I was shocked to open Current Biology and find the leading news article was titled “Call to atheists,” and it was actually a pleasantly neutral article that simply reported on Dawkins’ efforts to organize atheists and promote a positive view of secularism — I guess I’m simply so used to so many media references that get immediately defensive of religion and treat atheism as something scary. It’s very nice.
Right after reading it, however, I got a note from Melissa. If you want to see something that should choke a cockroach, watch the parade of Democrats getting in line to stand up and defend the Bible. It’s nauseating. I want to see my party standing up to defend the constitution and personal liberties, not antique superstitions…but there they are, prioritizing vocal support for a wretched old book of lies while allowing the erosion of democratic principles to continue, and in fact by their praise of state-endorsed Christianity, promoting the demolition of the separation of church and state.
What does that have to do with Dawkins? He makes this comment in the interview:
He has been encouraged in the early days for the race for president by the apparent distancing of Republican candidates from the Christian right. But he found “very depressing” the profession of faith from the Democratic candidates. “I guess the Democrats have to pretend to be more pious than the Republicans because they are under suspicion of not being.”
I think Dawkins is wrong, unfortunately. Watch that video; I don’t think they’re pretending, I think they actually are pious twits.
I hate to admit it, but even I would vote for a Republican if he were openly atheist. I am thoroughly fed up with the sad-sack sanctimony from our representatives, and I don’t care whether it’s feigned or sincere — it’s corrosive garbage.
Williams, N (2007) Call to atheists. Current Biology 17(21):R899-R900.
amen! hahaha
Bunch of fooking retards. The House of Representatives contains some of the most clueless people on the face of the earth. We are being governed by morons.
Hadn’t heard of “National Bible Week”, but its pretty telling that the organization that puts it on had to piggy-back it on Thanksgiving.
‘Cause, you know, you oughta be thankful for Dominionists.
I don’t mind believers — hell, I even flirt with belief every so often. (Uh-oh, PZ’s going to have me shot or something! Crush the infamous thing!) I do mind those that are getting the most press latterly.
The deal is that, as the mainline sane churches get smaller, the people that remain are nuttier and nuttier — and more attention-hungry. This is one reason why the Southern Baptists and their ilk have, at least in the public mind, become America’s default religion. (That, and the fact that they have strong political and financial ties to the GOP/Media Complex. But that’s another story.) We hardly hear of non-Southern Baptists anymore, that’s how successful the steeplejacking has been.
Which reminds me: Do you know why the Southern Baptist Convention exists in the first place? It’s because the Southern Baptist churches (along with all the other Southern Protestant denominations) flatly refused to join the Northern churches in opposing slavery. The other Southern schisms eventually rejoined their denominations, but the SBC stayed apart and has remained so to this day.
Sounds to me like the idiot brigade is non-partisan. There was writing on the Berlin Wall that stated: “If voting ever changed anything, they’d make it illegal.” Might as well add that caveat to the states.
OK. The party I voted for should not be making me want to mouth off like Spider Jerusalem. I don’t want my comment on the politics of my country to be the word “fuck” typed eight thousand times, but I’m running out of other options here.
tangential query: *is* there such a thing as an atheist republican? i mean, i can certainly see atheist libertarians – the philosophy doesn’t really mesh well with a Big Sky Papa telling them what to do – but what about your run-of-the-mill GOP republican? they’d be even more (politically) impotent than log cabin repubs…
You have to see it from most people’s perspectives. Yeah, you all feel nice and studly and strong because you don’t need an Invisible Sky Buddy to tell you right from wrong. (Wow, that almost has scansion!)
But even Voltaire, while atheist himself, figured that most folks would never totally give up the need for a supernatural authority figure of some sort. Even most of the folks who don’t go to church except for weddings and funerals still can’t quite come out and give up totally on the idea of deities. You can call these people stupid and irrational, and that may be true, but they’re also your moms and dads and grandmas and uncles. Would you shove them all into the outer darkness?
