…and this is a 
In which my disgust with the Democratic Party grows
Category: Politics • Religion
Posted on: August 22, 2008 11:22 AM, by PZ Myers
I just received this email from some communications group trying to publicize the virtues of the Democratic Party. It had the opposite effect on me — I am appalled. It's the usual Democratic strategic inanity of pushing to ape the Republicans instead of even trying to be a party of progressive ideas, so they're going to promote futile religious bullshit at their convention. This just makes me furious.
DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION TO HIGHLIGHT DIVERSE COMMUNITY OF FAITH LEADERS WORKING TOWARD COMMON GOOD
First-Ever Faith Caucus Meetings to be Held at Democratic Convention
Invocators and Benedictors to Include Pastor Joel Hunter, Rabbi David Saperstein, Sister Catherine Pinkerton, Reverend Cynthia Hale, Archbishop Demetrios, Cameron Strang
Plus Coloradans Polly Baca of Greeley, CO, Reverends Kang of Aurora, CO
Interfaith Gathering to Open Convention Week on Sunday, Aug. 24th, featuring Local Clergy Imam Abdur-Rahim Ali, Rabbi Steve Foster, Reverend Lucia Guzman, University of Colorado Student Kathryn Ida
DENVER - In keeping with Barack Obama's personal commitment and the commitment of the Democratic Party to put faith in action, the Democratic National Convention Committee (DNCC) and the Obama for America campaign today announced that the 2008 Democratic National Convention will recognize the tireless efforts of those in the faith community working toward the common good.
"Senator Obama is a committed Christian, and he believes that people of all faiths have an important place in American life," said Joshua Dubois, Obama For America Director of Religious Affairs. "He's proud to work with the Democratic National Convention Committee on a Convention that fully engages people of faith in dialogue, celebration and prayer. We are honored that so many religious leaders are reaching across partisan and ideological lines in this Convention to address the values that matter to Americans."
"Democrats have been, are and will continue to be people of faith - and this Convention will demonstrate that in an unprecedented way," said Leah D. Daughtry, CEO of the DNCC. "As Convention CEO and a pastor myself, I am incredibly proud that so many esteemed leaders from the faith community will be with us to celebrate this historic occasion and honor the diverse faith traditions inside the Democratic Party."
Each night of the Convention, the official program will begin with an invocation and end with a benediction delivered by a national faith leader or an individual who is active in their local faith community. Among the group selected to deliver these opening and closing prayers are a Republican pastor of a leading Evangelical church in central Florida, a major young Evangelical leader, a nun from a diocese in Cleveland and a Methodist couple, both ordained ministers from Arvada, CO.
National leaders from a range of denominations will host the Convention's first-ever Faith Caucus meetings during the week where they will discuss bringing people of faith together to address some of the most pressing issues of our time.
On Tuesday, August 26, the Faith Caucus will hold two panel discussions - "Common Ground on Common Good," an opportunity to discuss finding common ground on the moral issues of the day, and "Faith in 2009: How an Obama Administration will Engage People of Faith." On Thursday, August 28, the Caucus will convene for "Moral Values Issues Abroad," a panel on how the faith community can work together to address pressing moral issues around the world, and "Getting Out the Faith Vote," a session on how to appropriately engage communities of faith in the 2008 election.
In addition, a first-ever Democratic National Convention interfaith gathering will kick off the week, bringing delegates, elected officials, local residents, musical guests and spiritual leaders from many communities of faith together for a unique gathering. In addition to keynote remarks, the program will include readings from diverse religious texts, prayers and musical selections.
There are more details that follow, with day-by-day announcements of invocations and benedictions and meetings led by people like the vapid Jim Wallis, that I've cut off. You don't want to go, anyway.
I am particularly annoyed by the claim that "Democrats have been, are and will continue to be people of faith" — which I take as a declaration that I can't be a Democrat. I notice, too, that the roster of speakers is nothing but a list of religious con artists, people of dumb, blind, pointless faith, with no representation from the people of reason. I can understand why, though.
If they actually invited an atheist to join in the "dialogue, celebration and prayer", he would be obligated to rebuke the assembled crowd. The dialogue would consist of informing them all that the United States has a secular government, the Democrats are obligated to fill the role of a secular party, and there should be no place for superstitious nonsense in the hard work of governing. There is also nothing to celebrate. Our country has been wracked by an assemblage of idiots ruling in the name of greed and god, and the time has come to restore rational Enlightenment values to the United States of America, not return to benighted medievalisms, and that people of faith ought to confine their silly hobbies to the halls of their churches and keep them out of the state. As for prayer … what a waste of time and effort and imagination. Take your useless pleading to a nonexistent and unresponsive deity and go hide away in shame and do it in private — it's the equivalent of masturbation, only it provides an even lesser sense of accomplishment.
