Bill Maher: Atheism is ‘the New Gay Marriage’

Why won’t comedian Bill Maher be running for Congress anytime soon?

Because he thinks his atheism will get in the way.

In an interview with Hollywood site TheWrap, Maher chatted with host Sharon Waxman about the lack of representation of atheists in politics — and how it doesn’t quite match up with the rising number of atheists in the country. He told her that while the percentage of atheists in America is approaching 15%, “we have zero representation.” As a person who’s pretty public about his atheism, he should know:

Maher’s remark came in response to a question about whether he would ever consider seeking office. He called himself “the last person who could ever win,” citing his lack of faith as just one reason. Maher is a vocal atheist, and in 2008 he starred in “Religulous,” a film that poked fun at a variety of organized religions and their beliefs.

Maher went on to point out that the number of Americans who say they don’t believe in God has increased, while congressional representation has only fallen, from one admitted atheist — Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), who lost in 2012 — to zero.

The exact number of American nonbelievers remains somewhat contested. In October 2012, Pew estimated 20% of Americans fit into the broad category of atheist, agnostic or otherwise religiously unaffiliated, with a much smaller number identifying purely as atheists. The Washington Post this May reported that 5%-9% of Americans consider themselves “convinced atheists.” Whatever the number, Maher said atheists are “the least represented people in the country.”

“But that is changing. People are coming out of the closet [as atheists].”

That analogy was fully intended as Maher added at the end of the segment that, much like LGBT public figures are becoming more transparent and open about their identities, atheists in the public eye are starting to do the same. His phrasing was a little questionable, though, reading almost as if atheism (and marriage equality, for that matter) were nothing more than liberal fads, but the message is there:

“[Atheists are] out there, they’re thinking it, they’re just afraid to say it,” Maher said during an interview with TheWrap. “But that’s changing. It’ll be the new gay marriage.”

Of course, none of these newly-out atheists are elected lawmakers. It came to light again recently that there are zero open atheists currently in Congress, raising the question of whether we really are represented in the legislative process or in the greater political realm.

From the Huffington Post piece about Maher’s interview:

While some sources have claimed in the past that as many as 27 members of Congress secretly “have no belief in God,” none of them have chosen to come out of the shadows.

The first openly gay congressman, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) publicly admitted to Maher that he was an atheist earlier this year, but only after leaving Congress. Frank’s announcement came more than 25 years after announcing his sexuality.

The Huffington Post’s earlier piece on the lack of atheists in Congress adds:

The total lack of atheist congressional representation is somewhat surprising in the broader context of nationwide faith and non-faith trends. The latest Pew poll on religion found that out of nearly 20 percent of Americans who call themselves unaffiliated, 2.4 percent identify as atheists. Another 3.3 percent are agnostics, and about 14 percent described their religious beliefs as “nothing in particular.” More than a quarter of those “nothing in particular” respondents said they don’t believe in God or a universal spirit.

While other polls have similarly shown a growth in secular beliefs as the unaffiliated trend away from organized religion, trust of atheists remains a key hurdle to getting those views represented in public office.

While this gay atheist would argue that coming out as LGBT is very, very different from coming out as an atheist, both still matter, and both groups are absolutely overlooked. Maher is right that the lack of Congressional and other political representation is especially disconcerting, particularly considering the excessive entangling of religion and politics nowadays. If worse comes to worse, maybe a Bill Maher bid for Congress is our best chance, after all?

About Camille Beredjick

Camille is a recent college graduate working in the LGBT nonprofit industry. She runs an LGBT news blog at gaywrites.org.

  • Art_Vandelay

    While this gay atheist would argue that coming out as LGBT is very, very
    different from coming out as an atheist, both still matter, and both
    groups are absolutely overlooked.

    Not challenging this and I’m sure you’re right. I certainly have no reference point as a straight guy but out of curiosity, what would you cite as the significant differences? Let’s say for instance that you’re in the bible belt. What fears would you have coming out as LGBT that you wouldn’t as an atheist?

    • TychaBrahe

      Discrimination on the basis of religion (and for these purposes, atheism qualifies) is illegal. In many places in the bible belt, discrimination based on LGBT identification is not. You come out as atheist and you can’t be fired or denied the right to rent. You come out as gay, and you can be.

