StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Yeah but for President...who knows...looking at what's happened, maybe I don't see it soon...but it does exist it could happen.

For elections in certain localities and congressional districts, it probably won't be a program; however for statewide elections and the national election, it would be a HUGE problem. There are no gay senators, not surprisingly.

Alyrium Denryle wrote:stupid bigoted americans

Careful. The "%100 Red blooded American" types will accuse you of making a gross generalization.


Unfortunately for you, if current trends on creationism and other forms of religious lunacy are to be believed, the US will be even more intolerant of gays and atheists in 40 years rather than less.

Enlightenment wrote:

Alyrium Denryle wrote:stupid bigoted americans

Careful. The "%100 Red blooded American" types will accuse you of making a gross generalization.


Unfortunately for you, if current trends on creationism and other forms of religious lunacy are to be believed, the US will be even more intolerant of gays and atheists in 40 years rather than less.

I don't think so. History runs in cycles; it was a recession of the power of religion during this century that allowed homosexuality to come out of the closet in the first place.

Careful. The "%100 Red blooded American" types will accuse you of making a gross generalization.

Lets just say that this morning, I could smell the bigotry in my first hour(student harrassing me for being gay)

And TASTE the ignorance in my second hour(student advocating genocide against arabs)

Actually it is generalizing. To begin and end the flamewar in this very post, I'll just say this. Everyone pounces when you make a gay generalization. Everyone jumped on us when we countered the first American sweep with a Euro sweep. So, yeah, I do find it highly offensive to be labled a bigot in any fashion. Except against ignorance. So, other than that. Besides, if you have people trying to punk you, kick thier ass. That would bruise the crap out of some egos.

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Well, do you think the citizens would vote for a gay atheist secular humanist provided the following conditions.

1. he is in their tax bracket. (ie. middle class, say...college proffessor)

2. Does not have a degree in political science or law. This would get the stigma of politician or lawyer out of their mind. But rather has degreees in...Biology, and german, for instance

3. If he is honest and forthcoming with his ethics, lack of religion, and sexuality

4. If he is honest with issues. Or in other words, states his position, why, and doesnt avoid questions.

5. Tells them that what he is about to say may offend people, but that it needs to be said.

Do you think the American public would vote for that kind of person for say...president or some other important position of power?

Nope. Sorry, but it won't happen. A gay guy has a chance; an atheist does not. The idea that religion is a sacred cow is too well-entrenched. My family has been strongly hinting at the idea that I should become a politician, and I keep telling them that I'd never win. I'm an atheist, and I would be forced by my ethical beliefs to answer that question honestly if a reporter inquired about my religious beliefs. You don't get into power by telling the truth.

Yeah, you get into power by lying about your beliefs. That's what I do, almost no one knows I'm a atheist.

Durran Korr wrote:

Enlightenment wrote:

Alyrium Denryle wrote:stupid bigoted americans

Careful. The "%100 Red blooded American" types will accuse you of making a gross generalization.


Unfortunately for you, if current trends on creationism and other forms of religious lunacy are to be believed, the US will be even more intolerant of gays and atheists in 40 years rather than less.

I don't think so. History runs in cycles; it was a recession of the power of religion during this century that allowed homosexuality to come out of the closet in the first place.

I think that future generations will be far more tolerant. Kids today aren't growing up with segregation and having things changed immediately. They're growing up in more integrated schools which encourage diversity. For all the complaining that people do, namby-pamby liberalism does do some good.

My biggest fear is that my generation will be like my parents'. They'll start out all about free love and believing in what you want, but they'll trade it all in for middle-management jobs. My generation's idealism is still here, so you never know. We might just elect an atheist in the future, but it won't happen now. Not for another 25 years, at the very least. Look at what a big stink it was when a Jew was named as a vice presidential candidate, for fuck's sake!

DG_Cal_Wright wrote:Besides, if you have people trying to punk you, kick thier ass. That would bruise the crap out of some egos.

I would have thought that an innately superior "%100 red blooded american" such as yourself would have the brains to realize that violence doesn't solve problems for people who are outnumbered and outgunned.

But what do I know; I'm just some inferior non-american half-breed.

Durandal wrote:

Durran Korr wrote:

Enlightenment wrote: Careful. The "%100 Red blooded American" types will accuse you of making a gross generalization.


Unfortunately for you, if current trends on creationism and other forms of religious lunacy are to be believed, the US will be even more intolerant of gays and atheists in 40 years rather than less.

I don't think so. History runs in cycles; it was a recession of the power of religion during this century that allowed homosexuality to come out of the closet in the first place.

I think that future generations will be far more tolerant. Kids today aren't growing up with segregation and having things changed immediately. They're growing up in more integrated schools which encourage diversity. For all the complaining that people do, namby-pamby liberalism does do some good.

My biggest fear is that my generation will be like my parents'. They'll start out all about free love and believing in what you want, but they'll trade it all in for middle-management jobs. My generation's idealism is still here, so you never know. We might just elect an atheist in the future, but it won't happen now. Not for another 25 years, at the very least. Look at what a big stink it was when a Jew was named as a vice presidential candidate, for fuck's sake!

