Opposing Views: GOP Atheist Tells Michael Steele to Divorce Religious Right

GOP Atheist Tells Michael Steele to Divorce Religious Right

Opinion by American Atheists
(January 31, 2009) in Politics / Obama Presidency

The Republican National Committee chose Michael Steele as its new party chairman on Friday. A former lieutenant governor of Maryland, Steele becomes the first African-American to lead the GOP.

David Silverman of American Atheists had this response:

I am a Republican Atheist, but I haven't voted for a Republican since Christie Whitman because I haven't been able to do so.

I believe in gun rights, a small government, low taxes, and a strong military. I believe the unions can be just as corrupt as corporations, and I believe in "workfare not welfare".

But I can't vote Republican, ever, because they have become tools of the Religious Right. They are, in my opinion, much more concerned about Intelligent Design, Faith-Based Initiatives, and making ME a 2nd class citizen than any of the issues on which we agree.

I support President Obama, but I really had no choice but to vote for him as Senator McCain had promised more Supreme Court Justices like Scalia. That was a deal killer. It would be like a black person voting for someone who supports segregation -- it doesn't matter what else a candidate says, it's just not going to happen.

So here is my open plea to the incoming GOP President Michael Steele: Please give me my party back. Divorce yourselves from the corruption that is the Religious Right, and return to the values that gave you strength. Religion and politics don't mix -- please learn that. Please be a leader of change, diversity, and modern common sense. Please let me vote Republican, or at least let me give you serious consideration, in the next elections. There can be no change if you give us no choice.

POST YOUR COMMENTS BELOW

Regarding Opinion

That's the problem with Atheists.

Atheists are so black and white....but what's worse is they generally failure to recognize their atheism *is* their religion.

- writenow February 1, 2009 10:43PM

Reply to this Recommend (1)

Thank You for your Comment

We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
That's the problem with being clueless

First, atheism isn't a religion. It's a position on an issue, namely that god claims are unwarranted.

Regardless, let's pretend for a moment that atheism is a religion. Was the author's complaint over the Republican party hitching its wagon to a specific religion? No, his complaint was over it subverting its core principles in favor of taking up the banner of a religion. The specific religion is irrelevant.

Whether you're religious or not, you have to see the detriment to hitching your party to a religion. This is why our Founders created a secular constitution, to free government from the entanglement with and the influence from and on religion.

So please 'writenow' and anyone else looking to comment, please take some time first to both educate yourself on the facts and to determine what's actually the subject of the article.

Thanks.

- PhillyChief February 7, 2009 10:16AM

Reply to this Recommend (1)

Thank You for your Comment

We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Religion
  
  A religion is defined as "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience". Technically speaking, this could apply to a diet , book club, or excercise program. I don't see how Atheism is magically immune. That's not to say that all Atheists are RELIGIOUS Atheists, just that the possibility exists.
  
  I don't see how 'hitching your party to a religion' is detrimental. Eighty percent of Americans claim some kind of religious belief. If a political party could get ahold of even a part of that majority, they'd be a force to be reckoned with.
  
  You can't divorce the government from religion completely; it's impractical. Most of our morals and ethics can be traced back to religions. Why is murder wrong ? Because the Bible, Torah, Koran, and many other religious documents say so. To remove the religious context from our laws may mean anarchy. If murder and theft are only bad because religion says so, what happens when you take everything related to religion out of the equation? Murder and theft, of course, because it's no longer wrong.
  
  The founders wrote in the federalist papers that political parties should be outlawed, or at least highly discouraged. If every seperation they wanted went into law , the world would be a different place.
  
  Relating to the article, I've found that most 'non-religious conservatives ' are actually Libertarians when they stop to compare their ideals. That's what happened to me, anyway.
  
  - nyahplay June 3, 2010 4:32AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (1)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Wrong on multiple counts
    
    First, that broad definition of religion then makes most activities a religion which makes the word almost meaningless; however, the word isn't meaningless, is it? The meaning people have for the word religion is most definitely one of a spiritual nature involving faith and almost exclusively, a deity. So what you're essentially doing is a bait and switch, where you're using one definition to label something a religion in order to then use the other definition. That's at best an error on your part, at worst, an attempt at deception.
    