      • Art_Vandelay

        Holy crap. I’m almost embarrassed to admit that I had no idea there were still places where you could legally discriminate against gays. That’s insane! Why isn’t that a bigger deal? I would think that would be more important to fix than the marriage thing.

        (Not to minimize the marriage thing but not everyone even wants that right.)

        • David Kopp

          It actually might end up helping the issue, making it legal and public.

          But multiple causes can be fought for simultaneously, by different groups. This isn’t an either/or choice.

          • Art_Vandelay

            Of course it isn’t. What I mean is why isn’t it a more prominent political issue? Why aren’t there rallies fighting against it? Why are there no bills being passed on the federal level or at least attempts to amend the Civil Rights act? Why isn’t the media all over it? Nobody seems to be talking about it.

            • David Kopp

              It is, it’s just that homosexual isn’t a protected class like people with disabilities, or having different religions or races is. The solution really is as simple as getting “LGBT” added to the list of protected classes. That, of course, has trouble getting traction. But people aren’t ignoring it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States#Anti-discrimination_laws

            • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

              The Bill comes up all the time. It was supposed to come up in the Senate this fall. But what chance does a gay rights bill have of even coming up for a vote in a Republican-majority House?

        • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

          There is no federal law banning anti-gay discrimination and while some states have enacted such laws, most have not. It’s not that we are waiting to get employment discrimination, it’s that we just can’t get it passed. Meanwhile we are moving forward in the states not run by the Teavangelicals on marriage.

        • Rip Van Winkle

          There are places where it’s illegal to hold office unless you’re a believer, even though it flies in the face of the Constitution saying ‘there shall be no faith-based test to hold public office.’ States are gettiing away with breaking federal law all the time and I can’t understand why nothing is being done about it.

          • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

            Because doing something about it means changing the state constitution which means lots of money and effort by whoever wants to get it on a ballot. Other ‘no brainer’ amendments have failed. Yeah they’re annoying, but a) they’re not enforceable and b) provide explicit evidence for discrimination against atheists. In fact, I’d invite anyone actually trying to enforce any of them. The PR would be fantastic.

      • KMR

        What places in the Bible belt?

        • Vanadise

          Pretty much all of them. States in which discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

          • Mackinz

            58% of all states should not be considered “pretty much all of them”. It is a majority, but far from “pretty much all”, especially considering that the number which allow for such discrimination are continuing to decrease.

            • Vanadise

              The question included “in the Bible Belt.” The only one of those states I’d consider to be in the Bible Belt is New Mexico.

        • TychaBrahe

          http://www.owldolatrous.com/?p=288

          “- In 29 states in America today, my partner of 18 years, Cody, or I could be fired for being gay. Period. No questions asked. One of those states is Louisiana, our home state. We live in self-imposed exile from beloved homeland, family, and friends, in part, because of this legal restriction on our ability to live our lives together.”

          Here’s a map. It’s worse than the Bible belt. It’s practically everywhere.

          http://www.policymic.com/articles/38387/29-states-let-your-boss-fire-you-for-being-gay

          • UWIR

            “this legal restriction on our ability to live our lives together.”
            It’s not a “legal restriction”, unless by “legal” he means “not illegal”.

            • TychaBrahe

              http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/legal?s=t
              Second definition: “of or pertaining to the law.”

              • UWIR

                The law failing to prevent a restriction is not the same as the law creating a restriction. Thinking that the law is responsible for everything it fails to prevent is totalitarian thinking.

                • TychaBrahe

                  The guy isn’t saying the law prevents him from working or prevents him from renting an apartment with his partner or forces people to refuse to do business with him. But because he could be refused housing or not hired because he’s gay, or evicted or fired if it was discovered, his life in such a state would be much more precarious and subject to sudden upheaval than in a state where his rights were protected.

                • UWIR

                  You just said that the word “legal” meant “pertaining to the law”. So “legal restriction” means “the law is imposing a restriction”.

                • TychaBrahe

                  Because the specific law does not include gays as a protected class, this man and his partner are unable to live and work freely in the same geographic region as their family without the threat of possible harassment and discrimination from which other groups are protected. If you are straight, you have freedoms in some places—in this case Louisiana—that they do not share. Hence, they are restricted.

          • KMR

            I’m sorry. I’ve lived in the Bible belt my whole life and I didn’t realize it was still legal to fire people here simply for being gay probably because I’ve never heard of it happening. But I’m sure it does and now that I know I’ll make sure to look for opportunities to vote in support of non-discriminatory laws for all.

