 The Daily Gotham |
|
|
Current weatherNY - New York City, Central Park 
3 July 2009 - 8:51pm Search |
|
Upcoming events |
User loginThe Publisher Fresh dissent served daily Grassroots News and Feminist Bloggers Network A new kind of voyeurism Art + Code + Philosophy Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] dailygotham [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP. In keeping with the "city that never sleeps" tradition, keep up to date with our daily syndication digest. Recent comments
Active forum topics |
Quotes 2Youth cannot know how age thinks and feels. But old men are guilty if they forget what it is to be young... | |
Our Founding Fathers
Many of our Founding Fathers would feel far more comfortable at Yearly Kos than in Church. Washington himself attended church mainly on his wife's urging. When confronted for not taking comunion, he stopped attending. His daughter claims she never saw him pray.
Jefferson alternated between deism and atheism, neither of which would be considered Christianity by today's standards.
Tomas Paine was very openly atheist.
An attempt to hold a prayer at the Constitutional Convention was voted down almost unanimously.
The original Congress rejected the idea of having a chaplain as being contrary to separation of church and state and as being a waste of taxpayer money.
I am Jewish. I also am largely agnostic. But you are suggesting something that just isn't true. Atheist/agnostic is not necessarily anti-religion. Most feel you can believe whatever you want to believe and our blessings go with you. But don't try and shove it down our throats and government should be SEPARATE from church because THAT is how the nation was founded and the way democracy works best. It is unAmerican to mix church and state and that is what too many politicians do. They are WELCOME to be religious. As are you. But America gives us the right to freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion.
That's fine as a Constitutional principle
"freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion."
That's fine as a Constitutional principle, but the polls say that the more the Democrats make that a prominent part of our program, the less we're going to get the chance to govern. When Democrats are out of office, Republicans erect more barriers to freedon from religion. So, this is no time for Democratic politicians to announce that they are atheists to win the atheist vote. Nor is this a time for atheist supporters to become prominent and "come out" as atheist while pushing a "free from religion" agenda. Read the Pew Polls.
Now, I've said that the Edwards blogger scandal is an wedge-issue, a shot across the bow that will be repeated in the 2008 cycle, focusing on those candidates who don't heed how offensive some of what has been said on the Internet really is to many people. Now, candidates will take the steps they think are necessary and only time will tell.
"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."
http://francislholland.blogspot.com
francislholland@yahoo.com
No one said...
No one said it should be a prominant part of the Democratic platform...In the case of Edwards he focuses mainly on poverty issues. Honestly, what is it that Hillary focuses on? I am woman. I used to support Bush's illegal war until it became too hot a position then she backed off...sort of. I still say she would be a good President...but she stands for very littls you can point to and feel confident in.
As to the Constitution, although making separation of church and state is important, no one is making it their central focus...not even Daily Kos, whose offshoot "Street Prophets" largely negates your arguement. To claim anyone is is misleading. And to suggest, as you seem to be, that abandoning the Constitution to win an election is unAmerican and undemocratic...but typical Hillary style. And that is one reason I am very, very wary of Hillary. I, unlike some, don't see her as ONLY triangulating, but power hunger does seem to trump ideals in her camp. And that is not good.
Markos' Dem Candidate Conference will be Cancelled
Above, I cited several people from DailyKos, including Markos himself, who specifiically say they want religion discussed LESS by the candidates. This attitude, if allowed to govern or restrict candidates' efforts to connect with America's religious, may lead to losing significant support at the polls. There are consquences to disussing religion less, just like there would be consequences to discussing Iraq less or discussing the economy less.
I cited polling above for the proposition that the public wants religion discussed MORE in the right way, and the public deeply distrusts atheists, like it or not. So, put Markos out front and he will become a lightning rod for Republican criticism and "smears" of our candidates, and we might not recover from that storm. Being perceived as anti-religious is something that the polling already documents and something that could be greatly exacerbated by having a group of majority atheists, led by a self-acknowledged atheist (Markos) host a candidate forum (YearlyKos.
So, I predict that the forum will ultimately be cancelled or proceed without the religious candidates (including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton). Either it will be cancelled before Markos atheism becomes an issue (which is what I advocate) or it will be cancelled AFTER Markos atheism becomes an issue, in which case it will stain the party AND the conference will not happen, and nobody will benefit from that.
"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."
http://francislholland.blogspot.com
francislholland@yahoo.com
Totally different things!!
