Atheist S.E. Cupp: ‘I Would Never Vote For an Atheist President’
- Posted on July 5, 2012 at 6:56pm by
Jason Howerton
- Print »
- Email »
For those of you who don’t know, The Blaze’s S.E. Cupp is an atheist. She doesn’t exactly wear it on her sleeve but she never tries to hide from it either.
Nonetheless, Cupp made a fascinating personal revelation Thursday as she spoke with her co-hosts on MSNBC’s “The Cycle” about the always important role of religion in presidential elections.
The panel was discussing GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith and how it has affected his presidential ambitions so far when co-host Krystal Ball threw a curve ball and asked, “What if he were atheist?”
Cupp responded almost instantly, saying Romney would have “no chance” running as an atheist candidate.
“And you know what? I would never vote for an atheist president. Ever,” Cupp added, clearly surprising the rest of her panel.
“You’re a self-loathing atheist,” Salon’s Steve Kornacki joked.
It may seem peculiar that someone who classifies herself as an atheist would say that atheism has no place in the Oval Office, but as always, Cupp put her bold statement into context with a concise and thought-provoking explanation.
“Because I do not think that someone who represents 5 to 10 percent of the population should be representing and thinking that everyone else in the world is crazy, but me,” Cupp said, pointing to her chest.
When asked by Ball what would be wrong with someone like herself representing Christians as president, Cupp said she “appreciates” religion and explained why the person she votes for needs to have faith in something bigger than himself.
“The other part of it — I like that there is a check, OK? That there‘s a person in the office that doesn’t think he’s bigger than the state,” she continued. “I like religion being a check and knowing that my president goes home every night addressing someone above him and not thinking all the power resides right here… Atheists don’t have that.”
Watch the segment below via MSNBC and weigh in on Cupp’s comments:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 688 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 657 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 524 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 361 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 322 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 199 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 221 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
‘Imperial President’: In Case You Missed it, President Obama Issued This Major Executive Order Last Week Read More- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 199 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (381)
Bruce P.
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:02pmMrs. Cupp’s comments go to show that an otherwise smart person can exercise rather faulty logic.
The number Mrs. Cupp uses is the rough estimate of the number of atheists in the US (around 9%) but in the context of this discussion, it is completely arbitrary. Why should any X percentage be allowed to hold office? How can someone from either the Republicans or Democrats, both sides thinking the other is crazy, accurately represent all the American people, when you consider, based strictly on the number of people who vote, each represents a minority of the American population. How could a Baptist, only 16 million (roughly 5%) represent the rest of our 300 million citizens. How can the man Mrs. Cupp is sure to vote for, represent the entire nation when his faith is even a smaller percentage than atheists?
Further, it shows Mrs. Cupp’s intellectual immaturity. In disagreeing with someone, one need not think the other person is crazy. In saying “…thinking that everyone else in the world is crazy,” she shows just what she thinks of people she finds disagreement with.
Report Post »bo1921
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:11pmI didn’t know “Mrs.” Cupp was married.
Report Post »black9897
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:37pmI never knew she was an atheist.
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:39pmAccording to The Pew Forum’s US Religious Landscape report, there are almost as many atheists (1.6%) as Latter Day Saints (1.7%) in this country.
Which is the more important quality in a leader: Adherence to the principles of a particular religion, or adherence to the principles contained in the Constitution? I argue the latter.
I like Ms Cupp, and she in entitled to her opinions, but I would disagree with her on this.
Character matters. You don’t need religion for character.
Report Post »BryanB
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:58pm@bo1921
Atheist don’t marry, they just hang-out with people till they get bored, and then they move on to other people…………….;)
Report Post »JohnGalt
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 9:11pm“How could a Baptist, only 16 million (roughly 5%) represent the rest of our 300 million citizens” considering Baptist is a denomination Christianity they can easily represent the majority of the 300 million.
Report Post »pilgrim249
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 9:13pmBruce–You have the weak logic of a nine year old.
Everyone reading this article and your comment knows that Ms.Cupp would hand you your a$$ in a debate, yet you speak of her intellectual immaturity—You are laughable.
When is the last time a media outlet paid you for your opinion?? You are an envious, laughable twit.
Report Post »acidovorax
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 9:26pmPilgrim, since you can‘t refute Bruce’s post, best to resort to ad hominems, huh?
Report Post »BryanB
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 9:48pm@Bruce P.
98% of the people of the United States believe in God in someway, with the majority of the people being Christian’s around 94%.
Your 2% really doesn’t count……..Sorry……..
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 9:52pm@PILGRIM249
Though BRUCE P did use the word ‘immature’, his original position was “that an otherwise smart person can exercise rather faulty logic”, which is true.
BRUCE P is a man of reason, and as far as logic goes, her opinion is off. There was no statistical data to back it up, her sample was a sample of one (her), and the fact that she is non-believer but thinks it would be better to have a believer as a leader is nonsensical.
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 10:00pm@BRYANB
According to The Pew Forum’s US Religious Landscape report;
78.4% of American adults are Christian,
12.1% are nothing in particular,
4.7% are other than Christian,
4 % are atheist or agnostic.
Just thought you might want to know so you can use proper numbers the next time you quote statistics.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 10:11pmI think you missed the point it wasn’t someone of a specific faith, it was someone of any faith. The one thing all faiths have in common is that they believ in something greater than themsleves. That makes all the differenc in the world given her comment. Which was exactly her point. Not only have you engaged in faulty logic, but you need to work on your reading comprehension before you critque someone. Most of America does identify with some type of faith. So upon appropriate analysis her logic does hold up.
Report Post »BryanB
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 10:12pm@brother_ed
“According to The Pew Forum’s US Religious Landscape report ”
When your paid to put out statistics, you are going to put up what ever the person that pays you the most……Just like Nielsen’s………..
Report Post »Detroit paperboy
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 10:33pmI picked a beautiful flower today, a small pink kinda puff ball lookin thing………it was perfectly designed…….and I said thank you God !!!!! and I’m not kidding…..
Report Post »remy0027
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 10:43pm@Brother_Ed Although I would agree that you do not need religion and I would go further and say need God to have character, I would take a closer look to see who raised or mentored said person with character. The odds are that person believes and follows God.
Report Post »acidovorax
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 10:46pm“When your paid to put out statistics, you are going to put up what ever the person that pays you the most……Just like Nielsen’s………..”
And Bryan goes full ****** in his fallacies of argumentation. Ease up, Bryan, Strawman wants a turn.
Report Post »acidovorax
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 10:52pm“I think you missed the point it wasn’t someone of a specific faith, it was someone of any faith. The one thing all faiths have in common is that they believ in something greater than themsleves. That makes all the differenc in the world given her comment. Which was exactly her point. Not only have you engaged in faulty logic, but you need to work on your reading comprehension before you critque someone. Most of America does identify with some type of faith. So upon appropriate analysis her logic does hold up.”
Sleazy, the only faulty logic I see is Cupp’s and those who continue to jump through all manner of logical hurdles to defend her. Her claim of “believing in something higher” does not support her refusal to vote for an atheist, in any way. Kings of Europe believed in God and that God granted them the right to rule over all. Catholics believe in God and that he speaks through the Pope, who is therefore infallible. Woodrow Wilson and FDR were Christians. So, how many conservatives are lining up to vote a New Dealer into office?
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 10:57pmThe statistics on atheism in the United States varies. A 2004 BBC poll found 9% of the country was atheist. A 2008 Gallup poll found 6% to be atheist. The Pew found that less than two percent were atheist. That is a big gap. Admittedly, I went with the big number.
However, it is arbitrary. Even if you go with the lower number, it is similar to the number of Jews in the country. Would Cupp say the same thing about Jews or Mormons? Doubtful.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 11:02pmBRYANB — the number of Christians is closer to 80%.
That 2% (or 9%, depending…) does count. Everyone has equal say, regardless of their religious beliefs.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 11:05pmPILGRIM — can you tell me where I am wrong?
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 11:49pm@ ACID…. It is not illogical what she stated. You may not agree or think it is misguided, however, it is NOT illogical, if in fact you understand how to evaluate logic. On the contrary, it was quite a logical statement for a person who understands the shortcomings of men in general who obtain power. The examples you gave were of men that only professed a faith because it suited and justified their lust for power. In this country, we don’t elect Kings we elect Presidents that are, at least to some degree, responsible for how they use that office. If they have some idea they are accountable to a higher power it at least holds the possibility of curtailing that persons abuse of that office, although it is still certainly possible it is NOT illogic to say that it could. Now I’m not her to deabate if you or BRUCE agree, but if your going to try and call out her logic, then I am going to call out either your mistake or ignorance or lack of reading comprehension. Simply say I don’t agree with that, but don’t try to base your opinion on some type of fabricated logical standpoint to make it seem more superior to her opinion, please.
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 11:53pm@DETROIT PAPERBOY
Nice!
I, too believe there is a God.
I also enjoy your comments on here – your use of humor to make a point is a gift.
If I say God created that flower, and BRUCE P says it evolved, I would prefer to ignore the difference and celebrate the beauty of the flower.
We can all get along if we realize our opinions are just that, opinions.
Some on here tend to think that their opinion is the only opinion and anyone else is wrong. Admittedly, I enjoy pointing that out sometimes.
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 11:56pm@SLEAZYHIPPOS ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Why would someone who does not believe in a higher being prefer someone who does to lead them?
I like SE, but that was a silly thing to say, whether I believe she’s right, or not.
