It’s the Judiciary, Stupid!
Author: PhillyChief
A recurring spiel from The Exterminator (and championed in ways by some that make up emotionally what they lack intelligently) is in response of not just being ignored as a non-religious voter but given a de facto “fuck you” from the current crop of candidates, to march into the voting booth in November and give back a “fuck you” by writing in a name, any name. Somehow, although never offering how, he argues that this will express to politicians that we atheists are tired of being snubbed and that we demand some notice in the future. Some “we’re here, we don’t god fear, get used to it” perhaps. Frankly, I see this as no different than Ellen Johnson’s no vote plea in that it’s just as vacuous but yet confusing since both clearly are aware of both the problem of being ignored and that we secular minded voters comprise a large enough voting bloc to not be ignored. Now to be fair, I’ll give Ex a 1 on a 10 point scale as opposed to Johnson’s 0 since there’s absolutely no fucking way her plan can do any good for absence at the poles would merely be written off as low voter turn out. Although arguing that we comprise 11% of the vote, her plan offers nothing to reinforce that claim nor convey it strongly to the candidates. Likewise, Ex’s plan would do the same. Everyone writing in “Exterminator”, “Mickey Mouse”, their aunt Matilda, or any other alternative name would not even be a blip on the radar.
Now I did say I gave him a 1. Why? Because it has potential, but until he or anyone can put forth a plan to harness that potential, it’s an empty gesture at best. No doubt this is a subject for many future discussions, but to briefly touch on some ways to realize the idea’s potential:
• Have everyone write in THE SAME NAME
• Begin marketing that idea
– blogs
– contacting secular organizations
– contacting religious moderates or any group who strongly supports church/state separation
• Make the media aware of the plan so that SOMEONE might actually look for these write in votes
• Capitalize on this eventual confirmation of the claims that there is a sizable group out there that is tired of faith pandering politicians
But I’m not even convinced entirely that this is a good strategy. Have we seen this by any other minority? Yes, the LGBT held a debate and the candidates (well, the Democratic ones) showed up but only two supported gay marriage and neither of them are left. Have they called for a voting boycott or a “fuck you” vote? THEY are being openly denied full equal rights and they’re not calling for such actions, so what the fuck is our problem? I’m not saying what the candidates do isn’t wrong, but a singular point in deciding your voting action?
Either staying home on election day or writing in an alternative name can have an unfortunate effect on the nation as a whole, not just us personally. I think it’s fair to say that the majority of atheists and other freethinkers along with others sympathetic to our concerns like civil rights and the Constitution as a whole are of a more Democratic slant, or at least middle of the road moderates, so popping this bloc out of the vote gives a clear edge to McCain, much like the Nader vote in 2000. The Exterminator argues:
“I’m afraid I’m too thick to be able to tell the parties apart just because they use slightly different rhetoric to bamboozle the electorate.”
Economy, social issues, Education, energy, infrastructure, Iraq, and so on may be debatable as to how the candidates will respond (although personally I think their positions aren’t too hard to predict), but their influence on the Justice system, primarily the Supreme Court? Well there’s little to no speculation there. Unlike the singular issue to motivate election action like being snubbed as non-religious, this issue, I feel, is enough to motivate action. As if the Bush administration’s nose thumbing at the Constitution and the Justice Department weren’t evidence enough of what we can expect from McCain, let’s think about those potential Supreme Court nominations. From the WSJ:
On Jan. 20, 2009, six of the nine Supreme Court justices will be over 70. Most of them could be replaced by the next president, particularly if he or she is re-elected. Given the prospect of accelerating gains in modern medical technology, some of the new justices may serve for half a century. Even if a more perfect candidate were somehow elected in 2012, he would not be able to undo the damage, especially to the Supreme Court.
