Our Godless Constitution [Archive]

shanek

7th February 2005, 07:47 AM

Excellent article:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20050221&s=allen

It is hard to believe that George Bush has ever read the works of George Orwell, but he seems, somehow, to have grasped a few Orwellian precepts. The lesson the President has learned best--and certainly the one that has been the most useful to him--is the axiom that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. One of his Administration's current favorites is the whopper about America having been founded on Christian principles. Our nation was founded not on Christian principles but on Enlightenment ones. God only entered the picture as a very minor player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent.

Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God. The omission was too obvious to have been anything but deliberate, in spite of Alexander Hamilton's flippant responses when asked about it: According to one account, he said that the new nation was not in need of "foreign aid"; according to another, he simply said "we forgot." But as Hamilton's biographer Ron Chernow points out, Hamilton never forgot anything important.

In the eighty-five essays that make up The Federalist, God is mentioned only twice (both times by Madison, who uses the word, as Gore Vidal has remarked, in the "only Heaven knows" sense). In the Declaration of Independence, He gets two brief nods: a reference to "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God," and the famous line about men being "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." More blatant official references to a deity date from long after the founding period: "In God We Trust" did not appear on our coinage until the Civil War, and "under God" was introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance during the McCarthy hysteria in 1954 [see Elisabeth Sifton, "The Battle Over the Pledge," April 5, 2004].

The Founding Fathers were not religious men, and they fought hard to erect, in Thomas Jefferson's words, "a wall of separation between church and state." John Adams opined that if they were not restrained by legal measures, Puritans--the fundamentalists of their day--would "whip and crop, and pillory and roast." The historical epoch had afforded these men ample opportunity to observe the corruption to which established priesthoods were liable, as well as "the impious presumption of legislators and rulers," as Jefferson wrote, "civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time."

Charlie Monoxide

7th February 2005, 08:25 AM

I'm not sure if our exulted leader even read a book (that's a Laura thing). I am pretty that he believes his convictions of the US being founded on "christian" principles.

The strategy of repeating a lie (christian principles) or implying an untruth (Saddam was partly responsible for 9/11) is a Karl Rove thing.

Charlie (free us from the tyranny of the god-boys) Monoxide

Phil

7th February 2005, 08:26 AM

Sweet! Thanks for posting the link.

Gees, if I hear one more person claiming the US was founded on Christian principles . . .

toddjh

7th February 2005, 08:35 AM

What I love is the way some people point to the fact that the Constitution says "in the year of our lord" when specifying the date. I suppose if they had written that it was a Thursday, that would mean the country was founded on the principles of Norse mythology.

Jeremy

shanek

7th February 2005, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by toddjh
What I love is the way some people point to the fact that the Constitution says "in the year of our lord" when specifying the date. I suppose if they had written that it was a Thursday, that would mean the country was founded on the principles of Norse mythology.

The Constitution did originally say that Congress first meets on a Monday, so maybe they were Lunar worshippers?

It does except Sundays from the ten days the President has to return a bill...maybe they were Sun worshippers?

c0rbin

7th February 2005, 11:11 AM

I cringe everytime I hear the words "founded on Christian principles." I have no problem with someone suggesting that the Constitution and Christianity share similar principals, but going beyond that is inaccurate, contradictory, and retrograde thinking.

aerocontrols

7th February 2005, 11:21 AM

One of his Administration's current favorites is the whopper about America having been founded on Christian principles.

This seems to be the thesis of the article.

Is it a fact that this is a statment that the Administration repeats again and again in order to convince people of its truth?

Bjorn

7th February 2005, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Misunderestimated in 2000.
Unredefeated in 2004.
Great sig - how come I didn't notice earlier? :p

Ladewig

7th February 2005, 12:19 PM

I vehemently disagree!

Originally posted by shanek
... grasped a few Orwellian precepts. The lesson the President has learned best--and certainly the one that has been the most useful to him--is the axiom that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.

The Orwellian lesson that George Bush has learned best is the manipulation of language for political purposes. Thus, we are given the "Clear Skies Initiative," which requires that the skies are cleaned up sometime in the next 15 years (although some are suggesting pushing the deadline further back).

nelsondogg

7th February 2005, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by toddjh
What I love is the way some people point to the fact that the Constitution says "in the year of our lord" when specifying the date. I suppose if they had written that it was a Thursday, that would mean the country was founded on the principles of Norse mythology.

Jeremy

I think January is mentioned somewhere in one of the ammendments. Maybe we should change in God we trust on our coinage to in Janus we trust. Both sides can be heads!

Magyar

7th February 2005, 03:37 PM

[ I have no problem with someone suggesting that the Constitution and Christianity share similar principals, but going beyond that is inaccurate, contradictory, and retrograde thinking. [/B][/QUOTE]

Didn't the pope declare that the constitution was a heretical document BECAUSE it declaired all men equal?

This notion is NOT a traditional Catholic docrine ( I don't know enough about English Protestants or Lutharan )! The pope declaired this to be against god because it questioned the authority of the church and the power of the Papacy.
If memory served there was a whole (I forgot the word correct word - edict - fromthe pope on the evils of the constitution.
I might be wrong here but as far as I know there is NO Christian sect pre-1800s that believed in the equality of men.
Wasn't the Abolishionist(sp) movement the first to trully mean all men?

Bentspoon

7th February 2005, 05:06 PM

Further evidence of the founding father's disposition with regard 'to the founding principles of America" was when, I believe it was Jefferson, wrote, "we hold these truths to be sacred ....." then Ben Franklin came by and boldly crossed out the word "sacred" and substituted "to be self evident"
I think this original manuscript with the big crossout is in the Smithsonian.

Heard this on a PBS special

Bentspoon

By the way - is there any question whether W has read a book? The obvious answer is "no". Reading is very tedious and time consuming when you are trying to read in, what amounts to, a foreign language.

Luke T.

7th February 2005, 05:39 PM

I never tire of quoting the following two passage from Democracy in America written by Alexis de Tocqueville in 1832. Maybe because I think every American should read the whole book, and sooner or later, someone else from this forum will.

Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country. My desire to discover the causes of this phenomenon increased from day to day. In order to satisfy it I questioned the members of all the different sects; and I more especially sought the society of the clergy, who are the depositaries of the different persuasions, and who are more especially interested in their duration. As a member of the Roman Catholic Church I was more particularly brought into contact with several of its priests, with whom I became intimately acquainted. To each of these men I expressed my astonishment and I explained my doubts; I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone; and that they mainly attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country to the separation of Church and State. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet with a single individual, of the clergy or of the laity, who was not of the same opinion upon this point.

And though he did not intend it as such, the next passage serves as a fateful warning to the modern day U.S.:

Such is not the natural state of men with regard to religion at the present day; and some extraordinary or incidental cause must be at work in France to prevent the human mind from following its original propensities and to drive it beyond the limits at which it ought naturally to stop. I am intimately convinced that this extraordinary and incidental cause is the close connection of politics and religion. The unbelievers of Europe attack the Christians as their political opponents, rather than as their religious adversaries; they hate the Christian religion as the opinion of a party, much more than as an error of belief; and they reject the clergy less because they are the representatives of the Divinity than because they are the allies of authority.

In Europe, Christianity has been intimately united to the powers of the earth. Those powers are now in decay, and it is, as it were, buried under their ruins. The living body of religion has been bound down to the dead corpse of superannuated polity: cut but the bonds which restrain it, and that which is alive will rise once more.

shanek

7th February 2005, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by Magyar
I might be wrong here but as far as I know there is NO Christian sect pre-1800s that believed in the equality of men.

I believe the Quakers did, but I wouldn't swear to it.

shanek

7th February 2005, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by Bentspoon
Further evidence of the founding father's disposition with regard 'to the founding principles of America" was when, I believe it was Jefferson, wrote, "we hold these truths to be sacred ....." then Ben Franklin came by and boldly crossed out the word "sacred" and substituted "to be self evident"
I think this original manuscript with the big crossout is in the Smithsonian.

I have a copy. It says "sacred and invioble" which is scratched out to be replaced with "self-evident." It doesn't say who made the change, but Franklin makes a change elsewhere and puts his name to it, and the handwriting is different, so it's apparently not Franklin. It might be Adams, he made a lot of changes, or it might be Jefferson self-editing.

Gwyn ap Nudd

7th February 2005, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Magyar
This notion is NOT a traditional Catholic docrine ( I don't know enough about English Protestants or Lutharan )! The pope declaired this to be against god because it questioned the authority of the church and the power of the Papacy.
If memory served there was a whole (I forgot the word correct word - edict - fromthe pope on the evils of the constitution.

I'd have to look it up to see if there was actually one published on this issue, but the word you are looking for, the official name of these kinds of proclamations by the Pope, is "bull."

ceo_esq

8th February 2005, 03:14 AM

Originally posted by Magyar
Didn't the pope declare that the constitution was a heretical document BECAUSE it declaired all men equal?

This notion is NOT a traditional Catholic docrine ( I don't know enough about English Protestants or Lutharan )! The pope declaired this to be against god because it questioned the authority of the church and the power of the Papacy.
If memory served there was a whole (I forgot the word correct word - edict - fromthe pope on the evils of the constitution.Some corroborating evidence would be greatly appreciated. Circumstantial indications suggest to me that this story is unlikely to be true.

For one thing, I can locate no record of any pronouncement by Pius VI (pope from 1775 to 1799) resembling what you describe.

For another thing, John Carroll of Maryland (handpicked by Pius VI as the first U.S. Catholic bishop) represented to Congress the need for guarantees of religious liberty in the new Constitution. Indeed, Carroll (together with his brother Daniel, who actually signed the Constitution) is often attributed partial credit for the presence of the Constitution's "No Religious Test" Clause and related clauses. It seems improbable that the Vatican would issue a bull condemning a document in which the pope's own "man on the ground" in the United States had collaborated, or indeed that Daniel Carroll (given his brother's special clerical status) would have signed his name to the document and lobbied for its ratification if there were a realistic chance that it was headed for a collision with the pope.