The Bible is simply not very good. It has moments, surely, but with several centuries of editing and polish, even a Michael Crichton novel might be readable. The Bible is not impressive literature. The only thing I can say in its favor is that re-reading it, and really getting into it, is chiefly responsible for my atheism, and what a freeing, glorious thing has been. To step out of the cramped, airless and sunless room of religion into the wild and fresh spaces of reality has been one of the most exhilerating experiences of my life. Thank you Bible, for helping me understand how risible are our petty ideas about gods.
As to Rebublian atheists, the single most conservative person I know–pro-war, pro-guns, pro-business, the whole package–is an atheist…sort of an old-school Randian with traces of Nietzsche. So yeah, it’s possible. But it ain’t what you’d call pretty.
Given the state of things these days, I’d be plenty happy with even fervidly religious candidates, as long as they staunchly supported the separation of church and state.
You know, that’ll probably stop being a rhetorical question after Thanksgiving and Christmas have blessed us once again with the company of our relatives.
Mike McIntyre (D-NC) –
So when is National Aesop’s Fables Week?
I do not think that believers are stupid. I did not think that I was stupid when I was a believer, and in fact felt quite rational in my beliefs. They have a sort of internal dream logic that can be quite intellectually satisfying from the inside. What I do fault believers for is insisting they need Dumbo’s feather. Or that Oz really did give something the Tinman that he didn’t already have. I fault them for denigrating humanity in an effort to purchase a little dubious comfort, a place at the cosmic apron string. I fault them not for being stupid or crazy, but for being chickenshit. Because if they let go, they would find the resources to be moral, to make meaning, and to be happy. But they have convinced themselves that this is not possible without a god.
Thank you. Everyone, even the secular, always seem to feel the need to preface any mention of the Bible with a comment on what great literature it is. It isn’t. It’s easily one of the most boring books I’ve ever read. Its cultural hegemony has simply made it the default touchstone for any literary symbolism, so we associate it with great literature, even though it is itself rather flaccid, as writing goes.
Hell, think of all the bad literature it’s inspired, to boot. Every other short story I had to read in high-school was pretty much the Reader’s Digest version of the Christ story, where names and locations had been changed to protect the talentless (Old Man and the Sea, anyone?).
Well if we atheists are to be bound by the rules of evidence then I think Giuliani is the best candidate for an atheist in the race. He never in his life talked about his religion before the presidential race. Everything about the way he has lived his life and his political views suggests he doesn’t care a wit about religion. And what’s more while he may toss a conciliatory profeesion of faith to the nutjobs, he won’t back off his pro-choice stance. Oh and he was a seminary student but left it. I have met a few ex-seminarians and they are almost without exception atheists because they realized what a load of shit religion is and additionally feel bitter about having wasted time learning nonsense. So Rudy is my bet Followed by Mike Gravel then Ron Paul, then Hillary, I would even say Romney might have some possibility just because of the ease with which he changes positions. A person like that can’t really believe in anything except his own careerism.
I would guess that there are a lot of Republican atheists, but they’re undercover, playing the religious right like a fiddle; prancing around praising god and promising some votes in order to get and/or maintain power.
Bill C,
I could certainly buy that Giuliani is an unbeliever, but you list Ron Paul as another possibility. Ron Paul is just another right-wing fundie whackjob who is outspoken against not only separation of church and state, but introduced legislation to prohibit federal courts from ruling on cases involving the “free exercise or establishment of religion.” If there’s one candidate that atheists should never support, it’s Ron Paul.
An atheist candidate will always lose
Cart before the horse, my friend. First people have to think, then we have a chance at a thinking president.
For chances at being president, its worse to be atheist than:
Pro-Gay
Pro-abortion
Muslim
depressing, I know.
