 |
|
|
|
 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.  |
|
|
|
Has anyone else noted that atheists ALWAYS seem to be filled with hate and spew anger?
2,000 plus years of oppression and stupidity, does seem to get us a bit riled... go figure!
Thank you for that moment of spewing hate and venom, Mr. Christian.
Oh, you only notice it in others, not your own side. Gotcha. Hypocrisy is a hallmark of religion.
You're all wrong- hatred and intolerance exists both within religion and independent of it.
@Beth – I honestly don't "hate" religionists. I just hate their religion.
Even better than all you guys, hatred and intolerance exists In humanity. Only people can turn good Christian values into war cries! Only people can make science and enlightenment through knowledge something to offend others over.
No. Im too busy noticing all the hypocrite christians taking bribes, denying civil rights, lying every breath, and milking the god card for every drop its worth. Anyone that believes in a magic invisible sky wizard shouldnt be allowed to vote. Their decision making and rational objectiveness is clearly not mature enough to make such important decisions.
@Bill – "good Christian values"?? The "good" book is rife with horrible stories of atrocities that are unspeakable. Yet, Christians worship the very deity, that any compassionate human being would find deplorable in humanity.
@ edweird69 didnt I mention something about offending others? But you know I can forgive you because you clearly seem to be ignorant about a great many things and because my Christian values teach me to forgive those who would try to do me harm.
@Bill – so you have to read a bible to learn how treat people? Funny... I knew how to do it, because I'm not a social moron like you.
Actually, Bill, God repeatedly made war one of his values in the Old Testament. He himself made them happen.
Hypocrisy is a hallmark of religion.Yes it is.
edweird69 Yes I can tell by your posts how you were born with a deep seated knowledge of how to treat people with respect.
Its so sad that atheists are not represented by either party now. I guess they were supported by the democrats but I think that they decided to shift their policy more right to try to get more Christian votes. The democrats don’t care about you guys anymore. I think you should send the democrats and Obama a message this November and not support them.
OH wait a brilliant idea! Us atheists can vote for a mormon instead... gee.. which is most evil?
You could just vote for Mickey Mouse, VP Donald Duck
Ummm... don't believe they're on the ballot. You're not making much sense, but I'm sure you're just having some fun.
Its called a write in. on every ballot there is a blank space left open for anyone who wants to vote for someone else that is not printed. All you have to do is write the person’s name and check the box next to it and boom you voted for Mickey mouse or whoever you want to. Did you seriously not know what that was for? Have you ever voted before?
@Bill – You're so sarcastic! What a worthless reply. A vote for "Mickey Mouse" would be a YES vote for Romney. Us atheists are left to choose between the lesser of the evils... and you dammmed well know it. If you think you can trick us into throwing away our vote, you really are dumber than your posts.
@edweird Oh so you really thought that what I said even remotely merited trickery?.... Well, congratulations you know the meaning of sarcasm and have identified one of the many examples of it. No I know you will vote for Obama anyways because he will throw off this Christian act as soon as the election is over. So honestly there isn’t really much to talk about here but it was great talking with you edwierd, you made my night.
If Jesus were to return, and decide to run as a third party candidate, the republicans would attack him as a socialist.
and, since he wouldn't be able to get a photo ID in time (that would be a real miracle), he couldn't even vote for himself. And, could you see him voting to reduce taxes on the super wealthy? i can't
So true 🙂
Well the premise of this comment is completely stupid because Jesus never wanted to be a king or in charge of government, he just wanted to lead his people up the path of righteousness. Besides that he had to be born in America.
I'm an atheist I don't feel left out. It's about doind what's right for our fellow man, not because of how we interpret the bible.
Exactly. It's really that simple.
Or if you even interpret it at all.
Funny....Where would Atheist be if there was no GOD?
same place they are now.
You are a total idiot. And you have bad qualities as well.
There wouldn't be a need to declare they don't believe... sounds like a paradox but it isn't. And, IF there is a god/gods who helped create us, they're now debating whether to flood the earth to start over or not!
@Benito Moose...save that for yourself.
The state will be sending you your handicap stickers as your intellectual deficiency qualifies you for superior parking!
Oh please...that's like saying the conventions should acknowledge every single religious group in the country by name.
They did, a vast majority of the religions of the world use the word God. I suppose polytheists and atheists were the only ones excluded.
Atheism is not a religion, it is a lack-there-of. You also seem to underestimate the number of non-religious people in the US. Polls show that number to be anywhere from 12-18% of the population that do not identify with a religion. With as many as half of that identifying as atheists. To put it in perspective, the US is ~12% black/african-american.
democrats are the anti-God party! More than half of them booed God! For CNN to even ask this question show how dumb and biased they are.
