…and this is a 
The right of the people to peaceably assemble
Category: Politics
Posted on: August 27, 2008 8:07 AM, by PZ Myers
The Democratic National Convention is going on in Denver, and I'm really not at all interested in what's going on inside the convention center: it's a bunch of people saying feel-good platitudes to get themselves elected, all studiously avoiding saying anything substantial that might annoy a voter. It's much more interesting to see what's going on outside the convention, where people are trying to make their real opinions heard. That is actually a bit troubling.
The Coalition of Secular Voters protested the interfaith alliance garbage. This demonstration went well, but was largely ignored, of course — the democratic leadership has their sights set on yet another faith-based political experience.
The primary reason that we chose to demonstrate at the Interfaith Gathering was because repeated appeals had been made to the organizers of the event to include a non-religious speaker among the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist speakers, but all of these appeals were turned down. In addition, the organizer, Leah Daughtry stated, "Democrats have been, are and will continue to be people of faith - and this interfaith gathering is proof of that."
Not only is this statement factually untrue, but it is also highly offensive to non-religious members of the Democratic Party, of which there were over 8 million in 2001, probably over 10 million now. A much more appropriate statement could have been, "the Democratic Party welcomes people of faith," which should certainly be the case. Any major political party in America today should be inclusive of both religious and non-religious members.
What's the harm, you might say. Well, here's the harm: by prioritizing superstitious ignorance over evidence-based reality, the Democratic Party is sliding away from the positions that actually motivate my support.
What I found most interesting about the Interfaith Service is that the values of many of the speakers that were hosted at the service were at odds with the Democratic Party platform. One of the main speakers at the event, for example, stated that he was opposed to legalized abortion. I found it interesting that the Democratic Party would not host a non-religious speaker who may have fully agreed with every plank of the party platform but they were happy to host religious speakers who spoke in opposition to the party platform. To me this indicates that this religious outreach could have far reaching effects on the party, with changes to the party's core positions. Other speakers spoke out in favor of school vouchers for religious private schools, etc. It is also notable that legislation in opposition to teaching evolution in public schools and in favor of allowing the teaching of "alternatives to evolution" has been sponsored and supported by religious Democrats in several states, including Texas, Florida, and Louisiana over the past year. Does all of this signify a significant shift within the Democratic party?
A party that kowtows to the conventions of the conservative religious is not a party that will get my vote.
Even worse, a party that acts in defiance of the principles of a free democratic state is anathema. Some demonstrations were not treated at all well. I got a letter from Nathan Acks that recounts his experiences…and it is not reassuring at all.
Last night at approximately 7:30pm I was arrested as part of a mass arrest at 15th & Court and charged with disrupting a permitted assembly and blocking public streets. A third charge - throwing rocks and missiles - was listed on my pre-printed ticket, but the crossed out.
At the time I was not protesting. I was acting as an observer for the People's Law Project, and was dressed in a button shirt and a neon-green baseball cap stating that I was acting as a representative of the National Lawyers Guild. I followed the protestors out of Civic Center Park, but remained on the sidewalk until pushed by riot police into the street. At no time during the abortive march did any legal observer, or any marcher that I have spoken to, observe any destruction of property, any thrown objects, or ANY ORDER TO DISPERSE BY THE POLICE.
At some point during my visit to Gitmo on the Platte, the compact flash card I had been carrying that contained photographic documentation of the protest disappeared. This included pictures of the badges of some of the officers involved, images of a marcher OBEYING police orders being shot with pepper spray point-blank in the eyes while trying to retreat (when I was hauled away he was sitting with a street medic, and I could hear him sobbing again and again, "I can't see..."), and photographs of a second protestor who was shot three times by what appeared to be three separate officers with bean-bag guns while KNEELING, motionless, 15 FEET AWAY, hands outstretched as if in prayer, and wearing nothing but a pair of POCKETLESS shorts.
The arresting police officers - Aurora PD - were uniformly assholes, but the officers from the sheriff's department who handled us after we arrived at Gitmo on the Platte were professional and sometimes even courteous. However, I know that this was not an experience shared by everyone, and did notice a significant change in attitude when it became apparent that I was functioning as a representative of the National Lawyer's Guild. My hat had been confiscated from me during the arrest, but one of the officers at the holding facility returned it to me shortly after I arrived. I wore it from that point forward.
At 10:53pm I had posted my own bond. At midnight myself and woman who was also arrested and had been able to make bond were released. We were the first two people to leave. I hitched a ride back with her friends, gave a video interview when I arrived back at the People's Law Project offices, and helped man the phones for the rest of the night, fielding calls from arrestees and worried friends and relatives.
At least as of last night, those of us who had been released were returned to the world STILL WEARING THE ZIP CUFFS WE HAD BEEN ARRESTED IN. The police would cut out one of our hands, but leave the the remainder of the cuff on the other hand. When I left the PLP offices this morning at 10am, calls were coming in that folks being released from the courthouse were being hassled by police in riot gear - ON THE STEPS OF THE COURTHOUSE ITSELF - and that more police in riot gear were stopping individuals - some minors - in Civic Center Park and demanding to see photo ID and to be allowed to search any bags they were carrying. Many of these officers - including many who made the arrests last night - ARE NOT WEARING VISIBLE BADGES, or otherwise have their names and badge numbers obstructed. THIS IS ILLEGAL.