People of faith are welcome to contribute to politics. In order to do so, however, they will have to get off their knees, unclasp their hands, and do something productive. Enshrining the prating rubbish of the religion racket as an important element of secular administration, as Obama seems to want to do, is a catastrophic betrayal of good government.
And that's why they haven't invited any godless rationalists to their party of pandering to fools.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 22, 2008 11:28 AM
Great job, Democraps.
Posted by: Rob | August 22, 2008 11:29 AM
This is minor compared to the official platform of the Texas GOP.
Posted by: netflicker | August 22, 2008 11:30 AM
As if masturbation is a bad thing?
Posted by: gdlchmst | August 22, 2008 11:33 AM
I can't help but feel the evangelists are doing a better job of moving the Overton's window than we are.
Posted by: Ducklike | August 22, 2008 11:34 AM
So, will there be any Atheist speakers at this event?
Posted by: The Science Pundit | August 22, 2008 11:36 AM
I see nothing wrong with masturbating to the gods and goddesses of secular society.
Posted by: Lucas | August 22, 2008 11:38 AM
I'm afraid compromises like this may be the only way to make any progress towards a more rational society. Many analysts argue that not talking about religion is partially what cost Democrats in 2002 and 2004. If a perfectly rational political party can't get anyone elected then what good is it?
Posted by: Alex | August 22, 2008 11:38 AM
It's really shitty that in order to get elected into a governing role, kowtowing disguised as tribute must be made to individuals and organizations that actually think deities and magic are real. Wow.
We must work harder to find ways to get the populace out of these crazy, inept, unproductive belief systems. Perhaps model our efforts after more successful secular societies.
Posted by: protocol | August 22, 2008 11:39 AM
Are you surprised (given the Democrats' betrayal of most other progressive positions they, seems now, pretended to hold)? Also PZ I happen to know a lot of religious, but genuinely progressive democrats who are equally disgusted with the party (for similar reasons; they abhor piety and religiosity being made into a spectacle). It seems that our options in November boil down to selecting between two giant coils of turd and voting for the relatively less stinky one.
Posted by: Annie | August 22, 2008 11:40 AM
In trying to be all things to all people, they are proving to be nothing much to many.
Daughtry, the Dem CEO, is an evangelical pastor - daughter of one, too.(The New York Times did quite a long bio on her)
Obama/corporate Dems are simply Goldwater/Eisenhower Republicans.
Meanwhile, the Constitution lies bleeding from a fatal wound no divine intervention will miraculously cure. That restoration and recovery will only come about with the will and resources of elected legislative and executive branch representatives who actually operationalize it and remove the harmful signing statements and legislation (PATRIOT Act, for starters) that are eviscerating it.
Posted by: thepetey | August 22, 2008 11:40 AM
On one hand though it may help to pull some of the "fence sitters" away from the lunacy of the neocon party
Posted by: Rayven Alandria | August 22, 2008 11:40 AM
Nauseating. I hate the Democraps and the Re-pubic-ans. Ok, that's an unfair generalization. I hate the parties, but I'm sure there are decent people within each party...somewhere.
The push to embrace religion in politics makes me quite ill. What happened to this country? The Separation of Church and State means nothing to most people. It is tragic.
Posted by: wÒÓ† | August 22, 2008 11:41 AM
(.)(.)
Posted by: Physicalist | August 22, 2008 11:41 AM
I certainly agree, but it's been clear for the past four years that this was going to be the Obama strategy: try to recruit some religious wingnuts over from the Republican side. It's a strategy that has pluses and minuses.
Posted by: Raelyf | August 22, 2008 11:41 AM
PZ for President? The real problem is, since atheism is not represented in the running parties there's no need to cater specifically to them. There is no fear of alienating atheist voters by professing to be a party of faith as there is no alternative; an atheist voter who refuses to vote for a 'party of faith' has no one to vote for.
Posted by: Mat | August 22, 2008 11:42 AM
Among the group selected to deliver these opening and closing prayers are a Republican pastor of a leading Evangelical church in central Florida
Central Florida Evangelicals?! Oh good... the area of Cracker Gate is speaking at... wait a republican is speaking at the DNC... quoi?
Posted by: Mike | August 22, 2008 11:43 AM
The Democrats and Republicans have never stood for anything like reason or truth. They stand for power, and power alone.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | August 22, 2008 11:43 AM
That this would come as a surprise or a disappointment is a surprise and a disappointment.
