OK, you wanna know why it seems tough to work with atheists?

[trotsky]

Take a look at some recent threads on DU. The ones about crosses marking the spots where Utah Highway Patrolmen were killed. Or the (many) ones about "under god" in the pledge.

The near-unanimous contribution of believers in those threads has been "Dammit you atheists, none of this matters one bit so why can't you shut up, let believers do what they want with tax dollars - we're the MAJORITY anyway, in case you hadn't noticed -, and stop scaring people away from our party?"

Imagine for one moment, if you will, that a group of people consistently belittled and slammed the issues that you strongly support, yet turned around and asked why you aren't respecting them enough. How would you feel? Would you feel like working with them, even respecting them for their beliefs that say YOUR issues aren't important?

To me, it's no different from the Democrats who tell homosexuals to shut up about the marriage issue, because it's costing us votes. Or the Democrats who complained bitterly in the 50s and 60s that pushing civil rights was costing us votes. Sure those stands cost us votes. But they were, and ARE, the right thing to do.

As is the fierce defense of the separation of church and state.

So tell me again why we're supposed to put the issues important to us aside, so believers can feel more comfortable?

[Warpy]

1. Thank you

[papau]

2. Some atheists and theists agreed that crosses for Christians was fine.

Indeed the Gov at Arlington does seem to have no problem with a cross - or a star of david - or whatever - being part of the marking of a grave.

If the Cross was forced on non-believer sites we'd all be against.

But tell me again why a Cross on the location where a Christian died defending us is a bad.

Is the dollar cost different for a marker w/o a cross ??? - well no.

Is an atheist symbol, or no symbol - the only death marking permitted? And that is Because that cross hurts the atheist's "rights" in some way?

Freedom of religion is to be treated as meaning Freedom from religion as in freedom from hearing prayer and seeing symbols -why?

[trotsky]

6. I don't want this thread to be hijacked.

Suffice it to say, you don't understand the cross issue from a different perspective.

[Maat]

3. I was upset when I heard about those crosses, too.

Of course, I'm a dedicated member and monthly donor to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and a recent law school graduate.

That clearly represents government sponsorship of religion to me.

I'm also a person of faith; I don't need to proselytize - I honor all paths.

I, for one, don't think that the issue should be put aside.

Just my two cents' worth.

[Sapphocrat]

4. Thank you for this, too:

"To me, it's no different from the Democrats who tell homosexuals to shut up about the marriage issue..."

[Goblinmonger]

49. My life as an atheist sucks

but I'm sure you have stories that would make my skin crawl. The whole "Shut up and take it" attitude is just sickening, isn't it.

[Sapphocrat]

143. I think the only difference might be...

...that people don't reject you on sight because there's no way to "look like an atheist," or "act too atheistic." ;)

I'll save my war stories for another time and place -- and because I hate sounding as if I'm agreeing that LGBTs have it worse than atheists, which might sound like I'm playing the "my persecution is worse than yours" game. It's not; I truly believe atheists & LGBTs share the same low rung on the ladder. The only people who have it worse than atheists and LGBTs are gay atheists. (No, wait, lesbian atheists. No, wait... black lesbian atheists -- triple whammy.)

Come on over to the GLBT forum sometime; it's a great place to compare notes and try to figure out how to break through the sort of prejudice that seems nearly hardwired in some folks. And if you replace the word "gay" with "atheist," the issues themselves are all the same. Well, mostly the same. :)

Hang in there, Goblin. They haven't figured out a way to make us disappear, and they never will.

[Goblinmonger]

145. Yeah, the war stories can be elsewhere

but how about this: vegetarian black lesbian atheist. OUCH

Perhaps I will trot over to GLBT some time this week.

[Sapphocrat]

147. Vegetarian black lesbian atheist... in a wheelchair. ;) n/t

[Zhade]

152. See my post #222 below.

I've linked to one such example from a poster on this very thread.

[greiner3]

5. When people speak out about their religious experiences;

I speak up and say that I am an Athiest. That really shuts up most people as they don't have much experience in the way of me. Try it, if for nothing other than shits and giggles.
:evilgrin:

[arwalden]

7. ~~

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Inland]

8. So you tell the homosexuals and race minorities they are out of luck.

For those people who haven't adopted a single pet issue and aren't beating it to fricken death, for you to announce casually that your particular pet issue is worth losing another twenty years of elections simply begs the question of SAYS WHO?

Whether it's the "right thing to do" has to take into account all the other "right things" you are throwing out the window.

After all, you are telling the homosexuals that their marriage issue, and the racial minorities on their issues, are just going to have to wait another twenty years.

You are telling the environmentalists that the ice pack can wait another twenty years.

You are telling Jose Padilla he can wait another twenty years.

You are telling our troops to die.

YOu see, you aren't being asked to set anything aside "to make believers feel more comfortable", and if you think that's the only cost associated with political decisions, you've sorta missed the entire concept of what it means to lose an election. People die. That's what happens.

EG, the lawsuit to have roadside memorials to fallen state troopers is, quite simply, not worth it, politically, even assuming that unders some crazy theory it gets some relief granted. It's not worth another ONE year of conservative republican rule.

As soon as you have the balls to go to any OTHER forum and tell them you want to lose another twenty years of elections for YOUR issue, and that THEIR issues are going to have to wait, I'll listen to the "right thing to do" argument. Until then, it's just your cosmic beef.

[Goldensilence]

9. what happened the the vaunted

democratic mantra of this party has a big enough umbrella for all? That it emcompasses people of different beliefs or non beliefs, races, countries of orgin, sexes, etc etc....

What a truely pompus and smug response.

But what would an "evil freedom hating socialist" like me probably know anyway.

[Inland]

14. It's still true. So why are you hating the race minorites and homosexuals

After all, that's pretty much the point of demanding that your issues have to be the priority. Your issue, whatever it may be, is so important that I have to tell the homosexuals and race minorities, "I know that you've been getting clobbered by the republicans, but there are these roadside memorials.....bottom line is, we are going to lose the next twenty elections because the DNC is joining a lawsuit....and because I have to make a show....you understand...."

So you go tell the homosexuals and race minorities that their issues are going to have to wait because we are busy losing a lawsuit over roadside memorials. I'd love to hear how many more years of republican governance they'll put up with for THAT one. At a rate of fifty US servicemen a month, I'm not willing to put up with one. Sorry, but you can wait, and they, literally, cannot.

[Zenlitened]

15. The DNC is joining a lawsuit? When did that happen?

:shrug:

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zenlitened]

18. Well, I'll just assume by your non-answer...

... that you're making things up. A link... or even a few facts... would help to prove otherwise.

[Inland]

19. Like I said. Try reading.

"Assume", by which you mean making shit up, isn't something that I take responsbility for. You do it, you hit reply, I don't care.

[Zenlitened]

20. And where shall I read?

It would be very gracious of you to simply answer that, if indeed there is some information I'm overlooking.

[Zenlitened]

68. I guess Google must be slow tonight.

Where has the Democratic Party joined in an atheist lawsuit?