The way that the arrests were handled, the way that we were released still in zip cuffs, the way that bystanders are being hassled today, all represent a continuation of a pattern of intimidation that began before the convention and was already legally questionable. At least some police actions today have now fully crossed that line.
I will not be intimidated.
I've slept as much as I can, and am about to leave again, return to the streets, and again take up my position as legal observer. If I am arrested again, then so be it. I have the resources right now to overcome this - something that many others do not. And I have a job to do.
I almost closed my last e-mail with a saying from Frank Herbert's Dune that has its roots in modern Arabic. I decided that doing so would make the letter too melodramatic (something that several of you commented on anyway), but today I have no qualms. If the explanation I have seen is correct, then it feels very appropriate. I say it now not for myself, but for those I was arrested with, those who stood up and sang as the riot police called in, and those who will also refuse to be intimidated and return to the streets today.
Long live the fighters!
Nathan
Where is this country going? We seem to be on the road to mindlessness and tyranny. We are descending into madness.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Chris | August 27, 2008 8:21 AM
There's your proof of the "tolerance" and "acceptance" of your "peace-loving" and "peaceful" religidioty.
Posted by: Richard | August 27, 2008 8:22 AM
"We are descending into madness."
Madness? This. Is. America!
/sarcasm
Posted by: Chris | August 27, 2008 8:22 AM
Err, the second 'your' should be a 'their' ...
Posted by: Sastra | August 27, 2008 8:23 AM
Where is this country going? We seem to be on the road to mindlessness and tyranny.
Oh no -- this is all about respect. Protesting, challenging, marching people are being rude and hurting a lot of feelings. It's all so negative. If people can't be nice, they'll have to be made to be nice. We need a calm, harmonious culture where people behave and express themselves quietly, and in private, lest they be insensitive to others who feel differently. They shouldn't hold on to their anger, it's not healthy.
Big Brother is not as dangerous as Big Mommy.
Posted by: Revulo | August 27, 2008 8:30 AM
@ Richard: *shouldn't have laughed as hard as I did*
I just listened to a podcast this morning where this was a news item. "Bleh," I say. "Bleh."
Posted by: Richard | August 27, 2008 8:33 AM
And you know what they say: "If momma's not happy, ain't nobody happy."
Seriously, the idea of an overbearing, paranoid "Big Mommy Dearest" who wants to keep us "safe", sums up America in 2008 perfectly.
Posted by: TSC | August 27, 2008 8:38 AM
Vote independent. Do it for the children.
Posted by: Roger Stanyard | August 27, 2008 8:47 AM
Why did the seperation of church and state in the USA go?
The Democratic Party seems to be openly stating that membership and/or involvement are conditional on being religious. From which I conclude that it can only politically represent the interests of the religious. That, in my book, is called theocracy. Not least because there is no alternative in the form of the republicans.
Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education.
Posted by: Peter Bjørn Perlsø | August 27, 2008 8:49 AM
q: "I'm really not at all interested in what's going on inside the convention center: it's a bunch of people saying feel-good platitudes to get themselves elected, all studiously avoiding saying anything substantial that might annoy a voter."
Bullseye on the political reality of western democracy for at least the last 50 years.
Posted by: firemancarl | August 27, 2008 8:50 AM
I only caught a snippet, but I was hoping when Hillary said something to the effect of "America for the people...." instead of saying "not America for big corps..." I was hoping she would have said "America for the people and by the people." S.O.S., more worthless blather from politicians.
Posted by: Bad | August 27, 2008 8:53 AM
Mass protests are just a lousy way to try and make a point in this day and age. They are almost always exercises in nothing more than choir-preaching self-congratulation and butting heads pointlessly with the police, who are rarely the intended audience or care about the issues involved, and whose brutality or professionalism really doesn't have much to do with anything other than issues of police conduct in general.
It's not that hard to organize and elect delegates behind particular issues, as Ron Paul's movement has illustrated. Nor is it that hard to "buy" or arrange media time or space for airing particular issues. Heck: blogs are often better ways of getting the word out about something, and onto the public consciousness, than waving signs in a sea of sign waving.
It's just a tactic of an older era, which long ago lost its element of originality and special media interest, retaining its popularity amongst (primarily) college students and nostaligic Vietnam-war era protesters because it's very easy to do and feel gratified about afterwards, regardless of whether the presumable goal (i.e. getting a message to the public or to particular targets) was anywhere near accomplished or not.
Posted by: rickflick | August 27, 2008 8:53 AM
This morning I awoke to this news coverage of the faith based meetings at the convention.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080827/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_democrats_faith
I was astonished and dismayed at the ludicrous image this presented. Since Obama has invited in the faith community, it has become clear that each faith has its pet demands, and many are contradictory to each other and the party platform.
They are trying to stuff a dozen alley cats into a bag in hopes of a few million votes. Some trick!
Posted by: Roger Stanyard | August 27, 2008 8:54 AM
Where did the seperation of church and state in the USA go?
