Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

It's unfortunate that we'll never really know the number of non-believers in this country because, as you said, many are reluctant to come "out of the closet" for fear of community reaction. My son, raised in a secular enviromment once told me he says he's a Christian now at school because he got attacked in the past for stating his beliefs.

Sally,

Candidates, speaking about faith, acknowledging that it is a part of their lives, this is not the same as mixing religion and government. I am a secular humanist, but I do not feel alienated when the candidates I support speak about their religion. In fact, I encourage it. People vote for politicians they trust, and a politician that can say "here are my values, some of them have come from my faith," those are politicians that a large percentage of the electorate can identify with. None of the Democrats are advocating policies that are dictated soley by faith. Faith is a guide in their moral lives, but they understand that, when making policy, they are creating policy for people of many faiths, even those, like myself, who are secular.

This is a significant issue for the Democrats. They will eventually be forced to answer the mail, but apparently not this cycle. Well done.

It is wise to question religious beliefs.

It is unwise to ridicule them.

But it is no more hate speech than ridiculing

politicians and their supporters.

Religion does not deserve special treatment.

Sally Quinn,

I am deeply saddened that have chosen to make yourself the judge and jury of Sarah Palin's choice to accept the nomination for VP while being wife and mother to her family. Why is this a problem to you? You have never walked in her shoes! Sarah Palin is free in our great nation to decide what is best for her husband and her precious children. How grateful I am that we might possibly have someone representing the love and kindness and mercy that God has displayed for each of us. That would include you, Sally Quinn.

The answer concerning your questions about the Southern Baptist Convention guidelines will be found in God's Word, the BIBLE. Read it.

We are pivileged to be able to offer forgiveness and encouragement to one another in this world.
Perhaps we need to be searching for the good in Sarah Palin. She appears to be trying to serve this nation under God. I applaud her!

thank you Bob Tiernan for protecting our rights

Sally:

Keep attacking Sarah Palin. She just chewed you and other radicals like you up and spit you out. What a performance! Presidential and beyond!

She got an opportunity and seized it. You however blew your chance. According to your own words, when your oportunity came,you imploded in around 4 months. The world knows of Sarah Palin now, and a few know of you, and you,Sally Quinn are no Sarah Palin. Not by a long shot! You are pathetic, however.

Sarah Palin for President!

Bob Alllison

Ms. Quinn, I just heard your views with Mr. Bill O'Reilly. I am appalled of your stance which lacks true understanding as well as fairness. Ms. Palin has five (5) children. So what? 2 or 3 are, or almost adult ages which nobody seems to point out. Furthermore, she seems to have balanced well with a family and still govern Alaska. Ms. Palin is the only one with Executive experience; therefore, the most experienced over Obama, Biden and McCain. Ms. Quinn, it is very evident that you lack the objective (proper) judgment in what is truly best for America. Ms. Palin WILL go to Washington, D.C., bringing fresh and new ideas which are very badly needed due to a Congress with little care about how ordinary Americans are living. In conclusion, Ms. Quinn, you are absolutely wrong about Ms. Palin and the future will prove you wrong if given the chance--a McCain/Palin administration will CHANGE Washington, D.C. The "true change" is a vote for McCain/Palin on 4th November 2008!

It would be in the best interest of all if Sally Quinn no longer worked for the Washington Post.

Ahem, Ms. Quinn researchers will be looking up her many articles that conflict with her current self interest pandering. I see this recent approach for what it is...NOT representing a large number of Americans.

I agree that the issue of political/religious affiliation in an election cycle is a result of a candidate's relationship with a bombastic figure who sells CD's demanding the congregation to "GD America." Let's face it, the very values of the country are being put out there for "the supposed chosen" to pick apart. This is a dangerous game. I have been reminded of all the times when I was told it was a poor choice to believe in God. I remember times when I had to sit quietly in business settings when sexist remarks were used to attempt to discredit me. Who among us does not understand when we are being attacked for the very core of our beliefs?

Sally, I heard your interview with Soladad O'Brien. Exactly what is the number of children a women can have and still be effective with her career? Also is there a minimum IQ that is required of these children to determine the level of success she can have in the business world? It seems to me that you are in favor of the China model for family planning.
You are such a hypocrit. Opportunities are only for "liberal women". You do protest to much - your fear is showing.
Evangelicals believe in family - dads are parents also.
By the way, who is going to be raising Obama's girls while he is working?
You need to get your message straight - the women of America are getting confused. I guess if Gov Palin had had a abortion when she found out she was carrying a special needs child she would be your hero.

Badman

Sally Quinn is not hate filled. And she is not intolerant. Far from it, she is very tolerant.

Just what do you think the word "tolerant" means? Why don't you look it up in the dictionary and find out?

It certainly has a different meaning than you seem to think.

Could Sally be anymore hate-filled and intolerant???

Who needs to visit DailyKos to see what the hatemongers are saying, just go to WaPo.....

By the way, where is Reverend Wright these days??? Maybe those in glass houses should watch what they throw around.

Religion, war, economy, family values...the DOMINANT issue for me in this election is the one-sided, corrupt, and dishonest reporting from MSM, with WaPo (and sally quinn) right in the middle!!!

I can't believe that both parties don't see what's coming. In the next generation there will be a wave of secularism that washes over American politics as it has most of Western Europe. Each generation is becoming less connected with the culture of religion. It sounds like a small group but 10-12% is huge compared to how many people were open about being nonbelievers in the past. Currently more than half of the US population, believers as well as nonbelievers, want religion and politics seperated. Thats a growing number. The first party to realize this will have the power in the future. It will most likely be the Dems. And I know that the party has to do certain things in order to win right now but it is still very insulting.

As a mother of three and a believe of Jesus Christ my concern is she's so into her career that the child are not getting the attention they need. I'm a college grad that gave up a IT Career full-time to take a part-time job to be there for my kids....a decision I'm so happy I made. I am the first line of support when they need someone there. God gave man authority over the family and women are the managers of the homehold....I'm very concern this women is not taking the most important job in the world (being a parent) a seriously as I like. I'm really rethinking my voting right now. I doing it because if (and I believe it will) something happens to McCain...she doesn't need to be President.....she needs to put more time into being a mom.

I don't need medieval superstition, magic and the supernatural to get through my life. If left unchecked, most religions take great delight interfering in peoples private lives. They seek political influence so they can force their dogma down the throats of the unwilling and those too young or feeble-minded to question. America is in danger of becoming a theocracy while many of its friends in the Western world look on with concern.

On a personal note. Don't approach me for work if you're overtly religious. I'm sure your faith will pay the bills.

Bertrand Russell;

There is an idea-that we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the Christian religion.
It seems to me that the people who have held to it have been for the most part extremely wicked.
You find this curious fact,that the more intense has been the religion of any period,and the more profound
has been the dogmatic belief,the greater has been the cruelty,and the worse has been the state of affairs.
In the so-called ages of faith,when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness,there was
the inquisition,with its tortures;there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches,and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion.
You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling,every improvement
in the criminal law,every step toward the diminution of war,every step towards better treatment of the coloured races,
or every mitigation of slavery,every moral progress that there has been in the world,has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion,as organized in its churches,has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.

Bertrand Russell. "Why I Am Not A Christian" pp45

--
George Carlin.

Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you.
-- George Carlin Politically Incorrect, May 29, 1997

PLEASE No more references to religion in political speeches. Public servants and supposed to represent all their constituents equally. Your elected leader should not be shoving a particular flavor of nonsense down your throat. Religious references by their very nature are discriminatory. When a political leader alienates a large group of people based on religious belief on non belief it is not acceptable.

Think of the outrage if the president or any of the political contenders were to say "HAIL SATAN" Weather you agree or disagree with the what the person said they negate any intelligent point with the equivalent of "Oh ya, there is an invisible guy in the sky" and I command him to "Bless you and America etc. This makes you sound so stupid.

I see this as very rude. It sends a message that if you do not practice religion you are not included in our government. Well that is 23% of the population here in Seattle and about 15% nation wide and growing. This group is larger than most that play the race card.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008140844_billboard27m0.html

This 20% does not include the people who claim to belong to these groups but don’t practice any of it except the government endorsed “holidays” etc . . .You know the ones. You get time off weather you want it or not. You get singled out if you prefer to do anything else. You are persecuted and this persecution has a plethora of support “GRINCH” So these people, I would say a good 80% of them practice FAUX religion. Is that who you pander to. Full of hypocrisy and hate and predators. So much in fact I feel ill thinking about it. This list of damage far out weighs any good religion might do.

The war on science, the reclassifying of terms and the re-writing of laws to favor religion has got to stop before it’s to late. Please don’t curse America with your god endorsement.

Make a list of the damage and good religion has done. Look at the incredibly negative effect religion has had throughout history and in American government.
THE BAD FAR OUT WEIGHS THE GOOD in any form of measurement.

Tax the churches, no more free ride. No voting in churches. No government activity in churches. NO MORE GOVERNMENT SUPPORTED FAITH BASED GROUPS. Who practice discrimination, legally. Look it up. It is legal government supported discrimination. If a group has a religious affiliation it should be immediately disqualified as discriminatory and bias.

There is no god to bless America no matter how much you insist on it. No matter how much you tell me about it I am not buying your product. No more free advertising for the god gang. { PROTECT OUR CHILDREN FROM IT TILL THEY AR 21 }

Here are three thoughts:
1. Why do gay people want to belong to a club who hates them?
2. Why do women who scream for equal pay support religions that suppress them?
3. Americas war on science is based on belief in god.

As a non-believer, I feel sick at this lack of REPRESENTATION.

Yeah Keith B., we have been slighted. I feel hurt over this and also had a knee jerk reaction to look elsewhere to put my vote, especially when there was really no good reason for this rustication from the party. Still, we do have the same values on many crucial issues, like poverty, affordable health care, the environment, and so I guess that even though Christians are compelled to stay away from unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14)... ironically, we must be "enlarged"- the bigger people- as their bible says the verse before in 2 Cor. 6:13. BUT... when or if the core values that make the Democratic party great begin to be corrupted via bigoted dogma, then it's time to blaze a trail to the Libertarian Party (many secular people are already heading that way, we just have to show them that ascribing personhood [and therefore rights] to a cell in a Petri dish is still an assumption).

One thing is for certain. Leah Daughtry does not care about- and may even have an agenda to obscure, the fact that secular humanists/atheists/agnostics value medical care, environmental issues, and relief of poverty (the very issues they are focusing on in this election) at least as much as Christians and other theists do. Since secular humanists/atheists/agnostics do not believe in the supernatural, their crossover in an "interfaith" forum would completely focus on the ethical issues. People will say, "but this is about faith!" But the truth is that different faiths do not agree on the theistic elements ANYWAY and end up focusing on ethical issues... So why why why are secular humanists/atheists/agnostics denied their chance to have dialogue over these ethical issues? It should have been labeled as an ethical forum, not an inter-faith forum.

I wish I could vote for something other than a Democrat, a Republican, a Green or a Libertarian this year. Even more than that, I wish the Democrats would get their act together and stop turning into the Content-Light, Emotional, Self-Congratulating Liberal Christian Party. Non-religious Americans need to find a way of punishing the Democratic Party for trying so blatantly to knock down the wall of separation between church and state. Unfortunately, their punishment can't involve electing the John McCain administration into office this November. John and his troops are ten times worse than anything we'll see from the Obama camp.

Sadly, it seems that no matter the Constitution's banning of a regious test for office (Art. 6 Sec. 3), the mob and the media are going to circumvent the principle in the public square with the same negative consequences.
Don’t the same dangers the founding fathers were concerned about still apply with de facto religious tests out of government, such as:
1. Squelching diversity by promoting a misrepresented disproportion of minority groups to majority group(s)?
2. Promoting theocratic governments, which have historically always caused division, strife, and an eventual need for secular/neutral arbitration/reform (such as how the enlightened secular Constitution arbitrated in its day)?
3. Promoting unfair cronyism/ payback to religious voters?
4. Conflating religion with ethics?

I'm pessimistic in this regard that those who think this is a majoritarian democracy are going to have their mob rule. That's how it's always been. They'll find a way, however disingenuously.

That was the most enlightened piece of journalism I have read in a long time. It's like you are in my head! I'm a non-religious democrat and I also wrote to Leah Daughtry before the DNCC and did not recieve a reply. Here's my email to her:

"Hi, I am a Democrat and a secular humanist and am writing to ask you to please consider having an non-theistic representative (e.g. lobbyist Lori Lipman Brown) represent the millions of non-theistic democrats at the interfaith service. It's crucial for theists to be aware of non-theistic ethical positions and see where (that!) we have common ground in the party. The amount of poorly educated theists I have experienced in forums recently regarding current ethical issues and church/state separation tells me that we non-theists are being represented in disingenuous caricatures (especially the misconception that non-theists want religion out of the public square- no secular organization is calling for that) and we need to have more dialogue. We are Americans, we are patriotic, and we hold the Constitution and democratic principles as highly as anyone (if not higher). Please visit atheistsinfoxholes.org to see a list of non-theists in the military who are fighting and dying for our country. Thank you for your time."

Thank you so much for writing that article, it really made my day.

** Super-size me Jesus! **

• Bedeviled pigs

Obama wants to reach out to fundies? Casting pearls before the swinish, he's already carried obligatory politico-religious hypocrisy too far. The "Rev" Rick should be seen for the lying porker that he is. McCain was correct in 2000 about religious swill at the GOP's core.

• Junk-food faith for a fat-head nation!

A nation overwhelmingly god-fearing also overwhelmingly rejects science. My fellow country-persons lack the critical intelligence to evaluate the garbage they put in their brains.

The US is an aberration among developed nations in its affinity for xian enthusiasms and in its failure to accept now elementary basic truths like evolution via natural selection.

• On the road to internal exile

America the free? Nonsense. I am an atheist, an *anti-supernaturalist* to be precise. Therefore, I belong to the most despised minority in the US. Why according to GHW Bush, I'm not fit to be a citizen.

I'll tolerate fundies only when everyone's "freedom of conscience" under the US Constitution is restored and respected. The US is still a secular state which has the misfortune of selective amnesia towards the political ideology of christo-fascism, dominionism. Before election day read Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel about a xian state in “The Handmaid's Tale.”

• religious cover for frauds, pedophiles, and plotters

The US has been a secular state from its inception. It is *not* one nation under a non-existent god. Nor under child molesting priests, nor under fanatical tax-dodging televangelists, nor under cabals of delusional fundies seeking to overthrow the Republic.

The people are sovereign. (for now.)

bipolar2 © 2008

[URL=http://osaxbhwl.com]elznogem[/URL] jamogsst http://opblwovf.com irbibvtu xctkffos yewlhphk

Religion has been used as the cover for greed.

Religion in of itself is a grift. It is the oldest grift of all time. Read Numbers in the bible. Moses set the grift. (What is tantamount to one of the earliest pyramid schemes.)

He set the hierarchy for the priests and who would protect the priests and how much of a cut each would get.

Couple that with the grift itself. The ultimate grift. Give me your goats, your shekels, your bullocks without blemish, your lambs. Or Jehovah will kill you.

Later that was updated. New twist was added. Give us your money and faith and you will get into the kingdom of "god". You don't, then you will spend eternity in the lake of fire.

More people believe because they don't want to take the chance. That is the beauty of the grift. The only way you can prove them wrong, is to die. But they still have your money.

According to Federal LAW, "i" Jacob JO...Z, herein NOW, Electronycally serve'd "NEWS CORP., Et Al" as per many many Warnings.

By: http:////.......({..J..}).......({..O..}).......({..Z..}).......({...E.}).......({..V..}).......({..Z..})........dot...... US

LiVE, FROM:CONEY ISLAND NEW YORK YA!

NOTiCE TO SUE , in FEDERAL COURT: NEWS CORP., Washington Post, NYP, NYT et al:

Note To Alot Of WAPO's socalled PRE-APOCALYPTiC 'Moderator(s)", YE All

Are SUPER-STUPiD-STiTiOUSLY Devilishly Jealous of O.U.R. “EC{CLATi}-ON” NEW RelIGiON from Old!

Wow! EC{LAT} 'Not Allowed!
Wow JOK{TAN} 'Not Allowed!

Thank You 'onfaith' & 'postglobal' for allowing me to go Forward in U.S. FEDERAL COURET, after giving al ye Many many FAiR Warnings: For Religious Discrimination, Theft of iNTELLECTUASL Property, Plagiarism etc!

August 28, 2008 6:04 PM

.
Live From: CONEY ISLAND NEW YORK YA!

Thank You 'onfaith' & 'postglobal' , after giving Ye many “FAiR” warnings, for allowing me to go Forward in U.S. FEDERAL COURET For 1) Religious Discrimination , 2)Theft of iNTEELECTUAL Property , 3Plagiarism .………………..nth etc!

By: http:////.......({..J..}).......({..O..}).......({..Z..}).......({...E.}).......({..V..}).......({..Z..})........dot...... US

Originally Posted On Moderators SUSAN K. SMiTH

Originaly posted On Moderators Susan K. Smith site Posted August 28, 2008 6:04 PM

Posted on moderator Sue Thistlethwaite site August 28, 2008 6:43 PM

Posted on POSTGLOBAL on moderators STEVEN MUFSON site August 28, 2008 6:48 PM

"Did Stalin kill so many *just* because he was an atheist? Doubtful."

