Interfaith service to be held at the Democratic National Convention: Should atheists be invited?

[Az]

There is a movement afoot to have an interfaith service at the Democratic National Convention. It is to be lead by Pentecostal minister Leah Daughtry. The fly in the ointment is that she received a letter from a secularist group asking if any atheists groups are going to be invited to the service.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080719/ap_on_el_pr/rel_democrats__minister_2

So the question is put to those here. Should atheists, a significant percentage of the DNC, be invited to the interfaith service?

[newmajority]

1. Why would atheists want to be involved in a faith service?

I don't see any reason to exclude them, but what are they going to do there? :shrug:

[Speck Tater]

2. As an atheist myself, I vote NO. The very idea of a religious "service" is

incompatible with my beliefs and I want nothing to do with it.

[Midwest_Doc]

20. Agree!

It is inappropriate for me, an atheist, to participate in ANY religious service

[Bill McBlueState]

57. Same here

The more pertinent question is whether a major party in a Constitutionally secular democracy should be holding worship services. Which god are they going to worship, exactly?

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. Invited, yes. Required to attend, no. And if they want to have a gathering of their

own they should be given equal time.

As it is I think the DNC is crossing the line by having a religious ceremony of any kind at a political event, but maybe that's just me.

[Eric J in MN]

9. The question is who the speakers are. The audience will be the delegates...

...and the people watching on TV.

UPDATE: The Secular Coaliton of America seems to just want to be assured that atheists will feel welcome. They're not demanding an atheist speaker.

http://www.secular.org/news/DNC_Daughtry080723.html

[beam me up scottie]

10. Thank you, GPV.

I agree that the ceremony is a bad fit but these days it's almost a requirement. Dems know that atheists, gblt folks and other minorities pretty much have to vote in their best interest so they don't need to woo us. But the devout undecided are pretty fickle and seem to need to have their hands held while sweet nothings are whispered in their ears from the pulpit.

[GreenPartyVoter]

15. I can't think how many devout undecideds there actually are. Not many, I imagine. And yet

the parties woo them incessantly, chucking aside all thought of separation of church and state.

[tbyg52]

67. Not just you - there's at least one other - me. nt

[beam me up scottie]

4. Right.

And then when we're true to our non-belief and don't show we're once again labeled the unreasonable malcontents in the party.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. There shouldn't be an interfaith service to begin with.

Separation of Church and State.

Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.

No group of democrats should be excluded by any particular event.

[noamnety]

16. Bingo. Add this to the poll, please.

Why is a political party hosting religious services?

The message is a combo of pandering and marginalization of other beliefs.

[readmoreoften]

17. Right there with ya.

[Adsos Letter]

19. I say "AMEN" to that observation.

[pegleg]

23. Or prohibiting the FREE exercise thereof.

People are allowed to pray wherever and whenever they wish as long as it is voluntary. And atheists should be able to meet anywhere any time to do whatever atheists do. Voluntary public prayer is also covered by freedom of speech.

[no_hypocrisy]

24. True. And please tell me the merits of scheduling events that are inherently

divisive. I thought the purpose was coming together and unity versus celebrating differences to the point where sectors will feel excluded and frozen out of the process.

[pegleg]

25. Not all consider it divisive. It should be no different than someone

singing next you. If there is no god then they are doing nothing more than talking to themselves. Maybe a little wierd to you but harmless. I might add to this that christians need to understand that the Bible isn't the law of the land, nor the Quran, but the Constitution. That is often not remembered

[beam me up scottie]

26. But we feel left out.

I've been to many different services and even though most believers were more than kind and welcomed me, I've never felt anything but uncomfortable and out of the loop.

So do we not go and look like piss-ants, or do we go and feel like outsiders?

[Az]

27. Maybe thats something "we" need to work on

Not all theists, believers, or religious people are pricks. They are more than able to welcome us and embrace us even with our nonbelief. For them their beliefs are the backdrop to their sense of connection with us. Maybe we need to figure out how to belong to something (without the necessity of faith) and embrace them back.

[beam me up scottie]

28. You're not hearing me.

I know not all believers are pricks, Az, I'm in love with a good man who happens to be catholic, my best friend from age 4 was a mormon, pretty much all of friends and family are believers.

I don't belong at a religious service, no matter how nice the people are.

[Az]

33. I don't know

There may be an opportunity here. I doubt we are going to find a more open minded group of believers short of crashing a UU gathering. Opening people's minds to include people that do not believe in gods may do us a world of good socially. And our presence may serve to remind people to legislate based on reason rather than faith.

[beam me up scottie]

35. But we're still going to their party.

Maybe you belong but I sure as hell don't. It would leave a bad taste in my mouth because it would make me feel even more isolated than I do now as an infidel in the bible belt.

I mean, we're already going to be at a huge gathering of mostly like minded liberals, why do we need a separate event that is exclusive by nature?