I don't think I'd like that. It would be nice if our generation could move towards social liberalism without embracing the hippie bullshit that accompanied it during the 60's.

This probably won't make you feel any better, Alyrium, but I would vote for you in a heartbeat, whether I knew it was you or not. I'm so fucking sick and tired of this bullshit of 'maintaining the seperation of church and state' while Bush mentions God and the Bible and the 'good news' in every other sentence when he speaks publicly. Fuck that shit.

Enlightenment wrote:

DG_Cal_Wright wrote:Besides, if you have people trying to punk you, kick thier ass. That would bruise the crap out of some egos.

I would have thought that an innately superior "%100 red blooded american" such as yourself would have the brains to realize that violence doesn't solve problems for people who are outnumbered and outgunned.

But what do I know; I'm just some inferior non-american half-breed.

DG_Cal_Wright wrote:That does not reflect MY will. Last time I checked, I was 100% Red Blooded American. Something many of you asshats are not.

"Innately superior?" Did I miss something? [/quote]

According to the latest Gallup poll, Americans are several times more likely to vote for a gay candidate than an atheist. Anti-atheism is basically the last widespread socially acceptable form of bigotry. You can stand up, say that an atheist has no morals, no values, and no character because he refuses to "recognize the existence of a higher power", and people will fucking APPLAUD you, or at the very least, nod.

In a country where nearly half the population buys into young-Earth creationism, the remaining half is dominated by "intelligent-design" morons, and almost all the population thinks it's OK to tear down the wall between church and state that the Founding Fathers erected at great risk, I'm surprised they don't just admit what they are and make atheists start wearing fucking armbands around so they can be identified and beaten up in the streets by the roving gangs of Bush Youths.

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Well, do you think the citizens would vote for a gay atheist secular humanist provided the following conditions.

1. he is in their tax bracket. (ie. middle class, say...college proffessor)

2. Does not have a degree in political science or law. This would get the stigma of politician or lawyer out of their mind. But rather has degreees in...Biology, and german, for instance

3. If he is honest and forthcoming with his ethics, lack of religion, and sexuality

4. If he is honest with issues. Or in other words, states his position, why, and doesnt avoid questions.

5. Tells them that what he is about to say may offend people, but that it needs to be said.

Do you think the American public would vote for that kind of person for say...president or some other important position of power?

Yes, but he'd have to take a very moderate stance on atheist issues, like the Pledge of Allegiance to name one of a more recently debated issues brought up here. Basically, there'd have to be very little difference between his atheism and Bill Clinton's In Name Only Christianity on issues. Then he could get votes.

There are in fact some open atheists in the House, at least, though I'm not certain about the Senate. Naturally their districts are quite liberal.

Darth Wong wrote:According to the latest Gallup poll, Americans are several times more likely to vote for a gay candidate than an atheist. Anti-atheism is basically the last widespread socially acceptable form of bigotry. You can stand up, say that an atheist has no morals, no values, and no character because he refuses to "recognize the existence of a higher power", and people will fucking APPLAUD you, or at the very least, nod.

In a country where nearly half the population buys into young-Earth creationism, the remaining half is dominated by "intelligent-design" morons, and almost all the population thinks it's OK to tear down the wall between church and state that the Founding Fathers erected at great risk, I'm surprised they don't just admit what they are and make atheists start wearing fucking armbands around so they can be identified and beaten up in the streets by the roving gangs of Bush Youths.

Don't you think that's just a bit harsh? Anti-Atheism may be the last acceptable social bigotry, but atheists can still function as normal members of society; we're not treated like second-class citizens by the government, we can get jobs that are just as good as anyone else's, we can vote, and our civil liberties and property rights are not routinely violated. We have a long way to go still, but I don't think we're quite the oppressed class that American blacks and German Jews once were.

Durran Korr wrote:Don't you think that's just a bit harsh? Anti-Atheism may be the last acceptable social bigotry, but atheists can still function as normal members of society; we're not treated like second-class citizens by the government, we can get jobs that are just as good as anyone else's, we can vote, and our civil liberties and property rights are not routinely violated. We have a long way to go still, but I don't think we're quite the oppressed class that American blacks and German Jews once were.

There are laws still on the books which prohibit atheists from serving in public office in several states! Granted, it's not quite up to pogrom level yet, which is why I basically suggested that it would be the next step. But America is sliding the wrong way, quite frankly, with increasing demographics in the Bible Belt and evangelism. And the Gallup poll showed that Americans are LESS likely to vote for an atheist now than they were 20 years ago. You are plunging headlong toward puritanism. I agree that you're not there yet, but no one seems to worry about this; they act as though it will solve itself. Sorry, but I'm not seeing a positive trend here.

Darth Wong wrote:

Durran Korr wrote:Don't you think that's just a bit harsh? Anti-Atheism may be the last acceptable social bigotry, but atheists can still function as normal members of society; we're not treated like second-class citizens by the government, we can get jobs that are just as good as anyone else's, we can vote, and our civil liberties and property rights are not routinely violated. We have a long way to go still, but I don't think we're quite the oppressed class that American blacks and German Jews once were.

