…and this is a 
Don't vote for Dole in North Carolina
Category: Godlessness • Politics
Posted on: August 28, 2008 1:57 PM, by PZ Myers
Every time I see the disregard the Democratic party shows for secular values — which is painfully frequent — I wonder why the heck I'm even voting for these addled con artists. But then the Republicans remind me by showing up and being even worse. The latest is from the Elizabeth Dole campaign in North Carolina, which has decided to vilify her opponent, Kay Hagan, because she dares to actually meet with atheists. How horrid! Hagan has probably got godless cooties now. Here's what a Dole press release says, expressing disgust that Hagan is actually going to meet with the Secular Coalition for America.
"Kay Hagan does not represent the values of this state; she is a Trojan Horse for a long list of wacky left-wing outside groups bent on policies that would horrify most North Carolinians if they knew about it," [Communications Director Dan] McLagan said. "This latest revelation of support from anti-religion activists will not sit well with the 90% of state residents who identify with a specific religious faith."
Fair enough, actually. It does represent a difference in values: that Hagan may not be an atheist but is willing to speak with them says one thing about her values, and that Elizabeth Dole thinks atheists are un-American says something else about her values. It also says a lot about Dole that she is willingly affiliated with the party of bigotry and incompetence, the Republicans. These are choices made by candidates that are legitimate issues to help voters decide who they should elect.
It says to me that people should vote for Hagan, or almost any other Democrat, over almost any other Republican.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 28, 2008 2:21 PM
Definitely vote for Hagan for more than just this. Dole is ineffective to the extreme.
Posted by: llewelly | August 28, 2008 2:23 PM
Everyone should read Siamang's letter, which is in the linked friendly atheist article.
Posted by: tyaddow | August 28, 2008 2:27 PM
This latest wave of Democratic pandering to the religious is clearly a means to an end but absolutely infuriating. Almost every Democrat at the convention has seen fit to end their speech with 'god bless this and that'. Where is the candidate that represents all and not just most of the citizens of this country?
Posted by: Pustulio | August 28, 2008 2:36 PM
No one who was already planning to vote for Dole is going to change their mind over this. But it will probably make a few rural democrats think twice about supporting Hagan.
Posted by: Quiet Desperation | August 28, 2008 2:37 PM
Every time I see the disregard the Democratic party shows for secular values
Does their temple-like stage help? ;-) Or maybe "Olympian" as some have called it. I keep telling people this is a huge messiah complex/mass hysteria thing happening.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08282008/news/nationalnews/temple_of_dem_on_mt__o_lympus_126450.htm
Yeah, yeah, I know. The NY Post. It was a convenient link and there's a photo gallery.
Posted by: JStein | August 28, 2008 2:38 PM
Good for Kay Hagan to meet with atheists, especially in a state as conservative as South Carolina.
I've had alot of issues with local politicians (especially Democrats, who don't want to come off as secularists) being far too Christian, and I live in California.
I just disgusts me, and I'm more than a little pissed off that my party nominated Bob Barr (a hard Evangelical) for their shot (however small) at the presidency.
The more I've watched videos of Obama, the more frustrated I've gotten with his religious pandering. (the Rick Warren crap didn't help)
We'll see. I'm having a hard time picking a candidate out of all the Bible beaters. Hopefully the sane ones will come out of the pack. We can only hope.
Posted by: Chris Crawford | August 28, 2008 2:38 PM
As much as people may be angry at the Democrats for being insufficiently respectful of secular interests, the undeniable fact remains that Republicans are actively hostile to those interests.
Posted by: Darby | August 28, 2008 2:39 PM
We might need to cut the presidential-level aspirant a break - he is fighting the "secret Muslim" thing, after all!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 28, 2008 2:41 PM
Fixed
Posted by: Shane Killian | August 28, 2008 2:41 PM
Or, if you really want to upset the religioids, you could vote for our libertarian Senate candidate, who's a homosexual pagan.
http://www.lpnc.org/2008/us_senate.php
I am NOT making this up! His name's Chris Cole. I know him personally; he's cool with atheists. He's a great guy even if he does think that lightning is made by some dude with a hammer...
Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 28, 2008 2:42 PM
You mean like freedom of religion?
It probably does horrify rather a large contingent of North Carolians, all right.
Glen D
http://behefails.wordpress.com
Posted by: Ethan | August 28, 2008 2:43 PM
Quiet Desperation - This is one of the weirder memes I've seen in a while. You guys really are desperate, and not so quiet either.