So let’s compare McCain and Obama:
McCain
When asked by Hannity on Fox on March 13th of this year , “who is your favorite Supreme Court Justice?” he replied:
“I would have to say Roberts, probably. I think — and I think particularly in his position as chief justice. I think he is really a remarkable leader. I respect and admire Alito. Scalia I have disagreed with on a couple of things, but the fact is he is a staunch conservative. “
Seen here in the NYTimes, McCain said:
“I am proud of my advocacy of Alito and Roberts”
From a McCain press release announcing that the Virginia Family Issues group endorses him:
“Like me, Senator McCain has a long history of supporting life… he will nominate judges who understand that the role of the federal courts is not to legislate from the bench. His proven record of protecting human dignity, the institution of marriage and protecting children of all ages is long held and I look forward to working together with him to advance these moral principles,” Jim Gilmore, former Virginia governor and current U.S. Senate candidate
“His commitment to nominate judges in the vein of Alito and Roberts is extremely important.” – Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell
“John McCain has in his core, a concern for both the unborn and the women who are dealing with a crisis. He truly is a man who understands the term ‘love them both.’ He is a lifelong pro-life leader worthy of our support,” – Christian Hamaker, pro-family advocate of Fairfax
McCain’s response:
“I am proud to stand side-by-side with them on many of the most critical issues of our day: defending the sanctity of human life, upholding traditional marriage…”
Catholic group Fidelis has this to say:
“Senator McCain has amassed a strong pro-life voting record in the United States Senate. He has repeatedly called for the overturn of Roe v. Wade… Fidelis is also confident that Sen. McCain will do whatever is necessary to protect the institution of marriage. While we disagreed with his prudential judgment on the federal marriage amendment, his support of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and state efforts to protect traditional marriage have not gone unnoticed.”
And just taking it from the horse’s mouth:
“I intend to nominate judges who have proven themselves worthy of our trust… judges of the character and quality of Justices Roberts and Alito” 35th Annual Conservative Political Action Conference
“One of our greatest problems in America today is justices that legislate from the bench, activist judges. I’m proud that we have Justice Alito and Roberts on the United States Supreme Court.” Republican Pres. debate, May 3, 2007
Asked by The National Review, “Are there any members of the current Supreme Court that you particularly admire or regard as a model?”:
“of course, Antonin Scalia. He’s a lot of our conservative models, I admire how articulate he is, but I also from everything I’ve seen I admire Roberts as well.”
Obama
Speaking at the Planned Parenthood conference in July 2007 NBC reported, Obama…
leveled harsh words at conservative Supreme Court justices, and he offered his own intention to appoint justices with “empathy.” Obama hinted that the court’s recent decision in Gonzales v. Carhart — which upheld a ban on partial-birth abortion — was part of “a concerted effort to steadily roll back” access to abortions. And he ridiculed Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote that case’s majority opinion… “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”
The Hill reported:
Obama spent much of his speech deriding the court’s recent opinions striking down what anti-abortion activists call “partial-birth abortion,” restricting women’s ability to sue over past gender discrimination, and barring the use of race in school integration… Obama said the battle for abortion rights should be fought from the offensive, instead of a simple defense of what activists have achieved thus far… And he reiterated his opposition to the two justices appointed by Bush who currently sit on the Supreme Court — Roberts and Samuel Alito. Obama voted against both.
Obama’s official statement explaining his rejection of then nominee Alito:
“when you look at his record, what is clear is that when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless… He believes in the overarching power of the president to engage in whatever the president deems to be appropriate policy.”
Obama’s official statement on the confirmation of Roberts:
“The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts’ record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak… I will be voting against John Roberts’ nomination. I do so with considerable reticence. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that this reticence on my part proves unjustified and that Judge Roberts will show himself to not only be an outstanding legal thinker but also someone who upholds the Court’s historic role as a check on the majoritarian impulses of the executive branch and the legislative branch. I hope that he will recognize who the weak are and who the strong are in our society. I hope that his jurisprudence is one that stands up to the bullies of all ideological stripes.”
In a November of 2007 debate when asked what kind of Justice he would want to nominate to the Supreme Court, Barack Obama responded:
“ I taught constitutional law for 10 years, and . . . when you look at what makes a great Supreme Court justice, it’s not just the particular issue and how they rule, but it’s their conception of the Court. And part of the role of the Court is that it is going to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process, the outsider, the minority, those who are vulnerable, those who don’t have a lot of clout.