What's more doubtful is that he was even an atheist. He went to seminary school after all, and he reinstated the Russian Orthodox Church when it became politically expedient for him to do so.

Well stated, Sally; unfortunately. The only thing you left out was the Constitutional requirement that there shall be NO religious test for public office. Something that is clearly being violated in this process - by the Republicans, by the Democrats, and by all of the media. The Constitutional prohibition against religious tests is was included in the Constitution before even 'freedom of speech', 'freedom of religion', and 'freedom of the press', were; yet is is being savaged by all. And all will lose as a result.

If only we had a former Constitutional law professor, and a former head of the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, running for office in one of these parties; boy, they would show the leadership we'd need on this issue. Wouldn't they?

Agreed, Eric. The contributions of great thinkers and scientists is a similarly useless argument. Is Newton brilliant because of his faith or in spite of it? His alchemy pursuits would indicate the latter, but the argument prove nothing either way.

The whole "who killed more" argument, despite what Dawkins said, is a red herring in the debate. Few conflicts, genocides, massacres, wars, etc have at their root one specific thing - whether it's religion, atheism, economics, etc. Did Stalin kill so many *just* because he was an atheist? Doubtful. He killed them more because he was a power-mad dictator who was loopy as a loon. Did The Crusades kill many people just becasue of religion? Well, it was a part of it, but there were a lot of territorial, economic political and cultural reasons as well.

And let's not forget that in the 20th and 21st century we have the technology that allows, in one fell swoop, someone to kill more people than the Crusades ever did.

Ity really doesn't add anything to the debate, other than giving us a useless statistic to quibble over.

" Benedicta:

"I am getting a little tired of atheists blaming people of faith for all the wars and bloodshed in the world."

I assure you, the feeling is mutual, from what atheists say.

Believing Pol Pot and Stalin were advancing some 'religion' of 'atheism,' frankly, is part of what's used to disenfranchise American citizens who are atheist.

These dictators may have talked 'atheism' ...or just been called 'atheist' by Christians, but in fact set themselves up as 'God-Kings' just as theocratic kings set themselves up as representing some 'Divine Kingship.'

But then again, Christians have the *gall* to try and get us all to vote for Christianist fascists....whose families and interests in fact *supported* Hitler, and oppress Neopagans by claiming Hitler ran on some Pagan platform.
When that's not what that was.

Use your mind.

These things are not 'inexplicable evil,' they're ... people being *suckered.* Just change the names around and claim it'll work better this time if only people *follow.*

I am getting a little tired of atheists blaming people of faith for all the wars and bloodshed in the world.

The atheist regime of Pol Pot was responsible for the imprisonment, torture and murder of more than 2 million people.

The atheist regime of Mao Tse-Tung was responsible for the imprisonment, torture and murder of more than 30 million people.

The atheist regime of Joseph Stalin was responsible for the imprisonment, torture and murder of more than 60 million people.

That's more misery and death in the 20th century ALONE than can be laid at the door of any religious body throughout history.

How many hospitals and benevolent organizations have atheists founded? How many atheists have devoted their lives to the service of the least fortunate in society, on the model of Mother Teresa?

And for those of you who like to insist that people of faith are either stupid or hypocritical, I invite you to contemplate the staggering intellectual gifts of G. K. Chesterton, Edith Stein, and Thomas Merton - all adult converts to Catholicism.

By the way, it is "a-THE-ist," not "athiest." If you're going to be one, at least spell it right.

Jim says: "God could care less whether men believe in him or not because he loves us all regardless of our confusion. "

He loves us all, but if we don't believe in him, he sends us to hell for eternity, right?

This is the kind of love I don't need. I'll settle for the love of my friends and family, who care for me while were all here together on Earth.

I wonder if we'd have an uproar of any kind if one of the candidates belonged to a non-abrahamic religion. Like, say, we had a Hindu or a Daoist running for president. I'm sure the religious right would be perturbed almost as much as an if they were an athiest.

"[I find it] impossible [to imagine] that a nation which is grounded in Judaeo-Christian principles would somehow select someone [for President] who would repudiate those principles." - John McCain

I like the fact that every candidate always calls it "judeo-christian" values, though we've only got a minority of jewish lawmakers and have never had a jewish president. I also find it kind of odd that everyone attributes the basic principles to Judeo-christianity. Before Moses, was everybody walking around thinking killing, coveting, and carving graven images was a fabulous idea? Help me out here, I'm a godless heathen, I've only read a few versions of the bible...

Anyway.

As an atheist, this is the kind of thing we have to deal with:

"No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. " - George H.W. Bush

"What you should do for me is what you should do for everybody: Believe in God. Get off our backs." - Ed Derwinski, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good. Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don’t want equal time. We don’t want pluralism." - Randall Terry (lobbyist, founder of Operation Rescue)

These aren't quotes from whackaloons on blogs or the random guy on a forum telling you to burn in hell, these are people with actual positions of power in government. Why do we have to demonstrate "hate speech" when there are people who are actually *president of the country* telling us we're not fit to be citizens, or that if we want the same rights as everyone else we have to beleive in God?

That doesn't seem right.

(If you want actual hate speech, go visit PZ Myer's Pharyngula blog and read any of the "I Get Mail" posts. Those *are* the aforementioned whackaloons)

Peter S.

I couldn't refrain from describing the reverse side of the coin you tossed.

Our Constitution is such an outstanding document because it protects the majority from tyranny, and it protects the minority from the majority.

What is often portrayed as religious infringement is in reality protection of the minority from excesses of the majority.

If you are offended by a non-believer getting in your face and extolling the efficacy of being a non-believer, then you will appreciate the non-believer being offended by having religious symbols displayed on public property. Note that I use the term public property. These are places that belong to us all, including non-believers.

Would a Christian be offended by a Jewish or Muslim slogan, symbol or message in a public place (government building, park or publicly funded organization? Why then should you feel comfortable with a Christian slogan, symbol or message in a public place? Just because Christians are a majority?

The wonder of our Constitution is that it not only doesn't interfere with religious activities but also guarantees religious freedom, and it protects us all against religious infringement.

Worship in your churches. Do good works in public, and advertise on commercial radio and TV, but stay away from our public places. Government is to be religious neutral, and that protects all of us from religious dominance and religious wars. It is a major foundation of our democratic society.

I can respect you despite our different views on religion. I cannot tolerate religious dominance.

What else to expect in a US culture that is a spin-off of the Roman Empire? Like imperial Rome, it too demands a pinch of incense offered to the God(s) to justify its colonization ventures and its mind control of its citizens. Nationalism combined with religion is the backbone of personal and world exploitation.

" Peter S.:

"Atheism is not the last frontier--it is the same old tired frontier that those who hold views opposed to the majority of Americans are constantly trying to force upon us."

I agree atheism is not the 'last frontier:' frankly, people of non-Abrahamic faiths tend to get it from *both* sides. The Abrahamics lump us in with 'unbelievers' and atheists lump us in with 'evil religious superstition.'

Though, frankly, a lot of atheists can relate to us just fine, (once they get to know us) since we accept and use science and reason, generally have a 'live and let live' attitude, and simply don't accept that reason can 'prove a negative' about a view of the Divine we don't even relate to. :)

" Yes, you have a right to be Atheist, but do not get to force God out of other peoples lives just because it offends you."

Well, here, Peter, the problem is too many of you Christians *project.* You want to force any belief but your *own* out of other people's lives...and a government meant to serve *all,* not just you and those you favor, ... by any means necessary...

" And you have no inherent right to be elected or included by society."

Everyone has a right to stand for office. Without a 'religious test,' whether that test is official or de facto, brought to us by New Improved Tide and Exxon. And certainly everyone has a right to be *included* in society.

These are principles America was founded on.

Quinn's observations about an existing general bias against non-believers is correct, and I agree that mixing church and state is seriously dangerous to our form of government.

Non-believers are in the same boat that people of color were some years back, and still are, but to a lesser degree.

But if tens of millions of individuals can become more enlightened about the folly of racial bias, there is hope that in time and with enlightenment they can also recognize the folly of religious bias as it applies to non-believers.

As an older (72), educated (Ph.D.), Caucasian Independent voter who is also a non-believer, I was drawn to Obama from the first time I heard him speak of hope. I could tell that he understood both the debilitating force of bias and the power of knowing one's own self worth.

This is exactly why so many others are drawn to Obama, and despite his human limitations he will make a great president for all, including non-believers.

Enlightenment is a process, sometimes a multi-generational process, but I feel very comfortable that Obama understands and will in his own way serve the high ideals of our Constitution.

Appealing to the superstitious is, unfortunately, a necessary compromise that the Democrats learned they must do if they want to win the election.

When Obama speaks of his "personal relationship" with the most popular deity in our society it turns my stomach, but I know the alternative is much worse. The irony of the situation is that the neo-cons in control of the Republican party only care about the the faith of the land to the extent that they can use it to corral votes. The Christlicans will look the other way when McCain starts another war, promotes fossil fuels, and abuses executive power as long as they get another socially conservative judge appointed.

If Obama can continue to combine admitted faith with rational policies, I can support him. Perhaps the opportunity to cease the war on science, revamp the healthcare system, and, most importantly, improve education will raise the bar of free inquiry in this country so that more people wake from their religious stupor.

I've never seen an Athiest lobby for a monument at the courthouse, a school based athiest-club, a statement of athiest philosophy before public meetings. Now some interest groups that might be labeled "Athiestic" by believers have tried to influence these decisions but not specifically in the name of atheism...

It seems like the believers are trying to impose worldview, not the athiests. The athiests want the public square to be content neutral. I don't see how that discriminates against believers. With 80% of the population professing Christianity, the power to change society for the good is in your hands. If you people will just try harder to live like your savior instead of imposing him on others...We'll all be better off.

The agnostics and atheists I know are aware that this our nation is mostly religious. We have no illusions that our positions are popular. On the other hand our numbers are not small (at least 10 percent) as surveys prove.

Our worry is that we see too much irrationality among the extremes in most religions. Our diverse nation, our effectiveness in the world, our competitiveness in commerce and industry and commerce are threatened by intrusion of superstition and irrationality in these important features of social, national and world affairs. I appreciate and sometimes envy the apparent influence of religion on social and family life among my religious friends. But those who fiercely defend the literal "truth" of ancient texts and improbable myths in this modern world frighten me when they insist on making them public policy.

It is strange to see posts accusing aethists of hating religion or religious people and posting 'hateful" messages. We are not hateful, we are angry and frustrated at being excluded and shunned because of our lack of religious beliefs.

Imagine that either all Catholics or all Jews or all Evangelicals, or all whatever (take your pick) were excluded from political office and demonized by other religions - that is what it feels like to be an aetheist.

Aetheists have started no wars, are not responible for any more moral, ethical or criminal activity than "persons of faith" - in fact it is definitely fewer wars (zero) and probably fewer moral and ethical lapses than people of faith, yet we are excluded.

That is why we are angry

Sad but true, if you can't immediately claim a religious label, don't even think about running for office. Its bad enough that so many of our politicians are hypocrites, the list is long and familiar. Thomas Dewey, the founder of our public school system, had an agenda, to preach atheism at public cost. Why do we wonder then that so many of our brightest students are atheists? The same has been said for Communist countries, we are only slightly different, in that the state has not used its police power to shut down religions completely.

Atheism is not the last frontier--it is the same old tired frontier that those who hold views opposed to the majority of Americans are constantly trying to force upon us. Yes, you have a right to be Atheist, but do not get to force God out of other peoples lives just because it offends you. And you have no inherent right to be elected or included by society.

Society chooses its leaders not government. Government is held to not discriminate, Society is not.

We elect politicians to make the kinds of decisions that we personally would make--how then can we expect someone to make the same decisions as us if they do not believe the same fundamentals regarding the foundation of our existence?

Ian writes, "Agnoticism and atheism are not the same thing."

No, Ian, they are exactly the same thing. Thomas Huxley coined the term agnostic because of the stigma attached to the word atheist. It was meant to be more descriptive and to sound less strident. It doesn't denote a position separate from atheism. As much as self-proclaimed agnostics might like to pretend "we're not with those people!" there is, in fact, absolutely no difference other than the label. Agnostics are atheists. The only atheists who aren't agnostic are those that claim to have direct knowledge that there is no god. One would have to be both omniscient and omnipresent to make such a claim. Doing so would be irrational. Most atheists are, above all else, rationalists.

RMORROW:

Your choice of quotes lacks a consistent tone of bigotry. Certainly there is a whiff of intolerance, but they seem more to be statements of opinion and responses to the overwhelming trumpet call that atheists are bad.

I don't believe in God. You would probably be surprised to hear my views on morality and personal values. It is my impression that you are one of those who assume we have no values and no moral compass. Making blanket statements and assumptions about a group is one of the basic definitions of bigotry. I would say the same about many of the posts here, but too many of them are based on facts and historical record. I don't condemn religion or the religious. I condemn those who bad mouth my belief system because I am an atheist without the slightest knowledge of what my values are.

"On the other hand they realize that to recognize them formally would be the kiss of death."
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

You're right! The 'evangelical base' will choose lies over truth every single time. Just ask Rick Warren.

This country is getting scarier and scarier. It seems the Democrats are willing to be just as hostile and nasty to people who are "not of faith" than the evangelicals who are often so filled with hate.

It's a shame but there it is.

I've been researching countries to escape to if McNut wins. Maybe I should consider the same escape if the Dems win if this is how things are going to be with them in charge also.

Sad, really sad, what has become of this great country.

Rmorrow, we atheists live in a country where most of us are afraid to publicly state our beliefs for fear of being ostracized from our communities, of becoming estranged from family members, of being fired or passed over for promotions at work, of exposing our children to harassment and abuse. We live in a country where none of us can aspire to public office because of the bigotry of religious believers. We live in a country where our children are falling behind the rest of the world in science and education because of overbearing and superstitious people of faith who fight against anything that contradicts their bronze age holy books. We live in a country where we are vilified and accused of being morally bankrupt and more likely to be criminals. We have to deal with all of that day in and day out and you wonder why some of us are pissed off? My advice to you is to either try to learn a little empathy for why so many of us feel as angry as we do, or failing that, grow a bloody spine.

No one is driving non-believers or anyone else out of the Democratic Party. That is not true of the Republican Party which is hostile to non-believers as well as racial and sexual minorities.
The Republican Party is increasingly white, evangelical, rigidly orthodox conservative and irrelevant.

Right on Sally. Discrimination against aetheists is the last frontier. Aetheists are excluded from running for Political office and are treated as outcasts and outsiders even though the Constitution says that there shall be "No religious test for office"

Aetheists are constantly smeared by associating them with communism and evil. "Communists were aetheists, therefore all aetheists are communists" Hitler rejected Catholicism, therefore all who reject religion are evil". "The 10 commandments are "owned" by religion, therefore no aethist can be moral or ethical"

And yet, virtually all wars and strife in the world is directly caused by conflicts in religious beliefs and religious cultures.

In Britain, France, Germany, Canada, belief in religion continues to decline as the population becomes more educated and aware of both its failings and its shortcomings. Yet the "dumbed down" American populace appears to be going in the other direction.

RMorrow:

The worst 'hate' speech on this blog so far are your posts. Of your 20 examples of atheist 'hate, maybe 2, maybe, constitute 'hate'. Expression of opinion, which is what your so-called examples are, are not hate speech per se. There were no threats made, no proposal for action against the religious, just expressions of opinion. You also seem to confuse respect for people with respect for their beliefs. I do not respect the views of Christians or right-wing conservatives, etc. but I respect the people that hold other views. Sort of a 'love the Christian, hate the Christanity' thing.

You are the only one calling others bigots. You might wish to examine your own 'hate'.

Agnoticism and atheism are not the same thing. An agnostic simply says that he does not know if there is a god an atheist denies the existence of a god. Logically, one cannot prove the non existence of god so agnosticism is more rational. For myself I always tell proselytisers, whether for God, Yahweh, or Mohamed, that if He wants to convince me He can.

Note the First Amendment of the American Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This amendment was designed to prevent the imposition of a ‘state’ religion such as Islam and Catholicism or even Cromwell’s Puritanism, because the Founding Generation of the 1700s was very much aware of the four hundred years of extremely vicious mixing of religion and politics all over Europe, Russia, and the Middle East. It was demonstrated beyond any doubt during that period that the ‘state’ destroys an individual’s formation of spirit rather than enhances it. Most of the spiritual endeavors of that period were forced to withdraw into monastic environments (ivory towers?) in order to exist .

The American Constitution sought to prevent this so that each individual could develop his own spiritual basis AS A NATURAL EXTENSION OF HIS EXISTENCE. It is only when that extension is re-incorporated into political or economic values AND imposed on others that the individual loses the spirituality. In this idea, atheism is defined as a total lack of spirituality and would be very rare, since the individual’s brain would be very nearly without consciousness. Those who find things wrong, justly, with organized religions aren’t exactly unconscious or unfeeling. But suppose you applied the First Amendment to interactions between people, not just between the state and people? That is, if you treated spiritual values as something not to be imposed at all, would it also mean that you didn’t judge someone by yours? On the other hand, if a politician was elected for a lack of spirituality (that is, judged on it), where would the nation be now? Possibly where it is?