    Second, even with your broad definition, atheism doesn't necessarily apply. For most atheists , it's not a belief, but rather a response to claim.
    Believer: There's a god!
    Atheist: Really? Where's your evidence?
    Believer: Well....
    Atheist: I see no reason to accept your claim.
    
    If there's anything to believe in, it's the need for evidence to make a decision (ie - looking both ways before crossing the street) like whether or not to accept a claim (ie - Nigerian email scam). I suppose you could call requiring evidence something one could "follow devotedly", but then that would be the religion, an atheism would be a result of that, so you'd be wrong again labeling atheism a religion.
    
    In response to your claim that you can't divorce the government from religion completely, our government is secular and was founded as such. There is not to be ANY mingling of religion and government. Our Founders realized the inherent tyranny in having such a marriage , as evidenced by the nations of the time, and the divisiveness of religion due to how passionately various believers hold to their differing beliefs which are often at irreconcilable odds with one another. There is no god in our Constitution, and where religion appears, there's a no before it.
    
    As for your claim about murder , one doesn't need religion to understand that murder is wrong, but religion certainly has a way of making one believe it's right. Also, the Sumerians had a code of laws in which murder was a capital crime . Virtually every culture had murder laws which didn't involve deities, although the government might have invoked a deity as a way to legitimize its right to impose such laws. This is actually what nations such as England did at the time of our Revolution, and why Jefferson invoked a god in the Declaration, to undermine the King's claim of having the right to tyrannize the colonies and all British subjects. Again, this is why no god appears in the Constitution, for there was no longer any need.
    
    YouMadeMeSayIt.com
    
    - PhillyChief June 3, 2010 8:35AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Just out of curiosity
      
      What say you to this line of debate?
      
      http://www.opposingviews.com/comments/lol--169
      
      - ecuadmail June 3, 2010 10:04PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Not a debate
        
        That's not debate, it's the rants of a lunatic.
        
        - PhillyChief June 4, 2010 7:02AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        You guys
        
        should have a discussion. I'd love to read it :D
        
        - ecuadmail June 4, 2010 5:58PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Maybe we're not on the same page...
      
      I believe that it is a legitimate definition; it's the dictionary's, not mine. Perhaps the meaning of religion and the things that you tend to associate with the word religion are unrelated; that doesn't mean that the definition I quoted is wrong , but rather that your idealization is.
      
      Try thinking about it this way:
      "Do I believe that God does not exist?"
      If the answer is yes, you have fulfilled the first part of the definiton.
      "Do I feel a strong attachment to this view?"
      If the answer to this is also yes, you have fulfilled both parts of the definition of religion (devotion being defined as "Feeling or displaying strong affection or attachment").
      
      Once again, I point out that this does not include all atheists . If you are willing to be pursueded that a higher power MIGHT exist then you are not a 'religious' atheist , and are most likely either completely unsure of what you think or agnostic.
      
      Secondly, no religious person is just going to sit there when asked for evidence of god's existance and say "well...". They'll spout evidence of multiple miraculous occurances in the past and current times. Whether or not to ignore this is your choice, but they firmly belive that they HAVE evidence, or they wouldn't believe in their religion themselves.
      
      Thirdly, I don't belive that the government was made to be completely secular; it is illegal to have a national religion but state, county and local religions are fine, and occured in a number of cases in the years following the signing of the Constitution.
      
      The Sumerians believed that their four highest gods, Enki, Ki, Enlil, and An wrote their laws . This is another example of morality derived from religion. Whether they acknowledge it or not, most (if not all) societies derive their laws from ethics that were handed down by dieties.
      
      - nyahplay June 5, 2010 7:33PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (1)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - You're not following me
        
        You didn't grasp a word I wrote. I said you're using one definition to get atheism labelled a religion so you can then treat it as a religion by another definition. That's called equivocation.
        
