It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

People With No Religion Underrepresented...in New Congress

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
It was a study by the Pew forum.

What in that mess is from Pew Research?

Yep, sometimes alternet actually presents real research.

I have yet to see alternet present anything in a professional manner.




posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

My husband participates in atheist threads on facebook. Several of them are or were trying to come up with an atheist party platform. Basically, their platform list was more or less all about attacking religion and had nothing to do with anything else.

My husband pointed out that people of religion (all religions) are still a majority in the country, and that many people have more pressing issues in their lives than just simply having their faith removed from them. If atheists want to be taken seriously as candidates, they need to spend less time trying to attack the deeply held spiritual beliefs of others and more time thinking about how they can set themselves as different in their economic, domestic and foreign policy angles.

My husband also pointed out that the idea of unalienable rights rests on the belief in an agency beyond man's ability to give or take. What assurance can an atheist who tends not to believe in such things give that he or she would similarly hold the basic rights as sacred and not to be touched on or infringed upon by any agency of mankind on earth?

This is the main stumbling block that prevents either of us from knowingly voting for any atheist. We have yet to receive a satisfactory answer to the last question.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
"People With No Religion Underrepresented...in New Congress"

But they are represented by the Constitution.

More whiskey anyone?




posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
My husband also pointed out that the idea of unalienable rights rests on the belief in an agency beyond man's ability to give or take. What assurance can an atheist who tends not to believe in such things give that he or she would similarly hold the basic rights as sacred and not to be touched on or infringed upon by any agency of mankind on earth?


Seeing as how religious politicians don't hold those unalienable rights sacred either, why does it matter if an atheist politican does or not? A person either is or isn't going to touch or infringe upon those rights regardless if they believe in God or not.

Your concern sounds like a cop-out rationalization for discriminating your vote against atheists.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: JBurns

Discrimination against those who do not believe in all powerful god that governs us humans, and set in place guidelines and rituals for us to follow has been around since the concept of religion came into thought.
Religions were once a way to explain natural causes that we did not understand, eventually as we all became a more social and sophisticated species, as did the stories and concepts of the world around us. We didn't understand why the sun set ever day and rose the next, we didn't understand how why people were just suddenly alive one day and dead the next, it was the unknown that created religion. But as a said in my previous post, our understanding of the universe grows more and more to the point where religion will be phased out one day.


Thank you for the intelligent reply! And for the enlightenment

edit on 1/29/2015 by JBurns because: manual BBcode entry fail



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No one ever asked me what I want to hear from the rest of them.

Your reply sounds like a knee-jerk assumption.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


What assurance can an atheist who tends not to believe in such things give that he or she would similarly hold the basic rights as sacred and not to be touched on or infringed upon by any agency of mankind on earth?

Atheists are not money-hoarding bullies, not any more than any other PSYCHOPATH, for one thing.

Atheists will leave religions alone, and not bother with them on the public stage. Not so for zealots.

Despite your refusal to accept it, ketsuko, atheists have MORALS - often BETTER morals than the religious, because they realize that a person's morality comes with character. Education often makes atheists out of believers. Why does your husband go on atheist forums? To troll?

Thought so.
There is NO REASON that anyone's idea of "God" should be included in ANY legislation. If none of these vapid politicians even mentioned religion, the world would be a better place.

Separation of Church and State = don't preach from the floor of Congress. It isn't appropriate, and it pisses people off.
If you have not yet come to grips with the fact that your precious is nothing but an anthology of ancient myths, that is your problem. It's certainly NOT for lack of availability of other perspectives.

The WORLD'S problems right now are about greed, selfishness, money, and oppression. Religious leaders would rather destroy 'others' who don't share their view.

Do those sound like religious issues to you? They should. Because your own naively constructed worldview and your imaginary celestial friend are quite out of touch with reality.
Thanks for once again sharing how firmly seized up with rust and dust your hinges are.



edit on 1/29/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

That 'mess'? It's in the second sentence. I'm surprised...you didn't even read the article?

This is from the article that you are dismissing:

But a new Pew report that digs into the religious backgrounds of the 114th Congress reveals it is actually wildly unrepresentative of the religious makeup of the American public at large.


Faith on the Hill: The Religious Composition of the 114th Congress

It's a fact.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

My reply was an answer to your question by showing that it is a flawed question. Being religious or not has no baring on if someone will respect our rights. Heck, going by the numbers, the religious are MORE likely not to respect your rights since there are far more religious types in government than atheist types and we are always reading about Congress and/or the President trampling our rights.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If I am vetting a set of candidates who have never held office before, the one who tells me our basic rights are not to be infringed on because they are ours from an agency beyond man and thus not man's to tamper with is getting a leg up over the guy who hems and haws and tries to tell me that the Founders gave me my rights or something like it.

I don't care what letters they wear.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Translation: "I will vote for the person who tells me the lies I like and want to hear."