:shrug:

[Goblinmonger]

52. Take what you just said and tack it onto any minority

How is it any different. There are Democrats mad at the gays and lebians because they lost us votes. There were Dems mad at the blacks during the 60s. When do you just say fuck it and do the right thing for each issue. If we did everything while trying to not piss off O'Reilly, we will never do ANYTHING. Kind of like now.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

10. NEWSFLASH: Humans capable of multitasking

As an athiest, I reserve the right to live as a citizen of these United States and not be fucked with by Jesus freaks, on either side of the aisle, in an official capacity. So smacking people around over huge Savior monuments on public land strikes me as an entirely good and right use of my time and energy.

As a human being, I reserve the right to be able to work for more than one goal at a time. That includes fighting to keep church and state seperate and removing the current administration from office by hook or by crook. Nothing except your ideological blindness prevents this.

Otherwise, explain to me why I should support a movement that clearly doesn't support me?

[Inland]

12. "Reserve the right"? What ARE you talking about?

My point isn't that you give up a right. My point was that you give up votes by taking a hugely unpopular stand. Give up votes means you AREN'T fighting to remove the republicans by hook or by crook. You AREN'T using all the means at your disponsal.

Whether you decide to go ahead with a hugely unpopular stand because "it's the right thing to do" is a matter of judgment. But don't pretend like you aren't giving something up in the process. You are, by definition of a democractic society. And I don't share the judgment, at least with regard to the roadside memorials. I wouldn't sacrifice an election for county commissioner for for THAT one, much less the civil rights of the race minorities and homosexuals who have been ignored or worse by the republicans.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

21. ...right

Look, chuckles. You're asking me to give up a right (that is, my right as a citizen to call the authorities on their Christ-fuelled bullshit) in order to gain votes (from the same people who endorse, support or thought up the same bullshit). Am I supposed to believe that, once all the votes are counted and the white hat Democratic messiah's in office, he'll wave a magic wand and poof! the right I gave up is restored?

Of course not. Since I'm a minority among minorities, I get to be told to shut up and take it until the white hats get around to me. If I complain, then earnest, right-thinking folks like your fine self will tell me that my stand is hugely unpopular and I should just be quiet and go along with the monkeymind, don't you know that there's starving kids in Whereeverstan and a War on Generic Nouns going on?

Fuck that. I am perfectly capable of defending my rights as an athiest and doing any number of things at the same time. If that means that right-thinking people are horribly offended by them uppity athiests... that's their damage, I don't care.

Here's the bottom line: I'll back your ass up on Iraq or Katrina relief or whatever, but I expect you not to act so fucking horrified that I choose my own battles instead of letting the Party choose for me. No tsking, No sniffing, no smug little bromides about how I'm costing you votes. You tell me otherwise, and I'll gladly wander off and let everybody know that your "big tent" ain't that big.

Deal? Leave me alone and I'll watch your back when needed. Lecture me, and we can play faction war until the mountains are worn to dust and the Green Party wins a majority in Congress. Your call.

[Inland]

22. Can't argue with that, because it's limited.

What you are saying is that it's just you. Of course, that's not the OP, which is premised on "working with".

Can't disagree with that. I've got a bunch of orphan issues too. I never get the candidate I want. Fact is, a party is by definition the broadest common denominator. I don't expect....and maybe don't even want....a party to adopt some of my personal positions. Why? Because it costs votes, and there are other fish to fry. That's just being grown up.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

23. Grown up? Sure. I get it now.

In order to be grown up I have to jettison my rights and go along with the muppetmind, or else The Terrorists Win. :eyes: Nice backhand there, Inland. Agassi would be proud.

Have you ever considered that the magical votes I cost you really aren't worth the long-term damage caused by welding progressive politics to Christianity? Somehow I doubt it, because you've got such a lovely short-term mindset.

[Inland]

24. And say, the roadside memorials are so long term, right?

After all, there's no rush about Iraq, or the environment, or homosexual marriages.......

Whereas the long term benefit of removing those roadside memorials is.....

I made a judgment, and you have to make yours, but I don't see what your making it on.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

27. Church. State.

A bright line between the two, and never the twain shall meet.

But then, as long as you can minimize the issue I suppose that you don't care if you're leashed to Christianity, just as long as it's colored blue instead of red.

[Zenlitened]

13. "you've sorta missed the entire concept"

Ain't that grand!

:rofl:

Do you realize that the very point the OP was making has just sailed completely over your head? Even as you try to portray yourself as the champion of gay/civil/environmental/etc. justice?

"Wait," certain groups were told then. "Wait," you say to certain groups now.

And then we get the "cosmic beef" talking point. What a riot! :D

[Name removed]

16. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

25. Well, in one silly post...

you've undermined the ability of Democrats to take just about any position that may not resonate with a supermajority of voters. Because your "reasoning" (and I use the term VERY loosely) can be applied to any subgroup of Democrats whose positions you don't deem important enough.

Listen up, Inland. The Democrats haven't given a SHIT about the rights of the non-religious for I don't know how many elections. And even so, THEY'VE LOST. So whatever remained of your "reasoning" is GONE. We haven't cost Democrats elections. NOT STANDING FOR SOMETHING HAS COST US ELECTIONS.

Take your cosmic beef and shove it, Inland. I'm sick of your ridiculous insulting attitude and blatant hatred of those who don't think exactly like you.

[kwassa]

28. Pick and choose your battles

Trotsky:
" I'm sick of your ridiculous insulting attitude and blatant hatred of those who don't think exactly like you."

Inland is not ridiculous, and not a blatant hater, either.

The question is not separation, it is where to draw the separation line, and what you go to war about. I don't think the "God" references should be in the pledge of allegiance or on the money, but like it or not, the cultural history of America has many non-specific God references. They are on the walls of the Supreme Court, too.

The take some atheists make on it is the mirror image of the fundies; the fundies are obsessed with getting prayer back into public schools, the atheists want all "God" references banned. Both of these issues are non-issues to me, it is simply two sides in the culture wars. The point to fight is when real stuff is on the line, and none of these specific items are important to me.

Your mileage might vary, and probably does.

[trotsky]

32. Way to mangle my words.

I didn't call Inland ridiculous, I said his ATTITUDE was ridiculous and insulting. And based on his constant hammering of simple catchphrases, equating atheists to religious fundies without bothering to actually listen to us or respect our point of view, is a form of hatred.

Look at my other posts on this thread to understand where I'm coming from about "drawing the separation line."

[Name removed]

42. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Strong Atheist]

133. As another poster has said,

it IS possible to multitask. One group can be working for race and homosexual rights AT THE SAME TIME as atheists are working on issues important to them.

On a different point, popularity is not = justice. They are not synonyms. Something can be popular and just, or popular and unjust, or unpopular and just, or unpopular and unjust. Atheists as a whole seem to agree that mixing religion IN PUBLIC is unjust, no matter how popular it is. Telling us to shut up about the issue strikes us as saying "get to the back of the bus", "get back in the closet", or whatever analogy you want. We do not take kindly to such suggestions, with reason. No one wants to be treated that way, I think you could agree.

