Godless Americans

[PassedOut]

Here is an article about a hilarious ad run by Republican Senator Liddy Dole (Bob's wife) in an attempt to claw herself back into the race: Dole Ad Ties Hagan to 'Godless Americans'

 

In the ad, a narrator talks about the "secret fundraiser" that the Godless Americans PAC "held in [Hagan's] honor." The ad shows Hagan standing just beyond partially open door at the event before showing footage of Godless Americans on cable news.

The article has a link to a YouTube video of the actual ad, which is a hoot to watch.

 

Obviously Dole thinks that voters in her state consider atheism to be a negative quality in a candidate. Don't know how the fact that her opponent professes Christianity plays into Dole's decision to run the ad - perhaps that's beside the point.

[awm]

It's just another way of saying that Hagan is not a Real American*

 

*Real American and Real America seem to be terms coined by the McCain/Palin campaign to describe those people and parts of the country who consistently vote Republican. People who are non-christian, non-heterosexual, non-white, union members, or overly educated are by default classified as not being Real Americans (although presumably there are exceptions to the rule).

[matmat]

It's just another way of saying that Hagan is not a Real American*

 

*Real American and Real America seem to be terms coined by the McCain/Palin campaign to describe those people and parts of the country who consistently vote Republican. People who are non-christian, non-heterosexual, non-white, union members, or overly educated are by default classified as not being Real Americans (although presumably there are exceptions to the rule).

there was a real american on the colbert report last night. he estimated that 90% of real americans will vote for obama.

[kenberg]

In 1962 I was in grad school at the University of Minnesota. There was a city councilman, Milt Rosen, running for re-election in St. Paul and, unfortunately for him, he was caught in some financial shenanigans. Fortunately for him, there was a University professor, Mulford Q Sibley, who had made the local papers. One of the campus based clubs was reported to have Communist leanings. Mulford Q was the faculty adviser to the club and instead of denying the charge he said that while he didn't know if this was true he thought it would be a very good thing if it were true because it would expose students to a different point of view. He went on to say that he thought that there should be a campus atheists club, a campus club for the advocacy and practice of free love, and something along the lines (I forget his exact phrasing) of a club devoted to exploring Jefferson's statement that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants".

 

So Rosen challenged Sibley to a debate, carried live on the campus radio station. From the point of view of a young student such as myself, Sibley won the debate, using arguments such as "Man is a thinking creature and he is most a man when he is thinking". Rosen won re-election. No contest.

[pigpenz]

some Americans think they have an exlusive on GOD

[Lobowolf]

Obviously Dole thinks that voters in her state consider atheism to be a negative quality in a candidate. Don't know how the fact that her opponent professes Christianity plays into Dole's decision to run the ad - perhaps that's beside the point.

I'd imagine that on balance, atheism is a negative quality (electability wise) in all 50 states.

 

Apparently, on both sides, it's more tied into specific policy positions than professing a religion. My guess is, as you suggest, it's beside the point.

 

Similarly, while I was watching Bill Maher last week, he made some remark...I think aimed at the Republican party in general, how half believe in the traditional core Republican values, and the other half believe (insert humorous one-liner about how idiotic it is to believe in Christianity). That Maher's perfect candidate (his words) professes Christianity, and that a whole ton of Democrats do, also, is, again, apparently beside the point.

 

I think on both sides, it's not a "benefit" or a "problem" (depending on whether you're on the right or left, respectively) to call yourself a Christian unless you're also pro-life, against gay marriage, etc.

[bid_em_up]

Obviously Dole thinks that voters in her state consider atheism to be a negative quality in a candidate. Don't know how the fact that her opponent professes Christianity plays into Dole's decision to run the ad - perhaps that's beside the point.

As a resident of NC, I will assure you that atheism, or "guilt by association" with an atheist group, is a negative factor in a candidate (in this state, anyway).

 

It doesn't matter that Kay Hagan professes Christianity, the point is she is accepting funds from a group of non-believers, and thats a bad thing....

 

(Or so the thinking goes).

 

And, just to be fair, Kay Hagan's ads regarding Elizabeth Dole have been some of the most misleading ads that I have ever seen, so she doesn't have a lot of room to complain.

[TimG]

I think on both sides, it's not a "benefit" or a "problem" (depending on whether you're on the right or left, respectively) to call yourself a Christian unless you're also pro-life, against gay marriage, etc.

I disagree. It may not be a problem to call yourself a Christian, but I think it is a problem if you don't call yourself a Christian (no matter whether you are looking for support from the left or the right).

 

Candidates end their speeches with "Gold bless you and God bless the United States of America" for a reason. Invoking "God" doesn't make one a Christian, but in the US "God" is a not so subtle codeword for "The Christian God". And, a candidate that does not invoke God would, I think, have a much harder go of it.