At the same time, I can find no obvious basis in late 18th-century Catholic thought or doctrine for a hypothetical papal objection to the Constitution, except possibly an objection to the extension in Article I, Sec. 9 of the slave trade through 1808, which the Catholic Church had already condemned. But that would have been an objection based on more or less the opposite grounds from the one you're suggesting.
Originally posted by Magyar
I might be wrong here but as far as I know there is NO Christian sect pre-1800s that believed in the equality of men.
Wasn't the Abolishionist(sp) movement the first to trully mean all men? I think you ought to clarify what you mean by "the equality of men". After all, the notion of equality enshrined in the original Constitution is not exactly the same notion that generally prevails today (for example, as we know, the original Constitution condones both domestic slavery and the external slave trade). And there are both spiritual and political senses in which the notion of equality can be considered. What exactly did you have in mind in your previous statement? When we know that, perhaps we can answer your question.

I suspect that you will be surprised by the answer, however.

chulbert

8th February 2005, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by shanek
I have a copy. It says "sacred and invioble" which is scratched out to be replaced with "self-evident." It doesn't say who made the change, but Franklin makes a change elsewhere and puts his name to it, and the handwriting is different, so it's apparently not Franklin. It might be Adams, he made a lot of changes, or it might be Jefferson self-editing. I'm having trouble finding a reference to this on the 'net. I don't doubt the accuracy, I'd just love to see a picture if possible.

ceo_esq

8th February 2005, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by c0rbin
I cringe everytime I hear the words "founded on Christian principles."At some point I think it would be useful to discuss what is potentially meant by the notion that the United States was (or, conversely, was not) "founded on Christian principles". In my view, the statement The United States was founded on Christian principles can reasonably be employed to convey a variety of meanings, some of which render the statement patently false and some of which might render the statement arguably true, at least partially.

I note that along the spectrum of plausible meanings of the phrase The United States was founded on Christian principles, the only ones likely to be adequately rebutted by scouring the Constitution for references to God are pretty narrowly clustered at one end.

In previous discussions in these pages over the related question of the relationship between American law and Judeo-Christian legal principles (which some of you may recall), I have raised a similar point. In either context, I think it's imprudent to approach the question with an excessively reductive reliance on the Constitution; such an approach tends to collapse the distinction between the text of that document on the one hand, and far broader and richer concepts such as "American law" or the "American nation" on the other hand (duly noting, of course, that both predate the Constitution in a significant sense).

crimresearch

8th February 2005, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Magyar
I might be wrong here but as far as I know there is NO Christian sect pre-1800s that believed in the equality of men.
Wasn't the Abolishionist(sp) movement the first to trully mean all men?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As mentioned, the Quakers had rejected slavery early (mid to late 1700s), in keeping with their belief that there is that of God in all people.

Maybe not unanimously or perfectly, but in a manner that stood out from others.

ceo_esq

8th February 2005, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by crimresearch
As mentioned, the Quakers had rejected slavery early (mid to late 1700s), in keeping with their belief that there is that of God in all people.

Maybe not unanimously or perfectly, but in a manner that stood out from others. The Roman Catholic Church frequently condemned racial enslavement beginning in the 1400s, based essentially upon the notion that all men are created equal. Here is a typical papal bull (http://college.hmco.com/history/west/mosaic/chapter9/source233.html) on the topic, dating from 1537.

Unfortunately, this teaching was often ignored in Catholic countries, and was not always embraced by Catholics in the United States either.

crimresearch

8th February 2005, 10:25 AM

I think a comparison of how many Quakers owned slaves after 1780, with how many Catholics, would demonstrate the difference between a piece of paper, and active abolition.

aerocontrols

8th February 2005, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Bjorn
Great sig - how come I didn't notice earlier? :p

Thanks. I don't know how you missed it. I put it up right after the election.

Let me get back to why I originally posted in this thread:

Is it a fact that One of his Administration's current favorites is the whopper about America having been founded on Christian principles. is a statment that the Administration repeats again and again in order to convince people of its truth?

Is this something that's just obvious to everyone else and I've missed it because I haven't been paying attention?

(this question is for everyone, not just Bjorn)

Phil

8th February 2005, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by aerocontrols
. . . Is it a fact that
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of his Administration's current favorites is the whopper about America having been founded on Christian principles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

is a statment that the Administration repeats again and again in order to convince people of its truth?

Is this something that's just obvious to everyone else and I've missed it because I haven't been paying attention? . . .
That seems to be the implication by the article. I can't speak accurately to why you missed it, but I suppose it could be because you weren't paying attention.

ceo_esq

8th February 2005, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by crimresearch
I think a comparison of how many Quakers owned slaves after 1780, with how many Catholics, would demonstrate the difference between a piece of paper, and active abolition. Sad but true as to the distinction between principle and reality. Still, it's instructive to trace the history of the idea itself, don't you think?

By the way, do you have that comparison? I don't know how many Quaker slave owners there were in the last two decades of the 18th century; I believe there were probably essentially nil after 1800. Of course, as Quaker assemblies gradually prohibited slavery, a number of Quaker slave-owners simply quit being Quakers rather than comply.

I'm not sure how many Catholic slaveholders there were after 1780, either. (This source (http://www.catholicleague.org/catholicism_and_slavery/stopskych3.htm) asserts that a survey of one county in Missouri revealed 3.7 percent of Catholic households owning slaves, but the date is missing!) To control for regional geopolitical factors, perhaps it would be more instructive to compare the percentage of slave-owning Catholic and Quaker households, respectively in, say, Pennsylvania in 1780. Or would it be more revealing to use percentages of Catholics and Quakers worldwide? Moot point, I suppose, unless we have the data.

Anyhow, apparently as late as the 1830s the pope was mightily ticked off that some (indeterminate) number of American Catholics had still not jumped on the abolition bandwagon despite centuries of lessons in the subject. He wrote in an 1839 letter (http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/G16SUP.HTM) to his American flock:We warn and adjure earnestly ... that no one in the future dare to vex anyone, despoil him of his possessions, reduce to servitude, or lend aid and favour to those who give themselves up to these practices, or exercise that inhuman traffic by which the Blacks, as if they were not men but rather animals, having been brought into servitude, in no matter what way, are, without any distinction, in contempt of the rights of justice and humanity, bought, sold, and devoted sometimes to the hardest labour.

We reprove ... all the practices abovementioned as absolutely unworthy of the Christian name. ... We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this traffic in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately, opinions contrary to ... [this] Letter.That the pope felt the need to write this letter indicates the presence of Catholic dissension from the official teaching well into the 19th century, but on what scale I have absolutely no idea.

At the same time, there's no reason to suppose that the official Catholic teaching fell on deaf ears all those centuries, nor to doubt that, over much time, it probably played a significant role in paving the way for the abolition of slavery by secular governments the world over.

aerocontrols

8th February 2005, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Phil
That seems to be the implication by the article. I can't speak accurately to why you missed it, but I suppose it could be because you weren't paying attention.

As far as I can tell, implications aside, the article offers not one example of anyone in the Administration telling the whopper that America was founded on Christian principles. I find this strange because while I think that there are people in the Administration believe it to be true, I don't really recall them saying so all that much, certainly not at the level that would justify an accusation that the Administration is attempting to foist the belief on the population via the "Big Lie" technique.

It seems odd that this article is lacking such examples, having made the claim that the Administration is using the "Big Lie" technique. I can only imagine that the article writer takes it as a given that the Administration is doing so, and believes that all of her readers take it as a given as well. That seems to be what has happened in this thread. Of course, we are predisposed to believe that the claim is true.

Here (http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/6/mooney-c.html) seems to be a more honest (and therefore I would argue, more effective) example of criticism of the Bush Administration's blurring of the Wall of Separation. I would point out one portion in particular:

Bush also uses his office to promote marriage, charitable choice and school vouchers as conservative Christian policy objectives. Yet he has never endorsed, at least not explicitly, the time-honored religious-right claim that the United States is a Christian nation.

It seems to me that if the Bush Administration is not engaging in this "Big Lie" technique, but we all accept that is is and spend our time debating the "Big Lie" (or worse, simply agreeing that the assertion is false) then we miss the real fight. We may want to argue with the Bush Administration over whether this nation was founded on Christian principles, but contrary to what The Nation may say, the Bush Administration doesn't seem to be engaging that issue.

In short, I disagree with Shanek's assertion that the article he linked to is 'excellent' - not because the majority, or even many, of its facts are wrong, (though it does remove context from Madison's quote in a pretty dumb way*) but because it appears to be setting up the straw man of "The Big Lie".

Of course, I'll withdraw my objections if presented with evidence that the Administration is engaging in the technique for this purpose.

MattJ

*The quote from The Nation, as presented:

Madison believed that "religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize." He spoke of the "almost fifteen centuries" during which Christianity had been on trial: "What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."

Translation: Religion is bad.

What Madison actually wrote:

Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.

Translation: State establishment of religion is bad.

Which version of Madison's quote is more useful to Atheists, who wish to convince the majority (Religious) population to maintain the Separation of Church and State in practice? The one which claims falsely that Madison believed religion to be bad, or the one which shows that Madison believed Separation of Church and State to be good, for both the State and the Church?

Phil

8th February 2005, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by aerocontrols
As far as I can tell, implications aside, the article offers not one example of anyone in the Administration telling the whopper that America was founded on Christian principles. I find this strange because while I think that there are people in the Administration believe it to be true, I don't really recall them saying so all that much, certainly not at the level that would justify an accusation that the Administration is attempting to foist the belief on the population via the "Big Lie" technique.

It seems odd that this article is lacking such examples, having made the claim that the Administration is using the "Big Lie" technique. I can only imagine that the article writer takes it as a given that the Administration is doing so, and believes that all of her readers take it as a given as well. That seems to be what has happened in this thread. Of course, we are predisposed to believe that the claim is true.

