Sick of this Godless party? Atheist ad during Dem debate boasts ‘I’m not afraid of burning in hell’
This is sad that a major political party would take an ad from one saying they are not afraid of burning in hell. A former president’s son no less. The party booed God 8 years ago and has become overtly hostile to one of its former voting blocs.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk responded to an ad featuring Ron Reagan, the son of President Ronald Reagan, advocating for an atheist group, that first aired during the Democratic Party October debate on CNN.
In effect, Reagan mocks Christians, saying he is “not afraid of burning in hell,” as he seeks donations for the Freedom From Religion Foundation — the atheist group has made a name for itself challenging issues like Bibles in schools or crosses on public grounds.
That the ad aired during a Democratic debate being par for the course, as far as Kirk is concerned. And though he tweeted about the ad back in October, Kirk shared the tweet on Sunday night for a second time as CNN hosted another debate for the party.
“This is the left,” he tweeted. “They booed God at their convention They want to defund churches that don’t support progressive views And this is the ad that gets the prime spot at the debate— ‘I’m not afraid of burning in hell.'”
“RT if you’re sick of this Godless party,” Kirk added, including the 30-second ad in his tweet. “Hi, I’m Ron Reagan, an unabashed atheist, and I’m alarmed by the intrusion of religion into our secular government,” Reagan says in the ad. “That’s why I’m asking you to support the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the nation’s largest and most effective association of atheists and agnostics, working to keep state and church separate, just like our Founding Fathers intended.”
“Please support the Freedom From Religion Foundation,” he concludes. “Ron Reagan, lifelong atheist, not afraid of burning in hell.”
The reference to God being booed was from the 2012 Democratic convention, which was held in Charlotte, N.C. The party was looking to reinstate platform language that recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and included the words “God-given” in a passage on employment.
As for the reactions, aside from thinking the President Reagan must be rolling over in his grave, there was also a notion to pray for his son, who is clearly lost in this world.
Here’s a quick sampling of responses from Twitter:
Tags
Who is online
384 visitors
The picture above did not come with the seeded article. The pic is of the anti thesis of the seeded article. Might as well have placed a drawing of the devil there.
What are you smokin'? That is some WHACKED out SHAT? BTW: I just got off the telepathic phone with GOD, and she said, "I never promised you a Rose Garden."
Amen!
I love the Ron Regan advert and I'm a supporter of the FFRF. It used to play occasionally during Rachel Maddow.
epistte...great to see you here with us again. You have been sorely missed. Welcome back!
So glad to have you back!
happy to have you back
I agree with the others. Happy to see ya !
EPISTTE!!!!!
Welcome back. Now, never leave us again!
In effect, Reagan mocks Christians, saying he is “not afraid of burning in hell,” as he seeks donations for the Freedom From Religion Foundation — the atheist group has made a name for itself challenging issues like Bibles in schools or crosses on public grounds.
That the ad aired during a Democratic debate being par for the course, as far as Kirk is concerned. And though he tweeted about the ad back in October, Kirk shared the tweet on Sunday night for a second time as CNN hosted another debate for the party.
“This is the left,” he tweeted. “They booed God at their convention They want to defund churches that don’t support progressive views And this is the ad that gets the prime spot at the debate— ‘I’m not afraid of burning in hell.'”
religious nuts have hobbled our country for almost 250 years. it's payback time.
Yes we have such a terrible country we share and it’s all the Christians fault. Not! Actually we live in an exceptional American nation the best nation ever on this world in its history. It is a city on a hill, a light shining out upon the nation’s of the earth 🌎. A nation founded by divine providence
There is a reason the Founding Father inserted a provision in the Constitution about RELIGION. They were aware of how violent followers become when confronted with someone of another faith.
So-called "Christians", and/or adherents to other religions have been slaughtering each other for 2000 years.
Did Jesus instruct his followers to Kill Non-Believers?
Did HE preach for Money?
Did Jesus tell his followers to overthrow Herod?
Did Jesus instruct them to "condemn, then, turn away the poor?"
Why do Evangelicals?
These Born Up Side Down & Backwards Primitives promote hate, gun possession, and extols their members to believe that GOD appointed The Con Man, Trump, president?
Isn't that a little suspect?
I spoke to GOD, this a.m., and SHE told me, in no uncertain words, that "GOD did not appoint Trump to anything. GOD DOES GOOD!"
She, added, before mentioning that this was a "collect call, that Trump, "must be playing for the other team."
The FFRF is a great American institution which respects the separation of church and state. Unlike some in theistic circles.