[Zhade]

151. I'm just going to say one thing, and that's this:

I find it stunning that you pretend to care about us GLBT folk, when you said this in the past:

"You tell me why a single position should be changed to accomodate anyone with an agenda more radical than, say, Kerry's. For example, tell me why their should be a single concession to homosexual unions if homosexuals are ten percent or less of the population. Go."

You can stop pretending you care about us now. Your own words show this is not the case, and that you are using your alleged support for us (yeah, right, I'm never going to forget what you said quoted up above) as a club to attempt to beat home a flawed argument.

Clearly, you are more concerned with winning than with equal rights for all - us GLBTers and atheists included.

[muriel_volestrangler]

154. Game Over. Zhade wins the argument. (n/t)

[Zenlitened]

156. Wow.

That quote -- from the very person who goes around telling people they're "not liberals."

How grotesque.

[Zhade]

153. See post #222.

You have some nerve, pretending you give a fuck about us queers.

[ozone_man]

11. It seems like a clear violation of church and state.

Similar to the "In God We Trust" on our money and our "One Nation Under God" in the pledge. I think it's time to see that Edward R. Murrow movie, which I've been meaning to see. It's like we've been reliving the 50's. It's going to take the same kind of backbone to stand up to the Christian right and say "take your God out of the pledge, off of my money, and take that 12' cross out of view of my public highways". Put the cross in a cemetery where it belongs, not on a public highway.

If we don't learn from our mistakes, we're doomed to repeat them. Just as God was linked with the anticommunist hysteria of the 50's, so it is linked now with the neocons and our present war machine, and the Crusades of a thousand years ago. It's timne to break the cycle.

[kwassa]

26. What liberal believers have asked you to put aside the separation of

church and state?

I think that separation is essential.

The question really is where is the line of separation drawn.

[trotsky]

29. That's akin to asking...

"Where is the line of equal rights drawn?"

It's really quite simple, kwassa. ANY use of taxpayer dollars or resources to promote religion or religious messages is inappropriate and unconstitutional.

Saying we shouldn't bother with roadside crosses is like saying that women should be happy that they've got the right to vote and ALMOST make equitable pay.

[kwassa]

31. I don't think so

While separation of church and state was accepted as an early principle in our country, it isn't exactly enshrined in the constitution.

I think your analogy is not an analogy of any accuracy. A woman making equitable pay is a major equality issue, a cross meant to honor public officials sacrifice in a specific instance is a minor issue. The intent is not to promote religion, but to honor the dead.

[trotsky]

33. Equality of the sexes isn't enshrined in the Constitution either.

Seems to me the analogy is a little more accurate than you think.

If the intent is not to promote religion, then why a monstrous cross? Why not a sign, or a neutral marker?

[kwassa]

36. What marker does an atheist put up to honor the dead?

Is there one?

[trotsky]

39. Why does that matter?

Atheism doesn't have an official marker, because it has no creed, no orthodoxy, no priests, no holy book. In other words, IT'S NOT A RELIGION.

If we want to honor the dead, we can do so in any way we choose. A tombstone, a sign, maybe just a simple moment of silence to remember the dead.

[kwassa]

43. Then why object if others do so?

The dead should be honored for the contributions. It really should be done in a way that is meaningful to them.

[trotsky]

48. The dead are dead. They can't be asked.

But that's not the point. Families can choose any memorial they want in a cemetery. Those that die defending the public should be honored by everyone, and so any memorial should be inclusive, not exclusive or promoting one sect over another.

[mcg]

102. So can they. nt

[trotsky]

142. In private. You bet they can.

When they use MY tax dollars on MY public land, there's a problem.

[Goblinmonger]

66. You've got to be kidding me

congress shall make no law. Isn't that clear enough. Allow free exercise. Don't establish a religion. That's pretty clear. Read the federalist papers. Those are pretty clear too.

So honor the dead with something other than a cross. How about a badge or should shield. But, I don't think Trotsky wants this thread to go there.

[Inland]

34. It is akin to asking. So why not answer it?

The ambiguity isn't the use of taxpayer dollars. It's in what promotes a religious message.

Certainly, with the roadside memorials, the majority of the posters in that thread didn't see it as promoting a religious message. It's a case that has to be made, first, and whether it is worth losing votes over....well, you just assume it is. I don't.

[trotsky]

37. I guess I'm crazy that way.

A 12-foot cross on the side of the road, as opposed to a sign or neutral marker, to me is promoting religion and empowering the ability of those who want to ram their religion on all of us - YOU included.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[papau]

30. Well said :-) Some would rewrite Freedom of Religion into Freedom from

Religion. Indeed they would have a state religion established - called atheism.

And like any Fundi religious group they do have bright lines you may not cross - and are very certain of themselves - and for the cause they will screw anyone or any group.

:toast:
:-)

[trotsky]

35. papau, spreading the same misinformation.

Equating religious neutrality with atheism is exactly what the fundies want to do so they can get their religion into the public sphere.

You're playing right into their hands.

[papau]

47. neutrality implies if it does not hurt me/stop me from doing what I

want, then I do not get involved in the religious decision.

This is not neutrality -

it is getting in the face of the religious and screaming that they are praying too loudly or should not wear a cross in Court. It is making rules about how society - including government - should mark the graves of fallen theist heroes that gave their life for the good of all.

Why do you want - why do you insist - on a right to make those rules from an atheist perspective?

Again - the Constitution does NOT grant as a right freedom FROM religion.

The separation of church and state is not a bright line that can be applied to any act - it requires judgment.

And you have your opinion as to where the line should be in this case, and others have a different opinion.

Let the debate continue - but don't tell folks that they are obviously wrong - because it is not obvious

Of course to the religious fundi - that line is obvious.

But the atheist is not a religious fundi - right?

[trotsky]

51. LMAO

So putting up a 12-foot cross next to the freeway ISN'T getting in someone's face, but asking that it be taken down IS.

OK, papau. :eyes:

[papau]

63. How large a cross is allowed - oh maker of rules who is not a Fundi but

must be protected from ideas/symbols he does not agree with.

Why is that opinion on a liberal board - where free flow of ideas is THE IDEA!????

The government statement-making about religion that you would ban includes the gov telling folks that memorials to the dead who were religious may not have symbols that indicate the dead were religious, if a even trace of a gov action can be attached to said memorial.

Sounds a great deal like Communist Russia, doesn't it.

[trotsky]

65. The answer is, no cross.

You really don't want to go down that road. What kind of cross should it be? Russian Orthodox? Roman Catholic crucifix?

That is why it is always better to just keep religion out of it.

[papau]

71. Check Arlington - the type of cross varies - as it should. The no cross

rule is pissing on my practice of religion - and unlike separation of church and state - there really is wording in the constitution about how that is not allowed.

[Zenlitened]

75. Wow. That sounds remarkably like an argument from the right wing...

... the idea that preventing government religious expression violates your freedom to practice religion.

Surely that's not what you meant?

[trotsky]

77. Yes, do check Arlington.

Each headstone is a generic marker. Individual stones can have different symbol engravings, but each headstone being identical highlights that our commonality as Americans should unite us more than our religion should define or separate us.

[papau]

82. True -and the symbol engravings seem to include all the religious

variations we have in our culture.