You may very well be correct. But I don't think the "Big Lie" technique by the Bush administration is the focus of the article.

In your earliest post in this thread, you postulated the following:

Originally posted by aerocontrols quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of his Administration's current favorites is the whopper about America having been founded on Christian principles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This seems to be the thesis of the article.
Perhaps you might read the article again, and see if you still think that idea is the "thesis".

I submit that it is not, but rather that the following is the main point of the article:

Our nation was founded not on Christian principles but on Enlightenment ones. God only entered the picture as a very minor player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent..

With that in mind, I don't think the author necessarily needs to give examples of the Bush administration purveying the "Big Lie" technique. It's just not what the article is about. Granted, it's not good practice to state something such as that, and then to leave it unsupported, but my guess is that the statement about the current administration was used simply as a punchy introduction to illustrate the meat of the essay, that being what I have quoted above.

Originally posted by aerocontrols
It seems to me that if the Bush Administration is not engaging in this "Big Lie" technique, but we all accept that is is and spend our time debating the "Big Lie" (or worse, simply agreeing that the assertion is false) then we miss the real fight. We may want to argue with the Bush Administration over whether this nation was founded on Christian principles, but contrary to what The Nation may say, the Bush Administration doesn't seem to be engaging that issue.

Again, you may very well be correct, but I would suggest that your argument may deserve its own thread, as I don't feel this one necessarily was started to point out any foibles of the Bush administration (real or perceived) as its main topic of discussion.

aerocontrols

8th February 2005, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Phil
Perhaps you might read the article again, and see if you still think that idea is the "thesis".

Fair enough, it's the lead not the thesis.

Originally posted by Phil
With that in mind, I don't think the author necessarily needs to give examples of the Bush administration purveying the "Big Lie" technique. It's just not what the article is about. Granted, it's not good practice to state something such as that, and then to leave it unsupported, but my guess is that the statement about the current administration was used simply as a punchy introduction to illustrate the meat of the essay, that being what I have quoted above.

'Not good practice' is one way of putting it, I suppose. How about just not claiming the Bush Admin is doing it?

Originally posted by Phil
Again, you may very well be correct, but I would suggest that your argument may deserve its own thread, as I don't feel this one necessarily was started to point out any foibles of the Bush administration (real or perceived) as its main topic of discussion.

On reflection, I agree. The article is more history than current events.

aerocontrols

8th February 2005, 12:35 PM

Nevertheless, I maintain that what the article is talking about remains a side-issue in a very important debate over what government policy towards religion should be, and the article overstates the importance of the question it investigates.

CFLarsen

8th February 2005, 12:39 PM

In the Declaration of Independence, He gets two brief nods: a reference to "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God," and the famous line about men being "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights."

And therein lies the dirty secret.

The very foundation of the United States is based on rights endowed by a supernatural being. Not "brief nods", but the entire foundation, the raison-d'etre, if you want - or dare - to be un-American.

You can't have a constitution before you are free and independent. You can't have a Bill of Rights, either. The Declaration of Independence is the alpha and omega of the United States.

It matters not one whit what is in the American constitution. The reason the United States exist today is because of God's Finger.

And what is the very symbol of the United States of America? The Pledge of Allegiance, recited in American schools, and when new citizens are accepted. And that is extremely specific: "One Nation Under God".

Very bloody appropriate.

Charlie Monoxide

8th February 2005, 12:53 PM

shanek

8th February 2005, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by chulbert
I'm having trouble finding a reference to this on the 'net. I don't doubt the accuracy, I'd just love to see a picture if possible.

No problem:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/decp1.jpg

And one of Franklin's corrections is midway through this page:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/decp2.jpg

The words "self-evident" appear to me to be consistent with Jefferson's handwriting, inconsistent with Franklin's, and anyway no such notation that it was corrected by Franklin is given like it is on the other page. So I think it's Jefferson self-editing.

shanek

8th February 2005, 01:13 PM

Phil

8th February 2005, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
The very foundation of the United States is based on rights endowed by a supernatural being.
Supernatural? Is that consistent with a deist point of view?

What exactly is supernatural about "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God"? Is there a definition in the document for that phrase? Perhaps 'Nature's God' is intended to mean the collection of elements, or chemistry, or geology, or biology, or a collection of all of these things.

What is supernatural about "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights?" Is there a definition in the document for that phrase? Perhaps 'Creator' is intended to mean time, or evolution, or society, or moral progress, or a combination of these things.

Perhaps neither is intended to mean those things, but why jump to 'supernatural?

Originally posted by CFLarsen
The reason the United States exist today is because of God's Finger.
Evidence?

Originally posted by CFLarsen
And what is the very symbol of the United States of America? The Pledge of Allegiance, recited in American schools, and when new citizens are accepted. And that is extremely specific: "One Nation Under God".

The Pledge of Allegiance is the very symbol of the United States of America? When did that happen?

I seem to recall a bunch of other really cool stuff being the symbol or symbols of the US, like individual ideals, and progress out of the dark ages, and a guarantee of many freedoms, and a safeguard against tyranny, among other things. I don't recall an annoying little tidbit of lip srvice ever reaching the status of "the very symbol".

CFLarsen

8th February 2005, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by Charlie Monoxide
Errrr, wasn't that "under god" clause added in the 1950's to differentiate us from those "godless" commies.

I am not saying that the US is built on the Pledge of Allegience. It merely emphasizes my point: That the US is invariably interconnected with a supernatural being.

shanek

8th February 2005, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by Phil
I seem to recall a bunch of other really cool stuff being the symbol or symbols of the US, like individual ideals, and progress out of the dark ages, and a guarantee of many freedoms, and a safeguard against tyranny, among other things. I don't recall an annoying little tidbit of lip srvice ever reaching the status of "the very symbol".

Actually, the central motto of the US from the very beginnind was "E pluribus unum." Where's God in that?

Phil

8th February 2005, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Actually, the central motto of the US from the very beginnind was "E pluribus unum." Where's God in that?
Actually 'E plu' is an ancient Macedonian term meaning literally 'skyman'.

And 'rib' is self explanatory. It comes from the translated Hebrew text, because god had that thing about making stuff out of ribs.

Of course 'us' just means everyone, but also can stand for United States.

And 'unu' is from the secret twin language developed over drinks and opium by the founding fathers and it means 'to make'.

Add the 'm' at the end to turn 'make' into a noun, and you have the entire phrase:

skyman rib us (US) maker

There's your God!!!

punchdrunk

8th February 2005, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
And therein lies the dirty secret.

The very foundation of the United States is based on rights endowed by a supernatural being. Not "brief nods", but the entire foundation, the raison-d'etre, if you want - or dare - to be un-American.

You can't have a constitution before you are free and independent. You can't have a Bill of Rights, either. The Declaration of Independence is the alpha and omega of the United States.

It matters not one whit what is in the American constitution. The reason the United States exist today is because of God's Finger.

And what is the very symbol of the United States of America? The Pledge of Allegiance, recited in American schools, and when new citizens are accepted. And that is extremely specific: "One Nation Under God".

Very bloody appropriate.

----

I am not saying that the US is built on the Pledge of Allegience. It merely emphasizes my point: That the US is invariably interconnected with a supernatural being.

Denmark - Constitution
Index Page No Previous Page No Previous Page No Further Pages No Further Pages Table of Contents

{ Adopted on: 5 June 1953 }
{ ICL Document Status: 1992 }

Part I [General Provisions]

Section 1 [Scope]
This Constitution applies to all parts of the Kingdom of Denmark.

Section 2 [State Form]
The form of government shall be that of a constitutional monarchy. The Royal Power is inherited by men and women in accordance with the provisions of the Succession to the Throne Act, 27th March, 1953.

Section 3 [State Powers]
The legislative power is jointly vested in the King and the Parliament. The executive power is vested in the King. The judicial power is vested in the courts of justice.

Section 4 [State Church]
The Evangelical Lutheran Church shall be the Established Church of Denmark, and, as such, it shall be supported by the State.

CFLarsen

8th February 2005, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Actually, the central motto of the US from the very beginnind was "E pluribus unum." Where's God in that?

Male Bovine Manure. Pure Political Propaganda. Of the worst kind imaginable.

"E pluribus unum" means nothing else than the union of the first 13 states, way before anyone had envisioned anything remotely like the United States of today.

CFLarsen

8th February 2005, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by rhoadp
Section 4 [State Church]
The Evangelical Lutheran Church shall be the Established Church of Denmark, and, as such, it shall be supported by the State. [/B]

(sigh....)

Been there, done that. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49831)

Phil

8th February 2005, 02:13 PM

punchdrunk

8th February 2005, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
(sigh....)

Been there, done that. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49831)

(woah is me, sigh, gasp...)

:rolleyes:

You claim that the US and God are inextricable, based upon your supposition that the Pledge of Allegiance is the 'very symbol of the United States'. Where is your evidence that this is the symbol of the US? You're just making this **** up, bud. Meanwhile, your constitution mandates a state church. Oh, and does the thread you link to disprove the fact that you have a state church? What exactly am I supposed to draw from that thread? Help out an American dullard, oh great Dane.

Brown

8th February 2005, 02:49 PM

Excuse me while I fan the flames a bit. Here is a link (http://goldsteinhowe.com/blog/files/McCreary.03-1693.Brief.pdf) to the brief filed by the United States of America in one of the Ten Commandments cases. If you buy these arguments, religious beliefs permeate the laws of the United States.

TillEulenspiegel

8th February 2005, 02:51 PM

CFLarsen, The pledge of allegiance is a cynical attempt by blue noses to try to introduce a test of "Patriotism" and the most telling is the phrase "under God". That in fact as stated was first included in the 50's during the Commie witch hunt hosted by that famous protector of free speech and civil rights-Joseph McCarthy .

Am I the only person who sees contemporaneous parallels here?