Posted by: Alex | August 22, 2008 11:44 AM
I think the comment about masturbation wasn't about making a value-judgment in the act itself, but suggesting that to actually get something productive accomplished in government, the emotional self-gratification of prayer is useless and non-productive. And I have to agree with the sentiment that the act of masturbation has always had more of a substantive reward than prayer.
Posted by: Salt | August 22, 2008 11:44 AM
I am appalled. It's the usual Democratic strategic inanity of pushing to ape the Republicans instead of even trying to be a party of progressive ideas
And that's why they haven't invited any godless rationalists to their party of pandering to fools.
So, it would appear that one may include within any context of "progressive", "godless rationalists".
Perhaps the Communist Party would be more to your liking PZ.
Posted by: Matt Heath | August 22, 2008 11:46 AM
How do USan party conventions work?
Is any sub-group of the party with enough members invited to organize a fringe event? So there could equally be a rationalist sub-meeting if someone organised it? Or are the Democrats really coming out in favour of faith?
If it's simply a yay for religions" wing of the party hanging out talking about religiony Democrat things, it doesn't seem a big deal to me.
I think in Britain the Labour conference has always had side meetings of the Christian Socialist movement but also of the Labour Humanist Group (since the latter was founded) as well as factions built around more obviously political issues.
Posted by: mothra | August 22, 2008 11:47 AM
". . .Our country has been wracked by an assemblage of idiots ruling in the name of greed and god, and the time has come to restore rational Enlightenment values to the United States of America. . ."
Well said PZ! Unfortunately, while the time has come, the zeitgeist is a no-show.
Posted by: Ubi Dubium | August 22, 2008 11:48 AM
As irritating as I find this whole mess to be, I can't say I think the Democrats are wrong in trying to appeal to the religious voters The Republicans have had a total lock on the evangelicals, and anything symbolic the Democrats do that weakens that lock is good. I am not so concerned with the image the candidate projects as I am with what that person will actually DO once in office. I think Obama is our best hope of putting a stop to the abuses of the Bush administration, but he can't do that unless he wins. After reading Obama's book and listening to him talk, I think he fully intends to strengthen the wall between church and state. If a prayer service at the convention can help win over enough of the religious voters to do that, then let them have it. As much as I dislike the attitude of "true believers", we need to sway some of them if we are going to win this.
Posted by: raven | August 22, 2008 11:52 AM
Hopefully this is just politics. The Theorupublicans made a big mistake pandering to the wingnut Death Cultists. They weren't going to vote for a democrat no matter who or what it was. So they could have broadened their base to include normal people and the reality based communities. Instead they ended up owned by extremists with brains the size of walnuts.
The Dems have a solid base of those who dislike and fear the moronic Death Cultists of Bushco. Who would vote for Kermit the frog, Barbie, or the Easter Bunny rather than the GOP. So they are reaching out toward groups that are possibles rather than certainties.
For the record, I don't think much of either party. The GOP are in the process of wrecking the USA while the Dems. have lost their brains and lack any sort of competent leadership or vision. Playing the fiddle for Nero. This election is theirs to lose and they just might lose it.
The usual, the lesser of two evils. Can't entirely blame the parties, as someone once said, the people usually end up with the government they deserve.
PS I really hope they are pandering to the theocratic fundie wingnuts. That particular group had inordinate control of the US government for 8 years and have nearly wrecked the USA. A fact not lost on anyone with at least 1 eye and half a brain. Even a lot of their members can see it and there is a serious backlash against them. If I got it right, the fundie star is falling fast.
Posted by: Prof MTH | August 22, 2008 11:52 AM
I actually kind of like Jim Wallis. He is a supporter of a strict separation of church and state, or, at least he used to be. He is equally critical of both the Democant's and the Repugnants. He notes with great clarity how Repugnant economic policy creates inequality and how they refuse to recognize this fact. He notes how the Democant's policy of throwing money at issues are only temporary band-aids and not healing treatments.
He is extremely critical of the Robertson and Dobson type persons of the Xtian community (as well as the pied piper prosperity theologians). Wallis claims that if you are a true Xtian then aiding the poor, sick, and homeless is to be your top priority (economic policy and social justice); followed by environmental policy (protecting the environment and global warming) to protect God's creation. In his view, we are stewards of God's creation--given charge over creation does not mean to abuse and destroy it how we see fit but to be good stewards of its care. (Of course I do not agree that the universe is god's creation. He and I agree in sentiment but not in facts. We can meet and mutually act because of that agreement in sentiment.)