The Democratic Party seems to be openly stating that membership and/or involvement are conditional on being religious. From which I conclude that it can only politically represent the interests of the religious. That, in my book, is called theocracy - not least because there is no alternative in the form of the Republicans.
It is a deadly serious point. The vote accounts for nothing if it is conditional on accepting someone else's religious opinions.
I don't care if 99.99999% of the population are religious. The pursuit of life, liberty and happiness includes being free to hold whatever religious opinions we feel comfortable with. Removing that freedom at the ballot box denies democracy.
Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education.
Posted by: Dutch Vigilante | August 27, 2008 8:55 AM
Aren't these guys supposed to be the good guys?
Or are they just doing this because there is no one left to be disillusioned?
Posted by: Pat | August 27, 2008 8:55 AM
Well, isn't it obvious? They weren't in a Free Speech ZoneTM. Had they been, this wouldn't have happened. It's all their own fault for not restricting their opinion to a small, out of the way place that won't distract politicians that require handlers.
Free Speech ZoneTM designated areas are there for everyone's protection. That way, you know when a cop is going to cuff you in the mouth for deviating from public opinion. Or, as it is designated one foot outside a Free Speech ZoneTM, being un-American.
Posted by: dave | August 27, 2008 8:57 AM
The alternative - a McCain/Huckabee ticket - could be worse. Much worse. If you want to know where this country is truly headed, watch the movie "Idiocracy".
Posted by: Dreadneck | August 27, 2008 9:01 AM
Perhaps it would be appropriate to share what I wrote when Obama did a 180 and broke his promise to oppose the FISA bill.
Today you voted to destroy the Constitution. You betrayed millions of supporters like myself when you voted away the 4th Amendment today. No amount of spin on your part is going to change the fact that you and your fellow Congressmen stabbed every American in the back today. You and the rest of your compatriots in the Senate and House have lost all claims to legitimacy. You have betrayed your oath of office, the Constitution and the People.
I cannot begin to express how violated, molested and utterly betrayed I feel by what you have done. I feel duped, suckered, hoodwinked and bamboozled. I feel like I have been robbed, raped and left bleeding in a dark alley.
Goodbye, Senator. This is a deal breaker. I will not be voting in November. You have destroyed what little hope I had left for my country. I now know without doubt that absolutely nobody in my government can be trusted. You and all your fellow traitors inside the beltway can go to hell. There is no excuse for what you have done and no possible explanation or apology will right this wrong.
In closing, Senator, I leave you with a reminder and fair warning from our founders.
I feel no shame for having taken a chance that you might be different, Senator. However, knowing now that you have taken ranks with the most vile among us, to remain in your camp would bring enduring shame and dishonor upon my soul.
Goodbye and God Save the People!
You will have to pardon the bit of woo at the end - it was solely for dramatic effect.
Posted by: Lynnai | August 27, 2008 9:06 AM
I'd really rather not wake up one day to find that Margaret Atwood was right. She'd almost certainly agree with me too.
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 27, 2008 9:09 AM
As I already commented elsewhere, I think Obama is being extremely ill advised.
This stupid pentecostal minister, Leigh Dauthry, the dems convention CEO, who is the principal responsible for this gross mistake, just doesn't realise what she's doing.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/19/democrats-party-pentecostal-minister/
If one looks in recent months, t's clear that the race is getting closer; Obama is losing support (from 48% in June to 46% today, -2%), McCain gaining (from 40% in June to 43% today, +3%).
If one actually analyses where Obama has most lost support amongst all faith/non faith communties, it's amongst non religious folks, where he lost 8%! (from 67% in June to 59% today). With 16% of registered voters, this basically means that more than 50% of his loss so far (or 1%) has come from non religious folks.
For sure this can be explained by all his pro religious declarations and support for faith based initiatives of the recent months. This last thing will just further decrease his support level amongst this crucially important part of his core support group. Meanwhile Catholics have increased their support +3%, Mainline Protestants remained stable, Evangelicals and other faith groups decreased by 1 to 2%. So all in all, he hasn't gained any votes from the religious folks, and has lost from the non religious ones.
If this continues and his support decreases to 50% amongst non religious potential voters, which is very predictable, compared to 70% which he could have easily achieved, he will have lost more than 3% support on the national level. Enough to change the result of this election.
http://people-press.org/report/443/presidential-race-draws-even
So, I really wonder if Obama is seeing this. And what this Rev.Dauthry is doing is just going to decrease even more Obama's lead, who knows, this really stupid mistake might even cost him the election.
Posted by: SC | August 27, 2008 9:09 AM
From yesterday's Democracy Now!:
"As Democratic Convention Kicks Off, Massive Security Presence Clamps Down on Dissent in Denver"
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/26/as_democratic_convention_kicks_off_massive
Organize a meeting of superstitious people in the party, exclude the unsuperstitious based upon the premise that the party is superstitious, and cite the meeting as proof of that. Brilliant.
Posted by: clinteas | August 27, 2008 9:11 AM
I find those feel-ggod platitudes and appeals to emotion,patriotism and family values hard to digest,never ever would I vote for these people were I in the US,Id rather not vote at all.