Take a look at the stage set employed by the chimp in '04 and then get back to me.
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 28, 2008 2:45 PM
Huh! As if I needed to be told.
(and as if I lived in NC)
Posted by: Adrian | August 28, 2008 2:51 PM
I'm not a regular church-goer but people who make a point in saying they are atheists are strange to most people in the United States today. I think the best way to describe them is: the opposite extreme of so-called "bible-huggers". To have an agenda based around eliminating religion from public life is a fringe position.
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 28, 2008 2:52 PM
Actually, the biggest problem I have with this is the continuing villification of the word "secular". Secularism is what we should all want, religious and non-religious alike. But the Christians who want control of everything are trying to make secularism into something evil.
Posted by: Iname | August 28, 2008 2:52 PM
I wasn't going to vote for her because she blatantly lies about how she protected NC military bases. This just adds fuel to the fire.
Posted by: Slaan | August 28, 2008 2:52 PM
Ugh, I would vote for a squid before Dole! And that is probably insulting the squid just by being in the same sentence.
Not only is Dole Jesse Helms lite, but she doesn't do anything at all! She was ranked 93rd in effectiveness in the Senate and doesn't even live in our state. Dole only ever comes to North Carolina in order to raise money for herself or her Republican buddies.
This action by Hagan to talk to a secular group has raised her in my eyes. I voted for her opponent Jim Neal, a gay man, during the primaries and still think he would do better in the US Senate.
Posted by: Ranson | August 28, 2008 2:52 PM
This is one of the elections I'm voting in. Heck, I used to live in Dole's hometown, and I still give blood at the Red Cross named for her father. I'm going to do my part to vote her ass out, too. She'll be the easiest to beat of the Republicans statewide, I think.
Now if we could get my Representative out, that I'd like. I've written him with concerns before, and he wrote back, not just to disagree, but to call me flat-out wrong. Of course, I've never voted for him, and never will. A rancid elephant turd would make a better legislator. But he didn't have to be a dick about it.
Posted by: Ferre | August 28, 2008 2:52 PM
Mr Meyers, here's some advice from a simple Dutch guy who reads your blog; Try and get rid of the idea that you have only two choices (Rep or Dem), the world is bigger than that and so is America, if only people like you would start voting for third parties and people you can really support instead of always compromising between two evils, many more people will follow. I fail to see why-on-earth any American with a brain can vote for either one of those two parties, they are two brands of the same rubbish, their brands are environmental unfriendly and unhealthy for humans.
Anyway, a vote for any of those two parties is a vote against the world, seriously. Please think about it.
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 28, 2008 2:54 PM
"To have an agenda based around eliminating religion from public life is a fringe position."
How do you define "public life"?
Posted by: Hap | August 28, 2008 2:55 PM
This does fit in with the Republicans' concept of Constitutional law though - do whatever you want, pretend it's legal, and laugh at Congress while it blusters (if it's against you) or smile at it while it helps (if it's for you). I guess that pesky 1st Amendment only applies to people you like.
The fact that people might vote for Dole because of this is a clear statement of our problems - we don't know history, or logic, and presumably have no idea why those might be important. I assume if history gets repeated as farce we won't be the ones laughing, though.
Posted by: Pablo | August 28, 2008 2:56 PM
Man, could the Dole campaign be any MORE insulting to the people of North Carolina? To suggest that the mere thought of having the support of a secular group would be an affront to the people of North Carolina (including the theists) shows how little she thinks of their sensibilities. Does she really think that 90% of North Carolinians are this bigoted?]
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 28, 2008 2:59 PM
My agenda is to keep your or anyone else's religion from interfering with my life. I could care less if you believe in magical bearded men on chariots racing to see who gets to send a new drought to Ethiopia next.
Posted by: Tom P. | August 28, 2008 3:00 PM
We saw what happened with third party voting in 2000. Politics is ALWAYS about the lesser of two evils. Voting for a third party candidate is the same as staying home.
Posted by: Jason | August 28, 2008 3:00 PM
#14
"To have an agenda based around eliminating religion from public life is a fringe position."
It's a fringe position to not desire government money to go towards faith-based programs when I do not share that faith? It's a fringe position to want representatives who are willing to _represent_ me?
If you had said 'eliminating religion from PRIVATE life' then maybe I could agree with you...