Posted by: Prof MTH | August 22, 2008 11:53 AM
I actually kind of like Jim Wallis. He is a supporter of a strict separation of church and state, or, at least he used to be. He is equally critical of both the Democant's and the Repugnants. He notes with great clarity how Repugnant economic policy creates inequality and how they refuse to recognize this fact. He notes how the Democant's policy of throwing money at issues are only temporary band-aids and not healing treatments.
He is extremely critical of the Robertson and Dobson type persons of the Xtian community (as well as the pied piper prosperity theologians). Wallis claims that if you are a true Xtian then aiding the poor, sick, and homeless is to be your top priority (economic policy and social justice); followed by environmental policy (protecting the environment and global warming) to protect God's creation. In his view, we are stewards of God's creation--given charge over creation does not mean to abuse and destroy it how we see fit but to be good stewards of its care. (Of course I do not agree that the universe is god's creation. He and I agree in sentiment but not in facts. We can meet and mutually act because of that agreement in sentiment.)
Posted by: Epistaxis | August 22, 2008 11:54 AM
PZ, you missed the big kerfluffle while you were away. The Secular Coalition for America, which you'll see on the Colbert Report next week, asked for a more inclusive event and got a disappointing response.
Posted by: Schmeer | August 22, 2008 11:54 AM
This is why neither of the giant American parties deserves any votes. They have no interest in the Constitution, Rationalism, the Enlightenment or reason. Fuck them both.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | August 22, 2008 11:57 AM
I don't know what's making me madder right now -- the bipartisan pandering to the religious right, or some of the purely secular arsitude going on in parallel. (Seven houses vs. one McMansion with a wine cellar? Fools, get a clue -- if both of these guys didn't have serious money, neither would be able to AFFORD a career in national politics. Can we talk about the war now?)
Posted by: Ctrl-Alt-Del | August 22, 2008 11:57 AM
Many analysts argue that not talking about religion is partially what cost Democrats in 2002 and 2004.
Looks like fun. Can I try too?
Many analysts argue that not drenching themselves with squid ink, shoving stalks of celery spread with Cheez-Whiz up their noses, moussing their hair with scrambled eggs and hopping up and down on one leg while singing Chumbawumba's hit single "Tubthumping" is partially what cost Democrats in 2002 and 2004.
[Crosses fingers and puts on C-Span]
Posted by: 800guy | August 22, 2008 11:58 AM
Any election is a multiple choice test, the "correct" answer will not be on one of the choices on the score card, you will have to choose the "best" one. They have done the math & figured this will gain them more votes than they lose. Expecting Obama's campaign to do anything else is just wishful thinking, we all know what the errors of wishful thinking are here @ pharyngula. You will do the rational thing & vote for Obama. So Obama's press release will cost him very few votes.
Posted by: Kseniya | August 22, 2008 12:02 PM
Are we shocked? Not really. Pandering yields votes.
Disappointed? Yup? Appalled? Kinda.
Dismayed? Yes. Feeling like we're being dragged backwards into the ocean by a hugr, centuries-old rusty anchor? Of course!
Posted by: Jason | August 22, 2008 12:04 PM
I have to agree with PZ, the surest way to see the end of progressive ideals in America is to have the Democrats constantly moving to the right, as if the Republicans were their role models. The more the Dems move to the right, the more disenfranchised the progressive base feels with the party, and ultimately the more irrelevant it becomes: if the democrats turn into 'Diet Republicans' (same policies, less sugar; and you can argue that they have already) then they will ultimately be irrelevant lackies to the American 1 and a half party system.
I dont think moving to the left will help either; America is too concerned with American Idol and not voting to notice the shift.
I'm going to (and I'm not the first) argue that the Dems need launch merciless all out attacks on the Republican candidates, policies, and party. I want to see attack ads in Georgia telling people that Jesus is make beleive, John McCain is a fascist, and tax cuts for the rich are retarded. Even if they cant win, at least they might earn some points for fighting back, rather than this constant capitulation that will ultimatley ensure that the Republicans will capture all 3 branches of government in about 4-6 years.
Posted by: Erp | August 22, 2008 12:04 PM
Breakdown as far as I can figure
Joel Hunter, Senior Pastor, Northland, evangelical
Rabbi David Saperstein, Reform Judaism
Sister Catherine Pinkerton, Catholic
Reverend Cynthia Hale, evangelical
Archbishop Demetrios, Primate, Greek Orthodox Church in America
Cameron Strang, evangelical
Polly Baca of Greeley, CO ??