There are laws still on the books which prohibit atheists from serving in public office in several states! Granted, it's not quite up to pogrom level yet, which is why I basically suggested that it would be the next step. But America is sliding the wrong way, quite frankly, with increasing demographics in the Bible Belt and evangelism. And the Gallup poll showed that Americans are LESS likely to vote for an atheist now than they were 20 years ago. You are plunging headlong toward puritanism. I agree that you're not there yet, but no one seems to worry about this; they act as though it will solve itself. Sorry, but I'm not seeing a positive trend here.

About 85 years ago, organized religion was strong in America - much stronger than it is now. It was so strong that it saw the passage of the eighteenth amendment. But that power waned, and Prohibition was repealed eventually. It's just part of an historical cycle. It'll pass....eventually.

Enlightenment wrote:

DG_Cal_Wright wrote:Besides, if you have people trying to punk you, kick thier ass. That would bruise the crap out of some egos.

I would have thought that an innately superior "%100 red blooded american" such as yourself would have the brains to realize that violence doesn't solve problems for people who are outnumbered and outgunned.

But what do I know; I'm just some inferior non-american half-breed.

I hope there is a hell Enlightenment. So that people like you will have somewhere to go to and burn for all of fucking eternity. At least I'll have some entertainment in the afterlife. When did I ever say I was superior? Huh? Can't understand the context of my post you poor fucking excuse for a rational human being? Maybe you should phone up hooked on phonics so you can read what that whole god damned thread was about. It was about the will of the American people. So many 'non Americans' kept claiming that Bush was the WILL of the American people. I repeat myself, I, unlike your putrid self, am a 100% red blooded home grown American. That is not my will. Further more, I am not a bigot, yet I am 100% American. In case illiterate asshats much like yourself Enlightenment didn't catch Verilon's Post about pacifism, I am NOT a pacifist. If you have to be gunned, bombed, or obliterated, then so be it. Now piss off you snot nosed wanker. Whiners like you piss me off to no end.

Looking throughout history, people seem to champion leaders who have faith in a higher being. Even the enlightened Greco-Roman civilizations still used heads of state who professed religious belief, even if they were atheists. I think it has to do with psychology. If a country's more single-religion than not, people will feel more comfortable having someone of their ethics/belief structure...He's somewhat predictable; assuming the head isn't an insane maniac, of course. I don't think that's ever going to go away. Like it or not a country these days isn't going to elect an atheist unless athiestism is in the majority. History does go in cycles. I can see religion making a big comeback after the past couple centuries of decline, as seen with the re-emergance of the popularity with polytheistic religions...and, unfortunately, with fundamentalist morons spreading like herpes as well.

*Off-Topic* IIRC, The Jewish vice presidential candidtate, Joe Lieberman, is going to run for President next election. DO NOT VOTE FOR HIM. He is strongly pro-censorship on things like violent video games. For the love of fuck, man, the pussy got squimish while watching someone play Soldier of Fortune. I'm sick of these Tipper Gore clones trying to dictate what minors can and can't expose themselves to.

DG_Cal_Wright wrote:I hope there is a hell Enlightenment. So that people like you will have somewhere to go to and burn for all of fucking eternity.

Gee, was it something I said?

I am NOT a pacifist. If you have to be gunned, bombed, or obliterated, then so be it.

That's nice. But what good is it going to do Alyrium Denryle to punch out one of the gay bashers on campus given that, even if he wins, the human scumbag will come back later with ten of his redneck buddies and kill him? I'm no pacifist (recall that I have advocated genocide as a means of controlling terrorism) but there are some problems that can't be solved through the application of one's fists and gay bashing is one of them.

Durran Korr wrote:It's ironic; the first Presidents ever elected were all either deists or atheists, but over 200 years later it's hard to imagine a deist or atheist getting elected.

So much for social progress being inevitable.

Enlightenment wrote: Gee, was it something I said?

Yeah, it's my allergic reaction to ignorance acting up again. Must be something on the boards...

That's nice. But what good is it going to do Alyrium Denryle to punch out one of the gay bashers on campus given that, even if he wins, the human scumbag will come back later with ten of his redneck buddies and kill him? I'm no pacifist (recall that I have advocated genocide as a means of controlling terrorism) but there are some problems that can't be solved through the application of one's fists and gay bashing is one of them.

Bull shit. This is exactly what he needs to do. Hell, find more homosexuals to side with him. Strength in numbers ya know. Hell, he could find straight people that either accept him or sympathise with him.

Sea Skimmer wrote:The majority of the world likely wouldn't vote for that.

Interesting isnt it? NZ would vote for a MP like that, and have done so before. But then we concentrate on policy, not the person

I would have to side with DC_Cal_Wright on this one. Knowing first hand what self-defense can do for you in the face of blithering idiots, they may just leave him alone instead of bother him. It all depends on what kind of people they are, though. If they're homophobic crazies that would rather kill then tolerate, best find another path.* If they be your garden variety bullies, flatten their asses.



*My I suggest some kind of Voodoo hex?