I understand what they are trying to do with all the pandering to the religious,and american values lalala,but it smells foul,it makes me feel slimy,and Id never vote for any of those creeps ever.
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 27, 2008 9:15 AM
And by the way, I haven't seen or read anywhere the analysis that I just posted in #19. Not in any of the usually pathetic mainstream media, nor at pew forum, where they don't even seem to pont out this crucially important loss of support Obama is provoking amongst non religious folks.
This apparent blindness might really cost them the election.
Posted by: Dunc | August 27, 2008 9:17 AM
On the road to? You've been there all along. The only difference now is that they've finally gotten around to coming for the affluent middle-class white folks.
Posted by: Branedy | August 27, 2008 9:17 AM
There are no Parties in the U.S. that are Left of center, only degrees of Right Wing. The democratic Party has abandoned it's role as an alternative to the GOP long ago.
Posted by: Branedy | August 27, 2008 9:21 AM
There are no Parties in the U.S. that are Left of center, only degrees of Right Wing. The democratic Party has abandoned it's role as an alternative to the GOP long ago.
Posted by: coathangrrr | August 27, 2008 9:24 AM
Where is this country going? We seem to be on the road to mindlessness and tyranny. We are descending into madness.
It's been like this for years, you just haven't been paying attention. Ever since Seattle in '99 the police have had free rein over protesters, beat and pepper spraying at will. All of the "good" liberals just explained it away as that darn "black bloc" stirring up trouble, but anyone who has protested a major event knows better. The police are out of control.
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 27, 2008 9:25 AM
And even worse than smelling foul and making you feel slimy, it's evidently not working. The religious folks are not increasing their support (-0.5% of total -2%), and the non religious ones are decreasing drastically (-1.5% of total -2%).
Posted by: MrSquid | August 27, 2008 9:25 AM
Frighteningly accurate, Sastra. You sum everything up perfectly.
Posted by: faux mulder | August 27, 2008 9:26 AM
as much as i agree that the democrats are betraying themselves and, well, the country, they're only following a tried and true method the republicans (about as unchristian a group as one can find this side of beijing) have been using, to win elections they didn't just steal, for a generation or more now.
it's either suck up to religion, or never win another election, and frankly, though i can sympathize with pz's disappointment...the u. s. can't afford another repulican government, fiscally, or to present internationally as your choice of a governing body.
Posted by: Leigh Shryock | August 27, 2008 9:30 AM
Obama is treading a dangerous line: by kowtowing to the religious this much, he's risking losing a significant portion of his voters. Those of his voters who value secularism, regardless of their personal religion, or lack thereof, do not appreciate being snubbed and being pretty much told to get lost.
Posted by: Richard | August 27, 2008 9:31 AM
The logic behind this move is that when the rubber meets the road, godless heathens will have no other choice, but to vote the Dem ticket in November and accept the pandering to the delusioned that goes along with it. Otherwise, we get BushLite for, at least, four more years.
Dammed if you do, damned if you don't.
Posted by: Deepsix | August 27, 2008 9:33 AM
Before long, our choices will only be between Republican #1 and Republican #2.
Ever notice during these elections how both candidates move to the right?
Posted by: Juri | August 27, 2008 9:36 AM
This makes me sad inside. I'm so sick of voting for the lesser of two evils, especially when the two evils are starting to look so similar. :(
Posted by: Thomas J. Theobald | August 27, 2008 9:40 AM
This has nothing to do with religion or the lack thereof. It's simply the authoritarian style of government that's been encouraged for the last eight years.
T
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 27, 2008 9:40 AM
Richard,
I'm just seeing the result of this religious pandering. He's already lost 8% support from non religious folks without gaining any from the religious ones.
If they continue like this for another 70 days, this might cost him the election.
Right now Obama should be making big anouncements focussed towards the non religious folks and stop this religious pandering. Their current strategy is not going to work in 2008. Not after 8 years of a religious fundamentalist as president.
This should have been the first election ever in American history where religious pandering was not necessary for a secularist dem like Obama to win it.
Posted by: Julian | August 27, 2008 9:47 AM
Negentropyeater: This seems to have become a theme of Obama's campaign since he began including Hillary's old advisers. Even since she gave up and they joined his camp, Obama has committed some significant missteps, even beyond the religion point that you made. For instance, his vote on FISA. He cast that vote because of advisers who told him it was necessary to compromise his position on the issue so that he would seem "tough" and by doing so, win votes among those who consider him weak on foreign policy. But this betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of modern U.S. politics. Obama's supposed weakness in regards to foreign policy is not based on his record or anything he has said; in fact, his well-reasoned views and willingness to include diplomacy in the playbook of the United States has been one of the major factors winning him support among those who dedicate their lives to our interactions with other nations. Far from being a fair critique, it is a partisan talking point; the people who believe it do so because they believe anything that a Republican candidate or right-wing media figure says uncritically.
So, by voting as he did on FISA Obama could not have won many votes at all; the people who say he's weak on foreign policy are people who are never going to vote for him anyway. What he did do, however, was piss off a significant portion of his support, not only among the Democratic party faithful, but also among those typically Republican voters who had decided to support him out of disgust with Bush's many un-constitutional acts and general incompetency.