Our commonality as Americans includes our undertandings about tolerance and what is in our Constitution. We have no "right" to be offended by religious symbols such that the government must make and enforce a law so that we are not offended.

[trotsky]

84. Again, this is not about being offended.

This is about using tax dollars to clearly promote religion over non-religion, which is expressly prohibited by the Lemon test in the Supreme Court case Lemon v. Kurtzman.

You don't get to use government resources to promote your religion. Period.

[papau]

87. So there is "excessive entanglement"? -Don;t think so

From the Burger opinion - note that it does not say "You don't get to use government resources to promote your religion. Period."

================================================================
There are three criteria that should be used to assess legislation: "First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances or inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster and excessive government Entanglement with religion." The two statutes in question violate the third of these criteria. The teachers whose salaries are being partially paid by the State are religious agents who work under the control of religious officials. There is an inherent conflict in this situation of which the state should remain clear. To ensure that teachers play a non-ideological role would require the state to become entangled with the church. Allowing this relationship could lead to political problems in areas in which a large number of students attend religious schools.

[trotsky]

89. Only one of the three prongs must be met.

"its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances or inhibits religion"

Any marker can memorialize. A cross is clearly religious, and clearly promoting ONE religion.

[papau]

93. principal effect is to mark the spot of death n/t

n/t

[trotsky]

96. As I said (and you ignored),

any marker can mark the spot of death. A cross is clearly promoting one religion over others.

[papau]

126. Again - the "promoting" is minor relative to real purpose -a marker

Under Lemon and the Burger Court opinion, there is not an excessive entanglement.

Our Constitution treats it as a fair treatment of everyones rights by the government.

[trotsky]

129. If the real purpose is a marker,

then why does it HAVE to be a cross?

The roads belong to everyone, not just Christians.

State troopers are keeping everyone safe, not just Christians.

Mark the trooper's private grave with whatever religious symbol his (or her) family wants, but a public memorial should be acceptable to EVERYONE.

Sheesh, papau, you would fit right in with the religious right and their insistence that Christianity be front-and-center for every aspect of public life and government. How about showing some respect for all the people who AREN'T Christians?

[papau]

130. The symbol is also of concern to the relatives of the dead n/t

n/t

[trotsky]

131. Yes, which is why they are perfectly free to put it on the grave.

The public memorial is there to remind everyone of the public service they provided. It does not need to be a religious marker, which only serves to promote one religion and divide us further.

[papau]

134. I agree "it does not need to be a religious marker" but if it is does that

equate to excessive entamglement?

The other side of what "divides us further" is what is seen as mean spirited attempts to move the line on what is excessive entanglement.

I do not see them as mean spirited - they are just tests of the limits so as to find those limits.

But many folk do see it as mean spirited and something that "divides us further".

[trotsky]

136. I'm sorry, papau.

You're a member of the majority faith. You, from the tone and content of your posts, highly approve of public displays of your religion, even if taxpayer dollars are involved.

But this is not an area where we should be "testing" the limits of the Constitution. It's divisive and it serves no secular purpose (part of the Lemon test), and should either be removed or replaced by a neutral marker.

Neither I, nor any other atheist that I'm aware of, wishes to take away your right to worship in the way you choose. We're just against you using public resources - they're OUR public resources, too - to do so. If atheists were the majority, you wouldn't want the government erecting a giant flashing neon sign proclaiming THERE IS NO GOD, would you?

Can you please TRY to see this from a non-majority point of view?

[papau]

138. Are taxpayer dollars from theists not used for atheist goals in secular

society, even when those goals are not exactly the same as theists goals?

"even if taxpayer dollars are involved" is part of the equation that can lead one to decide that there is "excessive entanglement".

But 100% pure of religion is not one of the requirements.

If there is a claim that there is a secular goal desired by the atheist that the left is ignoring - other than changing a religious society into a purely secular one - what is it?

I suspect DU could be a force to get that goal moving forward.

[trotsky]

139. If we cannot agree that a secular society is a goal that we share,

then there is no point in continuing this discussion. I am sorry that you would rather be able to freely shove your religion into the public sphere, just like the righties.

[papau]

140. but I shove with tolerance! :-)

:-)

And I am sorry that you would like to prevent religion from being part of the public sphere.

We obviously disagree on what a secular government should look like in a religious society - on where is tolerance not enough.

[WhollyHeretic]

38. Freedom from religion? What's wrong with that? The government

should be free from religion. If you want to have religion in your private life, fine, just keep it out of the damn laws.

[papau]

41. from - not of religion-would be a change in our Constitution. I like the

current wording.

[trotsky]

125. Freedom FROM Religion, Si!

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000918/pollitt

Since every position can find a godly rationale, bringing religion into the public sphere in practice simply means that the biggest and best organized religion gets to use the public realm--public facilities, public money--to advance its own sectarian agenda.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

50. Oh, please.

You're the one demanding athiests behave and sit quietly in the name of winning mythical votes. If you wanna talk about cosmic beefs, what the fuck did atheism ever do to you?

[papau]

56. Debate away-but the terms of the debate are that no opinion is more valued

than another a priori.

The Constitution and its application is not bright line in every situation.

Let's discuss why you feel this grave marking is a burden for you.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

69. Well, okay.

Let's discuss why you feel this grave marking is a burden for you.

My primary worry is that a twelve-foot stone cross planted on the side of the road will eventually fall over and smash my car. Seems like something of a safety hazard, and I've got enough irony in my diet that I don't need to be fucking killed by it too, thanks. Secondary worries are that this thing is being set up by an arm of the government on public land, despite being a blatantly Christian symbol. Sort of the same arguments against Roy's Rock.

And let's get this cleared up. Inland's bugbear isn't a grave marking. Those are usually planted on, y'know, actual graves. This is a memorial sitting far & away from any grave. I don't really give a fuck one way or t'other what the actual grave markings are; that's a matter of personal choice. Me, I want a copy of Mother Russia Is Calling You on mine, but I'm funny that way.

[papau]

76. You telling anyone how the memorial should be designed is your right

But under the current Constitution you can not demand no crosses if the point is not to promote a state religion, but instead the point is simply a memorial.

If you win the debate, I will be sad, but the vote of the majority rules - and there is not a single "minority right" that has been lost in that process.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

81. How is the state erecting a Christian symbol...

not promoting one religion over everything else? Or did I miss a memo and the establishment clause has a "except in memorials, memorials are cool" escape hatch?

[papau]

83. Let's see - the dead heroes were Christians - so noting that promotes

a religion?

Get real.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

86. More to the point, they were highway patrolmen

So why not the Patrol shield? Or the emblem of their PBA union? Seems like a more logical - and certainly a more ecumenical - memorial than a great big wobbly cross...

As for getting real, fuck that static. You get imaginary first.

[Inland]

92. "Why not a...." is irrelevant.

There isn't a constitutional requirement to make the LEAST religious monument.

Nor is there one for good taste.