      • CBrachyrhynchos

        I think another reason why the analogy to same-sex marriage isn’t all that apt is because the same-sex marriage laws and amendments were rarely about marriage to begin with. They were passed in states where same-sex marriage wasn’t remotely on the horizon for the purpose of challenging limited rights and gay-friendly policies. In Indiana, a local non-discrimination in housing ordinance was declared unenforcible. In Ohio and Wisconsin, municipalities were forced to change insurance benefits for their employees. And in Florida, gay couples were denied hospital visitation in spite of having legal powers of attorney.

        • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

          I think the point of comparison is that until very recently no serious presidential candidate dared come out in favor of gay marriage. In fact, Kerry made a huge mess in trying to have it both ways. (What a moron. I hated that Bush got 4 more years but what a douchebag he was on the campaign trail!)

    • Brandon

      I would say it is a pretty good comparison. I know and have known of people beat for being Atheist.

    • Marie

      It really depends on several factors, such as the state you live in, the company you work for…I live in Louisiana, which a right to work state. I have honestly received far more discrimination for my lack of faith in a deity than my sexuality. However, the company I work for is LGBTQ friendly and many of my fellow coworkers are atheists. I have yet to come out to my family, but I know they would be more accepting of my sexuality than my atheism.

    • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

      Being gay is obviously not the same as being an atheist, but the coming out stories, reactions and prejudices are so similar that comparisons are useful. So much so that I would advise any atheist group to look that the successes and failures of gay rights groups to learn from that experience. The only reason I can think of for the similarity is that in the 1950s gays, atheists and communists were lumped together as un-American and it stuck.

      • TychaBrahe

        Which is why Hemant and Joe Jervis of Joe.My.God read each others blogs.

      • Art_Vandelay

        Nah…I think it’s just religion in general. The pious have managed to convince themselves that they are morally superior than both groups so when they see people shamelessly be who they are even if it’s in deference to their faith…I think they’re threatened by it.

  • newavocation

    We could have an interesting gay or libertarian atheist running mate for Bill. How about Barney Frank or Penn Jillette for VP.

    • Guest

      I’ve fantasized about the monstrous ticket of Barny Frank or Al Franken with Ben Stein. Sure, it’s unlikely, but it sure would make politics more interesting.

      • GubbaBumpkin

        Barney Frank is a smart politician. Al Franken is a smart politician. What would either one of them want to do with a clown like Ben Stein?

        • invivoMark

          Whatever it is, it probably wouldn’t be suitable for public television.

        • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

          Stein is smart too. He just realized there’s a lot of money to be made in pandering to the stupid and he’s made a lot of money doing it.

        • UWIR

          If Frank doesn’t know that Citizens United didn’t affect the ability of corporations to contribute to politicians’ campaign funds, then he isn’t very smart. And if he does know, then he isn’t very honest.

          • C.L. Honeycutt

            Political campaign spending increased massively the first election cycle after Citizens, and the increase was overwhelmingly Republican in nature, IIRC. I seem to remember that in one category, Republican-oriented spending jumped to eight times that of Democrat, where before they had been fairly similar.

      • TychaBrahe

        Ben Stein was the host of the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed about how Christian educators were “persecuted” for their support for intelligent design. He may have a high IQ, but he’s no friend to atheists.

  • TychaBrahe

    I’d have a hard time voting for Maher, and I’m not the only atheist. He’d have to explain his comments in Religulous that sound a lot like vaccine denialism.

    • Conspirator

      He’s one of those that “questions” the need for all vaccinations rather than denying the need. He’s trying to play the skeptic card in a way that is not valid since to do so requires ignoring a ton of scientific evidence in support of vaccines while ignoring the fact that there is no scientific evidence opposed to vaccines.

      • TychaBrahe

        All I’m saying is that I’d have a hard time supporting someone who thinks Barbara Loe Fisher is credible.

        http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/09/26/bill-maher-atheism-is-the-new-gay-marriage/#comment-1060312503

        I admit that this is a real trigger topic for me. My father had polio in 1947 and suffered post-polio syndrome toward the end of his life. When seated, he had to prop his head on his hand, because the Kenny treatment he’d received while ill couldn’t work the muscles over his clavicles, and they were wasted. My uncle died of tetanus when he was refused a booster shot after suffering an accident in Canada.