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   
People these days are quite dense, blaming religion for everything - It's like blaming guns for killing, like blaming cars for drunk driving, it's extreme ignorance at best. Self-important people with their own agenda will attempt to control the masses via any way they can. Yes, religion is a method of control because people devote themselves to religion in major ways, but no, it's not the only way a person can be convinced to do something Ya'll deem to be wrong ( Which is a belief set itself )
All too often people dislike religion because they disagree with with the media portrays to be the average religious opinion.
I live in a highly christian community, and guess what? We ( in a general sense of many I've talked to ) don't hate people that get abortions, we don't hate gays, we dislike how far apart the rich and poor are, we are not super ultra conservative millionaires who are sociopathic, nor agree with the republicans that think they represent us.... I apologize as this has become somewhat of a rant.

Are you trying to say those that do not affiliate with religion are likely to care about money and power any less?

We all worship something.

Cheers Ats, Deny Ignorance.

Deadlyhope



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


our basic rights are not to be infringed on because they are ours from an agency beyond man and thus not man's to tamper with

As if "man" hasn't tampered with the dogma that is held up.

Which 'basic rights' are you worried about?
Was Jesus all about being selfish and not sharing?

Your basic rights are yours because you live, and because 'man' has decided what they are. That's all.
If you decided not to believe in God, would anyone put you in jail? Not yet, not here in the USA. In other parts of the world? Yes - you're likely to lose your rights - even your head if you disagree with what those with money and power 'believe'. You want that to happen here?

Be careful what you wish for. And yes, the Founders DID establish that religion is a PRIVATE, not a PUBLIC issue.

edit on 1/29/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope


Are you trying to say those that do not affiliate with religion are likely to care about money and power any less?

If you're talking to me, I think those that do not affiliate with religion are less likely to use 'God' as their excuse to oppress others.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
That 'mess'?

Yes I read it. Yes the article is one big mess. The entire thing was hyperbole and extreme emotional rhetoric. Quoting one line of a stat from PEW that says most in Congress are religious does NOT validate that article at all. It's not an article from Pew. It's a typical altnet steaming pile of poo. They are worse than The Blaze .. and that's saying a lot.

It's a fact.

No. The article isn't fact. The one line of most belong to a religion is true. But the rest is just partisan name calling and fear mongering and rhetoric.

You havent' shown anything that proves your statements that these people of faith in the New Congress are ignoring the constituents who don't believe the same way they do. You said they all do it. So it shouldn't be too hard to post that information.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ketsuko
My husband also pointed out that the idea of unalienable rights rests on the belief in an agency beyond man's ability to give or take. What assurance can an atheist who tends not to believe in such things give that he or she would similarly hold the basic rights as sacred and not to be touched on or infringed upon by any agency of mankind on earth?


Seeing as how religious politicians don't hold those unalienable rights sacred either, why does it matter if an atheist politican does or not? A person either is or isn't going to touch or infringe upon those rights regardless if they believe in God or not.

Your concern sounds like a cop-out rationalization for discriminating your vote against atheists.


You raise a good point in my eyes. I would wager that a lot of professed christian lawmakers are not what they say they are. They may say they are christian but do not live as a christian.

WWJD?

Would Jesus run for office?



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh, but Krazy ... you do it too. Everyone does unless they simply don't vote. And if you don't vote, then you have no place here complaining about being under-represented.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan


You havent' shown anything that proves your statements that these people of faith in the New Congress are ignoring the constituents who don't believe the same way they do.

Can you please show me where I said that they are being ignored?
Appreciate it.

Oh - okay, I see it. It was after YOU said 'ignored'. I repeated the word in my response. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I will say, however, that my representatives SEEM TO BE ignoring ME - and I write them pretty regularly. It doesn't seem to be making a dent.

edit on 1/29/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Can you please show me where I said that they are being ignored?
Appreciate it.


I did on page three - HERE
But I'll repost for you ... quotes from you from this thread ...


originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Elected officials need to pay attention to their constituents.... ALL of them.


originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
how are the REST of us (non-religious) being represented? We aren't.


originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
They INTEND to force theocracy on this nation. They DO ignore the non-religious and the anti-religious.


So I'm asking for proof of what you said ... that the New Congress is all religious and therefore they are all ignoring the non-religious and anti-religious.

You also said this -

They think those who do not believe in their evangelical slop are possessed by demons - they even think that they can 'pray away' those demons who 'control' people who aren't religious. They claim that they can 'sense' which 'demons' are in control of buildings, organizations, geographical areas, etc.


So all the people in congress who are Christian talk that way?
Would you show us which people in the New Congress have said this?
Thanks.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Of course they are less likely to use God as they're excuse - But as humans, they are going to pick something else to use instead.

How many things are justified in our government using words like " protection " ," health","equality"

The wars I see going on, the laws, restrictions, the stripping of our rights, the ACA, these are not done in the name of God.

There IS a small amount of God-Believing people that dislike things like.. Gay marriage, abortions, and the like. These are wildly exaggerated by our media, but definitely over-represented by conservative politicians.

Those topics are not the ones that divide the rich from the poor, they do not create the international wars, they do not raise taxes due to those wars. I do agree with your statement that God is used for oppression by some - I disagree if you think a non-believer replacing them won't find their own reasons to oppress in more or less the same ways.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join