Report Post »acidovorax
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 12:08am“The examples you gave were of men that only professed a faith because it suited and justified their lust for power.”
Sleazy, in order to defend her poor reasoning, you commit more fallacies of argumentation. Look up the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. Your above statement is nothing more than a convenient rationalization on why those who self-identify as Christians are really not Christians.
Report Post »cgnick
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 12:10am@BruceP
Report Post »Good point that you made. She is too smart to really believe that an atheist can’t represent the the American people. She is merely pandering to her extreme right wing base. Much like Glenn she is too smart to believe half of the stuff she says. They are both selling Plastic Patriotism to the right wing fringe and making a killing off of it.
Bruce P.
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 12:12amIf I were President, of course I would believe I answered to a higher power…
…that higher power is called the American people and the Constitution of the United States.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 12:14amCGNICK — Even as much as I think it is an illogical position, I hope it is a sincere one. I do not want to think it was cowardly cynicism on her part.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 12:19am@ BROTHER……you have every right to disagree and she has a wordlview as an atheist that is at its core pragmatic if nothing else. The mistake that I think most atheists make (watch them come gunning for me after this comment) is that they try to hard. They say they don’t believe but are so threatend and concerned about people of faith or advancing their views (not all but many to be fair). I believe SE is more concerned about her conservative views rather than making an issue about something she really probably could care less about as someone that truly believes there is no god or higher power. I think the point she was making is that men are easily corrupted by power and since she is against cetralized big government power then she believes, based upon her experiences, that people of faith (not all because some are nominal only and false people of faith) live a certain way as they might have to give an account of the way they use that power (certainly not a gaurantee but definitely possible, many presdients have very public prayers and faith that have guided their decisions, I assume I don’t need to list those). She believes this serves as a protection, to a degree, of that person not trying to abuse their position and intrude on her liberty. Now you may certainly disagree, but her position does not violate the rules of logic. It may be unusual, but I believe it is motivated by her greater concern, namely a more power hungry presidency.
Report Post »acidovorax
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 12:21amCGNick, I suspect this is the real motivation behind her statement, which is a very smart calculated move on her part. She gets to be open about her belief, yet placate the conservative base and remain in their grace. There are no atheists running for office and likely not for a while, so her statement costs her nothing to say.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 12:28amACIDOVORAX, BROTHER_ED — thank you for sticking up for me against the earlier ad hominem.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 12:38am@ ACID……..I don’t have to lQQk it up I know what it is and I am not guilty of it. Apparently you should lQQk into it more. The fact is that not all who claim this or that are in reality what they claim. If you claimed you were brilliant you may or may not be, but just because you say you are does not make it so. Secondly, you made no universal claim about christians or kings so exactly how am I guilty of this fallacy? I simply implied that men in power say many things to keep or enhance that power. Do you deny this? Could not a genuine atheist claim to be someone of faith to gain power? The bottom line is you can disagree with her till you are blue in the face, but she did not break any rules of logic. Nor did I. The logic holds that people of faith do believe in a higher power of somesort that they will give an account. It is also factual that most of this country self identifies with some type of faith. It is also plausable and reasonable (not 100%) to assume that if someone of faith is in office that their beliefs would/could keep their human appetites to abuse that power in check because of a belief in answering to an ultimate authority higher than themselves. Now you can argue an atheist would/could do the same thing, go ahead and make your argument. But, she was not illogical in what she said. It was an entirely possible, plausible, and logical opinion…..just because you don‘t agree doesn’t make it illogical. Read a bit more on the scotsman …..
Report Post »TRUTHandFREEDOM
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 12:46amBruce,
When you say “How could a Baptist, only 16 million (roughly 5%) represent the rest of our 300 million citizens” you overlook the fact that Baptists hold Christian principles and believe in God like the majority of Americans do. One nation under God. Individual salvation. Individual responsibility.
Some fall for the communist ideal of “collective” salvation that Obama has put forth, but if you live by the true teachings of Christian faith, then you understand that your place and actions in the world are under God and that only you will be held responsible for your actions.
To live by that true understanding and to understand the importance of those individual responsibilitiy principles in both founding and elevating America into greatness and personal liberty is highly important qualifications that are necessary in a president. It is the check that SE spoke of.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 12:54am@ ACID just so you are not confused in why I did not commit the fallacy you think I did, let me give you an example.
Tim: All dogs have four legs
Bud: My dogs have one leg
Tim: then you don’t have dogs.
Tim is correct in his staement because dogs do have four legs. Since the traditional character of a true christian (and traditional teachings) is understood by most here on the blaze and certainly by you as being oppossed to the abuse of power to oppress fellow men then my statement was completely logic and without fallacy.
Report Post »acidovorax
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 1:12amSLEAZY, your argument was full on “No True Scotsman” fallacy. How do you prove that a person doesn’t believe in God, if they don’t come outright and disavow this belief? You can’t, but you simply disregard all professed believers that interfere with your definition of a “true believer” and presto chango they are not “true believers”. It s a totally dishonest method of argumentation. As for the rest of your diatribe, its absurd. It’s all “its true, but not 100% true“ and ”in many cases, but not all cases”, “you can’t deny that some, but not all”, ad nauseum. You wrote paragraphs of distinctions without distinction. Because a part of her argument was factually correct does not make her argument correct. If I stated “one ought not vote for atheists, because atheists make mistakes”, my argument is factually correct. Atheists DO make mistakes. But it is logically flawed because it insinuates that there are non-atheists that do NOT make mistakes. Her argument was no better and your arguments are not compelling. The idea that maybe, possibly, it‘s quite plausible that a belief in a higher power would reign in a person’s appetite for power is not compelling and simply not demonstrated by history. Of course you will just reject such historical instances away as not being “true believers”.….
Report Post »acidovorax
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 1:18amAnd for the love of baby Jesus, learn what the No True Scotsman fallacy is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
“When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.”
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 1:20amAh, the defective logic of Progressives. If there’s no data, make it up!
Cupp‘s argument is that it’s important for people in positions of great power to believe in something greater than themselves. A belief in a power that judges their actions on Earth and rewards or punishes for eternity keeps men humble.
So, the self-important Progressives jump on the thread and begin to argue how they are too intelligent for the logic of Cupp based on something that has nothing to do with her core argument. Great job, Progressive twits! Thank you so much for proving her point.
Well done.
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 1:28am@BRUCE P
No thanks needed, but acknowledged.
@SLEAZY
You may be right. She and other atheists may believe that a belief in a higher power keeps a leader in line because they believe they will be held accountable for their actions.
But I would argue that an atheist thinks that it is also not necessary to believe in a higher power to be kept in check.
As a religious person, I would say that a religious man would be able to seek guidance for decisions from a higher power.
That being said, the only real criteria I have is not adherence to a particular faith, but adherence to the rule of law – specifically the Constitution – is a priority.
I appreciate you giving me a different rendering of her comments than how I read them.
Report Post »BryanB
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 1:32am@Bruce P.
Companines that do statistical information are PAID for a desired result, if they did not give favorable results, they wouldn’t be in business very long.
This is why geographical location is very importune to Statisticians and the companies they work for, to get the desired statistics they want, so they can make money.
Have you ever been watching the News and the News Anchor will rattle off some statistic like, 98% of all Americans love President Obama like no other President in the history of the United States. And your sitting there, thinking no one I know likes, let alone loves President Obama.
This where geographical location become very importune, Research Companies and their Statisticians know what Telephone Area Codes will give them that 98% of all Americans love President Obama. But that doesn’t make it the truth, the Research Compaines are paid for favorable results. Just like Atheists Originations pay Research Companies to give them good statistics. The other bad thing with these Research Companies is, the people that pay them are allowed to set-up the conditions of the research, which gives them even more favorable statistics.
The best place to get reliable statistical information is from our government. depending on what information you need varies from agency to agency……..
Report Post »acidovorax
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 1:34amJaycen, lay off the bath salts, brah. You’ve gone full r.tard.
Report Post »acidovorax
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 1:42amBryan, so what you are saying is that companies pay alot of money to have companies produce them incorrect data? Makes perfect sense.
Now, instead of the rhetoric, you could have saved alot of time and just posted the source where you got your stat from.
Report Post »BryanB
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 2:09am@acidovorax
No, there are what is called Blind Research Companies, but they mostly deal with Food and Product testing. Remember New Coke, no Blind Research was done…………….
Report Post »nelbert
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 2:46amIt would seem from the debate here that the question as to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin hasn’t yet been resolved.
I understand Ms. Cupp’s atheism; I also understand and am refreshed by her tolerance of those holding faith. What’s the problem?
Report Post »chucksue351
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 5:07ami find it interesting that 98 percent of americans believe in god, are these the same people that are using all of the drugs coming over the border, are these the same people engaged in the sex trade,cheating on each other are these the same people at the caSINos, my point is that just believing in god does no one any good, we as a country must repent of sin (transgression of the law, yes the Torah of YVHV) then call on His name not god or lord, then maybe He will hear from Heaven and heal this land (26 shootings in chicago in one day)
Report Post »Twobyfour
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 5:56am@Jaycen
===> “Cupp‘s argument is that it’s important for people in positions of great power to believe in something greater than themselves. A belief in a power that judges their actions on Earth and rewards or punishes for eternity keeps men humble.”
Why the militant atheists don’t comprehend this? It’s so simple. Instead, they infer/invent all sorts of interpretations that quite sidetrack what is being conveyed by SE. It’s like a selective blindness.