    • gg

      He IS a vaccine denilaist. He also believes in homeopathy and any other bit of woo coming down the pipeline. Far from being a skeptic, he is an anti-skeptic and as anti-science as they get.

  • Mary Leinart

    I wouldn’t vote for him, but then, I’ve heard his comments against women breastfeeding in public. He’d lose because he’s a smug, self-righteous asshole, not because he’s an atheist.

    • Jeff

      I thought that was a requirement of an elected official.

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        Really they have to be smug, self-righteous, pious assholes.

    • usclat

      “Comments against women”? What are you talking about? He’s a fucking comedian. Nothing’s sacred to comedians. Maybe certain things should be, but they’re not. At least he is VERY public about his skepticism and his regard of science and reason. And that is always good.

      • Mary Leinart

        “It’s just a joke” is no defense for this kind of assholery:

        “Last week the world’s first nurse-in was held to protest the case of a woman who was breastfeeding in public and asked by an Applebee’s managernot to leave but just to cover up a little bit. Because the wait staff got tired of hearing, ‘I’ll have what that kid’s having!’ I’m not trying to be insensitive, here. I know your baby needs to eat, but so do I and this is Applebee’s, so I’m already nauseous. Breastfeeding a baby is an intimate act, and I don’t want to watch strangers performing intimate acts. At least not for free. It cheapens it. But breastfeeding activists – yes, breastfeeding
        activists, called Lactivists – say this is a human right and
        appropriate everywhere, because it’s natural. Well, so is masturbating, but I generally don’t do that at Applebee’s. Not in the main dining area, anyway. I mean next thing, women will be
        wanting to give birth in the waterfall at the mall! Look,
        there’s no principle at work here, other than being too lazy to either
        plan ahead or cover up. It’s not fighting for a right, it’s fighting
        for the spotlight, which you surely will get when you go all Janet
        Jackson on everyone and get to drink in the oohs and ahhs from the other customers because you made a baby! Something a dog can do. Only in America do women think they deserve a medal for having a kid. In China women give birth on their lunch hour and that
        afternoon they’re back on line painting lead onto Barbie dolls.
        (laughter and applause) But this isn’t really about women taking their
        breasts out in public – as much as I’d like them to. It’s about how
        petty and parochial our causes have become, and how activism has become narcissism. It’s why Al Gore can’t get people to focus on global warming unless there’s a rock concert. Melting icebergs, brought to you by Smashing Pumpkins. It’s why there will be no end to this dumb war until there is a draft, because at the end of the day, Iraq is somebody else’s problem. And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called Hooters!”

        It sure sounds to me like he meant what he said, mocking breastfeeding women as he sometimes mocks religion (or doesn’t he mean the things he says about that, either?). For those who don’t know, babies need to be fed several times a day (every couple hours or so), and suggesting that women should only be allowed to do so where they cannot be seen is very inhibitive of the movements of new mothers and their ability to do things outside the home at all. It’s tantamount to saying women should not leave the house until their children are weened. And that’s not to mention the fact that Mr Maher seems to think the primary purpose of women’s breasts is male sexual pleasure.

        • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

          Oh, waaaaah. Cover up and deal with it.

          • Mary Leinart

            I find it very strange that our culture is so puritanical about the possibility of accidentally seeing a nipple in a non-sexual context. What’s the big deal? Avert your eyes and, as you say, deal with it. I promise you that accidental nipple viewing will not harm you.

            • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

              It’s called having some fucking respect for the people around you, so yeah, COVER UP OR GO ELSEWHERE.

              • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                For some people COVERING UP isn’t sufficient. Both my mother and my wife have had to deal with people thinking that breastfeeding simply should not occur where anybody else can know that it’s happening, covered or not.

                • KMR

                  For some people, yeah, and they need to shut the fuck up. But I lived in the south, breastfed in public on occasion, and never had a problem. But I made an effort not to flash folks in the process. It’s not hard. It just isn’t.

              • Anat

                No Way! There is nothing offensive about breastfeeding, you get over yourself.

            • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

              We also don’t like seeing men kissing or even holding hands.

            • Itarion

              It’s kind of like the whole, men get to go topless, but women don’t deal. Why the hell not? Everyone has nipples, damn it.