If anyone has studied history ( not 1 page blurbs explaining in cartoon style the heroic effort of nation building ) of Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson, they all state EMPHATICALLY that the exclusion of a particularly religious slant was by design. They realized that tyranny can emanate not just from the throne but also from the pulpit.

They were men of morals bred from a religious sense, but championed the Moral not the dogma from whence it sprang. Most were casually observant protestant ( not catholic) some were more, but the consensus was to embrace the lessons without the bonds. This was the time of the enlightenment the age of Rousseau. The process that gave rise to the American revolution as well as the French revolution. These men we speak of had some of the finest minds and the novel thought of the day . They realized that We could not trade one set of chains for another. The omission - again was by design, but unfortunately did not include the phrase " Freedom FROM religion".

kalen

8th February 2005, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

It matters not one whit what is in the American constitution. The reason the United States exist today is because of God's Finger.

I'm thinking that would be His middle finger.

punchdrunk

8th February 2005, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Brown
Excuse me while I fan the flames a bit. Here is a link (http://goldsteinhowe.com/blog/files/McCreary.03-1693.Brief.pdf) to the brief filed by the United States of America in one of the Ten Commandments cases. If you buy these arguments, religious beliefs permeate the laws of the United States.

I think this is their most compelling argument:

As this Court has repeatedly recognized, the political and legal history of the United States is infused with religious influences, and the Establishment Clause does not require government to ignore or minimize that reality. Governmental commemorations of history, heritage, and culture properly need not exclude references to religious influences.

Religious beliefs permeate our history and sometimes unfortunately our politics and laws, but it was not what our country was founded upon. Our country's designers understood the importance of the separation of church and state by including the Establishment Clause, and their views are well-documented on the matter. It doesn't deny that religion is a part of our lives (whether we like it or not), but that it has no authority over the Constitution and the Rule of Law. So while there may be an argument for public displays of religious symbols (although I still think we should immediately stop spending any public money on wasteful and needless displays), there is no argument about where our rights come from; not a supernatural being, but the Constitution. Being in the minority in this country concerning religion, no matter how depressed I become about it, I've always got that to hold on to.

edited for are/our goof.

shanek

8th February 2005, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I am not saying that the US is built on the Pledge of Allegience. It merely emphasizes my point: That the US is invariably interconnected with a supernatural being.

If it's "invariably" connected, then why did it take them 100 years to get around to connecting it?

shanek

8th February 2005, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Male Bovine Manure. Pure Political Propaganda. Of the worst kind imaginable.

"E pluribus unum" means nothing else than the union of the first 13 states, way before anyone had envisioned anything remotely like the United States of today.

No, the motto stuck around after the 14th state was ratified. And for a good long while afterward.

So, make up your mind. You said before it was founded on this idea, that it was invariably connected to it, and now you're talking about some kind of different United States today than what existed originally.

Can you support any of this with citations from the Constitution? Oh, that's right, the Constitution means nothing. What a nutcase!

Of course, you're used to a Constitution meaning nothing, since yours says the King has sole executive and shared legislative power, but you say he has no power...

shanek

8th February 2005, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
CFLarsen, The pledge of allegiance is a cynical attempt by blue noses to try to introduce a test of "Patriotism" and the most telling is the phrase "under God". That in fact as stated was first included in the 50's during the Commie witch hunt hosted by that famous protector of free speech and civil rights-Joseph McCarthy .

Ironically, the pledge of allegiance was written by a Communist, Francis Bellamy, as part of a plan to introduce Socialism to the United States. (Interesting side note: he toyed with putting in the word "equality," to go along with his Socialist agenda, but left it out because "equality for all" would have meant including women and blacks as well and making them equal to white males.)

Am I the only person who sees contemporaneous parallels here?

If anyone has studied history ( not 1 page blurbs explaining in cartoon style the heroic effort of nation building ) of Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson, they all state EMPHATICALLY that the exclusion of a particularly religious slant was by design. They realized that tyranny can emanate not just from the throne but also from the pulpit.

They were men of morals bred from a religious sense, but championed the Moral not the dogma from whence it sprang. Most were casually observant protestant ( not catholic) some were more, but the consensus was to embrace the lessons without the bonds. This was the time of the enlightenment the age of Rousseau. The process that gave rise to the American revolution as well as the French revolution. These men we speak of had some of the finest minds and the novel thought of the day . They realized that We could not trade one set of chains for another. The omission - again was by design, but unfortunately did not include the phrase " Freedom FROM religion". [/B][/QUOTE]

shanek

8th February 2005, 05:03 PM

Oh, one more thing:

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
If anyone has studied history ( not 1 page blurbs explaining in cartoon style the heroic effort of nation building ) of Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson, they all state EMPHATICALLY that the exclusion of a particularly religious slant was by design. They realized that tyranny can emanate not just from the throne but also from the pulpit.

This reminded me of a quote:

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." —Denis Diderot

shanek

8th February 2005, 05:05 PM

One more quick point:

If it is true that many of our founders were religious, and this justifies putting religious symbols in courthouses etc., does that also mean that, given the fact that even more of our founding fathers were freemasons, we should have symbols of freemasonry?

SezMe

8th February 2005, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by ceo_esq
At some point I think it would be useful to discuss what is potentially meant by the notion that the United States was (or, conversely, was not) "founded on Christian principles". In my view, the statement The United States was founded on Christian principles can reasonably be employed to convey a variety of meanings, some of which render the statement patently false and some of which might render the statement arguably true, at least partially.
You're right on the "patently false" part because the people who argue that the USA was founded "on Christian principles" would not agree among themselves what that means because there is no such thing as "Christian principles." For example, the fundies would probably bring in gay marriage as one principle while their more liberal brethern would vehemently disagree.

I would be interested in your giving the phrase an interpretation that would render the statement "arguably true."

But I think there is a worse objection. When I hear or read the argument, I don't remember the phrase "founded on Christian principles." Rather, I hear, "This is a Christian nation" or a reference to the decalogue or something similar. These would be far harder to defend, IMO. For example, the first four commandments (depending on your chosen version) distinctly violate constitutional principles.

Finally, as a general rule, it is my sense that the more fundamentalist one is, the more likely he is to make this argument. This, I don't think it is event a thought-filled assertion but one based on rock-hard dogmatic assertion without thoughtful consideration of the implications at all.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ceo_esq
I note that along the spectrum of plausible meanings of the phrase The United States was founded on Christian principles, the only ones likely to be adequately rebutted by scouring the Constitution for references to God are pretty narrowly clustered at one end.
Explicitly, yes. Implicitly, no. After all, if this nation was "based on Christian principles" one would expect reference to those principles in some form or another. There is none. In particular, one sees no reference to Jesus or God. For example, the one place it would surely exist in the explicit statement of the oath of the President. It does NOT end in "so help me God." Thus I argue that the document, taken as a whole, screams out secularism.

By the way, you have posted some excellent posts here. I have found myself checking my own preconceived notions along the way. Thanks a lot.

SezMe

8th February 2005, 06:08 PM

CFLarsen

8th February 2005, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by shanek
If it is true that many of our founders were religious, and this justifies putting religious symbols in courthouses etc.,

"In God We Trust", yes. We find that everywhere in the US, e.g. as you say, in courthouses. The legislation depends on a supernatural belief.

Originally posted by shanek
given the fact that even more of our founding fathers were freemasons, we should have symbols of freemasonry?

You do. Check your money bills.

CFLarsen

8th February 2005, 11:04 PM

Prayer in schools? Yup, in the schools, too.

"School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community. " U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Santa Fe v. Doe, (2000).

CFLarsen

8th February 2005, 11:06 PM

"God bless America". Not just a very popular song, but how your President ends his speeches.

Oh, yeah...the President and religion....

CFLarsen

8th February 2005, 11:08 PM

It's rather difficult for atheists to get elected to a public office, isn't it?

Batman Jr.

8th February 2005, 11:32 PM

I think the real question here is: why do we have to defer to the complete frameworks of the philosophies of our founding fathers? Whether the framers were atheists, deists, or anything else, it shouldn't be accepted by anyone that we should just do things "their way." That would be in violation of the whole of the backbone on which all of the principles of critical thinking are mounted. I don't care even if they did somehow try to cryptically imbue in the sensibilities of America Christian dogma; the arguments supporting theocracy still wouldn't be transformed into something appealing or rational.

shanek

9th February 2005, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
"In God We Trust", yes. We find that everywhere in the US,

Again, not until the late 1800s. But again, you never let the facts get in the way of your bigotry...

You do. Check your money bills.

For the first 100 years or so they simply said "Mind Your Business." Learn some history before you go spouting off your ignorant rants.

shanek

9th February 2005, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Prayer in schools? Yup, in the schools, too.

Which had nothing at all to do with the Federal government until the 1950s. Try again.

shanek

9th February 2005, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
It's rather difficult for atheists to get elected to a public office, isn't it?

Not according to Article VI Clause 3 of our Constitution, which says that no religious test shall ever be required to hold public office.

CFLarsen

9th February 2005, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Not according to Article VI Clause 3 of our Constitution, which says that no religious test shall ever be required to hold public office.

Are you saying that atheists have no problems getting elected?

shanek

9th February 2005, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Are you saying that atheists have no problems getting elected?

I'm saying that our system as our founders envisioned it, which is what we're talking about, isn't set up to make it any more difficult for atheists.

You could point to the dearth of atheist Presidents, but I could also point you to the dearth of atheist candidates for President. In fact, the only one I know of in recent memory was Harry Browne, but his problems getting elected had to do with his third party status.

What about astronauts? I can name one astronaut who ran for President for a major party and didn't even make it past the nominations. And as I recall, he tried it twice. Does that mean that astronauts have problems getting elected in America?

CFLarsen

9th February 2005, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by shanek
I'm saying that our system as our founders envisioned it, which is what we're talking about, isn't set up to make it any more difficult for atheists.

You could point to the dearth of atheist Presidents, but I could also point you to the dearth of atheist candidates for President. In fact, the only one I know of in recent memory was Harry Browne, but his problems getting elected had to do with his third party status.