. . . [S]ometimes we’re only looking at academics or people who’ve been in the [lower] court. If we can find people who have life experience and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that’s the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court
Finally, look at what Cass Sunstein, legal advisor to Obama had to say. Pointing out the clear shift to the right in the Supreme Court, he calls for an increased liberal presence:
“But both the Court and the nation benefit from a range of views and approaches, and something has gone badly wrong if the Court has a strong right wing without any real left. Things are worse still, and even a bit bizarre, if the Court’s distinguished moderates, generally operating in the same tradition as the conservatives of the Court’s past, are seen as the left-wingers. What makes the revolution on the Court so unusual, and so stunningly successful, is that most people have not even noticed it.”
So if you’re looking for a single motivator for your vote in November, I think this one is it, but if you happen to have another that you think trumps it, at least put forth a solid defense of it. Give some argument for how your action matters, why it’s the best course of action, what’s the plan for implementing it, and so on. Until then, like any other poorly thought out and seemingly irrational response presented, I will continually oppose such ideas anywhere and everywhere, and the suggestion that MY action is “belly-aching”? HA! I’d say look in the mirror.
Recommended listening: Point of Inquiry Podcast from 2/1/08 with guest Edward Tabash
Atheist Spot
Well, this brilliantly thought-out plan to continue at the status quo is just too logical for me.
I was under the impression that the way to get political clout is to go for it. That usually starts with the germ of an inkling of a notion, builds into a full-fledged idea, and slowly accumulates momentum until it’s an actual movement. Nowadays, with the Internet being a factor, “slowly” may no longer be an operative word.
But my impression is probably wrong. I guess the way to get political clout is to not do anything. To just sit on the sidelines and continue voting for those who pander to the irrational religionists. Then we can continue blogging about how pissed off we are, and how everybody makes us say stuff.
Yup. That’s the rational thing to do.
Debate strategies for weak positions:
• Completely ignore opposition arguments
• Reframe opposition opinions into something you can argue against (ie- straw man)
Yup. That’s the rational thing to do. Nice job, Ex.
Nope, no straw man. I’m not debating you, so there was no debate strategy on my part. Every conversation is not necessarily a debate.
I just think most of this post was a lot of hot air. (But see below.) First of all, a Supreme Court opening will be exactly the kind of situation in which a Democrat who has pandered to pious voters will have to make concessions. I think you’re jumping to a conclusion about the quality of the next judge. And perhaps you’re even jumping to a conclusion about the quality of the present judges. Remember: Blackmun, who ultimately became a champion of women’s rights, began as an “arch-conservative.” And the person who is arguably the most civil libertarian of the current justices, David Souter, was an appointee of Bush I.
If you asked “who’s more likely to appoint a judge that respects the Bill of Rights as we interpret it?” I’d concede that a Democrat is more likely to do that than McCain. But it’s not a done deal on either side.
Now, I’ll be quick to point out that I do agree with you about needing a plan. And I think your bulleted points are all right on the money. But you, yourself, having outlined a perhaps workable strategy, then dismiss your very own ideas, and doubt whether anyone could follow through on them. You present a plan of action, and then say “nahhhh, won’t work.”
Pulling in one other minority, the LGBT, as a counterexample is misleading. What about the black civil rights movement? What about the “green”s? What about the … yikes! … Christian right?
All of those “groups” (in the loosest sense of the word) began with small efforts, word-of-mouth fomenting, and court cases. But now they do have some political heft, and woe betide the politician who ignores them.
So I’m not debating you. I’m asking you to contribute your great creative abilities to doing something now about the untenable political situation. We will look like fools to a large part of the electorate, and I know that’s not a comfortable guise for you. But the conservatives who lined up behind Goldwater in 1964 looked like fools, too.
Now they run the fucking country.
