 |
|
|
|
 A voice vote to change the DNC party platform turned to chaos Wednesday night.
September 6th, 2012
03:24 PM ET
Conventions leave atheists asking: What political party represents me?By Dan Merica, CNN Washington (CNN) – This convention season has not been good for atheists. The word "God" was reinserted in the Democratic platform after it had been removed. A plan to raise atheist billboards in the convention cities was stymied by opponents. And though there were preachers and rabbis and other religious leaders opening and closing each day of each convention, there wasn’t an avowed atheist talking up unbelief on either convention’s speaking list. The political lockout has left many nonbelievers asking, “What political party represents me?” “We are deeply saddened by the exclusion of a large number of Americans by both parties,” said Teresa MacBain, a spokeswoman for the group American Atheists, in an interview on Thursday. “It amazes me that in modern-day America, so much prejudice still exists.” After word spread Wednesday that Democrats left God out of their platform, atheists rejoiced. “Truly amazing news,” wrote Loren Miller on Atheist Nexus, a popular atheist blog. “The Republicans remain in the firm grasp of right-wing Christian religiosity, and I really don't know what it's going to take to free them from it.” But the convention committee immediately received huge pressure get God back in the platform. Even President Obama, according to CNN reporting, said, “Why on earth would that have been taken out?” when he first heard of the omission. In an awkward session that required three voice votes on the convention floor, the Democrats opted to add “God” back to the platform. For atheists, the Democrats were seen to be taking away a hard-fought victory. “We had 24 hours of joy as we felt (that) finally our government values all people,” said MacBain. “But that was short-lived. The vote last night angered many atheists and left them feeling excluded once again.” Online, atheist websites and Facebook pages went from upbeat to downcast as news spread of the platform revision. “Obama was the first president to acknowledge non believers,” Mark Musante wrote on the American Atheists’ Facebook page. “I wish he would stick to his guns.” Musante was referring to Obama’s 2009 inauguration speech, when the president said, “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers.” Beverly Sitherwood, on the Friendly Atheist blog Facebook page, accused the Democrats of “Pandering for power.” Some atheist leaders used the platform defeat as a rallying call. “I guess a tiny step was too much to ask for,” David Silverman, president of the American Atheists, told CNN. “This was a clear message to the 16% of the voting population - we don’t count. Well, guess what, Dems - we do. And we vote.” Silverman says that 16% of the voting public identify as nonbelievers. According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 12% of the electorate in 2008 was made up of people with no religious affiliation, though experts say the number of avowed atheists is much smaller. While acknowledging atheists, Obama has given platforms to high-profile religious leaders, including Rick Warren, a megachurch pastor who prayed at his inauguration, and Catholic Cardinal Timothy Dolan, who is giving the final prayer of the convention on Thursday night. American Atheists’ plans to raise billboards ridiculing the presidential candidates’ faith ended in failure. After the group put up billboards in Charlotte, North Carolina, the site of the Democratic National Convention, last month, it quickly removed them due to “physical threats to not only our staff, but the billboard company as well.” American Atheists had also planned on a billboard in Tampa, Florida, to coincide with the Republican National Convention there. But American Atheists said that all the billboard companies in Tampa rejected a sign taking aim at GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith. Perhaps because of the Republican Party’s ties to conservative Christianity, atheists tend to be Democrats. According to a 2012 Pew study, 71% of Americans who identified as atheist were Democrats. “The Republicans who spoke at the RNC seemed more like televangelists than politicians,” MacBain said. “The message was clear from the RNC: Get God, or get out.” The Republican’s 2012 platform mentions God 12 times, many of which describe the “God-given” rights that the Republican Party says are inherent to the American idea. Though most atheist groups claim that there are closeted atheists serving as representatives and senators, only one has come out as such. In September 2007, Rep. Pete Stark, Democrat of California, affirmed his atheism in a speech at the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard University. soundoff (3,922 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Next »
Next entry »Catholic bishop convicted of shielding priest
« Previous entryDems: God never left our party
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
It's been determined that the higher your IQ, the less likely you are to be religious. The most intelligent politicians know that they have to pretend to be Christian if they want to be in power because the average American is retarded.