What about astronauts? I can name one astronaut who ran for President for a major party and didn't even make it past the nominations. And as I recall, he tried it twice. Does that mean that astronauts have problems getting elected in America?

Just yes or no, please: Are you saying that atheists have no problems getting elected?

Tony

9th February 2005, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Just yes or no, please: Are you saying that atheists have no problems getting elected?

It's not a yes or no question retard, but thanks for demonstrating that your intellect is barely on par with Sean Hannity's.

Brown

9th February 2005, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by SezMe
What a disappointment. OF COURSE, a litigant that is trying to preserve the display of the decalogue is going to make these arguments. So what? That does not give the arguments any veracity.

This from one of my Forum heros. Damn. I hope that little toe of clay extends no further. Just a follow-up:

I have not yet been able to find all of the filed briefs at a single web site. But I have found--and read--about half a dozen of them at different web sites. When I track down the briefs of the major players, I will probably start a new thread with links.

Two of the most interesting briefs come from Roy Moore (the "Ten Commandments Judge" from Alabama) and the Jewish Anti-Defamation League (I hope I've got that name right).

Moore's brief, of course, seeks the same result as that of the United States Solicitor General. But Moore's rationale is strikingly different from, even inconsistent with, the rationale proposed by the United States.

The Jewish organization's brief is, in a word, fascinating. It points out that most people who want to display the Ten Commandments invariably want to display a watered-down Protestant version, and not the Jewish version. In fact, the Ten Commandments displays omit the words that the Jews consider to be of the greatest importance.

Even more interesting is the discussion of representations of the decalogue 250 to 600 years ago. The decalogue was not revered by the Christian establishment. On the contrary, the two tablets were used to symbolize Judaism much in the way Hitler used the yellow star to symbolize Judaism: as a mark of disgrace. In addition, the tablets were often depicted in art upside down, to indicate that the Jews followed the wrong religion.

Kerberos

9th February 2005, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by shanek

What about astronauts? I can name one astronaut who ran for President for a major party and didn't even make it past the nominations. And as I recall, he tried it twice. Does that mean that astronauts have problems getting elected in America?
It does if you can find me a poll saying that less than half of all Americans would answer yes to the question: "If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be an astrounaut would you vote for that person?â€
http://www.skeptic.com/brightBrouhaha.html

ceo_esq

9th February 2005, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by Tony
It's not a yes or no question retard, but thanks for demonstrating that your intellect is barely on par with Sean Hannity's. Take it to Flame Wars. I doubt anyone cares to see this in here.

ceo_esq

9th February 2005, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
It does if you can find me a poll saying that less than half of all Americans would answer yes to the question: "If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be an astrounaut would you vote for that person?â€
http://www.skeptic.com/brightBrouhaha.html I was thinking that perhaps a better parallel would be the example of bachelor presidential candidates; bachelorhood has generally been regarded as a notorious liability for serious presidential hopefuls. Still, I expect more than one-half of American voters would answer your poll question "Yes" if it concerned bachelors rather than atheists, even if in reality it would unfavorably influence their vote.

Claus: By the way, you used to have archived over at skepticreport.com at least part of the old pruned thread entitled "The Ten Commandments and Legal Tradition". Now the old link doesn't work. Has the document disappeared or is it still hanging around somewhere?

Kerberos

9th February 2005, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I was thinking that perhaps a better parallel would be the example of bachelor presidential candidates; bachelorhood has generally been regarded as a notorious liability for serious presidential hopefuls. Still, I expect more than one-half of American voters would answer your poll question "Yes" if it concerned bachelors rather than atheists, even if in reality it would unfavorably influence their vote.
True, the real influence might be even bigger than what the poll sugests since most likely more people are intolerant than are willing to admit it, but even ignoring this the poll shows that an atheist wouldn't have a chance in hell. Of course it's perfectly possssible that there's prejudice against bachelors too, it wouldn't matter in Denmark, either bacholorhood or atheism. We probably have had both atheist and bachelor prime ministers, but faith and whether you're married is considered such a non-issue that I'm simply not aware of it.

ceo_esq

9th February 2005, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
True, the real influence might be even bigger than what the poll sugests since most likely more people are intolerant than are willing to admit it, but even ignoring this the poll shows that an atheist wouldn't have a chance in hell. I agree. What would have to happen in order for an atheist to win the big one? Hmm... Obviously, at a minimum, the opposition would have to field an unelectable candidate. Problem is, that's usually a Democratic specialty - which would require the Republicans to play the role of nominating the atheist - which won't happen. The whole scenario falls apart at that point.

ceo_esq

9th February 2005, 08:39 AM

* deleted double post *

shanek

9th February 2005, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Just yes or no, please: Are you saying that atheists have no problems getting elected?

They don't seem to have any more problems than astronauts.

shanek

9th February 2005, 08:52 AM

shanek

9th February 2005, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I agree. What would have to happen in order for an atheist to win the big one? Hmm... Obviously, at a minimum, the opposition would have to field an unelectable candidate. Problem is, that's usually a Democratic specialty - which would require the Republicans to play the role of nominating the atheist - which won't happen. The whole scenario falls apart at that point.

To my recollection, the only time a candidate's religion ever becomes an issue is when that candidate makes it an issue.

shanek

9th February 2005, 08:55 AM

By the way, Claus, what does any of this have to do with your point, which was, in your words, "That the US is invariably interconnected with a supernatural being"?

Thanz

9th February 2005, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by shanek
To my recollection, the only time a candidate's religion ever becomes an issue is when that candidate makes it an issue.
Or, perhaps when the candidate's opponent makes it an issue. You can be sure that if Harry Browne had any chance at all of making an impact on the election, his atheism would have been used against him by the big two candidates (or at least by the repbulicans).

Another thought - I would think that after 9/11 a muslim in America may have even more trouble getting elected than an atheist.

CFLarsen

9th February 2005, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Claus: By the way, you used to have archived over at skepticreport.com at least part of the old pruned thread entitled "The Ten Commandments and Legal Tradition". Now the old link doesn't work. Has the document disappeared or is it still hanging around somewhere?

It's still there. (http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/22874.htm)

CFLarsen

9th February 2005, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by shanek
They don't seem to have any more problems than astronauts.

How do you know that? Did you pull that out of a hat, or do you have data?

CFLarsen

9th February 2005, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Harry Browne, despite the near-dearth of media exposure, got quite a bit of response nonetheless. I don't ever remember anyone making religion an issue.

You are taking one example and then extrapolate to show that it isn't an issue?

I've found the Gallup polls and they show a very clear pattern:

Atheist: 49%
Baptist: 94%
Black: 95%
Catholic: 94%
Homosexual: 59%
Jewish: 92%
Mormon: 99%
Woman: 92%

These data indicate that, on average:
- Americans are generally prejudiced against non-Judeo-Christian religions.
- Prejudice against Atheists has dropped slightly, but remains very high.

Source (http://www.religioustolerance.org/amer_intol.htm)

The conclusion is devastatingly clear: As long as you have a religious faith of some sort, people will vote for you. If you don't, you can't win.

Heck, you can even be black, gay or a woman, you will still get far, far more people voting for you, than if you are an atheist.

Don't claim that religion isn't an issue in politics, because it clearly is.

You are wrong.

c0rbin

9th February 2005, 09:29 AM

OH MY!

There are Christians in the US and they are FREE TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGION!

Run, Claus, run!

CFLarsen

9th February 2005, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by shanek
By the way, Claus, what does any of this have to do with your point, which was, in your words, "That the US is invariably interconnected with a supernatural being"?

That should be clear by now. Unless you want to ignore reality.

Kerberos

9th February 2005, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Harry Browne, despite the near-dearth of media exposure, got quite a bit of response nonetheless. I don't ever remember anyone making religion an issue.
As Thanz says, Browne was a no hope candidate, and incidentially one who'd likely to appeal to a segment who was particuarly unconcerned by their candidates religion or lack of it. We have a gallup pole saying that only 49% of all Americans would vote for an atheist vs. your recolection of a highly unrepresentatice case. I'd say that the gallup poll is the better evidence.

shanek

9th February 2005, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
Or, perhaps when the candidate's opponent makes it an issue.

Maybe, but I can't recall any time this has happened. It seems to me that the candidate's opponent only makes it an issue once the candidate himself does.

You can be sure that if Harry Browne had any chance at all of making an impact on the election, his atheism would have been used against him by the big two candidates (or at least by the repbulicans).

Why can I be sure of that?

And even if that is the case, how does that make religion any different than any other issue they would have used against him?

shanek

9th February 2005, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
How do you know that? Did you pull that out of a hat, or do you have data?

I have data that shows there are exactly as many elected atheist Presidents as there are astronaut Presidents. And I can point to an astronaut seeking the Presidential nomination for a major party.

shanek

9th February 2005, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Don't claim that religion isn't an issue in politics, because it clearly is.

I never claimed it wasn't and you know it. That's another of your pathetic strawmen so you can sit there all self-important and declare:

You are wrong.

to something I never even claimed.

Your claim was, in your words, "That the US is invariably interconnected with a supernatural being." Stop shifting the burden of proof and support that statement.

shanek

9th February 2005, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
That should be clear by now. Unless you want to ignore reality.

What's clear is that you are completely ignorant of American history and totally unwilling to admit that you're wrong.

shanek

9th February 2005, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
As Thanz says, Browne was a no hope candidate, and incidentially one who'd likely to appeal to a segment who was particuarly unconcerned by their candidates religion or lack of it.

I don't know. There are a lot of very religious Libertarians. Maybe, when faced with a candidate whose principles very closely match how you would want the nation to be govered, religion suddenly becomes less of an issue than if some random pollster asks you a question centering on religion as a core issue?

CFLarsen

9th February 2005, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by shanek
I have data that shows there are exactly as many elected atheist Presidents as there are astronaut Presidents. And I can point to an astronaut seeking the Presidential nomination for a major party.