With regard to single-issue voting (if one is inclined toward such a thing, which I’m usually not), I agree that the Supreme Court is a significant issue. I see it as an umbrella that encompasses lots of other issues, such as abortion. In this election cycle, my single issue up and down the ballot has been (and I don’t foresee any reason why this would change in the next six months) ABAR: Anyone But A Republican.
Bush’s presidency has been an unmitigated disaster. I always knew he would suck, but I don’t think anyone possibly could have imagined just how bad he actually turned out to be. Even Stephen King’s imagination isn’t that good. McCain will simply bring more of the same. I honestly fear for the future if he manages to win , which increasingly appears not to be beyond the realm of possibility. This election should be a cakewalk for the Dems, but every day it looks like it will be closer than it has any right to be. I hope the Dems can manage not to screw it up again. I won’t believe it until I see it, though.
I’m not debating you, so there was no debate strategy on my part
Then what do you call reframing everything I said as merely a “brilliantly thought-out plan to continue at the status quo” or “not do anything”? How about presenting the false dichotomy of either doing something (ie- your idea) or not doing anything? Idle chit chat, perhaps?
First of all, a Supreme Court opening will be exactly the kind of situation in which a Democrat who has pandered to pious voters will have to make concessions.
Talk about hot air! If you don’t mind, explain how:
1. Democrat who has pandered to pious voters will have to make concessions
2. Supreme Court openings would be EXACTLY the kind of concession to expect (did you bother to read the above info on and from Obama, or just jump right to the comment button to post your snark?)
Also, if you bothered to read Sunstein’s piece, you wouldn’t be throwing around your labels for Justices so absently. For instance, Souter may be called liberal now, but that just shows how conservative the court has become. From Sunstein:
“Souter is a Republican appointee. His approach to constitutional law is in the general mold of Justice John Harlan, the great conservative dissenter on the Warren Court.”
So stop with the ‘well you never really know what kind of nominee to expect’ stuff. It’s a very weak argument for undermining the threat level we face with the Supreme Court, almost as weak as the “concessions” argument.
As for the rest of your comments, I’m getting the sense you’ve gotten a bit confused. First, I didn’t dismiss the strategy because I think it won’t work, but I don’t see the value of it working being greater than say the Supreme Court threat. Here, let’s put it in perspective. Let’s say your idea works, 10-20% of the vote is a write in of “Exterminator”. The media and everyone go on and on about the big loud roar that was just made in American politics. In the mean time, McCain gets elected, appoints a few more assholes to the court and now it’s not only decades before gays see full equal rights but women lose their rights to abortions. Hell, we and others may lose more fundamental rights, too. Would it be worth it?
Second, the point I was making by bringing up the LGBT is they’re receiving a far greater “fuck you” right now than us, yet they’re not calling for a boycott or any such kind of Pyrrhic victory. Yes they and the other groups you cite began with small efforts that grew and are still growing today and they certainly are models for what secularists should do. Like it or not, you have to make a choice between two shitty choices and not only do I see one far shittier than the other, I also see your non-choice as a very real choice, one that enables the shittier choice to win.
So good luck with your idea now that you have some points finally for a gameplan. Hell, I can see myself actively supporting it but on a case by case basis. In this case, I don’t see it as a good option EVEN IF the gameplan was in place, which currently it’s not.
And to you Chaplain, I’d say in reading many of your posts I don’t share as much of the optimism you have for the Democrats as a whole, but I think this issue of the Supreme Court is one where there would clearly be a difference between Obama’s choices and McCain’s. I have not looked seriously into Hillary’s views, and I hope I don’t have to.
I find what’s happened under Bush frightening, and I don’t want anymore of those idiots from Robertson’s clown lawyer school filling up the Justice Dept. In fact, I want to see YouTube video of all of them filing out next year holding boxes of their office shit as they’re fired one by one.
I guess I can see how many of my posts seem to be rather optimistic about the Dems, overall, but I want the record to show that I’m thoroughly disgusted by the lack of will and leadership shown by the current allegedly Democratic-majority Congress, particularly its leadership. I’m not as extreme as Exterminator regarding the apparent interchangeability of the parties and players, but I understand how he gets that impression. Frankly, none of the three remaining candidates lights my fire or rings my bell, so I’m probably just going to have to hold my nose when I vote (again).