Apart from agreeing with them or not, didn’t we just watch them spend a half hour or so NOT DOING THEIR JOBS? I mean, really, there’s so little going on in Congress right now that they can waste awhile during session talking about their favorite stories? They have nothing better to do with their time?
It’s not so much boring for me: I can’t identify with any of the characters. They engage in weird non-sequitur thoughts, the idiot ball gets thrown around more readily than a pinball, characters with heroic traits are vilified, characters who engage in foul plots are rewarded and praised, casual violence is shrugged off, yadda yadda yadda.
The simply answer is: we can, but only if we want to lose politically. There are two salient fact that argue against this. First, electoral mechanics as they now exist in the US cause two parties to dominate, and third parties to have little impact except on the margin, and frequently against the interest of the third party. Second, atheists are a small minority in the US. And rationalists, even smaller. ;-)
So where the fuck is National Atheist Week!?
Nooooo, we can’t have that!
Fuck them all!
FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK!
MORONS!
FUCK!!!!!!!
I’d never seen the term “Idiot Ball” before. I love it. And it is the perfect description for the MacGuffin that drives the story in the Hebrew Bible’s book of Esther.
Apart from agreeing with them or not, didn’t we just watch them spend a half hour or so NOT DOING THEIR JOBS?
That’s what they do!
You obviously missed the half hour they spent today praising the Boston Red sox for winning the World Series.
And the 45 minutes they spent expressing sorrow about the house fire that killed seven students.
And the hour spent by a parade of Republicans to get little digs in at Democrats over a stalled veterans funding bill.
99% of what they do in Congress is a fucking joke.
I have heard that if Giuliani wins the Republician nomination, some evangelical Christians would form a third party. This could split the right wing votes.
I would like to know if there have been this many candidates running for Democrat & Republican presidential nomination.
THis isn’t directly related to atheism, but on MSNBC (mainstream news) there was quite a nice denunciation of Bush’s presidency recently: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21644133/
Bill C. on post #15 has nailed the reason:
“Well if we atheists are to be bound by the rules of evidence then I think Giuliani is the best candidate for an atheist in the race. He never in his life talked about his religion before the presidential race.”
The Bible Belt Republicans are angry that Giuliani could be leader of the Republican Party. There was even talk of starting a new party if Giuliani won. Democrats are trying to get some of that Bible Belt vote. Pathetic. Requirement to be President: brains (no), Christian (yes)
If Romney were an atheist, you’d think he’d profess something more mainstream than Mormonism.
I’d love to live in a world where a politician could make Alan Alda’s little speech about religion in The West Wing and still be electable.
Suppose I said a third party candidate had openly condemned the religiosity and Bible-thumping of his supposed colleagues*, and hasn’t made any statements as to his religion?
Here are his positions on the issues.
He is pro-choice, pro gay marriage, for openly gay soldiers, anti-war, pro-science, anti corporate wellfare…
Look past everyone else in his party, and look at what he actually says.
his religion is “unknown.”
I’ve had this man as a College instructor. He may well be a freethinker.
Strictly speaking as an atheist, I think he is the best bet.
(* He condemned Ron Paul for Paul’s statement of the primacy of the Bible over the Constitution.)
two party system sucks. It is too crude to function properly. narrowing options to just twin package deals is simply too restrictive to allow any reasonable democratic control of the government.
Credentes ite domum.
Credentes ite domum.
Credentes ite domum.
Credentes . . .
Hell, if we’re going Spider Jerusalem this election, nothing can be more fitting than this (warning, profanity ahead, etc):
http://ihatehate.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/spider-voting5.png
Democracy at its finest, this election is.
The problem with a rationalist party is that there are liberal rationalists, moderate rationalists, and (believe it or not) conservative rationalists. There are rationalists who are pro-business and pro-corporate welfare as well as rationalist socialists. There are rationalists who favor an aggressive, imperialistic foreign policy as well as rationalist isolationists. There are rationalists who favor affirmative action as well as rationalists who decry “reverse discrimination.”