As they should. But the real left out is a pit waiting when it all ends. I suppose I'll come fish one or two out. I will need servants, and I'm kind like that.
Physicists don’t like coincidences. They like even less the notion that life is somehow central to the universe, and yet recent discoveries are forcing them to confront that very idea. Life, it seems, is not an incidental component of the universe, burped up out of a random chemical brew on a lonely planet to endure for a few fleeting ticks of the cosmic clock. In some strange sense, it appears that we are not adapted to the universe; the universe is adapted to us.
Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics.
Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life.
The idea is controversial. Critics say it doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable nonreligious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life. – Discover Magazine
“We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible,” Andrei Linde
Perhaps someone can help me, I simply dont understand why this isnt taught in schools?
Just as likely as angels descending from heavens being aliens misunderstood?
Simple. It's amusing but not accurate. If life evolved to fit the conditions of this universe, is there actually any wonder that the universe fits it also?
Because it's crap.
It's simple: THERE IS NO FUCKING EVIDENCE FOR ANYTHING YOU SAY!!!!!!!
Your evidence-free theory is every bit as valid as the idea that Zeus is the creator-god, and his version needs to be taught. Or that the big bang was actually and exploding twinkie.
No evidence. Get it through your pinhead.
@!Gadflie You actually solved the biggest problem in physics!
congratulations
you can pick up your Nobel prize at:
Henrik Ibsens gate 51
NO-0255 Oslo
Norway
@Hannibal Fluffkin "no evidence..."
oh, ...
I dont think that folks are aware of that..
because it is considered the biggest problem in physics.. Imagine all those folks are just wasting their time because they havent heard from you!!
ok, here's what we do. You need to get the word out, I suggest you start with this list. Call everyone personally and let them know
http://www.nationalinstituteofscience.org/directory.html
Chad, the biggest problem in physics? LOL! It's not even on the radar kid.
@Gadflie
Chad, the biggest problem in physics? "
=======
"The cosmological constant represents the biggest problem in physics today"
"As successful as physics (and in particular, the idea of symmetry) has been in unifying various phenomena, there are at least two classes of questions that we don’t seem to be particularly close to answering at all:
Why these symmetries and not others?
It seems very strange that the laws of the universe are symmetric under CPT transformations (simultaneously flipping the arrow of time, looking at the universe in a mirror, and trading every particle for its antiparticle) or the continuous “U(1) symmetry,” while other symmetries, like “SU(5),” (which was thought to be a prime candidate for a Grand Unified Theory), turn out to be wrong, experimentally.
All we can do is check with the universe and see whether certain symmetries hold, and if they don’t, check other symmetries instead.
What about all of the free parameters?
Some of my colleagues are experimental neutrino physicists. They spend their efforts trying to figure out the masses and mixing angles between the various neutrino species — numbers that tell us, essentially how likely it is that one type of neutrino turns into another. But these angles and the masses, and the mixing angles in quarks and the strength of the various forces and so forth… all of these numbers have to be put into our theories more or less by hand.
Even “obvious” numbers like the number of spatial dimensions in the universe or the fact that there are three generations of quarks and leptons (, for instance) are put in in a completely ad hoc way.
Many, perhaps all of these numbers may not ultimately have a deeper explanation. They may, in fact, vary significantly over the multiverse. This is the origin, as you may know, the so-called “weak anthropic principle.” It’s only in our region of space that the parameters and symmetries are just right to produce complicated life."
Dang!!
A simple google search has revealed an astonishing number of physicists that are completely deceived into believing that this is a HUGE problem.
ok, you and Hannibal Fluffkin REALLY REALLY need to get moving on this issue.
Care to quote your plagiarism there, Chad? I'd love to know who this very very very important physicist is?
Did you get that from Car And Driver? Boy's Life? Some othere powerhouse of science?
Ooh Chad, not very intellectually honest, are you? Here is the very next sentence in the quote. "But to my mind, these aren’t anywhere near the worst problems in physics"
Here Chad, I'm going to pretend that your question is valid. Here is the exceedingly obvious answer to it. I quote Brandon Carter. " the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias: i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld."
Right, that's the multi-verse theory
"Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life.