Fact is, unless somebody wants it to look like a billboard or a mile marker, or like nothing at all at sixty miles an hour, it's going to be carved in a shape. Assuming the family can choose the iconography, a choice of a cross is permissible, consitutionally. I feel pretty safe saying so.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

94. I'm sorry, was I speaking with you?

No? Really. OK then.

[Inland]

95. No, but I thought you could profit from a statement of the obvious.

Feel free to put me on ignore if you are beyond education.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

97. That's mighty Christian of you.

:eyes:

[Inland]

98. And I'm sure that has some meaning for you

but who cares, really.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

99. Well, *I* care!

I'm hurt, the triangulator doesn't like me anymore, he's gonna leave me out of his coalition and then I'll just be another fringe lefty! :cry:

[Inland]

101. Yes, I'm sure you do. nt

[Goblinmonger]

132. You can't be serious

the vote of the majority rules - and there is not a single "minority right" that has been lost in that process.

That's a nice dream world you live in. Slavery? Women's right to vote? Civil Rights? Sure, those were corrected, but rights were clearly lost the majority. How about the current Patriot Act? That is shitting on our rights all the time because the "majority" wants to "keep us safe" from them terrists.

[Inland]

57. Atheism didn't do anything to me.

But then again, it's not about me, is it.

And I don't demand atheists "behave". I've told you my judgments, and someone else can make theirs. But it seems it's easier to shoot me than simply say that nobody cares if votes are lost, or pretend they aren't.

[papau]

53. I agree -it is the other side of the same coin--tolerance is the only path

"as long as you behave and sit quietly" is not a rule that I have ever seen in the Dem party - nor would I like to see such.

But judgments can differ - opinions can differ - strategy can differ as to the quickest path to getting the major objective - and indeed even as to what is the major objective.

The idea is not to start a Fundi church of like believers in the cause called XYZ - the idea is to get a majority so as move the country in the right direction.

[Inland]

60. The "behave" is right from the righties

when they start talking about the limits of their "tolerance".

Well, when "tolerance" is premised on "don't let me hear or see you", one has to wonder what the word means.

Like I said, ninety nine, maybe ninety nine point nine, percent of the time, the righties claim of "freedom from religion" is bullshit, part of the culture war. But there are some, and I'm not with them.

[Zenlitened]

54. Would truly make what so? Freedom from religion?

Do you think the concept itself is bullshit, or just the fact that people discuss it?

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zenlitened]

61. I think your declaration that I'm not a liberal is made suspect...

... by your own inability to comprehend the notion of freedom from religion.

It isn't about freedom from ideas -- it's about freedom from government statement-making about religion.

As anyone with an understanding of liberal values ought to know.

Odd that you can't seem to grasp it.

[Inland]

73. No, that's freedom OF religion.

I suppose that one has to say expressly that freedom of religion includes the freedom to be an atheist, lest I get a three thousand word definition of how "atheism" is not a religion or a belief.

[Zenlitened]

79. No, that's freedom FROM religious statements by the government. -n/t

[Goblinmonger]

72. free exercise. establishment

There are two religion clauses in the 1st Amendment. I can sing this song all day long. You can worship whatever the fuck you want. The government can't push it down my throat.

I just hope that you live to see a majority in power that is a religion starkly different than you. Then you will be bitching about it. And you probably won't see the irony.

[papau]

85. And common sense and common law says your seeing a symbol is

not pushing religion down your throat.

[Goblinmonger]

108. It is if it is sanctioned by the government

and only one religion is offered/sanctioned.

And what common law are you talking about. American? No such thing, really. British? A simple history of the English language course will tell you that British common law dates to WAY before any semblence of religion was around in England/Britain.

If Macy's wants to put a xmas tree, I wouldn't be making this argument (though it does add to my frustration, but there is nothing I can do about it). If the church down the block wants to put up a crappy plastic nativity scene, I'm not arguing about that either. But if the city wants to take my tax dollars to put angels, santas, and christmas trees on all the light posts in town, then we have a problem. If my son's school wants to have a "winter" concert where they sing 9 christmas songs and toss in "Dredel, Dredel, Dredel," I think I have a right to see that as a constitutional problem. If Utah wants to give public land for 12' crosses, then we have a problem. Do you see the difference?

[papau]

127. I agree on the city Angels - I do not agree on the markers - we define

excessive entanglement differently.

Again - there is no bright line.

The "giving public land that should have a better use as a common" idea applied to the side of a rural highway for markers is for a Court to decide. I note that any statue in a park that notes that so and so was religious on the base may have a problem under your view.

My opinion of how the decision should go seems to be different from yours.

:toast:

:-)

[Goblinmonger]

67. I find it amazing that theists

are so well-informed about the free exercise clause but so quickly forget the establishment clause. I mean come one, they are only a couple words apart. Can't you take your ADD meds and concentrate for that long? Or maybe it suits your needs better not to talk about it.

[Strong Atheist]

141. Freedom of religion is like freedom of

speech; your are not free unless you are free NOT to speak (to have no coerced speech). Similarly, I believe that most atheists simply want all references to religion wiped from GOVERNMENT SPONSORED activities and places; a completely reasonable request. Keep religion privately observed and sponsored.

[thinkingwoman]

155. I want the same thing

even though I'm not an atheist.

I think it's very telling that certain religions are desperate to have references to their particular calling splashed all over everything and rammed down everyone's throats. If their faith isn't strong enough to stand on its own, without government and external validation (coerced especially) then it's not strong enough to have.

Asking government to stay out of it all is not asking too much.

[Zenlitened]

40. I think some people are just afraid of "what Bill O'Reilly will say."

He and others like him have them running scared, to the point that they're afraid to even cast a shadow.

An atheist group files a lawsuit in Utah, the O'Reillys of the world instantly use it to attack the Democratic Party as a whole. And a certain number of useful* idiots obediently go along with the premise, as if the party has made atheism a plank in its platform.

As a result, instead of challenging the meme they legitimize it.


*to the right wing

[mcg]

45. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

None of this was Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion.

1. Congress was not involved.

2. A law was not involved.

3. "An establishment of religion" was not involved.
Historically, this meant a state church like the Church of England, and this is what was meant by the establishment clause.

On the other hand, not permitting religious displays is prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

[trotsky]

55. Try to keep up with history, won't you?

Look up the "Lemon test." Read about how decalogue plaques have been ordered to be taken down despite any action by Congress to put them up. Separation of church and state is not only about a narrow reading of the first amendment.

[papau]

59. The decalogue plaques remain - legally - on many gov buildings - and

even Court Buildings.

I do not want them there as it makes them into "history of the law" rather than the word of God.

But we are living with a "Separation of church and state" that is a goal that we say we see in the First Amendment - and how we see and work toward that goal can vary amongst even the liberal.

[trotsky]

62. Under certain circumstances, they are more likely to be allowed.

Doesn't make it right, but we are living in a culture where the religious shall not be denied. The fact is, though, that many displays HAVE been ordered to be taken down, when it is especially clear that they serve no other purpose than to promote religion.