The silliness of agnostics, atheist and religious people is hilarious. God could care less whether men believe in him or not because he loves us all regardless of our confusion. The power of God is on display everyday in recognizable forms. Death and taxes as well as the year 2008 shows how powerful God is and how puny and insignificant human thought is.

God said that we would pay tithes so that we can progress and we do so in the form of taxes whether we want to or not. We have a life span of approximately eighty years as described in the bible and we die on average after about eighty years whether we like it or not. God honored his son Jesus for sacrificing his life for our sins by momentarily stopping time and restarting it 2008 years ago and there is nothing that man can do about that.

God gave us laws that man must abide by and those laws called the Ten Commandments must be adhered to or we suffer the consequences. So all of you silly agnostics, atheist and religious people relax because God has taken care of everything whether you believe it or not all we have to do is eat drink and be merry. END THE WAR IN IRAQ.

Americans seem ready, even eager,to point out the crippling effects of fundamentalists on Islam and societies of the Middle East. But few are willing to acknowledge the crippling effect of fundamentalism on America. Of course, this is profitable for certain groups who want to be in control and they want to keep the herd quiet.

Well, I've got news for you: I don't want to be controlled! And I won't be quiet. And I won't stay in the herd.

Why is the largest, maybe even most advanced at one time, nation in the world falling behind and in decline?

We are behind because we are going backward, driving in reverse. In science and math, art and music we are not just standing still, we are trying to avoid learning, discourse and excellence.

Our children don't even know basic science and math - art and culture - BUT they do know "American Idol" and TV preachers. The Romans said that people were willing to give up their freedom for "bread and circuses." They also noted that rulers found religion useful. Rome is long gone - and we are on our way.

Maybe art and music speak more clearly than science at this point:

"And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon God they made.
And the sign flashed out its warning,
In the words that it was forming.
And the signs said, the words of the prophets
Are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls.
And whispered in the sounds of silence."

And the most important question:

"Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?"

And we answer: Mooooooo

rmorrow...

I'm not in a quote war with you. I am just trying to get you to acknowledge the deep well of intolerance from some wings of Christianity. I belong to a denomination that is less than 1% of the population. America is about 80% "Christian". Logic should tell you that the likelihood of some random atheist poster really being able to hurt Christianity in some way is ludicrous. I have been called "atheist" dozens of times...I am not one. I have been consigned to Hell more times than I can count. When my kids were growing up, they were often the odd man out as non-Christians. We are barve enough to take and remain true to our beliefs but I can assure that we have been marginalized in word and deed many times and we have never paid it back in kind.

The despotic chief and the Witch Doctor have worked since the beginning of the clans to keep the others in line. Otherwise there would be no cooperation in hunting, feeding the chief and witch doctor , or, later, digging the irrigation ditches. Later, armies were raised for the chief, emperor, president, what have you and always sent forth in the name of some god. As we become an insufferably militant nation destined to fight on in innumerable cacamamy crusades we are told by our current chief that he is led to this by god. So four thousand wonderful soldiers and innumerable treasure have been wasted because of that man's faith that god is leading him. As long as we are a nation under god we will continue to not only follow Bin Laden to the gates of hell, we might get in there first if there happens to really be one.

Who gives a dad gum? What does relligon have to do with politics. God doesn't know anything about politics so why should this be an issue? Can't you come up with a better question? Like, Obama or McCain? McCain for me!

CCNL - I must say, the world of Hermeticism and Paganism in all it's vast complexity is infinitely more interesting and far more educational and informative in every way, when compared to your thoroughly wrung out, desiccated version of Catholicism. How absolutely boring it is!

For all of your compulsive posting and over-organized lists, you're an extraordinarily under-informed religions 'expert' and seem to know nothing whatsoever of the esoteric arts.

You've got lots of ammunition, but you're firing blanks, as the saying goes. And, your underlying rightwing leanings do much to undermine your intentions to 'inform and educate'.

All the best -

"Simple Observer:

This is a form of bigotry that is rooted in centuries of indoctrination and religious dogma."

Are you also offended by the bigotry on display on this board from athiests?

"Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

Reality is not hate. Deal with it."

Yeah, and Fred Phelps is just as confident that his bigotry is reality too. You are just like him.

"Rmorrow...

I'm a Unitarian and Christians actually blogged they we deserved the Knoxville killings because "we didn't believe in Jesus"."

Got a link? You have the quote, so you must have the link. Let's see it.

I gave over twenty examples of athiest hate speech, just on this one article. If the best you can do is cite one supposed "quote" from some unnamed blog, I think I have made my case.

Rmorrow...

I'm a Unitarian and Christians actually blogged they we deserved the Knoxville killings because "we didn't believe in Jesus".

Rmorrow...

I'm a Unitarian and Christians actually blogged they we deserved the Knoxville killings because "we didn't believe in Jesus".

It doesn't surprise me to see the Democratic Party make efforts to show that people of faith can have views that differ from those who are generally referred to as the "Religious Right". There has been a great backlash towards those seen as lacking "Faith", and the Republican Party has been the standard bearer. We who choose not to believe in a God or Gods have been singled out as the root of all evil in this country. We are the reason for the decline in morals in this nation. We are, because we do not adhere to ancient superstition, without morals, without values, and without scruples.

This is a form of bigotry that is rooted in centuries of indoctrination and religious dogma. Politicians have taken advantage of these stereotypes to advance their own agendas, and it seems the Democratic Party is prepared to sacrifice us on the alter of political expediency. Unfortunately, I see little hope in the notion that those people of faith will ever concede that we atheists can have morals, that we can be good citizens, and that we can make decisions and choices that do not stray significantly from those, many of them hypocrites, who claim to be people of faith. As always, there is little we can do to change that notion. We can only exercise our rights as citizens by voting for those who we feel will best serve while continuing to exercise our own moral courage in adhering to our own belief systems in the face of misinformation, bigotry, and persecution.

Guess I'm outcast twice, since I am an atheist and a foreigner ("alien", as you say so thoroughly, makes me feel like the 8th passenger...).

Whatever, when I was at the US I was deeply surprised to find out how religious you were, how religion is paramount over politics, social life, and education at all levels - and how little real freedom of thought it was to be expected from this kind of situation. It's not just a matter of personal faith, it is a matter of turning everything into dogma. I was there when a 12-years-old boy was suspended from school and interrogated by CIA agents for having made some anti-war drawings in his art classes... This kind of things use to happen in military dictatorships, not democracies.

So I cannot refrain from laughing when I see the US media calling Iran a despotic theocracy...

RMorrow, RMorrow, RMorrow,

Reality is not hate. Deal with it.

Path says:
"A real atheist has "no faith" and does not need "a faith;" a real atheist has its own mind and that is all he/she needs to be a good person!"

If he truly is using his mind he would not be an atheist in the first place. That does not mean he needs to have a religion but means he should be spiritual. Not being spiritual is against the human makeup and what differentiates him from the rest of the animals.

"FRIEND:

I'm no outcast. I live in the suburbs with my wife and children and work for an international corporation.

A similar list could be compiled from Christians or any other religion, as this forum has shown intolerance of others over and over again."

I never said you were an outcast. Saly Quinn did. It's the title of the article.

Please compile a similar list of Christian hate speech. I don't think you can. I go to plenty of blogs, both left and right leaning. I have never seen anywhere near the hatred that spews from the athiests on this blog.

Give me a list of 5 hateful comments from Christians and I will admit you are right. In the meantime, your argument is wiped out by a flood of evidence to the contrary.

For the record, I am an agnostic myslef. I am just disgusted by the naked hatred shown by the atheist bigots on this board.

People of faith are dealing with a lost hand, intellectually. We now understand a lot about the psychology of why people invented religions. Improved knowledge about how the world works has reduced our need to invoke religious magic as explanations. But we have not made progress finding better ways to express and live our desire for community. Humankind's most disastrous inventions (religion, royalty and nationalism} express affinities but their conflicts have caused more suffering than the cumulative impact of all illness and natural hardship. We still do not know how to manage relationships. Sports fandom and identification with political parties are maybe less toxic than than other forms of us-versus-them differentiation, but also less satisfying. Anybody got an alternative, other than holding hands and saying kumbaya?

Hey hateful athiests:

here is a little excercise. Go through this blog and mark down every time a religious person mocks the beliefs of athiests. Then go through and mark down every time an athiest mocks the faith of believers.

It's pretty obvious why athiests are outcasts. Based on the evidence provided on this board, you are a bunch of close-minded, arrogant and hateful bigots.

rmorrow:

I'm no outcast. I live in the suburbs with my wife and children and work for an international corporation.

A similar list could be compiled from Christians or any other religion, as this forum has shown intolerance of others over and over again. Let's not forget this is the internet where passions run strong from anonymous postings.

Sally,

Thank you for providing some 21st century human perspectives.

From the perspective of Jesus, this is what He said about the "lost/Spiritually dead" and His purpose for coming into the world :

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[g]

19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

Why are athiests outcasts? Not because of their religious views. As the following quotes from this blog demonstrate, athiests tend to be very hateful and intolerant of the views of others:

"So, to progress as a nation we must abandon religion and put it up on the dusty shelf along with the fables of the ancient Greeks, which can be very liberating."

" I suspect by their often craven and self-serving actions that many only profess a given faith to get elected - and if you want to be elected in this country it better be Christian doctrine."

"I believe religious belief is the reason for ALL of mankind's problems."

"More blood has been spilled because of religious beliefs than any disease that has haunted the planet"

"What DOES bother me are the millions of American schmucks who actually believe the nonsense these Chief Executive Priests tell them to believe in the name of gods. Why are you so stupid?"

"You don't need a religion as a crutch to influence or infect thinking otherwise.
"

"I find religion ridiculous and people of faith even more so.
"

"Seems like all the religous are the most hateful people of all. It makes sense since they gather together weekly to spread lies about others all in the name of God."

"Most of you believers have absorbed the beliefs inserted into your minds by they adults who nurtured you. Your certainty comes after the infection, not before."

"How can we lecture other cultures about the evils of religious intolerance and hypocrisy, when we practice them at home?"

"this faith in god is no different than a child's faith in santa claus"

"Atheists and agnostics take comfort in knowing they are right and that only the ignorant or the hypocritical believe."

"Here is a man who has forfeited his title to "member of the human species" with his view that people who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior, whatever that means, will go to hell"

"I have recently discovered that a huge swath of humanity cannot get from one day to the next without a heaping spoonful of orthodoxy. And that would include "clinging" to guns and religion. It is the adult version of a toddler's blankey."

"The fact is that the leaders of America's religions are opposed to freedom not to be religious in any real sense. They want to monopolize public ceremonies and exclude those who disagree with them."

"I think this would be a happier world all the 'way around, if people would just shut up about "their" god and "their" faith"

"Who thinks the body and blood of Jesus is present in what looks just like a cracker and who believes in Jesus but thinks the cracker business is just plain silly?"

"Who the hell cares about such Bigotted pond scums views on anything."

"The major political parties in the USA are the laughing stock of the more civilized , advanced courtries for their pandering to "God" believers . It is because the USA allows everyone to vote no matter how superstitious or poorly educated they are ."

"The problem isn't with politics, it is with religion. As long as you got people making money selling this stuff, and people who are ignorant buying it, you will find the mixing of religion and politics."

"Much of the reliance on faith from W and other politicians reminds me of the Dark Ages!"

"Truth doesn't hurt. People do. Religion does. The Long Lie that is organized religion has won by hook or crook, but truth will out, human by human as the world becomes more open to the beauty of what's real."

If it makes folks happy to worship invisible people, it's none of my business -- just as it's no big deal if kids believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny.... Let's stop making mountains out of mole hills... Since I have no interest in running for political office, I could care less if the 'average American' wouldn't vote for a non-believer. I think it was P.T. Barnum who said, 'You can never go broke underestimating the U.S. public.' Yep.

A real atheist is above and beyond all the criticism and rejection coming from any religious or political group. A real atheist respects other people's right to believe in whatever they want and use their faith to whatever purpose they deem it wise to use it for. A real atheist keeps his/her ideology to him/herself, because the fact is , that we atheists leave at peace with ourselves and our surroundings, as no other ideological and theological group does!
I am a Democrat atheist and I could care less whether or not our party want to use me or ignore me. I see the larger picture, and that is, my support and vote helps elect political leaders that are willing to listen and work for the benefit of people of all faiths. A real atheist has "no faith" and does not need "a faith;" a real atheist has its own mind and that is all he/she needs to be a good person!

What disturbs me is the willingness of Democrats to bring religion into the Convention when those of us educated to respect the US Constitution know that we must NEVER mix religion with politics. I'm extremely disappointed to learn that the organizers of the DNC Convention simply gave into pressure from Evangelicals who are perhaps the worst offenders when it comes to mixing politics with religion.

I would like to comment this or other articles of yours but my English is too poor (limited)for that. Sorry.

Atheists and communities of faith can come together on questions of spirituality. The conflicts are between extremists on both side: literalists with whom no one can reason and atheists who completely deny the primacy of spiritual interiority to human beings.

One approach to avoiding conflict is explored by D. Midbar in this short piece:

http://www.atheistprayer.blogspot.com/

WaPo's homepage blares: "Atheists: The New Outcasts". As if atheists were ever in!

On Faith says: "Atheists: The Last Outcasts". In the language of religion "the last" and "the new" are interchangeable. God is everywhere, because he's nowhere. He's all powerful, because he doesn't do a damn a thing. Perfect, because we don't know what he is.

Reason will never win a popularity contest. Truth doesn't hurt. People do. Religion does. The Long Lie that is organized religion has won by hook or crook, but truth will out, human by human as the world becomes more open to the beauty of what's real.

Sally, thanks for the article. Knew I couldn't be the only one who feels excluded. I would add that fat people and atheists are the last groups that it's "O.K." to be prejudiced against. Short people, too, come to think of it.

I am white but I am also "a minority" who has often felt excluded in this country and most recently in these contests between candidates over who has the deepest Christian faith. I found it so unseemly that not only were the rumors of Obama being Muslim cast as being a negative thing, but on top of that, when he/his supporters refuted it, no one had the decency to say --Not that there's anything wrong with that! Any Seinfeld fans out there?) Religious zealots who are terrorists are a grave problem regardless of which faith - some are Muslim. Who were the people who bombed abortion clinics? Oh, yeah -Christians, predominantly. No, I'm not saying it's on the same scale! Just that I am concerned about all religious zealotry and it seems to be growing in this country. I truly believe in the American ideals of religious freedom and tolerance for the beliefs of others, including non-belief.

Much of the reliance on faith from W and other politicians reminds me of the Dark Ages! Ooo, science...scary/not g-dly. Ooo, people who think for themselves and don't blindly accept on faith what they are told or taught. Scary. Maybe we should lock them up - they are a threat.
People say that agnostics and atheiests find G-d when they get sick/are dying. I say that people scared of science, like stem cell research, change their minds when thay or their loved ones need the help. (Like the Republican Senator whose name escapes me.) I have always considered myself an American, Jewish atheist. Unfortunately, history and the growing religious zealotry and proliferation of hate groups in this country make me think that the time could come when atheists and Jews and others are rounded up. I found it very troubling when I heard Rev. Wright and learned that he is a Farrakhan admirer and that Obama chose to be in his congraegation and expose his childeren to that man's teachings?! I'm hoping that was primarily a political choice on his part, since wright unfortunately has a large followiung. That is scary. nevertheless, I have gottern over tht enough to figure that Oama is the better choice vs McBush.

As a "born-again atheist" (I was raised Presbyterian/Methodist, which some folks might consider atheist-in-training), I don't worry so much about religion in American life. I don't care about "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and I don't mind that my in-laws keep dragging the kids off to church when we visit. I came to my own road to Damascus when I was about 20, so I figure my young sons have some time to work things out for themselves.

I think it would be interesting to see a politician run as an atheist. Funny thing is, most of the presidential nominees who seem to be atheists are Republicans. Ronald Reagan never seemed comfortable with church, Bob Dole didn't make much of any religious affiliation and neither does John McCain. I was too young to vote against Reagan. I didn't vote for Dole and I won't vote for McCain. If any of these guys came out of the closet as atheists, I wouldn't change my mind about them.

I suppose being an atheist in America means you really don't care about a candidate's religion. We know that no matter what a person says publicly, what they believe privately is something else altogether.

The problem isn't with politics, it is with religion. As long as you got people making money selling this stuff, and people who are ignorant buying it, you will find the mixing of religion and politics.

Religion simply puts very good food on the table of religious leaders.

OH JEZUS MARIA FAITH WHO NEEDS THAT HOKUS/POKUS SCAM??
IVE DONE WITHOUT THAT BS FOR 73 HAPPY YEARS AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO. RELIGION POISONS EVERYTHING IT TOUCHES!! RELIGION HAS CAUSED MORE WARS AND DEATH THAN ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS EARTH!! ITS A MONEY MAKING SCAM A TOTAL RIP-OFF!!

The major political parties in the USA are the laughing stock of the more civilized , advanced courtries for their pandering to "God" believers . It is because the USA allows everyone to vote no matter how superstitious or poorly educated they are . Today in the New York newspapers is the story about how the ASPCA removed over 100 animals ( goats ,turtles , doves , etc.) from a private home . They were about to be sacraiced in a Santaria religious ceremony . The ASPCA had to take them on the grounds that they were being overcrowded and the number was in excess for farm animals in a residential area .Why the premise ? Because Religious ritual animal sacrafice is LEGAL and PROTECTED in the USA !
Come on people ... It's the 21st Century !
Lets stop superstitions from deciding our fates .

