This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts - Comments

catskill's Avatar Comment 1 by catskill

Its a tough call. Admit that you don't believe in magic and you lose the election. As much as I hate it there is the reality, at least at this time, that if you want the Democratic party to be totally secular than you are basically saying that you do not want to see any Democrats elected. The people to be mad at are the vast number of Americans who vote for Jesus, and not the politicians who have to conform to the will of the voters to get elected. I just hope that Obama wins and that once in office he proves to be a more level headed and secular person than they are portraying him as.

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:22:00 UTC | #225946

Szymanowski's Avatar Comment 2 by Szymanowski

I'd prefer it if a Democrat played along to win the election and THEN admitted he/she didn't believe in magic.

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:30:00 UTC | #225954

Diacanu's Avatar Comment 3 by Diacanu

Szymanowski-

Yeah, he can claim he had an epiphany. ;)

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:32:00 UTC | #225956

Stormkahn's Avatar Comment 4 by Stormkahn

I guess us bad guys are on the loosing end of a system thats support the organised and well funded churches. At some point the numbers will start to matter and the number crunchers for either party will start to place their bets with the rational vote...

Viva La Evolucion!

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:38:00 UTC | #225964

LetMeBeClear's Avatar Comment 6 by LetMeBeClear

You must pass a religious test to be president of the U.S. I can not imagine, in my life time, the president ending a speech and not pimping out the creator of the universe. If the speech ended with out the solicitation of support from credulous people, what would it end with?

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:40:00 UTC | #225970

Quine's Avatar Comment 5 by Quine

<!-- Be sure tags are closed -->After moving to the town where I was born, my father decided to become active in party politics. He went to a local Democratic Party, meeting, where they began with a prayer; he walked out, and that was that.

P.S. When Thomas Jefferson was working to make sure that no official test of religion was required for public office, he argued that such tests just institutionalize hypocrisy. It appears he was correct, yet again.

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:40:00 UTC | #225969

Eshto's Avatar Comment 7 by Eshto

WTF? Gays have NOT won the right to marry in "several states". It's two. Count 'em, two. And California will almost definitely outlaw it in Novemeber anyway, leaving only one. And conservatives are still pushing for a federal marriage ban anyway.

There are a few Democrats advocating the lesser status of civil union, which doesn't confer federal rights and wouldn't help, for example, my friend whose partner is getting deported back to Bulgaria. They are going to attempt a long-term relationship, but that's kinda tough when there's a giant fucking ocean in between you and the person you're in love with.

I hate this shit. I do believe homophobia is almost entirely rooted in religion, and so fighting for gay rights and atheist rights are pretty much the same battle. But as someone who has lived with homophobia, I can promise you it is much, MUCH worse to be gay in America than to be atheist and not gay. I don't like being discriminated for either one of those things, but give me a break.

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:41:00 UTC | #225973

savroD's Avatar Comment 8 by savroD

The democrats will implode on this garbage the same way the repewby boys have. It will lead them, the way all religion does, down a path of corruption and criminality. My wish-thinking amounts to just hoping these so-called "people of faith" would just self-terminate!

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:42:00 UTC | #225974

bamafreethinker's Avatar Comment 9 by bamafreethinker

As long as the dems support gay rights and abortion, they are wasting their time courting fundies. It will not help one bit. Obama is taking an unnecessary risk (by being more religious than McCain, and by being dishonest) if you ask me. I think he would be better off leaving faith out altogether. Heck, Gore only lost the election by a few hundred votes without pandering to the IDiots and the homophobes. I hope Obama doesn't believe all the BS he is spouting about faith. McCain may be the most religious of the two, but you wouldn't know it by their words.

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:44:00 UTC | #225975

IaninPA's Avatar Comment 10 by IaninPA

The UK had its first female prime minister in 1979 but has not yet come close to having an openly atheist leader.

Until we see it in at least one other western democracy we will not see it it in the US.

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:04:00 UTC | #225985

Ex~'s Avatar Comment 11 by Ex~

@ bamafreethinker. I wasn't aware that dems supported gay rights. Obama was certainly clear at the evangelical forum that he opposed gay marriage. *sigh*


Evangelical Christians are such fucking hypocrites.

Who do you vote for? The guy who cheated on his crippled wife to go fuck some rich heiress some decades his junior? Who's known far and wide for his dirty mouth and rude, uncontrolled outbursts of anger? Whose answer to any conflict is bomb the shit out of the other person? Who wants to extend tax-breaks for the richest of the rich and leave the middle and working class struggling to get by? Who calls popular evangelicals "workers of intolerance"?

Or do you vote for the committed Christian, whose family values are evident in the loving and healthy family he has raised, in a devoted relationship with a woman for every reason but her money?