        No one should be willing to be "persuaded" that a god exists; however, if you can provide evidence that one exists, then your claim might have merit. "Miraculous occurrences" are not evidence, they're more claims which require evidence. The fact that someone believes they have evidence is meaningless to anyone but themselves. I believe I'll win the lottery. Is that evidence that I will?
        
        Whether you believe the government was established as a secular government or not has no bearing on the fact that it was.
        
        Unless you're going to argue that the Sumerian gods are or were real beings who created the laws , you've just agreed that an actual god isn't necessary for moral codes such as laws against murder . Now yes, those in power have claimed divine right to govern for a long time, which is precisely what our Founders rebelled against and why there's no god in our Constitution, for they saw the tyranny that results when a government or leader can claim divine right to do this or that.
        
        - PhillyChief June 5, 2010 10:10PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Sigh
        
        And you didn't read a word I wrote. Religion is religion . Just because you don't consider something a religion doesn't mean it isn't. It means you need to broaden your idea of what religion is. Every religion, including atheism , fits in the definition I provided. I am not trying to make atheism mean 'diety worship' because it isn't, but the meaning of religion isn't 'diety worship' either. When one uses the word 'religion' one puts foreward every definition thereof, unless you specify that you don't mean one definition or another.
        
        Many miraculous occurances are well documented. Children spontaneously recovering from lukemia (overnight, without any doctor intervention, even though specialists at multiple hospitals had confirmed the diagnosis) after being prayed over by their parents. Infirtle couples concieving with no discernable help (in at least one case, this involved spontaneous ovary regrowth). There are things that go on every day that we have no explanation for; maybe, one day, we'll find some scientific or mathmatical equation that will predict things like this happening, but until then you have no more evidence that it ISN'T God than I do that it is. Perhaps even less, since most of these occurances fly in the face of scientific possibility.
        
        You didn't address state religions, I see.
        
        Why can't the Sumerian Gods be real beings? The Sumerians certainly believed they were.
        
        - nyahplay June 15, 2010 1:45PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Documented but not verified
        
        There are a lot or miracle claims. If I claim something and write it down, it's documented. So what? That's not evidence for anything so no, there is no evidence of miracles and really, how could there be? A mystery is just that, a mystery. If something unexplainable happened, exactly how would you prove that was due to your god as opposed to intergalactic gnomes?
        
        I didn't address state religions because that was never part of the discussion.
        
        I think if you're going to resort to arguing that the Sumerian gods are real, then you're simply crackers.
        
        And for the last time, atheism is not a religion, it's a response to a claim.
        
        - PhillyChief June 25, 2010 7:10AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - You are correct.
    
    After studying world religions in college , and obtaining a BA degree in that field, I found that the most practical definition for religion is " a persons' highest beliefs" or "core beliefs" is their religion or primary religion.
    
    The US supreme court has ruled that secular humanism is a religion as far as falsly applied doctrine of separation of curch and state goes.
    
    The phrase "separation of Church and state" is a loaded one. Anti- Christians are keen to use this phrase as it clearly implies, or outrite insists, on focusing the issue on Christians, "the Church". What the concept should really state is separation of religion and state. Then we could easily apply all the double standards the "anti" crowds have employed against them.
    
    Simply put, their religions would be singled out and attacked as anathema to our constitution and republic form of government . The radical extremist religions of atheism , homosexuality , communism, feminism , liberalism etc would be restricted from participating in the government system and the government would be restricted from financing, endorcing, or even the appearance of either.
    
    Make no mistake, the adherents of atheism, homosexuality, communism, feminism, liberalism etc are as fanatical as any demographic slice of Christianity, Islam, or Judaism.
    
    To people like PhillyChief, it is a laugh that you claim atheism isn't a religion. It's a crappy religion but being crappy doesn't make Ford's not cars /trucks.
    
    Atheists congregate, do conventions, and have web sites devoted to their religion. Why else would they be compelled to passionately meet together if they don't share a religion? To talk about the God they don't believe exists? How many anti-easter bunny groups do you think there are? Why aren't they congregating and passionately stating their disdain for the easter bunny?
    