How about presenting the false dichotomy of either doing something (ie- your idea) or not doing anything?
Um, that’s not a false dichotomy. Everything is either A or not-A. Do you think there’s a sort-of-A-and-sort-of-not-A position?
Please don’t quote Sunstein to me. First of all, he was a supporter of John Roberts’s nomination.
Second, whatever Souter’s judicial philosophy might be, and whether or not Sunstein has characterized it “correctly”: I don’t see how any of his civil liberties votes (with the exception of his position on eminent domain, in which he voted with the property-snatchers on the left) mark him as anything less than a great civil libertarian. Can you point to a few specific cases I might have missed?
The point is he’s “liberal” based on his surroundings, which are conservative. His paper trail is weak, but he’s at best a moderate, which is ok by me. I too am not opposed to capital punishment but ruling against strippers and giving PA some grounds to limit abortion? Not to my tastes.
As for Sunstein, let’s call him a wash. He may have supported Roberts but clearly sees a lack of a liberal presence now, but also his opinion is not a clear view to what Obama would choose.
The false dichotomy was both in that there were just those choices you mentioned and that what you mentioned were actually even correct choices since you completely reframed my position into something else.
I’m definitely not agreeing with your characterization of my argument, but sometimes setting up a straw man can be pretty effective.
First of all – terrific post, Philly. I didn’t want to respond to Ex’s recent blog post because (to put it in his words) it seemed like beating a dead horse. I know where he stands. He knows where I stand.
But you showed me. There’s always another way of framing an argument. And you did it very nicely with lots of detail.
I too am concerned about the Supreme Court, though it is not at the top of my list. Partly because it IS an unknown. Not just the things Ex pointed out. I still disagree with you, Ex. I don’t care how many cases you point out where a Republican gave us a judge who turned out to be great. It’s all about playing the odds, baby. No, we don’t KNOW, but if Obama is going to “repay” the theists with a conservative judge then HOW BAD is the judge that McCain will give us likely to be? For Darwin’s sake – he’s going to be more beholding to them than Obama would be!
But my “unknown” goes further. Sure, 6 judges will be over 70… blah, blah, blah. My aunt is 94 this year, my mom 92 already and they’d both still be sitting on the court if they were justices! John Wooden, former UCLA coach is 98. If you listen to him speak (and don’t see him) you would think the guy is an extremely intelligent 65 year old. For fucks sake, we might have all of the current justices for at least 10 years.
But there is something we DO KNOW.
George W. Bush. He took us into war against a country which had not attacked or even threatened us. His administration presented the American people with false evidence to justify the war. When it became clear that we had not attacked for the given reasons we were told it was to take down the monster Sadaam Hussein. When he was captured and hung, we were told that we were there to make sure Iraq was stable and not a threat. The military hunts down Al Qaeda in Iraq, which was not even there until we invaded, while the real Al Qaeda is up on the Afghan/Pakistan border. Meanwhile, Americans at home have had their civil rights violated on a daily basis, not the least by an illegal review of our phone records. The Justice department has fired U.S. Attorneys for failure to comply with Administration demands that they prosecute on clearly political reasons. Americans and foreign nationals have been arrested without warrant or notification to relatives, held months and years and never offered their basic Habeas Corpus rights to appear before a magistrate and be charged with whatever crime they were arrested for. Many have been tortured. Some killed. And this is just SOME of the information that we know.
And McCain PROMISES YOU – EX… more of the same.
Obama promises you quite a different vision. Will he keep his promises? I don’t know. But I do know that McCain will. It’s clearly what the GOP base now stands for. They’ve drawn a line through the Constitution, called it Constitutional and dared us to erase it.
These things concern me a lot more than Obama speaking in churches and assure the masses that he has some faith too. Your values have been skewed by your atheism. You have become irrational on its behalf.