What we have seen since he beat Hillary in the primaries is depressingly familiar. We have seen a Democratic candidate running from his liberal credentials. This is infuriating enough given that it is a tactic which has consistently failed, when being true to one's liberality has succeeded so wonderfully (Clinton was always pro-abortion, despite what the Republicans said about him as a result and, though it is an insufficient policy today, remember that Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a significant step at the time in that it, for the first time in history, create a way in which homosexuals could legally serve in the armed forces.). What makes it even more frustrating is that the current political climate is as liberal socially and economically as any time in this century, and probably more so.
Obama should not be tacking to the center, but standing on the ground which he alone was smart enough to see that most citizens wanted a candidate to stand on.
Posted by: JJR | August 27, 2008 9:50 AM
Oy! Not quite Chicago, 1968, but close enough.
I still plan on either voting Green or staying home.
It was the jingoistic tone of the 2004 DNC which drove me to my first Green Party meeting out of despair. I still ended up voting for Kerry that year. Not again.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 27, 2008 9:54 AM
Cops have been taught to think of civilians as the enemy, people you have to keep under control else they bring civilization down and wreck things for everybody. We are the enemy, or else helpless fools who must be kept pent up for our own good.
It's due in part to the militarization of the police, and in part to the segregation of the police from the community. It is my conclusion that we need to disband professional law enforcement bodies, replacing them with volunteers trained in law, the power of arrest, and working with and in their community. No police departments, no official vehicles, just people working together to maintain the peace and apprehend those who violate the law. Our current model has failed, it's time to try another.
Posted by: Vidar | August 27, 2008 9:57 AM
Everyone migrate to Canada. All the cool people are doing it.
Posted by: me | August 27, 2008 10:00 AM
Hussein is the Lesser of Two Evils??!
I beg to differ
http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2008/08/our-national-milgram-experiment.html
Posted by: Chris (Fabulously in the City) | August 27, 2008 10:06 AM
This shit is crazy!!! And so angering at the same time.
grrr....
Posted by: JStein | August 27, 2008 10:06 AM
Wow, that's all I needed for my daily dosage of morning insanity.
Further proof that the police haven't gotten any better in the years since their inherent corruptness has been revealed.
Even if they don't do things as obvious as when they beat Rodney King anymore, it's still disgusting.
Posted by: gdlchmst | August 27, 2008 10:08 AM
Bullshit. Obama did not generate the initial excitement by sucking up to religion, neither did Clinton. In fact, all evidence points to Obama's new-found religiosity either costing him votes or has no influence at all. Sucking up to religion just means that you are willing to ditch your principles for votes, and that your analytical skills are severely lacking such that you would think this might work. It also means that Obama really is just another slimy politician in the pond.
Posted by: Phledge | August 27, 2008 10:15 AM
What bothers me is not (so much) that the Dems are pandering to the religious voter, but that they feel a need, real or perceived, to do so. Last presidential "election" was good evidence that somewhere around 50% of our populace is profoundly stupid and superstitious; even now, approval ratings for Bush hover somewhere in the high 20's/low 30's. The evangelical sector is loud and demanding; whether their numbers would really change the outcome of this election is questionable, but the Dems don't want to take that chance. It's like hearing deafening barking coming from the backyard--do you just hope that it's an unusually obstreperous chihuahua, or come prepared for a pit bull?
It's still cowardly. I'm still disgusted. But in my mind it's more about our country than it is about the election, or the Democrats, or Obama.
Posted by: Julian | August 27, 2008 10:15 AM
As to Dr. Myers' post, the letter most certainly includes some damning claims, but I'm of the opinion that until evidence that this sort of activity took place is available, it cannot be accepted as the unvarnished truth. Perhaps Dr. Myers' knows the letter-writer in question personally and trusts him implicitly, but I do not know him and thus cannot approach his claims from any place other than skepticism. The NLG website has no stories of police brutality at the Democratic National Convention, nor have I encountered such claims at any of the other left-leaning sites I tend to visit.
Beyond this, even if the claims are 100% grade-A truth, that doesn't necessarily mean that the Democratic Party is the bad guy in this situation. As some posters have mentioned previously, Cops, particularly riot cops, are dicks. They don't need the nod from the DNC to bust heads and mace without purpose; all they need is a badge and the knowledge that their boss will back them up, and considering the sort of deference which police are afforded legally these days, 9 out of 10 police officers can rely on that back up when and if IA comes calling. One of the (many) big things that needs doing on a national level in the next presidency is a significant strengthening of police oversight and an audit of the kinds of tactics they are taught to use in the Academies.
By wedding a story of police brutality to a story of the Democratic party courting religious voters, you imply a connection between the two events; you imply that not only is the Democratic party responsible for the behavior of the Denver police force, but also that it is the religious Democrats within the party who are responsible, and you provide no evidence, really, to support either of these claims. I disagree with and disapprove of superstitious hoo-ha as much as anyone here, but what separates us from them is a dispassionate, patient world-view reliant not on breathless, self-aggrandizing emotional appeals, but actual, physical evidence.
