of course! There's no reason not to
over 9 years ago
Reply
I'd actually prefer that. It can often be the sign of a careful thinker.
about 9 years ago
Reply
@A Your comments make me happy.
almost 9 years ago
Reply
im british so i dont care as long as its not sarah palin
almost 9 years ago
Reply
Yea it is but he might also be a Freemason
almost 9 years ago
Reply
Nothing wrong with being a freemason
almost 9 years ago
Reply
Religion is very important in not only a spiritual sense but also a cultural sense. To all atheists, you are not being intelligent or politically correct by being an atheist u are just depriving your self of the happiness the religion can bring you. Take this from somebody who used to be an atheist.
almost 9 years ago
Reply
take this from someone who is an atheist. We're just as capable of being happy as religious. If not more capable since we are not bound to specific beliefs or rituals that those who arent religious
almost 9 years ago
Reply
plus it might be beneficial to have an atheist in charge since that it would guarantee a seperation between government and religion and make sure that a leader wouldn't be biased to help their own religion
almost 9 years ago
Reply
Agnostic speaking.
Having an atheist president should be fine as long as freedom of religion is kept and every religion is treated equally
over 8 years ago
Reply
just because you're atheist doesnt mean you're anti religion it just means that beliefs and traditions dont impare judgements
over 8 years ago
Reply
As long as he isn't a douche to religious people, who cares? Just like as long as a religious person wasn't a douche to people of other religions or atheists it doesn't matter.
over 8 years ago
Reply
@Derek Your post was so ridiculously ignorant. Don't comment unless you know what you're talking about.
over 8 years ago
Reply
@ArcaneSeraph Hey, that's just like me. 😀 I'm an agnostic, and I agree.
over 8 years ago
Reply
recent