There is no possible fathomable reason someone looking at the election from an evangelical Christian perspective, could EVER reasonably put John McCain over Obama.


Not that this is necessarily a good thing.

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:05:00 UTC | #225987

Sciros's Avatar Comment 12 by Sciros

Ex~ none of that matters if only you accept Christ as your savior!

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:07:00 UTC | #225989

kkelly's Avatar Comment 13 by kkelly

7, In California, opinion is split at 47/47%, but a majority oppose a ballot initiative to ban it.
http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080828/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_poll

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:09:00 UTC | #225992

Manson's Avatar Comment 14 by Manson

Mr. Obama lost my vote when he gave his 'take it one step further' speech regarding fantasy-based (formerly faith-based) cash give-aways. The "if the government can't do it, maybe the churches can with government money (i.e. our money)" approach is not a policy I can support on any level. Just like Roe v. Wade and Evolution. There is no middle ground in the separation between church and state.

His showing at the humpback church was icing on the cake.

It is unfortunate. I also can not vote for the republicans because, well, they aren't republicans anymore.

The libertarians are ideologues who don't know when idealism ends and practical, real-world application of principals begin.

Ultimately, the message that needs to be sent to the Obamas of the world is... take your pick. Either pander to the religious right, or choose your intelligent base of 10-15% rational/atheist/agnostics. It is Mr. Obama who must be realistic not me.

If that means McCain wins, then perhaps it will take the Dems 4 more years to realize that they need our vote too. Evolution in action.

Is a little pandering to reason, science, and rationalism too much to ask? Apparently so in 2008.

EDIT: For two small grammar errors.

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:10:00 UTC | #225994

textnotspeech's Avatar Comment 15 by textnotspeech

As if pandering to us atheists will make things better. It's the pandering we need to get rid of. I'd rather have honesty and sincerity. The politicians only say what they think the majority want to hear. There is no winning this political battle. Lowest common denominator runs the show. Why do we still bullshit ourselves into thinking that these people care about anything but power.

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:17:00 UTC | #225996

Ivan The Not So Bad's Avatar Comment 16 by Ivan The Not So Bad

Eshto,

Do not despair yet. The latest polls show a majority AGAINST approving the religiously inspired Proposition 8 (which seeks to reverse the recent CA Supreme Court decision to allow same-sex unions).

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:17:00 UTC | #225997

dochmbi's Avatar Comment 17 by dochmbi

I am atheist and an anti-theist, but I don't think there should be gay marriage in church. It's their organization, they should be allowed to decide what is done and what isn't done in church as long as its legal. Other than that, I'm all for gay marriage, as long as it doesn't take place in a church.
It would be hypocritical to try to manipulate what happens at their church while at the same time opposing them when they try to manipulate other organizations.

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:23:00 UTC | #226001

kkelly's Avatar Comment 18 by kkelly

17, Nobody wanted to.

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:25:00 UTC | #226003

DamnDirtyApe's Avatar Comment 19 by DamnDirtyApe

Ian, don't forget how she was - she was a female Oldboy. Anti-abortion, anti-trade unionist, anti-nhs, anti-people basically. 'There is no such thing as society' were her words. She was a social darwinist I reckon. And certainly no atheist.

No state funeral for thatcher please.

That's when they finally put you in the ground
I'll stand on your grave and tramp the dirt down.

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:27:00 UTC | #226005

Gregg Townsend's Avatar Comment 20 by Gregg Townsend

7. Comment #238711 by Eshto

I understand your anger and agree there is a long way to go with gaining equal rights for gay and lesbian couples.

I was encouraged when Ted Kennedy said he finally sees an opportunity to end discrimination against homosexuals in his endorsement speech. At least the Dems talks openly about the issue and applaud when a leader calls for an end to discrimination.

I would have loved to see Ted (or anyone) say the same about non-believers.

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:28:00 UTC | #226006

daveau's Avatar Comment 22 by daveau

The Obama MOR move & jesus hyperbole didn't really start until it became clear that he was going to win the primary. I'm hoping (no factual basis, mind you) that once the November election is over he will go back to being the mostly rational liberal that we in Chicago have known for a while. It would be nice, however, to be able to vote for a non-superstitious candidate someday.

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:32:00 UTC | #226011

Gregg Townsend's Avatar Comment 21 by Gregg Townsend

17. Comment #238739 by dochmbi

I think you misunderstand the issue. No one (that I know of) is asking the government to force a church to take members they don't want. The issue is about equal recognition under the law.