No data, then. As expected.

We are not talking about occupations, but whether or not a person believes in a supernatural creator or not.

CFLarsen

9th February 2005, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by shanek
...to something I never even claimed.

Originally posted by shanek
To my recollection, the only time a candidate's religion ever becomes an issue is when that candidate makes it an issue.

Oops.

Originally posted by shanek
Your claim was, in your words, "That the US is invariably interconnected with a supernatural being." Stop shifting the burden of proof and support that statement.

I did. You can't get elected if you are an atheist. I have also shown plenty of evidence that you can't go anywhere in the US without being confronted with a belief in a supernatural being.

Simply ignoring this doesn't make you right. Don't you have any comments on the Gallup data?

shanek

9th February 2005, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No data, then. As expected.

We are not talking about occupations, but whether or not a person believes in a supernatural creator or not.

Claus, you're talking about people being elected. That's an occupation.

CFLarsen

9th February 2005, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by shanek
What's clear is that you are completely ignorant of American history and totally unwilling to admit that you're wrong.

Feel free to point out where I am wrong about American history.

Don't just dogmatically state it, expecting people to believe your word. You do this a lot. Your word is not evidence.

Try with real evidence, instead of decrees.

shanek

9th February 2005, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I did. You can't get elected if you are an atheist.

You have done nothing to show this.

I have also shown plenty of evidence that you can't go anywhere in the US without being confronted with a belief in a supernatural being.

So? What do you propose, that we violate people's freedom of speech? That we establish laws forcing them to vote the way we want them to?

shanek

9th February 2005, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Feel free to point out where I am wrong about American history.

Already have. Every single example you came up with about how our country "is invariably interconnected with a supernatural being" have been things that didn't occur until over 100 years after our founding.

You are wrong. And, as usual, you refuse to admit it.

CFLarsen

9th February 2005, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Claus, you're talking about people being elected. That's an occupation.

You are comparing astronauts - an occupation - with religious believers - not an occupation.

CFLarsen

9th February 2005, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Already have. Every single example you came up with about how our country "is invariably interconnected with a supernatural being" have been things that didn't occur until over 100 years after our founding.

You are wrong. And, as usual, you refuse to admit it.

Religious beliefs permeate the entire history of the United States.

Most presidents place their hand on a bible to take the oath, but this is not obligatory. That tradition, like many others, began with George Washington after it was determined that an oath without a bible would lack legitimacy.

Washington also began the practice of kissing the bible and adding the words "so help me God" at the end of the pledge, as well as delivering an inauguration address.
Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4182559.stm)

..."lack legitimacy"....

CFLarsen

9th February 2005, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by shanek
You have done nothing to show this.

The Gallup data. Why do you refuse to discuss that?

Originally posted by shanek
So? What do you propose, that we violate people's freedom of speech? That we establish laws forcing them to vote the way we want them to?

I propose that you stop claiming that you can't go anywhere in the US without being confronted with a belief in a supernatural being. You can't get elected, people don't trust you.

Are you going to address the Gallup data at all? Just yes or no, please.

shanek

9th February 2005, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Religious beliefs permeate the entire history of the United States.

Again, so? Washington also said in a speech, "The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion." Quote-mining much?

You're using the same bogus arguments that the right-wingers use. Pathetic.

shanek

9th February 2005, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
The Gallup data. Why do you refuse to discuss that?

I haven't refused to discuss it, liar. I made the following point above:

There are a lot of very religious Libertarians. Maybe, when faced with a candidate whose principles very closely match how you would want the nation to be govered, religion suddenly becomes less of an issue than if some random pollster asks you a question centering on religion as a core issue?

I propose that you stop claiming that you can't go anywhere in the US without being confronted with a belief in a supernatural being.

As I never claimed that, this is just more of your lies.

Are you going to address the Gallup data at all? Just yes or no, please.

Already have, liar.

CFLarsen

9th February 2005, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by shanek
I haven't refused to discuss it, liar. I made the following point above:

...

Already have, liar.

You have not discussed it at all. You simply asked a rethorical counter question.

Does the Gallup data show that people trust atheists when it comes to political offices?

shanek

9th February 2005, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You have not discussed it at all. You simply asked a rethorical counter question.

Wrong, liar. I pointed out that people tend to act differently in different contexts than what they say they would in a hypothetical scenario. This is a perfectly valid point and it is extremely dishonest of you to dismiss it as "rhetorical."

Does the Gallup data show that people trust atheists when it comes to political offices?

I don't think it shows that they wouldn't vote for an atheist in practice, if he were otherwise sufficiently consistent with what they're looking for in a candidate.

Thanz

9th February 2005, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Maybe, but I can't recall any time this has happened. It seems to me that the candidate's opponent only makes it an issue once the candidate himself does.
I was not alive at the time (and heck, I'm not even American) but I am under the impression that Kennedy's Catholicism was an issue - his opponents intimating that he would take orders from the Pope and this threatened US sovereignty.
Why can I be sure of that? Look at your very next sentence.
And even if that is the case, how does that make religion any different than any other issue they would have used against him?
I never claimed that it would be any different than other issues. In fact, I think it would be used in a similar way to any other so-called "character" issues. If the republicans can portray someone who received medals in Vietnam as unfit to lead the military instead of a former coke addict who used his influence to get out of meaningful service, I don't doubt for a second that an athiest would be portrayed as one step below the devil in attack ads.

Thanz

9th February 2005, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by shanek
I don't think it shows that they wouldn't vote for an atheist in practice, if he were otherwise sufficiently consistent with what they're looking for in a candidate.
Actually, I think that is precisely what it shows. People are asked if their party put forth an otherwise well qualified candidate who happened to be X, would you vote for him. X is substituted for various religions, as well as Black, Woman and Homosexual. For 1999, the only two groups not scoring in the 90s are athiests and homosexuals.

But I don't see how the fact that people are prejudiced against athiests in 1999 proves anything about the principles on which the country was founded.

Kerberos

9th February 2005, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by shanek
I don't know. There are a lot of very religious Libertarians.
Perhaps, I opbviously wouldn't know, but does the Libertarian party have a lot of intolerant religious people? I would think that tolerance of people of different race/religion/sexual orientation was a fairly central Libertarian value, and thus those who would not vote for an atheist president wouldn't be Libertarians

Originally posted by shanek
Maybe, when faced with a candidate whose principles very closely match how you would want the nation to be govered, religion suddenly becomes less of an issue than if some random pollster asks you a question centering on religion as a core issue?
Certainly an atheist could be elected if he was mainstream and the opposing candidate was surficiently horrible (in the eyes of the mainstream), but that's a no-brainer. The question isn't if the American public would vote for an atheist over Osama Bin Laden, the question is if an atheist, but otherwise mainstream candidate would have a chance against another, non-atheist mainstream candidate, and the answer is clearly no.

punchdrunk

9th February 2005, 11:03 AM

Margrethe II of Denmark
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Margrethe II
Reign January 14, 1972 - Present
Consort Prince Henrik of Denmark
Royal House
Predecessor Frederick IX of Denmark
Heir Apparent Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark
Date of Birth April 16, 1940
Date of Death Still living

Her Majesty Queen Margrethe II (Margrethe Alexandrine Ãžorhildur Ingrid), styled HM The Queen (born April 16, 1940), is the Queen regnant and head of state of Denmark.

She was born at Amalienborg Palace, Copenhagen, to Frederick IX and Princess Ingrid of Sweden. Queen Margrethe II's official motto is "God's help, the love of the people, Denmark's strength".

Clearly, this is damning evidence of Denmark's dirty little secret: a country run by the cloaked Religerati!!

CFLarsen

9th February 2005, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Wrong, liar. I pointed out that people tend to act differently in different contexts than what they say they would in a hypothetical scenario. This is a perfectly valid point and it is extremely dishonest of you to dismiss it as "rhetorical."

Very well: If you don't want to discuss it, then don't discuss it.

Originally posted by shanek
I don't think it shows that they wouldn't vote for an atheist in practice, if he were otherwise sufficiently consistent with what they're looking for in a candidate.

You have absolutely no basis for claiming that. It is pure speculation.

Now, please answer the question, this time without speculation:

Does the Gallup data show that people trust atheists when it comes to political offices?

CFLarsen

9th February 2005, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
I was not alive at the time (and heck, I'm not even American) but I am under the impression that Kennedy's Catholicism was an issue - his opponents intimating that he would take orders from the Pope and this threatened US sovereignty.

I do believe you are right.

"It is an axiom that 'the Catholic issue' embroiled the 1960 campaign, but this book is the first to take us beyond folklore to scholarship. Scrupulously argued and widely researched, A Catholic in the White House? examines the varieties of anti-Catholic concerns and phobias in 1960 and their impact. It captures the flavor of that riveting campaign and shrewdly analyzes the role of Catholicism in national politics both before and since 1960."--Richard M. Fried, University of Illinois at Chicago

A Catholic in the White House? will be required reading for those who wish to understand the importance of 'the Catholic issue' in American presidential politics, from the candidacy of Al Smith in 1928 to that of John Kerry in 2004."--R. Scott Appleby, Professor of History, University of Notre Dame

"Thomas Carty's A Catholic in the White House? is the first comprehensive scholarly examination of the 'Catholic issue' in the 1960 election. Carty provides a rich historical context, then explores the role of evangelical and mainstream Protestants, political liberals, and Catholics as they confronted the Kennedy candidacy and campaign. His treatment of the campaign includes original in-depth examination of the vote in key states. This is an important, timely book which deserves attention from everyone interested in American politics."--David J. O'Brien, Loyola Professor of Roman Catholic Studies, College of the Holy Cross

Source (http://www.palgrave-usa.com/Catalog/product.aspx?isbn=1403962529)

Kennedy did not make his religion an issue, others did.

