I’m sorry for being a jerk in comments before. Let’s try this: A president who was in the past tepidly agnostic comes out and says he’s thought about it, and now he’s an atheist. And in a doomed to fail preemptive qualifier, I know this is not the same thing. Let’s go ahead stipulate it’s not the same thing.
So, if that happened, should we as atheists react with “It’s too late or not enough” and be angry, should it not affect our view and other issues be more important, or would we think this a positive change, or something else not shown here? Should we reward that, not care either way, or be angry about it? Which of those reactions would help atheism in general and which might not? I personally would lean toward rewarding it but other issues would still matter too. Your turn: Go!
Eh, I’d call it technically a positive. Slight net gain. Wouldn’t be angry, just unimpressed.
Now, if he immediately went on to say that even though he’s an atheist, it should be up to individual states to say whether it’s legal to fire people for being atheists – then I’d be pissed.
Wellll, it’s really not even close to the same thing. For it to be anywhere near the same, we’d have to be living in a world where >50% of voters were atheists, or at the very least thought atheism was just dandy.
That said, I’m on your side that this was a definite positive step. Am I underwhelmed? You’d better believe it. But I have refrained from pissing on people’s parades about it, because I’m glad it happened anyway, and if people want to celebrate, that’s probably a good thing.
I guess the real point is whether it will/should make a real difference to people who are affected by the anti bigotry. Atheism is already (ostensibly) in the same protected class as religion. We know that in practice it doesn’t often work that way. Sexual orientation isn’t there yet, at least not at a federal level, even though many states have such provisions.
So to me, the important point is if the president’s statement will have a real impact on policy or not. Personal support isn’t worth much, even from a prominent political leader, if that leader isn’t willing to use their political influence to actually do something.
There has been some discrimination for being an atheist, I’ve read about it anyway and the military seems a place where it happens.
I’ve read about it anyway and the military seems a place where it happens.
And divorce court.
I’m of the opinion that this has been done for the wrong reasons.
Yes, It’s nice, yes, it’s past time.
But the democratic Party has allowed the right wing to frame the terms of the national debate for thirty years, and is now stuck in a political fight over values that are, arguably, Republican values from thirty years ago – against republican values now, that were considered past the right fringe then!
so, instead of fighting to defend and promulgate liberal values that most Democrats can agree with, we are stuck fighting the Republicans over which Republican values we will implement – far right wingnut stuff, or mainstream right wing stuff.
We need a leader who will take the fight and drag the framework back to where true liberal values are being defended and proposed to bring this country back to prosperity.
This kind of thing – backing gay marriage – is a true liberal value, and is an example of the kind of thing I am talking about. A health care system with a single payer option is another. There are lots of other examples, but it will take a true leader on the left to bring us back to that – can Obama do it?
Or, more importantly, WILL he?
This has nothing to do with the issue, Stephen.
He has, indeed, come out for same-sex marriage but at the same time he believes it’s up to the states to determine whether same-sex couples should be married. Watch the full interview, Robin Roberts tells him about North Carolina and he shrugs it off with a “well, that’s their choice.”
THAT is the problem. He’s basically throwing us a bone while at the same time we’re being beaten up by the jerks.
Thanks Katherine: wanna take a shot at answering the atheist/scenario question?
The way your question is worded, yes it should be rewarded as more of a “well it’s about time you got some guts” way. The actual situation is not analogous at all to your question.
A proper analogy would be more of the sort about church-state separation, let’s say. It’s a Constitutional issue, it’s a civil rights issue, it’s one that’s divided the nation into right and left, it’s one that has received numerous differing opinions on the matter.
If a president was in office who seemed to be tepidly for church-state separation, and then came out and said he agreed with atheists that “In God We Trust,” the Pledge of Allegiance, and courthouses bearing the Ten Commandments and a Nativity scene at Christmas are things that should be illegal, that would be a similar analogy.
What Obama said last night is the equivalent of a president saying what I just wrote, but then prefacing it with “but I believe the states should be the final determinant of the illegality of those things.”
Would it and/or should it make a differnce if the other candidate for president led a party that wanted to make a constitional amendment against atheists, or if some in that rival party wanted to put us in jail or stone us to death?
No one’s denying that Obama is better than Romney. He was better than Romney before and he’s better than Romney now. But in this case he is being better than Romney by doing less harm, not by doing any net good.
@Stephen:
Only slightly. Saying such a thing the day after a state passes a constitutional amendment against atheists is the issue. We’ve always known the other candidate for the presidency is an asshole. The pro-atheist candidate, in this situation, is basically saying “I’m pro-atheist, but I believe states should be allowed to pass laws that put you guys in jail. Vote for me.”