Reverends Kang of Aurora, CO, Methodist
Imam Abdur-Rahim Ali, Northeast Denver Islamic Center
Rabbi Steve Foster, Reform? Judaism
Reverend Lucia Guzman, United Methodist
Kathryn Ida, University of Colorado Student, Buddhist
Reform Judaism and the Buddhism can be somewhat non-theistic and are probably at least willing to admit that non-theism is a valid and good position. I would be happier with a Unitarian Universalist given a fair number of them are outright atheistic and also given that they had two of theirs killed recently for being liberal.
Posted by: Schmeer | August 22, 2008 12:06 PM
800guy:
Why not start punishing them for this kind of BS? If that calculation of votes lost vs. votes gained changes, then you may get positive results in your favor. Tell them you're not voting for them, don't vote for them, and support any 3rd party candidate that appears to be a rational secularist.
Posted by: dubiquiabs | August 22, 2008 12:06 PM
@Salt #20
Non sequitur!
Posted by: Ctrl-Alt-Del | August 22, 2008 12:08 PM
They have done the math & figured this will gain them more votes than they lose.
Could we see this "math"? Or is this likewise a "matter of faith"?
Posted by: Paul | August 22, 2008 12:08 PM
"It's the usual Democratic strategic inanity of pushing to ape the Republicans instead of even trying to be a party of progressive ideas, so they're going to promote futile religious bullshit at their convention. This just makes me furious."
Then stop voting Democrat, for Jebus' sake!!
Posted by: alchemist | August 22, 2008 12:09 PM
It's all part of the "big tent" strategy... convincing people that you're more alike than different, so that people aren't immediately repulsed by ideas like .... "well I don't know if I can trust someone who doesn't share faith...". I agree that it's a silly idea (I've met way to many bad believers and good non-believers to follow such nonsense); but to many people that's how they judge virtue.
So you at least get the door open, and then hope they see something in the rest of your message. Unfortunately, a strong atheist message is not going to appeal to our general electorate for a long time.
However, this plan is often helped by outside fringe groups (such as this one) pushing the logical, hard arguments that a "big tent" party can't make. So keep up the good work PZ.
Posted by: TomDunlap | August 22, 2008 12:09 PM
Unfortunately, fools vote. If the Dems tell all theirs that they ARE fools, then they hand it all to the Rethugs. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | August 22, 2008 12:09 PM
quoth the raven:
the people usually end up with the government they deserve
How good do I have to be to get no government at all?
Posted by: raven | August 22, 2008 12:16 PM
In the quote, "the people" is an average or median or collective.
If you are really good, you can always set up your own government of one. It helps to be independently wealthy and live in the middle of nowhere.
Posted by: Ctrl-Alt-Del | August 22, 2008 12:17 PM
Unfortunately, a strong atheist message is not going to appeal to our general electorate for a long time.
So simply not explicitly excluding atheists ("Democrats have been, are and will continue to be people of faith") is a strong atheist message? What would a weak atheist message look like?
Posted by: Ctrl-Alt-Del | August 22, 2008 12:21 PM
Unfortunately, fools vote. If the Dems tell all theirs that they ARE fools, then they hand it all to the Rethugs. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
And more straw goes flying...
Posted by: debaser | August 22, 2008 12:21 PM
Separation of church and state is one area where non-believers and believers should be able to find common ground. Many religious people would be appalled to be forced to worship a different version of christianity than they already belong to, let alone a completely different faith. It is a good bit of consciousness-raising you can do when talking about religion and politics, religious people need to see that being able to choose also includes choosing no-religion, and is as imporant to include as being able to choose between methodist and pentecostal.
Funny this mental masturbation session will probably almost univerally condem masturbation, and maybe even include prayer sessions to hoping to end "the sin of" masturbation. What a way to jerk people around.
Posted by: gdlchmst | August 22, 2008 12:23 PM
Unfortunately, that would tip the scale in favor of the worse evil. And I for one am not willing to throw the US under the bus just to send a message.
Posted by: ildi | August 22, 2008 12:26 PM
"and go hide away in shame and do it in private -- it's the equivalent of masturbation"
Hey, why are you dissing masturbation? To quote Woody Allen: "Don't knock masturbation; it's sex with someone I love."
Posted by: Ctrl-Alt-Del | August 22, 2008 12:28 PM
You will do the rational thing & vote for Obama.
The arrogance is astounding.
Posted by: Ctrl-Alt-Del | August 22, 2008 12:36 PM
Unfortunately, that would tip the scale in favor of the worse evil. And I for one am not willing to throw the US under the bus just to send a message.
