How about an avowed athiest in the Supreme Court this time around?

I'd love to see the RW scramble for reasons why a "Godless man/woman" couldn't be a fair and impartial judge, when in my opinion that is who would give us the most balanced opinions.

I'm sure there have been Freethinkers
on the court in the past, but for one
to speak up about it would be great!

Not my opinion, but politician will be quick to cite that people will vote for almost anything before they'll support an atheist. While I think the idea is great and it would put some sanity on the court, no politician will come out and nominate an avowed athiest for fear of the orchestrated shitstorm that would ensue.

I personally think you should take a polygraph PROVING you're an atheist or at least inactive in your religion to be in any aspect of Government. I'm sick and tired of being led by people whose personal philosophies all include a "Doomsday/judgement day/apocalypse" myth in their background.

Note my first word..."Not MY Opinion". Pardon me for being a bit lazy on an early Saturday, but it's not hard to go out and find a poll on religion and politics and see where people will vote for almost anything ahead of an athiest. It's not my choice who is nominated, it's politicians...and as long as they read polls, their choices will be dictated as such. Look at the push right now for a woman/hispanic/black...and if a straight white male is selected, watch this place explode. All I want is a qualified, Progressive jurist who will counteract the Scalitos.

No other religion has such a basis in doomsday theology. You will not find any other religion that basically urges its followers to seek out the end of the world so that they can live forever in eternal bliss while everyone they dislike is tortured forever. A lot of Christians seem t wonder why their religion is singled out for scorn and ridicule... Well, that's why.

I would basically trust anyone, ANYONE else to manage a government, over someone who believes that the end of the world is going to be a real event that ends well for him.

the so called 'Christians' running around with the Bible under their arms. When I see a Cross on the sleeve I usually duck as I know I have to hold my wallet. You see I was in business with these so called 'Christians" that prayed to JC to make money and the things they would do would turn you in to a non-believer in about 10 min. I am with you on this one.

i`d settle for an independent/centrist

beats a particular religious or atheist ideology.

NT!

Why not go further down that road?

I'd say nominate a platypus if it would make a few RW heads explode.

It's great idea, except it appears that "avowed atheist" is an oxymoron.

Sorry, just playing Devil's Advocate. :rofl:

Another oxymoron is the "Loving God" that all the warmongers and hate spewers tell us we should be worshiping.

Mole people have been kept down by the man far too long.

The X-Men Morlocks, not the Wells Morlocks. Cause they're in our future. nm. Sorry, geek attack.

who actually makes decisions based on law, precedent and the constitution rather than base their appointment on their religion or lack of it.

Obama could choose Jesus H Christ himself and the Rethugs will fight him on this tooth and nail and the Dems that let Roberts coast into the main chair because we were "keeping the powder dry" are going to look like the chumps they are.

Since an oath to uphold the constitution, which separates church from state (or rather, state from church)should mean exactly that, any national office-holder should avow to execute duties without prejudice to religious belief. If their religious beliefs don't allow them to do so "in good conscience" they shouldn't run.

Yes, we should demand a lot more from elected people than we do. This one is a no-brainer based on my reading of the constitution.

I doubt I will see it in my lifetime and I know it's the only lifetime I have. Wish I had been born in another country sometimes.

You should pick up the belief of reincarnation. You theoretically get to see mankind fuck themselves up hundreds of times.

:argh:

I nominate Bernadette Peters.

But it would be a LOT of fun to see the debate. And frankly I think that debate would be very good for the country.

And you get paid a Hell of a lot better than a public school teacher for doing so.

A skeptic wants proof and evidence. An atheist doesn't need it because they already have formed an opinion, just like a theist.

Or even closet atheists. There's a "fashion sense" to being a good "God Fearin Amurican" and an unspoken fear of being thought to be anything else.

umm- how do you prove that something DOESN'T exist, actually?

just because a bunch of people thousands of years ago made up fantastical stories of omnipotent deities to keep the rabble in line, it means that "proof" of some kind is now needed that the myths aren't true? :crazy: :crazy:

wow.

http://www.webraydian.com/content/view/1217/32/

Please read the whole page, it will help you to understand the meaning of atheism.

snip> Definitions are tricky. There is no official arbiter of the English language, and if there were, he or she or they could make mistakes in any case. How do we decide what definition is best, then? We look at the reality which the word represents, and use a definition that best describes that reality. The fact that we disagree on the outcome doesn't invalidate the process or suggest that we need to put total faith in some "authority" to choose for us.

In this case, we look at what atheism actually is. It is clear that atheism isn't a belief, but a lack of belief. The believer is the one who claims a god exists. Atheism simply points to the reality that some people's belief systems don't include a belief in a god.< unsnip

I am an atheist, and I have NO belief in
gods.

