Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Your Obligation is to Vote
Most of the time I have nothing but nice things to say about Ellen Johnson. She's an intelligent, brave, proud spokesperson for atheists. I probably agree with her 98% of the time. But, I don't know what the hell she is thinking in this instance.
I couldn't disagree more. Not voting is the best way to make politicians continue to ignore us. I am frustrated by the same things Ellen is. However, it makes no sense at all to forfeit my vote, as a protest. That's the worst idea I've heard in a while. Write in Richard Dawkins' name or something, but don't sit home.
To me, voting with the Democrats is a no-brainer. I am well aware that the candidates are not perfect, but if the religious right has aligned themselves with the Republican party, my choice is simple. Despite their imperfections, the Democrats are almost universally for good science education (teaching evolution), stem cell research, sex education, planned parenthood, and the separation of state and church.
It will probably be many years before we have an atheist or agnostic president. Maybe not in my lifetime? But we must keep continue being vocal and fighting the good fight. Because atheists are an ignored constituency, every single atheist has an obligation to get out there and make your voice heard. How many people thought we would never see a black man or a woman as a president?
And to be clear, I am not suggesting that getting an atheist elected is an end in itself. If John McCain were an atheist I still would not vote for him. I have no interest in bomb, bomb, bombing Iran or staying in Iraq for the next 100 years.
What I really want is a country that actually means it when it says "all men are created equal", respects the separation of state and church and makes rational decisions based on science and reason instead of superstition. If a theist can give me those things, I can vote for him or her. I respect the hell out of Ellen Johnson, but this is not one of her better ideas. The reason fundies have so much power right now is because they vote.
Hat tip to God is for Suckers!
Bookmark/Search this post with:
two party system
People really need to check out the Ziggy Saunders "Write In Protest Vote" against the 2 party system.
Finally a canidate who tells it like it is no BS. He vows to give the Middle Finger to the Two Party System and to Lead a Revloution at the Voting Booths this November.
Check out these two YouTube videos of Ziggy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XctuI5iCfCg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoYQXY6_DQ8
and his page at
www.MySpace.com/ziggysaunders2008
Ballots need to have a "none
Ballots need to have a "none of the above" option. I could swear that I remember checking something similar at least once back in Canada, though to be honest, I don't remember if it was a local, provincial, national, or party leadership election... Probably the latter, considering the existence of The Edible Ballot Society.
In America, I could not, in good faith, vote for ANY of these potential presidential candidates (not that I'll be able to vote by then, although I *will* be eligible for citizenship just a few days before the election -- how annoying). Maybe I'm just not used to living in a two-party system.
I agree
I agree
I'm with Hank's comments that there isn't such a thing as a wasted vote as long as it's expressing your opinion. Right now if you don't think any of the possible candidates are good your choice is to not vote for any of them, which I have done in some races. The problem with this is that there's not a way to differentiate the people who care and don't like any of the candidates from the people that are too apathetic to bother voting. If we did have "none of the above" option it would be interesting to see how much support that choice would actually get.
All for it
I love the idea of a "none of the above" or "vote of no confidence." I even like Jello Biafra's stance that if "none of the above" gets the majority then they need to re-run the election with new candidates.
A vote for Nader (or other third party) is absolutely NOT a wasted vote, (the only wasted vote is the one not cast) it is an important symbolic gesture to the politico's that we are not happy with the options they have provided. That doesn't change my opinion that said third party vote does more harm than good if our goal is a more humane society. Have a good one everybody! I'm out for the day.
Democrat vs Nader vs WWIII
I'll admit that I voted for Nader in 2000. I had recently turned 18 at the time and seeing as I live in NY I knew my vote was inconsequential under the electoral college so I voted for Nader as a protest vote. At the time I was easily influenced by things like RATM - Testify, hey I was 18. I still like the video and the song, but in hindsight their politics were misguided.
Unfortunately I saw that Nader is thinking of running again. I hate to toe the line of the democratic party, I did finally register as one so I could vote in primaries, but I think we finally have a decent candidate and I think this election is too important to risk allowing McCain a victory. I guess I'm calling him a spoiler, but when there is likely to be only a percent or two difference between a likable semi-liberal (or a less likable but not evil dem) and The Crusades ver. 2.0, I don't think the statement of defiance is worth the risk.
Also I know that some bloggers who rock the Scarlet Letter have nasty things to say about Obama because he does profess to be very religious. He also grew up in a non-religious household in which his mother tried to teach him about all the major religions. In his book Audacity of Hope he has a whole chapter about his faith, and he regularly mentions people of no faith as being equals. As much as he touts his religion I think he is far and away the most likely to remember those of us who are not religious, seeing as that group includes his mother. And in case its not clear, McCain scares the crap outta me.
Ahem.
It's not "unfortunate" that Nader is running again. It's wonderful. There is no downside.
I was also glad that Ron Paul took a run at it, and I'm glad that he found so many energetic and outspoken supporters.
Both of these guys have THINGS TO SAY. Things John McCain will never say. Things Hillary Clinton will never say. Things Barack Obama will never say.
Things Americans need to hear.
Kucinich Too
I was very happy to have people like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich involved in the debates. They brought up things that need to be talked about and otherwise would not have been. I'm more than happy they were involved, im in total agreement about that.
My concern is of course the classic Dem whiner plea that if Nader takes even one percent of the vote, some of which will come from people who would not vote otherwise, and some from people who otherwise would vote Dem, and taking nothing away from McCain. It's very possible that even half a percentage loss in a single key state could hand the keys to the white house to a man who would like nothing more than to start a third war while keeping our soldiers tied to the existing battles for the next 100 years. I wish we had numerous viable political parties, I think that is critical to a healthy democracy, but we don't we have two.