[papau]

64. True - and I agree with that. n/t

n/t

[mcg]

70. The Eye of Providence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Providence

"In 1782 the Eye of Providence was adopted as part of the symbolism on the reverse side of the Great Seal of the United States."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annuit_C%C5%93ptis

The words "Annuit Coeptis" are juxtaposed next to the Eye of Providence.

http://www.state.gov/www/publications/great_seal.pdf

It is clear that the founding of our nation did not intend for our government to be devoid of religion.

We are not going to hide our faith so atheists can feel more comfortable.

[Goblinmonger]

74. Don't hide it

Worship what ever you want.

Just don't use the government to jam it down my throat. Is that so much to ask.

And do some reading about the founding of our nation. Half of the founding fathers could give a shit about religion. The other half were deists. Do some reading beyond the history texts you were given in high school. They very clearly DID want a government devoid of religion.

[trotsky]

78. Thanks for your tolerance.

All of us who don't share your views greatly appreciate being told to sit down and shut up.

[Inland]

80. Yeah, well, let's not stretch that.

It's pretty much semi mystical bullshit imagery and obscure. It's not like they put something unambiguously religious on it, like a cross. I just don't think it's religious.


So it's not like more goverment intrusion in religious matters can be read as an intent, and I agree with goblinmonger's point about the Pledge, that little incursions can't be allowed to justify larger ones. I don't think the dollar means anything at all. It's a gesundheit.

[papau]

88. I agree - Burger in Lemon allowed nonexcessive entanglement - and didn't

allow "excessive entanglement"

[Inland]

90. Which, frankly, leads to a lot of bullshit on both sides.

I remember sitting in a sermon for christmas where the priest was denouncing a court decision that a manger wasn't so much a religious symbol as a seasonal one. My dad and I rolled our eyes at each other, because we knew that the court wouldn't have so ruled without expert testimony from a dozen clergymen saying just that.

Which reveals another point, which is that excessive entanglement is bad for the religions that government professes to embrace. But the RW fundies don't care anyway.

[papau]

91. I agree excessive entanglement is bad for the religions - n/t

n/t

[Name removed]

100. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nemo137]

103. Here's my questions

For what it's worth, I'm a liberal believer, so feel free to read this through that filter.

Is taking down a memorial cross, or removing the words "under God," or taking "In God we Trust" off the money the most right thing to do at this time? When we have an economy going to shit, a widening gap between the rich and the poor, we're fighting two wars with a negligable degree of success, a Supreme Court being packed with reactionary activist judges, and can't provide basic healthcare or education to huge chunks of our country, should we be worrying about things that are undeniably small?

I'm sorry. I'm in favor of a bright line between Church and State. In Memorial and Remonstrance, Madison points out that it's bad for both religion and government. But at the same time, I think we have issues that effect all of us who live here that need to get fixed first.

[FM Arouet666]

104. Get to the back of the bus, eh.....

One day, you and your kind, will be free, but not today, we have more pressing issues. What a flawed argument.

[Inland]

106. It would be, if there were actual bus, or actual chains.

But it's just a dollar bill. Or a roadside memorial.

Therefore there may very well be more pressing issues.

[FM Arouet666]

109. And who decides which issue will be most pressing?

You? Me? Atheists or believers? We each have our issues which guide our decision to vote for a particular party. What is "pressing" for one person may be irrelevant to another, yet both may support the same political party.

Neither should be expected to remain silent for the "greater good." You see roadside memorials and pledges as minor in the span of political issues, atheists see them as the fore front in the fight for separation of church and state.

Believe as you like, but atheists are not going away just because you think separation issues are less "pressing."

[Inland]

112. No easy answer.

The answer isn't who, but how. Clearly there are enough posters that say, it's pressing to ME and therefore that's enough.

But as this is a democratic party forum, and using the OP's premise that votes would be lost, and the fact that democrats have been losing to a party serving the religious fundamentalist community since 1979, it has to be admitted that the lodestone has to be winning some sort of elections. Not all of them. But some, and right NOW. That's the PURPOSE of the political party...to win elections.

Who decides is, as always, the individual with his conscience. It's the individual who picks the party, first, and guides the party, second.

But a principled decision has to recognize that there IS a greater good. It's not just for quotation marks.

The discussion has to be on those grounds.

I don't see any point in espousing any position and staying out of office. I mean, ANY position. I might have been amenable to the concept of winning through losing twenty years ago, but not now. Iraq is the worst thing for this country since Vietnam, for the world since WWII, and I've spent the entire day being depressed about fish populations, and I'm not even an environmentalist.

Nor is it like the civil rights legislation, where the party essentially took a leap for a good cause. We are already out. There's nowhere to jump. There's not going to BE a vote without winning an election.

Those are the things I think about. And whatever one decides is less pressing, there ARE some things that are going to be worthy BUT less pressing. Always. Normally, smart pollsters and tacticians decide, but the OPs premise was losing votes to keep Utah...UTAH...from becoming too entangled in religion. Yeah, there's a fight that is going to win this century, with our without the memorials. At a rate of fifty soldiers in Iraq a month, I'd argue to anyone that THAT one can wait.

[FM Arouet666]

115. Yes, a difficult situation

I would agree, you must pick your fights appropriately. Fighting to keep Utah free from religious domination is probably a losing battle. But what is the cost? Losing a few votes in a tight election can mean the difference between war and peace, life and death.

Suck it up and go for the greater good. That is the spirit. Aim for the election, get in power, and make the world right. Sounds like a maneuver from the GOP play book.

Your right, Iraq is a major issue, especially for those unfortune enough to be killed and maimed for Neocon pipe dreams. So, let us band together, acknowledge a greater good and leave the smaller issues aside.

Problem is, what are the smaller issues which are preventing the democratic party from getting re-elected. Church and state, the environment, gay rights, womens rights?

I have heard the same logic applied to gay rights, posted here on DU right after the election. Gay marriage is holding back the party, gays should remain quiet, give us a better chance to win.

Bull shit. The ends justify the means? Go for the religious vote, break down the walls of church and state, teach intelligent design, dammit man, men are dying in Iraq, and we need to get back in office.

Again, very GOPish

[nemo137]

116. No one is saying teach intelligent design

What I and some others are saying is go for what effects everybody. Intelligent design hurts education, don't let it in schools. We get votes, we keep the wall of separation, everyone's happy.

If that sounds GOPish, yeah, I guess. They are much better at keeping together, at not breaking ranks. I don't want to become the monster that they are, but I do want to get into power and undo what they've done. I'd love if we could say to Dems who get media time "alright, this week, let's hammer home the point that our schools are going to shit. Hit property tax funding, intelligent design, and the dumbing down resulting from standardized testing."

If you're going to go after the Utah crosses (and yeah, 12' is excessive) remember that most people aren't going to go "thank heavens they're protecting my right to worship as I choose," they're going to say "my god, they're pulling down memorials to people who sacrificed their lives to keep me safe."

The pledge could be a winning issue. Changing the national motto back to its true for, e pluribus unum, could be a winning issue. But it'll take time, and people having trouble putting food on the table aren't going to get behind those. We're having a hard enough time getting people to vote a real class interest instead of an imagined religious interest. I don't think we're going to fix anything major by going after ceremonial religious displays, not right now.

[FM Arouet666]

122. Pragmatism vs Purism

I hear you, but I am getting a bit tired.