Why should we vote for the candidate who’s, on a policy level, completely in agreement with the asshole candidate? While yes, the pro-atheist candidate won’t pass, or attempt to pass, a constitutional amendment banning atheists, he’s still offering our heads to asshole state governments on a silver platter.
Hrm. If the alternative is someone who will attempt to pass such an amendment, Katherine, I think we should still vote for the less-bad guy. Or at least, I would. I wouldn’t blame anyone for abstaining from the election in protest, though – there’s an argument to be made about the long-term impact of letting Democrats think they don’t have to do anything to keep our votes.
But the way I see it, in the long term, the Republicans are fighting the clock. The demographics are shifting, and voter registration laws can only do so much to “fix” that. So the bad guys (the worse guys, rather) don’t have a long-term win, it’s not on the table. We just need to stop their short-term win, and we’ll be free to bring in real liberals to oppose centrists like Obama.
Note that I’m only disagreeing about how we should vote, not about whether we should be pissed right now. We should be pissed, and say so.
@Robert B:
Oh don’t get me wrong. I’m lukewarm about the situation and I will most definitely vote for Obama in November. This just seems like he’s trying to shore up a vote.
I truly hope that come November, Obama wins, and in the next few years we get a reasonable ENDA passed, we do away with the abomination of DOMA, and they pass an ERA.
I agree it’s not a great analogy. But people aren’t at one another’s throats as much this way, and this election is damn serious for me and a bunch of other people. If Social Sec & Medicare get raided, assuming I live long enough, I’m dead. First I’ll go blind, then segue to wheelchair, and then die of an aortic rupture. Each and every step will be accompanied by immense pain.
@Stephen:
I’m just beginning my “adventure” into the land of MtF transgenderism – starting soon with HRT (hopefully… I’ve been playing phone tag with the health care center for the past two days raaaargh!!!!) This election holds immediate concerns for me cause I doubt Romney would honor an all-encompassing ENDA. Who knows what my job prospects will be like for a transitioning MtF trans woman in an environment where it’ll be practically legal to discriminate against me? (Probably any other transwoman not working for the government…)
You forgot a key item: He endorses a policy where states are allowed to set their own rules regarding religion or the lack thereof; and does so the day after a state — say, North Carolina — amended its constitution to strip atheists of their right to marry or enter into any kind of an agreement that might be construed as trying to get around that prohibition.
That is a very important point that the cheerleading squad keeps glossing over.
To do that, we’d have to have a political system that rewarded candidates for taking stands in support of liberal values. We’re not going to get there overnight. The GOP didn’t drag the political spectrum to point where Saint Ron would be considered a flaming socialist if he were alive today overnight. It took years of baby steps. And it’s going to take even more years to push the electorate back to where our choices are liberal vs. conservative instead of conversative vs. batshit crazy conservative.
This is what I find perplexing about many people’s reactions here. Obama is now the first mainstream presidential candidate to publicly stay that same-sex marriage should be recognized by law. Instead of saying, “Yes! we’re right behind you, Barack!” however, we get these screeds about how hasn’t made forced all of the states to repeal their DOMA laws overnight, as if the president had the power to do that. Plus, he didn’t give everyone a pony, so he must be Just Like Bush!!!!11!!
Give me a break.
You want candidates to fight for liberal values? Then get behind candidates who will help inch things along in the right direction.
we get these screeds about how hasn’t made forced all of the states to repeal their DOMA laws overnight
Can you point me to one of these screeds? Sounds entertaining…if true.
Try the comments under Glenn Greenwald’s post at salon.com. Greenwald himself was surprisingly supportive of the president, given his usual tendency to piss on everything Obama does. That didn’t go over well with his fans, though.
While I think a better analogy would be a president announcing hir support of the idea that athiests shouldn’t be discriminated against, my response in both cases would depend on 1) the political environment and 2) whether xie intends to follow it up.
If it’s a risky political environment to make such an announcement, I’ll be strongly in favor of the announcement. If it’s an envrionment where at least 50% of the voting populace agrees, 30% hate hir anyway and will froth at the mouth with rage no matter what xie does, and the remaining 20% don’t care much either way, I’m gonna be unimpressed over the fact that such an announcement was made because if there’s no risk attatched, words are cheap.
Which brings me to my second point: If xie explicitly states support for the issue but just-as-explicitly states xie has no intention of following up on that support with any action, I’ll be unimpressed-to-insulted because it will feel (just like this feels to me now) like an attempt to score cheap political points pre-election: The pro-athiest types get a supportive president! The antis know the president isn’t going to do anything to change anything! And the swing voters don’t have another issue to factor into their voting decision! Everybody’s happy, and without having to do anything substantial!
A final note: someone isn’t too supportive if they refuse to act in support, are they?