It was Nancy Reagan who coined the term, "Wingnuts", to describe the evangelical wing of the gop whom both she and Mr Reagan considered to be extreme, ignorant and intolerant. The type of people who would gladly condemn even them to eternity in Hell if they knew about Nancy's abortions...plural.
Mest of the extremist religious nutcases on the right worship Ronald and Nancy as if they were some sort of dieties.. Which strikes me as a bit inconsistent-- after all Nancy Reagan regularly consulted an Astrologer! (Oh-- the horror!)
Joan Ceciel Quigley (April 10, 1927 – October 23, 2014), of San Francisco , California , was an astrologer best known for her astrological advice to the Reagan White House in the 1980s.
Joan Quigley discussed her relationship with Nancy Reagan in a book, titled What Does Joan Say? . Quigley wrote, "Not since the days of the Roman emperors , and never in the history of the United States presidency, has an astrologer played such a significant role in the nation's affairs of State."
More
Joan Quigley discussed her relationship with Nancy Reagan in a book, titled What Does Joan Say? . Quigley wrote, "Not since the days of the Roman emperors , and never in the history of the United States presidency, has an astrologer played such a significant role in the nation's affairs of State."
In 1988, Regan published his memoir For the Record: From Wall Street to Washington , revealing that Nancy Reagan had consulted with Quigley, and previously with astrologer Jeane Dixon . Regan wrote:
Virtually every major move and decision the Reagans made during my time as White House Chief of Staff was cleared in advance with a woman in San Francisco [Quigley] who drew up horoscopes to make certain that the planets were in a favorable alignment for the enterprise. [3] [1]
OMG!!!
ANGELS AND MINISTERS OF GRACE DEFEND US!
:
What has the Democratic Party ever said that rebukes God? I'm pretty sure a large percentage of Democrats are Christians or Jews.
Why is this crap polluting this forum?
Because the right wing has nothing else to run on. This is why----this----is on this forum. You know, "Lie speech is free speech," right?
Are you denying that the ad took place or that the 2012 democrat convention didn’t boo as shown?
who the fock cares?
The ad is accurate. And yes it took place. I've seen it before. Religion is oppressive, costly and has been transformed into a political weapon used to instill fear, division and ignorance.
Sure they do-- look at Trump's record on... the economy!
(Hehehe)
And, speaking of feeble-minded efforts at derailling this conversation--- what about what happened when Calvin Coolidge was nominated? Or-- if we really want to change the subject* -- how about the nomination of Thomas Jefferson?.
___________________________________________________
*if we really want to change the subject: this is a common tactic used by people on social media sites when they know they are losing an argument!
You do or you wouldn’t have replied here.
Of course they are. But one small group of very socially conservative, political, and religious people has managed to spread the idea that they love God better than people who disagree with them. It's nonsense, of course. Unfortunately, I think people in both parties have accepted it in their own way. Too many people on the political left end up thinking that because there are religious nuts on the right, anyone motivated by belief must be a right wing nut. Thus, they are shy about showing their own faith.
But you can be a perfectly fine religious liberal. That's why I do think it's a shame when the Democratic Party seems to run away from that idea. They have been kind of bullied into it and it's not necessary.
But you can be a perfectly fine religious liberal. That's why I do think it's a shame when the Democratic Party seems to run away from that idea. They have been kind of bullied into it and it's not necessary.
I have to agree.
I do think it’s more though than fear of being labeled as unaccepting, or being shy. Just as stated already, the more liberal leaning tend to be more diverse, and not as coalesced or focused in tight religious circles. That is reflected politically. Liberals have more voices, while conservatives have fewer, louder ones.
the 2012 Charlotte democrat convention where they booed God and Israel when the chair imposed God given and Israel 🇮🇱 into the platform over the objections of the majority of delegates. That scene is in the seeded article
Democrats are a multi-lingual, mutli-racial, multi-educated collection of people who care about their planet, the rivers and the air. Care about each other and do not put MONEY, wealth and power above all else.
People are more than their party affiliation. They are more than their faith. Democrats are inclusive, Calcified Conservative Republicans are not.
It is the GOP that is the big tent party.
It seems that to be accepted by some members of the GOP, one must share (or pretend to share) the irrational fears of some Christians. That doesn't sound very big-tent to me. In fact, it sounds like exclusion on a very irrational basis.
Articles like this do you no good with conservative nonbelievers.
I'm not afraid of burning in hell either. Are you?
No Human being who is living according to the best light shown them by the Holy Spirit in their lives has reason to fear burning in hell.