Posted by: Steve_C | August 28, 2008 3:00 PM
I read that Dole is already behind in the polls and will be goin down. They're sounding desperate.
Posted by: Dave Munger | August 28, 2008 3:00 PM
I'll do whatever I can to support Hagan.
Posted by: Ranson | August 28, 2008 3:01 PM
Ferre:
While I understand your point, at the moment we go with the choices we have. If the US had a parliamentary system that allowed minor party candidates to still have a voice, I think the free-for-all would make the British House of Commons look like a pleasant dinner conversation, and I'd love it. Unfortunately, our elections tend toward winner-take-all propositions, and the winners are usually those who can raise the most money. It's rare to see an independent or third-, fourth-, or fifth-party candidate able to get a nationwide message out, and that's what is required. The nation is too big to win without money, and that's where other choices tend to lose out. A few wealthy people can self-finance a campaign, but they tend to be a little loopy, to say the least. That can also be said for a lot of the other non-mainstream candidates.
It's hard to break out of a system that values conformity. That's easiest to fix in the Legislative branch, because the races take less money, but it's still hard for anyone to fight the machine.
Posted by: watercat | August 28, 2008 3:01 PM
I just discovered the best word in the whole world for these guys:
Evanjehadis.
http://www.godlesscolumbia.org/2008/08/obama-and-evanjehadis.html#fullpost
Posted by: Hoosier X | August 28, 2008 3:02 PM
To have an agenda based around eliminating religion from public life is a fringe position.
Could you be a little more specific so we can see just how delusional you are?
These conservative generalizations are somewhat amusing, but watching conservatives flail around when trying to back up their talking points provides hours of hilarity.
Posted by: Michael | August 28, 2008 3:02 PM
When you live in the Bible belt, meeting with a atheist activist group becomes a negative political issue. However, Hagan wasn't meeting the atheist group for causal discussions, it was a fundraiser for her Senate campaign. So she is praised for meeting this atheist group, sounds like the main motivation for Hagan to meet them in the first place was actually money...If having discussions with a group because of money, one has to conclude, there is no real constructive dialog.
Posted by: raven | August 28, 2008 3:06 PM
Poorly made strawman.
The agenda for most seculars is to keep religious fanatics full of murderous hate with brains the size of walnuts from further wrecking the USA. This might be a strange agenda in Texas or N. Carolina but it is popular elsewhere with possibly a majority of the population approving it.
It was also the norm in the USA for over 200 years. It is written into the US constitution in several places, that separation of church and state thing.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 28, 2008 3:07 PM
Fine. However you never seen Senatorial (or other viable candidates) in the south meeting with secular groups period. Campaigns are run on money, without it there is no campaign. I have no problem it being a fund raiser. Candidates rarely meet with groups in this sort of environment unless they are raising dough.
Posted by: Hap | August 28, 2008 3:07 PM
#23: We've had three semi-successful third parties in the last 100 years (Bull Moose in 1912?) - and none of them were close to getting elected. In Perot's case in 1992, it likely doomed many of his voters to get who they least wanted as President (Clinton, since many of Perot's voters were likely to have came from Bush rather than nowhere or Clinton). In 2000, Nader probably did Gore no favors (Gore could have helped his cause by winning his home state, and Bush's shenanigans and a complicit Supreme Court helped a lot), but again Nader's voters got probably the least preferred of their choices. History doesn't seem to support your contention much.
As a bonus, any party liberal enough to leave both parties' candidates looking the same would probably have to imposed externally (at least at first) - the parties aren't wandering rightward because they hate themselves, but because that's where they think the voters are.
Posted by: Hap | August 28, 2008 3:09 PM
I meant to address the above to #19. Sorry.
Posted by: E.V. | August 28, 2008 3:11 PM
BTW. Why the hell did Hillary Clinton close with "Godspeed"? I almost blew snot. It's almost as arcane as "God's wounds" or the word it became - "Zounds". Maybe she'll open her next speech with a rousing "Ye Gods", as in: "Ye Gods, Liddy Dole can be a douchebag."
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 28, 2008 3:12 PM
yikes ugly typo
seen = see
Posted by: llewelly | August 28, 2008 3:12 PM
Chris Crawford, #7:
This makes it all the more important for us to convince the Democrats that they need to be respectful of secular interests. American needs an opposition to the Religious Party.
Posted by: raven | August 28, 2008 3:13 PM
Oh gee, what horrifying causes.
