Atheists try to make their voices heard

[rug]

Monday August 27, 2012 5:51 AM
Robyn Blumner writes for Tribune Media Services.

Who is the oddest bedfellow at the Republican National Convention, which officially launches today?

No, it’s not Log Cabin Republicans, that group of gay Republicans who assiduously ignore the “ Unwelcome” mat the party has put out for them.

It would have to be Edwina Rogers, the new head of the Secular Coalition for America, a nonprofit group of atheists, agnostics and humanists. In addition to being a non-theist (her term for herself), she’s a lifelong Republican. I hope for her sake that none of her fellow party members remembers to bring the tar and feathers.

As an atheist myself, I have great hopes of Rogers’ windmill tilting. Her organization represents a nascent but vital effort to give non-theists a voice in the halls of power at the state and federal level.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2012/08/27/atheists-try-to-make-their-voices-heard.html

I wonder who she's supporting for President.

[Goblinmonger]

1. There are atheists that are Republicans

Some them aren't even Randians. What's your point?

[rug]

3. How many of them lead secular organizations?

[Goblinmonger]

12. Not many I would imagine.

Again, what's your point?

[rug]

15. I do not trust republicans in any visible position of influence.

What's yours?

[Goblinmonger]

17. I know many Republicans who correctly fight the secular battle.

Must suck to look at the leadership of your church, then.

[rug]

22. And gleefully support the military and the corporations.

No thanks.

Must suck to be a blindered one issue partisan.

[Goblinmonger]

31. "one issue" needs to be hyphenated.

And I have many issues that are important to me. I just don't stamp "Republican = evil" on every one of them. Republicans can fight for secularism, too.

[rug]

33. The hyphen is optional.

[Goblinmonger]

36. Not when the compound adjective is attributive and preceding the noun. n/t

[rug]

37. My morphemes have been freed.

Power to the people!

[trotsky]

40. There are a disappointingly large number of Democrats who do the same.

Must suck to be so blind to political reality.

[rug]

43. I'm sure you will not donate to or support the Democratic Party then.

You must not be complict.

[trotsky]

44. Well clearly you must not, given your reaction upthread!

It's your double standard, rug. You get to live with it.

[rug]

45. Which one?

I have all sorts of reactions to what I see in here.

[trotsky]

49. I'll let you figure it out.

The audience can just laugh at you until you do.

[rug]

54. That laughng you hear is not real.

[trotsky]

73. Thanks, rug.

Thanks for the insult. You stay classy.

[cbayer]

2. What is the difference between a non-theist and an atheist?

And why does she prefer that, I wonder.

And lastly, I wonder if she plans on attending the Democratic convention as well.

[Goblinmonger]

13. Because atheist causes knee-jerk reactions.

Even more so amongst Republicans, I would imagine.

[MineralMan]

4. More evidence that atheism is not an indication

of political stance in any way.

Why does this surprise you, rug? I suspect that the percentage of atheists among republicans is very similar to that of any other non-religious group you might name.

[rug]

5. It doesn't surprise me in the least.

[MineralMan]

6. OK, then. Why is it worthy of note?

In your opinion, of course.

[rug]

7. Why isn't it?

In your opinion, of course.

[MineralMan]

9. No, thanks. I don't play that

game any longer. Never mind.

[rug]

10. Me either.

[trotsky]

8. We certainly don't have to wonder who your church's leaders support for president.

They've made that perfectly clear.

[rug]

11. Dolan no doubt supports Romney.

BFD.

Or do you have this quaint nineteenth century notion that Cathoilcs are in thrall to Rome? That thinking led to splendid and historic displays of bigotry.

Hitchens supported the Iraq War. Ooooh, you must be a war monger.

[Goblinmonger]

14. You like to act like the RCC isn't a hierarchical organization

but we all, including you, know better. You act like you are a Lutheran.

[rug]

16. You act like it's a political party not a religion.

Let me know and I'll post the 1856 Platform of the Know Nothing Party for you to read.

[Goblinmonger]

18. Are you saying they stay out of politics?

Because we all know that's a fucking lie.

