traditional parents/relatives happy. I think that many would choose to leave the religion if it wasn't so difficult for them to do so. Imagine - your entire family are mormon, your friends and entire social circle are all mormon, you probably went to a mormom school/church. If you break away from this you are starting anew. That takes some amount of bravery and courage. I don't agree with any part of the Mormon religion, as a religion. As a religion, I think it's a complete farce and I wonder how intelligent people can be so fooled by it. But, as people, they have many admirable personality traits. Among other things, they have strong family values and they are ambitious and look to succeed in a personal and professional sense.

The underlined part of your statement probably says more about you than it does about them.

Polygamy.

Romney's great-grandfather Miles Park Romney, "came to the Chihuahua desert in 1885 seeking refuge from U.S. anti-polygamy laws."

A man havin' himself six wives and fifty kids. That there's real family values! If there's one thing a woman loves, it's sharing her husband with another woman. Perhaps some female posters on here can back me up?



Look at the joy in their faces. That has to be a coloured photo from the 1880's, surely?

Is it only mormons who "look to succeed in a personal and professional sense"?
The mormon church wants to sell it's silly fairy tales to anyone gullible enough to part with 10% of their wages. Romney converted Ann, her siblings, her mother and then her dead Atheist father to the mormon cult. Plus, he's a mormon bishop, for christ's god's heaven's Pete's sake crying out loud.

For anyone interested in mormons fighting the Mexican drug cartels, featuring Romney's relatives:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpIyaIHsJbc

Vice magazine is excellent. They report from some very scary places.

joseph brand

Gbear wrote: »

I think atheists just lie to themselves and try to pretend Obama isn't religious.

Isn't the church he belonged to totally bat****?

The stigma that atheism faces in the US is an utter farce .
An awful lot of Republican representatives are an embarrassment to our species. How rotten does an institution have to get for so many Republicans to be either so incredibly ignorant or so incredibly cynical if they don't believe the utter infantile bollocks that they constantly spew?
I also don't get how people other than Fox and their zealots continue to refer to them as the Grand Old Party. Anachronistic Ignorant **** would be more apt.

America really represents the very best and very worst of humanity.

Obama is for gay marriage.

Free contraception for women provision of Obama health care law starts today [August 1, 2012]

We Atheists think Obama is also an Atheist because of, HOPE! There's probably some good old wishful thinking in there too. As long as he doesn't start any holy wars, proclaim that gays make baby jesus cry, or tell rape victims about their ability to self abort.

His mother was raised by non-practicing Christians; his father was raised a Muslim but was an atheist by the time he had married Obama's mother. Obama's step-father was also Muslim, but of an eclectic kind who could make room for animist and Hindu beliefs. Neither Obama nor his mother were ever atheists, but she raised him in a relatively secular household where he learned about religion.

For further reading, see here.

Jimoslimos

The Bishop! wrote: »

Funnily enough, when you look at all the Presidential candidates, the biggest fruitcake of the lot of them and the most dangerous in my view is also the least religious - Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party.

The Ayn Rand fan who wants to dismantle public healthcare, education and welfare. The man who wants to completely deregulate financial markets, abolish workers rights including minimum wage and child labour laws, abolish environmental regulations like cap-and-trade that control industrial pollution, slash taxes on corporations and the super-rich, cut off foreign aid, abolish all gun control laws.

As they say in the States, "go figure". I'd personally recommend voting for a candidate based on their policies and not their religious affiliations or lack thereof.

I've said it before and been slated for it but I'd rather a religious Rep/Dem president than an atheist Libertarian.

Beruthiel

joseph brand wrote: »

If there's one thing a woman loves, it's sharing her husband with another woman. Perhaps some female posters on here can back me up?

Ya joseph.
Us wimmins are so placid and altruistic, we'd have no problem with that at all.

SpatialPlanning

joseph brand wrote: »

Polygamy.


A man havin' himself six wives and fifty kids. That there's real family values! If there's one thing a woman loves, it's sharing her husband with another woman. Perhaps some female posters on here can back me up?



Look at the joy in their faces. That has to be a coloured photo from the 1880's, surely?

Is it only mormons who "look to succeed in a personal and professional sense"?
The mormon church wants to sell it's silly fairy tales to anyone gullible enough to part with 10% of their wages. Romney converted Ann, her siblings, her mother and then her dead Atheist father to the mormon cult. Plus, he's a mormon bishop, for christ's god's heaven's Pete's sake crying out loud.

For anyone interested in mormons fighting the Mexican drug cartels, featuring Romney's relatives:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpIyaIHsJbc

Vice magazine is excellent. They report from some very scary places.

1. Polygamy isn't a reality for, or a belief of, the majority of mormons. Exactly how many mormons do you know? What are you basing your opinions on? I never had any interactions with mormons up until the last year but my experience of their religion and culture allows me to make these observations.

2. Again, commenting on a photo and assuming it's representative of a larger group adds nothing to this discussion other than defining you a little more.

3. I didn't say that it was only mormons who have admirable traits. Your point here is moot.

If you are going to argue a point then please at least try to use some sore of reasoning and rational for your arguments. State your point, not sensationalist babble, then back it up by facts or your own experiences.

Again, I don't agree with the religion. I could give many specific examples of why that is - degrees of heaven, founded by a fraud, "worthiness", specific teachings and interpretations of the bible, their insistence that their members don't intentionally research anything negative or questioning about their faith...etc. I could go into more depth on a personal level about other disagreements I have had in my interactions but I don't see the need or point here. I am not religious and I see as many inconsistencies/untruths/lies/outrageous beliefs in almost every other religion.

So, I absolutely stand by my previous post. But if you disagree with me then by all means explain why...