[Gerben42]

I disagree. It may not be a problem to call yourself a Christian, but I think it is a problem if you don't call yourself a Christian (no matter whether you are looking for support from the left or the right).

 

I wonder how many politicians are forced to hide their true (non-)beliefs, just to keep their job.

[barmar]

I wonder how many politicians are forced to hide their true (non-)beliefs, just to keep their job.

Practically all non-believers.

 

Every atheist book I've read has mentioned that there are almost no admitted atheists in elected office in the US.

 

Not only do you have to claim to be religious, in many cases it has to be one of the right religions. I was dumbfounded that Mitt Romney's Mormanism was considered a problem during the primaries. And what's the chance that an admitted Muslim could get elected to any high office these days?

[matmat]

I wonder how many politicians are forced to hide their true (non-)beliefs, just to keep their job.

Practically all non-believers.

 

Every atheist book I've read has mentioned that there are almost no admitted atheists in elected office in the US.

 

Not only do you have to claim to be religious, in many cases it has to be one of the right religions. I was dumbfounded that Mitt Romney's Mormanism was considered a problem during the primaries. And what's the chance that an admitted Muslim could get elected to any high office these days?

it's all about the separation of church and state.... well... any church but mainstream christian one, that is, those are quite welcome.

[Codo]

Surprise surprise.

 

Lets say, I want to be governor for a state.

 

From the people in this state:

 

99 % owns a car

75 % are fans of the NY Jets

67 % are christians

85 % own a weapon.

52 % are against gay marriage.

 

If I wanted them to vote for me, how do you rate my chances if I:

Want to enforce anybody to give up on cars, but use busses and trains.

Cheer for the Redskins.

Say that all religions are a silly waste of time and owning weapons should be forbidden, but gay marriage should be allowed. Any bets? Soory, not many votes for this innovative candidate.

 

I could belive that using cars, cheering for the Jets or being Christian is plain silly. But when the majority of the voters belive in these things, I better howl with the wolves. After all, I want to be their governor, so I shoud follow their wishes more then mine.

 

(This is another can of worms, in an idle world, I would respect their will, but would make unpopular descission if necessary.)

 

Back to this special discussion: If most people in NC belive that a christian candidate solves there problems better then a muslim/mormon/Atheist- you better claim to be christian.

[Gerben42]

Perhaps it's just me but I vote for people based on issues rather than if they happen to be the same religion, race or sexual orientation. I silently hope that at some point, this will be the norm rather than the exception.

 

But in the real world, no democracy is without popularists who don't really have a program but say what some people want to hear and get elected for that. The most famous example in recent Dutch history was Pim Fortuyn. He was going to get like 20% of the votes, and was then murdered a week before the election. His party still got into the government, but it was clear that without the leader, there wasn't really a party.

 

This is probably a weak point of democracy: Sometimes the people don't know what's good for them, and politicians might make a popular decision rather than a good decision. Of course the other extreme, dictatorship, is much worse, but this problem is not easy to solve.

[Codo]

Perhaps it's just me but I vote for people based on issues rather than if they happen to be the same religion, race or sexual orientation. I silently hope that at some point, this will be the norm rather than the exception.

Maybe Gerben, just maybe you are slighty more intelligent then the normal voter?

 

And even worse, you use your head. (Something I was never accused of. ;))

 

So maybe, YOUR way to make a descision is different from the way John Smith makes his.

 

But for each vote you give to the intelligent guy who tries to rescue the world, or at least your home town, there are 100 votes for Mister Perfect Politician, who promise anything to anybody.

 

But besides this: If I want someone to make politics for me, I surely belive that someone like me will serve me best. So, as an example: Mick Miller is a white christian, intelligent, gun owning homosexual. I guess he will vote for someone who protectrs the rights of the white christian intelligent gun owning homosexuals.

 

Maybe he won't find many politicians who are as he is, but he will choose the candidate who matches best.

[TimG]

Perhaps it's just me but I vote for people based on issues rather than if they happen to be the same religion

A candidate's religion speaks to his or her stance on the issues. I think it is common to think along the lines of "He's a Christian, he'll do the right thing" or "She's an atheist, who knows where she finds her morality." Just like saying "I'm a democrat" gives an indication regarding where you stand on the issues, so do people perceive that "I'm a Christian" is an indication of a politician's stance on many issues and how he will deal with people once he is in office.

 

I don't think this way of thinking is necessarily wrong -- it is hard to separate one's stance on many issues from one's core set of beliefs, including religious beliefs.

[Al_U_Card]

Like those flood victims that thought that God would protect their homes.....

