h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

You!! Intellectually superior

Careful you don't slip off your ego.

This post has been removed.

Under another nom du jour (my, don't you have a lot of them) and on another of your Personal Spaces (how many do you need?), you waxed lyrical about the fantastical career you had . Included was the post of manager at a whorehouse. That makes you a pimp.

My, my...you have developed quite a fantasy life about me, havent you?
Sorry. You're not my type.

And incidentally, I have no idea what you're gibbering about.

Now, can you let the people with something to say go on about their business?

Yes, yes. Religious people think they have better morals than the rest of us. Brilliant. Good boy. Now , run along.

The Americans do seem to hold a unique distaste for atheists: I've seen a couple of polls that say they'd be happier to vote for a gay person than an atheist. Less than 50% in an Economist poll said they'd vote for an atheist. Now, they've already elected a gay president (James Buchanan) and possibly an atheist too (Lincoln's faith is very unclear) but that doesn't mean they'll do it again.

I'm only speculating here, but it might be down to the whole "One nation, under God, indivisible" part of the pledge of allegiance (sp? I tried about half-a-dozen different ones and they all look wrong). If a person doesn't believe in a god, then they can't be truly American.

What really worried me in the McCain/Obama debate was McCain's line about Obama being so liberal, he was too far to the left to work with. That really bothered me: in a country that was founded on the basis of liberal democracy, liberalism itself is being equated with socialism. What was even worse was that Obama didn't even try to fight the point, he just allowed it.

Now now...this is a discussion forum. Some rather obviously answered almost rheotorical questions are often asked to move the thread along and even obvious questions can get interesting answers i.e. my reply above...an actual quote from a religious person stating they were taught to think that athiests are immoral people.

Alot of things are 'taken as read' by some people i.e. what has just happened with the put down reply by sayamalu BUT we shouldn't really be 'taking it as read' we should be trying to get some evidence that it is the case otherwise it is just supposition...my contribution gives SWL's question credence...and we can now ask: Why do they think we are immoral, evil creatures?

The person quoted in my post had 'taken it as read' as they had been told/taught that but having been on the JREF site realised that athiests aren't...does that make him a fool, an idiot or just misinformed/lied to/too trusting?

Some background on that line which is 50years old...and Palin says of which 'if it was good enough for the founding fathers'...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E04E1DA153EF934A15755C0A9649C8B63

That's only 50 years old?! I had no idea.

It's a tad older than that. It was written toward the end of the 19th Century. In the early 1890's I believe.

Certainly not as Palin seems to think in the revolutionary period.

I'll check

Yup, Palin's got her head up her flag again.

1892. Nothing whatever to do with the "founding fathers".

In fact, sentiments expressed in a completely different time by completely different people.

It's the 'in God we trust' bit which is only 50years old yes the rest is older.

Yes, I agree with both points.

1) Palin needs to know more about what she uses to justify extreme positions, and

2) The religious right is a relatively new phenomenon in the dominance of US politics. The "founding fathers" would be appalled at what has become of their rational liberal experiment in democracy.

They were atheists and came right out and said so. They were nominally and conventionally adherents to some form of xtianity as a matter of form; they had not yet established the secular society they envisioned. But that such a society is what they had in mind is absolutely clear.

"When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3)"

A principle that appears to be breached in many elections in the US.

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

Unofficially, at least. The public seems to demand it, if the regulations don't.

There, now. See, you can do it!

Ah look, you managed to post one whole line of a response without being abusive.

Then you managed to spoil it. You just can't help yourself can you?

Sort of shot your bolt with that one half-reasonable post did you? Your last one contains nothing but...what was your word? ...oh, yes...abuse.

Go back, look something up, consult a grammar book, then give it another go...we're all rooting for you!

Get over yourself.

<>

Time out, people...usually your bruhahas are relatively entertaining now it's just abuse...back to your corners...

sayamalu, you can be interesting, controversial, entertaining, and make people think. So why are you instead being boring and insulting?

SWL, leave the kid alone. He obviously can't help himself.

TRiG.