That said I think the green party could be an important party, I also think sending Nader out to be crushed every few years hurts their cause as well. The precious few resources the Green Party has should be used to continue to make advances in local elections. Get more Green Mayors, and state representatives get a some Greens in the house, and a governor or two. They need to establish themselves as more than just a fringe party, given the amount of advertising going into promoting environmentally conscious products its clear that they could garner support if they chose their battles more carefully. They will spend lots of money and have nothing to show for it, and if McCain wins they will be blamed by many people who otherwise may have supported them. Also I think it would be wise for the Greens to get a new candidate, Americans don't seem to give politicians second chances when it comes to elections, but thats a separate debate.
This is why I sincerely believe there is a downside to both the Green Party and the Democrats, the only clear winner from a Nader campaign is John McCain. I respect your opinion Hank but on this point I disagree, from a ideological standpoint I agree with you, but from a practical standpoint I see more harm than good.
Well not voting in not the
Well not voting in not the solution to this problem. But I see where she is coming from, I mean how can i trust a president that puts his hand in a book that I don't even believe in?
The constitution of the Unite States is what makes this country free and so different from the rest of the world.
"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."
- Abraham Lincoln, American president (1809-1865)
Keep thinking!
Bad Idea
It reminds me of the 2000 election, when a lot of people voted for Ralph Nader because there supposedly wasn't any difference between the Dems and the GOP. Eight years of W showed us there is a difference. We secularists have a party, its the Democrats. They support separation of church and state, good science education, oppose school vouchers, and Bush's crusade. Not voting in this election is the same as voting for at least another four years of war in Iraq, and putting another theocrat or two on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Huh?
I voted for Ralph Nader because he came the closest to honestly representing the values and goals I cared most about.
I didn't and don't consider him a spoiler, or that my vote was wasted. Either a vote is a free expression of your own desires, or else the two parties own a monopolistic lock on the political system and we're all just puppets to THEIR desires.
The Dems the secularist party? Have you LISTENED to the Democratic candidates sucking up to the godders? Have you heard a democratic candidate, ever, say we'd be better off with religion out of government? Have you heard any of them say they'd lessen the amount of government money going to religious organizations?
There IS no secularist party. There never has been one.
As to Bush's crusade, there wasn't much he did that wasn't agreed to by Democrats. He's a stupid man run by evil men, but the frickin' Democrats were right there kissing his lying ass, refusing to ask questions, refusing to say in the open that he was a liar, actively voting to approve his actions, the whole time. They were either gutless or willing collaborators, but both amount to the same thing: there is a single party in Washington, it just comes in two slightly different flavors ... neither of which represents me or other ordinary Americans all that much.
I'm voting for a Democrat come November, but the Democrats aren't my party and they aren't secularists. Not even close. What they are is the current best of the two bad choices.
Same
I also supported Nadir in 2000 because I honestly thought he came closest to my particular set of values. I voted for Kerry in 2004 because, hey, lesser of 2 evils. However, I can honestly say that I'm sick and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. I'm sick and tired of a media where the non-dem/rep candidates get no air time, and the guys who aren't the front-runners get barely any if at all (well duh, of course they're not the front runners, the only people who know they exist are their current supporters). I'm tired of a media that cares more about whether a candidate did or did not sleep with someone than about what policies the candidates support.
The dems use to be more secular, then the religious fruit-loops hijacked the Republican party and basically convinced a lot of religious people that they have a choice between the god-fearing (and fear-mongering) Republicans and the "god-less" Democrats. They're basically running interference such that "Secular" is becoming slang for "Atheist", which the word most certainly does not mean. So we've got the psychological link "Secular -> Atheist -> Amoral evil" being built/worked toward by the crazies of the world. Of course the democrats are going to turn god-fearing if they want to get the vote.
Nader the Spoiler
This is actually to both Hank and Cat-
I agree that Nader has the right to run and its very important to get his views out there. But, in all honesty, Nader split a crucial percentage of Democratic voters away from Gore. And we all know what happened next. It's our 'winner take all' political system that is fucked up, more than anything.
A third party candidicy would make more sense if we had a parlimentary form of government. In a parlimentary system, the Green Party (Nader) would have made up 3% of the government, because he got about 3% (2.9 million votes) of the vote. In this type of system, Nader would have been a kingmaker rather than a spoiler.
So, because of our 'winner take all' political system, the third party actually hurts the party it is closer to ideologically. The logical outcome is that we have two major, well organized parties. It sucks, but that's the way it is.
I'm just sayin'
First, I respect Nader's right to run, and your right to vote for him. And I know Gore ran a bad campaign, and even with Nader in the race he should have been able to win the election. BUT. Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq. Gore wouldn't have appointed theocrats to the Supreme Court. Gore wouldn't have run massive budget deficits in order to slash taxes for the super-rich. There was a BIG difference between Bush and Gore.
Second, like it or not, the U.S. has a two party system, so a party, in order to succeed, has to be a big tent. Secularists have a home in the Democratic party, which respects separation of church and state, but it has to make room for theists who respect religious freedom as well. You can't expect a democratic candidate to be hostile to religion and get elected.
Secularism
Secularism respects religious freedom, except in cases where exercising it means breaking the law (sorry guys, that means no human sacrifices). Secularism means neutral territory as far as religion is concerned, it neither helps nor hurts any given religion. That also includes Atheism, although it isn't a religion (at this time). As has been said before, the separation of church and state is absolutely vital to the freedom of religion.
Post new comment