Saying one wants religion talked about less is NOT the same as advocating atheism or even separation of Church and State. I know PLENTY of extremely religious people who think people who wear their religion on their sleeve are insincere. And honestly I agree with that. The most devout people I know seldom push their religion on others. Hypocrites push it constantly. Immoral, lying Republican politicians and convicted criminals talk about religion more than anyone else I know. Doesn't change their immorality though.
Honestly, this diary seems like just as cynical a misuse of religion as Bush's.
Pew says public wants more religion
The Pew Polls say that the public wants religion talked about more and most of the public thinks Bush talks about religion the right amount. (See the polls cited above.) Undoubtedly, Bush and Rove know the public wants religion talked about and that's why they talk about, and that's how they get elected.
Markos disgrees. Of course he does! He's an atheist. Should Markos' feelings govern the degree to which religion is talked about by our candidates or should the public's desire to know the candidates' views govern how much religion is talked about by our candidates. As between bowing to Markos atheism or bowing to the public's religiosity, I'll take the public, because they have more votes in the aggregate than Mr. Moulitsas does. That's why our candidates talk about religion, and Markos needs to recognize and respect the political necessity, even when it is directly counter to his own atheism.
I don't care if this sounds like something the Republicans would say. The difference is that I'm saying it on a "progressive" website, where wise words can be heeded BEFORE we get ourselves into trouble. Meanwhile, the Republicans address their opinions in press releases to the very religious people whom we need to win in an election. Above, I quoted people at DailyKos who thought less-religion was a political issue that they should be pursuing. I also cited examples of how Markos' and his minions' less-religion position causes him to speak ill publicly of the Party's foremost Christian candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Criticizing Markos' and his followers public militant atheism doesn't make me a Republican. It makes me a Democrat concerned with our Party's chances and eager to avoid more miscues like the Marcotte fiasco that smeared the Edwards campaign. Apparently, you and Markos believe that the Edwards bloggers case will be an isolated example of the Republicans making an issue of progressive bloggers anti-religion attitudes. I disagree. I think it will be a growth industry for the Republicans for so long as "progressive atheists" refuse to acknowledge that their's is not the majority opinion in America. Heed me now or lose the religious electorate later.
"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."
http://francislholland.blogspot.com
francislholland@yahoo.com
No matter how you slice it...
What you are advocating is STILL a religious test for politicians which is SPCIFICALLY prohibted in the Constitution. You can cite as many polls as you want, but if we abandon the Constitution we are abandoning America and we are just as bad as the Bush followers.
Conflating religion
with the state is not only damaging to the state, it is damaging to religion, too. That is only one the reasons why the founders erected a barrier between the church and the state. They had witnessed the use of the state church as a political weapon as well as state-sponsored religious persecution, which drove many members of religious minorities to flee to the new world, and which you, Mr. Holland, are suggesting should be the rule here in the United States. I am not a Christian, Mr. Holland, and the fact that
"Americans overwhelmingly consider the U.S. a Christian nation: Two-in-three (67%) characterize the country this way, down just slightly from 71% in March 2005. A decade ago, Americans were somewhat less likely to tie the nation's identity to Christianity. In 1996, 60% considered the U.S. a Christian nation. By 2002, however, the figure had climbed to 67%, and since then views on this question have remained fairly consistent."
is terrifying to me. Whether or not you, or George W. Bush, prefer it, one of the core principles of this country is the protection of minority rights. My rights. This is NOT a Christian country, no matter how many of its intentionally misguided citizens would prefer it to be. If two out of three Americans wanted the right to own slaves, would you agree that the United States should legalize slavery?
Please read the Constitution.
Yes!
Thank you!
It is very frightening to me that advocates for one of the main Democratic candidates seem to feel the Constitution is subject to change depending on polls. I hope this is NOT Hillary's opinion because I am already sick of Presidents who don't feel the Constitution matters. Most of them have been Republicans, though.
Consitution depends on Supreme Court . . .
The content of the Constitution depends upon the US Supreme Court, which in turn depends upon the president's appointees. If atheist advocates advocate for atheists' rights at a Democratic presidential forum, there is a greater likelihood that the next president will be a Republicans, because religious people vote and they don't want to vote for a candidate whom they perceive as being personally anti-religious or strongly influenced by people who are anti-religious.
And so publicly asserting our right to be atheists in the context of a presidential campaign is the most effective way to undermine those rights.
John Edwards didn't understand this, but the Republicans taught him this lesson recently when hte unpopularity and embarrassment of his anti-religious bloggers forced him to discontinue their employment.