My understanding is that there is no Hell, other than the one created by zealots on Earth that are driven to force everyone one else to think, feel, and believe as they do.
Why would anyone be? It's imaginary. Hell is a religious fable meant to frighten gullible or weak minded individuals into (religious) obedience.
That would mean that I've fallen for the myth of a heaven and hell. Of which I didn't. The whole idea of heaven and hell is almost laughable.
Nothing like using treats to force submission.
Much more afraid of a burning planet due to anthropogenic global warming.
Not being afraid of burning in Hell seems to be a rational position.
Hell is an ancient scare tactic that evolved from early Christianity and eventually took on the fire and brimstone characterization from Dante's 'The Divine Comedy' and further enhanced by Botticelli in his map of Hell.
Many Christians hold that Hell is simply figurative and is essentially separation from God; not literally burning in torture for all of eternity. Many Christians thus do not fear burning in Hell.
The separation from God is eternal. The burning is brief lasting until body and soul are forever and eternally consumed. Satan and his angels will burn the longest for their sins but will be consumed as well. The new world will be recreated upon the ashes of the lost.
Oh goodie! Does Frodo return to the Shire too?!
How, precisely, do you know this?
Is this a serious question? If so, this is from J. R. R. Tolkien's 'The Lord of the Rings' and 'The Hobbit'.
[deleted]
Upon what authority do you propagate these sadistic concepts that you wish to forced others to accept based on your fears?
Do you dare to speak for GOD?
The Bible says so.
You think your reading of the Bible is superior to others who hold beliefs based on the Bible? How do you know that you are reading the Bible properly? How do you know that your highly transcribed English Bible even has the correct words and that those words are indeed divine?
Circular reasoning.
These are a product of the christians threatening others into submission by playing on the fear of what happens after death.
In the book of Isiah god stated "I form the light and create the darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the lord do all these things." So much for that all loving and all forgiving god.
Muslims also believe that people burn in Hell for their sins (not surprising as Islam was descended from Christianity):
Mohammed, along with Buraq and Gabriel, visit Hell, and see a demon punishing "shameless women" who had exposed their hair to strangers. For this crime of inciting lust in men, the women are strung up by their hair and burned for eternity. Persian, 15th century.
Contrary to popular belief amongst the "politically correct" in the West, as in most religions Muslims have been making pictures of The Prophet Muhammed (Peace Be Upon Him) for centuries.
True. Note that in Islam (as in Christianity) the beliefs on Hell vary.
I might be mistaken, but in Islam, one only endures hell for a time commensurate with their sins. Kind of like a theistic jail term. Afterwards, they are allowed to enter heaven.
That is one of the beliefs. Like Christianity, Islam has its various sects and contradictory beliefs. As one would expect.
the extremists in all 3 abrahamic cults are peas in a pod
In that they are extremists. But they have very different views.
And yet, they probably all think their views and interpretations are the correct ones.sound familiar?
One of the critical observations that nobody ever seems able to explain.
Actually, in my experience, the same is true of some of the more "Fundamentalist" type Atheists as well!
Such limited viewpoints tend to be intellectually dishonest and possibly logically indefensible.
How do you define 'fundamentalist atheist'?
Pshaw. God or gawd is not the issue. The issues are the teachings of Jesus. And the GOP, TGOP, DJTGOP and conservatism in general, rejects every word from Jesus by their actions and governance.
"Burning in Hell?" The reach of The Deceiver is long. His Shadow is longer.
Reagan is correct. His actions, thoughts and demeanor guarantees 'Hell' is not a prospect for him. Baker, White, Falwell, Graham and others on the other hand are----------prospects.
freedom from religion is an original American concept that predated the US Constitution and most likely inspired the 1st amendment. the reluctance of others not able to grasp that concept probably inspired the 2nd.
There is no such thing as freedom from religion. There is a freedom to choose to have no religion at all. No one has a freedom to avoid any and all possible exposure to any position or belief that they don’t like.
You're splitting hairs. Its all really just a question of Semantics (and I myself am notoriously anti-Semantic!)
It’s more than that. I’m fine with freedom of religion including the right to choose none at all.
You speak with authority, Donald J. Trump Fan # 1. Who giveth you that authority, Trump, or, your version of GOD. Or, are they one and the insane?
Does that mean I have to accept you coming to my door and attempting to preach at me?
No. A no soliciting sign will cover that. Things such as internet, radio, and tv though are different as nothing can stop you from coming across that as you surf those platforms and there’s nothing to prevent you from seeing or hearing messages you disagree with as you move about from place to place in pubic.