First amendment separation of church and state?
Freedom of religion?
Not stoning witches, wizards, pagans, and evolutionary biologists to death?
Competent government instead of morons who get elected by pandering to extremist lunatic fringers?
People who don't buy into a 6,000 year old universe, the Big Boat event, and think marrying your close relatives is stupid?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | August 28, 2008 3:14 PM
How about if we make a point of saying "You know how you think about people carrying rabbits' feet for luck or festooning their bingo tables with troll dolls? We think exactly the same about your god and your little god-appeasing rituals and we're tired of having to pretend that we don't."
Is that less offensive than calling ourselves atheists?
Posted by: E.V. | August 28, 2008 3:18 PM
Ahh, the Brownian bitch slap. Well done.
Posted by: Matt Heath | August 28, 2008 3:24 PM
Is there any serious movement to weaken the 2-party hold on American politics, such as through electoral reform? Instant run-off voting for the presidency (say) would free people unhappy with the two parties from having to always swing behind one of them to keep the worse lizards out.
Posted by: Woody Tanaka | August 28, 2008 3:24 PM
Ferre,
"Try and get rid of the idea that you have only two choices (Rep or Dem),"
In the American system, third parties are pipe dreams and almost always unstable, electorially speaking. By that I mean that since third parties draw almost always from one of the two major parties more than the other, they split the electoral power of that party. As a result, both the 3rd party and the party from whom it primarily draws its support will have less political power than they would have had without the third party participating. This often permits the other of the major parties to win, even if its support is less than the sum of the other two.
In parliamentary systems, minor parties' voting strength can be added to that of their near-ideological rivals; not so in the United States. Here, third parties are more likely to cause the election of the party least like them politically (Cf., e.g., 1912, where Wilson won with less than the vote which Taft and Roosevelt, together, amassed.)
"Anyway, a vote for any of those two parties is a vote against the world, seriously."
Well that's just a stupid thing to say. Really.
Posted by: Matt Heath | August 28, 2008 3:26 PM
Maybe it was "Godspeed" in the Conservapeadian sense of "fuck you".
Posted by: Grendels Dad | August 28, 2008 3:27 PM
Thanks Brownian, your post has morphed in my head to a crucifix with a troll haired Jebus on it. Now people will be asking what I'm giggling about all day.
Posted by: llewelly | August 28, 2008 3:28 PM
For starters, an atheist activist group could - and should - choose to withhold the money if they didn't feel the dialog was constructive. For good or ill, that is what political donations are all about.Posted by: Holbach | August 28, 2008 3:29 PM
Damn! It almost makes me want to move to North Carolina just to vote for her, even make the effort at campaigning for her hopeful election. It isn't too often that religion so blatantly intrudes into politics, and I have the feeling that it will do so more now that we are expressing our contempt for it in several ways. Take a hike Dole, and keep your religious insanity in your own house.
Posted by: Disillusioned Atheist | August 28, 2008 3:32 PM
Sometimes secularists come off as petty whiners. I too am an atheist and I also practice a 'conversational intolerance' every chance I get, both on blogs and in everyday life.
But the secular whining is getting old. The majority of the people who vote democrat are also religious--it's not mere pandering. These are real beliefs that people really hold dear. This constant whining doesn't help your cause. From reading blogs like this you would think "Atheism" is the only real issue at stake, and other matters like national security, unemployment, and record deficits are afterthoughts at best.
This petty irreverence is only shooting your own efforts in the foot. The sooner you learn to realize that people with these beliefs aren't in fact pieces of software the sooner you'll start being effective.
Posted by: Shane Killian | August 28, 2008 3:33 PM
Hap:
"the parties aren't wandering rightward because they hate themselves, but because that's where they think the voters are."
No, that's where they want US to think the voters are. There's a difference. It's all about marginalizing the right people.
Posted by: John Robie | August 28, 2008 3:33 PM
The "Greek Temple" thing is deeply moronic. It looks like the either (a) every public building here in DC, or (b) the Lincoln Memorial, in front of which King gave his Dream speech 45 years ago today. I'd have thought this site's commenters were too smart to fall for Republican spin.
Also, OF COURSE they're pandering to the religious, you don't win elections by appealing to smart Americans. There aren't enough of them.
Posted by: Ethan | August 28, 2008 3:33 PM
Is there any serious movement to weaken the 2-party hold on American politics, such as through electoral reform? Instant run-off voting for the presidency (say) would free people unhappy with the two parties from having to always swing behind one of them to keep the worse lizards out.
