Hi Rongoklunk,

I believe that God is a loving God, but He is also a just God. His justice leads to the conclusion that sin must be punished. Then, there is truly evil in the world and the existence of Satan who has great influence over many people. I also don't understand why all these terrible things must happen, such as all the suffering, murder, and other evils. However, that just leads me to state that "I don't understand at all," but this fact doesn't bring me to the conclusion that "God must not exist." I personally know that He does. However, just as Voltaire thought, I just cannot comprehend why things must be this way here on this planet. I'm certainly not going to pretend that I do understand.

By the way, I pray that Christopher Hitchens is not in any pain and is resting comfortably as he battles cancer. May God Bless You & Keep You, Christopher (Even if you don't believe in Him).

I'm sure that there are many Atheists in Congress, and I can tell by the way they vote. I'm certainly not saying that every Atheist is immoral (that would be ridiculous); but, if one doesn't believe in any God, then logically, they would view themselves as not accountable to anyone nor anything. This often results in a severe lack of moral conviction (in general). Christians vote (or should vote) by their moral convictions. Many people in the Congress "claim" to be Christian, Catholic, Jewish etc. but vote in direct opposition to what their so-called faith teaches. If one is truly a Christian, for example, they don't discard their Christian convictions before they walk into the halls of Congress (to be authentic). Then, there are those who "personally" believe the dictates of their faith, but actually do discard their faith when voting (I believe that these people are example: Christian in name only). I believe that John F. Kennedy started this idea. When he was President or running for President he said that he wouldn't let Catholicism enter into his public decisions (something along those lines). I am a Born Again Catholic who Knows there is a God because I've had personal experiences of Him. So have (I hope) the majority of other Catholics & Christians; so, that's how we know He is real. It's ridiculous to say that we simply believe in "superstitions." However, the only way one can have a personal experience
(supernatural) is to believe that He exists in the first place which is in fact logical (nature is overflowing with evidence of a designer), or for one to actually ask Him for one. Like saying to Him, "If you're real, prove to me that you exist." If you can humble yourself enough to do that, I guarantee that He will let you know some how that He's real. As for the line which nearly every Atheist parrots that "Religion always causes War," (or whatever). I state that the "lack of religion has caused much, much greater carnage. Atheistic Communism has caused more deaths than all of religious wars the world has ever fought put together. Also, Hitler was no Christian at all. He was an evil madman who justified what he did by illicitly "borrowing" some Christian beliefs. Would a Christian do what Hitler did? What do you think? Is that what Jesus taught? No, it's the exact opposite. Hitler was really into Darwinian Evolution. He certainly believed in "survival of the fittest." He replaced natural selection with something a lot quicker; eugenics. People think that Atheists are mean etc. because of the most well-known Atheists, such as Christopher Hitchens, are so bitter most of the time. I don't think that people are this board have been too civil either.

Carstonio;

I don't disagree with what you write. But as an atheist I have difficulty imagining ANY kind of god.
Religious people tell us of their LOVING God, and I find that easy to argue against. And thinkers since Voltaire have written a lot about the horrors (like earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, etc) which says there is no "loving" god. Voltaire wrote an enormous poem after the Lisbon earthquake on this subject.
I think one of the better arguments for god's non-existence is that he he's never been seen or heard from EVER. You'd think that - if he existed - he'd drop in sometime just to prove that he's real and still alive. Or you'd think the Hubble telescope would spot him flying around with his angels. But no, of course not.

Gods are by definition - mythical.

"who realized that no god could possibly exist amongst such horror"

Rongoklunk, why assume that a god would care about such horror? One intellectual flaw with many arguments both for and against the existence of gods is that both sides assume that gods would share the human reaction to horror. I've yet to encounter a theology that allows for the possibility of indifferent gods, at least outside of deism.