Markos Moulitsas is an avowed activist atheist, taking a POLITICAL position that it strongly counter to the position held by most Americans. Markos has said:
To the degree that Markos becomes more prominent, the risk of the Republicans using him a as way to drive a wedge between Democrats and religious voters increases. This happened between Edwards and his bloggers and we on the Left have yet to come to terms with the full ramifications of that "shot across the bow". But, having won a victory with that theme, the Republicans are hardly going to stop. Every prominent atheist will be a target of Republicans smears, and we MUST take this into account when we determine who will be the face of our Party.
Those who willfully refuse to learn even from recent history may be condemned to relive recent history in the near future.
Certainly, the reason the the Pew Center bothered to poll the public about relgious views and politics is because they thought Democrats might read the empirical data and take heed. Apparently Pew was wrong. Many Democrats "progressives" would rather beat their atheist chests in public, regardless of the electoral consequences, rather than heed the polling data and keep their atheism private.
Thankfully, many of our centrist candidates have the benefit of (a) having genuine religious beliefs to which they can make reference and (b) having the good sense to realize that the best way to protect EVERYONE's rights is to get elected and appoint members of the Supreme Court and lower Federal Courts - not to declare obeisance to the principles of atheism in the public fora and thereby lose election after election, ceding the appoinment of Supreme Court justices to the Republicans.
The Democrats have been out of the presidency for eight years and have lost 5 of the last 7 presidential elections. Hopefully, Markos and his minions will take this - and the Pew Polling data - into account before the publicly announce their atheism at their YearlyKos conference where Democratic presidential candidates will be making their case to the American public.
"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."
http://francislholland.blogspot.com
francislholland@yahoo.com
This is unAmerican
I am sorry, but placing Constitutional law at the whim of polls is contrary to the Founding Father's will. You are, in fact, suggesting PRECISELY what the Founding Fathers forbade: a religious test for politicians. This is EXACTLY what this nation was founded in direct opposition to. As a Jew who knows his history, I am well aware that the more church and state are linked, the more dangerous life is for Jews. I find what you are advocating, and from a Democrat, to be chilling. Furthermore, you are seeming to be marginalizing people who do not believe the dominant religious doctrine. Again, that is precisely what this nation was founded to get away from.
Is this what Hillary is advocating? Is she saying we need a religious litmus test for politicians? If so, she is starting to sound more like Bush every day.
But in reality I think it is YOU who are advocating a religious litmus test. I also believe Hillary would be horrified by what you are advocating, which is nothing less than an abandonment of the rule of law in favor of the "dictatorship of the mob."
You are seemingly ignorant of Constitutional law. But you are not alone. Many seem to be. But that doesn't mean what you are saying is any less undemocratic and unAmerican than Bush's policies.
Finally, I will point out that Liza directly said (on Culture Kitchen) to stop the vendetta against dKos on her sites. Railing against "Markos and his minions" doesn't seem to be listening to the publisher of this site. I recommend you pay attention when Liza specifically diaries about NOT doing something.
Markos' militant atheism may in explode in our faces!
You have warned me to stop talking about the fact that Markos and his DailyKos crew openly and publicly embraces atheism while denigrating Christian values. One of them said that religious expression "gives me the shits", and Markos himself says he says he gets just as much from foundation from his grandmother as anybody else gets from God. (Cited above)
While this may be true for Markos, it is not constructive politically to say so publicly at this time. And yet, the anti-Christian campaign goes on at DailyKos, soon to be quoted on the late night talk shows and Fox News.
If you're going to ban me for pointing out that Markos' atheism may well become an embarrassing political issue for the Democratic Patry, particularly when YearlyKos hosts all of the Democratic Presidential candidates in August, then you may well ban me. I can't prevent you from doing so.
But rather than try to quiet my voice on this issue, you might reflect on what happened to John Edwards recently and ask yourself if you would like to see the same thing happen to ALL of the Democratic presidential candidates AT ONCE in the context of YearlyKos, a 65% atheist/agnostic gathering to which all of our candidates have been invited?
Markos needs to immediately take his anti-Christian statements off of his site or refrain from hosting the Democratic candidates forum at YearlyKos is August. You heard this from me first. Next, perhaps this August, you'll be hearing it from the Republicans and Fox News. Ban me if you wish, but don't say you were never warned of this bomb about to explode.
"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."
http://francislholland.blogspot.com
francislholland@yahoo.com
Dude!
Read this. Now.
This site is not a venue for your vendetta. We didn't complain about your initial negative comments regarding dKos and some on CK even agreed. But you keep ramping it up until you are getting misleading.