Report Post »Christianmyson
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 7:15amCupps is a young girl, her thoughts carrie littleor no weight wih most pople either way, she is sexy and uses that to get ahead or give well anyway! She has a bad habbit of openng her mouth. I find it hard to listen to folks talk about issues of imporantance when I have boots that I wear every day older than they are, Beck is trying to reach out to the young people useing her and most of the other children on his so called News show, Cupps is a Twitt who will someday belive in God, and regrett that she ever thought otherwise, she is hot to look at I just get tired of her childish mouth. but she will someday grow up, I am surprised Glenn keeps Godless people along with fag__ so close, I will have to relook at my support of him and GBTV!!!!!!!
Report Post »johnjamison
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 8:20amYou missed the point she was making entirely. Atheist pretty much as a whole are intolerent she’s the enegma in her belief structure. Thus whe would rather have a person whom believes he has to answer to a higher power in charge than have someone who thinks he’s thge final answer in charge.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 8:48am@ ACID…you have no clue how to even apply the term fallacy correctly. I have not committed it. The very basic tenets and doctrines of Christianity are well known to all and so to behave in a manner contrary to those beliefs is all the proof required. In fact, to assume all who call themselves this or that are in fact this or that, would be in itself illogical. The qualifiers that were placed there (which seemed to annoy you) were to avoid illogical statements so that universal untruths were not espoused. You have no real argument for the fact that you defended someone intiitally that made an error in their reading comrpehension and you made a supporting statement. The fact is you can disagree but it was and and I have not been illogical. You have engaged in distraction to the rebuttals by using phony accusations of fallacy. The example that I gave explains very easily why you were erroneus in your understanding or application of the sctosman fallacy. Yet how easy for you to just disregard, talk of your “presto” moment. You have engaged in dismassal debate which means in your mind you will never conceed when you have been shown as false in your point or foundation. In this case, your allegation of SE Cupp being illogical in her assertion. Of course, the example you gave of atheists was absurd because it is a non sequitur. SE Cupp, never said that an atheist would not be as upright as a person of faith. She said she belived that the probability was greater. Co
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 8:51am@ ACID….you established a qualifier that was never present in the initial assertion (by using those pesky words like all that you seem to have a problem with) and then pretneded to knock it down. We are not dealing with universal statements and no one has made them except you. We both know what that is don’t we? I think people have reading comprehension problems. Based on her assertion and statement, she was completely logical. You can disagree , but your pride simply won’t let you admit that it is not an illogical statement.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 8:59amFrom the creators of “Self-hating Jew” comes this summer’s newest product: “Self-hating atheist!”
… seriously though, this woman is full of it. Know what I want in my leaders? Adherence to the Constitution. I follow Christ, but do any of us really think Obama’s a good president because he claims to do the same? Heck no. Give me an atheist who follows the Constitution over a “Christian” who would tear down our freedoms and rights any day.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 8:59am@ BROTHER…. I appreciate you giving me a different rendering of her comments than how I read them.
I would agree and actually go further ans say that an atheist must believe that God is not required to hold somone in check. However, this then becomes a totally different argument about the heart of men. You know the old, “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I agree that upholding the constitution is priority, I can also see how someone who believes they, and not a higher power, is ultimately in charge, could, because of pride and arrogance think that they are above the law. In fact, I believe many politicians do already and we see the resulting corruption and trashing of our laws. Now you and I both know politicians claim a lot of things about who they are, but this makes them no more sincere than me saying I’m a professional football player. Of course, someone claiming to be a person of faith could do the same thing, but I think that perhaps the sheer probability might be less. This is where her argument is the weakest because it is this point that is her opinion. Thanks BROTHER for the dialogue….have a good day.
Report Post »TomNTexas
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 8:59amHer point was that the majority of Americans say the are Christian, with many of same beliefs, not any one denomination.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 9:22am@ ACID…I knew you got your info off of WIKIPEDIA about the scotsman fallacy. It was embarrassingly obvious. Try reading a bit further down my wise in his own eyes friend….too funny. There is more hope for a fool than one wise in his own eyes. At least the fool may realize his condition. No matter how much you scream it or state it, I did not commit that fallacy. Your failure to understand why is glaring. And to deal in universal statements in regard to groups of people would be absurd and absolutely illogical, so your annoyance at my use of qualifiers only demonstartes either your desperation or your misgivings about what constitutes logic. I am afarid you need more insight into logic, fallacy, and argumentation.
Report Post »dimitrisokolov
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 9:32amShe is stupid. I’d rather vote for an atheist than for anyone who believes in some invisible man in the sky.
Report Post »APD847
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 9:57amBruce, the separation of powers used to mean a distinction between those branches both in form and in function. Not anymore. For that, I think her comments have merit.
Report Post »Additionally, if men will not be ruled from within, they must be ruled from without.
What is Obama’s governor? An elastic sense of so-called pragmatic progressivism, meaning the end justifies the means. Obama has not reached his end goal yet. Not by a long shot.
GrayPanther
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 11:15amLook what we have now! This Charlton in the White House has brought down America and what America has represented. No, you are wrong. A person who freely acknowledges a spiritual faith of goodness in a higher power than man, will hold a more benevolent view of presidential power.
Report Post »acidovorax
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 11:22amSLEAZY, I don’t need Wikipedia to understand that you are intellectually dishonest. Regardless, I have made my arguments and you have made yours and all may see their merits.
Report Post »NoNannyState4me
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 12:19pmShe should use the same logic with Mormonism. Previously called Moronism.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 1:23pm@ ACID…intellectually dishonest? How exactly did you arrive at that conclusion? Because you misapplied a fallacy principle and I called you on it? Like you said all can see and if anyone cares they can read for themselves on WIKIPEDIA why it was not a fallacy at all.
Report Post »christian-atheist
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 1:37pmShe gives three reasons why(premises) and the rest of the interview is talking about these permises:
Report Post »A) A person from a 5-10 percentage of the population should not be president.
B) An atheist thinks that everyone else in the world is crazy.
C) Atheist do not answer to a higher power and therefore would have no checks and balances while president.
therefore she would not vote for an atheist. (an atheist should not be president)
Does anyone else not see why these premises are weak in supporting her conclusion?
christian-atheist
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 1:38pmI am so sorry if this is a repost:
Report Post »She gives three reasons why(premises) and the rest of the interview is talking about these permises:
A) A person from a 5-10 percentage of the population should not be president.
B) An atheist thinks that everyone else in the world is crazy.
C) Atheist do not answer to a higher power and therefore would have no checks and balances while president.
therefore she would not vote for an atheist. (an atheist should not be president)
Does anyone else not see why these premises are weak in supporting her conclusion?
cliffchism
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 1:53pmThat’s funny. You see, I found no fault with her logic. I did find it rather interesting.
I also found it interesting that you took issue with her use of the word crazy, while using the term immature, to describe her. How does that make you feel?
Report Post »afranklin09c
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 1:53pmWhat I find more abhorrent about her argument is the idea that religion has a place in the Oval Office, or for that matter any elected office, as a basis for decision-making.
Report Post »And possibly worse, that for some reason she has it in her head that religious people are more moral than people without religions. That atheists have no moral basis and that the only way one CAN have morals is to be religious and gain them from religion is such a disgusting thing to perpetuate when you yourself are an atheist.. so sad.
Alvin691
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 1:55pmBO, it’s a new way for the left to insult conservative women. They follow the meme that conservative women are treated subservient to men. I have notied it on more and more of their attacks. It’s their war on women.
Report Post »christian-atheist
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 2:04pm@ AF….
Report Post »I agree with much of what you have said. However, your statement about religious candidates being unfit for office is a bit extreme for my taste. I have no problem with an atheist being president, nor a theist or a deist. One president has not and will not bring down our nation and there have been lousy examples throughout history.
SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 2:15pm@ AFRANKLIN…..Funny, I thought that most of the men involved in crafting our constitution, the one you currently enjoy the freedom to be an atheist (my assumption) without fear of reprisal or discrimination, were deeply religous men for the most part? You see, it was men of faith that crafted the idea of individual liberty to practice (or not) their beliefs (even if that belief is atheistic). Their beliefs were reflected in the type of government they crafted that contained so many checks and balances because they knew the heart of men (Lord of the Rings anyone). Power changes men, even good men, religous men, men of faith and yes even the nonreligous. So your comment really does not hold up to closer examination. Just because you are an atheist does not mean you cannot reap the benefits from a person of faith, turning the other cheek, repaying evil with good, or humbeling themselves and not considering themselves like an Egyptian pharoh (god on earth) when in a position of authority.
Report Post »christian-atheist
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 2:27pm@ Sleazy
Report Post »you make it seem like all the founding father’s had a singular vision of our government. The exact oposite is true. Many of their beliefs, including policy decisions, were contradictory to each others and they had to discuss and compromise. The constitution is less a sigular vision and more a compromise.
Doris
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 2:40pmShe is smart and I am surprised you picked her apart this way. The majority of our presidents from beginning until now have been religious.Or at least professed belief in some deity.Protestants and Catholics each have a bigger following than you are allowing.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 2:43pm@ CHRISTIAN…..I mentioned nothing of a singular vision nor am I myoptic enough to suggest they agreed on everything. However, the final product has been the most effective and freedom loving government ever instituted. The other undeniable fact is that most, not all, but most of the men responsible for crafting our republic were men of faith in one form or another. Hard to argue either of those points I believe, so my assertion is that AFRANKLINs idea that religous beliefs have no place in the oval office, when it was men of faith that crafted our form of government, is wrong. In fact, the freedoms he/she enjoys today are gauranteed by those original founders (men of faith) and the constitution they constructed. Thanks for your comment.