The Multiverse hypothesis assumes the existence of many universes with different physical constants, some of which are hospitable to intelligent life (see multiverse: anthropic principle). Because we are intelligent beings, we are by definition in a hospitable one. Mathematician Michael Ikeda and astronomer William H. Jefferys have argued that the anthropic principle resolves the entire issue of fine-tuning,[21][22] as does philosopher of science Elliott Sober.[23] Philosopher and theologian Richard Swinburne reaches the opposite conclusion using Bayesian probability.[24]
This approach has led to considerable research into the anthropic principle and has been of particular interest to particle physicists, because theories of everything do apparently generate large numbers of universes in which the physical constants vary widely. As of yet, there is no evidence for the existence of a multiverse, but some versions of the theory do make predictions that some researchers studying M-theory and gravity leaks hope to see some evidence of soon.[25] Some multiverse theories are not falsifiable, thus scientists may be reluctant to call any multiverse theory "scientific". UNC-Chapel Hill professor Laura Mersini-Houghton claims that the WMAP cold spot may provide testable empirical evidence for a parallel universe.
Variants on this approach include Lee Smolin's notion of cosmological natural selection, the Ekpyrotic universe, and the Bubble universe theory.
Critics of the multiverse-related explanations argue that there is no evidence that other universes exist.
anyway, you and flufkin really need to get moving. There are probably 10s of thousands of the best and brightest physicists that consider this the biggest problem in physics today. I eagerly look forward to your press release! Good Luck!! Get Moving!!
So if we go out of our way to "include" atheists, won't that put those of faith in the same position? Will CNN then ask the same question in regards to Christians being "left out?
If we could take personal beliefs/religions out of politics, we would no longer waste our time discussing this!
You see things as "either-or." Ever heard of "both"?
This is a logical fallacy. Using the word god in their language specifically excludes those who do not believe in god. However, not using the word god does not exclude those who do believe, it just does not specifically include them. Hence, it includes everyone. What if the text had said "Allah-given potential" or perhaps "Zeus-given potential". Would you feel excluded since you (I assume, forgive me) that you do not believe in Zeus.
Inserting god into politics is exclusive. Not using the word god makes the language all inclusive.
Thegoodman
This is a logical fallacy. Using the word god in their language specifically excludes those who do not believe in god. However, not using the word god does not exclude those who do believe, it just does not specifically include them. Hence, it includes everyone. What if the text had said "Allah-given potential" or perhaps "Zeus-given potential". Would you feel excluded since you (I assume, forgive me) that you do not believe in Zeus.
Inserting god into politics is exclusive. Not using the word god makes the language all inclusive."
Here's a reason for inserting the word God and the phrase "God-given" into political writings:
Remember the words of Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights"?
(If you've been on these boards for awhile, you'll recognize that Jefferson is used by the atheists [probably accurately] as an example of a founding father Deist who had somewhat of a dislike for Theism and organized religion.)
But why is his Creator statement important?
Because if your rights come from God, rather than the State, then it means that the State does not have the authority to take these rights away from the citizenry. Pause and meditate on this.
Sometimes the glass is half-full rather than half-empty my atheist friends.
Poor atheists making this about themselves.
Them pushing their agenda is even worse than religious people shoving theirs down other peoples throats.
Please both shut the hell up, no one cares anymore
Exactly – lets keep personal beliefs out of our nation's politics! Thank you!
Replace the word atheist with "blacks" or "women" or "immigrants" and see if you still have resolution in your words. You should be ashamed of yourself. Atheists are completely underrepresented, ignored, and shunned from politics because of Christian "love". Many states have laws barring atheists from holding office.
The Green Party seems like the party for us believers in reason and evidence. The pandering done by the Dems and the Rethugs to the religious is embarrassing. Neither walks the "Christian" walk. Both are full of crap.
The reason the DNC turned its backs on atheists is because they know we have no where else to turn. They at least accept us while pretending to be superior (for we are just "lost souls" who may or may not get into heaven). The conservatives burn atheists at the stake every Saturday night to start their war mongering bigot barbecues.
Most of us will still vote for Obama despite his party's political move to alienate us to bring in more of the religious moderates.
I have to ask if atheist are not happy with the dems now do they just not vote
I am considering throwing away my vote and casting it for Jill Stein.
Why can't we keep personal religion out of a nation's politics??
No vote for those who are so infantile and arrogant as to believe that they are being watched over by some god.
Your ignorance is showing.
There are quite a few conservative atheists as well.
Atheists believe that religion has no place in government, so they vote on realities like, you know, issues. God is totally irrelevant to the operation of government and the problems we need to deal with.
Both parties know it. They only go through this "religion" dance during elections. What, is your memory so short as to forget how the Releigious Right always ends up mad that they don't get what they were promised after the elections are over? They were even pissed at W.
Each of us have to make a decision of which party we agree more with and go with that. I have never agreed with both parties to full extent nor have I fully disagreed. The other option is just stay home and that has crossed my mind also.
Yossarian
I was asking a question not making a suggestion.
In regards to zeyn2010's comments, it is a fallacy that anyone can keep their "religon" out of politics. Whether one's "religion" is Christianity, Islam or Atheism, personal beliefs do and will affect all of one's decisions- personal, political, etc. You delude yourself if you say different.