Yeah. We know the old saying that there are no atheists in foxholes. It is often said by people of faith.
Let's look at this charge for a moment. What it says to me is that religious folk are so scared of death and dangerous circumstances, that they need a god to help them through such terrifying times, like little children need a mamma to cling to when fearful.

As a matter of fact - veterans will tell you that foxholes and trenches created thousands of atheists during WW1 - who realized that no god could possibly exist amongst such horror. They prayed and screamed out for Him to help ease the fear and stop the carnage all around them - but of course He was nowhere to be found in this grotesque man made Hell.

Who can believe in a god who never appears? Who in the most horrendous circumstances still never shows up, or even lifts a finger when the dead and dying lie all around and shells and bullets explode in the air.

God is a sick joke, and only those who have been indoctrinated as children can buy into such an infantile hypothesis.

In another part of the forest, and frankly a more serious one in my opinion (given the amount of noise many people claiming to be Christian seem to make), the author writes, "Overall, the Christian faith's role in politics is not affected by our representative's [sic] growing lack of denomination." I disagree with two points contained in this single sentence. Many non-denominational churches teach doctrines (the so-called "wealth gospel" for one) that are totally incompatible with traditional Christian theology, but which seem to affect the thinking of many members of Congress (taxation = theft: God gave me this money and it's mine, all mine). Second, even to claim there is a single belief that can be called "the" Christian faith is simply false. Even the Trinity is not taught by all Christian denominations.

"At least then, when they start self dealing, they won't be hypocrites."

What does "self dealing" mean? Sounds like something that would be inappropriate in public.

"This judging, demonizing, branding and name-calling is a big part of what has gone terribly wrong with American society and has made the US an ugly spectacle of intolerance, anger and fear of anything or anyone different. "

Good point. I notice that behavior from a minority of atheists and a minority of believers. But the latter's behavior deserves greater concern because it amounts to defending what can be called believer privilege. I noticed this in December. Among the clerks and business owners I know, I didn't hear of any atheist or non-Christian customers getting indignant over being wished Merry Christmas. But I heard story after story about some Christian customers getting self-righteously indignant if the clerk wished them Happy Holidays.

The season is now in the past, but the attitudes that drive that indignation remain, where a minority of believers insist on a right to have the society and culture treat THEIR religion as the default one. That's the infuriatingly self-centered attitude that Sekulow embodies. It's not enough that the attitude treats atheism as though it's specifically anti-Christian, it also treats neutrality among religions as hostility to his own religion.

'We need more atheists in Congress. At least then, when they start self dealing, they won't be hypocrites.'

Would that be secular atheists, or religious atheists? All forms of Buddhism incorporate atheism i.e. an absence of the creator God of theism.

In fact, we could use more atheists of all kinds and persuasions in congress....for a true representative government - which we certainly don't have at present.

Compared to secular atheists, do religious folk have superior values and higher moral standards in the USA? I'm not aware of any evidence to that effect.

Since religion of a certain type permeates the socio-political environment i.e. in the form of Christianity, very few aspiring politicians will own up to non-religious leanings or a personal disinterest in religious participation. This is unfortunately still a political death sentence in the USA.

http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/sects/nichiren.htm

What about the non-practicing atheist?

There are atheists in Congress.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201101170004

Read it and weep, Jordan.

So we have two questions:
(1) Is Jordan Sekulow stupid or a liar?
(2) Is Jordan Sekulow going to apologize?

Theocon extremists like Sekulow quickly judge and label everyone who does not follow their intolerant brand of Christianity as an "atheist" or "secularist". The often throw in socialist, marxist, bed-wetter, gay, Muslim, Mexican liberal for good measure as they have learned to parrot from Limbaugh and Fox News.

This judging, demonizing, branding and name-calling is a big part of what has gone terribly wrong with American society and has made the US an ugly spectacle of intolerance, anger and fear of anything or anyone different. They hate tolerance and diversity as evil hates the light and they do it exploiting the name of poor old Jesus.