// Atheists: The New Outcasts //
// Can you imagine an atheist running for or even being considered for President? Even Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church, an open-minded and inclusive evangelical, told Larry King that he could not vote for an atheist. //

A religious leader messing with politics is as good as an Atheist.

The job of political leadership is to nurture a human being to fulfill a role at any cost - This implies political system will enable the evil within a human being if necessary.

It is duty of religious leader to make a human being into a good human being so that it can realize the goodness within and in others.

If religion intermingles with politics and vice versa, then who is left to ensure that humans realize the potential of goodness within themselves and of God's creation?

Signing Off! Good Night!

This pains me to no extent that the democrats, as Bill Maher would say, are turning into me-too republicans. The dumb morons dont realize that the public is saying why do I want me-too repubs when I can have the real repub. Dems need loose because they come across as spineless, to stand behind their convictions. I am outraged at the whole sale courting of the people of faith vote, when it is abundantly clear that they are not going to win that vote. That vote is by and large is the Bigot vote. The dems do not have any cred with the bigots. Now they are getting screwed both ways trying to chase the gettable bigot vote and alienating the secular base.

Coming this Rick Warren guy, he us a fake as a three dollar bill. How dare that good for nothing semi-literate Charlton, say that atheists are not trust worthy. Who the hell cares about such Bigotted pond scums views on anything. It pains me that both both the candidates chose to suck up to this dumb ass.

Paganplace, Paganplace, Paganplace,

Mocking Wicca and Paganism?

Mocking spells, curses, covens, black magic, witches, voodooing dolls, hoodooing the results, shadow books, maypoles, god(s) and goddess(es), Gerald Gardiner et al??

Never!!!!

Shame on the Democrats, the Republicans and both of the candidates. I fear that the Democrats and the Republicans have become too fearful to believe in and defend BOTH the "Free Exercise" AND "Establishment" clauses of the constitution and the purposeful tension that lies between them. Both Presidential candidates should have responded to last week's religious inquisition of the Presidential candidates by saying something to the following effect: "I intend to be the President of ALL the people of the United States and to preserve protect and defend a constitution which guarantees and balances the free exercise of religion against a constitutional prohibition against the establishment of any one religion over another religion or religion in general over non-belief. It is therefore inappropriate for anyone in the role of President to answer questions on their religious beliefs or to make statements suggesting that any one religion is favored by those in power or that religion in general is favored by those in power. The only inquiry that is appropriate is whether your President will abide by his/her oath of office with respect to religious issues. For this reason any candidate who is true to the ultimate oath of office must refuse to answer your questions."

Of course neither candidate or party has the guts to adhere to the principles embodied in the above statement. But doesn't that failure also indicate in the clearest possible terms that neither of the major party candidates is capable of abiding by the oath of office.

Maybe I can just read the comments if I post one? Here goes.

John something or other sarcastically says:
“people who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior, whatever that means, will go to hell (again, whatever that means).
…………
It is completely sickening.”

What is truly sickening are remarks such as the above. If I do not believe in a creator I may feel sorry for those who do and it ends there. Why would things that I do not understand, as this character admits, would make me an outspoken prejudiced bigot?

After reading through these comments, I find myself wondering just what goes on at this inter-faith conference. Do people talk about how wonderful it is that people of different faiths can all come together for a common purpose? What's so wonderful about that? Do they talk about how wonderful it is that they all believe in a invisible supernatural being? What does that have to do with being a Democrat or an American?

Do they get into the details of how their faiths are different? Who believes in a god with a long white beard; who has a prophet who flew to heaven on a winged horse, or one who buried golden sheaves in New York state? Who thinks Jesus ascended into heaven and who thinks his mother Mary was "assumed" into heaven? Who thinks the body and blood of Jesus is present in what looks just like a cracker and who believes in Jesus but thinks the cracker business is just plain silly? Who thinks Jesus is the Messiah and who's still waiting for the messiah, 2,000 years later.

If they actually talked about their incredibly conflicting and completely unprovable beliefs, wouldn’t they wonder why they even bothered to get together on the basis of having something very important in common?

these people are politicians & they want to win votes. Like it or not, the public face of selflessness and traditional morality wears a collar. It doesn't matter if that's a true reflection of reality, when the object is to WIN an election.

Every one should feel unease with the mixing of religion and politics. The vision of a secular state as seen by the Founding Fathers was in answer to the then quite recent century of religious war that devastated Europe. I am an atheist. It matters not to me what any one else believes. That said, I don't want laws and policy made by the people who are elected to government, to curry favor with or be aligned with, one religious sect or another. Profess your faith if you must, but don't legislate your faith.

And frankly, I think this would be a happier world all the 'way around, if people would just shut up about "their" god and "their" faith", and tried living up to their precepts of their "god".

The fact is that the leaders of America's religions are opposed to freedom not to be religious in any real sense. They want to monopolize public ceremonies and exclude those who disagree with them.

That is the fact. I don't think that the time to revolt against this situation is now, but we must recognize that it is the fact -- otherwise priests and ministers would refuse to participate in invocations without specifically mentioning those who disagree with them in every invocation.

To RMorrow:

"Daddy, make the bad atheists stop calling me names! They hurt my feelings."

Boo hoo.

I have recently discovered that a huge swath of humanity cannot get from one day to the next without a heaping spoonful of orthodoxy. And that would include "clinging" to guns and religion. It is the adult version of a toddler's blankey. Not that I have anything against people of faith. But, really, people. A lot of what faith teaches, like vote Republican or vote for Satan, is rubbish.

Sally Quinn, thank you for writing this article. It's nice to see religious writers here in On Faith that dare to speak out in support of we lowly atheists. People like you and Susan Brookes Thistelwaite have done a lot to temper my views on religion. I find the DNC's "we have religious cred" side show to be pretty embarassing and irritating, but I'd find four years of McCain in the White House far more so. I'm more afraid of the hawks starting world war three than I am of not getting invited to political parties. The long term implications of this nation's current mixing of religion and politics are dangerous and worrying, but if this is what it takes right now, so be it.

I'll personally help push the Trojan Cross up to the city gates as long as what springs out are pluralists like Obama and not a thousand ravening Monica Goodlings. I'm not yet particularly concerned that the Democratic party is interested in theocracy. I already *know* the Republicans are. That makes for an easy choice come November (as if it wasn't easy already after the last eight years even without considering church/state issues).

I'd much rather have a leader who'll bravely stand up to Christian Nationalists (who seem bound and determined to eventually cause a civil war in the coming decades), but I'll settle for one that doesn't touch off a nuclear war next year. Right now we need to choose our battles wisely.

It might have been more appropriate for Sally to end the title of her piece with a question mark. This is just an opinion piece, but how could atheists and agnostics agree with legitimate objections being served up in this way, mixed amongst questionable statements about other groups who seem to be enjoying recognition by the Democratic party? Really, are atheists and agnostics now and forevermore the last interest group that is not well-recognized openly by the national convention? Come on, now.

More people should realize that at these national gatherings, political leaders cannot espouse all views of all constituents at once and deliver a consistent message. They can talk about inclusiveness, but it would be hard to implement realistically at the convention. What they try to do during this season is to appear friendly to more people who can vote for them. If at the national level they felt the votes of atheists and agnostics would help them reach a tipping point, they would likely give them more attention. But at some point, atheists and agnostics might just be subjected to the kind of pandering other interest groups endure.

WHEREFORE: “Ye can fooleth some good Folk(s) some times, but, not all THE-PEOPLE all the time”

isn't is amazing a pot of "Stu" tells you u r looking 4 a jub.....trust no one, ever.

I am an atheist. In fact, I don't understand how anyone can take the dogma of any religion seriously. Surely Santa Claus and the tooth fairy are a lot more plausible than an afterlife.

Which brings us to Rick Warren. Here is a man who has forfeited his title to "member of the human species" with his view that people who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior, whatever that means, will go to hell (again, whatever that means).

Imagine that anyone could think that, much less say it!

Imagine that that "person", if he can be called a person, could be the moderator for the first encounter between presidential candidates.

It is completely sickening.

Sally, I agree that we Democrats have a problem but being inclusive has always had it's difficulties. In the 60's we lost the south due to the inclusion of black Americans. In the 80,s we lost "Evangelicals" because we included atheists, pro-choice groups and gays. We will continue to lose intolerant voters for whatever prejudice they choose. Those of us who celebrate the diversity of America and the freedom to be different will not leave the party. The old axiom is still apropos - I don't belong to an organized party I'm a Democrat.

Why are athiests outcasts? Not because of their religious views. As the following quotes from this blog demonstrate, athiests tend to be very hateful and intolerant of the views of others:

"So, to progress as a nation we must abandon religion and put it up on the dusty shelf along with the fables of the ancient Greeks, which can be very liberating."

" I suspect by their often craven and self-serving actions that many only profess a given faith to get elected - and if you want to be elected in this country it better be Christian doctrine."

"I believe religious belief is the reason for ALL of mankind's problems."

"More blood has been spilled because of religious beliefs than any disease that has haunted the planet"

"What DOES bother me are the millions of American schmucks who actually believe the nonsense these Chief Executive Priests tell them to believe in the name of gods. Why are you so stupid?"

"You don't need a religion as a crutch to influence or infect thinking otherwise.
"

"I find religion ridiculous and people of faith even more so.
"

"Seems like all the religous are the most hateful people of all. It makes sense since they gather together weekly to spread lies about others all in the name of God."

"Most of you believers have absorbed the beliefs inserted into your minds by they adults who nurtured you. Your certainty comes after the infection, not before."

"How can we lecture other cultures about the evils of religious intolerance and hypocrisy, when we practice them at home?"

"this faith in god is no different than a child's faith in santa claus"

"Atheists and agnostics take comfort in knowing they are right and that only the ignorant or the hypocritical believe."

I'm an atheist. Most Americans are not. I'd far rather have the Democratic Party work to win over religious voters than have four more years of a Republican Administration. I am perfectly willing to suffer through a bunch of God-talk if that's what it takes. Fixing the economy and the environment and America's standing abroad are way more important than explicitly "including" me as an atheist.

"Being an agnostic I find it so difficult to find acceptance in America. I find religion ridiculous and people of faith even more so".

Ever consider that the possibilty that you are "not accepted in America" because you think that anyone who does not share your narrow and intolerant views is "ridiculous"? Why should your bigotry be acceptable? Do you "accept" people who think agnositics are "ridiculous"?

Here is a tip to the hateful and bigoted athiests and agnostics: stop hating people who don't share your spiritual views. Nobody likes bigots.

Why would you attend "an Interfaith Gathering" and be offended to find discussion of faith there?

Judging from the hateful sentiments of athiests on this board, my guess is that athiest are "outcasts", not because of their lack of faith, but because they are arrogant and intlolerant bigots.

Don't worry Sally. Athiests commentators and posters dominate the "OnFaith" blog.

As an atheist I must say that I find the tone of the last 20 years rather depressing and rather scary. For me the pre-late 19th century view that the Bible is more metaphor and allegory than literal truth and should be used to help solve personal problems rather than those on a society wide scale is much more rational than a literal interpretation -- which Clarence Darrow so supremely demolished at Daton. Everyone finds inspiration and advice from friends, books, TV shows, and music and to me the Bible is just another piece of literature in that vein.

If it were the literal truth, we would be at the mercy of not only a magical being whose whims were well documented in the book of Job but to those people who claim to speak in Its name. One miracle and all of science, learning, technology, books etc are swept away and in fact are impossible, because knowledge which can be used to produce the goods and services the first world has come to know and rely upon cannot be transmitted from generation to generation because this being may or may not change the very fabric of the universe to suit its whims.

So instead of having reproducible experiments and tests of understanding of the nature of our universe, we would have to rely on the untestable assertions of people who claim like Mrs Lincoln's medium to channel the Emperor Constantine and give us advice on how to run our wars -- except religious people claim to have conversations with Jesus or God and claim they know how to run governments and our lives and hold the threat of eternal damnation over us if we do not do as they say.

This is unacceptable. If I wanted to be told what to do, I'd join the Army, but I prefer to make my judgments for myself. Yeah, perhaps I sound a little Ayn Rand (with whom I have strong disagreements both in philosophy and morality and humor) but that is parallel evolution.

I prefer to find my wisdom in the Jefferson Airplane who (paraphrased) noted that Jesus is only the Christian's Lord and Master of the universe because he is the son of God. This is rank nepotism and not democratic. It is counter to every founding principle of America and the Enlightenment.

So, to progress as a nation we must abandon religion and put it up on the dusty shelf along with the fables of the ancient Greeks, which can be very liberating.

So Rick Warren then wouldn't have voted for our greatest atheist President, Thomas Jefferson? We should all keep in mind the words of the great Mr. Jefferson:

"Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom

It seems to me that while many politicians profess a strong faith, based on their actions, they don't seem to follow or even remotely reflect on the basic tenets of their organized faith. Indeed, as we see splayed across the media, the actions of many a "deeply religous" politician, indicate that they so routinely transgress their religous belief systems in their private and public lives that for them to profess faith and service to higher powers is an absurdity. I suspect by their often craven and self-serving actions that many only profess a given faith to get elected - and if you want to be elected in this country it better be Christian doctrine. Wouldn't it be great if they did follow some basics, such as love your enemy and to be your brothers keeper.

.

Better a OBAMA never a McCAIN!
Better a OBAMA never a McCAIN!
Better a OBAMA never a McCAIN!
Better a OBAMA never a McCAIN!
Better a OBAMA never a McCAIN!
Better a OBAMA never a McCAIN!
Better a OBAMA never a McCAIN!
Better a OBAMA never a McCAIN!-……_______________
PEACE,PAZ,SALAAM,SHALOM,FREIDEN,МИР

М

И

Р

Park Religion Outside Please.

It is said that the Jesuits do a great job to help students to
reach God via independent thought, but based on grounded logic. Mr. Tierman is still a work-in-process, but that's good.

Mr. Tierman, takes it as an effrontery ( to him ) that religion should be an element entering the Democrat convention. Mr. Tierman seems to suggest that political conventions are a sanctuary that should not be violated by hyperbole tainted with religious conviction; further, Mr. Tierman seems to suggest that the Separation Clause should apply to any public forum if it would influence positions that would affect secular dogma.

Both Hitler and Trotsky blunted religion in any forum, and
Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's public information minister,
reported in his diaries, that Hitler would depose Pius XII.
Both Hitler and Trotsky were ruthless in taking down those
that confronted their actions of secular morality.

But Mr. Tierman is undergoing his own journey of discovery,
which prefers comfort and expediency, but that's his thing.

What cost?

Not much cost and here is why. Atheists are intelligent enough to realize that the cost of being shunned is easier to pay than the cost of another 4 years of Republican led disaster.

Also, given Rick Warren's inability to vote for an atheist, I'd suggest you reconsider what 'open-minded' and 'inclusive' mean. He's different by degree, not by kind.

I agree with the sentiments expressed by Quinn, though she considerably exaggerates how far gay people have come. We're THE bogeymen of the Republican party and Democrats still only embrace us with some trepidation.

The problem I'm having with all this religiosity within both parties is the constitutional question it raises. Article 6 states, "...but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

" VICTORIA:
" I don't believe the 2 party system is American."

Unfortunately, perhaps, the American system is very structurally-biased toward two parties. Parties do rise and fall, supplant one of the two big ones or be absorbed by them, but most of the math works against any three holding a balance for long. It's kind of intended that way: the notion is that with some very absolute guarantees of individual and minority liberty, it's very hard for a coalition of fickle minority interests to impose some fashionable tyrrany.

We often have to *fight* to 'form a more perfect union' by expanding rights and freedoms, but it's also designed to *resist* any popular majority from taking away those freedoms when it's politically popular or a religious establishment decides to pander for influence.

This is kind of about the *long view.* Even if we both know that doesn't always result in immediate justice.

Checks and balances and the like. This is the intention. I like the idea of proportional representation, especially when the two-party system gets gamed by information control and religious-authoritarian control, but... all this scuffling does serve a purpose.

If I weren't afraid of a spoiler vote- I'd be doing that Jaynipa- as I stated earlier- I don't believe the 2 party system is American.

">http:///> t///h///a///n///k///s///////O
V?:♦)<?:♦)<?:♦) <?:♦) <?:♦)<?:♦/B
O?:♦)<?:♦)<?:♦) <?:♦) <?:♦)<?:♦/A
T?:♦)<?:♦)<?:♦) <?:♦) <?:♦)<?:♦/M
O?:♦)<?:♦)<?:♦) <?:♦) <?:♦)<?:♦/A
\\\\\\\\\\\\\2\\\\0\\\\0\\\\9+\\\\\\\\\\\\.&
V?:♦)<?:♦)<?:♦) <?:♦) <?:♦)<?:♦/B
O?:♦)<?:♦)<?:♦) <?:♦) <?:♦)<?:♦)i
T?:♦)<?:♦)<?:♦) <?:♦) <?:♦)<?:♦/D
E?:♦)<?:♦)<?:♦) <?:♦) <?:♦)<?:♦/E
Yea OBAMA--Team! Nay McCAiN.......__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden SE! YES! YA! DA! OK!
.
.
.
Vote: Brothers & Sisters Obama’s & Biden’s for PREZ's instead in Nov.2008+

Vote: PEACE,PAZ,SALAAM,SHALOM,AHiMSA,ZHENGYU, FREIDEN,МИР…

I enjoyed your article on Dems and faith. However, I would hardly characterize Rick Warren as open-minded and inclusive if he wouldn't vote for an atheist. He sounds more like a religious bigot to me and he obviously does not believe in Article 6 of our Constitution which prohibits a religious test for public office.