Report Post »FLCommonSense
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 3:05pmWe are talking about religion, not parties. This country was founded mostly with Judeo/Christian values which encompasses all Christians. Although there is a lot of Agnostics out there and Atheists, I agree with S.E. that there should be God-fearing person in the White House.
Report Post »christian-atheist
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 3:19pmI agree that poster AF… is overstepping rehtoricaly with his comment about religion and the Oval office.
Report Post »djoy
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 3:21pmI think you’all are missing her point. It isn’t really the percentage of people being represented, it is the mentality of the person representing all of us. A person believing in a higher power has a natural check on his own powers and arrogance. She is stating that atheists are self consumed and would pose a risk of tyranny to the country – sound familiar? I watch CE on GBTV all the time and she is a very unique atheist. I’m amazed how her intelligence prevents her from acknowledging there is a higher being than herself.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 3:22pm@ CHRISTIAN….gotcha. Thanks for the reply. Have a good day.
Report Post »LAPhil
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 3:56pmS.E. is making less sense all the time. She also just recently called Ann Romney a liar for saying that Mitt is considering picking a woman as his V.P.
Report Post »falling
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 4:50pmMs Cupp did not separate out any particular Christian sect, she merely said that the person holding office should have higher power they answer to. I would assume that any of the many Christian sects would be appropriate to Ms Cupp which opens the position up to the majority of American’s. In fact, if Ms Cupp is anything like myself, she would also vote for a Jew, a Buddhist or a member of many other peaceful religions as well as a Christian. I too am an atheist, but would far prefer my president to have a faith to sustain them as they make the difficult decisions they face. In fact, I suspect that without religion our society would deteriorate at a much more rapid pace than we have already seen as too few are willing to self regulate their behavior. My own moral foundation was formed while I was within the religious community, but too many today have no such foundation and really do believe that they can do as they please and answer to no one. That direction lies the fall of countries.
Report Post »acidovorax
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 5:01pm“I think you’all are missing her point. It isn’t really the percentage of people being represented, it is the mentality of the person representing all of us. A person believing in a higher power has a natural check on his own powers and arrogance. She is stating that atheists are self consumed and would pose a risk of tyranny to the country – sound familiar?”
It’s very familiar, DJOY. It’s called mischaracterization and cognitive bias. Believers mischaracterize atheists in the manner you present above, all the time. And as you have done, they propose that the believer is less prone to abuses of power, due to his/her belief system. Except, of course, for all the cases that contradict this assertion, but those are easily rejected out of hand as NOT being “true believers”.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 5:19pm@ ACID they are not dimissed…I have absolutely stated that religous people can and do misuse power. However, you have dealt agian in absolutes which has been your downfall since commenting on this thread.
Report Post »acidovorax
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 5:29pm“@ ACID they are not dimissed…I have absolutely stated that religous people can and do misuse power. However, you have dealt agian in absolutes which has been your downfall since commenting on this thread.”
Show me where I mentioned your name? Show me where I spoke in absolutes? Yep, nowhere.
Report Post »DesdemonasCrew
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 5:40pmI’m sure no one will read this because you are all strutting around trying to show that you are smarter than the next guy, with your esoteric quotes, and philosophicalpoints of view, blah, blah, blah.
Report Post »I will solve the issure very simply:
I love chocolate. I have a huge and very valuable chocolate collection. I will only hire a person who hates chocolate to guard my treasured chocolate collection.
Simple enough for all you geniuses?
jenk99
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 6:19pmI completely agree with SE on this one.
Report Post »mycomet123
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 6:56pmIf find it sad that she wants “a president” that relies on a higher power than themselves, but doesn’t see a problem for herself being her own higher power. That having been said, if it was between voting for Obama (the so called “christian” candidate) & a dog—I would choose the dog at this point in the game.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 9:58pm@ ACID..of course you didn’t mention me specifically but here is the direct wording you used. It is framed in an exaggerated absolute…..”Believers mischaracterize atheists in the manner you present above, all the time”…..Of course believers do not do what you stated ALL the time as I directly pointed out by using myself as that example (everyone can read on this thread for themselves). You remember all those pesky qualifiers I used to assure I did not do the very thing you are now critical of (irony is you actually used the word mischaracterization in your mischaracterization) and you showed disdain for and then want to turn around and make this comment. And you called me intellectually dishonest..haha…
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 10:02pm@DESDEMONA.you just committed a non sequitur with a faulty example assuming it applies to SE Cupp’s assertion…guess what? It does not. Try again. I’ll let you figure out why…
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 10:13pm@ DESDEMON…….I love chocolate. I have a huge and very valuable chocolate collection. I will only hire a person who hates chocolate to guard my treasured chocolate collection.
Your example falls apart significantly on the last line when you hire a person who HATES your chocolate collection. This would actually be in opposition to what SE Cupp was stating. Your example is false based on that point alone. The people of faith that she would vote for actually care for the same thing she apparently does, namely limited government with a check on personal power. So your example would have been more accurate if the last line said…. I would hire someone who loved chocolate collections to gaurd mine. Please try again. The logic of her statement is sound even if you disagree yet everyone one here “strutting around” are simply to proud to admit it because they want desperately to drown out the story of an atheist only wanting a person of faith in office. It just doesn’t fit the PC agenda for many in that camp. The last part is just my opinion…
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 10:18pm@ DESDEMON…….I love chocolate. I have a huge and very valuable chocolate collection. I will only hire a person who hates chocolate to guard my treasured chocolate collection.
OK I CHANGED MY MIND….
Your example falls apart significantly on the last line when you hire a person who HATES your chocolate collection. This would actually be in opposition to what SE Cupp was stating. Your example is false based on that point alone. The people of faith that she would vote for actually care for the same thing she apparently does, namely limited government with a check on personal power. So your example would have been more accurate if the last line said…. I would hire someone who loved chocolate collections to gaurd mine. Please try again. The logic of her statement is sound even if you disagree yet everyone one here “strutting around” are simply to proud to admit it because they want desperately to drown out the story of an atheist only wanting a person of faith in office. It just doesn’t fit the PC agenda for many in that camp. The last part is just my opinion…
Report Post »Anti_Spock
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 12:31am@DETROIT PAPERBOY… aw how heart warming. You picked a flower and thanked God for his perfect creation.
Are you kidding me? Did you also thank him for the two-headed cow, the deformed baby, and the mentally defected axe-murderer? You make me sick. Here is a newsflash for you…. “this just in from 4 billion years of world history…. that perfect little flower is a genetic mutation. Just like you, me, and every little pretty thing you can muster. If anything you should thank God for trillions of genetic mistakes and tiny little life altering boo-boos.
Report Post »DesdemonasCrew
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 12:58amsleazy
Report Post »Wrong. He does not hate my collection…he hates chocolate, as in, he is not at risk of eating it. While he does not share my passion for chocolate, I will feel better hiring a heretical chocolate non-believer, as he will not be a threat to eat it. The argument does not fall apart, because it is allegorical and helps the confused understand that you can actually want someone to be president who does not share your set of beliefs.
Cesium
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 1:06amShe admits it! most people need the mind control of religion.. Atheists are a small percent of human intelligence that must lay to the far east of the bell curve.. However we still live under the bell curve so we’d like to keep the sheep herded toward the center!
Report Post »acidovorax
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 1:39am“@ ACID..of course you didn’t mention me specifically but here is the direct wording you used. It is framed in an exaggerated absolute…..”Believers mischaracterize atheists in the manner you present above, all the time”…..Of course believers do not do what you stated ALL the time as I directly pointed out by using myself as that example (everyone can read on this thread for themselves).”
Where do I state that ALL believers do this ALL the time? That’s right, nowhere. So the fact that YOU did not act in similar manner doesn’t refute my statement in any way. My statement stands, as the phrase “all the time” is commonly used to present the idea of “frequently”, “routinely”, etc., which is completely true and demonstrated by OTHERS in this thread. So either you lack basic reading comprehension or you are a dishonest hack. My guess is the latter, but maybe it is the former.
“And you called me intellectually dishonest..haha…”
And you go out of your way to prove my point.
Report Post »Mysnt
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 4:51am83 percent of Americans claim be Christian.
Report Post »Deepdiver58
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 6:51amYou missed the points she made as why she would not vote for an atheist.
Report Post »1- Atheists don’t believe in a higher power than “self”. She does not want someone like that in the White House (in my opinion, we have one in there now).
2- People who believe in a higher power (God/universal mind) make up 90% of the American (world) culture. She is not referring to a specific religion (Baptist).
I know it is so difficult to read a story with a critical review and an open mind… but try it sometime, you may learn something
wntsmallgov
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 7:29amBryanB
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:58pm
@bo1921
Atheist don’t marry, they just hang-out with people till they get bored, and then they move on to other people…………….;)
Bryan, If I would single I would not mind just hanging out with her. Right now I am a happy married spud =)
Report Post »junkhead
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 9:27amHilarious…….People are debating the “logical” requirements for her statements are idiotic.
Report Post »1. To assert that “faith” in some higher power endows someone with a higher order of character is false would you argue that the Dali Lama has less “character” than Romney or Obama?
