Good Reason News
Showing the harm of religious beliefs
Home / Ask Me Anything / archive

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney believes that “some” Americans have taken the separation of church and state too far, “well beyond its original meaning.”
In an interview released Tuesday with the Washington National Cathedral’s magazine, Cathedral Age, Romney said those who “seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God” aren’t acting in line with the Founders’ intent.
The separation of church and state is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution, but Congress and the courts have debated the practical extent of that separation since its founding.
Romney said the Founders didn’t intend for “the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation ‘Under God, ‘and in God, we do indeed trust.”

In a masterful bit of deception here, Romney glosses over the fact that the founders never said anything along the lines of “one nation under god”

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney believes that “some” Americans have taken the separation of church and state too far, “well beyond its original meaning.”

In an interview released Tuesday with the Washington National Cathedral’s magazine, Cathedral Age, Romney said those who “seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God” aren’t acting in line with the Founders’ intent.

The separation of church and state is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution, but Congress and the courts have debated the practical extent of that separation since its founding.

Romney said the Founders didn’t intend for “the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation ‘Under God, ‘and in God, we do indeed trust.”

In a masterful bit of deception here, Romney glosses over the fact that the founders never said anything along the lines of “one nation under god”

foreverliberal:

stfuhypocrisy:

theoppressedlittlefetus:

christiannightmares:

Mike Huckabee defends Todd Akin: Forcible rapes have created some extraordinary people (To read the story, click image or here; Found at Friendly Atheist)

Jesus, Huckabee is one vile mother fucker.

[TW FOR  RAPE, MIKE HUCKABEE ASSHOLERY]

Says the man who will never be pregnant, let alone be carrying his rapist’s baby. This is just unbelievable. 
— Brittany 

Evangelical Christianity.

foreverliberal:

stfuhypocrisy:

theoppressedlittlefetus:

christiannightmares:

Mike Huckabee defends Todd Akin: Forcible rapes have created some extraordinary people (To read the story, click image or here; Found at Friendly Atheist)

Jesus, Huckabee is one vile mother fucker.

[TW FOR  RAPE, MIKE HUCKABEE ASSHOLERY]

Says the man who will never be pregnant, let alone be carrying his rapist’s baby. This is just unbelievable. 

— Brittany 

Evangelical Christianity.

(via foreverliberal23-deactivated201)

Source : christiannightmares
Government spending to create jobs? A WITCH! BURN IT! BURN IT!

Government spending to create jobs? A WITCH! BURN IT! BURN IT!

Conservative Perspective: Sooooooo fucking tired of killjoy atheist groups. →

onenationundergod:

During the 9/11 search and rescue and recovery, two beams that were found were connected in the form of a cross. It became a symbol of hope (just like the flag that stood in the rubble) for the rescuers.

It is now on display in the 9/11 memorial with other artifacts.

Buuuuut…….one of those…

FUck, I just hate all these atheists coming in with their Constitution and their ideals upon which the country was founded and their understanding of how secular principals in government is actually beneficial for all religions because they’re just really draggin me down. I can’t fucking believe they’re making me confront my illusions by forcing me to acknowledge that not every single person in America believes in the particularly narrow vision of God that I do. It’s so unfair! Why can’t I just go on marginalizing everyone who is not exactly like me and, at the same time, using their tax dollars to actively promote my religious superstitions!? WAH!

Source : onenationundergod

There was a shooting at the Family Research Council headquarters this morning

Two were injured, both survived.

I heard about it from USAToday, Politico, ABCNews, The Washington Post, The Huffington Post, CNN, Slate, Fox News, NBCNews, CBS News, the Miami Herald and it was the top trending story on Twitter for a while.

The number one comment I saw about this story from conservatives: The liberal media is blacking out coverage of this.

Dispatches from the bubble, ladies and gentlemen.

Why Ron Paul Supporters Are Worse Than Ron Paul

leftybegone:

There’s a campaign going around among Ron Paul supporters. It’s not a campaign to not vote. It’s not a campaign to write-in Ron Paul’s name on Election Day.

It’s a campaign to actually cast a vote for Barack Obama.

The reasoning they give is that America deserves to be destroyed by Obama since we didn’t nominate Ron Paul.

A prime example of how dangerous selfishness and stubbornness are.

Here, dear readers, we have a prime example of the paranoid delusions of a right-wing nutcase. This particular specimen, leftybegone (a name that fully reveals his myopic, black-and-white, nuance-free worldview) puts forth, with no evidence or reason, just a demand his readers accept his authority on this issue, the idea that Ron Paul supporters

A) Think Obama will “destroy America”

B)That Paul supporters, like the league of shadows, welcome this destruction in order to usher in a new era of balance. I mean, I agree that libertarian ideals would result in a dystopian nightmare, but I don’t think they’re in favor of the America being destroyed before they can achieve the change they want.

C) That Paul supporters are going to vote for Obama or that there is any movement, small or large. Where’s the evidence? Where’s the supporting link? Is this idea sprung from his imagination fully formed or is there a shred of overheard conversation that resulted in this snowballing terror?