I would like to know exactly what right those police officers think they have to remove someone from a building for stating an opinion. That is a flat violation of the 1st Amendment. Their conduct was, in short, illegal.

If you're conservative, vote for Bob Barr.

If you're liberal, vote for Ralph Nadar.

The reasonable alternative to the pandering Dems and Reps is to support the one Presidential candidate who has made sense from the start, namely Ralph Nader. Go to www.votenader.org. Read his issues, follow the links. Do something sensible, instead wasting time fretting about Dems and Reps.

I used to think I was an Agnostic, Pantheistic, and a Deist.

Now I believe in no "god", no "Higher Power" or "Intelligence", because those are words humans use to describe an entity, and that is what I do not believe in.

I believe religious belief is the reason for ALL of mankind's problems.

Whether covertly or overtly, it all boils down to how people differ in their opinions of what is right and what is wrong, both backed up by someone's religious beliefs.

For example; You can say Bush wanted to invade Iraq for the oil, or you can say what he said, that his god told him to, to help the people.

Both are founded on religious belief. Going to Iraq for the oil is when someone believes they deserve the right, more than anyone else, to rape a country of its natural resources regardless of who gets killed.

That "right" is what religious people believe their god has given them.

So whether Bush wanted to invade Iraq souly for its oil or because he believed god wanted him too, in his mind, the plan was okay in his god's eyes.

More blood has been spilled because of religious beliefs than any disease that has haunted the planet.

The Founders knew this, they knew that when church and state are carefully kept separate, they both flourish and grow.

“The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State.”
~ James Madison, Father of the Constitution

I believe it is difficult to distinguish between voting for one candidate from another on one single issue. Instead it is important to look at the totality of the candidate and his or her party. Though not a person of faith, I do think the Democratic Party will get my vote because they are closer to my world view. I do not need the Democrats to publically embrace atheists and agnostics in order to vote for them.

I don't know why everyone keeps quoting Rick Warren like it's a big deal he said he wouldn't vote for an atheist. Religion is his business, why would he support a leader who wouldn't protect his revenue stream? Can you imaging the president of American Cattleman saying he would endorse a vegetarian?

I'm an atheist and I'm not bothered by the corporate religionists who are guilty of nothing but successfully inserting their billion-dollar lobbies into the national political scene- kudos on your business prowess. What DOES bother me are the millions of American schmucks who actually believe the nonsense these Chief Executive Priests tell them to believe in the name of gods. Why are you so stupid?

In our representative government, it is natural for politicians to gravitate toward the majority, because after all, that's where the votes are. If the Democrats made themselves the Athiest party, they would attract only 5% of the vote. Because they wouldn't be representing the will of the majority of the people, they wouldn't have much power. This is proper in representative government.

I don't think the athiest really have a legitimate beef here, though. They weren't excluded from the party or even the interfaith gathering. They were only requested to behave themselves. What is wrong with that?

"I don't care if you believe in little green men, Mohammed, or Jesus! Show me how it makes a difference...."

It makes a difference. Not always a *good* difference, but if you really have 'no horse in this race,' then get over the notion you're supposed to be 'Ultimately Right' and let's deal with what we *are* dealing with, here.

People. Us. Our future. The oft-subjective creatures we are.

I'm sure there are *plenty* of atheists in the GOP. They're just the ones who *don't mind lying about it.*

"Sorry if you felt that way Paganplace. I have made no assumptions about you, in fact I'm not even talking about you, I'm talking to you."

Then talk to me. Don't come with your generalizations about 'believers' and expect everyone to answer to them. :)

To me, you're talking the same as the Fundies, when I know you can do better.

You say, "Sadly, it seems they have taken Leah Daughtry's approach. Don't answer the mail." Yes, it may be sad, but how do you win in a country in which over half don't "believe" in evolution?

I too am an agnostic, so testimony from "peope of faith" is not convincing. I'd rather listen to someone with high ethical principles: honesty, respect, and fairness---and I'll know how ethical someone is by how they behave, not by what they believe. I don't care if you believe in little green men, Mohammed, or Jesus! Show me how it makes a difference....

The motion is seconded. Do we have a quorum? Aye or nay.

Ha, Concerned Christian, what you say in mockery, I say in sincerity:

"The kind Fates have blessed my home,
The kind Fates have blessed my heart,
The kind Fates have blesed my loved ones,
I offer thanks with a humble heart.
I thank the Goddess for my life,
I thank the Goddess for my love.
I thank the Goddess for continued blessings
already on their way."

So mote it be. :)

:P

Problem?

I've been in situations where I've stood a good chance of being killed or injured or slap blown up, and it made me believe in the sheer randomness of it all.

Being an agnostic is to be an "other." To be one who just doesn't care about it at all is to be a real outcast.

You make the assumption that I was never a 'non-believer.'

Sorry if you felt that way Paganplace. I have made no assumptions about you, in fact I'm not even talking about you, I'm talking to you.

NMF, unfortunately the republicans have taken over the libertarian party now too. Bob Barr is just another authoritarian republican lying through his teeth to get elected.
By absorbing the libertarians in this manner the republicans have defeated a party which will compete with them for votes.

I used to vote republican, I even voted for Reagan once. I left for the libertarians after that because the small-government BS the republicans were claiming to support had been taken over by the christians who wanted a large christian government to run the country.

It's been interesting to watch how this has played out over the last 30 years. The republicans have yelled the loudest about the christian values they support, and have managed to sucker large numbers of these people into their ranks. Yet they have done nothing other than yell about it.

I suppose if they did christianize the government the way they claim the would, there would be nothing left to sell.

In the last 40 years, 20 million (yes, 20 million) people who have had near-death experiences and survived described a common scenario with a consensus that included RELIGION WAS IRRELEVANT in how one lived one's life. Only two behavioral qualities were measured and considered important in reviewing past living history: A) What did you do to help your fellow man?, and, B) What did you do to increase your own knowledge? These two basic simple guidelines covers the totality of how one should live one's life. You don't have to be a genius to figure this out, and you don't need a religion as a crutch to influence or infect thinking otherwise.

I agree. Faith should be left out of politics. Abortion for example is a values issue you teach at home. I stop going to church during elections, why? Because I feel pressured to vote for the person who's against abortion. For all I know we could all be sheep being led to slaughter. Look at Bush he was pro-life yet he's sending our young to be killed for oil and money. We need to look at the whole picture not just this one area. What's happened to loving our neighbor and turning the other cheek? I guess like they say "Common sense is not so common."

Well, Not, (Sorry about the delay, something popped up)

"I do find that to be interesting. It seems impossible to describe non-belief to a believer, who can only see a different belief. It is as if they have an inability to see a certain color and form there deny it exists."

You make the assumption that I was never a 'non-believer.'

I wasn't raised Pagan, but I spent a lot of time not-believing, (even what I was experiencing that II later saw in my own faith's context, ...frankly, because of the atheists-v-monotheists definition of what 'religion' is, I didn't consider those experiences to have anything to *do* with 'Religion,' ) but... Sure, I know the attitude. Lived it for a while.

(not that being an 'ex-anything' proves much, but I still feel entitled to comment.)

Still, Not, we hear things like this:

" DS:

" Being an agnostic I find it so difficult to find acceptance in America. I find religion ridiculous and people of faith even more so."

Ahm, you can blanketly-ridicule people or find acceptance... Very difficult to do both.

If you want to find acceptance, well, 'if you find it not within yourself, you will not find it without.'

This is about *people.*

When it comes to what we do next, could it be *what you or some Christian 'believes' isn't the *important* part?

If we as true Americans believe in the separation of church and state, then no political party should debate who is religious or
not. John Kennedy made that clear when he was President and
the constitution declares there "shall not be any relgious test for
public office".

Interesting article. I think many of us atheists have "lost faith" in the secular nature of the democratic party. I will vote democratic one last time to prevent McCain from becoming president but that is it.

I think all agnostics, athiests, and rational thinking Americans should ask themselves the simple question... do we need the government to tell us what to do?

If you answer yes, stay democratic or republican. If you say no... check out the libertarians. All is not lost.

DZ - I hadn't heard your story before - awful, but thanks for letting us know about it. I like to think that kind of thing wouldn't happen now.

I also think things could be different politically for atheists in just a few years.

Imagine - it's 2012 - Obama is running as an incumbent after a successful first term. the fundy menace has fallen into the background. Atheists ask and are accepted for attendance at the convention interfaith-conference, or whatever they call it. No big deal - nothing to lose.

Thank of the other movements - it's only a matter of time.

As Hillary said last night - Chelsea's grandmother was born before women had the right to vote and in the primary Chelsea was able cast her vote for president for her own mother.

Hmmm, there has to be a Wiccan spell or two to eliminate the anger from all this Democratic Party lack of respect/love for atheists, pagans and Muslims.

Here are two: http://bestwiccanspells.tripod.com/

1. "To free yourself of anger by Juniper

Add three teaspoons of mint leaves to one cup of boiling water. Let the tea steep for six minutes and inhale the steam as the tea strengthens. Strain, sweeten with honey, and chant the following over the tea:

'Cool my anger, herb of mint. Honey, sweeten my intent.

My attitude, I ask you, change. Toss heat of temper out of range.'

Drink the tea and feel your anger evaporate. "

2. "Unconditional Love Spell by Juniper

*white, pink and black candle

During every full moon, every month to make good fortune last

'The kind Fates have blessed my home,
The kind Fates have blessed my heart,
The kind Fates have blesed my loved ones,
I offer thanks with a humble heart.
I thank the Goddess for my life,
I thank the Goddess for my love.
I thank the Goddess for continued blessings
already on their way."

I don't understand. What did Bob Tiernan think that an "Interfaith Gathering" would consist of? Presumably, it would resemble a church service, yes? As a person who did not believe in God, he was certainly able to participate, but I can't imagine why it would have made sense for him to do so.

I think worries about mixing religion and politics are valid but separate from concerns about being inclusive to all religions. (Unless atheists really would like atheism to be considered a religion, and their non-belief to be considered one more shade of belief. That might be true, but I haven't gotten the impression that they wish to be included in THAT way.) Mr. Tiernan could have protested the fact that the Democratic party was holding an Interfaith Gathering at all, but on the grounds of separation of church and state, not on the grounds that he wasn't included, whatever that means (since he chose to attend). Atheist Democrats are certainly free to meet prior to the convention, right?

Just as religious Democrats should realize there are atheists among us, so do atheist Democrats need to realize that many of their fellow Dems truly believe that God exists. I agree that it's horrible that to become President, we've sunk to requiring a belief in God. It's dangerous, because believing in God doesn't describe ones ability to lead the country. But it's not right to ask believing Democrats to keep mum about their faith just because it makes some atheist Dems feel insecure. There's room for all of us.

Well said. Being an agnostic I find it so difficult to find acceptance in America. I find religion ridiculous and people of faith even more so.

Now that that the Democrats have officially found Jesus, it's apparent that agnostics, atheists and other undesirables need not bother to vote in November.

A party that doesn't support me doesn't deserve my support.

To those who are rankled by Quinn's post: What is your point? That we non-theists and secularists aren't unduly excluded or that we are and should be?

At least five percent of the people in this country are self-professed atheists or agnostics (see latest Pew study), yet as far as I know there's one single person between the House, the Senate, (V)POTUS, and the Supreme Court justices that admits to such a worldview (Pete Stark). There can be no reasonable doubt: non-theists are underrepresented in government.

The number of people, religious or otherwise, who firmly believe that religion should not be a part of our politics and laws (i.e., secularists) is substantially higher ... yet what party professes such views presently? Certainly neither of the two large ones. Again, it is plain to anyone being objective that secularists are underrepresented.

I have no objection to people practicing their religious beliefs, or even to the inevitability that their faith will influence their political views. I simply find the direct incorporation of patently religious positions into our political platforms and laws dangerous and misguided. Yet we do ... and any attempt NOT to have Christianity codified into our laws is disingenuously labeled "anti-religious."

It is facile and arrogant for religionists (by which I mean the diametric of "secularist", not all people of religion) to dismiss our concerns about discrimination. Of course religionists do not believe we are discriminated against ... it's your country and you are getting your way.

Consider the difference between Rick Warren's admission that he would not vote for an atheist and some reciprocal statement from me. Pastor Warren has very likely never had to make such a choice in his entire voting life, whereas I've never had the option of casting a vote for a non-theist on any ballot (excluding write-in).

We non-theists simply cannot take such a stand in any practical sense, and Rick Warren's stand is abstract and symbolic. Moreover, I wouldn't take such a stand even if I could precisely because I don't want their or my religion to be an issue at all. And there is the fundamental asymmetry.

So the next time one of you objecting to this post levels the "anti-religion" charge at those of us who want to (for example) restore our pledge of allegiance to one that does not mention "God", ask yourself if there's anyone out there working to have it read "Under NO God". (Hint: No one.)

I have been saying this for a long time. Atheists are second class citizens in America. Now that the color barrier and the sexism barrier have been broken through, if not entirely demolished, it is long past time to treat atheists with respect. The idea that someone could never vote for an atheist is outrageous. Let's face it. Virtually all of the world's intellectuals are atheists, although some may not be willing to announce it for obvious reasons. I understand the problem the Democrats face but this really is appalling.

DZ, DZ, DZ,

So you were a pacifist first. Those atheists fighting in foxholes to protect your "arse" probably don't have much sympathy for you. And your prison story reeks of the oooze of significant embellishment. But then again maybe you could reference your law suit against said prison???

That's okay because I could not vote for Rick Warren. I find all the politicians like Sen. Lieberman sacrilegious using bible quotes for votes. Sen. Obama I don't mind using them because the right wing and or Clinton supporters have painted him as a Muslim and he now has to prove he is a Christian righting a wrong. Seems like all the religous are the most hateful people of all. It makes sense since they gather together weekly to spread lies about others all in the name of God.

Paganplace- well said-

Not Muslims (plural) but Muslims(singular) Maher Hathout- at the confernece- I don't know if I could consider Bush's recognition of Islam as a "real" religion much of a hearty advocacy considering he has spent his career killing 10s of thousands of them, and forcing 4.2million of them to be a stateless refugee population.
Unless the right is to be killed or displaced- I'll take a pass.

I personally was very happy when Obama characterized the American people as both believers and non-believers.
It is an essential difference in the two candidates.

I also, relaizing the penchant for fear-mongering that the GOP is known for, would never expect Obama to fall on a sword for muslims, and have said so vociferously on Muslim blogs when Obama's people kicked the girls wearing hijab(headscarf) off the stage.

I cannot imagine the GOP even letting atheists into the convention without their get into convention free GOP voters registration-

Too late for an Atheist Operation Chaos to register-
I'll go one further and say that I don't even believe a 2 party system is really american.

Magpie- you are funny.

"Can you imagine an atheist running for or even being considered for President?"

Yes, and I would prefer it! Lets face it, 7 of the 10 commandments are in some respect supported by laws. Do you think an atheist president will say that it is now alright to kill people, to dishonor your mother and father, to lie, to commit adultry, etc.? Some of our politicians of faith have already commited some of these acts so how are they any better?

Meh. We're in the same bind as the fundies. Who else are we going to vote for? I'd much rather have the Democrats courting sensible, thinking religious with the caveat that Democrats support choice and the separation of church and state than the Republicans promising enforced pregnancy and a theocratic America (promises they have NO intention of keeping, btw).

Perfectly acceptable to me Paganplace, I certainly make no claims as to how other people should perceive that which I find to be white noise.

It's the assertions made by the believers regarding what atheists are and are not which I find so interesting. I'm trying to explain why I think it's a matter of perspective - from inside a belief system it seems difficult for the human mind to see those who disagree as not coming from a competing belief system.

There are people who simply don't have such a belief system. The absence of it is not a variety of it. You perhaps have heard people say that describing atheism as a religion is like describing starvation as a food group, or bald as a hair color.

I do find that to be interesting. It seems impossible to describe non-belief to a believer, who can only see a different belief. It is as if they have an inability to see a certain color and form there deny it exists.

" Not:

"Thanks Mike. See Paganplace, what I mean?

"So thoroughly indoctrinated that he can't perceive anything outside of his scope, all things must therefore relate only to what knows to be "truth".

"If someone doesn't agree with his truth, it must be that they are angry at the truth rather than someone who doesn't believe it."

I dunno, I'm ...not... the one named Not. :)

But, yeah, an awful lot of atheists in fact buy into the same premises as *specific* religions, including what it means to be an atheist or of another faith, ...and live down to them, just taking the opposite position on questions someone else framed for them.

To *me* that endless argument-designed-to-go-nowhere is 'white noise' at times.

