Sometimes I suspect the really useful division isn’t between theists and atheists (or something like that), but between people who are and are not capable of living with uncertainty.
See the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections.
Go find out what a real liberal is.
I certainly agree that every believer respects THIER freedom of religion. I don’t think you can provide evidence that a practicing member of a church is more likely to protect the expression of another’s faith. For instance, gotta believe there wasn’t a crush of priests demanding a stone tablet of the Five Pillars of Islam stand next to the Ten Commandments on court steps.
Since an Atheist thinks they’re all magic shows I don’t see them being selective in priority, therefore no religion would ever trump another. Kinda like what is supposed to happen.
nm…
Exactly. What is demanded of atheists is that they show respect that will not be given back, and show a tolerance for all faiths that few faiths show each other.
This is a stupid thread based on a stupid premise, and exists solely so that atheists can engage in either pathetic self-pity or replusiive, scattershot attacks on religion.
To illustrate the stupidity, I’ll ask a simple question: name some snake handlers who HAVE been elected to Congress in some redneck state.
I’ll wait (humming Jeopardy! theme song).
Can’t think of one? Didn’t think so. Even in the deep South, snake handlers are both a rarity and a joke.
I’m afraid you missed the point, old bean. We know they’re a joke. And while 54% of Americans recently polled said they’d vote for a well qualified Atheist that was behind every other religion. Was Snake Handling Pentecostals mentioned in the survey? I don’t know, but running Muslim appears to have 58% approval. Which do you think has a better chance getting elected in the South?
Hell, I’ve been told countless times by a certain party that the winner of elections was the person the common man would most likely want to have a beer with. Then a few years ago nominated a man that doesn’t drink Hot Chocolate let alone beer.
Obama isn’t even close to liberal, and is disliked or outright despised by liberals. “Bush in Blackface” I’ve heard him called. He’s a right wing militarist and corporatist; not a liberal, not even a moderate.
While Obama hardly is a socialist/leftist or even a New Deal liberal in the mold of FDR and Harry Truman, its wrong to say that there is no fundamental difference between him and Bush or that he is a “right-wing militarist” when Obama has been cautious in the use of military power despite the complaints of many within his administration such as Hillary Clinton. Very few liberals or progressives think this way-its the Marxists and others on the hard left that would use this sort of rhetoric/argument. Probably the most objective description of his politics would be that he is socially liberal and economically centrist or centre-right.
I think you are conflating “liberal” with “left wing,” which is understandable since Americans have been trained to think of those terms as more or less equivalent, but historically that hasn’t always been the case.
Of course, President Buchanan was a snake handler. [rimshot] [or cumshot, whatever]
(Bolding mine)
I must disagree with the highlighted portion of your statement. There are visible and vocal atheists attempting to have “In God We Trust” stricken from American currency, making movies poking extensive fun at the religiously minded, attempting to get biblical monuments and engravings removed from public grounds, and many other activities that will, and often are meant to, draw the ire of the religiously minded. Particularly Christians since that’s collectively, denominationally speaking, the religion of choice in America.
I’m not suggesting they shouldn’t do those things, I even support the effort in most cases, but it’s difficult to deny that endeavors like these cause the ‘other side’ to react with outrage and animosity.
But you’re absolutely right, I think, in that many atheists will typically embrace the notion of freedom of religion. It’s in our own best interests. 
And atheists were even more deeply hated when they remained essentially silent and invisible. Believers don’t hate atheists because of anything they do or don’t do, they hate atheists because they find the simple existence of someone who does not believe intolerable. If anything, all those things you mention help the image of atheists because they aren’t the kind of robbery, rape and murder that the believers like to claim that anyone who doesn’t believe in God is going to be inclined to indulge in. If I wanted to conform to America’s prejudices about atheists I wouldn’t be discussing atheism on a message board, I’d go and murder a neighbor.
I dunno, the ‘visible and vocal’ atheists earn the majority of the religious ire, but I suspect it’s for the same reason that the tall trees earn most of the lightning strikes. It was still going to land somewhere, all the ‘visible’ atheists did was make themselves convenient targets.
We’re just doing our quieter neighbors a favor, and drawing aside that ire. Think of it as soldiers taking on risk to protect civilians from suffering the horrors of war.
“Onward atheist soldiers, marching as to war,
With a big blank banner, going on before!”
(Except for that minor contingent with the Flying Spaghetti Monster emblem on their battle flag…)