Ron Reagan, Seen in an Atheist Group’s Ad, Was a Star of the Democratic Debate October 15, 2019

Ron Reagan, Seen in an Atheist Group’s Ad, Was a Star of the Democratic Debate

One of the highlights of the CNN Democratic presidential debate came during the commercials — twice. The Freedom From Religion Foundation aired a 30-second ad featuring Ron Reagan, son of the former president, saying he’s a “lifelong atheist, not afraid of burning in hell.” It’s the same ad rejected by ABC during last month’s debate.

Plenty of viewers enjoyed what they were seeing. Or had least had a good sense of humor about it.

Who didn’t like it? People like Charlie Kirk and Pastor Greg Locke, who blamed the Democratic Party for it, suggesting that the DNC supported or even knew about this ad. (They didn’t.)

Imagine how ignorant you have to be to think that CNN allowed the Democratic Party to choose its own ads. The Democrats are hardly a godless party, too. At best, they’ve acknowledged that non-religious people make up an ever-growing part of their base. But atheists don’t have anywhere close to the sort of power in the Democratic Party that white evangelicals have in the Republican Party.

Then there was Todd Starnes, fresh from his FOX News firing, who couldn’t handle the positive mention of atheism, treating it as a slap in the face to his favored myth.


On his website, he went even further with what I can only assume is right-wing “humor”:

Hell is no laughing matter. Repent, Mr. Reagan. #Godless #ExtraCrispy #FireRetardantUndies

Hilarious. Eternal torture for your political enemies. Mike Huckabee-level gold right there.

It’s so typical of the Religious Right that they would equate Reagan’s beliefs with hellfire while Trump, whose ignorant withdrawal of U.S. forces in northern Syria may now lead to a genocide, gets a free pass despite all his corruption.

In any case, the ad did what it was supposed to do: It got people talking.

Hopefully, it leads to more donations for FFRF, too.

"The way republican politics are going these days, that means the winner is worse than ..."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"It would have been more convincing if he used then rather than than."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
error: Content is protected !!