While it has been my experience that most of the rationalists I have met tend to be moderate to liberal (generally leaning towards liberal) there is by no means a foundation for a political party, probably even within a parliamentary system. Which honestly strikes me as more rational. ;o)
Carlie and CalGeorge: you’re both so right. Why do we tolerate paying these clowns $165,200/year to get up their and just blather on without any issue to vote about?
Suppose Christopher Hitchens were to run for office. He can’t be President, since he wasn’t born in the U.S., but I think he could, Constitutionally speaking, run for the House. In any case, would those of you who disagree with Hitchens’s views on Iraq vote for him solely because he is an atheist? You might be tempted, but I doubt you would.
Why is it that everybody’s bitching about A) who’s in office and B) who’s running to replace him? So far, I’ve not found a single one of them worth my vote.
Yet… nobody’s suggested a better offering (if they did, I missed it and aplogize). Let’s get it right. Let’s elect PZ as PreZ. Done right, he could even have Cthulhu as Vice Prez. No Democrat party. No Republican party… no Libertarian or Rational or Socialist or or or or
We can start the National Cephalopod Party!
If we’re gonna have slime in the whitehouse, let’s make it HONEST slime!
I would personally love to be able to vote for a candidate who stood up and said, “My opinions about religion are no one else’s business, and I will not confuse voters by dragging religion into a purely secular activity like a political campaign.”
I’d vote for an avowed atheist too, of course — I obviously don’t mean to dump on atheists, since I am one. But I’d feel happiest and safest if the religious beliefs (or unbeliefs) of American political candidates are considered as irrelevant to their campaign activities as whether they prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream.
Then why don’t you and your constituents back Representative Ron Paul with a vengence?
Jose
Here’s a thought experiment: does this mean that PZ would vote for Ayn Rand if she were running against The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.?
I don’t want to shove them into the outer darkness, but I do want them to understand how stupid holding onto the Sky Daddy is, and be ashamed of it.
Of course, that doesn’t apply to my family, because they’re out and out devout down to the last one.
Oh, and I forgot – Arnold Vinnick was a Republican atheist/nontheist. But he was fictional.
I fault them not for being stupid or crazy, but for being chickenshit.
I know that this applied to me. I gave up on believing anything long before I came to terms with it. Years ago, I told one of my friends that I would be an atheist, but I’m afraid I’d go to hell for it. I was only sort of kidding. It took a while for my faith to die off.
I hear some chest-thumping around atheist sites, where people tell how they knew in the crib that religion was a lie, and anyone who didn’t figure it out by five is a moron. It isn’t that simple for some people, and with the social costs involved, it just isn’t worth the effort for many. I don’t want to fault or shame anyone, because it will just harden their resolve to resist reason. But I won’t concede anything, either. My only means to influence them is to be firm but courteous in my disbelief.
I was raised in a resonance hybrid world of Southern Baptist and Roman Catholic theology, so I was well and truly fucked up. For some of us, getting free of it was traumatic well after we had it decided intellectually. Spending the majority of your childhood convinced that you are damned takes a toll. I feel sympathetic to people that I know have abandoned all but lip-service faith. It is a struggle I understand.
I have met a few ex-seminarians and they are almost without exception atheists because they realized what a load of shit religion is and additionally feel bitter about having wasted time learning nonsense.
We haven’t met, Bill C., but this describes me, too. I was a seminarian when I decided that the whole project was a waste of time, and that I’d be more useful and happy in science. I’m at least happier…
Then why don’t you and your constituents back Representative Ron Paul with a vengence?
Because he’s a raving fundie nutcase, and even by the single-issue-obsessive’s litmus test that PZ suggests employing (Really? Ayn Rand over Martin Luther King, Jr.? Really?), Ron Paul fails.