First of all, I read dKos despite it not being my favorite. I see MANY things discussed there other than religion. And, again, a major offshoot of dKos is the very religious oriented site Street Prophets, another counter example. Now, read the above diary I link to. Pay attention. A line has been crossed and we are asking you step back. As a guest in our blog please respect what we ask. dKos is NOT sacrosanct here. Not by a long shot. But we don't encourage vendettas or misrepresentation.
Finally, and separate from that warning, I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS what polls say when it comes to Constitutional issues. Christ, man, two of the least popular things this nation's government did was end slavery and give voting rights to blacks. How did we lose the "Solid South?" By DOING THE RIGHT THING, popular or not. We could have stuck with the South and popularity and continued to deny voting rights to blacks. But that would have been wrong. So we did the MORAL if UNPOPULAR thing.
I am not anti-religion. But I am certainly against advocating a religious test for our politicians because it is Constitutionally wrong.
Truthfully, I'm not sure
why I'm bothering to respond to this, but I'll try one more point that might penetrate.
The Republicans were able to use the bloggers' histories against Edwrads because he hired them. They worked for him. Noone has hired Markos as yet, and I very much doubt that he would consent to be hired. He values his independent voice.
The day they decide this country is officially "a Christian country" is the day I pack my bags and move someplace else, where they still have the rule of law. My forebears, and my husband's, moved here because this is a country where we believe all men (and women) are created equal - even non-Christians. A chunk of my husband's family that didn't move here was exterminated by the Nazis, and I'll be damned if I let that happen to us.
Have I made myself clear?
Right behind you
...the day that Nazis like Francis Holland run this country, I am Out. Of. Here.
I still can't believe I'm reading any of this. It's probably not necessary to point this out, But Mr. Holland does not speak for this blog.
Markos is hosting a Democratic candidates' forum in August 2007
Markos is planning to have all of the Democratic candidates attend a televised candidates forum in August 2007, at YearlyKos. Might his and his groups' atheism/agnosticism and their outrageous comments published at DailyKos and elsewhere become a political issue at that time? I think that might become an issue. But reasonably minds can differ on something like this.
I'll bet Edwards wishes someone had warned him before he hired Marcotte and McEwan and spent a week defending them before he was forced to fire them.
This isn't a Christian country in a formal sense, but polls cited above say that the Democrats are already perceived as less religion-friendly than Republicans, and voters DO decide about candidates based on their perceptions of the candidates' faith. And 50% of voters say Bush talks about religion "about the right amount". See above. So, if Markos and his minions succeed is sqeezing the religion out of our candidates, then the atheists will be happier with the candidates speeches, but a much larger group will be left cold - just as they were with Kerry in 2004.
If you don't agree with me, fine. If you try to "ban" my opportunity to say what I believe, then you are no better than the authoritarians whom you claim to oppose.
Another thought
Mr. Holland, would you mind if I forwarded this diary, and all the appended comments, to Senator Clinton? I'm sure she'd be interested to know what strategy you've been offering as you seek to get her elected.
You don't need his permission
He posted on our blog and our blog is public so you have full permission.
I Welcome Input From All Quarters
Unlike many of the courageous anonymous bloggers in the "progressive" community, I publish my name and my e-mail address so that anyone who agrees or disagrees with me can contact me and tell me so.
Nobody tells me what opinions to express or not express, including but not limited to the junior Senator from New York.
It is my opinion that a candidate forum hosted by a militant atheist/agnostic group is going to blow up in the faces of the Democrats, and is not at all consistent with the faith and tolerance of our candidates and the majority of our Party.
This is not a matter of whether they believe in God or not. This is a matter of groups that are majority atheist agnostic wanting to make godlessness a public policy matter, trying to intimidate candidates into speaking less of the God who animates most ( but not all) Americans' personal lives.
As long as Markos keeps his atheism to himself and his blog, I have no argument with it. When he tries to intimidate the candidates into participating in a debate sponsored by atheist/agnostics - a debate at which the candidates will be challenged to speak less of religion in the campaign - then I strenuously object to that for one pragmatic reason: Pew Poll data says we're going to get our asses kicked if we follow Markos into his radical atheist/agnostic electoral hell of a drubbing at the polls.
The Edwards scandal was a warning to us of what the Republicans plan to do with our atheist bloggers in the future. The Republicans are going to turn our atheist bloggers into the Willie Hortons of the 2008 presidential race. Ignore this, and Newt Gingrich may end up being sworn in on a chilly January day in 2008.
Fuckwad
Holland, if this is the kind of crap you're going to be spreading here, leave. That's all I'm going to say. This is insulting.