Religion and the Democratic party

[The Barefoot Bum]

Originally posted here

Here's yet another reason I do not expect to vote for any Democratic candidate in November:

The Democratic National Convention will open next week with an interfaith gathering. Representatives from Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and other faiths will be there. No atheists, though.

We weren’t invited.

It's not just that atheists were excluded from this function. That the Democratic party is having an official religious gathering of any kind is itself objectionable. Democrats hold and seek public office in the government; religion simply shouldn’t enter into their official activities.
I'll say it yet again: When you have to invoke God in setting your social and political agenda, you have surrendered your claim to a rational justification for that agenda: if you already have a rational, reasonable, sensible justification, why invoke God?

Alternatively, you're saying that people cannot be persuaded by a rational justification... or at least you lack confidence that people can be so persuaded. But if you support irrational persuasion for a rational idea, what are you going to do tomorrow when someone invokes this same irrational justification for an irrational, nonsensical idea?

We already have a party — the Republican party — of insanity, irrationality, oppression, and imperialism. When the shit finally hits the fan (and any sensible observer can see that economic and political catastrophe is rushing upon us) the Democratic party will have nothing to say. They didn't even sacrifice sensibility in the service of expediency. Trying to be more like the Republican party is a moronic strategy, because Republicans will vote for the Republican party, not the kind-of-like-the-Republican party.

Were it not for Hanlon's razor, I would suspect a conspiracy: the Democratic party is in league with the Republican party to give the appearance of democratic opposition while taking every available step to fail to actually function as such.

But the upshot is the same: I'll no more vote for egregious stupidity than I will for malice.

[Katie]

I completely completely agree. I don't like this more "religious" version of the Democratic party, not do I like how faith is continuously injected into the political sphere, most latest with the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency.

About atheists not being invited to the interfaith ceremony or what have you...I wouldn't consider atheism a faith and would not expect Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins to play a part. But yes, I think they should do away with the whole thing all together.

Atheists seem to me to be on the bottom of the "minority" totem pole. Atheists or agnostics make up what...15% of the U.S. population about? As far as I'm concerned, if we are just now having an African-American as a presidential candidate, a Muslim congressman, only 8 years ago had a Jew on a national ticket (and possibly again), just this year had a woman come very close to winning the Democratic presidential nomination, and just had the first Hispanic to serve as attorney general, we're years away from atheists playing any sizeable role in the U.S. gov't. I'm not holding my breath.

[The Barefoot Bum]

According to this article:

Yet one of the most remarkable implications of the data presented in the new Pew U.S. Religious Landscape Survey is that atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, and believers in an impersonal God or universal spirit -- people who do not believe in God at all or who do not believe in a traditional God -- will be a huge share, perhaps as much as 40 percent of Democratic voters in November. Another Pew discovery: Two out of every three Americans say that their moral values do not come primarily from religion. In other words, whatever their faith, these are people who live largely or wholly secular lives.

[JP]

I am trying really hard not to come across as snide.

Perhaps, being neither a Democrat nor an atheist, I'm ignorant...
Do atheists expect to be invited to interfaith gatherings?
Wouldn't that be insulting as say, inviting Muslims to a pig roast?
What element of faith do atheists hold?
It seems that your feelings are hurt because your team wasn't invited to one of assumedly many festivities that make up the convention.

"That the Democratic party is having an official religious gathering of any kind is itself objectionable. Democrats hold and seek public office in the government; religion simply shouldn’t enter into their official activities."

Why is it objectionable?
Why shouldn't religion be part of their official activities?
The Democratic Party is made up of individuals.
Are the members of the party who do believe in God equally objectionable for fear they might allow their religion to affect official party activities?
Should the DNC therefore ignore or try to weed out the members of the party that do believe in God?
You seem to believe that your beliefs are more important than the beliefs in others because you think your creed is better.

"I'll say it yet again: ... if you already have a rational, reasonable, sensible justification, why invoke God?"

To answer your question logically, you must understand that those who do believe in God find God rather important, even to the point of worship.
Just because you don't find something valuable doesn't mean there is no value to it.
Therefore, logically, the D's see value in having members & donors who are religious even though you do not.
Does this mean you are therefore illogical because you cannot empathize with the goals and methods of this particular political party?
Has it somewhere been logically proven that someone cannot both believe in God and be a rational, logical human being with rational, logical plans?

I am neither a Republican, but I'm certain that your definition of the Republican Party certainly needs some tempering.
They were purportedly the party of limited govt before the current president, so in this sense are they "kind-of-like" the Democratic Party since the R's have shown little to no fiscal constraint?

I've found both major political parties to be inherently dishonest and pandering... one could even say, overly political and unprincipled.
For these and other reasons, I have personally gone from a registered non-partisan to a card carrying Libertarian where pretty much everyone is welcome if you are civil enough to respect the rights of individuals and tolerate their shortcomings.

For freedom,
JP


"Men cannot be forced to he free, nor can they even be forced to be virtuous. To a certain extent, it is true, they can be forced to act as though they were virtuous. But virtue is the fruit of well-used freedom."
-Frank S. Meyer, In Defense of Freedom: A Conservative Credo (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1962), p. 66

[The Barefoot Bum]

The Democratic party is, to a certain extent, free to do as they please. Note that I am not advocating that they should be legally sanctioned for their activities, I'm explaining why I, as an atheist, will not vote for them.

I'm an anti-religion atheist: I think religion is not just not my cup of tea, but is at best a useless mode of thought, and at worst actively dangerous. So long as people keep their religion private, it's none of my business, but when it's thrust into the public sphere, it becomes a legitimate target for controversy.

The First Amendment not only constrains the congress, but also, in my opinion, ought to set a political tone: Religion is private, a matter of personal, private conscience; public policy ought to be based on secular, scientific principles.