2. her assertion that one needs to have faith in something larger to have the corrupting nature of power kept in check shows her lack of understanding in relating philosophy and ethics – Buddhists DO NOT believe in a “god”, or an “unchaining-everlasting soul” neither do Taoist and I would certainly say that any well worn follower of the dharma has more character and morals to have a better handle on the true nature of a leadership position than a follower of the psychopath Ayn Rand or some guy who claimed to walk on water.
3. to assert that somehow you can not be in a leadership position if you are not a member of religion X is contrary to the fundamental principle of the constitution and thus is exclusionary. Believe what you want but DO NOT make the assert that because I do not believe in a “god” I am somehow lacking in basic morals or ethics it furthers the notion that monotheism itself is exclusive and is lacking ethics.
SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 9:35am@ DESDEMONA…..while I understand your point and in the explanation you are right about someone hating chocolate not eating yours, but I think the question would be that what she loves (in this case a limited person/government in power) is what the man of faith would supposedly love as well. They in fact don’t hate and love the same thing as in your example. She is counting on the fact that the man of faith loves what she loves because he is a man of faith (if genuine) and being pragmatic knows the basic tenants of faith does not look kindly on things like pride, oppression, arrogance, etc…But if I still don’t see what your saying please let me know. I think we both agree that her statement did not violate any logical rules for deductive reasoning however.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 9:46am@ ACID…..Where do I state that ALL believers do this ALL the time?….in the quote I just posted above my friend. You said believers do that all the time. No qualifier of most or some or a few. You implicated the whole group in an activity as all the time and now back stepping it to mean an informal..”well just a fair amount, or quite often”. You wanted to call me out for a fallacy and now you have overstated and exaggerated a statement about a group of people that makes them seem unobjective and stereotyped as unable to set their bias aside, all the while your bias toward those of faith is glaring. Snared by your own comments and mischarecterizations (as you mischaracterize a whole group of people) you have now stepped it back. I say all this because you sir have tried to paint “logical” and consistent your arguments while being critical of the aforementioned group, yet have only implicated yourself. And as you said earlier it is there for all to read. The bottom line is that whether you disagree or not it was and remains a logical statement and attempts to do logical gymnastics with explanations everytime I have called you on your false statements you always back up defend defend defend even if it is plainly obvious. Just my thoughts. You seem like a bright person, and I don’t want to be quarrelsome, but I don’t think you see where you went wrong in your comment. You did the very thing you were critical of in the group of people you implicated.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 10:05am@ JUNKHEAD…..maybe you should be a little slower to criticize others after a comment like that. There are many errors in your response and I have neither the energy or time to deal with all of them. However, you are dealing in absolutes which was never asserted by her or anyone else here. Of course, people who claim faith are not immune from abusing power, in the same way that an atheist might exercise great restraint if in power. However, she is talking about having one more “check” on an individual that she believes might make it less likely than someone who only believes they answer to themselves. We can only deal with the probabilty of someone abusing power or not, we can never know for sure. She simply wants as many “checks” in her favor as she can evaluate. She is simply making a very pragmatic conclusion about the heart of a man in power based on hundreds and hundreds of years and many many examples. Can men claim they are this or that in regard to faith? Of course, does it make it reality? Not necessarily. If someone said they were a woman and dressed like a woman but had a penis then I would say they are in fact a man dressed to lQQk like a woman. In the same way, because religion holds great sway over many people ambitous men have used it to their advantage to maintain and consolidate power. Were they real men of faith, well their actions would argue otherwise. Most acknowledge what basic tenants of faith require of men in authority, namely humi
Report Post »KykuitZeJamz
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 1:02pmOf course SE Cupp isn’t an atheist. she is clearly a fundamentalist christian PLAYING at being an atheist eventually she’ll remove her glasses… unbutton her shirt to reveal a SUPER CHRISTIAN t-shirt underneath..and warn kids not to follow the example of the evil atheist girl she was playing before because their souls will die!!!
the right wing is very clever with its communications and covers all their bases. having lockstep christian reconstructionists is a requirement for their philosophy to take hold. having cupp claim to be an atheist is the equivalent of having klansmen march with martin luther king… you hedge your bets and keep your enemies closer. in the case of the right wing.. racism and theocracy are their achilles heel. even if they find racist and religious bigots who are willing to ally with them.. they can’t overcome the distrust that their shiftiness breeds among their true believers. So Cupp gives them a phony vision that their views are accepted by a wider(and more attractive) demographic than they actually are.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 1:22pm@kykuit No, I really buy that she is atheist.. I am too and I have become quite un-liberal. When I was liberal I was more religious… SE CUPP represents the few of us who know most people are sheeple, yet they are still people and not everyone has enhanced intelligence of atheists. Most people need the myth in order to have a moral compass… I know a lot of religious sheeple who are good people, and whatever they think is the christian dogma that makes them sweet loving people is not a bad thing… There are certainly a lot of red neck bible thump‘n bastards out there but I think they’re really less than most christians. An atheist in power would most likely be a leftist, who are also sheeple.. so she is right on target as an atheist.. She understands she is an atheist but not everyone is capable intellectually of understanding the concept that the necessity for a god need not be for our universe to exist. Atheists just don’t believe. Richard Dawkins welcomes this benevolent God, So do I. But I’m not gonna just believe anything on faith.. That is the definition of foolish..
Report Post »AbbeyNormal
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 1:35pmI don’t vote for candidates based on some aspect of their life or person. I really don’t give a flying crap if a candidate is black, white, Hispanic, tall, short, fat, skinny, etc
All of that is window dressing. I am white middle-aged male who was born in the South. I couldn’t care less if a person running to represent me had any of those same features. Its all superficiality and is entirely irrelevant. Our society is way too concerned with silliness like that. People voted for Obama because he is black. I would like to know how exactly is the pigmentation of his skin going to lead this nation. Does his skin color set policy?
There are two major areas where I am concerned with regards to who represents me. First do they live their life by a set of morals and ethics that drive them to be honest. Are their morals driven by a devotion to God and are they Christian or Jewish. If they are none of the above then they are not fit to serve in office. There are many moral and ethical atheists but they are not motivated by a supreme being. I have no assurances of why they are motivated to be honest or moral other than their own personal standards. I don’t trust that.
Second what is their political philosophy. Do they work to promote freedom or tyranny. Obama represents tyranny like no other US president. Romney is on the side of liberty although not as much as I would like him to be. I’m voting for Romney.
Report Post »AbbeyNormal
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 1:53pm@Brother_Ed.
You said:
“Which is the more important quality in a leader: Adherence to the principles of a particular religion, or adherence to the principles contained in the Constitution? I argue the latter”
The Constitution was based on the principles of Christianity and Judaism. Your two choices aren’t choices unless you are talking about Islam. I will choose the US Constitution over Islam any day.
Atheists did not write or influence the Constitution in any way shape or form. It was written by devoutly religious men (yes I do know that Jefferson was a deist) who were well versed in the Bible and in history. They took examples of why civilizations prospered and why they don’t. They recognized from the Bible that when the ancient Jews prospered it was because of 2 things. Obedience to God and the freedom to make the choice to obey God. When the Jews turned from God they lost their freedom and were overran by Philistines, Babylonians and eventually Romans.
It is so clear and obvious. As more people, even Christians, turn from God we can see our freedom decay. Socialism, Fascism, Communism, Marxism and any other variation of collectivism are all atheist political movements and they all take man’s freedom away. Nazism is the only exception to that rule. Hitler was a pagan. He publicly hated Jews and privately hated Christians. He would have exterminated Christians along with the Jews if there wasn’t too many of them in Germany.
Report Post »Antares
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 4:03pmYou’re focusing on the wrong part of her argument. It’s that she wants the most powerful person in the world to have the humility that he or she is beholden to something even more powerful. As something of a deist, I totally agree.
Report Post »testandverify
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 5:23pmBruce P. – Your lack of logic is amazing. You missed Cupp’s whole point, or should I say bent it to try to support a point you wanted to make, whatever that point was? She said religion, not “a religion”, her point was every clear she wanted someone with their finger on the button to feel they had to answer to a higher being. While I don’t support her atheist view, I can follow her logic, unlike you.
Report Post »acidovorax
Posted on July 8, 2012 at 10:30amSLEAZY, only a moron, or you (but I repeat myself) can claim that my statement was intended as an absolute. Nowhere did I claim that ALL who are religious act a certain way, but it was convenient for you to lie and say that’s what I really meant. When one says “Yeah, I do that all the time“ they mean ”frequently”, “routinely”, “often”, but it appears in SLEAZY-land this means that they are trapped in a Groundhog Day, endless loop of repeating said action at every moment of their life. Brilliant argument, numbnutz.
You’re the typical internet troll. You will lie with every breath, so as to perpetuate the previous litany of lies you contrived. I have no disdain for people of faith. But I despise dishonest hacks, such as yourself.
Report Post »One_Man_Army
Posted on July 15, 2012 at 1:07pmBruce your numbers are off for one. Actually, the rough estimate of atheists in the US, according to a poll done in 2005, is just 2%. This puts their number at just 6 million. As of 2010, there were about 6.1 million Mormons in the US. This means Mormons actually are NOT a smaller segment of the population than atheists. Truth be told, they make up about the same share of the population.
Besides that, if we were to include Baptists and Mormons into the religion they are REALLY a part of, that being Christianity, anyone running under either religion would really be representing MORE THAN three quarters of the US population considering nearly 80% of the US population still belongs to some Christian faith.