Matt - This comes up often. In practice it's very hard to persuade people that it wouldn't be too complicated to implement. (I don't know why. That's just an observation.) My general impression is that most politicians who understand the idea don't like what it would do to them.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 28, 2008 3:34 PM
Which have no place in the political process.
Then you need to read more.
Posted by: Grendels Dad | August 28, 2008 3:34 PM
Matt,
There was a Nader Rally last night in Denver that focused on getting third party candidates included in national debates.
They announced attendance of 4000 (I would have guessed closer to 2500). I'm not sure how serious people are about it yet.
Posted by: llewelly | August 28, 2008 3:36 PM
Once when I was a small child I was given a 'lucky' rabbit's foot keychain by someone who extolled its fortune-enhancing powers.A few weeks later it dawned me that the lucky rabbit's foot obviously hadn't worked for the rabbit ...
Posted by: John B | August 28, 2008 3:38 PM
This North Carolinian is embarrassed that Liddy Dole is his senator. I've never voted for her for anything, and never will.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | August 28, 2008 3:39 PM
That may be the case for some "blogs like this", but a quick look back at many of the posts and their respective comments under the category of 'Politics' suggests much more nuanced views on a variety of political issues besides atheism.
Posted by: craig | August 28, 2008 3:39 PM
Ending slavery was a fringe position too.
There's a reason some things aren't put up for a vote.
Posted by: llewelly | August 28, 2008 3:40 PM
Disillusioned Atheist, #48:
If Democrats hold dear the belief that secular people do not deserve to be invited, we have a serious problem.
Posted by: Another Primate | August 28, 2008 3:42 PM
Thanks for posting this info P.Z. I live in N.C. and planned on voting for Hagan anyway. I would like to suggest that all the Pharyngula readers could help us bible bruised North Carolinian's by going to Dole's web site and leave her a comment of rejection and dissatisfaction. We need all the help we can get!!! There is literally a church on every corner in this state. Thanks again P.Z.!!!
Posted by: E.V. | August 28, 2008 3:44 PM
Maybe. I keep thinking that's what everyone on the docks said to the passengers on the Titanic and we all know how well that turned out.
Posted by: Disillusioned Atheist | August 28, 2008 3:45 PM
"Which have no place in the political process."
Agreed. But this petty irreverence won't help remove it from the political process. Besides, that's like saying gravity has 'no place' in mountain climbing. It's going to be there whether you want it or not. You can work to minimize and marginalize it, but this narrow focused whining won't help.
"Then you need to read more."
Reading more is what made me realize how petty a good chunk of this movement really is. So I read less now, and focus on issues that matter more.
Posted by: llewelly | August 28, 2008 3:45 PM
craig:
And in the US, when the Whigs refused to represent the abolitionists, the Whig party collapsed, and was replaced by the Republicans (such a different party in those days ...). But in these days, we don't have fusion voting.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 28, 2008 3:46 PM
Ending slavery was a fringe position too.
There's a reason some things aren't put up for a vote.
Slavery was ended peacefully in all of the northern states, and all the countries of Europe and South America. England, for example, ended slavery by an act of parliament and they didn't have a civil war over it.
I wouldn't point to ending slavery as a good reason to prefer war over voting.
-jcr
Posted by: Ragutis | August 28, 2008 3:47 PM
#5
Um, an awful lot of Washington DC fits that description. Greek Revival was a popular architectural trend, and it has the added bonus of evoking Athens, the birthplace of democracy. I think that's what Obama and the Dems are shooting for, as Bush did. Most people just associate columns and pediments with government buildings. (or banks)This whole meme that he's trying to appear godlike is absolutely ridiculous and scraping the bottom of the desperation barrel.(Almost as bad as this, if it's real.) Unfortunately, it'll work to an extent. I've seen freepers and rapture nuts claiming Obama is the antichrist for a while.
Posted by: bernard quatermass | August 28, 2008 3:50 PM
"To have an agenda based around eliminating religion from public life is a fringe position."
So was believing in heliocentrism, at one time. So was believing the stars _might not be_ sparks on a crystal sphere.