              Or at least was born with them. Breast cancer and such. My point stands. Rather, your point.

              • C.L. Honeycutt

                I am so tired of seeing nude art having to be labeled as “adult” because Americans can’t handle nipples unless they’re on Ancient Greek and Renaissance art. What the hell is the difference anyway? I can’t remember the name of it, but a high school textbook of mine had that one statue that included a satyr drinking milk from a goat while a second satyr banged a second goat, but we aren’t supposed to see nipples.

                • Itarion

                  Well… most people spend 90+% of their waking time covered. So uncovered equals either sex or a shower. And nobody thinks about the shower. Aren’t humans fascinating?

                  The satyrs fucking is okay, because animals (and half animals) don’t know that the body is actually something to be ashamed of and hidden.

          • Anat

            Why? Wherever an infant is allowed to be bottlefed, same infant should be allowed to be breastfed.

        • Babs

          LMAO, that Maher bit is a whole lot of hilarious mixed in with bits of reason. And I say this as a woman who breastfed for just shy of 6 years. Never once did I have to whip out my tit among a bunch of strangers. It’s called Planning Ahead. If you are prone to breastfeeding at Applebee’s, get a table in a remote area and discreetly breastfeed (practice at home first). When that fails, at least have CONSIDERATION (remember that blast from the past?) for those around you and go somewhere semi-private, like your car (parked away from high-traffic areas).

          • KMR

            Why do people think it’s so bad to cover up just a tad when breast feeding in public? Like you I breastfed my kids for years and never once felt troubled or inconvenienced at the thought of being discrete. I like my own breasts and all but being straight I don’t necessarily want to see a stranger’s breasts. And I’m completely okay with strangers not necessarily wanting to see mine. Is it a cultural thing here? Sure. But it is what it is and people are uncomfortable with it so stop being self-centered and have a little consideration for others especially when it’s not that big of a deal. And I’m sorry, having a little cover over your breasts when nursing a child in public isn’t that big of a deal.

          • Anat

            Ahem. What do you do if you are on a crowded train and your infant is into acrobatic breastfeeding?

            Really, do people prefer to hear the screaming?

            (I had no problem breastfeeding a very active child on train full to the brim with soldiers, back in Israel. Maybe it was obvious I had nowhere else to go. Or maybe they were more mature than I thought.)

          • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

            Thank you! It CAN be done discreetly!

        • MKW

          I totally agree, I mean I was in the movie theater last week and I got a call from my buddy. So I picked it up and was talking to my pal, when some asshole in the back was like, “Hey, friend, how about you wait till the end or take it outside.” Well, can you believe that dude, I responded, “What guy? I’m not breaking any laws, or blocking you view of the movie, how about you sit down and quit trying to enforce your puritanical movie watching beliefs on me.” Well, then someone tells the movie staff. The movie staff ask me to leave. For what? I wasn’t breaking any laws, what am I supposed to just stay at home. Geesh, can you believe those people? So yeah, I totally get what you’re talking about.

          • C.L. Honeycutt

            Infants are socially abused cell phones now?

            Funny, when someone brings an infant to a movie theater I’m in, they always do end up getting removed. When they bring an infant to a restaurant and quietly feed, not disturbing anyone who doesn’t feel the need to stare at them as they eat anyway, they turn out to be no problem. And when their little darling acts up, one of two things happens: they remove themselves until their child settles down, or they get asked to leave the dining area.

            • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

              Quietly feeding is one thing, and those who quietly feed tend to be quite discreet about it — to the point that you can’t tell what they’re doing.

              I’m tired of the boob brigade making a big stink over being asked, politely, to please cover up, like it’s some horrible oppressive thing to do. *cough*Mary Leinart*cough*

        • KMR

          I didn’t realize until I looked up this story but the breastfeeding episode Mayer was commenting on involved a 20 month old child. I fully support breastfeeding, I’ve done it myself even in public, but when it involves a child past infancy yeah, I don’t think I’m ever going to want to see it when I’m eating. Or really anywhere else. It’s your business how long you want to do it but if your child can wait (and if they are past 12 months they can) then there is no reason you can’t do it in privacy.

          • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

            There are also these thing called “bottles”…

            • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

              Why does your discomfort require that someone else change their behavior?

              There’s being considerate of others, and there’s getting upset because someone else is doing something you don’t like that doesn’t actually affect you.