    If you don't believe that atheists are PASSIONATE about their atheism, you havn't been on an atheist website .
    
    Also, for some reason many atheist sites heavily solicite donations . I thought that was their big beef with the church , you know the money and all.
    
    - Atheismisforflatearthers June 25, 2010 10:39PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (1)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- That's the problem with being brain dead!
  
  David Silverman is too ignorant to know he is ignorant! And so are you PhillyCheif.
  
  So David/PhillyChief, you believe everything in the universe created itself? How ignorant do you have to be to believe that?
  
  Believing the Earth is flat would be a sign of pure genius compared to believing everything created itself!
  
  Like I said, David Silverman/PhillyChief, you are too ignorant to comprehend even a small percentage of just how truely ignorant you are! You are too ignorant to understand anything I just wrote. Let this be a warning to the rest of you. Don't allow your pompousness to run away with you or you will end up like poor arrogant David "all knowing" Silverman or PhillyChief!
  
  - Atheismisforflatearthers June 25, 2010 2:07AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (1)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - False Dichotomies
    
    One doesn't have to accept a creation myth OR accept "the universe created itself". There are other options to consider plus, do you know what you say when you don't know an answer? You say you don't know. What you don't say or do is make something up or insist some unsubstantiated claim MUST be the answer. That is ignorance, my friend, and the worst kind for it's willful and stands as an obstacle to ever discovering or accepting a qualified answer.
    
    - PhillyChief June 25, 2010 7:17AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Severe cranial rectal impaction
      
      It is disingenuous to claim that there are "other options" simply because you don't like the only reasonable explanation.
      
      You don't offer any of these other "optionS", plural, but reject the only viable option that is known now? Would pride, ego or arrogance have something to do with this?
      
      A house is discovered in the wilderness. Let us not consider that some intelligent being created this house, simple in comparison to the universe and all it's unimaginable complexities, but rather let us choose in our minds that there are some "other options" that we really can't articulate, even in the least, so that we can ignore and suppress the only viable and reasonable explanation. All because we are offended and/or scared that something higher than ourselves exists.
      
      Simply choosing to say you "don't know" as an alternative to the only reasonable explanation is motivated by pride, arrogance, ego, etc.
      
      I disagree about what you consider the worst. There is noone so blind as he who refuses to see. There is nothing more willful than pride. Pride comes before the fall.
      
      The well qualified and historically substantiated answer has been presented. You choose to say you don't know. BUT, there are other options without stating even one of you many options. You then proceed to assert that the only viable answer presented is a myth when you present nothing other than you ego as the answer? You aren't the creator. Your egotistical assertion that everything was created by some "other option" while rejecting the only viable option known and yet not providing one of your secret "options" is typical liberal intellectual dishonesty/ suicide .
      
      You claim there are optionS, plural. Well let's hear these many options that you imply are so readily known to all but the ignorant.
      
      Let me be clear. I am a very opened minded person. BUT, I am not so open minded that it has fallen out. I do have a problem with intellectual dishonesty though. It is a waste of time to discuss anything with drunks or the intellectually dishonest. At least discussing with drunks can be entertaining.
      
      - Atheismisforflatearthers June 25, 2010 7:28PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (1)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Again, for the slow
        
        Ignorance is assuming another's position without first asking.
        Ignorance is not comprehending burden of proof.
        And most importantly, ignorance is accepting ANYTHING in lieu of a proper answer.
        
        I bid you good day.
        
        - PhillyChief June 25, 2010 8:57PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Cowardice is very unbecoming.
        
        In predictable liberal fashion you have descended and acquiesced to all my expectations.
        
        Your position was obvious from word one. You know it and now you feign some sort of mysterious unknowable philosophy by simply wimping out and remaining silent.
        
        You refrain from elaborating on your position because your position is untenable and founded purely in the arena of pride and arrogance. You were unable to argue from even a weak position because you had NO position at all. Maybe you play poker alot, you should confine your bluff tactics to poker.
        
        You said " And most importantly, ignorance is accepting ANYTHING in lieu of a proper answer."
        