Posted by: karen | August 28, 2008 3:53 PM
I live in NC, and will be voting for Hagan. I voted for her in the primary. Libby Dole IS an ineffective douchebag, and needs to be dumped. Unfortunately, I think 90% of North Carolinians may indeed be as bigoted as she hopes, and may cross party lines to vote against the "nasty atheist-friendly" candidate in favor of the "down-home good Christian" candidate. *barf*
Posted by: khan | August 28, 2008 3:56 PM
Libby Dole:
Pro-family trophy wife.
Carpet-bagger.
Posted by: varlo | August 28, 2008 3:56 PM
Now I know why Bob Dole needed the Viagra. (He had an in to get the industrial-strength version.)
Posted by: Tom P. | August 28, 2008 4:00 PM
To have an agenda based around eliminating religion from public life is a fringe position.
It's the same agenda that our founding fathers had. But then they didn't have to reach back to ancient history to recall what the country was like when it was run by the religious.
Posted by: The Dancing Kid | August 28, 2008 4:03 PM
Gee, I've never voted for a Republican. It's bad enough having to vote for Democrats!
Posted by: Coriolis | August 28, 2008 4:04 PM
@#61, that's BS. This country has oscillated in it's public religiosity and quite obviously our last president was the peak (and a complete and utter idiot as it happens). Most of our "founding fathers", and various presidents we've had would've been too unorthodox to be elected in the type of extremist religious environment we have now.
And before you or someone else starts with the straw mans - I'm not claiming that let's say Jefferson, or Lincoln were atheists. Just that their brand of christianity was far more unorthodox in the less-magic direction than what would be acceptable today.
And we can, and should, change that (back). While eradicating religion is probably impossible, taking it back down to sane levels, isn't. And what do you know, maybe one day we'll get to western europe on this issue. And I don't think we'll do that by being timid while we are ignored and vilified in such a blatant fashion as this example and too many others demonstrate.
Posted by: Disillusioned Atheist | August 28, 2008 4:05 PM
"If Democrats hold dear the belief that secular people do not deserve to be invited, we have a serious problem."
I agree 110%. However, this does not address the pettiness of assuming democrats are merely 'pandering' to the religious, as though the democrats were a mere extension of atheism, which is in fact going outside these assumed boundaries to 'pander' to the religious. I am both atheist and democrat and the democratic party has been comparatively friendly to secularism. But this doesn't negate the reality that this party is also largely made up of religious people.
I'll go further: This obsessive 'godlessness' actually hurts the Democratic party as it makes it more difficult to convince conservative working class people that the Democrats can do a better job of addressing their financial situation than the Republican party. It only helps pin the "secular liberal" viewpoint they neither understand nor trust.
In other words, you're only driving these people back to the open hands of Republican party, which is only hurting your efforts when you end up with a Bush or a McCain.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | August 28, 2008 4:06 PM
Tom, are you living in some future era in which the years 2000-2008 are ancient history?
If so, can you tell me if I have any descendants? 'Cause these discount condoms seemed like a really good deal at the Dollarama, but now I'm not quite so sure.
Posted by: terry | August 28, 2008 4:09 PM
Hillary, last night:
That is our duty, to build that bright future, to teach our children that, in America, there is no chasm too deep, no barrier too great, no ceiling too high for all who work hard, who keep going, have faith in God, in our country, and each other.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2008/hillaryclinton2008dnc.htm
guess she just threw the faithless in a deep enough chasm...
Posted by: bo | August 28, 2008 4:13 PM
hey everyone, i got corrected the other day, and i must share the info...
there is not any mention of separation of church and state in the constitution. it was actually in a letter written by jefferson. the constitution merely mentions freedom from persecution.
please someone correct me if i am wrong. i wish i were :(
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | August 28, 2008 4:13 PM
We might need to cut the presidential-level aspirant a break - he is fighting the "secret Muslim" thing, after all!
Yup, which is of course their code for "he's BLACKBLACKBLACKBLACKBLACK and did I tell you he's BLACK?!?!"
Considering Obama's risking his life every day now, and probably for the rest of his life (as we were reminded yet again by the racist would-be sharpshooters gunning for him), I think he's being incredibly brave just for getting up in the morning.
Posted by: Parrotlover77 | August 28, 2008 4:14 PM
I've been saying this forever. No matter how fundie you think any particular Democrat is, every opposing Republican is 1000x worse.
If you are atheist, agnostic, humanist, or, heck, any other religion that is non-christian and you value not having Christianity forced upon you, you will avoid republicans like the plague. This goes even if the opposing majority candidate (like Obama) is extremely religious, bordering on fundie. You may not like it, but it's the only way to protect your rights as an unbeliever.