If it comes on TV or radio, I can turn it off. I sneer at billboards that are stupid.
What I want is for people like you to stop insisting that our constitution gives you the right to determine everybody's moral choices.
We have the right to advocate for any set of moral beliefs or values in the public domain.
Your rights only extend to the tip of my nose
Demonstrably false. Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion.
That's freedom from religion.
The only contact I ever have with far right wing religious fascism is you.
They were opposing the concept (an extremely inflammatory one) of using one religion exclusively to base government decisions upon.
We are not returning to the Medieval Ages, where the Church was the most Powerful and Riches institutions in the land.
Religion has a place in one's life for many, but, it has no right to force others to believe in someone else's version of GOD!
There was nothing inflammatory about the platform as amended. Were the founding fathers being inflammatory when they stated that we have God given rights that man has no place to take away from us?
Has anyone forced you to believe in God?
Or are you just MASSIVELY overreacting to the mere mention of religion?
For cryin' out loud, once again, NOT all in America believe in your god or any god.....get over it already.
Nice to see that Ron Reagan Jr.,
while not endorsing the Democratic Party
nor his message being endorsed by the Democratic Party,
is still getting some mileage out of a seven year old fund raising ad that is banned from ABC, CBS, NBC and the Discovery Science networks since 2014.
Trump, and the GOP, would like folks to believe that they are "Christ Like, but, in my view, few are. Those who wear their religion on their sleeves, pray in public to demonstrate to others there faith, are frauds.
defines one as a advocate of "Family Values?"
Perhaps, that is why Evangelicals Worshiping the ENDS OF TIME, are so enamored with the Devil's Con Man, Donald J. Trump that brags about grabbing women by their private parts and kissing them without their permission.
Is that the Family Values you speak of? Or is it the "Locking Up of Kids In Cages?"
Or, is it the constant, pathological lying of our illegally installed POTUS?
Is it Trump three wives, two divorces, and hundred of marital affairs that
The Christian God despises the Hypocrite above the murderer!
How was Trumps election illegal?
it was not.
Someone is flinging poo at walls, hoping beyond hope that Something actually sticks.
About as effective as screaming at the sky or declaring that he isn't their President.
Absolutely ridiculous, and any adult engaging in such practices should be deeply ashamed of themselves.
I believe the ban has been removed---shortly after the Trump slimed into the WH and 'certain christians' were claiming the Trump was sent by gawd.
According to their own ( ffrf ) news release, ABC once again refused to air the ad during the Sept 12 Dem debate.
The one thing liberal biased ABC got right.
Refusing to air an ad and banning an ad is not the same thing.
For that network it has the same effect.
One of my favourite quotes:
I know of two things that are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity. And I'm not entirely sure about the former...
Albert Einstein, if I am correct.
His views on religion are just as valid as anyone else's.
Wow, what a dramatic overreaction to somebody not sharing one's religious paranoia.
One might almost think the author (and perhaps those who agree with him) is jealous of those of us who aren't afraid of their chosen bogeyman.
It's ok, Freddy Kruger isn't going to kill you in your dreams. Samara isn't going to climb out of your television. And Satan isn't hiding under your bed, waiting to grab that one uncovered foot and use it to drag you to Hell.
Are you sure? (Do you have a link for that?)
Satan knows he’s on borrowed time and he is trying to take as many of us down with him as he can. Raging like a dragon seeking whom he may devour.
You speak, of course, of Trump, No?
My totally subjective personal experience, which nobody is allowed to question.
his time is up in november and most of his thumper sycophants will follow 6 months later
No. Trump is carrying out Gods will for America at this point in time. Just like previous Presidents have done.
That is for certain....
What nonsense. Using that logic, God wanted Obama to be president for 8 years.
Did YOU see "Trump" in there somewhere, or are you just incapable of putting a single sentence together without including him?
And people claim there is no such thing as TDS.
Hummph!
No, I speak of secular progressives
I believe He for His reasons did just that.
A number of people believe that God appoints all leaders and has done so for all of time. Yet another biblical 'interpretation'.
The rationale is that God is perfect and even though we may not see how these leaders fit into God's plan, He most definitely does.
So Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao, etc. were all part of God's plan.
This is yet another master stroke of religion. Get people to believe that no matter how bad things are, it is all part of God's plan (which is of course perfect) and one should simply accept that we are not smart enough to understand it. Get people to buy that kind of reasoning, and you can get them to believe anything.
