Atheist PAC Announces First Slate Of Endorsements

[rug]

Posted: 12/18/2013 2:26 pm EST
c. 2013 USA Today
By FREDREKA SCHOUTEN

(RNS) A political action committee that bills itself as a nontheist PAC announced its first slate of endorsements on Tuesday (Dec. 17), backing four House candidates and two state lawmakers.

The Freethought Equality Fund said it supports politicians committed to promoting a secular government and protecting the rights of nonbelievers.

In federal races, Reps. Jared Polis, D-Colo.; Rush Holt, D-N.J.; and Bobby Scott, D-Va., secured the group’s backing, along with Lee Rogers, a California Democrat challenging GOP Rep. Buck McKeon in next year’s congressional elections. The group singled out Polis and Holt for co-sponsoring a House resolution that sought to establish Darwin Day in celebration of evolutionary biologist Charles Darwin’s birthday.

“There’s a growing number of people who identify as nonreligious,” the PAC’s coordinator, Bishop McNeill, told USA Today. “But it’s a group that’s been left out of the political process in the past.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/18/atheist-pac_n_4468067.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

http://freethoughtequality.org/news/first-endorsements/

[cbayer]

1. All Democrats, not surprisingly.

While their criteria for endorsement are clear, it's not sure that they have any exclusionary criteria. Say there is a right wing atheist who meets their criteria, I wonder if they will endorse or not.

Anyway, a good first step. I hope they become a positive political force.

[rug]

2. This is its mission (their word).

About the FEF PAC

The mission of the Freethought Equality Fund (FEF) PAC is to change the face of American politics and to achieve equality by increasing the number of open humanists and atheists in public office at all levels of government. The FEF PAC is affiliated with the Center for Humanist Activism, which is the advocacy and political arm of the American Humanist Association.

The FEF PAC will provide nontheist Americans the opportunity to make their voices heard in the political process by supporting candidates who identify as humanist, atheist, agnostic, and who share our goals of protecting the separation of church and state and defending the civil liberties of secular Americans.

When people see respected ethical humanists and atheists serve in public office, this will begin to dispel many myths about nonbelievers. The FEF PAC will also support a number of candidates who identify as religious but who are leaders in supporting the rights of nonbelievers.

[cbayer]

3. It's noble and I hope they are successful.

But it still doesn't really tell you what they would do if someone who met all their criteria but was also an arch conservative asked for an endorsement.

Do they not consider policy positions on other issues?

While demographically, non-believers tend to be democrats and liberal/progressive, that's not true of all of them.

We shall see.

[cleanhippie]

20. Do you think there is such a person?

Does "someone who met all their criteria but was also an arch conservative asked for an endorsement" actually exist?

What person could call the themself a Conservative and still meet their requirements? The two seem mutually exclusive, no?

[rug]

21. Edwina Rogers comes to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwina_Rogers

[cleanhippie]

22. Hmmmm. Interesting.

Dont know her so I need to learn a bit more, but you may be on to something...

[edhopper]

23. Her cognitive dissonance must explode

She reminds me of the log cabin republicans, Gay people who support a Party that want s to take away every right they have.
A secularist who supports a Party that wants the Christian Bible to be the basis of our laws and education.

[cleanhippie]

24. It could be she is just an opportunist.

If the gig pays well, there are many who could care less about the hypocrisy and ethical contradictions. Perhaps she is one of those.

[edhopper]

4. Okay in Dem safe districts

in any close race this would be a disadvantage.
"Indorsed by atheists" would not help candidates in most of the country.
Unfortunately, being a batshit crazy religious loon seems fine in many areas.

[rug]

5. That's a good observation.

Do you think a more useful focus then is on primaries?

[edhopper]

7. I remember Dukakas being taken to task

over being a 'card carrying member' of the ACLU. Like supporting civil rights is a bad thing.
So I am a pessimist when it comes to the body politic embracing atheists.
I think political activism is good, but maybe not endorsing specific candidates.
Then again I am pleased and surprised at the progress Gay Rights have made in their acceptance.

[el_bryanto]

8. If we are going to be spooked by the thought that Republicans might criticize our

candidates unfairly, than we probably shouldn't run any.

I think this is a good development - it's not good to have unbelievers unrepresented - or that a lack of faith disqualifies one for public office.

Bryant

[edhopper]

11. It's not the GOP

I think many independents and others we need to reach would be spooked by a candidates atheism.

[el_bryanto]

12. So you think we need the votes of people who won't vote for atheists?

Do you think we should avoid putting up black candidates in rural areas?

Bryant

[edhopper]

13. I think the disapproval of atheist

is quite far reaching. And I am not saying an atheist should not run. But in this context it is an atheist org, endorsing a candidate. I don't think that would help them win in most areas.
I would prefer to be wrong about the majority of voters, But i don't feel i am.
And yes, we need the votes of people who are uncomfortable with atheists.

[el_bryanto]

14. What about Homosexual candidates? Who else do you think should be barred from public service?

Bryant

[edhopper]

17. You are arguing a point I am not making.

This atheist org is saying they will be endorsing candidates. i am saying that might be counterproductive.
If you find my pessimistic and cynical views of voters disquieting, I understand, but I am not barring anyone from office.
Perhaps a good use of their resources would be a thorough poll of voters views of atheism in politics and atheist politicians.

[cbayer]

9. I'm not sure I've ever seen a strong tie between the ACLU and atheism.

I know they have supported separation issues and lots of other 1st amendment type cases.

When Dukakis was running, IIRC, the ACLU was seen as a very leftist group, though they have always supported issues of civil liberties without much regard to politics. IIRC, they went to bat for the KKK at one time.

I think GLBT organizations have been a significant part of making it more and more OK to be out and run for political office. I would very much like to see the same thing happen with non-believers and believers in religions that are less "normal" in the US.

[edhopper]

10. I didn't mean to connect them.

Just pointing out if he got attacked for something like that, imagine what association with an atheist org. would do.

[cbayer]

15. I think that's true in some, but not all areas.

If there goal is to "normalize" atheism, they certainly have their work cut out for them, but I think it's work worth doing.

On there side is the fact that many in the US are fed up with the intrusion of religion into politics. That goes for religious and non-religious people from many perspectives. Also in their favor is the growing number of those who describe themselves as atheist, agnostic, humanist or "none".

Personally, I don't think this one is going to be that hard, though there will always be pockets where the prejudice will persist.

[edhopper]

16. Yes work for secularism in politics

and church state separation. But endorsing candidates might be counterproductive.

[cbayer]

18. It appears that it is there goal to start being able to support candidates financially.

If enough people believe in their cause and start supporting them as an organizations, they may get legs.

At any rate, I think this is one way movements gets started.

We shall see.

[edhopper]

19. And by no means am I saying

they shouldn't be out there and just STFU.
They can help with a positive change if they do it right.

[cbayer]

6. Hmmm, that's a good point which one would hope they take

into consideration when making their selections.

It is also their aim to become contributors, which they apparently are not at this time.

Anyway, I think it's a good first start and I applaud their overall goals.