A note on the cross issue, and I admit, I am not aware of the details in the case. But a few thoughts when I heard about it.

Are the troopers really christian? Did they or their family hold a strong religious belief? Why is this important? If the state, the police, advocated placing crosses, regardless of the victims or the families beliefs, then, yes, the atheists have a case. However, if each fallen officer was a devout christian, which is likely the case since this occurs in Utah, the question becomes, is the state promoting religion or is the state acknowledging a victim using a symbol of personal faith?

Without knowing the particulars of the case I was tending toward the latter. Perhaps I am incorrect, but I did not get too worked up over the issue. Unlike followers of the NRA, I do not jump on the extremist band wagon of the American Atheists, and yes they can be a bit extremist, and this from an arch atheist and former member of the AA. Time for bed, Happy Kwanzaa

:evilgrin:

[trotsky]

123. But a majority of people believe in creationism, and a supermajority

believe in "intelligent design" as wrapped up and presented by the anti-science loonies. So therefore, by Inland's (and your) logic, we should abandon the battle to keep it out of schools because it might cost us some votes.

[Inland]

117. You're doing that chains and bus thing again.

Intelligent design, no. Mainly because it's a winner, IMO.

But come on. The roadside memorials? What a waste of air to argue that.

By the way, I would have applied it to gay rights, too. The overreach of the gay marriage thing DID hurt democrats. So what's your point? Seems to me that it's a good example for me. How are gay rights doing nowadays? The fact is that the incrementalist method I backed is the only thing that has worked, as people in Massachusetts look at gay married couples and, holy smokes, the world didn't end after all.

All in all, the only thing GOPish is the recognition that winning elections MEANS something. As Bush's popularity goes to 35%, he's still the fucking president with a republican congress. All the issues in the world don't CHANGE that, and he knows it!

[FM Arouet666]

121. I knew you would go there after I posted the GOPish line

What does he have, pandering to the elite, religious extremists, cooperate greed? He has a war in Iraq which is un-winnable, a culture war which divides the U.S., record deficits, etc etc

Yes, the GOP is very good at mobilizing the troops, a few hard core issues, some simple slogans and there you have it.

Time will reveal to future generations what most progressives already know, this administration is an abomination. Yes, they have won the last two elections, yes they control congress, but what record to they have to continue the insanity? A rating of 35%?

Trying to emulate GOP success with a call for unity, a call to silence those in the democratic party which hold unpopular or provocative opinions, risks the same disastrous results. Appealing to a larger group brings a more moderate temperament. A moderate political compass is what made the Clinton white house so successful. Yes, Bush is president, and the GOP is currently pushing extreme politics, to the detriment of the country, and the tide is changing. Why emulate a sinking ship?

And if they don't sink? I am sorry, I am unwilling to abandon the environment, human rights, gay rights, womens rights, health care, separation of church and state etc etc to pander to myopic groups in an attempt to gain votes.

I do agree with the tenor of your post, however. If you are going to take a stand, you must be able to define your stand in a manner which is true to the cause. Letting a few atheists go after the Utah crosses, then passively watching the GOP war machine define your position as anti-American, anti-police, a democratic ideal is a prescription for disaster.

Rather than squelch the voice of gays, atheists, women, minorities within the democratic party, we should concentrate on the real reason the democratic party is losing the culture war. GOP controlled cable media, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, control over most radio, en roads into news print, the lose of the fairness doctrine, attack on PBS. Stick the gays and the atheists in the closet, you will still lose if your message is twisted by the GOP hate machine.

Time for bed, top of the morning to you..........

[Inland]

128. No, the GOP is not wrong because it is united.

It's wrong because it is united around the wrong things. It's successful because it is united. Dems uniting is success, around the right things. Not every right thing, in my mind or yours. But the right things.-

Thinking that somehow never uniting will avoid the mistakes of the republicans is true only to the extent that the party out of power doesnt' have a record. The dems can't do anything bad. Or anything good. And the rating of 35% is precisely the point of winning. Somehow, dems get the idea that being popular, without it translating into winning elections, is good enough. It's part of the "let's give the issues a good airing, making it part of the public debate is enough" school of thought.

Well, we air all the issues, and lose. Bush is at 35%, and the ONLY thing that restrains him NOW in the SLIGHTEST is the congress's fear of the next election round in 2006....which, if we play to lose, isn't going to restrain him so much.

And as to pandering to myopic groups.....that's sort of begging the question. Let's be concrete. I mean, the roadside memorials aren't exactly compelling. Realizing that the corporate MSM is what it is leads me to the same conclusion. I know exactly where the GOP wants the culture war. We can see it coming from a mile away. Everyone can see it coming. I don't mind wedge politics, but who the hell insists on being left on the THIN side? While I want Roe, for example, to stay law, part of me is itching for the fight over abortion that'll put dems in most state houses for a generation. And the GOP can see THAT coming.

[nemo137]

113. Issues that impact us all vs. Issues that impact some of us.

We all suffer when the poor get fucked. We all suffer when the economy tanks. We all suffer when basic civil liberties (freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, right to assemble, right to a fair trial) are taken away. Believers, non-believers, red states, blue states, rural, urban, all of us. I'm not saying "fuck off and shut up," I'm saying "look at what is the common good." Yes, there should be a bright line between church and state. Yes, they should be completely seperate. But right now, we won't have a working country to make sure church and state stay seperate if we don't fix some very basic problems.

[Inland]

114. I believe there is a common good

and that isn't necessarily based on something impacting all vs. some of us.

But some things do have to wait, if not because of democracy, then the laws of physics or the constraints of economics.

Once that is recognized, then the question becomes what.

[Zenlitened]

105. Well, if the question is, Should the Democratic Party...

... take on crosses, pledges, etc.?, then I think the point you make is valid.

But that's not the case, or cases to be more precise. These are people or small groups of people making a stand for causes they believe, not the party itself.

I don't see why it should be the role of progressives to shut them down, simply out of fear that the Limbaughs and O'Reillys of the world will try to slander us with it.

They're going to slander us with something nammter what. That's what they do. It's their job.

If our party leaders are standing up and leading the way on the important issuers you describe, then I think there is plenty of room for progressives of all sorts to live out their beliefs and advocate their ideals.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

107. Fair question, fair answer.

When we have an economy going to shit, a widening gap between the rich and the poor, we're fighting two wars with a negligable degree of success, a Supreme Court being packed with reactionary activist judges, and can't provide basic healthcare or education to huge chunks of our country, should we be worrying about things that are undeniably small?

Yes. The problem with undeniably small troubles is there's always a bigger problem to overshadow it. If it wasn't the economy, it's the war. If it's not the war, then it's healthcare. If it's not healthcare, it's education. If it's not education, it's homelessness. And so on. The big problems never go away, and the little problems just sit there because we think that we still have time, and there're bigger fish to fry. In the end, the little problems accumulate into one motherfucking big problem, and we're screwed. Delaying dealing with the problem when it's small only allows it to become totally unmanageable down the road.

