WRONG!
Not influence, but rather a state sponsored religion of any kind. You could look it up. It's a huge difference. Remember the goal of the founding fathers was individual Liberty
Which all region opposes, hence the need and directive to dispense with it. There has never, in the history of mankind, been a religion who's purpose wasn't to subjugate and enslave the will of the people. The founding fathers knew this, and knew that any religion the state endorsed would, without exception, eventually be used by the government as a last (or sometimes first) resort to get whatever it wanted out of the people when legitimate methods fail.
You still see this today in churches that insist jesus has a right to 10% of your income. Think what you want, but without people pushing back against this tide, you will have a theocracy sooner or later. Because reverting to what we are actually founded on means getting religion, all of it, washed out of the public sector is effective against this tyranny, of course those in favor of religious zealotry oppose it. No surprise there. But, as I've said previously, the free and much more efficient flow of information and ideas presents a more effective counter to this problem, and I would suspect that its days are numbered.
We'll never erradicate this sickness anymore so than we will common superstition. But, like any other perversion, what you do at home is your business. We just don't need to see it in public. And we are certainly getting tired of paying for it as well.
That's what atheism looks like.
Is that what you propose?
No, that's what tyranny looks like. And while it is no better than religious tyranny
it is far less common. Saying religion is acceptable because some so-called atheists were bad is like saying since there are exotic diseases out there than can kill you, there's simply no point in ever washing your hands or wiping after take a dump, etc...
Then you're not looking hard enough.
We forever hear the argument of those who have committed atrocities in the name of religion along with the body count.
So let's compare the body count of avowed atheists like Stalin and the guy in North Korea to the religious zealots. You don't see how it compares because atheists are murdering thugs devoid of morality compared to their Christian and Islamic friends.
That make it clear enough for you
Taking your argument that these people killed only for reasons relating to lack of faith at face value, which is of course impossible, no, religion is still far worse, as it spans nearly all of human history. From the beginnings of slavery to everything you can read for your self in exodus (since you believe in that garbage), through the inquistion, the holocaust, right up to today's current struggles with islam, there is no question religion and god is the problem.
Because it's impossible.
People don't park their morals, values & ethics at the statehouse door anymore than you park your atheism at the gas chamber door.
You want me to suspend my Christianity and all of the moral, values and ethics that being a Christian entails while an atheist like Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il perpetuate the slaughter of millions of lives in the name of atheism? Sorry not today, perhaps tomorrow.
If you mean what christian values actually are, yes, you should suspend them unless you'd like to do serious time. Again, I'm always surprised by the lack of general knowledge as to what their faith actually is all about from the christian and muslim crowds. Adhereing to your books would be quite criminal by modern standards, and for good reason.
Just as technical aside, how can you say that stalin & pol pot are
perpetuating a slaughter? They're both quite dead.
edited for spelling