That's what I believe, that's how I'll vote. You're free to vote any way you please. Just remember that the First Amendment was originally supported by religious people, to avoid sectarian conflict. I don't think it's in anyone's interest to let that particular camel stick his nose back in the tent.

[geoffrey]

When Democrats discuss religion, it usually sounds like pandering to me (unless they're denouncing religion- in which case they're usually serious). It's harmless. Placating the middle. You have to stomach a little pandering in a Democracy. No?

However, when Republicans talk about religion (usually not denouncing) I think they are quite serious. They really want to govern from the Good Book. They hate abortion, homosexuality, science, and muslims. Where does that all come from? It's the bible, isn't it?

Would it be incredibly unfair to say that the Republicans, at heart, embrace a religious platform, while the Democrats reject it?

So the Democrats pay a little lip-service to keep the elections even. If you are really concerned about mixing religion and politics, I think the Democrats are a safe bet.

[JP]

Wow, yes, I would say that it would be incredibly unfair to say that.
I'm not defending Republicans or trying to slander Democrats, but in fact the Republicans are a varied and diverse group that generally respect tradition.
While it is shrinking, the RP still has a large constituency that respects science, are openly gay and/or befriend Muslims. I suppose somewhere there may even be a pro-choice R or two (WARNING: The preceding sentence fragment was an attempt at humor involving abortion.), but if you're into widespread generalizations, then go ahead with your prejudicial belief that republicans are old white male religious... just like Colin Powell & Condoleezza Rice, right?
:-)
It is quite telling to see that some think pandering is okay if the D's do it, but not okay if the R's do it... truly amazing.

The two major parties are so similar, that their differences are meaningless.
They both advocate growing govt (size, spending, regulation, etc.) to represent what they think is proper at the expense of taxpayers who may or may not agree.
While the US was originally established as a Federalist Republic & not a democracy, we seem to be slipping toward mob rule without respecting the rights of minorities, political or demographic.

[geoffrey]

I never said anything about old white or male. I was not making generalizations about people. It is fact that the Republican party, as an organization, is against abortion, gay rights, and many scientific projects like stem cell research. They also seem to talk pretty tough about muslims, but that was a half-joke. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, is for legalized abortion, homosexual marriage, and stem cell research. There's no stereotyping here at all. I'm not saying anything about Colin Powell or Condi Rice, or the average Republican. I'm talking about their platform- and what I'm saying is that it is very different from the Democrats' and it seems religiously motivated.

There are reasons to say that the two parties are similar, but you'd have to agree that on these major issues, they are quite different.

[geoffrey]

Oh, and I never said it was ok for Dems to pander and not Republicans. What I said was that when Dems talk about religion, it sounds like pandering because their platform seems so anti-religious. But since the Republicans platform is in line with religious sentiment, I suspect they mean it when they talk about Religion. There's no preferential treatment here with regards to pandering because I'm saying that on this point, only the Dems pander. The Republicans actually mean the God stuff.

[JP]

"There are reasons to say that the two parties are similar, but you'd have to agree that on these major issues, they are quite different."

That's just it. The issues of abortion, homosexual marriage & stem cell research are meaningless distractions compared to the current size, scope & spending of the federal govt.
Abortion is a legal medical procedure. Its a done deal. Wanna kill your unborn children up to a certain age? The federal govt says its cool with them, just go find a doc that will do it... they're up the street a piece and around the corner.
Homosexual marriage is legal in two states and will likely include more as time goes on... otherwise they just gotta make do with wills, powers of attorney and other legal orders like they've been doing for decades if not centuries... another boring old issue. BTW, if marriage is a religious ceremony, why is the govt involved in it?
Stem cell research has been going on in private laboratories for years. The issue was with federal funding/subsidies, not whether the research would be done or made illegal. Why should the govt fund medical science? I'd prefer knowledgeable investors in the market should decide which research is worth their support, not someone in a govt office deciding what to do with our tax revenue.

If those are your major issues, you've little to worry about.

However, if you're at all concerned about unelected alphabet departments' (BLM, FBI, DEA, EPA, etc.) bureaucrats gaining more power while beholden to no one unless a Katrina sized bungle happens...
or if domestic wiretapping without judicial oversight is just the next step toward a police state where individual rights are trampled in the name of big brother security and any chance of transparency in govt is quashed...
or whether the govt is any good at protecting us from actual enemies foreign or domestic...
or if our foreign security agreements are with every country threatened by a vastly superior neighbor (Israel/Iraq-Iran, Georgia-Russia, Taiwan-China, etc.) might cause the return of the draft and continued emergency military spending...
or whether the huge spending programs like medicaid, social security, etc. will necessitate tax increases that will continue to eat away at the weakened economy that our children will inherit...
I'd say those issues might be a touch more important in the future.

Now, what answers do the anointed parties have to those questions?

Every time I hear Democratic platitudes like "hope for the future" or "change we can believe in", I think of ostriches with their heads in the sand.

Republicans are no better by thinking they can foster virtue by the threat of violence, actual violence or by taking over charities via faith based initiatives.

Our current problems result from a system of deceptive, populist govt and the emperor has no clothes, my friend.

Whether or not people have good intentions doesn't make them fit to lead the most powerful country in the free world.

How does religion fit into all this? Human beings may be the top of the food chain, but we sure are a flawed bunch of creatures. Because of our obvious flaws, some people trust in God, while others prefer logic or continuous improvement philosophies like kaizen. We need all the help we can get, whether we want to admit it or not. God bless the USA.

[The Barefoot Bum]

Now, what answers do the anointed parties have to those questions?

None, of course. But what answer does the Libertarian party have to those questions? Don't let the government do it, let private individuals do it. After all, tyranny and oppression would be vastly more efficient in the hands of private individuals.