As a left leaning atheist (also Canadian) I prefer that the Dems keep God in their platform in order to secure the votes they need even though I personally choose not to believe. It's pretty simple math.
I think most candidates for important state and federal office are genuinely "religious" even if not quite as devoutly as they wish to appear. They do differ in the extent to which they seek to have religion-based principles codified in law.
That's what they want you to think!
Which part are you referringbto? The appearance of being religious? Or the difference in trying to insert religion into law?
Obviously the part about them being genuinely religious.
The country is 20% non-religious without a single political leader that is out of the closet. They have no choice but to pretend to be Christian. For now.
Studies show that Americans trust Atheists about as much as they trust Rapists.
Yes, but that's true for only LEGITIMATE atheists.
Well, we hold different views about that. Although I am firmly a disbeliever, I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the genuineness if others' religious beliefs. Some are "Sunday believers" and some are devout, just as occurs in the population at large. No problem to me, until someone wants public policy to impose their religion's beliefs.
Hillcrester – You have too much faith in the honesty of the political leaders. There may be some better than others but believing that every single on of them is religious since they claim to be is a joke.
great point
Atheists do believe in certain things with the caveat that belief may not translate as equivalent or comparable between believers and nonbelievers. One atheist dogma is that the world is complete as we perceive it in the material sense. No need for magic and fairy tale stuff. It is what it is.
It looks like slow progress , but really things are moving along faster then ever. Religion will be a non issue in about 100 years in America. Thanks to the web.
I agree. I think that the reason movement will gain traction in the coming decades and the prejudice against the nonbelievers will begin to wane a little.
They are going to feel a whole lot more left out when the Rapture comes!!!
Rapture? Hey, can you give me a copy of your house and car keys??
Oh I really hope the rapture comes so Jesus can take all his demented followers to the Sun.
(sadly it will never happen. :()
I hope you have a rapture hatch because you might be in for a surprise if you don't.
-----
GOOD SHABBOS TO EVERYONE
PRAY FOR SHALOM
SHALOM
**** SHALOM, YOM TOV.
TUVIA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=947by3X6_RU
This is bull sh it. Also this Jonathan Pollard is a highly unstable traitor to the U.S. Keep him where he is.
But for a laugh – read about the red cow hogwash.
Hey complaining indecisive agnostics while America slowly turns into a theocracy, go screw yourselves.
The article should say, 'SUPER SENSITIVE Atheists feel left out...." As a person that leans to that way of thinking, I absolutely did not feel excluded......I dunno, people look for drama where none exists...
I agree, but then again I am a privately-oriented nonbeliever/disbeliever–I am not a "card-carrying atheist."
To be faithful belief AND firm disbelief gave no place in politics or in secular society.
I agree too. I say, hey, good for them. The only people freaking out are people like the author who likes to tell others how they are feeling.
Exactly.
If your political decisions rely on only one aspect of a candidates decision, whether it be the use of God in a party platform, or a pro life stance (And you ignore all other aspects of said candidates positions) you're doing it wrong.
Don't expect to be totally in agreement with a candidate, and above all, don't assume because you agree on one point you will be okay with everything else he stands for and says he will do. Also, don't assume because you disaagree on a single point doesn't mean his other positions lack value.
I really want to know. Is a new found stance on 'pro life' (and it is really new found, he was pro choice 10 years ago) really a good enough reason to elect someone who has so much secrecy about himself, who won't say what the majority of his budget decisions will likely be? It that your simplistic litmus test? the republican party has had pro life on their platform for a long time now, since 1976. They rarely attempt any kind of vote in congress regarding this. And they have never attempted an outright ban, in 46 years of having this platform. Do you really think they'll do something about it, now, aside from something token, AGAIN?
Yet, there will be many who will ignore everything else these candidates state and stand for, and vote. And they know it.
Send all the Atheists to GITMO for a bath! Problem solved!
Can't you just feel all of the christian love.
I know more atheists who are kinder and show more love to humanity than most christians I know.
AMEN.