We need more atheists in Congress. At least then, when they start self dealing, they won't be hypocrites.

**No surprise then that Congress has remained committed to the defense of the National Day of Prayer, the words "under God" in the pledge, the National Motto "In God We Trust," and more recently the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial.**

Sekulow does a grave disservice to the millions of Protestant and Catholic Christians who rightly regard the last three items as undermining the separation of church and state. He wrongly frames these issues as Christianity and atheism warring for the hearts and minds of the public. Not only does this arrogantly ignore non-Christian religions, it also treats the factual accuracy of either position as unimportant.

Merry meet, Dragon Dancer. Once again, you have read my mind and articulaterd what I was thinking far better than I could have done.

Jim Trott, there is a big difference between atheists and Pagans. Please don't use those words as synonyms.

More accurately, we live in the myth-world run by the Science (god(s) | null).

It is good to go to church as long as you are taught the compassionate dictates of your religion. "Do unto others..." as many sages have said...

Don't confuse all atheists with the bombastic rhetoric of the "new" atheists.

As a matter of fact, as we pray we ask & talk to God. Especially when we attend the mass in the church. Well, God know the best.

We live in the myth-world run by the Science Ggod.

Gathering atheists together for a cause is like herding cats.

As a Wiccan, I don't vote for a candidate solely for their religious beliefs. I vote for a candidate based on their stance on the issues. If they share my stance on the issues AND they don't force me to live by their religious beliefs, then they have my vote. If not, forget it.

I agree with several posters here who complain about the narrowness of surveys. If you're not one of the mainstream religions, there's no real space where you can name yours. They just box you in with "unaffiliated," when there are instances where that couldn't be further from the truth. I've run afoul of the same thing with information forms or computer records. There have been times where they don't have a space for my religious beliefs, and the computer simply lumps me under "no religion." The potential glitches that can result from that (especially in a medical setting) can give one nightmares if you think about it too much!

This article assumes that people of a particular religion will support only candidates of their religion. I'm catholic, but I would vote for an intelligent, reasonable atheist, muslim, jew, buddhist, etc. over, say, Sarah Palin, in a heart beat.

I'm not saying that an elected official's religion won't influence her politics in some way, but I think that we have a system of governance, held together by a secular Constitution that makes a representative's religion (or lack thereof) almost irrelevant- as long as they're doing their jobs well.

I think a clear example is this article. This article is written by a Christian, who's religion is clearly not influencing his behavior. I think this article can be summed up by pointing a finger at atheists, and saying "nanny nanny boo boo." Really, whats the point? Any politician can call himself a Christian - it doesn't mean that his actions will be influenced by his religious beliefs.

It is clear that JORDAN SEKULOW has no idea of the true influence of atheists in modern society. Unlike people like Jordan Sekulow atheists will vote for christians, we don't vote based on religion, as our constitution truly mandates. We vote based on values. If a christian shares the same values as we do, we will have no problem voting for them. This is exemplary of christian, right wing mentality. If Jordan Sekulow, wants to apply this same type of logic to other aspects of politics, then he has to agree that christians who are democrats and pro-choice, are to be considered true christians as his right wing friends. Right? Because after all, there are plenty of pro-choice, pro-gay rights members of congress. So by Jordan Sekulow to try to demean the atheist movement by not showing results, I will just say this... we finally defeated the Don't Ask Don't Tell legislation, more states now are made gay marriage legal...These are all atheist and secular human values that Christians have voted for in congress... so why don't we stop playing this very immature game, and look at the facts where they stand.

And here's another reason for you JORDAN SEKULOW, parasite.

Atheists will vote for christians, christians will not vote for atheists. If a candidate were to admit to being atheist, christians wouldn't vote for him simply because of that reason.

You're all bigots. That's what bigotry means.

The primary point of any 'activism' by atheists is freedom FROM people like you, JORDAN SEKULOW.

