A PAC for Atheists

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Good deal. I am in total agreement with everything you just said. I think this is a game changer in some respects but I realize it is only going to be as effective as the people will allow.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Honestly at the levels are are speaking of, that is the Peoples' responsibility anyway. For instance, California's religious demographic is as follows:

Protestant: 36%
Roman Catholic: 31%
All other religions were minute...to note though, "non-religious" is at 21% (though that contains "deist").

Given that, does the Roman Catholic parishioners of California that vote truly believe that Nancy Pelosi is Roman Catholic? Or that the multitude of their representatives have any affiliation to a religious group more than "name only"? That is the point I was getting at. They know darn well that Rep. Pelosi represents their domestic goals and not their religious ones as they should. She, along with any other office holder, has no say in our religious/non-religious endeavors.

seeker1963
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

How do you equate this with persecuting Christians?

No where in the article is it about persecuting religion let alone is it about Christians.

Seriously a group wants a political voice that isn't tied to religion and you cry fowl that Christians are being persecuted. The persecution complex.

Or did you actually mean prosecute? That would make less sense.

Perhaps I misspelled prosecute? But is that all you got in relevance to my comparison to religious "PROSECUTION" versus the "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE"???????

I guess to put it into a language that you might understand, "Why don't you go after the government whom is using one religion over another, OR a religion whom believes in "NOTHING" (you know, Atheists? Whom believe in nothing?).............................Atheists are not much more different than Muslims whom believe in "DEATH TO THE INFEDELS".........right? After all, you guys are special????

Fact remains that Atheists are nothing more than another tribe whom is jumping into the fray of political nonsense to make themselves feel MORE SPECIAL than anyone else, just because they are "DIFFERENT"?????

Answer me this???? "When the F#%$ is this kind of childish nonsense going to end?"!!!!!!!

But hey, no worries, I am not afraid of death! I actually welcome it! Because I will finally be free of the like of you and others whom feel that they are "SO SPECIAL, THAT EVERYONE ELSE DESERVES TO SUFFER!"

Good luck to you and your cause!!!

Wow either you have some serious misconceptions about atheists (thinking they are special or thinking we wish death on anyone) we leave that for religions. Or you do not understand that nothing changes in government without influence from special interest groups and money to back them. I didn’t think anyone would throw a fit over Atheists having a PAC considering the multitudes of religious ones out there already.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I have no idea but I am sure there are probably a few that have been duped. It is California after all. I like it because there is a choice now and my hopes are that they will stand against some of those who are the anti-science crowd. The ones who have publicly expressed that evolution and climate change are lies from the pit of hell or the earth is only 9,000 years old but also sits on the science and technology board in congress. Maybe they can get some laws changed like the ones I listed.

It’s just having a voice more in line with what I think.

Grimpachi
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

I have no idea but I am sure there are probably a few that have been duped. It is California after all. I like it because there is a choice now and my hopes are that they will stand against some of those who are the anti-science crowd. The ones who have publicly expressed that evolution and climate change are lies from the pit of hell or the earth is only 9,000 years old but also sits on the science and technology board in congress. Maybe they can get some laws changed like the ones I listed.

It’s just having a voice more in line with what I think.

I am glad you feel you have a voice now, but I wouldn't paint with such a broad brush in terms of "anti-science" and religion. Holding a religious faith or that their is "something out there" doesn't exclude that person from understanding science or even pursuing it. Just my two cents in how we can work together (as shown in this thread because while a deist, I believe in a god; I just do not hold any dogma or doctrine to dictate that belief.)

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I am not trying to paint any group with a broad brush the example I gave is what an actual congressman is on record saying. It is those types I want to be opposed. Maybe down the line an uncloseted Atheist will be able to run for office against that type but I don’t think that will happen soon.

Personally I don’t really care what people believe until their beliefs affect me. There are those out there that reject science because it conflicts with what their religion says. I don’t think those types are the majority in government but I do think they wield more influence than they should. My hope is that this is a step in finding better candidates for those positions.
Weather those replacements have a faith or not matters very little to me whether they are intelligent enough to realize the realities of science matters greatly though.

reply to post by Grimpachi

Yep,
Looks like the old laws need revised a bit and I have no problem with that.

I was just curious as to what was actually on the books.

I don't think those particular laws are enforced per se. Seems like anyone with legal qualifications could contest any of those and beat them in court.

I'd like to see how a politician does who runs on the atheist platform.

I really don't have any problem with atheists. I know atheists and they are pretty much like everyone else.

Except for the extremist atheists. They usually seem to be the ones calling me out for being a Christian while I'm off minding my own business. There are just as many extremist atheists as extremist Christians or extremist Moslems from what I can see.

I'd like to take the extremists on all sides and throw em all in a room together and throw away the key.

Of course, if we did that, we'd be labelled as non-extremist extremists.

Grimpachi
Maybe down the line an uncloseted Atheist will be able to run for office against that type but I don’t think that will happen soon.

Curious then, just as I question those of "faith" to make their "faith" known, why do you need an atheist to proclaim their "lack of faith"?

Personally I don’t really care what people believe until their beliefs affect me. There are those out there that reject science because it conflicts with what their religion says. I don’t think those types are the majority in government but I do think they wield more influence than they should. My hope is that this is a step in finding better candidates for those positions.
Weather those replacements have a faith or not matters very little to me whether they are intelligent enough to realize the realities of science matters greatly though.

While true and that is for what you and your peers want, but what of the other side? Should their stances be disregarded to satisfy your stance so you can have an "unclosted" candidate?

I get your point and I am not trying to be combative, rather more devil's advocate.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Fair enough. It isn’t so much that they would be atheist but the ability to have backing even though they are atheist. Every candidate should be judged on their merits and not the affiliation but in reality we know that isn’t always the case.

If a self-described atheist ran for political office I would scrutinize their platform the same as any others but there are some things I would expect automatically from an atheist candidate such as adherence to separation of church and state. To be more open to scientific consensuses but that may or may not be true.

My personal opinion is that atheists are going to address world issues in a different manner like pollution. The reason I say that is I have seen a few interviews of those in congress that have gone on record saying the believe in end times prophecy. I don’t believe those people are very concerned on environmental issues because their book has told them how it will all play out so they figure why bother.
I don’t think I would have to worry about that kind of mentality with an atheist.

Anyway below is a link to an article written on atheism and electability.
Link

reply to post by badgerprints


You are probably right and those laws would be uninforcible today but I wouldn't want to be the one who tests it. How much of an issue would it cause in a public election I wonder.

Well I was looking up stupid American laws one day and came across one that made me think. I can't remember which state it was but they have a law that women that are out on a date with their boyfriend must address them as master in public. There are a lot of laws that need to be done away with.

Before issuing an endorsement, the Freethought Equality Fund PAC will question candidates about their personal and political views on issues where religious belief could influence public policy.

I'm pretty sure we have this in America already already; it's called "asking the candidate what their positions on the issues are."

edit on 30-9-2013 by Snsoc because: clarity

reply to post by Snsoc


Don't you think every PAC vets those they will endorse beforehand outside of of public Q&A forums?

I would bet they do.