Any functioning democracy requires at least two major parties or coalitions capable in principle of forming a legitimate government. Are you really claiming that America is a failed democracy?
Posted by: bernard quatermass | August 22, 2008 12:36 PM
"Perhaps the Communist Party would be more to your liking PZ."
Hoo-Ray! Someone is using the blanket term "Communist" (which they likely don't understand) to cover any and all things they don't like! Hoo-Ray for ignorant people exercising their right to free speech. Hoo-Ray for ignorance!
Just remember: Dumb isn't Free.
Posted by: Siamang | August 22, 2008 12:38 PM
Everyone, read what Epitaxis said. The Secular Coalition requested to attend and was denied. Further, a HORRIBLE op-ed ran in a denver newspaper that said that it was right that we were excluded... which brought up pol pot, hitler and said that atheists are mean and nasty and if we want respect we need to build some hospitals and schools. I'm not shitting.
Friendly Atheist had the whole thing, but his site is borked right now.
Read this article on huffpo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronald-aronson/the-dncc-unity-event-secu_b_119013.html
The right wing interwebs are having a field day with this story...
Which explains why friendly atheist might be borked right now.
Posted by: clinteas | August 22, 2008 12:38 PM
The way I see this from the distance of the southern hemisphere,the dilemma in the US is that while you should punish this sort of nonsense and pandering to religious groups by voting for a third party candidate,you really cant.
The way the US political system is designed,with your option really just being whether to vote for warm or cold poop,any vote for a third party candidate is potentially a vote for the Republicans(see the 2004 election)which is even worse.
I really dont envy you guys.
Posted by: kermit | August 22, 2008 12:41 PM
Ctrl-Alt-Del@43
"Praise Jesus!"
Standards change...
Posted by: gdlchmst | August 22, 2008 12:43 PM
@Ctrl-Alt-Del
If you want to vent, go somewhere else. You have been polemical against people for things they did not even come close to claiming.
Posted by: kermit | August 22, 2008 12:47 PM
Siamang@51
Indeed. And what about those non-believers in leprechauns? They're real pukes! How many hospitals have *they built? And southpaws? I don't know of *any schools or orphanages built by organizations of left-handed people...
Yeah, that op-ed was pretty bad. We atheists are sooo rude.
Posted by: ILYa | August 22, 2008 1:00 PM
PZ.
Did you just knock masturbation? Did you compare it to prayer? It's like comparing such a useful functionality as defecation to prayer. Just because it's grouse doesn't mean it's useless, you know that...
How much rape and violence has been avoided due to masturbation. I am sure it outpaced prayer by far. I say bring masturbation to Middle East, prayer clearly is not doing very well there.
Posted by: Ctrl-Alt-Del | August 22, 2008 1:01 PM
gdlchmst@54
If you want to vent, go somewhere else. You have been polemical against people for things they did not even come close to claiming.
If your position is that the only choice for the the whole of the foreseeable future is between the Democratic Party and the complete ruin of the system (what I took "throwi the US under the bus" to mean), then you are claiming precisely that. The claim may very well be correct, but in that case the need to establish new parties to restore balance to the system could only be a matter of the utmost urgency.
Posted by: 800guy | August 22, 2008 1:05 PM
Guys, don't shoot the messenger, I'm just telling it like it is, how they arrived at the decision to do what they did, i'm not saying it's "right".
I'm not telling you how to vote, although if what you want is better separation of church/state. Guess which candidate (that has a chance of winning) is your best choice. We're stuck between a rock and a slightly less hard place.
Obama can't afford to give away any votes, in case you didn't notice he's black and has Hussein in his name. How many people are not going to vote for him for those two very bad reasons.
Posted by: Ames | August 22, 2008 1:06 PM
PZ, let's talk practicality above aspirational dreams of a wholly secular union. The only way to get someone in office who respects the church/state line is to pander this way in the election. Make sure you're watching the forest through the trees.
Third parties, obviously, aren't even an option, and anyone suggesting they are needs to grow up and realize that this election is make-or-break for America. It's time for all liberals to fall into line.
Posted by: PZ Myers | August 22, 2008 1:10 PM
First I pissed off all the knitters. Then I annoyed all the Catholics. Now I've antagonized all the masturbators. My circle of enemies grows ever wider.
Posted by: KillerChihuahua | August 22, 2008 1:10 PM
#56: Grouse? Did you just compare masturbation to a bird? I'm sorry, I don't get it.
Posted by: Paul | August 22, 2008 1:10 PM
If America wants to go that way I'm sure the Chinese will allow us to buy their amazing technologies and medicines in the future.