We know the dominionists, like your daddy and Pat Robertson, we know the ugliness of you and your a kind of monster. We know the destruction of liberty, and literally the destruction of the United States of America as known by our founding fathers that you have in mind for us all.

We're active against that, you putz, you degenerate.

We tend not to be joiners as well. Safe in our sense of identity, we don't need the phony consolation provided by political ideologies and even worse - the religious fanaticism without without which you and the other 'religious activists' wouldn't exist.

Geez, JORDAN SEKULOW, at least your father is intelligent. You're just a parasite.

I want to take a moment quote something and then comment below it:

"RE: bdunn1 - maybe you need to take this up with Congressman Stark, per PEW he still checks the "Unitarian" box

"Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), identifies his religion as Unitarian"

http://pewforum.org/Government/Faith-on-the-Hill--The-Religious-Composition-of-the-112th-Congress.aspx

Posted by: JordanSekulow | January 14, 2011 12:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

You're lying or misinformed, Mr. Sekulow. Rep. Pete Stark of California's Alameda County has been an "out" atheist for years. Here's proof:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IhWhCtSrtQ

And if you'd read the Pew piece fully, you'd have seen Stark's name mentioned in that regard.

Posted by: bdunn1 | January 14, 2011 11:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment "

Here is my comment: Jordan Sekulow does not seem to have the decency to correct his "On Faith" article nor his posting above. How christian of him.

The author of this blog literally hates gay people and his pseudo-Christian organization fights against gays and lesbians who are law-abiding US Citizens having equal rights.

These results also show that atheists are open-minded at the ballot box. My preferred 2012 Presidential candidate belongs to what I consider the second-most idiotic major religious sect in America.

I think I would draw the line, though, at a Jehovah's Witness. Immanent Armagedonnism would simply be intolerable in someone who holds our future in his hands. I'm very glad that sect is absolutely apolitical.

The Jews didn't kill Christ, they put up a map of Judea superimposed with surveyors marks.

are you saying?

"How incredible the political leader of fundamentalist Christians, who still put signs outside their churches that "The Jews Killed Christ," would use the term "Blood Libel" when their ancestors invented it".

Counselor: Your A Lover of "iNTELLLIGENT-DESiGN":

It All smells "PEWi" to i[US].

WHO Cares If "Congress" has 'ZERO' (a)THEiST(s)!

Note: FACTa/o; In Sweet Sweet U.S. of A., "S-E-C-U-L-A-R-anity" is just as Religious as "XRSTTianity" (With or without The 'Gospels'). This is Only Year 2011, "STAR-Date lalala"

WHO cares if The "U.S. SUPREME COURT" has 5 or 6 CATHOHOLiC Judges Or XRSTIANholics or straights in Our Majestic COURT S-Y-S-T-E-M!

POiNT: As Long as "CONGRESS" (to Heck with Every BODy else i.e., 'Branches' of .GOV); ACTS-SECULARLY and maintains the Holyi U.S. CONSTITUTION via the EKLAHt-iON's "STABE-DEFINITION-FACTOR" and of course "TREASURY/Purse" THEN

YeYO [Xrstians] art Doing YeYo Jobs as "SERVANTS", FOR-THE-PEOPLE, NOt employed as 'Slaves'; Even Though I've heard things like "POLiTICIANS ARE LOW-LiFES, ..."

Note Again: NO "Congressman Will Stand-Up and 'Dare' say U.S.A. is a Christian-Nation"; unlike flout'n Ju-State of Israel who boasts their State-Religion "INSTEAD OF SECULARANITY"; Let alone a Secular Holyi-Constitution!

One Last Note: ALL, XRRISTIANS, ALL JU's, ALL ISHLAMI's, All MORMONI's, ALL HINDUi'S, All BUDDHAI's, Sihks, Jains, Confusions.. and Similarly Bosting/Situated; THAT:

ALL, EVERY and ANY of Them DO-NOT, note i repeat, Do NOt have "MONO-THEO" Faith/Religion/Belief! You Do NOt have 'Mono-Theo Faith/Religion/Belief; Period!