Report Post »One_Man_Army
Posted on July 15, 2012 at 1:16pm@ Brother_Ed
WRONG. Check here. Straight from YOUR source.
http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations
According to the ACTUAL Pew Forum, 1.6% of the US population is atheist. Look under Unaffiliated. BryanB is 100% CORRECT. Just thought I might let you know so you can use proper statistics next time you quote, lol. Seriously, where do you get the 4% number when it say 1.6% on their own website.
Report Post »Constructionist
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:50pmI would love the opportunity to make her see God…
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:59pmHow Christian of you.
Report Post »dealer@678
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:55pmShe wants to believe . Keep praying for her. Faith the size of a mustard seed is all Jesus asked for to be saved
Report Post »doublee
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 10:05amI’d like to see if I could get her to call on God.
Report Post »atechgeek
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 10:55amI bet I could make her say “Oh God !!” in less than a minute.
Report Post »LibertyGoddess
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 11:13amNo thanks, I wouldn‘t want to do the Lord’s work the devil’s way. Forcing people to do things is the devil’s way of doing business. Christ is about love and influence to change from within.
Report Post »KykuitZeJamz
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 12:39pmsave your breath… Ms. Cupp is a fundamentalist christian who, with her superman glasses is modelling a caricature of an atheist to young conservatives. to be a movement conservative in the U.S. and NOT be a christian reconstructionist is oxymoronic. the conservative movement has all of its bases covered..it has female conservatives, black conservatives, and, in cupp’s case even rationalist conservatives… you always want to have representatives of the arguments you oppose supposedly sitting on your team. at some point in the future of course.. S.E. will make a HUGE show of having been converted to fundamentalist christianity complete with baptism and the sudden discovery that contact lenses have been invented(along with blonde hair dye) and she‘ll join the rest of the right wing’s cadres of young attack women like Ingraham, coulter, tantaros, and amy holmes once the “i‘m an atheist but ya can’t trust an atheist” angle gets tired.
Report Post »momprayn
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:49pmYes, already knew that and it’s always been perplexing to me….an enigma. She is another that is smart and tries to be “open minded” and fair and all but when it comes to this, she’s irrational. I know smart doesn’t = wise but I guess we Believers will never “get” unbelievers and vice versa. I’m glad she still prefers and seems to like her job and being around Believers. Think that‘s why many have a hard time believing she’s atheist – so many aren’t like that….some are more hostile than others and she’s not. Hope it means she will one day become a Believer…..
Report Post »Patriot Z
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:04pmi may disagree with her a bit on this but i dont think she is irrational. obama is a perfect argument for what she says. its not that shes opene minded…i dont like ‘open minded’ people because open minded people tend to just let things go for fear of being closed minded. So far she seems to be a person who stops and thinks things through and then makes a solid decision. if new evidence arises, if new info arizes, she will look into it. As an athiest like Ms. Cupp myself, i dont mind religion to a point. but religion is communism that turns state into GOD. and organized religion does a great job in helping, but also hurthing too
Report Post »gbfreak
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:49pmShe has time to come around. I pray Miracles will happen for her.
Report Post »LeadNotFollow
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:48pm…
Report Post »God bless Ms. Cupp for her honesty.
There is still hope for any Atheist who believes the way she does.
decendentof56
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:01pmLeadtofollow………
Report Post »Too many here will dismiss S.E. without thinking it through. See my reply to COPATRIOT below.
ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:23pmApparently she forgot the “checks” in the “checks and balances” part.
There are checks on the President….they’re called Congress and the Supreme Court.
She’s using some faulty reasoning here.
Report Post »American Capitalist
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 12:37am@moderation
Report Post »Yeah… how’s those checks and balances working out for us right now. With executive orders and other ways to bypass the congress that this (and other) presidents have devised, they have shreaded the constitution.
ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 3:07am@AMERICAN CAPITALIST
There are still major checks on the President.
Plus, all of the President’s we have ever had have professed some kind of faith. So it doesn’t really seem that “believing in something higher then themselves” has kept our Presidents from expanding the power of the Presidency.
Report Post »acidovorax
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 11:30am“Plus, all of the President’s we have ever had have professed some kind of faith. So it doesn’t really seem that “believing in something higher then themselves” has kept our Presidents from expanding the power of the Presidency.”
MODERATION, didn’t you get the message? Those were not “true believers”. So her statement still holds true because all examples to the contrary are obviously not “true believers” and we are still waiting for the “true believer” to be elected to office. But always vote for the believer over the atheist in an election, because the latter doesn’t hold to anything greater than himself. Of course, voting for the believer doesn’t mean that they are “true believers” and therefore, as history has shown, they can abuse power, but you can’t ever know this until you vote them in office. Kinda like those bills that we need to pass so we can know what they say.
I mean this is basic common sense.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 8:30pm@ACIDOVORAX
So wait, now who’s the judge of “true believers” now?
Are you telling me that Bush wasn’t a “true” believer? He expanded greatly under his watch.
i think it was his VP who said, “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter“ and it was Bush who said ”we have to abandon free market principles to save the free market.”
It was Donald Rumsfeld who sent defense briefings to George W Bush with pictures of US soldiers and Bible scripture defending a potential war with Iraq.
I can’t help but notice how easy it is for other people to say, “that’s not what TRUE(insert religion) is”
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 8:33pmOops, I’m assuming that your post was meant as a joke. Missed it the first time.
Report Post »acidovorax
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 1:44amMODERATION, I’ll throw in a few smiley faces next time ;)
Report Post »catfanatic1979v1
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:45pmEither her atheism is a ruse, or she hates herself.
Report Post »willingtoupe
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:11pmActually, based on this article, her form of ‘Atheism’ is the kind that Dezel Washington has described. She is the kind of Atheist that has to win someone over. Which she points out, an Atheist President of her caliber being above the state and the other 95% of the crazy population. umph.sociopath.umph Not the kind of genuine Atheist or Agnostic that has disbelief in a faith simply because there is no concrete evidence of our Saviours’ power. Though I agree with almost all of her views, she is milking her upcomings for which it is all what its worth. I.E. her seductiveness…a small tool to keep her edgy and winning…for now.
Report Post »ltemp
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:40pm@Cupp
“I like religion being a check and knowing that my president goes home every night addressing someone above him and not thinking all the power resides right here… Atheists don’t have that.”
This woman is truly honest with herself and is what is attractive to anyone who would have the opportunity of be her friend. It describes beautifully the truth about many people that these minority crusader leaders claim to speak for, but don’t. I don’t know that I can agree with her statement, if an atheist ran for president, It seems to me there is quite a bit of forgotten creator syndrome in the White House anyway whether Republican or Democrat. There is something about sitting in that chair in the White House that say‘s I’m pretty important and takes an equally humble heart to recognize who it was that put you there. It still goes back to who sits as the source of your life and what is your Identity? She has tremendous insight on her life and those around her. As a created child of the living God, I respect her choice, she is refreshing compared to the, in your face, paraded groupies of the left. Thank you S.E. Cupp
Report Post »DoomsdayProphet
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:37pmShe could say boiling water is frozen and that is fine. Yummy.
Report Post »Exrepublisheep
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:40pmlol
Report Post »justangry
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:54pmBleh… I’ve heard the neocon in her in some of the Real News discussions and it totally turned me off. People that cheerlead for war are revolting in my eyes. Especially those that haven’t seen it.
Report Post »JediKnight
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:41pm@JustAngry: Cheerlead for war? You mean because she wants a consistent foreign policy, at least from the same President? We got to war in Libya to unseat a dictator, but we don’t do the same to Syria, Saudi Arabia, or Iran? The world is full of dictators that have killed far more than Ghadaffi and we end up unseating him? For what? So France can keep getting cheap oil? Because the UN told us to? Obama never once got permission from Congress and everyone has pretty much forgotten the whole thing.
I‘d say she’s being consistent and wants consistency from her govt. If you’re going to go to war with one evil dictator, you should be willing to go to war with all of them. Otherwise, don’t go to war with any of them.
Report Post »justangry
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 9:13pmYeah you got me there. She is consistent. She supports other people bombing every pissant country in the world that refused to bow before the US.
Report Post »searching for the Truth
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:31pmThere are and were some very bright theist little miss lady – Newton being one of them. Agnosticism can be a proven World View, but Relativism can’t.
Report Post »copatriots
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:29pmI like S. E. but her comment doesn’t make a lot of sense. She is an atheist who doesn‘t believe in a Higher Power she doesn’t think exists but she wants to be led by someone who DOES believe in God. If you don’t believe in God, why would you believe the follower of the tenets of their religion? Wouldn’t you think (as many of our atheist trolls here do) we are following a fantasy……in which case you wouldn’t want to vote for them to lead you?
I predict God will touch her heart and S.E. will become a believer one day.
Report Post »decendentof56
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:58pmCopatriot…….
What S.E. realizes is fundamental to the very continuance of our Republic. I’ll explain, though many here already know this.
Our country was founded on Biblical law. The principal was that “we are a nation of laws and not men.” Think about that for a second or more if you need to.
The founders came from religious and political persecution and wanted to avoid it from happening here. That’s why our Constitution says “unalienable rights” and….your rights come from “God” and that rights do NOT come from man.
It is perplexing to me that Americans were so short-sighted as to remove this basic teaching from our schools. If we had taught this truth to the last 4-5 generations, we would not likely see the things that are happening with regards to denegrating our country.
OK…..I understand that it was by the design of Communists/UN/NWO infiltrators that hatched this attack decades ago.
S.E. Cupp knows full-well that a man with the power to “give” rights can also “take” those rights. THAT is why she wants nothing to do with an atheist in the WH.