Maybe we can pay for them by all the amazing stuff we'll develop based on Intelligent Design.
Pah.
Posted by: Ctrl-Alt-Del | August 22, 2008 1:11 PM
It's time for all liberals to fall into line.
Words fail me.
Posted by: thelogos | August 22, 2008 1:12 PM
Not too give much credence to the Doughy Pantload, but Sinclair Lewis said it best:
"If Fascism Comes to America, It Will Be Wrapped in the Flag, Carrying the Cross"
Posted by: withheld | August 22, 2008 1:13 PM
@debaser #45
You'd like to think so, but the reality is different. I get email from my family (fw: fw: forward:>>> READ THIS!!!) that they are horrified that someone might try to take the Christianity out of the government. They only want the state to be separated from other churches. As long as the candidates pander to a wide enough variety of religions (wouldn't want to exclude any group that votes in large numbers) people will identify with them.
Posted by: withheld | August 22, 2008 1:14 PM
@debaser #45
You'd like to think so, but the reality is different. I get email from my family (fw: fw: forward:>>> READ THIS!!!) that they are horrified that someone might try to take the Christianity out of the government. They only want the state to be separated from other churches. As long as the candidates pander to a wide enough variety of religions (wouldn't want to exclude any group that votes in large numbers) people will identify with them.
Posted by: Salt | August 22, 2008 1:15 PM
You guys are hysterical, really.
Why keep whining like little children? Get over it. If a political party which strictly represents your views, which appears to me to be encompassed within "secularly enlightened godless rationalists, progressive humanists / materialists", is not available to your liking - form your own damn party and go for it. Show us your stuff. Come on now, give it your best shot, brights.
But you really should stop whining like little spoiled tykes uninvited to a party they wish not to attend anyway solely because a portion of the fare is not their liking. Stop crying that others do not see it your way.
The democrats, even the republicans, have not excluded you. You have excluded yourselves.
Posted by: kermit | August 22, 2008 12:47 PM
We atheists are sooo rude.
Matter of fact, many of you are.
Posted by: Siamang | August 22, 2008 1:16 PM
Here's what I'm doing.
I'll hold my nose and vote for Obama if it's close.
But for the last few presidential elections, I've given hundreds of dollars in donations. I've given (what for me is generous) donations to Kerry, Gore, Dean and the Democrats congressional campaigns.
Not this year.
Hit em where it hurts... at the money coffers.
This year, it's all going toward the fight for marriage equality, Doctors Without Borders, Amnesty, etc.
Sorry, Religious Bigots, you just told me, once again, that I'm not welcome in your party because of my beliefs. This needs to end right now. This is not Thomas Jefferson's Democratic Party.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | August 22, 2008 1:16 PM
Let's see - the best way to try to fix the party is to stand outside and wail, right? Another way is to be involved at local levels and continue to push and push and push to fix it. It's just a collection of people, after all.
That DNC thing is irritating especially since Daughtry is clueless as to why those loner atheists would object. She is befuddled.
It's because there hasn't been a voice inside the party to explain things to the DNC.
Posted by: Bubba Sixpack | August 22, 2008 1:16 PM
Yes, the dim Dems are determined to follow the Repubs off the edge of the cliff.
Why would the "opposition" party want to claim the mantles of "reality-challenged" and "faith-based government" for themselves? Are they really this stupid?
I already know the answer, so I was pretty stupid for asking it just now.
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | August 22, 2008 1:17 PM
"And that's why they haven't invited any godless rationalists to their party of pandering to fools."
PZ's train has jumped the track here.
McCain must not win this election. Two sets of fools are definitely poised to reject Obama; those who think he is muslim and those who think he is an uppity n****r. No hope for the latter. But maybe the former can be converted.
Think of the Supreme Court nominations.
Kitzmiller vs Dover redux, anyone?
Posted by: Ctrl-Atl-Del | August 22, 2008 1:18 PM
Third parties, obviously, aren't even an option,
I'm sorry, but this isn't at all obvious to me. Please explain why the U.S. can never have any but the two extant parties, particularly if the Republicans no longer capable of forming a legitimate government.
Posted by: Salt | August 22, 2008 1:21 PM
Posted by: PZ Myers | August 22, 2008 1:10 PM
First I pissed off all the knitters. Then I annoyed all the Catholics. Now I've antagonized all the masturbators. My circle of enemies grows ever wider.
Being socially autistic does have its consequences.
Enjoy!
Posted by: gdlchmst | August 22, 2008 1:24 PM
Salt obviously has no understanding of politics. Go suck on a lemon, Salt.