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:32:00 UTC | #226010

macros_man's Avatar Comment 23 by macros_man

Manson - have you ever seen this video?:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4824085103245427405&ei=PBe3SNmGMYzYqwOR8-TJDA&q=obama church religion&vt=lf&hl=en

(if the link doesn't work, just go to google video and search for "obama church religion" - and it should be the first video that shows up)


I think this speech was given some time before Obama was running for president - or at least before he was very popular.

In it, he very eloquently champions secular ideals, and secular reasoning. He has also expressed that any faith-based funds should not endorse a particular religion.

I'm not crazy about faith-based programs either... but there's a chance they may do some good for people - especially if some selfless people are a part of it. And if it just squanders money on religious indoctrination, then this will only be a drop in the bucket compared to how we waste money on other things.

If you renounce Obama for this relatively minor transgression, and choose not to vote for him, you are PUNISHING YOURSELF AND EVERYONE ELSE.

If nothing else, THINK ABOUT THE DAMN SUPREME COURT JUSTICE APPOINTMENTS. WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?!

Even for all his religious misgivings, Obama is light-years ahead of McCain in terms of secular ideals.

It just blows my mind that you could think you are somehow doing everyone a favor by not electing Obama, and thereby encouraging McCain to become elected.

As secularists, I think our ONLY practical option at this time is to do everything we can to ensure Obama is elected. To do otherwise would simply be masochistic.

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:37:00 UTC | #226017

OhioLen's Avatar Comment 24 by OhioLen

Re voting for Jesus: someone's car is parked about a block away with a "Vote the Bible" bumpersticker on it. Makes me wince every time I see the damn thing.

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:39:00 UTC | #226020

macros_man's Avatar Comment 25 by macros_man

Oh... and let's not forget that if Obama is elected president, he will be the first [half] black president the U.S. has ever had.

Wouldn't that make you feel good? To know you voted for the first U.S. president in history to break the race barrier?

As secularists, I think that we are all for eliminating discrimination of a person's race and gender.

Electing Obama seems like it would be a great symbolic step in that regard.

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:47:00 UTC | #226028

catskill's Avatar Comment 26 by catskill

Obama giving his approval for continued faith based funding is obvious politically. The whole faith based initiative was founded under Bush, and it funnels millions of dollars (our dollars) directly to the church. When you are in a country where the largest and most organized voting blocks are based on religious affiliation, you cannot go out and say "Remember that massive flow of free money? Yeah that's gone of you elect me."

At this point you just have to hope that Obama gets elected, wins a second term, and then is able to phase out faith funding before he leaves office.

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:55:00 UTC | #226031

Oppomystic's Avatar Comment 27 by Oppomystic

In 2005, after losing once again, the people of the Democratic Party knocked their heads together and decided that they needed to appear more religious. I remember seeing their "go-to Gal" for religiousness studies saying that they'll have learned their lesson by 2008. Well, they haven't.

The American public could give a fistful of monkey crap about faith and religiosity. McCain could declare that his time spent at the Hanoi Hilton made him an atheist, but that he still respects the 'values' of America, and that he's going to sink Roe v. Wade and make it so homosexuals can't marry legally. Believe me, they'd totally overlook the atheism long enough to vote.

Democrats can't bring themselves to lie about revoking human rights, but they can put on a song-and-dance about being religious with no problem. I'm afraid that a speech about gay rights with 'God, bless America' at the end of it falls on deaf ears.

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:02:00 UTC | #226035

practicing atheis's Avatar Comment 28 by practicing atheis

it seems obvious to me that the problem lies in the two party system. as someone who has recently decided to no longer financially support the democratic party, what choices are left to the liberal minded secularist? the answer? none. that is sad. i can't believe that none of the other political parties have been able to garner enough support to at least make a statement in an election. as someone pointed out, the libertarian party at this point is a joke. where is the secular humanist political party?

another thing that i can't believe is the willingness of so many 'believers' to allow the theocratization of this country, especially from the non christians and smaller christian sects who are in the real minority. don't they get it? they have more to lose in this mess than the secularists! It was a priest who said these words wisdom;
" "In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

first they go after the secularists / atheists and who's next? mormons? muslims? then who? southern baptists? WTF! it completely baffles me that the religious aren't the biggest supporters of the wall of separation. i suppose i am resigned to a life of confusion.

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:23:00 UTC | #226049

eellerto's Avatar Comment 29 by eellerto

"Even Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church, an open-minded and inclusive evangelical, told Larry King that he could not vote for an atheist. "

What an odd statement. Are they really suggesting that this is a surprise?

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:26:00 UTC | #226052

TIKI AL's Avatar Comment 30 by TIKI AL

Republicans are corporate whores.
Democrats are corporate lap dancers.
Vote for Obama-Biden. At least you won't get the clap.

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:43:00 UTC | #226067