Unfortunately, I know someone whose single-issue-obsessive’s litmus test involves the Iraq War, meaning that despite the fact that she’s fundamentally opposed to pretty much everything else Paul stands for, she’s (God* help us), thinking seriously of voting for the guy.
*[Insert god, deity, higher power, or expletive of choice here]
I think an all atheist party would be just as annoying as the proposed Party of God. Well, perhaps not quite as annoying, but still…..
I haven’t heard any of the Democrats support a Christian Nation, or propose a religious test for anyone’s employment in government. The personal testimony thing inoculates (in theory) the leading candidates against religious attacks.
Anyone wanting to be president is a little unhinged. If they blow off some of the pressure with personal religious deception, who am I to criticize. I haven’t seen Clinton, Edwards or Obama show up at Focus on the Family for blessing. That’s where the danger lies.
Elin, I wouldn’t vote for Christopher Hitchens for dogcatcher.
Just because someone claims to be “rational” or a “rationalist,” that doesn’t mean they are. (Ayn Rand is the locus classicus.) But Hitchens goes beyond that: he’s a lush, he’s hysterical about sex (so many straight boys are), he’s dubious on abortion, he’s a warmonger. From the video performances of his I’ve seen, if he isn’t blind drunk, he’s so incoherent and dishonest he almost makes George Bush look good.
I might vote for an atheist Republican, if the rest of her platform were acceptable. But I’ve never been a one-issue voter, and atheism doesn’t tell me *anything* about a person’s values or integrity. The only reason this question even comes up, from what I can see, is that so many Americans say they *wouldn’t* vote for an atheist.
Personally, I do not consider religious affiliation to be a “private” matter, whatever that means. It’s part of a person’s social being. Not only does one have (or not have) conversations with one’s imaginary playmate in the sky, one is associated (or not) with other people who talk to the same imaginary playmate in the sky. Organized religion is a real-world phenomenon, and membership in a religion is not a secret matter, any more than (say) sexual orientation. (But then PZ got his pants in a bunch over Dumbledore’s sexual orientation, recently, dinnty?) I’m not sure I want religious affiliation kept out of the public eye for political candidates — that Mitt Romney is a Mormon, for instance, does not seem to me a tiny matter of no importance.
Giuliani seems by far the most impressive Republican candidate you have over there as seen from here (Australia) but I seem to recall an instance when he was mayor where he tried to get some blasphemous artwork taken down (Piss Christ?) from an art gallery in New York because it offended catholics. I’m pretty sure it was Guiliani but excuse me if I’ve confused him with another mayor before or since.
I have heard that if Giuliani wins the Republician nomination, some evangelical Christians would form a third party. This could split the right wing votes.
Don’t get your hopes up. This is just another ploy to force the Republicans to nominate someone more conservative that Giuliani. They are threatening to withhold their vote, which any GOP candidate will need to win the election (though not the nomination), unless the GOP coughs up someone palatable to them.
I’d vote for a Republican or even a Libertarian if he/she were rationalist! And frankly, I’ve had it up to here with “no genetically modified foods,” “mercury in vaccines causes autism,” “war-is-never-the-answer-why-can’t-we-just-all-get-along,” “meat is murder,” “all white people are racist and all men are pigs,” “no animal experimentation” naifs in the Democratic (and Green) Party, too.
Morons, yes, as CalGeorge said. We’re surrounded, I fear.
The reality is people vote for people who they (a) like, (b) think have the same set of delusions as themselves, (c) will not be easily swayed from b, come hell or highwater (or evidence).
i.e. they want someone who will be reliably partisan on all their personal hot button issues.
#29
When did Ron Paul make a statement asserting the primacy of the Bible over the Constitution?
googling isn’t helping me here… anyone have a citation for that?
I’d vote for any candidate who’d piss on the Bible, but only as long as they’d take a dump on the Koran, the Rig Veda, or whatever other major religious text you might provide.