I’ve read some pretty vibrant outrage concerning the issues I see as critical in the Atheosphere from time to time. Not even close to what these issues deserve. But an uproar over Obama and Clinton appearing at a “compassion” forum is thought to be worthy of action. And, apparently, I am “stupid” for not getting the great import of things like this. If I’m labeled irrational for thinking that any Democrat would be a great change, then I’m happy to be called that. I know better. I hope you do too.
On a couple of side notes – Sorry for leaving the equivalent of a post in the comments section, Philly. Also, I love this banter between you and Ex on this issue, but WHERE was it last night? Or were you holding out on us because you didn’t want to steal your own thunder? Finally, no matter what – there won’t be enough free thinkers who go along with any attempt to “make a statement” in this election. I believe their won’t ever be such a statement. What I do think likely is the continued slow transition of the society at large away from fundamentalist Christianity. Much of that turn will be toward secularism (doubt it? Check the numbers for the past century) but some will be towards a more reasoned form of Christianity – folks who think Jesus is their savior, but firmly believe in the science as it is. When that happens, no “statement” will be needed. We’ll just automatically be electing people who act rationally – at least on “worldly” matters.
Evo:
Your values have been skewed by your atheism. You have become irrational on its behalf.
My values aren’t skewed by my atheism. My core value is the right of everyone to speak and think freely, without restraint. Our right to be atheists, or Wiccans, or Muslims, or Christians, or star-worshippers, unmolested by society, is the beating heart of my world view. That world view is threatened daily by the very politicians who ought to know better, the hypocritical Democrats who are working hand-in-glove with the theocrats in seeking to impose their faith on me. If that happens to make me a one-issue voter in this election, so be it; every vote I’ve ever cast has been motivated, directly or indirectly, by my love affair with the First Amendment.
You’re certainly free to discuss any issue with me. But don’t ever presume to tell me what my values are.
Ex – don’t get butt-hurt on me. If I say, “your values are skewed” it’s an opinion. I don’t expect you to accept my opinion. But when such a wild-eyed battler of “FREE SPEECH” is being criticized, I expect him to take it like a trooper and not instruct me on what I should or shouldn’t say with that “FREE SPEECH”.
Now, if you want me to get to the substance, I’d be glad to but, again, it’s like Philly said – “I feel like I’m repeating myself”. Or, like you said, “it’s beating a dead horse”.
I’ll give you one simple example of what I mean. You said:
the hypocritical Democrats who are working hand-in-glove with the theocrats in seeking to impose their faith on me.
Really Ex? Really? OK, but only in the world where your values have become skewed by your atheism.
Ex, let me bring you into the world of reality. Most people are “theists”. Many of them are decent people. Great people. Nice people. Fun people. Respectful even of atheists people. Does that shock you? You will probably say “no” but you don’t ACT like it. You don’t TALK like it. You don’t WRITE like it. Your venom is untempered by subtlety. You seem unable to differentiate. You show no ability to compromise with nice people who are superstitious. That’s a skewed value system.
Here’s a question for you. Would you rather have a good friend who was an atheist and called believers idiots or a friend who tells you that he loves Jesus, but he loves you too? You know the honest answer. I’m pretty sure I do too, and it’s unfortunate.
You know, the underlying point of both this post and the post at your blog is how we, as free-thinkers, should use our votes in this election. So you will either do something really silly with your vote and write in Exterminator or you will coalesce behind some 3rd party candidate and potentially get a few million votes. Most free-thinkers will not be voting with you. And hopefully enough people will vote for the Democrat and that we get past the current reign of terror against the document that gives you that “FREE SPEECH”.
I can’t do this any more. Well, I probably could, but it’s pointless. You’re kind of wacky on this particular issue. Unreasoning, while claiming the rational high-ground.
Evo:
Most people are theists. Many of them are decent … blah blah blah.
I’m not talking about individuals, I’m talking about a society that’s permeated in religiosity. Yeah, my next-door neighbor might be a perfectly nice theist and the Christians who live across the street might be great company. But so what? I don’t care at all what they believe in the privacy of their own home. But I’m not going to sit quietly while they force those silly ideas into my house.