Because not voting would help the jeebuz freaks in the GOP win. You thought we give you a chance?
mgabrys , Yossarian says there are conservatives as well so maybe it would all cancel out. lol
Find out a bit about the Ayn Rand conservatives. Rational Libertarian is one of them.
And personally, I have run into quite a number of conservatives who believe Christianity is a "damn fool religion."
I would just like a balance, it seems both sides go extreme in one way or another.
Transcending.>I would just like a balance, it seems both sides go extreme in one way or another.I can agree with that.
4/5 of the US is Christian so just get over the fact that every no Christian in this nation is part of the minority and save the rallies for when the politicians try to ram down canon laws onto our daily lives.
Things religious people think is BAD:
Reason
Science
Evidence
Enlightenment
Education
Alternative viewpoints
Alternative lifestyles
Women's rights
A social floor
@Thomas Tommygun:
I think you should've written "Things religious people think *are* BAD [not "is bad"]:
Education, etc.
Signed,
A religious person
PS: I think education is a good thing btw, as well as the other things that you listed.
It amazes me how terrified Christians are of non believers. Seriously, I just don't understand how a group of people who know without a doubt that they have the graces and the backing of an ALL POWERFUL supernatural being can be so afraid of a tiny minority of mere mortal human beings (atheists). If there god exists then why are they so afraid of church and state separation. Surely removing god from the political process would not hinder (if he does exist) his power or presence in any way shape or form. So I ask again, why so terrified of us non believers??
Yes, the fear and hatred religious people have towards non-believers is even more extreme that the fear and hatred they have of other religions. And why? Atheism in America has only asked that religious people stay within the boounds of the Constitution.
True! And, I'm sure if true, God would never have intended to be involved on a single country's politics, on ONE of the planets he created among billions of others...
logan5
It amazes me how terrified Christians are of non believers. Seriously, I just don't understand how a group of people who know without a doubt that they have the graces and the backing of an ALL POWERFUL supernatural being can be so afraid of a tiny minority of mere mortal human beings (atheists). If there god exists then why are they so afraid of church and state separation. Surely removing god from the political process would not hinder (if he does exist) his power or presence in any way shape or form. So I ask again, why so terrified of us non believers??
Hint: It might not be fear or terror, it might be other reason(s).
The DEVIL is a character a movie...
GHOSTS only come out on Halloween...
GOD is an imaginary friend...
and ANGEL is the dealer down the street
Do you purchase ANGEL's product often?
Why do the godless think it's important to be politically recognized? We're just ping pong balls bouncing around in the great box car of life. No direction, no destination, the only goal is to die with the most toys. Why is it important to have a representative when you represent nobody?
Funny how your question could be directed at Christians as well.
Kid, just because you think your direction is from a cosmic zombie doesn't mean that my life has no direction. I created it myself
I am Atheist and I represent the free thinkers.
Those who want to live outside of the fear of if we do wrong a high power will punish us in the afterlife and start living in a society that understand that to live together we must adhere to laws and rules. I don't need the fear of a god to tell me right and wrong. I am evolved. I am educated. I can live without fear on my conscience.
I'm an atheist and completely agree with that, but we all have the same laws we must live by and many are based on religion. We can't get those laws changed without representation. Also when you say we represent nobody, thats totally wrong, we rep ourselves and our families, we just live on Earth & can tell the difference between beliefs and reality.
You got it completely wrong. We are simply of the opinion that religions should be left for the personal space, and political parties can simply welcome everyone whether religious or rational thinkers.
Our nada who art in nada, nada be thy name thy kingdom nada thy will be nada in nada as it is in nada. Give us this nada our daily nada and nada us our nada as we nada our nadas and nada us not into nada but deliver us from nada; pues nada [then nothing]. Hail nothing full of nothing, nothing is with thee.
I see that "Chard" is challenging Dawkins in the "Richard Dawkins: Evolution is 'not a controversial issue'" article. I'm too tired to answer.
It doesn't matter if you do. No matter how thoroughly you destroy a religious person's deluded attempts at argument, they just come back the next day and say exactly the same thing. They are intellectual herpes – they can annoying and repellant as can be, and they keep coming back.
and its apparently VERY contagious if you have not been vaccinated with logic.
MarkinFL:and its [religiously-induced intellectual herpes] apparently VERY contagious if you have not been vaccinated with logic.
So you're saying that it's logic that keeps your creative thought process trapped inside the box?
Nice reading comprehension skills, bangy. Your years in special ed did wonders . . . okay, they didn't help you at all.
My years as a special-ed teacher did wonders Gandolfini; I'm just wondering if you got a pass as a special-ed student.