Let's not jump to the conclusion that the Democratic party is just as bad as the Republicans on the word of a single unknown individual and our mutual distastes for the religiously motivated.
Posted by: Jams | August 27, 2008 10:18 AM
Again, Americans can drag the Republicans left, or the Democrats right, or sit it out.
P.S. Welcome to my world. It's about time.
Posted by: Richard | August 27, 2008 10:19 AM
Should've been, could've been, but as Julian (36) says, we've seen this before. What makes me feel dirty about all this is that I'm still probably going to vote for the guy -- even if he came out as a raging born-again evangelical -- because the thought of McShame in the oval office makes me and baby Jeebus cry.
Posted by: Dave | August 27, 2008 10:22 AM
What?!?! You mean hes not the Kwisatz Haderach?Geez people, of course Obama is just another slimy politician. So is McCain, so is Hillary. So was Bush, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dole, Bush, Reagan, etc. You dont get on the national stage in this country without being a slimy politician. You dont even get close to it.
Posted by: llewelly | August 27, 2008 10:24 AM
But there is another choice. A simpler, more convenient choice. Stay home. Don't vote. No, I do not recomend it - and this is probably the 3rd worst election in US history for godless people to just not vote. But that's what Obama's 8 point loss among the nonreligious will translate into. Staying home is easier than voting. When someone is discouraged, they usually take the easy way out.Recall that high turnout favours the Democratic party.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 27, 2008 10:26 AM
me #40, that Video at the end of that link is um... uh...
Wow.
Posted by: Konrad Talmont-Kaminski | August 27, 2008 10:26 AM
The Bush administration has been the worst that the US has ever suffered through. It has severely damaged the US economy, shredded its international reputation, wasted its military resources, further undermined civil rights, moral standards and democratic institutions, ignored major national disasters, used every opportunity to enrich themselves and their friends, and generally turned the nation into the world's laughing stock. In a functioning democracy the result would be impeachment for every senior member of the administration, criminal investigations a-go-go, and a special convention of the Republican Party at which it dissolves itself. At this point the number of US citizens willing to vote for the Republicans should be smaller than the membership of an exclusive gentleman's club. Even in Zimbabwe the only way that Mugabe won the elections was through massive intimidation and fraud. Yet, here we are, ten weeks from the next elections and McCain is close to even with Obama in the polls. Clearly, the US is a profoundly sick society and even if Obama should win it will take a very long time before things become much saner as the rot goes a hell of a lot deeper than one disastrous administration. In fact, I fear that things in the States will get a whole lot worse before people do finally wake up. Eight years ago I decided against looking for an academic position in the US and, instead, went to the EU. We have our own problems and lunatics but everything I have heard or seen since then has shown me that this was the right decision.
Posted by: frog | August 27, 2008 10:27 AM
Bad: Mass protests are just a lousy way to try and make a point in this day and age. They are almost always exercises in nothing more than choir-preaching self-congratulation and butting heads pointlessly with the police, who are rarely the intended audience or care about the issues involved, and whose brutality or professionalism really doesn't have much to do with anything other than issues of police conduct in general.
Hmm, I think everyone in the US is missing the point of mass protest and democracy. Mass protest is a threat of the capability of disrupting the smooth functioning of society. That is only possible when it is supported by enough people to actually make it happen, which implies that the government no longer has the consent of the governed -- in other words, the democratic process is failing to actually reflect democratic will. That doesn't necessarily mean a threat of violence, but often it does include that.
Now, if that threat isn't real, like in almost all protests in the US since the 70s, it's just to dumb to do and dumb to disrupt through police action. Just see the silliness of the petering out anti-war protests -- more fashion shows than anything.
What's saddest though is that the continual police over-reactions themselves don't lead to mass protests by us -- whether you agree with the protesters or not, there is something terribly wrong in a society that quietly acquiesces to the repression of dissenting voices in the public square. Now your suggestion, Bad, limits free speech to only those with significant funding capability --- sometimes good ideas do bubble up from individuals and small groups who can't yet access enough money to fund themselves through the mass-media. Ron Paulites have money -- Libertarianism is backed by some very wealthy backers. I'm sure you don't mean that repression of free-speech is only a problem if the speakers have money, do you?
Now, I agree with Bad that of course there are alternate courses to take when you are still in the process of building up a minority view point that are still efficacious. But at the point where you are really threatening to make changes, it will require you to show your hand --- that the choice is fundamental change or disruption. The ability for that to happen must be protected, or we risk eventually being faced with the disruptions with no warning, no opportunity to compromise.
That killed the Soviet Union. Free speech, it's not out of kindness -- it's the only reasonable way to construct a stable society.
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 27, 2008 10:28 AM
The problem is that these people can't seem to be able to think critically. I wonder what's the % of religious idiots he's taken on board by now amongst his advisers.
It's obvious that religious pandering was the wrong thing to do in this election for him to win it.
If they'd look closely, they'd see this :
You basically have 4 groups :
Group 1, 20% of the population, consisting of non relgious folks, Jews and humanists/unitarians.