And, as you know, I do believe in trying to find common ground, compromising with anyone, superstititious or not, on many issues. On most issues, even. But not on the principles by which the country will be governed for the next four years.
I paid a few bucks in taxes this week. A lot of it will go toward fighting a quasi-religious war that I strongly oppose. Some of it will be used to support faith-based charities and federally funded woo programs. Still more of it will pay the salaries of Injustice Department employees whose only qualifications for their jobs are degrees from nonsense factories. Other dollars of mine will trickle into an educational system that indoctrinates children every morning, and then — in many instances — fills their heads full of religion-friendly lies about history and science. The small amount of cash remaining in my pocket asks me to trust in a god who, apparently, is devaluing that cash day by day by day.
That little rant about my taxes may not sound like it’s relevant to the First Amendment. But it is. I’ll quote James Madison from his “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments”:
… the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever…
So excuse me for not ignoring the religion that’s constantly picking my pocket — and being rammed down my throat.
I am kind of wacky on this issue, if by “wacky” you mean passionate. Why aren’t you?
My core value is the right of everyone to speak and think freely, without restraint.
In an attempt to be objective, wouldn’t making it mandatory to appear at an atheist or science debate and/or mandatory NOT to appear at a faith debate be violating your own principle? Can’t they be free to go to whichever debate they want? Frankly, if I were running I think I’d agree to this “compassion” debate and any opportunity to speak at religious functions primarily because they are the ones that need to hear that an atheist can be moral and compassionate. Now of course none of the current candidates are atheists, but I feel Obama is one of those moderate christians, and maybe that’s the kind of views those christian right people need to hear. It’s too much to expect them to give up their make believe cold turkey, imo. So someone like Obama maybe is like methadone.
the hypocritical Democrats who are working hand-in-glove with the theocrats in seeking to impose their faith on me
I think you’re reaching. Yes, the pending House Resolutions are troubling but show me how Obama is working to impose christianity on us all.
Evo (and everyone), most seem to feel Stevens will retire soon. There’s mixed opinions about Ginsberg and I’ve read some things on Souter (thanks to Ex’s poking me with a stick) that sound like it’s possible he could go, too. Some think it’s more likely he’ll go if Ginsberg goes, but honestly the guy seems like an oddball and very hard to predict. In any event, just one of these being replaced with what McCain promises would tip the balance fully to the Sith.
The problem goes further, of course. Have we forgotten about all those Regent grads in the Justice department? You know they’re not going to be shown the door under McCain.
Oh and Evo, I wasn’t saving myself for the post. (As some of you will see, we had a talk about this the other evening when recording the next podcast coming out in a few days). At the time I was just coming off from reading objections to my objections and came in both hot and unprepared in the sense that I hadn’t thought out every angle. Still, in that heated urgency, I rambled off some points at least for a gameplan to execute Ex’s idea and like I’ve said, until then I’ve heard nothing close to a gameplan and he’s been promoting this thing for what, a year now? Later, after a good night’s sleep, I thought some more and found I couldn’t fully support it even with the gameplan, at least not for this election. Sorry I couldn’t whip all that up in like 5 minutes for the podcast, but 10 hours (with at least 6 of them spent sleeping) ain’t too bad.
@ Philly – in that case, I accept your apology.
@ Ex – likewise!
Seriously, you said “Why aren’t you?”
Because I don’t see it like you do. Read my first comment again about what concerns me deeply, and that way I don’t have to play the repetition game.
Philly:
In an attempt to be objective, wouldn’t making it mandatory to appear at an atheist or science debate and/or mandatory NOT to appear at a faith debate be violating your own principle?
Of course. Who said anything about mandatory?
Now, those things may have been necessary for a candidate to do in order to earn my vote. Just as it’s necessary that a person not preach about god all the time if he or she wants to be invited to my house. But neither of those examples has to do with freedom of speech. Just because I advocate pure free speech, doesn’t mean I have go out of my way to listen to every piece of crap that anyone says.
That’s why you and I can both vociferously defend Fred Phelps’s right to speak out that “God hates fags” and still think the guy’s an incredible asshole.