Atheists may find a place in the Libertarian Party. lp.org
I like libertarian politics, if they are not taken to the extreme. I'm big on moderation.
Toph: you are ignorant! I am an athiest who is anti- libertarian. Go crack your nut on that one,
As a devout nonbeliever, I am very realistic. Reference to god/religion is an unavoidable political phenomenon, and I do not expect that to change in my lifetme. Thus, it neither surprises nor troubles me that deism is prominent in the rhetoric of all candidates. I am amused, however, that the believers in varying versions of this fairytale so often dispute each others' fictions.
After reading your post I don't understand why you don't believe in God. Looks to me like you think YOU ARE God.
Draeggo-i don't understand your comment.
The concept of a god is a total myth left over from the days when early humans didn't have the brain power to figure out the answers to tough questions. There never was and there never will be any kind of supreme being. People can act with kindness and peace toward each other without any religious dogma to justify it. There is no god, people. Get over it and grow up.
Atheist that form an organized group like this do so because religions want or try to impose their believes through the goverment. They have a common interest and that is that no public money is spent where religion is involved. That's about it. Common ideology does not make a movement religious. There are no dogmas, no cult traits, not anything else that's similar to religion or blind faith. This specific group of atheist have organized to lobby for the one president that might acknowledge them (the other candidate will %100 ignore them). They do not represent atheist outside of the group because all atheist just have one thing in common: absence of a believe in god.
B"H
SHALOM TO EVERYONE
GOOD SHABBOS
SHALOM, YOM TOV.
TUVIA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=947by3X6_RU
sounds like tuvia needs some activia to get with the times. for a laugh read about the red cow
Dan – atheist billboards were raised in North Carolina, but were removed due to threats made to the owners and family of the billboard company. Said company asked American Atheists for permission to remove the signage, and AA agreed. (My source, David Silverman, both in person and in a conference room full of people at Dragon*Con last friday).
Good Christian values there. threatening the family of a businessman who owns billboards because you don't like what's on them.
It was disrespectful for it to be there in the middle of the bible belt in the first place.
@Phil,
It's a free coutnry, the bible belt can get over it. More important, are you saying it's okay for simple disrespect to be met with threats of violence?
@Phil
" It was disrespectful for it to be there in the middle of the bible belt in the first place. " 😯
Are you kidding ?
Peace...
Bible belt... so... one part of the nation is 'more holy' than another?
It was more than disrespectful to phone and mail in DEATH threats to a billboard company.. and his family.
Or is that okay, in the Bible belt? I'm glad I don't live there then.
Dragon*Con hahaha don't belive in a god, but a love for comic books full of god like super heros.
@Believe in nothing
You Wrote: " Dragon*Con hahaha don't belive[sic] in a god, but a love for comic books full of god like super heros[sic]. "
LOL... yes, but the big difference is... they don't actually *believe* that characters in the comic books are...er... *real.* 😀
Peace...
Laugh all you want Believe in Nothing.
Dragon*Con is a business expense for me.
That was a trial balloon. In four years, that language will be removed from the Democratic Platform. Just as the President changed positions on marriage equality to get elected four years ago. He didn't really change positions, it was just politically expedient to say so at the time to get into office. The polls changed, and therefore his original position of marriage equality became acceptable. Same process will occur with referrences to God. Atheists just need to play the game for a little bit longer.
Much like Mitten's change of stance on pro-choice/pro life? While running for governor, telling all that he 'unequivocably' supported a woman's right to chose. And now... (check youtube. Speeches and interviews during his gubernatorial campaign are there. )
I think that's a different definition of 'unequivaocably' than I learned in school.
then. not than.
I'm afraid it will take decades, perhaps even longer, before protestations of religious faith are no longer seen as essenial in poliics. In the long interim, the best we can hope for is to limit the extent to which religious beliefs find their way into laws, regulations, and judicial decisions. It's all about the rendering to god and to Caesar stuff.