[pegleg]

29. I'll tell you this. If ,as a believer, I accompanied you , a nonbeliever

to the convention, I would remain silent during the prayer if it meant not offending you. Life is just simply uncomfortable at times - that's life. As long as the prayer is interfaith oriented, I really have no problem. Also, it would be extremely rude for any person to pray out loud for the sole purpose of upsetting an atheist.

[beam me up scottie]

30. Oh, no no no, that's not the problem.

If you are standing next to me and you feel the need to pray (as long as you weren't praying for my soul-don't laugh-it's been done) I wouldn't mind at all.

It's the service that makes me uncomfortable. Everyone else in the room feels something I never have and probably never will.

[pegleg]

31. I am really not sure what tell you. But I feel confident in saying that

many of those in attendence probably just go through the motions. Prayers are nothing more than just a mantra to some, so to speak.

[beam me up scottie]

32. Thank you for being honest.

Maybe I'm more uncomfortable than most atheists since I never believed and never went to church.

[Az]

41. Is it the idea of a service or

is it the words of the service? I mean I could give you transcripts to a lot of UU services I have attended that are absolutely atheist friendly. Would they still offend you being part of a religious(sort of) service?

[beam me up scottie]

43. It's not that they would offend me.

There are plenty of other groups that I do not belong to for similar reasons. I just don't fit into certain boxes.

The closest experiences I have had that could compare to what I'm supposed to feel during religious services have been at concerts; classical, folk, rock, metal, etc. When an epic song was being performed, I felt a oneness with the musicians and rest of the audience, even when I was in a foreign country.
I cannot get "there" when I'm somewhere I don't belong.

Organized events for liberals, skeptics, vegetarians, horror genre fans, flower gardeners- those I can get into, but religious services, no.

[Meshuga]

44. But would the DNC service be "atheist friendly" like the UU service?

(if you don't mind me butting in :-) )

Judging from the person organizing this service, it is hard to imagine the DNC service not having prayers and praises to God. With that said, how would an atheist feel when the speaker is reciting a prayer and the people attending the service lower their heads and close their eyes? Would that be an awkward situation for an atheist?

[Az]

50. Well that is the trick isn't it

I think the letter sent already made an impact on the initiator of the event. And I do believe that it is possible to present an event that is inclusive to all beliefs. The issue is whether the will to do so is there.

[Meshuga]

52. I get the perception that the event is being used...

...as sort of a stunt to attract a group of people who are never voting for Democrats regardless. Sort of like saying, "look, we're not godless, we are religious too." But I think it is all in vain.

Making the service secular would defeat the purpose for the organizers. I do believe that it is possible to present an event that is inclusive to all beliefs but I don't know if they are willing to make it so inclusive. You see, instead of saying "sure, let's make it inclusive" Daughtry said, "I'll give them an answer."

[Az]

54. Alas ... purchance to dream

Yes, it does seem to be the stuff of pandering. Sometimes my optimism gets the best of me. I thought I saw a chance to find our way to the table. We shall see what they do. I suspect you are right though.

[Meshuga]

37. I know what you mean

I really dislike services because I cannot get into them and they are boooooring. So I also feel uncomfortable and out of the loop. I joined a Conservative synagogue this past year and I am going right back to a Reform because, among many other complaints I have, I actually caught flak for not being a service regular.

At a Reform congregation there is the very small service regulars, the shabbat classes crowd, and the people who join but never show up and are part of the roster just so their children can go to Hebrew school. I like the classes so I am in that crowd. But the three and a half hours of Conservative services, and the insinuation that our family was not good enough members for not liking the long services, was enough to send us back to a Reform shul this summer.

If I, someone who is affiliated, feel the way I feel about services, I could only imagine how you feel. :-)

[beam me up scottie]

40. Thank you. I feel like everyone there knows I'm a phony.

It feels so obvious I think it must be apparent to everyone. It feels fake and hypocritical and just wrong.

[Meshuga]

42. I feel self conscious too and I am a member

The services end around noon so the few times we went this year (usually because we were invited to go to a lunch at someone's house after the service or there was a bar/bat mitzvah) we arrived at 11:45. Our feelings about the services were obvious and I am sure people made comments behind our backs. But who cares? Having people talk about us beats having to keep sitting down and standing up every two minutes for three straight hours.

[beam me up scottie]

45. Dang, your services really require participation.

No way you could sleep through all of that, I suppose. :)

I have a friend who gets out of Sunday service with his wife by using his sleep disorder as an excuse. He claims he can't sit still for more than 20 minutes without nodding off. At first she didn't believe him. After he started snoring she capitulated.

[Meshuga]

47. No chance for a nap

Bowing from the waist, bending the knee, tiptoeing, sitting down, getting up, etc. The activities and hard bench are thoughtfully designed to keep people awake. And I need a new coccyx by the end of the service.