 

The water follows its course (made by God, who else!?) and the intelligent man looks at the elevation and the lay of the land before he buys....and that inherent trait is God-given so you should use it.

[Gerben42]

But besides this: If I want someone to make politics for me, I surely belive that someone like me will serve me best.

 

That wouldn't be so bad. But the USA partially got into the trouble it is in because Average Joe decided to vote for the conservative christian with the economic and social policies that were not so good for him, rather than the not-so-conservative christian who had policies for him.

 

There have been studies that a majority of Americans are sick and tired of their healthcare system und would prefer a more European system. Also, most Americans don't make more than $200,000 so they would benefit more from the Democratic economic policy than the Republican one.

 

Yet many of these people still vote Republican because of religious or personal reasons.

 

This is the reason why Bush could get reelected in 2004: The conservative base would support him no matter what he does, and on the other hand he can give tax cuts to those rich enough to finance his campaign.

[Codo]

Gerben,

 

this sounds like the democrats are intelligent atheists and the US would be a better place if they vote democratic because they are intelligent atheists.

 

I think this is silly.

 

Do you really belive that Democrats are better people/politicans/etc.?

Should be hard for you to profe.

 

GWB was one of the worst presidents they had. But this has exactly nothing to do with his religious belives. I don't know enough about politics in the US to rate the Presidents, but I really liked the democrat more then the others. But even he gave the jobs to his fellows and he kicked thousands of the job because they had been member of the wrong party. This is normal and human. Maybe it is sad, but it is reallity.

[Gerben42]

No, my point is that the economic and social policies of the Democrats would benefit the majority of the voters more, but they still voted Republican for reasons other than the issues.

[waubrey]

You know I generally don't post a lot here and never before about politics. The board where I usually do that is devoted primarily to athletics.

 

But the posts in this thread are uniformly thoughtful and well mannerred whereas the posts on politics on that other board are often illogical and rude. I wonder what that says about Bridge players? I'll have to start reading the other political threads here LOL.

[Al_U_Card]

You only have to look at the economic numbers (employment, gdp etc) to see that the failed policies of the Republicans NEVER benefit the "working" man (earning less than the price of an avg. single family dwelling in 1 calendar year).

 

The 3 worst? Bush sr. Bush jr., Reagan

 

 

Some of the best presidents had members of the other party in their cabinet or in political positions because they realized that the best man for the job wan't necessarily the person most like them......W has shown that as long as you were loyal bushies.....you could get any position and if you were "fair-minded and even-handed" then you were out.

[TimG]

No, my point is that the economic and social policies of the Democrats would benefit the majority of the voters more, but they still voted Republican for reasons other than the issues.

Perhaps they voted Republican for reasons other than these issues; economics and social policies are not the only issues out there.

[mikeh]

 

GWB was one of the worst presidents they had. But this has exactly nothing to do with his religious belives.

I couldn't disagree more (with the last sentence, not the first).

 

One of the fundamental (pun intended) problems with born-again Christians (and of zealots of other religions as well) is that they are armoured with an invincible sense of their righteousness. Bush has made it known, numerous times, that he prays in private before making major decisions... and that he believes that God speaks directly to him... in answer to these prayers. He is also famously known for being unable to admit to making any errors. Well, of course he thinks that way.. he is guided by God in all important decisions, and how can God ever steer him wrong?

 

I am sure that one of the most seductive aspects of religious zeal is the bestowal, on the believer, that doubt can be eliminated.. if your decision turns out disastrously for anyone, well... God has his purposes, which are not for us to question.

 

My reading suggests that there is at least the possibility that this type of religion holds a particular attraction for certain personality types.. essentially those who are most comfortable in a well-defined hierarchical environment. Add to this the suggestions that W has long been in conflict with his father, an alpha male in his own right but not the least bit fundamentalist in belief, and we can see how W would seek refuge from self-doubt in his born-again faith.

 

Of course, I may be simply babbling pop-psychology :)

 

And, I suspect that many readers might well infer, from my posts, that some atheists (me?) suffer from a similar certainty... :) B) :P :) The difference, of course, is that I'm right...... :blink: :D :lol: <_<

 

Back to the OP: I recall reading a survey about factors that might dissuade a US voter from voting for an otherwise well qualified candidate. I seem to recall that more people said they would refuse to vote for an atheist than for a homosexual.. and, given how gays apparently are still seen by many people as sick or evil, that suggests that the US is a long, long way from being a secular state.

[pclayton]

The 3 worst? Bush sr. Bush jr., Reagan

History will (already has) judged Reagan to be a solid President.

 

"43" will likely be judged as the worst ever.

 

"41" I doubt will make anyone's best or worst list.

[matmat]

Perhaps they voted Republican for reasons other than these issues; economics and social policies are not the only issues out there.

what else is there?