The last line of his post, I find very interesting. It betrays so much about his image and this post. For starters, it’s not “a prime example,” because it’s not an example at all, it’s a straw-man claim and a bizarre one at that. It’s not selfish to vote for a candidate who is running for office. It seems like it would be more selfish and stubborn to write in the name of someone not even on the ballot. But even if I were to accept that this was a real phenomena, that Paul supporters think that Obama will destroy America and want the destruction of America so they can rebuild a libertarian fantasy land, how is this an example, prime or otherwise, or selfishness? It sounds to me like he’s talking about an (imaginary) fringe who would rather sacrifice the comfortable society they live in, a rebuilding process that could take longer than their individual lifespans, just to institute what they see as real freedom.

It may be stubborn and wrong, but I don’t think it stems from a place of selfishness. Sounds pretty selfless.

This guy is fractally wrong, every little shard of his comment is based on false premises, lies, fear, exaggerations, hyperbole.

He’s a “prime” (cliche repeated for emphasis) example of how silly the thought process of the right-wing blogger with a boner for fox news can be.

Source : leftybegone
George Romney.

George Romney.


nonplussedbyreligion:

Robertson: Gay Rights Advocates Should “Shut Their Mouth”

Pat Robertson says he won’t back gay rights as homosexuality is one of “the reasons why land will vomit out its inhabitants”


I’m not even going to address his ludicrous gays can’t have babies rant.  I’m going to talk about his use, or rather mis-use of Scripture to support his bullshit.  

I’ve absolutely had it with people who tell me that the Bible does not support homophobia… or that people are misinterpreting it… or that the original texts did not recognize homosexuality as a thing… or any of the other mumbo-jumbo like that I’ve had thrown at me.

The Bible is used as a weapon by those who are spreading hate and intolerance in the name of their god.  Every single time I hear one of these asshats quote the book of Leviticus I want to scream!

Here are some vital statistics for Leviticus:

PURPOSE: A handbook for the priests and Levites outlining their duties in worship, and a guidebook of holy living for the Hebrews.  

Not a guidebook for the nations or the world, but specifically for the Hebrews.

AUTHOR: Moses

ORIGINAL AUDIENCE: The people of Israel

Get that, the people of Israel.

SETTING: At the foot of Mount Sinai.  God is teaching the Israelites how to live as holy people.

Again, teaching the Israelites.

Rules for daily living, family responsibility, sexual conduct, relationships, and dealing with the world are covered in Leviticus chapters 18-20.  God does an effective job of making no mistakes who his audience was for these laws:

Leviticus 18:1-2  1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘I am the LORD your God.

Leviticus 19:1-2 1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: ‘Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy.

Leviticus 20:12 The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Say to the Israelites

Am I the only one missing where God instructed Moses to speak to all nations and let them know about the never ending universal applications of these laws?  I’ve also searched the New Testament line by line, and I have not found the verse that specifies which of these sins were nullified with the new covenant and which were not.  There is no clear “Thou shalt hate the gays but eat shellfish” verse; believe me, I’ve looked.  Newsflash Pat Robertson and company, Leviticus is not the law of THIS land, unless I missed a major part of world history and geography.

It infuriates me that “liberal” or “inclusive” Christians pretend that just because people use the Bible out of context, the hurt they cause is invalidated.  I know Robertson is full of shit.  Lots of Christians know so as well, but what he and many of our politicians and lawmakers are doing, are referencing the Bible in support of their actions.  The fact that they’re using it out of context or misinterpreting it doesn’t make their words and actions any less harmful.  The fact that they use it as a weapon to promote intolerance does not make me want to say, “Oh shucks, their just ignorant of theology, I’ll forgive them.”  Robertson has a large audience;  one that funds him and his station.  Regardless of his misrepresentation of scripture, people out there are soaking it up.  

I’ve had about as much as I can take of those who attack me for talking against the Bible.  The Bible is a book, and like all books it is open for interpretation.  However, unlike other books, people are willing to mold it into whatever they see fit and use it to govern and rule; even if it causes harm to others.  

One of the major issues I have with Christianity, and had even when I was a Christian, is that if you think your church is too conservative, you can just go down the road to the local inclusive church and they’ll give you their explanation to why people like Robertson are wrong about the laws in Leviticus,  and why homosexuality is not a sin.  Same book, different spin.  Yet for some reason I’m the one in the wrong.  Interesting. 

Evangelical Christianity.

(via nonplussedbyreligion-deactivate)

DON’T TAKE MT. OLYMPIA OUT OF THE OLYMPICS!

DON’T TAKE MT. OLYMPIA OUT OF THE OLYMPICS!

Grocery stores launches “man aisle” for shopping-challenged dudes - NYPOST.com →

Here’s why this is sexist. By presuming that men are so dumb that they can’t handle grocery shopping and need it simplified is to consent to the stereotype that women are to be responsible for grocery shopping. In other words, it’s a special case when a man goes shopping, they need to be coddled and specially accommodated because it’s women’s work. Women are supposed to be doing that, but in the rare instance your female servant is incapacitated, here’s an aisle for you. When your personal assistant recovers, she’ll resume this duty.