[beam me up scottie]

49. You know, if they did this in double or triple time, they could start a new fitness craze

What kind of music do they play during all this?

[Meshuga]

51. rofl

The music would have to be changed since synagogue melody will not do it. But speeding up the movements would turn into a great fitness routine for sure. :rofl:

[pegleg]

55. A phony you definitely are not. Just be your strong capable self

and you'll be just fine. No one should, nor probably will be paying any attention to your actions and if they are, then, yes, they are fake and hypocritical.

[beam me up scottie]

56. Why, thank you :)

Good advice and I'll get to try it out sooner than later, my best friend's grandma (who raised her) just passed away. She wants me to stay with her for the next few days for moral support. Her granddaddy was a fire and brimstone preacher man and I'll be spending a LOT of quality time with hardcore southern baptists.

I think this calls for intravenous benadryl, I'm getting hives just thinking about it.

[ZombieHorde]

58. "whatever atheists do"

We do each other.

[Rabrrrrrr]

6. Anything that happens at DNC should be open to everyone.

I don't think we should be in habit of exclusion of any sort. Even the black caucus (if there even is one) met, it should be open to everyone to attend. It can be led by the caucus members, sure - but open to everyone for attendance.

Same with interfaith, or even if Wackjob Leah wanted to do a purely "Pentecostal Democcatics Christian Service of Worship and Snake Handling", it should still be open to everyone.

[demosincebirth]

7. Do they need an invitation?

[Eric J in MN]

11. This is about speakers. An atheist who wants to speak at the convention...

...needs to be invited to do so.

UPDATE: The Secular Coaliton of America seems to just want to be assured that atheists will feel welcome. They're not demanding an atheist speaker.

http://www.secular.org/news/DNC_Daughtry080723.html

[pnwmom]

13. I guess it would depend.

If the atheist was just there to debate with the members of the different faiths, then it wouldn't be appropriate.

If the atheist was there to speak for universal moral beliefs -- for example, some Unitarians are atheists -- then s/he would into such a service.

[Eric J in MN]

8. If they floated the name of a specific atheist who has experience...

...speaking to mixed audiences, it would be easier for me to say if this is a good idea.

[pnwmom]

12. Don't invite groups. Just invite PEOPLE to an "interfaith" event.

Anyone is welcome to attend an event built around believers of different faiths.

I doubt many atheists will self-select -- although, come to think of it, some members of the Unitarian Universalist Church consider themselves to be atheist. And aren't Buddhists atheists? So who knows?

[Eric J in MN]

14. The letter from the "Secular Coalition of America" just asks how atheists will...

...be made to feel welcome.

It doesn't demand an atheist speaker, as the AP story implies:
http://www.secular.org/news/DNC_Daughtry080723.html

"Is this event open to Democrats who do not hold a god-belief? I assume your answer is yes, but I would be very interested to know how you plan to make the nontheist community feel welcomed. Without an inclusive plan you will make nontheistic Americans feel like second-class citizens at the convention.

Sincerely,
Ron Millar
Associate Director"

[trotsky]

18. Once again we see religion doing what it does best: divide people.

Funny how it does this even when it's trying to be as "inclusive" as possible.

[cosmik debris]

21. Even the so called "liberal" theists are willing to blend the

secular and the sectarian. Toward what end?

If we can't trust them to keep their religion out of the selection process, how can we believe that they will keep their religion out of their incumbency.

[Az]

22. Enthusiasm + Reason

My hope is that those who want to include faith based activities in the convention recognize the difference between being enthusiastic about their faith and using reason to legislate the land.

I think this is an issue we on the nonbelieving side have to rap our heads around. People are enthusiastic about their politics and their faith. And while we can always strive to maintain a separation of Church and State we will never be able to keep religion and politics separate. We can only vote for and support those who recognize the need to maintain the wall of separation even if they wish to share the joy they feel based on their faith for their positions.

Our founding fathers were to varying degrees religious individuals. Yet they saw the wisdom of creating the separation of Church and State. In fact their experiences with the combination of Church and State informed their wisdom to keep them forever separate.

So while there is a great deal of pandering going on trying to reach the evangelical crowd there still exists a large number of believers who do see the wisdom of keeping Church and State separate but at the same time see their positions reinforced by their beliefs. And they see connectivity with others and wish to share in this connectivity.

Now while there are certainly going to be a large number of nonbelievers that insist it is only reason that informs their positions there are also likely to be a number of nonbelievers that share a sense of connectivity with other Democrats despite not calling it spirituality or god or whatever. This is because feeling connected is part of the human condition (see mirror neurons). And based on that sense of humanity I would argue that nonbelievers certainly should be allowed and indeed invited to speak at an interfaith service held by a Democratic convention. In fact I suspect that it would go a great ways to dismissing the notion that the party is driven by anger and is instead driven by our sense of humanity and connectivity to all and informed and measured by reason.