If you want change, you have to start local. But avoiding the larger elections and letting a republican slide in because you feel "they are all the same anyway" will only make things worse for you.
Posted by: Tom P. | August 28, 2008 4:18 PM
#73: You have me confused. Are you thinking that Washington, Monroe, and Madison weren't deists and that Adams and Jefferson weren't Unitarians? You see, they lived when religious control of government around the world was still happening and in the colonies was recent history. The Puritans had been only out of power in Massachusetts about 30 years when Washington was born. The Salem witch trials wasn't a Broadway play to them.
Posted by: Cory Albrecht | August 28, 2008 4:18 PM
What I find most amusing is how you Americans limit yourself to just Republican or Democrat. I know the independents never get as much election coverage as the big two, but they are still there.
If the figures are correct that between 5% and 10% of Americans are atheists, then if even just they got together and all voted for a third party's candidate, that party would easily get 5% of the votes and thus get Federal funding next election. How much you wanna bet *that* would make Washington sit up and take notice? Add on the politically like-minded theists and you'd probably get an increasing number of votes as more and more people stopped thinking of a third-party vote as wasted and you start getting third-party senators and representatives.
Posts like this one by Dr. Myers always seem (to me, anyways) as being written from the perspective that there are only Republicans and Democrats and nobody else. I feel that you Americans are doing youselves a great disservice by limiting yourselves like this.
Posted by: Coriolis | August 28, 2008 4:20 PM
I think all Brownian is saying, Tom, is that *we* don't have to reach back into ancient history to see what happens with crazy religion either. Not just the founding fathers.
Posted by: Matt Heath | August 28, 2008 4:20 PM
Grendel's Dad @53: That sounds like a start. I think the trick is to convince one of the big candidates/parties that it hurts the other guy more. In this case I guess that would mean getting Obama's support (there's a an ex-Republican Libertarian and a Paleo-Con type running, right?).
In Britain there was something similar in the 90s. The Labour government got fairly close to trying to introduce proportional representation for the House of Commons. The thinking was that the Tories had no natural allies except far-right crazies so Labour would usually be able to form coalitions with themselves as the main party. In the end they decided they would rather have absolute power a bit less than half the time than share it with partners so they never brought the referendum.
Posted by: Shane Killian | August 28, 2008 4:22 PM
John Robie:
"Also, OF COURSE they're pandering to the religious, you don't win elections by appealing to smart Americans. There aren't enough of them."
It's also easier to appeal to the less intelligent, especially when you have a position that isn't so easy to defend rationally.
John C. Randolph:
"Slavery was ended peacefully in all of the northern states, and all the countries of Europe and South America. England, for example, ended slavery by an act of parliament and they didn't have a civil war over it."
Interesting tidbit: The very first act of the new Congress of the United States (under the Articles of Confederation) was an act by Thomas Jefferson which would have completely eliminated slavery everywhere in the United States, in perpetuity.
It failed by a single vote.
Posted by: raven | August 28, 2008 4:23 PM
This is just Obama trying to deflect the closet moslem lie. He wants people to think he might be a closet Olympian gods worshipper. They thought about a Nordic god backdrop but that reminded some of the older people of another regime once in Europe
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | August 28, 2008 4:29 PM
Disillusioned Atheist: "this petty irreverence won't help remove it from the political process. Besides, that's like saying gravity has 'no place' in mountain climbing. It's going to be there whether you want it or not. You can work to minimize and marginalize it, but this narrow focused whining won't help."
Ok, O Wise One, please tell us what will help. Ignoring overt expressions of bigotry against us?
Let me guess: we should be really really quiet about our non-belief, and stress our enormous respect for people of faith and our devotion to the principle of non-overlapping magisteria.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Secular Coalition for America about as far from us Mean Hateful Angry Militant Atheists as it's possible to get? They're not even an exclusively atheist organization. And yet they're still considered toxic.
Posted by: Qwerty | August 28, 2008 4:31 PM
I was going to suggest that Libby Dole doesn't get to NC as often as she should because Bob Dole discovered Viagra but varlo beat me to the punch. (Hey, maybe Libby puts it in his punch?)
I'll tell my friends in NC about this. Maybe they'll not vote for Dole. I know 4 people in NC and only one attends church, but she is pro-choice.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | August 28, 2008 4:33 PM