        I couldn't agree with you more. That was exactly my point. Why do you accept the beyond remote "other options" "anything" rather than the most proper answer right in front of you?
        Pride rears its' head again. You should master that before it leads you where you cannot escape.
        
        Gravity cannot be proven but how many people do you know that insist that the phlogiston theory is correct?
        
        At least someone that espoused the phlogiston theory would have a leg to stand on. You claim you have a leg but are too cowardly, or a liar, to state what it is.
        
        "I bid you good day." is the call for retreat, is it not?
        
        - Atheismisforflatearthers June 25, 2010 9:47PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Abso-freakin'-lutely!

Way to go, David!

I've been a practicing non-religious conservative for a long time and have grown increasingly disturbed by the total dominance of the religious right; just as loony as the "loony left," and just as sinister. How the traditional "lower taxes, more freedom less government" true conservatism was taken over by the right, I'll never know, but I would just love for them to get the hell out of a party they never believed in.

People that are willing to use the government to enforce their religious beliefs are NOT conservatives, and they never have been. Due to this, In the last election my choices were between Obama, who scares the hell out of anyone interested in state and individual rights and Bob Barr, the sacrificial lamb thrown up by the Libertarians.

It was not an easy choice. I would just love for a real republican to run.

Great article!

- bariguy March 7, 2009 9:47AM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Atheists don't understand simple logic

Atheists claim that their faith is not religious, yet they like to claim their God hating, anti-American, anti-happiness philosophy is protected because of freedom of religion. Am I the only one to see a logical disconnect there?

Get out of my country and go to one with a "freedom from consistency in their arguments" clause in their constitutions.

- PayAttention March 13, 2009 10:52PM

Reply to this Recommend (1)

Thank You for your Comment

We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Re: PayAttention
  
  I'm not sure what you mean by " god hating". Atheists don't hate god they simply don't believe god exists. I think people that try to inject religious beliefs into politics are far more anti-American than any Atheist. Separation of church and state is one of the fundamental points of the Constitution. If our country was flooded with Muslim extremists should we adopt Muslim beliefs into law because the majority of people are Muslim? Add "In Alah we trust" to our money ? There is a clear reason for separation of church and state. We don't claim to be protected by freedom of religion but freedom of speech . This isn't just your country, it's mine too. I'm also curious about the anti-happiness philosophy you claim we have. The "Get out of my country and go to one with a "freedom from consistency in their arguments" clause in their constitutions." statement sounds like a pretty unhappy person to me. I'm a fairly happy person, I love my country and when I disagree with something, I state my position without telling someone to "get out of my country". BTW freedom of speech also covers people with inconsistent arguments. Maybe you think we should change the Bill of Rights but you won't have my vote .
  
  - eymhere March 22, 2009 8:24AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - currency
    
    Allah is just another word for God, so technically speaking our currency already says 'in Allah we trust'.
    
    - nyahplay June 3, 2010 4:36AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Whose Country?
  
  As a 8th Native American, that spent a 3rd of my life in the Military, with half a' mind to recount my other happy, American, non-faith-based demographics, I declare your strawman characterization of Atheists a lameness of the 1st order.
  
  Please show me one instance of an Athiest literally claiming "Freedom of Religion" protection for Atheism.
  
  - Submariner June 10, 2009 8:44PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- happyness
  
  How is Atheism "anti-happiness"?
  
  - MrBook June 2, 2010 7:46PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
tools

The above rather closely echos my own sentiments... I have a very hard time supporting Republicans because they are so often tied to the anti-Science and anti- freedom ideas of religious conservatives .

- MrBook June 2, 2010 7:48PM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Anti what?
  
  I fail to see the connection between religous conservatives and people against freedom and science .
  
  - nyahplay June 3, 2010 4:38AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - huh?
    
    religious conservatives are the ones pushing things like creationism and are against teaching evolution (anti- science ) and they are against freedom in that they refuse to allow homosexuals to be legally married .
    