This trait is not particular to any specific group of polticians. They all want to get elected and will do whatever is needed at the time to achieve this goal. They all seem pretty much the same, or the differences to small to spend the effort parsing.
caught myself.....too not to
tez07-i think the difference between a Santorum/Bachmann and an Obaa/Clinton is meaningful on this issue.-
Hill- From an economic policy standpoint, I would argue the differences are minor. On the social side, I would tend to agree with you that their personal stands are vastly different, but what they are actually able to accomplish on these fronts is very muted. It was the design of the system, everything takes time. The upside is that even if a lunatic is somehow elected, they cannot do much. The downside is that everything is done incrementally at a snails pace. When you look at the huge cost of getting the "right" person elected, versus the marginal benefit, political apathy seems reasonable
Boohoo, the muzzies failed to appear as well. Probably too busy building "community centers".
Thats the thing, you are obligated to believe or live for ever in HELL. 40% of Americans believe the world is 10 Gs old, its flat and there is a little red guy with pointy ears living in the centre of the planet. Where do I stop? Do Americans not have TV, radio or any other book than the bible?
Atheists use logic. You would think they would know better than to follow the Democratic party (or Republican party, but that goes without saying).
I would love to know where you are getting this statistic. If you are going to pretend to be too intelligent or enlightened to believe in a God you might want to start by forming cogent sentences that make valid claims.
I'm agnostic, so one step up from Athiests in many people's eyes, and I wish Athiests would STFU. They are as bad as the religious nuts out there (Nuts, not ALL religious people!). Yes, I think religion should stay out of Politics, but I have no problem with politicians being religious.
We do not "STFU" because we recognize religion as the source of a great deal of suffering and misery. If it was just harmless belief in fairy tales we wouldn't mind, but the major religions all have their own rulebooks that they try to force others to follow, and which they will not compromise over (since the rules were supposedly made by all powerful beings).
Statement is too generalize. Atheist that form an organized group like this do so because religions want or try to impose their believes through the goverment. They have a common interest and that is that no public money is spent where religion is involved. That's about it. Common ideology does not make a movement religious. There are no dogmas, no cult traits, not anything else that's similar to religion or blind faith. This specific group of atheist have organized to lobby for the one president that might acknowledge them (the other candidate will %100 ignore them). They do not represent atheist outside of the group because all atheist just have one thing in common: absence of a believe in god.
I used to be a lot calmer about things when I was younger. But, sorry. shutting up is not an option. Not when politicians decide to try and enforce their religious views and rules on others. Not when they try and use public land and property and tax money to build and maintain what are religious items. Not when they refuse to accept a pan religious stance, and instead push christian symbols (Utah, Kansas). Not when they try and force precedence in law to include a cross as a 'secular' symbol (NYC). It's not.
First-off, nobody KNOWS,for-sure, which belief is BS (or a fairytale, if you prefer...). Everyone believes a little something different. To all involved: practice what you believe, leave others practice what they believe. Granted, some 'religions' are pretty extreme, and even violent. Throwing challenges in-the-face-of an extreme believer will only foster more violence. If that happens, you will be like them. Rise above it all.., and wait.
Damo – It is absolutely true that religion has been a source of contention, suffering, discrimination, etc. Or rather I would say weak people attempting to apply God's law, or worse, pretenders using the cloak of God's law to carry out these horrible acts. I think most intelligent people, believing or not, acknowledge this. Why do we focus on the fringes then? Why do we focus on the few "nuts" who go about condemning others to hell (as if they had that authority or judgment)? Let's all live together. In order to do that though, you have to understand that your insistence that religion be relegated to the realm of fairy tales is not going to work. You don't have to believe. That's fine. Get your morals from some other source, but let religious people get them from their religion. Religious tenets are not your enemy.
The argument that religion is the main source of pain and suffering in this world is not accurate. There have been horrible abuses of power by nearly all religions from time to time, but that is some people in power at the time, not the belief system itself. Moreover, a great deal of pain and suffering that occurs even today is due to atheistic governments – specifically communism. A major tenet of communism is atheism and any who even appear to be religious are often subject to severe torture and death just for their belief. Therefore, the argument that religion is evil and atheism is good is absurd and shows a great deal of ignorance of the truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOor-R3Rl9g