[rug]

21. No, that's not what I'm saying.

I can repost what I actually said or you can scroll up and read it again.

[trotsky]

19. So why the double standard, rug?

If it doesn't matter who your leaders support (and you're even giving them money), why does it matter who Edwina Rogers supports?

[rug]

20. It's an interesting counterpoint to the Dolan thread.

Wouldn't you agree?

[trotsky]

23. No, because it's apples to oranges.

But you already knew that, it's just that any time someone points out the bad things your church is doing, you have to go scour your Google news alerts for "atheism" to see what dirt you can fling to try and "balance" the discussion.

[rug]

24. It's more like Hershey's Kisses to a Hershey Bar, but I'll let that slide.

Facts are facts and I welcome them.

I'm sure there has never been an antireligious story posted here to fling dirt.

We're much too rational for that.

[trotsky]

28. Ah yes, the third grade playground rules you live by.

Sorry, forgot about that.

Bottom line is, your church's leadership, funded by your donations, speaking *officially* for your church (even if you don't like that), is simply not comparable to Ms. Rogers trying to lobby politicians for secular issues.

No matter how desperately you wish that were the case.

[rug]

34. When in Rome . . . .

[trotsky]

38. You don't want to try and be better, rug?

You'd rather wallow in the dirt and pull everyone in with you?

Why don't you start by backing up the accusations you make?

I realize, of course, that you long ago fled into your trademark snappy one-liner mode on this thread, so I'm expecting another. But you could always surprise me, I guess.

Raise the level of discourse. Try it. You might like it.

[rug]

42. The irony burns.

[trotsky]

46. I'm not the one who has a blatant outstanding false accusation standing in another thread.

So these lame attempts at one-line barbs kind of ring hollow.

Perhaps if just once you had shown a willingness to take the higher road, things would be different.

But you get what you give.

[rug]

48. I don't either.

I never make false accusations.

[trotsky]

50. Then you should back them up.

Point them out.

If you can't, it's false.

[rug]

55. That is not the default.

Just go back to kicking the thread. I told you originally I moved on. It's pretty clear you can't.

[trotsky]

72. Innocent until proven guilty isn't the default?

And here I thought you knew a few things in the legal area.

No, I find it difficult to just "move on" when someone has falsely accused me of something and refuses to retract. Be a decent person and admit it.

[DavidDvorkin]

25. Those can't be REAL atheists

Because no REAL atheist would have anything to do with the Republican Party.

[rug]

26. It does belie a claim on rationality though.

[trotsky]

29. If some Republican politicians can be persuaded to support a pro-secular piece of legisation,

wouldn't it be rational to do so - especially when there might be Democrats who oppose it?

[rug]

32. That is a very large if, but the answer is yes.

Given that it would be a political equation, what is the answer if that support comes with, for example, a further extension of the Bush tax cuts, or a dilution of Medicare?

I do not think they can be trusted and I think the cost of their vote would be too high.

[trotsky]

39. I don't think you understand what the SCA is trying to do...

...in your efforts to equate them to your church and its extremely high-profile support of Republicans who ARE extending the Bush cuts and diluting Medicare.

[rug]

41. I know precisely what it is.

The Secular Coalition for America is a 501(c)(4) advocacy organization whose purpose is to amplify the diverse and growing voice of the nontheistic community in the United States. We are located in Washington, D.C. for ready access to government, activist partners and the media. Our staff lobbies U.S. Congress on issues of special concern to our constituency.

http://secular.org/about/main

It is explicitly a lobbying group. It does what lobbyists do. It lobbies for a special interest, above all.

I certainly do not equate them to a church.

[trotsky]

51. Then why did you try to equate them to your church's "American pope"...

blessing the RNC?

[rug]

53. I didn't. Why did you infer that?

[trotsky]

74. You admitted such yourself.

I don't have time to point it out to you. I've moved on.

[dmallind]

27. "My God an atheist Republican! Look!! There's a sexist one too!! And a warmongering one!