History has shown way too many examples of man wielding total control over nations, and the resulting terror speaks for itself.
I always say…..”you don’t have to believe that your rights come from God, but you better not believe
Report Post »that your rights come from man.” This simple statement is too hard to get past for so many non-belivers.
ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:30pm“Our country was founded on Biblical law. The principal was that “we are a nation of laws and not men.” Think about that for a second or more if you need to.”
You made a claim and provided no evidence for it. In fact, there is a ton of evidence that is counter to your claim. The Constitution(you know, the thing that our law is actually based around) doesn’t mention a God, Jesus or any other spiritual being.
Any mention of a Creator(from the declaration of independence) is so broad that it could have any meaning. I was created by my parents, just because they created me, doesn’t mean they can take away my rights.
“The founders came from religious and political persecution and wanted to avoid it from happening here. That’s why our Constitution says “unalienable rights” and….your rights come from “God” and that rights do NOT come from man.”
You are quoting from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
“It is perplexing to me that Americans were so short-sighted as to remove this basic teaching from our schools. If we had taught this truth to the last 4-5 generations, we would not likely see the things that are happening with regards to denegrating our country.” It is perplexing to me that you say our founders escaped religious persecution, to then come here and set up a country founded on “Biblical law.” That makes zero sense.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:51pm“OK…..I understand that it was by the design of Communists/UN/NWO infiltrators that hatched this attack decades ago.” Ah, you’re one of those people.
“I always say…..”you don’t have to believe that your rights come from God, but you better not believe
that your rights come from man.” This simple statement is too hard to get past for so many non-believers.”
Uh, you’re actually arguing for the wrong side here. It would make zero sense for an Atheist to think that just because they don’t think our rights come from God, that they then come from man.
It is actually the religious people who say, “well if you don’t think a God exists, therefore our rights don’t come from a God, then our rights have to come by man.”
You need to rethink what you are arguing here.
Report Post »acidovorax
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 9:16pm“Our country was founded on Biblical law. The principal was that “we are a nation of laws and not men.” Think about that for a second or more if you need to.”
Decendent, please cite examples of Biblical law that has been codified in our Constitution? Also, the Soviet Union was a “nation of laws”, so I fail to see how this is correlated with “Biblical law”.
“.E. Cupp knows full-well that a man with the power to “give” rights can also “take” those rights. THAT is why she wants nothing to do with an atheist in the WH. History has shown way too many examples of man wielding total control over nations, and the resulting terror speaks for itself.”
Whether this is Cupp’s belief or not, it is obvious it is yours and is predicated on very poor reasoning. Your argument insinuates that atheists don’t believe in “rights” and therefore believe that they are simply government privileges to be granted or removed at the State’s whim. You have not presented any evidence that this is the general belief of atheists AND you conveniently ignore the volumes of history where “believers” acted in this very manner. Our very own Wilson and FDR, both Christians, both believers that the State can do as the State pleases. For most of history, God was the source of the King’s “divine right” to rule.
Report Post »Seabass82
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 11:07pmI don’t see how she could say that without out feeling a little nudge from God himself. I think that her HONESTY deserves some respect and she will be getting a prayer from me.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 11:42pmDECENDENT — a few points…
Our country was not founded on Biblical law. No place in the Bible can you find the freedoms we enjoy as enshrined in our Constitution. If anything, it is based upon the Roman and Greek systems.
“S.E. Cupp knows full-well that a man with the power to “give” rights can also “take” those rights.”
Despite lip-service to the idea of “god-given rights”, people who otherwise claim to be religious have sought, in this nation’s history, to deny those rights to others, for whatever multitude of reasons. And far too often.
This is not to say that religion violates those rights, rather that simply being religious is not a bulwark in the defense of those “god-given” rights.
“History has shown way too many examples of man wielding total control over nations, and the resulting terror speaks for itself.”
And far too many of those people have professed a religion. Again, simply being religious is not a bulwark in the protection of our rights. In fact, it has often been just the opposite, but a reason employed to deny rights.
“I always say…..”you don’t have to believe that your rights come from God, but you better not believe
that your rights come from man.”
I agree; these rights are our birthright as people, and thus inalienable.
“This simple statement is too hard to get past for so many non-belivers.”
What are you talking about? I doubt any here would disagree.
Report Post »SacredHonor1776
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 12:26amhttp://books.google.com/books?id=9G0vAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q&f=false
John Adams once said to Jefferson in 1813 that US was founded on several things (including “general principles of Christianity, and the general principles of English and American liberty”);
“Who composed that army of fine young fellows that was then before my eyes? There were among them Roman Catholics, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anabaptists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists, Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants, and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists, and Protestants “qui ne croyent rien.” Very few, however, of several of these species; nevertheless, all educated in the general principles of Christianity, and the general principles of English and American liberty.
Report Post »SacredHonor1776
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 12:28amContinued;
“Could my answer be understood by any candid reader or hearer, to recommend to all the others the general principles, institutions, or systems of education of the Roman Catholics, or those of the Quakers, or those of the Presbyterians, or those of the Methodists, or those of the Moravians, or those of the Universalists, or those of the Philosophers? No. The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were the only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young men could unite, and these principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general principles? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united, and the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence.”
Report Post »SacredHonor1776
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 12:30amFinal part;
“Now I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system. I could, therefore, safely say, consistently with all my then and present information, that I believed they would never make discoveries in contradiction to these general principles. In favor of these general principles, in philosophy, religion, and government, I could fill sheets of quotations from Frederic of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Rousseau, and Voltaire, as well as Newton and Locke; not to mention thousands of divines and philosophers of inferior fame.”
Report Post »acidovorax
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 1:31amSacred, the problem with Adams’ declaration is that it has nothing to support it. It is simply his assertion. And since a major theme in this thread is that a belief in a higher authority has a potential to curtail abuses of power, the reference to Adams undercuts this argument as he passed the Sedition Act, which incarcerated numerous people for speaking out against the government.
Report Post »SacredHonor1776
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 2:15am“And since a major theme in this thread is that a belief in a higher authority has a potential to curtail abuses of power”
I don’t agree with that theme personally. I think its possible for any leader to go outside their bounds and do things that are wrong. That’s why its important that we have checks and balances in all the sections of government.
Report Post »KykuitZeJamz
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 1:11pmSE Cupp is already a believer.. that much is obvious. she is creating a pantomime of an evil atheist so that she can take precisely the sort of “stands” that she takes here. you keep your friends close.. so you have an open cheerleader like Hannity.. you keep your enemies closer .. so you have black coonservatives and “smart girls.. TOO smart for their own GOOD girls“ like SE Cupp who is an ”atheist” who does nothing but spout right wing talking points. Another good one on this line is Tammy Bruce.. the LESBIAN FROM CALIFORNIA!!! .. who of course lost her job on the left and so is a regular guest on Hannity and Ingraham who somehow represents the left on their shows but embraces only extreme right wing points of view.. but wears leather and.. well she’s a LESBIAN!!! erm.. but so is Dick Cheney’s DAUGHTER who works for Coors Beer as their “gay liason”(to big Republican money!)
Don’t worry.. when the time is right… SE Cupp will have a HUGE “change of heart”… make a loud display of her come to Jesus moment as she’s reaching the end of her usefulness as a youthful female conserva-activist. right now.. her job is to be the “Ugly Betty” of the tv attack conservatives… she’ll wear the glasses.. make the speeches.. then one day.. she’ll take her glasses off and then everyone will exclaim… “Oh My God, SE… i didn‘t NOTICE before but you’re really very attractive underneath those HUGE intellectual glasses!”
Report Post »meisterman41
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:22pmShe is? She isn’t? Does it matter? Listen to what she is saying and go from there! Do your own homework people…. I know SE does hers!!!!!!!!!!!
Report Post »Meyvn
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:20pmWhat she says makes little sense. Especially from an atheist point of view. Illogical context. Does not compute.
Report Post »Babci
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:24pmI am also an atheist…40 years older than Ms. Cupp. Like Ms. Cupp, I appreciate the Judeo-Christian foundation this country was built upon. I choose to live in the Bible Belt because the people are just nicer (yes, I spent most of my life in CA, so I have plenty of experience with nasty people). I’d rather have Christians as neighbors, not because they believe in God, but because they don’t think they know everything, like my secularist friends. Also, I find many atheists fall into the trap that grips most minorities. They absolutely have to tell you constantly that they have rights and your simple existence as a majority somehow impinges on those rights. I feel no need to wear a minority badge. I am hardly victimized because you all want to sing ‘Oh, Holy Night” at Christmas time…in fact, it is my favorite carol. Imagine that…
Report Post »SFsuper49er
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:55pmBABCI … You seem like a very nice person. I only wish some day, someone can change your heart…
Report Post »dealer@678
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 9:05pmBabci, I’m Christian and Holy Night is mine also. I hope some day you could hear The Gathers sing ALL the verses of the song
Report Post »acidovorax
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 9:24pm“I am also an atheist…40 years older than Ms. Cupp. Like Ms. Cupp, I appreciate the Judeo-Christian foundation this country was built upon. I choose to live in the Bible Belt because the people are just nicer (yes, I spent most of my life in CA, so I have plenty of experience with nasty people). I’d rather have Christians as neighbors, not because they believe in God, but because they don’t think they know everything, like my secularist friends. Also, I find many atheists fall into the trap that grips most minorities. They absolutely have to tell you constantly that they have rights and your simple existence as a majority somehow impinges on those rights. I feel no need to wear a minority badge. I am hardly victimized because you all want to sing ‘Oh, Holy Night” at Christmas time…in fact, it is my favorite carol. Imagine that…”
BAB, while I can’t claim that your experiences are false, I can state that they are only anecdotal and my, similarly anecdotal, experiences differ. But, I don’t generalize my own experiences, because I realize that people tend to be similar regardless of ideology. There are ignorant, arrogant, intelligent, thoughtful, cruel, hateful, loving, and kind people in all groups.