And, of course, there's the case of "The Happy Warrior", Alfred E. Smith, who was crushed in the 1928 elections:

Finan argues persuasively that Roosevelt captured the Democratic nomination in 1932 by seeking the support of Smith's enemies, including the southern, anti-Catholic Democrats who had rejected Smith four years earlier.

Source (http://www.bhny.com/nystate/ny158.html)

Smith did not make his religion an issue, others did.

Originally posted by shanek
Maybe, but I can't recall any time this has happened. It seems to me that the candidate's opponent only makes it an issue once the candidate himself does.

You are wrong.

SezMe

9th February 2005, 11:40 AM

Another thread driven to irrelevance by CFLarson/Shanek sinking to "Liar, liar pants on fire"

shanek

9th February 2005, 11:41 AM

shanek

9th February 2005, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
Actually, I think that is precisely what it shows. People are asked if their party put forth an otherwise well qualified candidate who happened to be X, would you vote for him. X is substituted for various religions, as well as Black, Woman and Homosexual. For 1999, the only two groups not scoring in the 90s are athiests and homosexuals.

But as I said, there's a difference between saying you'll do something in a hypothetical scenario and actually being faced with that decision.

But I don't see how the fact that people are prejudiced against athiests in 1999 proves anything about the principles on which the country was founded.

It doesn't. It's a typical Claussian diversion.

shanek

9th February 2005, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
Perhaps, I opbviously wouldn't know, but does the Libertarian party have a lot of intolerant religious people?

No, in fact, we seem to be the most tolerant group that I know of. And we seem to have more than our share of atheists.

The question isn't if the American public would vote for an atheist over Osama Bin Laden, the question is if an atheist, but otherwise mainstream candidate would have a chance against another, non-atheist mainstream candidate, and the answer is clearly no.

I don't think the answer is so clear. But then, it's never been put to the test as far as I know. I know early on in our history non-Christians had no problems getting elected. Lincoln was a most vocal non-Christian, although I don't know if he was atheist or not. I don't think Grant was that religious, either. But this is a different time, and people today (unfortunately) have a completely different attitude of what government is and what religion's role in it should be.

shanek

9th February 2005, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Very well: If you don't want to discuss it, then don't discuss it.

I am discussing it. You aren't.

You have absolutely no basis for claiming that.

I think the conclusion is reasonable, for reasons already given.

[snip Claus repeating himself as if that means anything]

CFLarsen

9th February 2005, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by shanek
No, in fact, we seem to be the most tolerant group that I know of.

One should always look at the realities behind such claims. The fact of the matter is, that the Presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party will jail people for doing their legal job, as well as for merely disagreeing with him.

You have not been terribly tolerant of other people here yourself, especially those who disagrees with you, or merely show you wrong.

Originally posted by shanek
And we seem to have more than our share of atheists.

Do you have any data for that claim?

Originally posted by shanek
I don't think the answer is so clear. But then, it's never been put to the test as far as I know. I know early on in our history non-Christians had no problems getting elected. Lincoln was a most vocal non-Christian, although I don't know if he was atheist or not. I don't think Grant was that religious, either. But this is a different time, and people today (unfortunately) have a completely different attitude of what government is and what religion's role in it should be.

Lincoln knew the Bible intimately, and could quote from it in extenso. He wasn't outspoken about his own religion, but frequently used religious themes and references in his speeches. Hardly a "most vocal non-Christian".

CFLarsen

9th February 2005, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by shanek
I am discussing it. You aren't.

Ah, I see. Yet another shanek-decree. Gotcha.

Originally posted by shanek
I think the conclusion is reasonable, for reasons already given.

It is fundamentally unreasonable, because all you have given as "reasons" are your unfounded opinions. Your opinion is not fact.

Originally posted by shanek
[snip Claus repeating himself as if that means anything]

Does the Gallup data show that people trust atheists when it comes to political offices? Yes or no, please.

shanek

9th February 2005, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You are wrong.

Okay, fine, I was wrong. I did say "to my recollection," though. But if it really were such an issue, why did it only happen twice in the last century? That doesn't seem like too big a deal to me.

CFLarsen

9th February 2005, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Okay, fine, I was wrong. I did say "to my recollection," though. But if it really were such an issue, why did it only happen twice in the last century? That doesn't seem like too big a deal to me.

Who said any thing about it only happening twice in the last century?? Two examples should be enough to prove you wrong.

It is at the core of what we are talking about: How religion permeates the United States.

You want to talk about religion in the US on a more personal level? How atheists are considered lower-class citizens? You want to ask people here how they are treated in their everyday life, simply because they don't believe in God?

shanek

9th February 2005, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
One should always look at the realities behind such claims. The fact of the matter is, that the Presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party will jail people for doing their legal job, as well as for merely disagreeing with him.

Claus, several people have pointed out why this evaluation of yours is incorrect. Stop lying.

You have not been terribly tolerant of other people here yourself, especially those who disagrees with you, or merely show you wrong.

Really? Earthborn, Valmorian, and Thanz haven't been complaining...

Do you have any data for that claim?

Just my own personal experience. But with the exception of the JREF, the Libertarians are the only group I'm in where I actually know several atheists.

Lincoln knew the Bible intimately, and could quote from it in extenso. He wasn't outspoken about his own religion, but frequently used religious themes and references in his speeches. Hardly a "most vocal non-Christian".

"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."
—Abraham Lincoln to Judge J. S. Wakefield

"What is to be, will be, and no prayers of ours can arrest the decree."
—Abraham Lincoln, quoted by Mary Todd Lincoln in William Herndon's Religion of Lincoln, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beleifs of Our Presidents, p. 118

"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession."
—Abraham Lincoln, quoted by Joseph Lewis in "Lincoln the Freethinker"

"Mr. Lincoln had no hope, and no faith, in the usual acceptation of those words."
—Mary Todd Lincoln, to Colonel Ward H. Lamon, as documented in his Life of Abraham Lincoln, p. 459

"No one of Lincoln's old acquaintances in this city ever heard of his conversion to Christianity by Dr. Smith or anyone else. It was never suggested nor thought of here until after his death...I never saw him read a second of time in Dr. Smith's book on Infidelity. He threw at down upon our table—spit upon it as it were—and never opened it to my knowledge."
—William Herndon, quoted in Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beleifs of Our Presidents, p. 124

shanek

9th February 2005, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Who said any thing about it only happening twice in the last century?? Two examples should be enough to prove you wrong.

Not to the extent that people are claiming the problem exists.

You want to talk about religion in the US on a more personal level?

No, I want to talk about your claim "that the US is invariably interconnected with a supernatural being." You, OTOH, keep wanting to change the subject rather than support your own assertion.

CFLarsen

9th February 2005, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Just my own personal experience. But with the exception of the JREF, the Libertarians are the only group I'm in where I actually know several atheists.

Again, we see an unfounded claim from you.

CFLarsen

9th February 2005, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Not to the extent that people are claiming the problem exists.

So, you still claim that atheists are considered worthy of a public office, despite that you have no evidence whatsoever, and that there is evidence that contradicts your claim.

Originally posted by shanek
No, I want to talk about your claim "that the US is invariably interconnected with a supernatural being." You, OTOH, keep wanting to change the subject rather than support your own assertion.

But we have already established that the claim is true. You can hardly go anywhere without being presented with God.

Why do you think there is so much about religion at TAM?

shanek

9th February 2005, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, you still claim that atheists are considered worthy of a public office,

Never claimed it. Stop lying.

But we have already established that the claim is true. You can hardly go anywhere without being presented with God.

But that is not your claim. Your claim is false. This country's political structure is in no way founded upon the Christian or any other religion.

CFLarsen

9th February 2005, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Never claimed it. Stop lying.

...

But that is not your claim. Your claim is false. This country's political structure is in no way founded upon the Christian or any other religion.

We are not getting anywhere. You insist that we debate on your terms alone, and I refuse to do that: It is merely an attempt of designing the debate so you will win, no matter what reality says.

One could call you a Debate-Creationist: The outcome is given in advance, so screw the facts.

Ah, well...I've presented my case, and you can take it or leave it.

ceo_esq

10th February 2005, 05:18 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
It's still there. (http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/22874.htm) Many thanks.

Thanz

10th February 2005, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by shanek
But as I said, there's a difference between saying you'll do something in a hypothetical scenario and actually being faced with that decision.
As a general proposition - that people may behave differently in a real life situation than they say they would in a hypothetical, I'd agree with you. I disagree with you on the specifics of this poll, however. If anything, I would think that the number who would vote for an athiest in real life may be slightly lower.

The poll is essentially asking people to own up to their prejudices. I think that in general, people don't want to be thought of as prejudiced or bigoted. For example, someone might say that they would vote for a woman in order to avoid being labelled as sexist in the hypothetical, but in real life they would not vote for the woman. It may not even be overt - the prejudice may manifest in ways that make the person believe they are deciding on some other basis, even if a truly objective analysis of that basis reveals it to be without merit.

It would be naive to think that prejudice has been overcome to the degree suggested by the poll. I think that the 90%+ numbers are unfortunately too high for real life. What it does show, however, is that there is a recognizable social stigma attached to those prejudices that makes people reluctant to admit them, even if they have them. That can only be a good thing.

Which brings us to athiests and gays. The animosity towards gays is quite evident when one looks at the controversy surrounding gay marriage. However, the fact that gay marriage is even being considered is a huge step forward for the homosexual community - both in terms of actual rights and as an indicator of tolerance.

It would appear though that people still find it acceptable to be prejudiced against athiests. Over half the people asked said they would not vote for an otherwise qualified candidate if he were athiest. I can see reasons why someone would lie and say they would vote for an athiest - to avoid being labelled a bigot - but I cannot see why someone would lie if they actually would vote for an athiest. It sucks, but there it is. Given the two party system, this poll and the most recent election results, I would guess it would be at least 50 years before you actually even get an athiest nominated for president by either major party. In short, at least for president, I doubt any of us will be alive to see an athiest run for president with any chance of winning.

shanek

10th February 2005, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
The poll is essentially asking people to own up to their prejudices. I think that in general, people don't want to be thought of as prejudiced or bigoted.