There he should have gotten at least 70& support without religious pandering. With he can go as low as 50%. Loss : 4 points
Group 2, 42% of the population, consisting of mainline protestants and catholics, where he'll get more or less the same score between 52 and 53% with or without pandering. At the most get 1 or 2 points more with the pandering. Gain : 1 point
Group 3, 8% of the population, members of historically black churches. Here the same, he gets 90% with or without
Group 4, 28% of the population, evangelicals, mormons and jehowa's witnesses, where he gets below 25% without religious pandering, and where with, he could have hoped for small gain, but actually doesn't.
So this religious pandering and all these stupid mistakes obviously isn't going to work out for him. It'll end up costing him a crucial 3 points, and if McCain can gain 5 points from his usual pandering from Group 4, that's enough to make this election the same as Bush/Gore, a stroke of luck (or something else).
Posted by: Ferre | August 27, 2008 10:29 AM
As a Dutch person (First time I comment, but a long time reader) I find it weird that the two leading parties in America still have people who are supposed to be intellectuals voting for their candidates. The whole world can see that both leading parties in America are totally messed up and populated by corrupted idiots. (apart from a handful of exemptions that is)
It really distresses me that the overall intellectual level of the American people is at such poor level as it directly effects my life outside of the USA. The USA has brought us the war on terror, the war on drugs and countless other counter-productive policies which they enforce upon the world surrounding them, I often wish that the US population would become a little smarter and start ignoring the two parties, after al they have a track record of deceiving their voters and being corrupted to the bone.
From where I'm looking at it the Republican and Democratic parties are like Pepsi Cola and Coca Cola, both basically the same stuff with different labels, with the difference that it's not cola they are selling, but snake oil.
Wake up Americans, PLEASE, for the world's sake.
Posted by: AndrewR | August 27, 2008 10:32 AM
The American News Project and the Huffington Post have some video footage from the protest which can be seen here: http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1417423198/bctid1753232390
It's very disconcerting.
(I got the video from Matthew Good's blog http://www.matthewgood.org/ )
Posted by: Hap | August 27, 2008 10:33 AM
If it costs you something, and gains you nothing, perhaps it isn't a good idea. Attempting to recruit religious voters doesn't have to work as well (there are more of them), but if it doesn't work, then you weaken your own base - even if the ones you alienate don't vote for McCain, they might vote for Nader, or no one. How good is it if you have to sell out your principles to win, and still don't win - even if you win, your core /soul/self-respect is gone, and if you don't you have nothing.
I think the bigger question for me is why the Democrats need to avoid substantive issues. On some issues (FISA, the Patriot Act) they are actively complicit with the problems of the Bush Administration, but on others (the economy, Iraq(in part), suppression of science that doesn't say what W wants), they have been in the right. When your opponents have destroyed much of what makes America good while betraying their principles, I would have thought that you might emphasize those points. Avoiding them seems to hint that you have nothing useful to contribute and something to hide. The only thing worse would be to adopt the tactics of the morally bankrupt to follow them into the abyss - and suppressing people who say things that disagree with the religious image you wish to put forth seems to fit that description well.
I can't trust the Republicans, and can't vote for them. What worries me is if the Democrats imitate them to get elected, and depend on the avoidance of real issues to do so. We are where we are because we have chosen to ignore our financial and moral realities to live in a fantasy (even before the evangelical Christians took over the Republican Party - Reagan?) and seem desperate to avoid having to awaken. If the Democrats are also willing to ignore substantive issues, they become (or have already become) complicit in our potential demise, and make it far more likely. A failing world power with lots of nukes and aggression, a large ego and sense of entitlement, and no grasp of reality is a recipe for disaster (though global warming will slow to a crawl for a while - that's something).
Posted by: Alverant | August 27, 2008 10:38 AM
I have to agree with Richard #31. Better a Democrat, which has traditionally supported our right not to be religious, than a Republican, which has been hijacked by christian extremists. Unfortunately many republics still associate being religious with being moral. So Atheists will have to make a choice between the party that excludes us a little and the party that excludes us a lot and thinks we're bad. Sort of like homosexuals.
Posted by: gdlchmst | August 27, 2008 10:38 AM
Well, you have degrees of sliminess, ranging from JFK to Reagan. Obama is clocking in at about the same sliminess as McCain right now. But recall that his whole platform is that he was going to bring a new kind of politics to the US. Regardless of whether anyone believed him, at least I wouldn't have felt so unclean knowing that I have to vote for the guy.
Posted by: frog | August 27, 2008 10:40 AM
glchmst: Bullshit. Obama did not generate the initial excitement by sucking up to religion, neither did Clinton. In fact, all evidence points to Obama's new-found religiosity either costing him votes or has no influence at all. Sucking up to religion just means that you are willing to ditch your principles for votes, and that your analytical skills are severely lacking such that you would think this might work. It also means that Obama really is just another slimy politician in the pond.
You do know how the US system works, no? There are certain untouchables -- God, the flag, mother and apple pie. If you touch those lines publicly, you will immediately have a rabid attack on you - not from the "voters", but from the establishment media.
Just see M. Obama's comment that she was proud of her country for the first time. It wasn't that "regular" people cared per se - it was that this was drummed over and over into people's head, it created what is called "a narrative" that M. Obama is a black nationalist.