    - MrBook June 3, 2010 6:37AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - not necessarily
      
      There are wierdos in every group. Yes, there are people who don't want homosexuals to be able to get married , but many of those people (yes, religious conservatives ) think that civil unions are ok. They dispute the term marriage in these cases because of its traditional ties to the church . And noone I know of is against teaching evolution ; they're just offended that it's taught as truth and not as a theory. The majority of religious conservatives would be happy if teachers were simply allowed to teach the problems with evolutionary theory without being fired . I don't see that as anti- science .
      
      - nyahplay June 3, 2010 3:37PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - problems
        
        So what problems in Evolution are not being taught in school ?
        
        Also if Christians have issues with homosexual marriage interfering with traditional ties to the church then why don't they have problems with people of other religions getting married interfering in traditional ties to the church?
        
        - MrBook June 3, 2010 4:08PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Problems
        
        No, they have no problem with other religions marrying people. Generally speaking, most religions have the same view about who should and should not be able to get married (barring multiple partners and age difference). I don't know of a single religion that would marry homosexuals . Since they all agree on that point, they have nothing to argue over; generally speaking, they have the same definition of marriage .
        
        The case that I'm talking about is LeVake v. Independent School District, a court case out of Minnisota.
        Here's a link to an article discussing this case in detail: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/01/levake_v_independent_school_di031411.html
        
        - nyahplay June 3, 2010 4:57PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        except
        
        Except for the Christian denominations that marry homosexuals ?
        
        If people get married under another faith then they are clearly not getting married in a Christian sense... so they are going counter to traditional Christian marriage .
        
        The only reason why people oppose homosexual marriage is homophobia... just as the only reason people opposed interracial marriage was racism .
        
        That link does not mention what the scientific criticisms of the ToE are... just that a teacher ran counter to the schools curriculum.
        
        The same thing would happen if a geography teacher tried to push forward the flaws in the spherical earth theory or an astronomy teacher tried to push the flaws in the heliocentric model of the solar system.
        
        - MrBook June 3, 2010 6:29PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
Silly atheist

Silly atheist , who would Steele have to blame for all his 'errs'? He needs a scapegoat .... dumb and dumber .....makes a good show.

- politicalair June 2, 2010 9:58PM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
David Silverman is uninformed and paranoid!

It is obvious that David Silverman is hypersensitive to the issues of Intelligent Design and Faith-Based Initiatives. Making that the trademark issue of the Republican party is like saying atheist web sites are mainly focused on soliciting donations . Sure they want your money but that isn't their main focus. Ranting passionately about how much they don't believe god exists is their focus. I don't know why they want to congregate and rant on that non issue so passionately if they simply don't believe something, but I digress. The issues of Intelligent Design and Faith-Based Initiatives are extremely rare and insignificant when they do come up. Republicans are too soft on just about every issue they claim to support , that is their primary problem. They are pushovers. DemocRATS use republicans as doormats and the republicans thank them for it. They need to grow a pair.

Moronic David Silverman stated "It would be like a black person voting for someone who supports segregation", well hello one of whom is doomed to repeat history . Are you not aware of what party enacted the Jim Crowe laws ? Or of what party the KKK came from. Blacks have been voting in bigots and slave masters for decades. The democRAT party is responsible for segregation and the KKK. Al Gore Sr was one of the most staunch supporters of segregation. The Republican party was started, by a little known man by the name of Abraham Lincoln, to combat the slave peddling hustlers of the democRAT party and to end slavery. The democrats found a new way to enslave the uneducated masses of all colors. Dependence on the state is the new slavery and the black people, by and large, have taken to their new massas quite fondly. A disdain by the black community for eduction hasn't hurt the cause of the slave massa democrats either. That is why so many blacks think the democRAT party is their friend. They are the worst nightmare of the blacks in this country and they are too gullible and uneducated to know it.

David Silverman helps to peddle this propaganda to blacks by not clearly showing that blacks time and again vote for people who support segregation. The new segregation that the welfare state yields.

David Silverman is clueless.

- Atheismisforflatearthers June 25, 2010 11:52PM

Reply to this Recommend (1)

Thank You for your Comment

We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.