Now, unlike our strategic voter pal, I don't think it's impossible to worry about the small problems at the same time we worry about the big problems. It doesn't take as much energy to deal with small things, so it's not like we're stealing precious mojo for frivolous purposes. And the best thing about dealing with small problems is, if they're dealt with properly they won't bite you in the ass in the future.

All the problems we're dealing with today started out as undeniably small worries that blew up in our faces, one after the other, over the last two decades. We've got to deal with them, because they're big and nasty & right in our faces, but if we focus all our attention on them we end up neglecting small things like the slow Christianization of government, and twenty years down the road that'll blow up in our faces.

I'd prefer that not to happen. So, I'll stamp on embers while you guys fight the forest fire. Better to look a bit silly in the present than get immolated in the future.

[trotsky]

124. GREAT post.

All the problems we're dealing with today started out as undeniably small worries that blew up in our faces, one after the other, over the last two decades. We've got to deal with them, because they're big and nasty & right in our faces, but if we focus all our attention on them we end up neglecting small things like the slow Christianization of government, and twenty years down the road that'll blow up in our faces.

Very well said.

[salvorhardin]

110. It's not a zero sum game

One person or even a whole group of people working toward secular government does not detract from other people working for other laudable goals. Did Cindy Sheehan detract from those fighting for economic equality? Did John Conyers detract from those fighting for national healthcare? I say not, and yet both Cindy Sheehan and John Conyers (and Barbara Boxer and Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton and John Kerry and Howard Dean and Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore and...) have all been used by the right wing to demonize the left. Should we tell any of those people that their issues are too trivial to attend to right now for the sake of political expediency? Again, I say not. This is how progress is made. By people everywhere doing what they can to chip away at the old regressive ideas. If people like Michael Newdow want to chip away at their little section of the edifice, I say we empower them.

On edit: This is what the right learned to do so well -- keep chipping away. Except they took 40 years of chipping away at progressive ideas and turned it into the overpowering dominance they hold over the political landscape today.

[FM Arouet666]

111. A flip side to your questions

GOP pundits have argued the same points which you raise. We are at war, men are dying, 9-11 killed thousands, how can we worry about......

Fill in the blank with your favorite issue,

Health care
Reasons for going to war
Social programs for the poor
Rights for gays and lesbians
etc etc etc......

We need to be ever vigilant, small issues can turn to bigger issues, let them chip away at the foundation and the house will fall. Oh, and "undeniably small," by whose definition?

[Goldensilence]

118. So my question also is

what happens when we win votes? We've spent so long and hard thinking on ways to win votes...what is your platform? What do progressives stand for? What does the democratic party stand for? Winning means NOTHING and I mean NOTHING if you don't have two feet to stand on.

You want to know WHY democrats have been on the losing side(post civil rights movement as you say)? Because between rethugs and dems you are both pandering for the same votes. Yes it was not very popular for this segment of votes.

The problem with dems is they take for granted the far left vote. It's a growing problem along with the rethugs taking up the fundamental right. We're no longer satisfied with their farce of progressive values. That's why the green party continues to grow and why various socialist parties continue to grow as well.

So you know what grow a spine and put forth a clear platform. Put forth some bills and garner support for them. Make them sticking points and most importantly if you get in power put them in action. Then MAYBE then you will garner more precious votes.

[nemo137]

119. Yeah, a clear platform would win votes. I don't deny that at all

nor do I think that winning just to put Dem butts in the seats is a good thing. I think that the important thing, as Inland said, is what happens after we win.

But our platform has to appeal to a majority of Americans. Bread and butter issues can do that. Minor issues cannot. If we're going to fix the trouble with Kansas, we need to respond to the Fundies' assault on the poor with a platform that will make a positive change for them, not with equally ethereal issues.

[Goldensilence]

120. i've never seen Inland talk about after

just about winning the vote. He has alluded to this but never has come out and said what his party plans to do after they win. What bills do dems have in the wings? All i see so far is promises as always. What do they plan to do about the patriot act? What are their plans about the environment? Social security? How do they plan to put in act their health care coverage program? Education? The deficit? Voting fraud? Separation of Church and state and yes I do think this is important for a SECULAR society. This argument isn't about "cosmic beef" it is about the importance of retaining a secular society.

I also think it is important to redo elections here to allow LEGITIMATE multiple parties. If not we are headed towards another revolution or civil war.

[papau]

137. You appear to want a Parliament and proportional seating - but to answer

your question as to Dem proposals - I have no role/knowledge of specific Dem Party endorsed positions - and indeed I am not sure the Dem party does that since we do not do lockstep. But in the sense of the Party Platform in 04 and statements by major Dems after, I believe the following is close to a "party position".

What do they plan to do about the patriot act?

If they had the votes they'd let the sunset provisions sunset. They's take back most of the civil rights lost.

What are their plans about the environment?

Clinton level attention to the Environment with reversal of the Bush foreign policy that dumps on the environment

Social security?

There is no problem now with Social Security - and a long term fix might include extending the current law age 67 full benefit point to say age 70 by 2050, retaining age 62 early retire, all the while ending the wage base cap.

How do they plan to put in act their health care coverage program?

National Health with current Ins company workers handling the paperwork is the only idea out there beyond forcing employers to provide coverage.

Education?

Funding NCLB plus additional funding as needed.

The deficit?

Ending tax cuts for the rich and returning to Clinton era levels for the rich, while retaining current tax levels for the under $150,000 per year types.

Voting fraud?

IS there a GOP bill on this that does anything? - The Dem bill has been around for a while - but with no voting power it goes no where.

Separation of Church and state

Office of Faith would be gone but beyond the ending of the funding, I do not know of many that see a crisis that demands a law.

"retaining a secular society" when we start with a religious society is an interesting concept.

[papau]

135. When did having 6 Socialist parties&1 party of the rich in winner take all

elections equate to the Left ever getting power?

Do we want another 200 years of right of center for the rich government?

Does a party have a "farce of progressive values" if it establishes priorities?

[Strong Atheist]

144. I think that many in the

party would rather not have us at all, we are such an inconvenience to them...:-( ... too bad, we are here, and I, for one, am not going away, or switching parties.:evilgrin:

[trotsky]

146. Considering that some of the people wishing we would leave:

1) See nothing wrong with religious symbols on public property or at the taxpayers' expense
2) Decry a secular society as if it's a bad thing
3) Want to take only those positions reinforced by popular polls, ensuring that it's something conservatives want too

I have to wonder whether THEY might feel more at home in another party - namely, the Republican Party.

[mcg]

148. I feel at home in the Democratic Party, not the Communist Party.

Why do you use an id 'trotsky'?

[trotsky]

149. Believe it or not, it has nothing to do with the historical Trotsky.

That's why I don't capitalize it.

So take your comment and stuff it.

[Goldensilence]

150. again let's slander a non capitalist party.

Communism and socialism are ECONOMIC systems. It doesn't matter what economic system you run it will always be viewed as bad(rightfully so) as long as a DICTATOR runs it.

But hey let's ignore the matter that the US set up a bunch of these social dictatorships. Long as they were good to US capitalistic interests it didn't matter what they did...

[The Magistrate]

157. Locking

This has become a flame-war.