That doesn't mean that I don't believe
that there is no POSSIBILITY of supernatural
beings, just that I don't BELIEVE
in gods.

So I don't worship any.

the god stuff doesn't get added until later on.

and for some people, it seems to stick-

but they ALWAYS seem a lot more insecure in their 'faith', than any atheist is in their lack of it; seeing how threatened they generally seem by the people who don't share their belief system.

but it seems a wishy-washy term that
means the same thing.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/reason/agnosticism/agnostic.html

After all it wasn't even coined until 1869...

For some reason, it is more palatable to
believers than "atheist".

NT!

It's the religionists that are making the extraordinary claim that there's a sky being who created us and controls our very existence.

It's up to THEM to show ME that one does exist.

Until they do, I couldn't care less.

We simply don't buy into the idea that any exist, thanks to the overwhelming lack of evidence for any of the purported ones.

Completely the opposite of your assertion, in fact.

marching as to war-
with the cross of jebus,
going on before...:eyes:

martin luther- one of the original fundy nut-jobs.

Nutjob? Perhaps, but he was definitely not a fundy.

and helped to pave the way for the modern-day crop of christian morans.

As long as he/she interprets the Constitution the same way as does Stephen Breyer (or Souter, Bader-Ginsburg or Stevens for that matter), I don't care if he/she worships the Spaghetti Monster or a can of Campbell's Soup.

nt

How about one term of six years per Pres. Keeps the new blood flowing through the WH, eliminates the need to spend half your first term doing nothing but campaigning for the second and essentially makes the "second term" lobbyists an extinct species. Maybe you could have some kind of public referendum after 6 years and grant the President two more or something, unopposed, a confidence vote if you will. If he doesn't get the majority an election is held. Maybe I should write science fiction stories?

but the chance of those types of changes being made in the constitution without some type of (probably violent) revolution are pretty much slim and none. and slim left town over 200 years ago. :shrug:

It's unfair to label all people of faith as batshit religious fanatics.

Where is the lable of all faithers as fanatics? What sort of moral code allows you to rewrite someone's words like that?
It might be noted that all of the current justices are 'Christians' and thus you should be able to assume that America knows some people of faith have brains. The point is, so do some people who are not religious.
In short, the OP does not seem to be about 'people of faith' in any way at all.

I was making a statement. Follow your own advice and stop rewriting other people's words.

Not related to, but directed at the OP? Just a statment in a vaccuum? It must hurt to work that hard!

But alas I am no match for your superior intellect so I well concede defeat by activating my "dickhead-be-gone" option...aka the ignore buttun.

NT!

Versus whom, exactly, if the OP isn't saying anything about at least some "people of faith"? The OP would have been better to leave out that line.

I offer the words of da Master:
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

And yet, it seems those who claim his name are very quick to find offense between the lines, and to word any imagined slight in terms of hyperbole. I always wonder why that is. I mean, some 'people of faith' are Fred Phelps. Some atheists are Karl Rove. We all know all of this. But it remains that those who claim to follow teachings never seem to do so, and to me, that is the same as claimng to be kosher while munching pulled pork sandwich on Saturday.
Or to ask it more sweetly, did Jesus not say that many will mock you for being 'of faith' and did he not teach how to react to that? Do the people of faith here react as they are taught? Do you think they might do better on such subjects if they did come with humility, as did the teacher?
The electrical spirit of agape is not exactly pulling them in around here as it is currently expressed. If that means anything to any of the faithful.

Religion clouds reason in some people. Some of those people find themselves in positions of incredible power. That is a bad thing no matter who it is or the religion they follow.

NT!

response. IMO the post was trying to say that the nomination of an atheist would make the small minded republiCon's heads explode. I would hope you agree that that would be cool to see? Well, do you agree?

The OP didn't even come close to maligning people of faith. The OP said: "in my opinion that is who would give us the most balanced opinions." No labeling there. I disagree with the OP's opinion but can accept their opinion. If you disagree, it would be more convincing if you gave a good argument instead of attacking.

Just sayin.

according to the charlatans in the churches who support torture, oppose equal rights for gays, and think pedophiles are just so nifty.

I'm an Atheist, too, and that sweaty souse doesn't speak for ME.

LOL!

You KNOW he would hear any case against the Bush Crime Family :evilgrin:

Issues like prayer in school, or banning any self-expression of religion on public ground, while rather perverse given the historic context of such events and the attitudes of the people who wrote the constitution in the first place, seem to be red herrings.

More important is a justice's view on the role of government in society, and the degree to which its powers can be limited, or to which specific language limiting government power in the constitution can be ignored. the commerce clause apparently includes every single thing we do that involves money, or transfer of goods, of course.

I'll be happy if the candidate's just not a frothing-at-the-mouth extremist believer...

Be still my beating heart!