[charlie]

34. Hope away

It'd be great if you had enough for both of us, because I have little.

This is an opportunity squandered. I'm not just talking about the religious hootenanny in Denver, but the general drift of the party. After 3 decades of rightwing religious meddling capped with an 8-year crescendo of wreckage, the country is primed for an education on the practical wisdom of secularism.

So is anybody in the party talking the importance of appointing judges who'll honor separation? Any condemnation of the dilution of our education curriculums with religious dogma? Any promises to fix the distortion of our medical health policies from religious prohibitions? No, we get the same old tepid Democratic MO of reaction instead of action. Me-tooism. The solution to bad rightwing religion is good leftwing religion. Dubya's odious Faith-based Initiative is a good idea done badly (like his war), it just needs tweaking. Mend it, don't end it.

The New York Times article about Leah Daughtry mentions that Faith In Action money went to the Alabama party chairman to publish an ad which included the party's Covenant for the Future. 3 line items from the Faith and Values section of that covenant:

1. Pass a constitutional amendment confirming that all life is a gift from God and should be protected; and that life begins at conception

2. Require public schools to offer Bible Literacy as part of their curriculum

3. Defeat any efforts to redefine marriage or provide the benefits of marriage to a same-sex union

See? The sectarian stupidity on our side has already gotten out of hand.

[beam me up scottie]

48. Well, isn't that special?

Doesn't surprise me a bit, I know plenty of bible belt Dems who think it's perfectly reasonable to take away women's reproductive rights, teach religion in school (and by religion they mean THEIR religion), and prevent glbt folks from having the same rights as heteros.

And guess where they were brainwashed, I mean guess where they learned those family values?

[cosmik debris]

38. There's a lot to be said for delayed gratification.

It's OK with me if they are enthusiastic, but it just seems reasonable to me that they should postpone the religion until the politics are over--if for no other reason than to show respect for those who don't want god in their politics.

But I don't see the reasonableness or the respect.

[Occam Bandage]

36. Depends. Should bald folks be invited to the hair-coloring-enthusiast convention?

[ZombieHorde]

59. Eyebrows, beards, pubes...

[Occam Bandage]

62. I mean totally bald.

[ZombieHorde]

63. OK, how about wigs and lovers?

[JerseygirlCT]

39. Sure. Why not?

But I wonder where you get the statistics to back up "atheists are a significant percentage of the DNC"? And what "significant" means?

Everyone should be invited, of course. Not everyone will want to come or will want to participate in any way if they do come. But of course all should be invited!

[skepticscott]

46. At its heart, it's rank hypocrisy

People of different religions standing around pretending that they don't have fundamental and irreconcilable differences and lying about what they think of each other's beliefs? We need that...why?? It reminds me of all the nauseating episodes when JP II traveled around trying to "build bridges" and "open dialogues" and "find common ground" with Jewish leaders, Muslim leaders, etc., while all the time representing a religion with the unchangeable and inarguable position that IT is the one true church, the one true faith, and that all other religions are simply wrong.

If people of different religions can just manage to co-exist without killing each other or other people in the process, that's enough for me. Why do they have to be so damn phony about it?

[beam me up scottie]

53. Couldn't we just give them a booth instead?

Maybe a parade outside...

[ZombieHorde]

60. I like polls.

[rug]

61. Pointless if prayer is involved.

Like inviting a rabbi to a pig roast.

[trotsky]

65. Well then, how about we have a pig roast at the DNC.

Should Jews and Muslims be invited?

Or would it maybe be a better idea not to have a divisive event at all?

[knitter4democracy]

64. I think so, and here's why.

I think they should change the name of the service to something more like a celebration of life service (bad wording--someone could come up with a better name) and truly invite everyone--pagans, Wiccans, Christians of all sorts, Muslims of all sorts, Jews of all sorts, atheists and agnostics, Hindi, and everyone else.

They could make it a blessing service, more like the Blessing Way ceremony in Dine culture, where everyone comes together to bless the candidates and the party and celebrate together as one. No preaching, no hymns, no advocation of any one faith, but instead a ceremony to bless the election and the party's way forward. That they could invite all to and make it more about people connecting to each other than praying over anyone or making it overtly spiritual.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

66. The OP title is slightly misleading - the issue is whether atheists should be *speaking*.

Atheists are certainly going to be invited to attend the event; the issue is whether any atheists will be invited to speak.

I would say that one probably should be, but that they should be picked very carefully - it will need to be someone who can be relied upon to produce meaningless feelgood waffle about "common ground" (like - I very much hope - all the other speakers) and how religion/faith can be a force for good, rather than someone even slightly militant - the latter would be a PR disaster in all respects.