              I have to say, breastfeeding strikes me as a little bit of the former, and a whole lot of the latter.

  • flyb

    I’m distracted by her upside down mic flag.

  • Dan Weeks

    I don’t think I’d vote for him simply because he’s a comedian, and comedians are in general really good at pointing out ridiculousness but completely suck at offering viable solutions. We have plenty of people in gov’t bitching about problems without actively solving any. While Maher would no doubt make it funnier, it would be a net gain of zero for the rest of us.

    • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

      It would be worth voting for him just for the fun of what he’d be saying on C-SPAN all day.

    • islandbrewer

      Al Franken is an awesome Senator, IMHO. I wouldn’t vote for Maher simply because, while I agree with his atheism, and think he can be funny, he’s a shallow thinker (unfortunately), and I don’t agree with his lazy, whiny libertarianism.

    • usclat

      Exactly Dan. Just like Al Franken. (Face slap) What a maroon! [Uh, not Al Franken]

  • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

    I thought there was one out atheist Congressman. But he’s right. Even in areas where people don’t go to church as often, they probably wouldn’t vote for someone that didn’t pretend to be religious in some way.

  • A3Kr0n

    So we need a flag now, and it should not be designed by American Atheists.

  • gg

    I’d NEVER vote for anti-science woo mongerer, conspiracy theorist Bill Maher

  • Mr. Two

    “… 2.4 percent identify as atheists. Another 3.3 percent are agnostics, and about 14 percent described their religious beliefs as “nothing in particular.” More than a quarter of those “nothing in particular” respondents said they don’t believe in God or a universal spirit.”

    If “nothing in particular” means they don’t believe in God or a universal spirit, that’s atheism. That means the number is almost 20%! Best news I’ve heard in a while.

  • Ralph J Sugar

    Just how smart do you have to be to side with this egotistical A-Hole??? He makes his living cutting down all decent and kind people, simply because he cant make it any other way- He has to year others down to build himself up as “cool”!!!! He is like a Beautiful PROSTITUTE-Except he is an UGLY human being- the only way they can make it, is to AWE and SHOCK- Ans, since people who adore prostitutes are on a plain with This Vulgar , Decadent, 2.% of American idiotas!!1

  • Ralph J Sugar

    These people- really smart people , who are enthralled with atheism , better be careful of what they wish for or fighting for– America, if their wishes come true, may end up like those countries in the past who brought those “atheist” to power– Kind of like Mao, Cho En Lai of China, Stalin of Russia, Hitler of Germany-If thats what they want instead what we have- Good Luck IDIOTS– What goes around will come back to get you poor, godless animals–

    • Carmelita Spats

      Jumping-Jesus-on-a-Pogo-Stick! Godless animals? Baby Jesus must be so pissed off at you that he’s swallowing nails and shitting screws straight out of his loincloth. You are making Baby Jesus tighten his crown of thorns even more! PRAISE! Anyhow, you have been selected as our next contestant on “The Christ is Right!” Please provide evidence for a Trinitarian-incarnational-atoning-resurrecting-ascending-soon-to-be-returning God who sacrificed Himself to Himself but not before impregnating a horny teenager with Himself so that premarital sex could be forgiven. Until you provide evidence, I can only laugh at your threats. What’s next? Turn or burn? I’ve been taught to stop, drop and roll, moron. You are just another shit salesman with a mouthful of samples.

      • Ralph J Sugar

        Hey Spats Brain, you have historical facts galore as to the Brilliance of Atheist leaders from a long history of animal type behavior!! I,ll bet you were educated by the Very Liberal Art A-holes that teach in our Universities today! They teach no more- They “INDOC’TR INATE – and you are PURE evidence of that fact! As someone said a minute ago- Maher is a FUCKING comedian- nothing is sacred to them- they are in it for money and attention of likewise wanna be idiots like you and those you follow!!

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        Oh man, I like this screamy, paranoid ignoramus. Can we keep him?

        • FTP_LTR

          Checked out his other posts, C.L.?

          He’s fun. I like to imagine his posts being read out in a single breath, getting angrier and angrier, more and more shrill as the veins start bulging and eyes start popping.

          • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

            Meh, they’re a waste of time frankly.

  • $machado1

    Being an atheist is taking the same leap of faith as any other religion does, agnosticism is the way, no leap or faith required to know you’re right :D


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X