But so are a lot of things, to a lot of people: the sounds of the sea to those not raised to it, the sounds of the forest to those not willing to let go of their *characterizations* and hear what it says to millions of years of instincts ...the sounds of the city that it takes to know when trouble's afoot... Or even what fire apparatus is rolling...

White noise to some. What we need to deal with, to others. It's not always about what the talky-head wants to orient to.

" Not:

"My reference to the entire god noise was specific to the lack of belief of the unbeliever, that is how I personally perceive all this talk about gods."

So indeed. Is that important?

I'm refuting the assertions made by the good doctor.
He has limited us to a state relating only to his belief system, I am trying to describe why this is an incorrect perspective, and incorrect premise, and from there an incorrect conclusion.

Do you listen to noise, or do you just tune it out?
In my case I tune it out. I don't disagree with any particular frequencies or harmonics which others may perceive in it, I just tune it all out.

The doctor's premise isn't aware of that.

Excellent points in the article.

Seems that most people are ignorant of Mark Twain's warnings against any institutional church, and ignorant of some of the "founding fathers" NOT being Christians.

Freedom of religion includes freedom FROM forced religion.

Thanks Mike. See Paganplace, what I mean?

So thoroughly indoctrinated that he can't perceive anything outside of his scope, all things must therefore relate only to what knows to be "truth".

If someone doesn't agree with his truth, it must be that they are angry at the truth rather than someone who doesn't believe it.

" Not:

"My reference to the entire god noise was specific to the lack of belief of the unbeliever, that is how I personally perceive all this talk about gods."

So indeed. Is that important?

"White noise, know what I mean? The distinctions between one god or the other, or the many ... they all are of a family of concepts, from outside that family they appear to be white noise."

So, you propose to interpret what you see as 'white noise' for us?

I mean, there's *cosmic background radiation.* That's white noise, too.

"It's difficult to care about white noise."

Not overwhelmingly so, in some cases, it seems. :)

What we *care* about in this context is *people.* Not Christian unprovable absolutes, not yours. People.

Like you.

Like me.

Like all those walking 'white noise' generators.

Cacophonous, maybe. But there's information there.

I'm getting a bit tired of hearing people say "It's an interfaith convention - of course atheists weren't invited!" and expect that to be a resonable explanation. Are you saying you'd be perfectly alright with your chosen party holding an Everyone-But-Christians (or whatever your religion may be) convention? You really wouldn't feel a little betrayed by your elected representatives if they held an event specifically geared to disclude you & yours?

Think about it.

Atheists don't exist.

They're just people who are so angry at God that they put up a wall.

That's what I think.

My reference to the entire god noise was specific to the lack of belief of the unbeliever, that is how I personally perceive all this talk about gods.

White noise, know what I mean? The distinctions between one god or the other, or the many ... they all are of a family of concepts, from outside that family they appear to be white noise.

It's difficult to care about white noise.

Well, Not, I thought your 'context' was:

"The entire god noise"

and the usual "not all of these (that claim One Truth)" can be correct.

At least, that's misleading to say, cause, actually *most* of the population of the Earth, even 'large groups' does *not* believe they have access to 'the one revealed truth.'

There are certain things I do not believe. That doesn't mean I'm attached to the notion only a singular truth exists.

Paganplace, you avoided my context. I said large groupings of believers. I did not quantify beyond that, I did not specify any of them.

One of the traits which adds a belief to this group is the claim that only it possesses the only truth.

I did not say All belivers. That would make this mistake is ... interesting.

Not:

"Each claims to have the only truth."

Incorrect.

Oh, Paul. How unworthy.

" paul taylor:

"The atheists do have a church. And they do use it to political advantage. It is the Unitarian Universalist Church."

Maybe you should do some research. There aren't a lot of declared 'atheists' in the UU, ...though some will call you an 'atheist' if you don't have to sign your soul on a creedal dotted line and profess to believe in a particular idea of 'God.'

Though when someone went in and shot em up for being non-Christian 'liberals,' funny how they prayed.

"And, do you know, you can actually believe in God and still be a welcome member?"

Fancy that. You can also be a welcome member if you don't pretend you have 'faith' when you don't, or if you believe in other faces of 'God' than those who fear-and-smear about 'atheists' demand.

Phillip C. Smith, Ph.D., you are showing us how being a believer limits your ability to perceive.

In software we have something called a Null Pointer.
A variable has a value, it can be a positive or a negative number. Or the variable can never have been assigned a value, it has a non-value null.

The entire god noise is a null pointer for many of us. I have no clue whether or not there are any gods, I don't care. It smells like crap, that's one thing I can say. But whether it is or is not true, who cares?

Most of you believers have absorbed the beliefs inserted into your minds by they adults who nurtured you. Your certainty comes after the infection, not before.

Large groupings of believers on our planet have mutually exclusive beliefs, they can't all be right - therefore at least some of them are wrong.
Each claims to have the only truth.

Which one is right? If some of them are wrong, could it be that all of them are wrong?

I think so.

And I saw another poster here recently say something I thought quite incisive.

Christians will not vote for atheists, but atheists will vote for Christians. What do you call someone who is against you just because of what you are?

A Bigot.

"The atheists do have a church. And they do use it to political advantage. It is the Unitarian Universalist Church."

Paul Taylor,

You are a nitwit.

I've been a member of the UU church. I was married in a UU church. My mother was buried with a UU service. And I can promise you that the UU faith, while all-inclusive, generally doesn't appeal much to atheists. This is because the UU church is about faith and spiritual depth but not about defining the way in which faith must be lived, experienced, and internalized.

Can you spot the difference between a true believer and a persuasive politician who just "talks the talk". Republicans have known for years that most people cannot. Democrats seem to have just discovered that this year.

Atheists and agnostics should not be discouraged. It's still the same Party. Its just that the Democrats are not willing to concede that infantile segment of electorate who will hand their vote to the candidate shouting "GOD" the loudest. And why should they? A vote is a vote.

True believers and true atheists can still cast their vote based on research, the issues and conscience. And the ignorant sheep that never bother to look any further than the empty political rhetoric will once again get fleeced. That is as it should be.

S A L L Y wrote:

"..The Secular Coalition of America had written to Leah Daughtry (a pastor and CEO of the Democratic National Convention Committee) to ask that atheists, agnostics and 'SECULAR' (humanists) be included in these events. The Associated Press reported that she? received the request but never responded..."

Time to remove the DEViLS advocate & its Vail of Deception, Cloaks & Judeo-Daggerings:

Note: "i" ,aka APOCALYPTARiAN "National"s (where each is a potentiate HUE{MATE} is a Automatic Citizen/Denizen of Holy Cosmic , Nebula-Built, Blesseth Space-Ship Earth(s)) , So am Not a 'Humanista' ONLY genuine SECULAR w/out the Huministm attached. Please see Sally Quinns meaning [Not O.U.R.] of HUMANISTs, like the Religionists bollix-up their Pre-Apocalyptic magic words 'god' & 'belief' & the words 'faith'.. http://www.jcn.com/humanism.html

---

QUESTiON: What the Heck is a un-Divinely Licensed Jealous Pre-Apocalyptarian [Ant-SECULARist, Anti-Atheist, Anti-Agnostic Anti-American Anti etc..] doing as a "CEO" of the DNC!??????????????????

Question: Since the Clintons & Obama & Co's, are ALL running, themselves, for a "SECULAR Office" [STATE Jobs] Then Why is a NON-SEcularist controlling the Event, Contrary to SECULAR Rules, Laws, Codes, Clause, Constitution , Secular Morality enforcement etc..! She . god player, must be removed ASAP!

Another QUESTiON: Do they [Baptist Pastors et al] own the Building & or Land in Denver where the DNC is being Held?? And or the "Interfaith POW WOW" Gathering at the Colorado Convention Center?? Do They Own this Property , Land & Building too?? How About where the Republican National Convention (RNC) halls, Arenas, buildings etc.. will be held??

--- Wherefore: VOTE For the 'Removal' of this NiCOLAiTAN (Anti-SECULARist & thus Anti-Secular Gov , Mr. god player, Daughtry & Co., ASAP) in Any Secular Political Biz!

Their like Communists. They hath infiltrated our Secular GOVERNMENT! O' McCartney Where are Ye! Amazing, Ricchy Tricky ex-Prez Nixon (a QUACKER) , when a young lad, helped remove the COMMY Finkle F.A.G.s in America, but only to be replaced by his Devilish & Cunnung infiltariting PRE-APOCALYPTiC (like COMMY's) Party, aka EVANGELiCALS Partyy of America & Beyond! And

Lame Duck Nepotist Prez Push Push in da BUSHY (a Methodist, like Clintons) furtherd, Nixons Plan, by encouraging & or ENABLing, or Entertaining, them EViLGELiCAl CONSPIRATORs , aka Religio Mafioso's , like Commys!

Talking about Evil Empire or big bad Wolf in sheeps clothing (today disquised in SEcular Clothing & Secular Airwaves); WOW! SCHAME SCHAME ON Ye Satans [Evangelicls, Catholics etc.. ] hiding in our REPUBLiC, not Yours!

Note: Not long ago "i" also wrote, via WAPO's & Moderator's CHUCK Colson's Blogg on "HOW TO LEGALLy GET RiD OF GOVERNMENT CHAPLAiNS" who hath a Church in the Structure within our Government (not Theirs, but act as though) contrary to the ESTABLiSHMENT Clause(s), Laws etc..!

HinT: Ye can Blame this happening via CONGRESS, over the years , by Giving To Too Much Presidential 'EXECUTiVE ORDER's POWER"! And It's NO Coinsidence Either! Its A Conspiracy "i" say , thats what this is, direct infiltration by proxy.

Note: WE The People, need to throw the "ANTi-AMERiCAN" Clauses of OUR HLS PATRiOT ACT et al (not Theirs) against then Satanic loving versing Sneaky Roos! JEZEUS is not LORD! UNCLE SAM is LAW OF THE LAND [Secular Lord enforcing Modern-Morality , not Biblical Morality as in Theocracy/Monarchy].!

Wow, What A Religio Scare!

---

Listen folks: If ye TRULY (opposite of MYTH) or realy want to 'Cleanse' O.U.R. Secular GOvernment, and make it a genuine SECULAR & healthy Business again, then

Vote: For the U.S. ECLAT{ARiAN} Nationals, "JOKTAN-ian Party of America, 2012+"

HALLALUYA!

Praise The HOL{i}-No-Men! Thank Ye LORD ,Almighty, ECLAT + "i" = Life/Photons Awareness!

To Magpie:

The atheists do have a church. And they do use it to political advantage. It is the Unitarian Universalist Church.

And, do you know, you can actually believe in God and still be a welcome member?

Well, I think it's important to remember what the convention *is,* ...Certainly, Victoria, even Bush has recognized Islam as a real faith, deserving equal rights... Certainly, Obama has, and he's said so of *all* faiths, and of people of *no* particular faith.

And Muslims were at the faith caucus, certainly, as were many others. If you read Susan Thistlethwaite's column, you'll see it was no 'revival tent.'

I find no fault with Obama's or the DNC's positions on these issues: though atheists and Pagans shouldn't have been *excluded* on that basis, (and not knowing the full story, why assume they were. )

In terms of why to have a convention, or the purpose of any gathering in the first place, Pagans certainly have learned to pick our battles. The fact is that those inclined to prejudice are more inclined to believe smear tactics and appeals to that prejudice, than those who are more progressive need to be told that we're out here and good people, too.

Fact is, Pagans know well, (And we actually have religious practices that sometimes need protection, ...there's a lot at stake for us, in very non-abstract ways,) ...that given the general PR campaigns of disinformation about us, sometimes it's not smart to ask the guy you like to throw himself on a sword for you.

I don't know any Pagan that *wants* to be President, but maybe give us a generation or three, and people might be either focused on the issues or actively think we tend to be even-handed folks not out to coerce anyone, and very concerned with the future and responsible use of power in a context of freedom and responsibility.

Very American, that way, I think.

Civil rights and equal protection under the law can't wait. But expecting to waltz in and expect a political party to overcome a whole lot of concerted bad PR in one fell swoop, well, nice idea, but not helpful.

I mean *three constituencies* chose Pagan delegates? That's not nothing. Think that'll happen with the GOP? Forget about it. It's certainly a lot more than I'd expected to see when I first Dedicated to 'here's a nice quiet religion no one will fuss about...' :)

We'll get there.

I want to see a country where people *know* we're their friends, neighbors, and fellow Americans. Like Hillary said, 'We keep moving,' ...we play it smart. And, yes, in reality, we have to show a few things. This 'fight' is about the *right* to show these things, for ourselves, our fellows, our children, and those to come.

Now, it's not the atheist panelists, here, who are often among the most insightful and compassionate aboard, ...but many atheists *do* present themselves just like the Fundies say: people that make a religion of monomaniacally-insisting other peoples' religions are 'bunk,' ...by their own standards, instead of really embracing the diversity of standards and perspectives that *we need to get through what's next for civilization, Earth, humanity, and America.*

Each in its proper place. We need reason. And no compromise, there. We need *heart,* too, and no compromise, there. We need that which we call *spirit,* ...and no compromise, there, ...in that spirit must be spirit, not a substitute for the other two.

When people set faith against *reason,* (or rather set their faith up as a rationalistic *rival* to reason,) nightmares follow.

Atheists and monotheists *fight* so much cause you're trying to occupy the same niche.

One of speaking for an absolute authority...

I'm ...interested in chasing away a nightmare, in a way we can learn from. I've made a good part of my life chasing away nightmares, which happen in a place where mind and spirit connect...

Neither one holds absolute sway there. It cannot be argued out of, it cannot be prayed out of, but it is the experience we live.

I'm interested in us living a better dream.

Nobody is unnecessary in this regard.

The Abrahamic "religions" are a mish-mash of contradictions, lies, and canards! Face it, the only value of religion is the tribal act of being a member! This makes one warm, fuzzy, and secure while at the same time making everyone not a member something else and therefore available for murder, rape, exploitation, slavery, etc.; acts which then automatically become "sins" if done to other tribal members.

There is no evidence whatsoever that anything remotely like God exists...and wouldn't such a creature be just some superior alien species if he or she did exist? 3rd rock from the yellow-reddish star on the fringe of a distant galaxy winging its way to the end of the universe...indeed!

The Democrats don't have to patronize the atheists. We generally don't care.

We do care when religious zealotry runs amok, and tramples our lives and our freedoms. As in the Bush Administration.

And, actually, we've never gotten more than a check on religious constitutional limits from the Democrats. And that is enough. We don't need or want their hugs or kisses, in public or in private.

You see, we're grown up boys and girls.

To Phillip C Smith,

I don't follow your logic. Just because you can't yet prove something doesn't mean you can't build a credible theory, based on evidence.

You stated: The atheist, whether he recognizes it or not, walks by a negative faith—that the Creator does not exist.

No, that simply is not true. I can look at the structure of this world, the physical rules of light, speed and gravity; the degeneration of carbon over time and conclude that virtually all of the stories are just plain fiction. This is based on evidence (or the lack of evidence for a God) and on logic (the earth is 6,000 years old when some peoples in the middle east were brewing beer 10,000 years ago).

The difference is that those people of faith must exclude the evidence, reason and logic and then, and only then, can they conclude there is a God.

I have to undergo no such contortions in order to conclude there is no God.

As a fellow Dem, it also sickens me to hear all the "God Bless America and No Place Else" lines. Unfortunately, it's necessary because the majority of Americans are ignorant enough to believe that Barack Obama is Muslim. Not that there's really anything wrong with that.

This is absurd. If atheists were being denied attendance at the convention, that would be one thing. But to remain uninvited to an "interfaith" meeting when you are a self-declared person of no faith is hardly discrimination.

If a gathering is to be focused on religious issues among people of various beliefs, why would atheists or agnostics even want to attend?

If atheists feel they should be included in such events, perhaps they ought to establish a church and get tax-exampt status. Then they could promote their non-belief while riding on a cushion of taxpayer dollars like all the other churches do.

Atheists and agnostics are absolutely right to protest when public policy is being debated and decided by religious interests. But to protest over not being welcome within the organizations they routinely resist or reject is ridiculous.

I'm an atheist, but the answer to this question is simple: the Democrats do indeed need to pander to the religious. There are a lot more of them than there are of us, and it would be a smart idea to gain 10% of the religious vote by losing 10% of the atheist vote. Besides, what atheist is ever going to vote for a Republican? A Democratic president may preclaim his faith, but he or she will appoint Supreme Court justices committed to upholding the separation of church and state.

to Ed Rosenberg

"There can be no true unity within any group, nor will there ever be a credible chant of "Yes, 'we' can." heard from any leader on any level...and anywhere until the notion of all-inclusiveness is fully embraced and implemented."

I would only add that before all-inclusiveness can be embraced and implemented it needs to be understood. IMO that is what is lacking in much of America.

A timely and thoughtful piece my Ms. Quinn, and a reminder that people in the U.S. are not living up to their supposed principles. How can we lecture other cultures about the evils of religious intolerance and hypocrisy, when we practice them at home?

Sally,
Will you please ask your readers who are "people of faith" to prove that their god exists. None has done so. Ever. In all of history there is no proof that god or gods exists. The bible is not proof but rather a collection of stories by people who had no toilets, electricity or running water. So would you please ask the "faithful" for some proof of the existence of a god that a rational person could make sense of. Otherwise, this faith in god is no different than a child's faith in santa claus (who was also a result of religious tradition.) No proof, no sense.

to Phillip C. Smith, Ph. D.

