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


← Nonbelievers flex their political muscles

ThinkRational's Avatar Jump to comment 4 by ThinkRational

I am very concerned that the Secular Coalition may have been hijacked by an antiscience Republican lobbyist, Edwina Rogers.

How can the Secular Coalition explain appointing, as its executive director, someone who worked for two of the most anti-science, anti-separation, anti-women, anti-evolution, anti-environment, homophobic, anti-civil rights members of Congress,Mississippi's Trent Lott and Alabama's Jeff Sessions - one of them as recently as 2005,

who participated in a television show displaying her mansion, in which she boasted of and demonstrated wrapping gifts for the Speaker of the House of Representatives in money - literally, in sheets of US currency, (Is this what we want representing Secular America?)

Who has no record of advocating for secular interests or separation, who has no record of speaking out against religious discrimination or violations of separation or advocating for grass-roots interests,

who, in fact, was a Republican lobbyist, a lobbyist for corporate interests and a vice president of an industry group where "she advocated for the employee benefits and compensation interests of America’s major employers, and before that was General Council to the NRC during the "Republican Revolution" in 1994, which, until today, was the most partisan, anti-civil rights Congress since the 1960's

And who has absolutely no experience in First Amendment issues!

Has the Coalition gone mad, been hijacked, or what?

This is one of the most disconcerting and disappointing moves by the Board since the inception of the Coalition, and there has been absolutely no explanation by anyone, except for a litany of posts about "bi-partisan" rhetoric, providing cover for someone who has served the most partisan politicians and anti-consumer corporations in America.

Does the Coalition support free discussion about this issue? My comments questioning this appointment on the SCfA site have not been posted. Instead, they are talking about the need for "bipartisanship", without explaining why they appointed someone who has championed partisan opposition to all the secular values the SCfA is supposed to stand for.

Thu, 17 May 2012 00:43:22 UTC | #941947