Posted by: Ctrl-Alt-Del | August 22, 2008 1:24 PM
Kitzmiller vs Dover redux, anyone?
You do recall who appointed the judge in that case?
Posted by: ndt | August 22, 2008 1:24 PM
I imagine the Democratic leadership is quite pleased about this. A growing number of Americans seem to think that the job of elected officials is to provide moral leadership and emotional inspiration. The more the voters pay attention to that, the less attention they will pay to the real job of elected officials, actualy governing. This is what the leadership of both parties wants, for the voters to ignore the actual laws that are being passed and how they are actually being enforced. They can finally finish implementing the corporation-friendly imperialist government they've wanted for so long without the voters even noticing or caring.
Posted by: PZ Myers | August 22, 2008 1:25 PM
Right, Salt. Like being so socially autistic that one cannot even recognize a comment obviously made in jest.
Now go away.
Posted by: Erik A. Kruger | August 22, 2008 1:28 PM
Right *on* PZ!!! The problem is two-fold, however (or so it seems to me). 1. The mainstream skeptical community is pretty conservative; 2. The mainstream "liberal" community is not particularly skeptical.
As far as no. 1 goes: even though I can applaud Penn & Teller, for example, when they make fun of stupid religious beliefs, they have also used their television show to "ridicule" the idea of global warming. Michael Shermer, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris have all made wacko "libertarian" laissez-faire statements of various sorts, and the last of these has several times made almost parodically right-wing negative comments about Noam Chomsky--who is arguably the most "left-wing" skeptic around.
No. 2 is particularly frightening in San Francisco (my home): a place where nearly everyone is a knee-jerk registered--and self-righteous, nearly religious--Democrat, and also where nearly everyone is a brain-dead New Agey type. Obviously, there's lots of overlap.
The sad fact is that there's no consistently *progressive* party in the U.S. any more . . . if there ever was. We're stuck with what Gore Vidal has called "our curious one-party two-party system." Or as Noam Chomsky puts it: "one pro-business party with two right wings."
Where, oh where, has the Enlightenment gone . . . ?
Posted by: llewelly | August 22, 2008 1:32 PM
Paul, #38:
You're right. Perhaps instead we should vote for Bob Barr ... who has repeatedly advocated an anti-gay 'DOMA' on religious grounds, who has repeatedly advocated banning Wiccans and atheists from the military, ... I could go on and on.
Let's face it. If secularists don't feel we can support Obama, our choices are reduced to Cynthia McKinney (if you're lucky enough to be in a state with her on the ballot) or a write-in vote for Zombie Carl Sagan.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 22, 2008 1:33 PM
Communists aren't rationalists. They believe in higher powers, like historical inevitability for example. They believe in infallible scriptures written by infallible prophets...
Nice try, Salt. Really nice try.
But if you fuck them both, McCain will screw you over. Therein lies the rub.
Then, too, McCain will screw you over. As long as you don't reform the Constitution to introduce the separation between president and government, the two-party system will not go away. No matter how hard you wish.
Somalia.
Sure that's arrogant. But it's still right.
Considering how horribly easy it is to steal an American election... but I digress.
Problem is, this has to be accomplished from one election to the next. If it takes any longer than that, it's counterproductive in the US two-party system.
Posted by: Matt Heath | August 22, 2008 1:35 PM
@78 Dennett is a libertarian ? I call "citation needed" on that.
(assuming you don't mean in the sense of philosophy of mind; in that case I guess it's a subtle question)
Posted by: Siamang | August 22, 2008 1:35 PM
"That DNC thing is irritating especially since Daughtry is clueless as to why those loner atheists would object. She is befuddled."
You know, it's not just atheists in this fight. The ADL is also voicing strong objection to this rush to jesus, and they've voiced deep worry over the exclusion of non-believers.
Salt wrote: "But you really should stop whining like little spoiled tykes uninvited to a party they wish not to attend anyway solely because a portion of the fare is not their liking. Stop crying that others do not see it your way."
Who's whining? I'm just not sending them hundreds of my dollars this year. I suggest others do the same. This isn't about "BOO HOO, let's all twelve of us start a new party!" It's just about them holding a party to enshrine a religious test for public service, and the democrats making yet another strong stand that if you don't believe in a sky god, then you shouldn't stand up and speak while wearing a donkey pin, lest you scare away the voters they want to court.
Sorry, my money will not be going to bigots and those who pander to bigots this year. I'll be fighting for marriage equality full-time (notice, Obama's against that issue too.)
I'll hold my nose and vote for him come election day, if it's close in my state. But no money from me until we're allowed to be part of the conversation about shared moral and community values across the d