Report Post »Meyvn
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 12:24am@dealer@678: I just hope we all hear Michael, the Arch Angels, shout.
Listen.
Report Post »NewtonsAmbit
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:19pmMs. Cupp is not a member of the athiest religion. She’s too smart and too honest. Plus…I don’t believe in athiests. They don’t exist.
Report Post »Meyvn
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:30pmYou know… I am starting to believe there are no such things as atheists as well.
Report Post »NJBarFly
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 7:46amOut of all the comments that Blazers keep making, the “I don’t believe in atheists” has to be on the short list of dumbest. We don’t believe in things like people rising from the dead or all powerful beings in the sky that are concerned with how humans get their rocks off. Why is this so hard to comprehend!?
Report Post »Meyvn
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 10:38am@NJBarFly: It’s what you DO see and yet still claim their is no God, that makes be not believe in atheists. I rather think atheists just have a real problem being honest with themselves, and then pass off this facade to others as some kind of reality. Atheists make so sense to honest people.
Report Post »Protect us and build roads
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:18pmShe’s an atheist? Well she’s not the dream girl after all.
Report Post »Individualism
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:15pmWell by her logic Ron Paul should be the president because hes an evangelical and they make up most of this country. Baptist as well the factional majority of it. I vote by ideology and everyone should to, i would accept a nationalist or a libertarian that followed the constitution.
Report Post »soybomb315
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:24pmBut didnt they told us that you cannot be christian and opposed to intervention at the same time….
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:14pmWhen it comes down to red or blue; I vote red. I think our country would be much more in line for blessing if a Christian got the office, but we need real believers in congress as well.
By the way, in believing in Christ comes wisdom and though I like S.E., imagine how she would be with Christ than without Him. An unstoppable brain train; powered by faith!
Report Post »searching for the Truth
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:34pmExactly, and her Father would also be very happy :-)
Report Post »decendentof56
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:16pmTRON……..
Report Post »Its OK to not be a believer, as long as you believe that your rights do ‘not’ come from man. S.E. knows the Constitution and why it was written in the manner it was.
KykuitZeJamz
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 12:33pmthat’s a funny observation when you consider that some of the loudest believers in christ are also some of the most clearly ignorant and wrongheaded people there are. not that it’s any of my business what someone believes.. but that’s kind of like saying that the paranoid schizophrenic walking towards you is free to believe whatever he believes… even if he believes you are a satanic giant lizard walking towards him in flames and he’s got to cut your throat to save the world. which is just a slight exaggeration of what many christians claim to believe in the post 1970s ‘late great planet earth’ influenced view.
Report Post »acidovorax
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:13pm“Cupp put her bold statement into context with a concise and thought-provoking explanation.”
Where? All I saw was a weapons grade stupid response.
Report Post »bitterclinger
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:50pmAmen! She’s always being lauded as so brilliant. That response was anything but.
Report Post »TomSawyer
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 3:15amIF her statement is stupid, then you should be able to point out the stupidity. You have not done so yet.
Report Post »Dolt
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 7:43amThis.
Is there anything …. anything at all that is NOT fake about this chick? She can’t even NOT believe in something properly. Good god.
Report Post »acidovorax
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:11pm“Because I do not think that someone who represents 5 to 10 percent of the population should be representing and thinking that everyone else in the world is crazy, but me,”
This has to be one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard. Politicians, BY DEFINITION, are people who believe they know what is best for 300+million people. So regardless of what religion, or lack thereof, they hold they are already unlike the vast majority of people in the country. And what specifically does she believe an atheist president will do?
Cupp’s argument is a complete logical fallacy. If you aren’t deciding the worth of a politician from their ideas and their past actions, then please refrain from voting.
Report Post »justangry
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:10pmI’d vote for an athiest, agnostic, Mormon, Christian, Jew, Budhist, etc. if they believed the Constitution is the supreme law of the land as written.
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:24pmThat’s right; wish we could have more Supreme Court Justices that fell in that description.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 2:20pmThe only problem I see with that line of reasoning is that a persons worldview, which is closely linked to their faith and the way the see the world, the problems that exist and their solutions, usually take precedence over say the constitution of this land. So when push comes to shove the sincere person, be them Jew, Christian, or Muslim, will tpyically fall back on their worldview and justify it by believing it is what is right, good, and necessary.
Report Post »LizB
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:10pmGreat thoughts, S.E! I agree, especially the part about the President ending his day with the knowledge that he answers to a higher authority.
Report Post »themachinist239
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 12:59pmI am an atheist and answer to the rule of law. I answer to a higher authority, being the constitution and to the people of the United States. Is that not a higher authority? To myself and many atheists it sure is. I think that the demonstrated devotion to the will of the American people should be the standard that we put in place. BHO is a Christian and may very well answer to God at the end of the day, and yet here we all are, in the same boat. If a Hindu or Buddhist candidate were to uphold the constitution and the will of the American people first and foremost, above their personal religious preference, I would vote for him/her.
Report Post »meisterman41
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:09pmSE hit the nail right on the head! Bullseye! You go girl!!!!
Report Post »GoMomGo
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:07pmVery impressive. A very respectable comment from S.E. More power to her!
Report Post »progressiveslayer
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:05pmOur bi sexual president is an atheist but that isn‘t the reason she wouldn’t vote for him,there‘s many more reasons why and the most important is he’s destroying our economy on purpose.
Report Post »Exrepublisheep
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:44pmYours is a sad, gray world, with only the occasional bark when some repube blows the doggie whistle. I feel bad for you.
Report Post »progressiveslayer
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 10:31pmYou’re mildly amusing now crawl back under your rock.
Report Post »ClearwaterCop256
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 11:55amI‘m sure ’EXREPUBLISHEEP‘ is no ’Ex’ Republican……
Report Post »carkrueger
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:03pmI’ve never believed S.E. Cupp was an Atheist. Agnostic – maybe.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 1:01amShe’s an atheist, she is just conceding most people are sheep and need religion for their primitive brains to stay in line morally so she does not advocate an atheist america. I’m an atheist conservative too and I agree with her.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:02pm“Because I do not think that someone who represents 5 to 10 percent of the population should be representing and thinking that everyone else in the world is crazy, but me,”
So only those persons belonging to a majority group should be President?
Report Post »All Pro
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:16pmYes. That means no atheist, communists, fascists or racist progressives. Sorry but you need to give up on hoping you will one day be president. Ain’t gonna happen.
Report Post »acidovorax
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:17pmPure speculation, but I think her answer was calculated to keep her in the graces of the Right. Such arguments help deflect the criticism that so many would hurl at her if she didn’t make such a caveat. Notice how the writer states Cupp is an atheist, but not one of those “in your face” atheists, ya know.
Report Post »v15
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:21pmAre you trying to allude to “white privilege”? You are always setting up some platform to fight on. I‘m not sure if it’s just because you like to fight or that you think you are always right (or both). I would say be careful when voting for someone who does not share most of Americans’ values. If I can’t relate to you on some level, then I’m probably not going to vote for you.
Report Post »v15
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 7:27pm@Acid, I agree with your analysis about Cupp. Calculated and crafted responses so that she stays favorably with the Right. I used to think her statements were bold but not anymore. Either she‘s played devil’s advocate one too many times or something…whatever it is, she’s not as “balanced and fair” as she used to portray herself as.
Report Post »decendentof56
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:09pm@ ENCINOM….”“Because I do not think that someone who represents 5 to 10 percent of the population should be representing and thinking that everyone else in the world is crazy, but me,”
So only those persons belonging to a majority group should be President?
You missed the point again. It is of course about our laws and our Constitution. What SE said is perfectly fine. If you don’t believe her, then perhaps you’d like ONE man making decisions on your rights, since, to man, they do not come from something else.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 8:16pm@V15, jews make up about 10% of the population are they to also be excluded since they are not Christian, and whould Christian sects represent a larger proportion than 10%, only Catholics and Baptists are over 10% of the population. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_United_States
Report Post »acidovorax
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 9:37pm“If you don’t believe her, then perhaps you’d like ONE man making decisions on your rights, since, to man, they do not come from something else.”
Decendent, why do you believe these two concepts are mutually exclusive? Do you realize that Ayn Rand was a fervent atheist and one of the most vocal moral objectivists too? Read Tibor Machan, an atheist, but a massive proponent of objective morality.
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on July 5, 2012 at 10:37pmHer point was not so much about how well an atheist would “represent.” Mormons make up less than 5% of the population, yet Cupp apparently has no problem with Romney. What does make her uneasy, and soothes her conservative fan base, is that she is uneasy at the thought of a president who answers to no “higher authority.” She seems not to trust an atheist to have a conscience, because he has no fear of divine punishment. Someone should ask her if she herself feels free of all moral restraint.
Report Post »chalkdust
Posted on July 6, 2012 at 7:34amEnconim
Report Post »The 5-10 percent is anecdotal to the larger point which is an atheist President at best, would think the citizenry to be misguided which is good recipe for a despot. Your post is tangential to Cupp’s point.
Back to you Bob.