With Ph. D. after your name I would not expect such a narrow, limited viewpoint. I do not profess a faith in a god, a lack of faith in a god, nor do I question the existence of a god.

I live my life doing what I believe is appropriate. The human race must live in harmony with itself and with the planet. I do my best to live by that code. The existence of a god is irrelevant to my life and my lifestyle.

Your statement that, "two alternative views are logically possible", is laughable!

As Paganplace pointed out there are infinite possibilities and beliefs, including the possibility of many gods of all genders or lack of any gender.

As Jacques Berlinerblau points out, no group has been more ostracized than gays by the political machine- I would add Muslims to that list too.
As far as a religious group that has been singled out and politicized and persecuted by the american government- over 3,000 have been in prison since just after 911 with no access to lawyers, no right to a speedy trial, no ability to face their accusers- as they are held under the newly constructed "secret evidence".
What that means is the evidence is so secret- that not even the accused has any idea what they are being accused of.

DZ, You have shared your story with us before. Thank you for your bravery in telling it again.
As a religious person, I don't believe in a faith litmus test- nor do I believe that Atheists, Agnostics, Wiccans,Pagans or Gays or Lesbians should be excluded from any aspect of the political process.

The GOP religious right have scared the american people so powerfully that the Dems have to put up a revival tent at their own convention now--

I also don't begrudge people their right to practice their faiths- we all have to act with some respect because it is a big tent- and should, ideally, be all inclusive to any who wish to enter.

On a practical note- McCain wants to reinstitute the draft. DZ is living and suffering proof of the damage of such a policy.

I apologize in advance if you feel I am misusing the story you have shared- if you feel intruded upon in any way I will retract my statement and apologize in full.
It is not my intention to add to your already mountainous suffering.

So we've been presented with a huge flaw in the Democratic Convention's actions and attitudes towards unbelievers.

The question we need to ponder also- is will the Republicans require all entrants that participate in their convention to be card-carrying GOPs, as they did in the last convention, excluding ANY voice of dissent-
And where will Sally be putting up her tent when she attends?

We unbelievers cannot be elected president but who cares? Many non-believers only pretend to believe; it is easier. I wonder how many Christians believe the nonsense that is Christian theology: a loving God had a son and has him killed to save those whom he had already chosen for salvation. What bull!

Atheists and agnostics take comfort in knowing they are right and that only the ignorant or the hypocritical believe.

2-things:

1: A Pre-Apocalyptic god, breaks "HiS" [not O.U.R.] Laws:

Note before "i" delve further: Please keepeth in mind that APOCALYPTiCALLY thinking, G-D is an "IT", never PRE-APOCALYPTiCALLY is nor was nor can "IT" (Contrary to their Biblio Jealous & thus Fearless Almighty) appear in a Bio-Finite Carbon Based jacket & Frontal-Lobe justly for a TiME, nor appear as in an Enlightening Talking Light as in a BUSH, pretending to be as if incarnate; But instead is a genuine innate G-D (not man-made god), by a Thousand names. Never again say god is a 'HE' or a 'His" or Him, nor god is a 'She' or a 'Her'. So

Pleazzza G-D is and appears as an "IT" or being "iTSELF", in and of Us All! a/k/a "ETERNiTY AVOiDiNG LONLiNESS" via all Us Animates & all "IT"s Things & Stufs & Inanimates, Together Forever with SOURCE ONE [Eponymous ECLAT + "i" = LiFE/Photons awareness Miracle, never Pre-Apocalyptic Sin/Curseth storys). The HOL{i}-NO-MEN knows All! And nothing is External to "IT", NO-Angels, NO-Satans, NO-Hell worlds & NO-Heavenly-Worlds etc.. Soo

Besides another "FREUDiAN SLiP(s) OF GENUiNE PROPHECY" that Mr. Sneaky Evilgelical Rick Warren sayth, "..oh It's O.K. to Flipy Flopa.." [Similary Spaketh 1/2 Truth]. aka Going Back on Ones Previous Thinking or Sayings.

But, Lets discuss how, Triky Dicky, Rick Warren & Co.'s Biblio god (not O.U.R. G-D) as lovers of, also went back on "His" word. Not "IT"s Word.

i.e., In that Bibliomaniac "SARA PROSTiTUTiON STORY" & the "HAGAR REJECTiON STORY" where "HE" (a HUMAN Male god, not O.U.R. HUE{MATE} innate G-D) is Stupid enough not to tell the difference between a Vegitarian ISAAC & a Meatarian iSHMAEL (the 1st Born Abrahamite who was tricked out of His, Mosaic-effect, god promised Land Inheretance story.

Note, that other dumb Pre-Apocalyptic (god goes back, aka Breaks "HiS" words, like the CLAUSES of O.U.R. Nature) Switcharoo "JACOB ULTIMATE SWiNDLE STORY" where god (not O.U.R. G-D) was duped into blessin Tricky YAKUB (Jacob/Israel) instead of 1st born ESAU! Hence: Why ISLAM was jealously Concieved via such an Ishmael & Esau Rejection Story.

Note again: In the Biblio escaped Convicts "PASSOVER-LINE" ,Let My My People-Go , Story, That the Ex-PAGAN Mozeus, turned 1st Judeo-Ju Rabbi {no Divinity School Diploma] , had to Lambly Bloody their own Aegyptian Houses Door Posts {hence MAZZUZA] because the Creator was too stupid (Dumb like their NovelStar god Player/, Authors) to distinquish between a blessed JUdeo House & a cursed "GOYIM" (Atheists, aka none Tribal Abrahamic member). so

their [Evangelicals, Catholics, Ju's, Islamics..] god is not so smart. Please also see the most Evilish Story Ever Told via their (evangelicals & Co.) "DRUNKiN RACiST NOAH STORY"!

---AMAZiNG () NO GRACE!

2: On How the BIBLE BOLLiXERS, aka "MiNiSTERS Of EVERYTHiNG" , aka WORD MERCHANTS, aka NICOLAiTAN's, aka DO & DENYER's (D & D'rs) have Double Standard Psychosis, aka Synergeticless Split Minded Thinking:

They [Eviljealousicals] deliberately Bollix-up or interchange the Words "Belief' & 'Faith'" in the SECULAR Government Sector. Unjustly like they sneakily concocted recently but got Caught, in a U.S. Federal Court & attempted to Lie therein & therefrom, the word 'Intelligent Design' [but Omitting 'god as Rabbi JESUS and god as Father nor god as Mother, until the Judge found out] as if be genuine Creationist! Note: Under ECLAT{i} Law they (evilgelical Players & Shakers) would hath gone to Prison under the Federals cuirrent Anti-Religio Mafioso's RICO-Act! Please see Linko Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act

PS: "i" knowth the the Current sitting U.S. Court Justices would love to Use this against Rick Warren & Co Religio-Mafioso's Organization for attemting to stage a Religio 'Coup D Atat' of OUR innately blesseth SECULAR FEDERAtION of STATES via their (not OURs) Mr. Rabbi Yashua Judeo-Ju made into a Judeo-Christo etc..!!

They [Judeo Evangelicals, Catholics, etc..] use the word 'ATHEiST' interchangably with 'AGNOSTiC" & SECULARist! So Its US v. Them or Them V. Us. They hath too much money & too much time on their [un-holuy] manicured hands!

important:

VOTE; Remove & Undo All, Every & Any, so-called 'FAiTH' Based-iNiTiATiVEs' [SECULAR Tax-Payers MONEYs as Hand-Outs, , not Tax-Free Church Money] in Sweet Sweet America Today. Or Risk Souring Uncle-SAm's & Aunt Liberty's National Esteem! Note: this (FBi) money is what They [Evilgelicals LEADERSHiPs] use to enrich themselves & thus use to 'LiTiGATE' their Devilish Schemes with OUR own Hard Earned Tax Money (from Public SEcular coffers).

SUGGESTiON: Better Give To "SECULAR-BASED-iNiTiATiVES" such as GRASS ROOTS ORGS like The Vera Institute Of Justice who work Miracles & Wonders ("i"m a Witness) for Ex-CONS & Prisoners Family's!

TRiViA: Did Ye Knowth that there are 2.3 Million Prisoners, whom Many of then can potentialy VOTE when guided righteously via Seculaist MORAliTY not Biblically? Thanks to HiLLARY CLiNTON , et al, who is PRO Good-EX-CON(s)! Please see link here: http://www.vera.org/

---

VOTE: To Punish them, for Interfering in SECULAR Biz, Remove All "SECULAR" Priviliged ,not a right, I.R.S. Tax Exempt Status's From All Pre-Apocalyptic IMPORTED Religion(s) Systems (Not Made or Prophesied or Borneth in America)) , competing for a Name For thir-god, instead of OUR-ECLATi (LORD) in America . Especially Those whom interefere with SECUALR-BiZ! So

For the Same good Reason that They (Warrens, Hagees, Huckabee's, Robinsons.., aka NiCOLAiTAN's) call Us "ECLAT{ARiAN}"s Anti-Christo's or Anti-Moses's, or Anti-Muhammadians, or Anti-Vyasaians, or Anti Gautamaians, Guruians, Confucians etc..; That

the Same reason WE APOCALYPTARiAN NATiOANLiS of sweet Sweet Holy Cosmic Blesseth Space-Ship Earth(s) can Call Them [NiCOLAiTAN's] ANTi-SECULARiSTS! ANTi-ATHEiSTS! ANTi-AGNOSTICians etcc!

Interesting note: Like recently in good ole U.S. of A., the "N" word was Out-Lawed and made into a 'HATE' word, that any Pre-Apocalyptarian Religio National who slanders anothers belief, Faith or as Religion or gets caught (private & Publicaally) by saying the "A" word ['A'-THEiST who has HiSTORY + HOPE as genuine Cosmic Feelings Faith, aka APOCALYPTARiANiTY] should also be Accountable both Financially & Civily or Criminally?!

---
Paid For By "JOKTAN Party of America for Gridarian Democracy & TransFinite-Civilization Movement 20013+

Nothing new. Unbelievers have always been political outcasts. However, in the past, at least the Democrats left religion as a non issue or unimportant one at most and we unbelievers could at least pretend as if we were represented. The pretending is over. I will most likely vote for Obama, but only because 4 more years of GOP business as usual is going to push us further toward becoming a 3rd world country.

Of course, that's just what the DNC wants to hear, so perhaps I might stick close to my local elections and not vote for president.

Phillip C. Smith, Ph.D.writes
"To a thoughtful observer of life, two alternative views are logically possible: God is, or he is not. Within each of these views, there are many possibilities and various interpretations. But the truth still remains: either he exists or he does not exist."

The same can be said about the Flying Spegetti Monster or the Magic Elf. At least with Santa the presents actually do show up on Christmas day. The fact is an atheist believes in no god, while the Christian disbelieves in all gods but his own, so the difference between a Christian and an Athiest is only one god. I doubt Dr. Phillup believes in Thor or Aries, but somehow he wouldn't see himself as an athiest.

Atheism isn't a belief system, and calling it one doesn't make it so. Perhaps the Dr. is embarrassed by his own faith and can only make up for it by insulting others.

Phew...I don't know...Atheists and Pagans ignored and not included.

There can be no true unity within any group, nor will there ever be a credible chant of "Yes, 'we' can." heard from any leader on any level...and anywhere until the notion of all-inclusiveness is fully embraced and implemented.

Oh Sally - athiests and agnostics have always been outcasts. Nobody running for public office would admit they don't believe in a guy with a beard called "God" because they couldn't be elected, period. "People of Faith" have so little faith that they would reject anybody who isn't just like them. Interesting that you have the job you do when you "discover" something that the rest of us have known for decades.

CCNL:

In 1969, three days after graduation from college, I was drafted. Having been raised as a pacifist and in accordance with the law, I applied for conscientious objector status. I was denied. I appealed. I was denied. I appealed to the POTUS (Nixon). I was denied. My reporting day came - I attended but refused to serve. I was arrested. I based my entire defense on proving that I was a pacifist. on the first day of my trial, the nprosecution stipulated that I was a pacifist and said that the only issue was whether or not my pacifism was based on religion. Since I was an atheist, it was not. I was convicted and sentenced to 5 years in maximum security. In June of 1970, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision under which I was sent to jail was unconstitutional (Griffiths vs United States). I wernt back to court, my conviction was overturned and I was out and not a felon. In the 10 months of my imprisonment, however, I was beaten and raped almost every day, I had all my teeth kicked out by the good Christian gentlemen of the Aryan Brotherhood, I have 9 knife wound scars and 27 cigarette burn scars.

Sally:

I didn't find an email address for you. Here is a letter to the editor about "human life" and my response

http://www.newsobserver.com/print/saturday/opinion/story/1189962.html

August 27, 2008

Letter to the Editor
forum@newsobserver.com

I am in agreement with Joseph Puglielli that "what the mother
carries is human life from beginning to end"; how could it be
otherwise? Testimony of "eminent" scientists is irrelevant. The
real issue is when does "a human life" begin; scientists
have no special expertise in this matter. A single cell or clump
of cells is surely not "a human life" and there can be no
definitive answer as to when a fetus becomes "a human life".
To call a fetus "an unborn child" is nonsense; it is certainly
unborn, but it is not a child despite what the Conference of
Catholic Bishops and others say.

Both Dr. Mathews-Roth and Dr. Lejeune are well known for their
opposition to stem cell research. Mathews-Roth has referred to
"a growing young human of 5 to 7 days of life". LeJeune has said
"after fertilization has taken place, a new human has come into
being". These are not scientific statements and there is no
reason to give their views any special credence. Reasoned
discourse must take into account both the rights of the mother
and the rights of the fetus; the mother certainly is "a human
life" and deserves protection of our laws.

Elliot M. Cramer
P.O 428
Chapel Hill, NC 27514

919-942-2503
cramer@unc.edu

Websites
www.unc.edu/~cramer
www.ourpaws.info

Phillip C. Smith:

I have no evidence of the thing you describe, but I'll take your word for it.

Why do you think an atheist leader would move the U.S. toward atheism? I'm not a proselytizer. I don't care. When my parents met in 1945, she was a young-earth fundie and he was a militant atheist. They made it work gloriously for 52 years. That's my worldview.

DZ:

DZ commented "In 1969, I went to jail for being an atheist. Has any Christian ever been sent to jail in the U.S. just for being a Christian. Not a chance."

There are a number of individuals in the history of this country who have been mistreated because of their particular beliefs. The earthly founder of the Christian religion to which I belong was imprisoned in the United States a number of times because of his beliefs, once for up to five months.

For the record.

"To a thoughtful observer of life, two alternative views are logically possible: God is, or he is not. Within each of these views, there are many possibilities and various interpretations. But the truth still remains: either he exists or he does not exist."

Nonsense. You can say, 'God Exists,' 'God Does Not Exist,' 'It Doesn't Matter,' or 'Something else out of the infinite possibilities of the cosmos Is The Situation.'

"Can you imagine an atheist running for or even being considered for President? "

Will it help if atheists act out against the candidate with the strongest diversity platform we've seen yet, while he's being accused of not being 'Christian' enough...?

It's certainly not the happiest situation ever, ...interfaith should be interfaith, but as Athena mentioned, you're not alone... And as Pagans go, well, I'd rather we had an interfaith friendly guy in the White House who actually dares *mention* non-Abrahamic faiths as included in our nation's diversity, than see someone overtly hostile get in after Fox News got to divert attention from party unity to say, 'Look, they prayed with 'witches' and 'atheists.'

The DNC didn't create that state of affairs. It blows chunks, but there we are.

But healing the divisions in this country is the first step. Doesn't always happen all at once. I'd encourage the DNC to start off on the right foot by including all in such events.

Dear Sally

As always, you have presented a thoughtful perspective on a critically-important faith issue. I note with interest the objections made by Bob Tiernan in opposition to “religion mixed with politics.” that “it's wrong and it's dangerous." I would agree if this meant, in part for example, that the theological perspectives of a given religion were to be indoctrinated into public schools. That is why, although I favor a minute of silence for all to think about what they wish, I am opposed to prayer in schools, prayer of any kind, even secular.

The relationship of atheists and agnostics themselves to organized systems of belief, though, is much closer to religion than they seem to see. A social philosopher friend of mine presented this analogy, here paraphrased, used by him to classify all of us with respect to belief in God.

To a thoughtful observer of life, two alternative views are logically possible: God is, or he is not. Within each of these views, there are many possibilities and various interpretations. But the truth still remains: either he exists or he does not exist.

One can neither prove nor disprove scientifically and logically the existence of God. There are scientists who believe and scientists who disbelieve, philosophers who have faith and those without belief in God. Atheism is a position which says there is no God. Theism is a position which holds that there is one. Both atheism and theism rest on faith, because the atheist cannot know there is no God. He exercises faith that there is not. A third position one can take on this problem is called agnosticism. The agnostic simply says, I don’t know whether God exists or not and I believe that knowledge of deity is impossible for any man to attain.