If you don't court the religious, you'd immediately see stories that imply that you're a Satanic communist who plans to expropriate all churches and send Christians to concentration camps. And folks will believe it, because they assume that "everyone else believes it". Just see the attempt on Obama's comment that many folks cling to religion because they are bitter. By itself, everyone knows that it is true - people become more attached to religion to help them cope with suffering. Nothing that any pastor won't say -- but it became part of a narrative that Obama is part of the secular humanist/communist/Jewish conspiracy (Hollywood liberal elite! Eats arugula!) to destroy the good, salt of the earth, Christian people.
I assume you'd prefer politicians who were saintly and hoisted themselves on a crucifix for the soldiers, rather than the most reasonable but successful gangster we can find? Politics is the art of the possible, doncha know.
Posted by: Bryson Brown | August 27, 2008 10:42 AM
This seems to me to represent a real cultural shift-- and a very scary one. There are always people who try to join the police because they want to abuse authority and 'put the boot in'. A healthy police force will identify them and keep them out-- and when they slip through, it will punish or fire them. But it seems that abuse of authority is now the norm, from the Whitehouse to the streets (and at many other levels too, from abusive, greedy CEOs to abusive priests to attack-dog administrators). It's a very dangerous trend, and I hope it reverses itself soon; today, I fear, Watergate would simply blow over. Can you imagine today's press being outraged about, and reporting thoroughly on something as 'trivial' as Nixon's 'plumbers'?
Posted by: jello | August 27, 2008 10:46 AM
@#4
It is your kind of gutless whining that has is in the situation we are today. Poeple like you stick your head in the sand and do nothing while raving fanatics and the incompetend cronies that support them ripe our society out from under us. Freedom is not easy, it is constantly under threat from the power mad and greedy among us and the only way to keep these people from taking away everything we hold dear is to raise our voice in etarnal and fervent protest. Trying to muzzle pollical speach with pointless benalities about respect is a pathetic plow by would be oppressors who are bidding there time untill they can employ more traditiona meand of tyranny.
Posted by: Liz S | August 27, 2008 10:46 AM
Intolerance of political protesters is not the fault of the Democratic Party. It certainly isn't a result of inviting religious speakers to be involved in the convention. Let's put this blame squarely where it belongs: on law enforcement and the lack of oversight of law enforcement. When the people entrusted with public safety imperil public safety, it's an abuse of power issue. This is a law enforcement issue, plain and simple. The same bullshit will be happening at the Republican convention. And we have the nerve to tsk-tsk China for not allowing demonstrations during the Olympics.
Bottom line is, Denver-area police officers got all that boss riot gear and a big rush of testosterone, and by God, someone is going to get their head bashed in. They didn't spend all that money to sit idly by and watch peaceful demonstrations for crying out loud. I always find it interesting that police "train" to contain a problem using the greatest force possible. Maybe they should also train for a little restraint. They seem to have grotesquely poor skills in that.
Don't lay this issue on the Democratic Party. It ain't their doing. While all the blowhards may be patting themselves on the back inside the building, they have very little control over the egomaniacs in blue outside.
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 27, 2008 10:52 AM
Richard,
Before ? I don't think so.
You basically have 3 factors which make religious pandering frankly idiotic for a guy like Obama to do :
1. the very significant growth of non religious folks since the first Clinton election, where they now represent a very significant chunk of the dems potential electorate, and where pandering is clearly stupid.
2. the 8 years of a Christofacist evangelical president which make religious pandering a mute issue for Catholics and mainline protestants.
3. And the tremedous support he's going to get anyway from the members of historically black churches, who didn't need the pandering to be convinced to vote for him.
I don't think any previous election had this.
This should have been the one that would have terminated this pathetic habit that the dems seem to have inherited from the past.
Posted by: wombat | August 27, 2008 10:53 AM
Having voted for Obama in the Democratic Primary, I have been become increasingly disappointed with his continuous genuflecting at the feet of religious hucksters and con men. From Wright to Warren, he seems intent on paying respect to people who don't deserve it. In truth, the best candidate for those who value church state separation at least this year is Bob Barr, the Libertarian. While the LP has nominated some real wack-a-loons in the past, they got it right this year. Does he have a chance of winning? Of course not. But his positions are more palatable to the atheist voter than the major party candidates. I will be casting my vote for the mustache this year.
As far as the arrests, it should not surprise us that the police are abusing their badges (or non-badges it seems in some cases). 7 years of instilled fear of the turban have blinded a large portion of the public to the loss of their civil liberties. The prevailing attitude will be, "What do I care? I'm not the one protesting! Please protect me from my irrational fear!"
Posted by: gldchmst | August 27, 2008 10:59 AM
Let's try to keep the condescension to a minimum.
So you are saying that not pandering to the religious is the same as public mocking religion? Sounding suspiciously fundamentalist here.
First of all, you are exaggerating. Moreover, you assume that this will cost Obama votes, which is very debatable, if not entirely wrong.
And I assume you'd prefer politicians who are all manly man, with an itchy trigger finger, eager to shoot us some commies. See how easy it is to assume? And the crucifix thing was cute too.