So, Even if There is such a Happening/Things as "GOG" (TRUTH) and "MAGOG" (Delusion) that "MONO-THEOismists is iMposiblo to Obtain [HERE] On [THiS] Nebula-Built S.pace-S.hip Earth of manymany, Re-Goddlless of What YeYo PRE-APOCALYPTARIAN's Throw at US "APOCALYPTARiAN" good Folk!

Fact; It'sThe Small "MULTITUDES" of America's "SMALL-Business's", The 'Back-Bone' of [THIS & Future] ECONOMY, and are the Treasury's major Depositors which "WE", US "SECULARIST/ATHEIST." Note again; BOTH are also recognized as being "A Religion" in Sweet sweet U.S. of A's!

If YeYo No-believe i[US] then please; Go Ask [If ATHEISM & SECULARISM Are Religions?] Both U.S. Congress and U.S. Supreme Court and the 'Inferior?" Courts folk while your at it and see what happens, O.K. Counselor?!

iMCAMERA: That Pyramid, with that Big EYE; well, That's US, aka U.S. Watching [CONGRESS] You & CO., includes NEPOTISMists & The PLUTOCRACTiCS as well, aye Bub!
_
VOTE: "APOCALYPTiC GOV'T and GRiDARIAN-DEMOCRACY" now!

"Something To LiVE-For, NOt to Dye For; and NOt in "FOX-HOLES." OYE...!

Remember: Adolf Hitler & CO Was/are a Catholic/XRSTians. He was NOt an ATHEIST, only thing he did was "Feign?" SECULAR-ANITY!

Question: If There's NO One-1 Atheist In Congress, Then in Fact; All ATHEISTS Did-NO, NOt Declare WAR On Other Nations; Nor It's Public!? Soo,

ALL [American] ATHEIST Do NOt have "Guilt" [MENS REYA], for creating WARs nor "BLOOD"(Libel) On Their Hands!! So ATHEISTS can Point/Blame It On The THEISTS! Aye!?

Maybe Ye Wrote the Article in Haste.

In the immortal word of your Lord Cheney:

SO?

Ah, Segregation?

Mr Sekulow. If you look at the footnote #1 for the Pew Article you reference:

Footnotes

1 ......In addition, one member of the House of Representatives, Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), identifies his religion as Unitarian but has also said he is an atheist (does not believe in God). He is counted in this analysis in the “Other Faiths” category, which includes Unitarianism. If he were counted, instead, as an atheist and added to the six members in the “Don’t know/Refused” category, the portion of members of Congress who either do not specify a faith or are unaffiliated with any particular faith would still be about 1%.(return to text)

The problem with these surveys is that they allow no way for non-theists to identify themselves correctly. Only: Unaffiliated ! or Other!. It not only skews the results but is rude. It is like not including Black on a list of Races! The surveys are flawed by their flawed categories.

God help the Christian Community, when Atheists, Pagans and Jews have to educate on matters of religion and government...

Rep. Pete Stark is an non-theist, freethinker inside the Unitarian church. He is also a Humanist - almost all of whom declare themselves as non-believers, atheists, or agnostics. He was awarded the Humanist of the Year award in 2007.
He wrote:
"I am a nontheist* and describe myself as: __"Unitarian." I also agree to allow the Secular Coalition for America to release this information to the general public."

"*the term nontheist includes atheists, humanists, agnostics and other freethinkers who do not believe in the existence of a supreme being or beings."

Wht part of NON - theiest do you not understand?
My guy in Congress! I just wish I could vote for him. Sadly, as a DC resident I have NO voting representative in the US Congress!

"How come I feel as if he is rubbing our nose in something? Doesn't seem very christian of this author."

Religious Right types seldom tailor their remarks to skeptical audiences.