You Go, Girl! Lay down that scat. Great job of slap back! Excellent rant! The Fury of Your Poet is stunningly clairvoyant.
Why on earth would any rational person believe that crap? Why would I be jealous of a non-believer? Why do you choose to call what I consider God to be a bogeyman? What specifically has God ever done to you to earn that ridiculous claim?
And who here has once suggested that you need to be afraid of God?
To be clear, I don't consider him to either be a bogeyman, or to have done anything. Kinda goes with not being convinced that he's real, if one bothers to think logically.
Not exactly what you stated earlier:
Logically, one who doesn't think God is a bogeyman doesn't use that exact term to describe him.
They're thes one afraid of him (like they would be the bogeyman), not me. I'm no more scared of their (pay attention to that very important word, please), than I am of Freddy Kruger, so he's not a bogeyman to me. He's just a character in a book.
That is ridiculous. Most religious people do not fear God. You used the term "bogeyman" to disparage what others believe, and for no other reason.
How very, very tolerant of you.
Does it validate your opinion when you disparage what others may believe?
Of course you are entitled to your own opinion, and more power to you.
Funny thing is, I am secure enough in my own beliefs that I have no need to tear others down to make myself feel better.
Know what's funny? The author, and those who agree with him, are angry at Ron Reagan for flat-out saying he's not afraid of burning in Hell, and they're using "godless" as a pejorative. They're quite willing to disparage a man for his beliefs (or lack thereof).
But some of them really seem unable to take having their beliefs disparaged.
Beliefs aren't immune to criticism.
If you (generic "you") can't take it, don't dish it out.
Jesus hated hypocrisy.
Do Muslims fear Allah? Yes! ( Look it up Texan. )
I would agree that most Christians do not fear God in the sense that they walk around cowering in fear. But fear of God (i.e. fear of the wrath of God) is most definitely taught. The fear of eternal punishment, etc. is most definitely taught. And many Christians do indeed expect that disobeying God will result in punishment.
Fear, in its most potent form, is at the epicenter of the Abrahamic religions. It has softened in Judaism and Christianity over the years with euphemistic language, but the history is undeniable.
There is no need to justify what you wrote to me.
I don't care for justifications usually anyways, and this is an example of why.
Many politicians pander to their voters by describing themselves as "God-fearing". I think we can guess why that is.
Over and over in the Bible we are exhorted to fear God, to have the fear of the Lord, to live in godly fear. But why should we fear God? Isn’t God love? Yet, 1 John 4:18 clearly tells us that: “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love.”
How can we believe that God loves us, and at the same time, that we should fear Him?
Reverence and awe for God
Godly fear isn’t the same as fear of a tyrant, or a dictator. We don’t need to fear His anger, unless we fear punishment due to a bad conscience and impenitent heart because of sin. (Romans 2:5-9)
To fear God is absolute reverence and awe for an Almighty God, the Creator of all things. In the Bible we get a few glimpses into heaven, and we see the heavenly creatures worship Him around His throne continually, crying out “Holy, holy, holy!” and covering their faces. This Almighty God has called me by name to serve Him, and He is working in me so that I can be saved to be with Him for eternity. This should cause an inexpressible love and gratitude and reverence to grow and increase in my heart!
This causes us to fear to sin against Him, because we want nothing else in this world than to be pleasing to Him, and to bring honor to His name. We fear to cause Him sorrow or grief, knowing how incredibly wretched sin is, how much God hates it, and how much it hurts Him when we sin.
“And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to love Him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments of the Lord and His statutes which I command you today for your good?” Deuteronomy 10:12-13.
“The fear of the Lord is to hate evil; pride and arrogance and the evil way and the perverse mouth I hate.” Proverbs 8:13.....
In religion one can always count on finding contradictions. With so many man-made religions it is impossible to keep things straight. So you offer one viewpoint and here is another :
Too bad there is no place to go to get the single truth about God. Trusting other human beings to deliver truth is unwise.
Which Christian source (see @13.3.10) should one use for the truth? When Christian sources contradict each other (often, by the way) how do you reasonably conclude that one Christian source is correct and the other is wrong? Flip a coin? Go with the one that you prefer?
The problem here is that this is all simply human opinion (and it applies to all religions, not just the category known as Christianity). There is no foundation of fact (evidence) upon which to make a decision. People thus are left believing the imaginations and interpretations of other mere human beings based on influences (e.g. the views of family, culture, location, …). Not a path to truth, just a path to believing what others tell you is truth.
There is no inconsistency between what you posted and what I did.