A Rationalist Party would attract very few voters, but enough to dilute the blue state vote. The result would be a Republican president. And whether or not he (not she) is a closet atheist, the result will be more praying and less stem cell research.
That’s why I hope the Christian right really does start a new party, and split the red state vote. At least we’ll then get a Democrat appointing our Supreme Court justices.
#49
Here is a taste of Paul’s views on religion and the state, from his piece, “The War on Christmas.”
“The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.”
He also seems to think that the Constitution is “replete with references to God”, so he may not be too familiar with it.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
Eh, regarding the rationalist party thing. While it seems like a good idea on the surface, lots of people who think themselves to be “rationalists” actually aren’t – the word seems to be co-opted a lot by randian and libertarian nuts who deceive you with convoluted logic statements which may meet some definition of rational, but have no basis in reality and, you know, actual evidence. So I’d rather see, and would rather support, a pro-evidence pro-science and science consensus, humanist type party. Except I’m not sure that can be put into one word (Evidenciest?).
“I hate to admit it, but even I would vote for a Republican if he were openly atheist.” A person’s belief (or non-belief) is more important than the fact that thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dying? Wow, that’s pretty extreme. As long as someone keeps his beliefs personal (as opposed to being added to the science curriculum or influencing policy) I fail to see how they impact me in the slightest. Karl Rove has admitted to being a nonbeliever. Maybe you can get him to run.
As someone who lives in the UK I find the idea of people standing for election making an issue of their religious beliefs puzzling. I have four elected representatives, at local government, Welsh Assembly, Parliament and European levels and I am not aware of the religious beliefs of a single one of them. What is more I do not care to know and would regard with suspicion any candidate who made their beliefs an issue, even though their policies might well be ones I agreed with (It is important to note that here in the UK it is possible to be religious and political and not be right wing.)
…the GOP/Media/Voting Machine complex…
…the GOP/Media/Voting Machine complex…
LOL! But there’s still a mistake in there: they don’t all go to the same home, so it’s domos, plural.
LOL! But there’s still a mistake in there: they don’t all go to the same home, so it’s domos, plural.
David –
Yes, the religous right might split off and divide the right wing.. only problem is, what if they win??
Karl Rove has admitted to being a nonbeliever.
Well… Karl Rove said, “I am not fortunate enough to be a person of faith.” (?)
Make of that what you will. It sound like he wants to believe.
So, concerning the Giuliani nomination and the Religious right threatening to run a third horse: I just saw on the news headlines at Yahoo that Pat Robertson has come out to endorse ol’ Rudy.
Not sure if the link will get eaten, but just look at the main news headlines on Yahoo’s front page.
Well, he is right that any politician running for office has to try to “outpioustize” the others to get votes.
Bit extreme. I look at it this way instead. Years back, when I was entering into pre-school there was one mother that showed up with a kid that still had a pacifier, a baby bottle and a diaper on. She was told, quite simply, to take the kid back home and not come back until she at least got rid of the bottle and managed to potty train the kid. I don’t see what rational argument can be made for not requiring a similar standard be applied to ***adults***. lol
He’s such an advanced student of both religion and politics that he uses a special variation of “bible code” software that extracts the letters g, o, & d from their hiding places in the constitutional text and reveals their Ultimate Meaning.
The counterpart, which finds “corporate sovereignty” in divine revelation, is still in beta.
All three have showed up at AIPAC for that purpose – close enough, and maybe even more dangerous.
I am happy to assure you
“My opinions about religion are no one else’s business, and I will not confuse voters by dragging religion into a purely secular activity like a political campaign.” I’m also against the War On Iraq.
As you may see from my vita at the URL, I am a physicist (complex fluids); my S.B. Thesis was on the cosmological microwave background, which shows the universe is many billions of years old, and perhaps older.
I also support stem cell research, agree that there is global warming, and did not have to try it to agree that when you block with water the air passages of a human being you are torturing them.
Your support is welcome.