They expect to say "Your life is a big fat zero until the day you accept Jesus as your savior" and hear a big "AMEN" roar back.

How come I feel as if she is rubbing our nose in something? Doesn't seem very christian of this author.

But, Jordan, let's not forget: Anyone who doesn't define God (and declare himself a "slave/bondservant" to Jesus) the way your denomination does is considered a pagan--in essence, an atheist.

Despite the rapprochement between Evangelicals and Catholics, brokered by Mr Colson to combine cultural/political forces, your denomination's apologist/theologians will still hesitantly admit that Catholics suffer under "satanic delusion" and are not among the Saved.

It is not politically correct or prudent to display one's theological indifference/doubts.

I dare assert that the majority of American political and/or business leaders have never, in our history, been particularly religious beyond lip-service and perfunctory displays of public piety.

For instance, there's no percentage for them in outright saying so, but I'd bet the vast majority of public officials would characterize your boss, Pat Robertson, as--well, let's just say--a troubling figure.

You are free to manipulate minds and hearts as you see fit; you can pretend that you broker "the truth".

There will always be those who attempt to sell us what we can have for free.

May God have mercy on your smug little soul.

Please keep in mind folks that Jordan Sekulow is essentially a lawter/lobbyist for the religious right and is tied to the American Center for Law & Justice founded by Pat Robertson.

So his viewpoint is biased and he does conveniently (as lawyers tend to do) leave things out that are inconvenient to his client's point of view.

What it comes down to right now is that politicians are afraid to express their true personal beliefs and/or disbeliefs in modern America which is something our founding fathers (a number of whom would also have clicked on non-afiliated if they had something to click) being deists and not theists like Jefferson and Madison for example didn't have a problem with.

Why? Because modern American government is a business based on image and advertising. It just follows the corporate model very closely. But it will be changing as more and more non-theists come out of the proverbial closet and we become a larger demographic.

Of course Sekulow and his client will skew the facts as loudly and as often as they can using arguments of suppressed evidence and ad nauseum to try to portray their grasp of power as the "right" thing.
Well they may be "right" (far right in fact) but they aren't correct or factual.

There's no inherent contradiction in being an atheist Unitarian; my congregation has many.

That's maybe why there were no atheists in this Congressional survey -- it would be rare to "affiliate" with atheism.

RE: bdunn1 - maybe you need to take this up with Congressman Stark, per PEW he still checks the "Unitarian" box

"Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), identifies his religion as Unitarian"

http://pewforum.org/Government/Faith-on-the-Hill--The-Religious-Composition-of-the-112th-Congress.aspx

You're lying or misinformed, Mr. Sekulow. Rep. Pete Stark of California's Alameda County has been an "out" atheist for years. Here's proof:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IhWhCtSrtQ

And if you'd read the Pew piece fully, you'd have seen Stark's name mentioned in that regard.

You could have said the same thing a few years ago about gay politicians too, and now there are a few. So don't be so freaking smug about it. Atheism is still in the stage of getting past the revulsion, fear and hatred of the religious. Atheists depictions in the media are getting a little softer, and we are starting to get people like Ricky Gervais, who takes about 20 minutes of his stand up to make fun of a particular Bible story in his performances. The people who express 'no religion' are 17% of the population, and the fastest growing group in America, more than any denomination but Baptists. We just don't vote as a block, because being an atheist really doesn't say much about a person, and because the religious people have a pretty big veto power both from their numbers, and because of the religious people entrenched in the upper echelons of the parties.

Atheists not being elected to public office, frankly, says a lot more about religious people than it does about atheists. Even religious people as marginalized as Pagans that I've talked to view atheists as "angry", "arrogant", and "mean". All because we disagree with their religious view points. Well, tough luck... the world is a free market place of ideas, and eventually people will just get used to having to actually back up their religious beliefs with a little more than "My religion is true!" or "There is a little truth in every religion!".