Thus, from a purely rational standpoint, all three positions are difficult. The theist must acknowledge that he walks by faith. The atheist, whether he recognizes it or not, walks by a negative faith—that the Creator does not exist. And the agnostic gives up on a question of great import to life. He cannot even search for God without denying the logic of his position.

Thus, if atheists or agnostics were to become our political leaders, they in turn would likely usher in their own “religious” frame of reference. Then, for example, the non-belief in God articulated by many in schools today might become the official, mandated belief of society.

All of us, then, have a belief system of some kind. The logical and practical extension of belief systems includes atheists and agnostics. What then should be done to stimulate a true exploration of ideas of all kinds so that all can come, on their own, to decide what they want to believe?

O'Victoria,

You continue to critique every religion save your own. Why is that? For example, the Islamic belief in the paranormal is very disturbing. What sayest thou in defense of said belief??

Then there are those other Islamic belief issues you continue to remain silent about.

i.e.

Do you believe:

2. That the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words now listed in the koran?

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life?

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7 800 year-old feud between Sunnis and Shiites give significant credence that suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran?

5. That having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of lust and polygamy?

6. That the condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of anger and greed?

7. And that Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s book, Infidel, is her autobiography and that in the paperback issue, p. 47 the statement:

"Some of the Saudi women in our neighborhood were regularly beaten by their husbands. You could hear them at night. Their screams resounded across the courtyards. "No! Please! By Allah!"

is the truth?????

DZ, DZ, DZ,

You went to jail for being an atheist?? Details please!!!!!

Sally Q says atheists are being ignored by the Democrats but Jacques Berlinerblau says speeches by Clinton, Obama put emphasis on country, not God i.e. atheism. Sally and Jacques should compare notes.

It wasn't so long ago that gays were anathema to the democratic party - and now gays and the gay vote are high on the democratic agenda, including the recent expansion of civil rights for gays under democratic sponsorship.

The same holds true for open and outspoken atheists - their time will come. There is a very large contingent of non-religious voters that tend toward the democratic ticket - however, for practical reasons democrats are called upon to out-pander the republicans on religion - thus resorting to a lower common denominator than in the past.

They may also have to outswift the RNC Swiftboaters that are charging to the scene with inflammatory anti-Obama adds. This is unfortunate, but fighting fire with fire is the only way - and the democrats have learned the hard way that the scurrilous scumbaggery of the pro-McCain forces needs to be dealt with sooner, rather than later.

Nothing gets folks charged up like religion - so this election is nothing but a gigantic tent revival. I predict that will not hold true in future elections.

I think pro-Obama atheists see what's at stake, and what needs to be done in the public arena - taking the high road just doesn't cut it in political campaigns when the media is operating full throttle to level the playing field so even the stupidest among us can remain engaged and entertained.

And by extension, truth and accuracy in journalistic reporting is not really a desirable commodity when you're pandering to the masses of the electorate - so mainstream the media moguls clearly believe.

Fox News has become both a role model and a generic term for the tabloid journalism of today -with Karl Rove as their star commentator. Atheist issues would only add fuel to the fire.

Why is this a surprise? Atheists have been excluded from almost everything for the entire history of the United States. What is different is that the Democratic Party has avoided exclusionary events for many, many years but now chooses to pander to the religious while taking for granted the millions of atheists who are members of the Party.

In 1969, I went to jail for being an atheist. Has any Christian ever been sent to jail in the U.S. just for being a Christian. Not a chance.

So, my political party for 40 years has decided that I am no longer worthy of inclusion. Great. I can't and won't vote for any Republican or Libertarian, so what's left? Very sad.

--
FROM: Vanguard{s} Lover{s} & Inheritor{s} of Holi Cosmic Nebula-Built Earth(s), a NEW-SONG coming from all O.U.R. Old Song & Storys:
--

"S E C U L A R i S M" not Atheisim is Legally recognized [via U.S. Federal Courts] as a RELiGiON!

Please see U.S. Law Books @ 367 U.S. 488 in "TORCASE .v. Watkins (1961)" & Law Books @ 403 U.S. 602 in "LEMON .v. KURTZMAN (1971)" Please 'Shephardise' (iNCLUSiVEness or Citings of them Case Matters above in other Judicial cases )

Note: As ECLAT{i}-ON's (not OFF's) we are all 'Jurists' Ya! O.U.R. Children knowth the U.S. Constitution by Heart (before any Plege of Allegence).

"i" bet ya the likes of Eviljealousical Rick Warren & Co., would love to hath those U.S. SUPREME Court Cases "i" cited 'OVERTURNED" like they are trying to do with "ROE .v. WADE."

---
Interesting: Question, Since Prez Push Push in da BUSHy & his Dad was & is Presidents, and also overly elected via the Evilgelical vote (as ye mentioned above), like Rick Warren & Co., Then Why did not Bush overturn Roe .v. Wade? and

Why do they [Evilgelical] Devilishly Harp-on & Play that nasty 'Abortion-Card'? Because They (Delussional Finatic) hath nothing else to do with their 'Organized' Tax Free Self-Enriching & Payed For Religio (but make Trouble for SECULARists, Agnostics, Atheists, "N" folk etc..) strings, aka Buttons! Caveat; Fix Not Was is not Broken, but Prevent if possible!
---

TRiViA: Did Ye Knowth, that PREZ contender "MiTT ROMNEY" once said, "...guess they (Agnostics, Atheists, Secularists(?) believe in something bigger than Themselves..." [Similarly he Sayth]. Ya!

Oh, Almost Forgot. Please knowth that ALL The Entire inhabitants on Holy Cosmic Nebula-Built Space-Ship Earth(s), of Many, that they aka HUE{MATE}'s , all (Majaority that is) must Vote, via the U.N.'s "WORLD FAiTH EXCHANGE" Assembly [Not in Secular-Public Arenas] for the ECLAT{ARiAN} proposed "SiNGULARiTY" of All Religio(n) iNFiXUS-BOOKS, and not vote for 'PLURALiTY" of Religio(n)'s. So Interfaith Meetings are a Joke! and so

They, the so called Religionists/Divinity jealously Licensed (like Lawyers), are all on a EGO Trip (Satans way) & Self Agrandize or sho-off by Ghosting around, from place to place, on 'Tax-Free" I.R.S. Priviliged (not a right) Moneys! Hence,

Their I.R.S. 501C-3 Tax-Free Status (for interfering with SECULAR Life & Targeting, Discriminating, Blasphemize those who do not agree with their dilussions etc..) must be 'Removed', not Counsler Mr. TiERNAN et al from a Public/Secular Building!

--- TRiViA:

Did Ye also knowth that "ATHEiST(s)" & Or AGNOSTiC(s) Also Hath RELiGiON, but do knot know "IT"?

Explanation: All, Every & Any 'HUE{MATE}' Potentiate hath innate 'FEELiNG's, and also hath a natural (innate) AWARENESS of 'HiSTORY!'

Yes, "History is Everybody's Jury" & thus All The Peoples (Man-Made Competing for a Name for god, instead of "O.U.R. G-D" Believers, non-Believers etc..) BiZ! And Soo,

If All are aware of HISTORY, then that is also, in Fact, a 'Belief', since WE cometh from the Holy Cosmic NEBULA-BUiLT S.pace-S.hip Earth(s), aka S.S. GAiA, S.S. GEOiD, S.S. TELLUSng something.

WHEREFORE: If YE believeth in History , then, Behold APOCALYPTARiAN-Nationals U.S. of A., Attention 'SEcularists! & Atheists, & Agnostics, Pagans, Wicaans, Shamns, Vodooists et al; WE are All 'Automatic Citizens/Denizens of S.S. Blue-Dot, as SON(s) & DAUGHTER(s) of The genuine Creator of O.U.R. {O.ne U.niversal R.eligion} Hol{i} Cosmic "FiAT-LUX!" and Thus,

WE, All 'The-People' , are Experiencing "IT" (G-D by 1,000 Names & no more 999 names. Please, do not biblicaly thinketh as in Pre-Apocalyptic '666').

SO, WE 'SECULARiSTS', Atheists, Agnostics, Religionists, etc.. Hath their "HOLY COSMiC FELLiNGs FAith" [Ho-Co-Fe-Fa] innate SYSTEM! Not/No/Never HUMAN, not HUE{MATE}s, System!

iMAGINE; A innate & Genuine Religion Of Everything before the Science of Everything?

iMagine; A innate & Genuine Ho-Co-Fe-Fa Natural System, A belief, like a Religion, but better or based on TRUTH (opposite of MYTHology competing System(s)?? GUES WHAT?

HARK! HALLALUYA! Praise The HOL{i}-NO-WO-MEN!

Yes, Yes, Now, Today, If Ye Want It, is Borneth, in Sweet Sweet U.S. of A., such a Faith, Belief or Religion! "IT"

(Almighty, Lord, Creator, "O.U.R. G-d" is never a 'HE/HiM/His nor a 'She/Hers' in Bio-Carbon-based incarnate, but called an "IT" being "iTSELF" in and of Us-ALL; of Animates & innamite, aka the Property's of the Creator)

is the 1) VIBRATiONALS, 2) FLASH, 3) BANG, 4)US!. Note: These steps are Apocalyptically known as the Eclat{i}ON 4-Sequentiates. A Miracle (never via Any Biblical Man Made SIN/Curseth Births Sexual-Guilt Storys/songs) in "IT"s own right! Never a Wrong. Not Sin! Not Curse! etc..!

PS: Besides being an "IT", ('G-D', not god) that O.U.R. HOL{i}-NO-MEN is a NON-JEALOUS & Thus FEARLESS Hol{i}-No-Wo-Men! Conrary to All "PRE-APOCALYPTiC" POLY-THEiSTiC [Zero Mono] , as if Religio, all, Every & Any 'ABRAHAMiC & VEDiCs booked, man-made competing for a Name for god (instead of O.U.R. G-D) , Bible Systems et al!

Hence WE APOCALTYPTARiAN NATiONALIs are Fearless & not Jealous G-d (aka ECLAt + "i" = LiFE/Photons Awareness) Historians & Lovers & Inherotors & thus Defenders of Space-Ship Ma/Pa-Earth(s), not Pre-Apocalyptic man-made Bibles!

Note again: O.U.R. innate Holy Cosmic UNiVERSE (not organized Churches, Mosques, Temples etc..) is our genuine hol{i} CONSTiTUTiON. And this innate Constitution hath also given Us ECLAT{ARiAN}'s innate CLAUSE that ariseth for Us All to 'MAGNiFY', Uphold & Make Honorable, "IT"s LAWS OF NATURE, embedded from O.U.R. Holy Universe (not Church)!

Wherefore: "The Religion of Everything" , as mentioned , on WAPO Exclusively, so so many tempos, that WE Apocalyptarian-Nationals of America also hath an "Infixus-Book" called the "O.U.R." "B.ook O.f T.ransfinity" [O.U.R.-B.O.T.], aka The Holy Cosmic Bible! A 1,000 Page HUE{MATE}-Made & ECLATi-Made {G-D] Endeavour, that them Jealousical Evangelicals & Cathoholics , hath Stanically, attempted to STOP!

Please Note: There is a Night/Day difference between a PRE-APOCALYPTiC thinking SCiENTiST or Jurist (Lisenced Jealousy for Hire) or Teacher, Guru, Rabbi, Immam, Priest (Jealousy for Hire) .. and a Night/Day APOCALYPTiC thinking or believing/Feeler SCiENTiST(s), Teachers etc.. AND

Please Note, That "PAGAN'S" (a Pre-Apocalyptic Poly-Theo Myth-based System, aka a DEAD Religion) Do NOt Have SCRiPTURE! They do not Have a Bible, so to speaketh. So They Cannot Hath a Leg to Stand-On Philisophically & Tautologically Speaking!

Good Bye TiBET!, Goodbye NEPAL!, Goodbye ARMiSTAR! Goodbye MECCA! Goodbye JERUSALEM! Goodbye VATiCAN! Goodbye HELLENiCS! Goodbye CANTERBURY etc.. Note, ALL of the Above are in fact iMPORTED-Pre-Apocalyptic-Religion(s), not Made In Sweet Sweet AMERiCA! And Not Prophiesised , nor Borneth HERE!

May the Lord Shine xtra Photons on Hol{i} Cosmic Made Continent of AMERiCA 1st et al 2nd...!

THEREFORE: Thank Ye HOL{i}-NO-MEN for The "O.U.R.-B.O.T."! Magnify, Uphold & Make ["IT"] Honorable!

VOTE: RFor The Removal of any SECULAR (ECLATi) given 'Tax-Free' (A Privilige, not a Right)Organized [Pre-Apocalyptic] Religionist Business in all of sweet sweet America Today, not Tomorrow!

VOTE: Abolish "THEOCRACY & MONARCHY On All of S.Pace-S.hip Earth. And Illegalize the 'Importation Of All Pre-Apocalyptic Religio Paraphanelia used for Anti-Intelligence Rituals, includes their insulting (to OUR Apocalyptic intelligence) Books! i.e., like the 'King James Version' (un)Holy Bibles owned & monopolized by the QUEEN of England et al!

---
Paid For by The American Eclat{arian} Movement for 'Gridarian-Democracy' & 'Transfinite-Civilization' 2013+ on Holy Cosmic Nebula Built EARTH(s), never Bible(s)!

By: http:////.......({..J..}).......({..O..}).......({..Z..}).......({...E.}).......({..V..}).......({..Z..})........dot...... US

ORM, O.rdained R.elationship M.inister, Revelator & Defender of the 'Holy Cosmic Feeler Faith, aka 'Ho-Co-Fe-Fa' System; a belief like a religion, yet better that‘s based on TRUTH (opposite of MYTH Systems) & a Lover’s of the "O.U.R.-B.O.T.", aka the Holy-Cosmic Bible, ala "O.ne U.niversal R.eligion B.ook O.f T.rans{Finity}" aka “The RELiGiON of Everything before the SCiENCE of Everything” like-a-dat. Finally!

What I don't know could fill a book. I'll think over all of these questions and do some research. Maybe I can finish my book, when I can find a publisher because what I do know could fill a book. Today I'm facing the doctor, so some problems are bigger than others. She is a wonderful doctor. If you don't hear back from me, I am in a better place or in such pain that I say the hell with it all. Something I've done more than a few times and try not doing again. I always catch hell when I'm trying to do good and now somebody has me ringing hells bells. Glory is moonshine and war is hell.

More questions, Deflager -- is it your concept of God as someone who gets people out of tight situations?

Do you have to believe in him to get this benefit?

What about people who fervently believe in God and get hurt anyhow?

If the next time you're in trouble, God does not provide the help you request, will you continue to believe in him? Why?

Thanks - look forward to hearing from you.

Sally still doesn't seem to comprehend the concept of when one is in another's home- one should act with some modicum of respect. (Communion anyone?)

"On Sunday, Tiernan attended the first event at the Democratic National Convention, an Interfaith Gathering attended by some 2,000 people at the Colorado Convention Center. Speaking were distinguished priests, rabbis, imams and religion scholars."

Was he surprised to find religious people, on a Sunday morning at an Interfaith Gathering, praying?

Would I dream of going to a secular event, insert myself in the middle, and start to pray?
And then whine about it later?

It would just be bad manners.

With all of the really pervasive, interesting, and important topics to ponder regarding the DNC-

This is all you can come up with?

Are you sure, on the eve of Women's Equal Rights Day, with one of the most powerful women politicians in the world giving a big speech tonight, nothing else crossed your mind?

Will you treat us with another account of your own victimization when you go to the Republican National Covention Sally?

And Rick Warren won't vote for an atheist?
What a probing and unexpected insight.

Deflag: "I believe in God because I've been in situations that should of injured me or killed me and I came out of it all alive and well."

What about people who've been situations in which they HAVE been injured - do you think they have reason to believe in God?

I'd ask about the people who believe in God but have been killed, but they're not in a position to answer.

I believe in God because I've been in situations that should of injured me or killed me and I came out of it all alive and well. I have felt the power and am a believer. If you are not, that's your business. I'll still respect you in the morning.

This whole thing is a result of the Rev. Wright mess. So now that mess has become a bigger mess, a toxic mess to be exact. I worked to stop the removal of a ten commandments plaque from our courthouse. I met a woman and we talked for an hour or so. I didn't know she was an atheist. Anyway I'm going on about this plaque and why it should stay. She then says, "I'm an atheist", so now I'm thinking that I'm not preaching to the choir here. Lost cause. She says she doesn't have a problem with keeping the plaque, which sort of shocked me. The plaque is still on the courthouse. I have no problem with atheists. Different people have different beliefs. I lost a girlfriend who was an atheist and was looking for a girlfriend and she turned out to be an atheist. I think Rev. Cox at Harvard was right, in that God is teaching us to live without him.
God is busy, so be like God and stay busy. Find a busy publisher if you want something done right.
We share common ground in this country and defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. You don't need to believe in God to stay busy, you just need to want to help people. That is what the atheist I met was doing with her life and I hope she still is doing well by doing good.

"Forty years ago, when he wrote "The Secular City," Harvey Cox, the Hollis Professor of Divinity, had a hard time finding a publisher."
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2005/03.03/03-cox.html

Att: the reason, is correct; That ye Hath NO-ZERO Scripture to atleast compare!

For this reason Ye "P A G A N" (s) are lost!

They ignored the request from the three Pagan delegates for inclusion in the Interfaith Service as well.