Eventually we believers will doubtless find a homophobic one! Let's slaveringly exaggerate anecdotes to dismiss and demonize the hated nonbelievers! (while laughably pretending we are hurt that they won't be "allies" against the fundies, once we ever actually stand up to themourselves)"

Meanwhile theists will studiously avoid aggregate data that demonstrate the most reliable support amongst groups segregated by religion for any progressive position that has been measured, from Dem party support to gay rights, ALWAYS comes from the "nones".

[trotsky]

30. +1000 n/t

[rug]

35. If you're talking numbers, compare the number of Catholics who voted for Obama versus

the number of atheists who voted for Obama.

Or, you can continue along your divisive merry way.

[trotsky]

47. Compare the number of Catholics who voted for Bush in 2004 versus the number of atheists who did.

You'll have to take the good with the bad, rug. If you want to credit your religion's members for electing Obama, you'll have to blame them for electing Bush too.

By the way, you trying to criticize someone else for being divisive, now THAT'S some rich irony.

Go ahead. Fling another insult to prove my point.

[rug]

52. You can't just pick one election. Here are the last six.

It's how Catholics have voted for the last 24 years.

1988 52% Dukakis 48% Bush I
1992 44% Clinton 35% Bush I
1996 53% Clinton 37% Dole
2000 50% Gore 47% Bush II
2004 47% Kerry 52% Bush II
2008 55% Obama 45% McCain

I'll take 5 out of 6.

If it's any consolation to you, Ralph Nader was rased Maronite Catholic.

[dmallind]

56. Oh well done - the best is almost (but not quite) within 30 points of atheist Dem support.

[rug]

58. The elections are are about numbers, not percentages.

Go on, stack up the numbers. When you're done, you can resume your bashing of Catholic Democrats.

[Goblinmonger]

60. So which is it, rug?

Is the Catholic church a powerful political force to be reckoned with or is it just a group of religious people that have no political influence? Seems you want to play both sides of that fence.

And it's a simple answer that does not require a snappy retort in its stead.

[rug]

63. Since you're subbing for him, why don't you provide the numbers?

[Goblinmonger]

64. It's easy to keep simple, rug.

We have different icons if you can't be bothered to read names. He is asking one thing; I had a different question. Shouldn't be that hard to follow along. DU will also show you the subthreads develop if it gets to confusing to you.

[rug]

65. Correct.

Which I why I prefer to hear from him rather than read your protective threadjack.

[Goblinmonger]

66. Threadjack?

Get a grip on yourself. So you make a statement and I can't comment on it? Make sure you post your new forum/group rules and Meta and get it pinned so we can all follow them.

[rug]

67. Correction, "protective threadjack".

You have now reached the indent.

Goodbye.

[Goblinmonger]

69. Wow. You think highly of yourself.

If anything, I took a little heat off you.

[rug]

68. As I was saying, elections are about counting raw numbers, not percentages.

[trotsky]

75. I wonder why you didn't include 1984 or 1980.

Strange.

But as I said, you don't get to take the good without the bad. If your religion deserves credit for electing Democrats when they do (as you seem to believe), then it deserves blame when it elects Republicans.

Otherwise you've got yourself a glaring double standard. Not the first time for that, though.

[dmallind]

57. Christians like you make division so much the merrier. Thanks!

[rug]

59. "Christians like you"

Let's see you explain how that is not bigotry, let alone a personal attack.

Go on.

[Goblinmonger]

61. Clearly you know the jury system doesn't work that way.

You just alert like normal. He doesn't get a chance to rebut.

[rug]

62. There's no jury.

It's his chance to answer.

[mr blur]

70. It's not bigotry - dmallind isn't talking about ALL Christians, just those like you.

And you know you love to feel attacked personally, crying to a jury is one of your ways of evading questions.

[rug]

71. Dmallind isn't talking at all.

As to you, describe Christians like me.

Go on, or maybe you'd rather wait for another to say what you mean.

[Odin2005]

76. Sadly, there are a lot of my fellow Atheists who are Libertarian nutjobs.