Of course, and I have no doubt that some of the people who answered that it wouldn't make any difference really would consider it a problem. But it seems equally obvious to me that many people who honestly think it's a problem (and maybe don't even think about it being prejudiced or bigoted) might very well vote for an atheist if everything else about him matched what they want in a candidate.

So, which one outweighs the other?

Over half the people asked said they would not vote for an otherwise qualified candidate if he were athiest.

Yes, but again, people often say one thing in a hypothetical, completely meaning it, and yet do something else when faced with the reality of the situation.

I can see reasons why someone would lie and say they would vote for an athiest - to avoid being labelled a bigot - but I cannot see why someone would lie if they actually would vote for an athiest.

We aren't talking about lying. We're talking about two totally different situations. And people respond differently to different situations.

In one situation, we have a hypothetical candidate and the only thing we're told about him is that he's an atheist (other than the vague "otherwise qualified" thing). We're told nothing else about him, and nothing whatsoever about his opponent(s).

In another situation, we have a real-life atheist candidate where the person in question may not even realize he's an atheist because it might not even come up, but who may have all sorts of other things in common with the voter, such as political philosophy, party affiliation, similar background, etc. Here, the person is given a lot more information about the candidate than his religious affiliation (and no one may even be making a big deal about that), and of course they also know about his opponent(s) and, even if they are prejudiced against atheists, may consider him the lesser of two evils. How many people vote on exactly that criteria?

I see it as being the same issue as makes economists evoke ceteris paribus. This effect will take place, as long as all other things are equal. If all other things are equal, the person will vote for a religious person over an atheist. But how often are all other things equal?

Also given the fact that we haven't actually seen the issue come up to know what would happen. Now, I'm not saying there's a good chance we'll have an atheist President in 2008 or anything, just that I'm not comfortable assuming what will happen based on this one poll.

shanek

10th February 2005, 08:39 AM

I found the original Gallup question, although you have to subscribe to see the results:

http://institution.gallup.com/documents/question.aspx?question=4057&Advanced=0&SearchConType=1&SearchTypeAll=atheist

You can see the full question in this search:

http://institution.gallup.com/search/results.aspx?SearchTypeAll=atheist&SearchConType=1

As reported on skeptic.com, 49% said "Yes"...but there's a third option, "Don't know." How many people responded with "Don't know"? The implication here is being made that 51% would not vote for an atheist, but that assumes facts not in evidence. If even 2% answered "Don't know," then it's possible that 51% might vote for an atheist President.

CFLarsen

10th February 2005, 09:03 AM

Kerberos

10th February 2005, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by shanek
I found the original Gallup question, although you have to subscribe to see the results:

http://institution.gallup.com/documents/question.aspx?question=4057&Advanced=0&SearchConType=1&SearchTypeAll=atheist

You can see the full question in this search:

http://institution.gallup.com/search/results.aspx?SearchTypeAll=atheist&SearchConType=1

As reported on skeptic.com, 49% said "Yes"...but there's a third option, "Don't know." How many people responded with "Don't know"? The implication here is being made that 51% would not vote for an atheist, but that assumes facts not in evidence. If even 2% answered "Don't know," then it's possible that 51% might vote for an atheist President.
Whether 49% or 51% might vote for an atheist is irrelevant. Even if 51% might vote for him he'd still be a no-hope candidate because a portion of the 49, 51 or however many % who might vote for him would choose not to for some other reason such as not agreeing eith him politically.

Lurker

10th February 2005, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Yes, but again, people often say one thing in a hypothetical, completely meaning it, and yet do something else when faced with the reality of the situation.

While I agree there is some truth to what you say here, if we take it to be an absolute wouldn't it logically follow that all polls are meaningless?

I agree there may be some minority that may do something else than how they responded to the poll but I would imagine it is small and perhaps has a tendency to balance out as some say "1" and do "2" while some say "2" and do "1".

I'm not ready to abandon the whole idea of polling yet, myself.

Lurker

shanek

10th February 2005, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You cannot induce that. Why should all of the "Don't know"s shift to the same side?

Who said they should be? I said "might," as in potentially.

Piss-poor thinking skills here.

Yes, yours are very piss-poor...

So where is your evidence "that the US is invariably interconnected with a supernatural being"?

shanek

10th February 2005, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
Whether 49% or 51% might vote for an atheist is irrelevant. Even if 51% might vote for him he'd still be a no-hope candidate because a portion of the 49, 51 or however many % who might vote for him would choose not to for some other reason such as not agreeing eith him politically.

But still, it puts the assumption completely to lie.

The conclusion is devastatingly clear: As long as you have a religious faith of some sort, people will vote for you. If you don't, you can't win.(emphasis mine)

That was Claus's claim, and he has no evidence whatsoever for it.

shanek

10th February 2005, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by Lurker
While I agree there is some truth to what you say here, if we take it to be an absolute wouldn't it logically follow that all polls are meaningless?

No, it just shows that there are limitations to what polling can actually tell us. And that is absolutely true.

I agree there may be some minority that may do something else than how they responded to the poll but I would imagine it is small and perhaps has a tendency to balance out as some say "1" and do "2" while some say "2" and do "1".

In which case, we can say that on the balance about half of all Americans (as I'm sure the margin of error for the poll was at least 3%) would be willing to vote for an atheist President. Which, again, puts the claim completely to lie. Especially considering that you don't need a majority of the popular vote to become President.

Kerberos

10th February 2005, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by shanek
But still, it puts the assumption completely to lie.

(emphasis mine)

That was Claus's claim, and he has no evidence whatsoever for it.
It might be Claus's claim, but it isn't mine, sure an atheist could win against a suficiently poor opponent, but I do not believe that an atheist could win against an opponent, who is even remotly mainstream.

CFLarsen

10th February 2005, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Who said they should be? I said "might," as in potentially.

As potential as every American will vote for the same person.

Your critical thinking skills are piss-poor, because you don't consider the alternative possibility: That the "Don't know" might swing the other way and vote for an atheist.

Or maybe you did, but simply chose not to present it? If that is the case, then your critical thinking skills are non-existent.

I'd like to know which it is:

A) You didn't consider the alternative possibility.

or

B) You deliberately left out the alternative possibility.

A or B, shanek?

CFLarsen

10th February 2005, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by shanek
But still, it puts the assumption completely to lie.

What kind of lousy argumentation is that? You are shown wrong, but still claim that you are right?

Originally posted by shanek
That was Claus's claim, and he has no evidence whatsoever for it.

The evidence is very clear.

shanek

10th February 2005, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
It might be Claus's claim, but it isn't mine, sure an atheist could win against a suficiently poor opponent, but I do not believe that an atheist could win against an opponent, who is even remotly mainstream.

Again, that's assuming all other things are equal. See my comments on that above.

Lurker

10th February 2005, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by shanek
In which case, we can say that on the balance about half of all Americans (as I'm sure the margin of error for the poll was at least 3%) would be willing to vote for an atheist President. Which, again, puts the claim completely to lie. Especially considering that you don't need a majority of the popular vote to become President. [/B]

So, an atheist can only hope to get at most 50% of the vote and you think he stands a chance of winning?

Just for comparison, how many people would vote for a Christian? My bet is it would be around 99%. That's a big difference. I agree with Kerberos that it would have to be a terrible candidate to lose to an atheist. Terrible

I think you are somewhat influenced by your association here at JREF. I know I was back at the PResidential election. Subconcsously I had started thinking of JREF as a small cross-section of society and thought the liberal and moderate majoirty here at JREF that spoke against Bush represented the US at large. I started thinking Kerry might win. It did not and I realized the mistake I had made.

I think you subconsciously make the same mistake; that the people at JREF (many atheists) and their "enlightened" attitude towards religion as being unimportant represents the US. Sadly, they do not. As an American I can confidently tell you that in my opinion, an atheists does not stand a chance of being elected. I am willing to bet that we will not see it in my lifetime.

Lurker

CFLarsen

10th February 2005, 11:44 AM

Lurker,

Every now and then, I have an author who really, really wants to have his/her article published in SkepticReport, but prefers not to have his/her name publicised with it. They simply don't want their friends, colleagues and neighbors to know that they don't believe in God, or even are skeptical of, say, creationism.

And I can understand that, having lived in the US as well.

About a year ago, I and another Danish skeptic had a brief, but pleasant meeting with a skeptic from the US on visit to Scandinavia. She was seriously considering emigrating from the US, simply because she was fed up with the harrassment she got from her colleagues and neighbors. They were even dumping garbage on her lawn!

And why? Because she, in a careless moment, let on that she was an atheist.

Sure, it's anecdotes. Shanek can feel free to dismiss them. That would only prove that his anecdotes are evidence, but others' aren't.

Lurker

10th February 2005, 12:16 PM

Claus:

Anecodotal yes, but prevalent. As I think I have mentioned to you before, I am a Christian but a strong defender of atheism. My Christianity has been questioned numerous times because I have defended atheists from being called immoral and other vituperative attacks.

I also have a close friend who is an atheist. While I will be the first to admit he is a bit combative about his position, he has learned to not advertise the fact that he is an atheist. Too many people trying to convert him, or snidely insult him, or look down their noses at him. It just became a hassle for him.

Lurker

shanek

10th February 2005, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Lurker
So, an atheist can only hope to get at most 50% of the vote and you think he stands a chance of winning?

A person can get elected President with a vote total less than 20% of registered voters.

I think you are somewhat influenced by your association here at JREF.

I've made my influences and experience clear. No one has refuted them.

shanek

10th February 2005, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Lurker,

Every now and then, I have an author who really, really wants to have his/her article published in SkepticReport, but prefers not to have his/her name publicised with it. They simply don't want their friends, colleagues and neighbors to know that they don't believe in God, or even are skeptical of, say, creationism.

And I can understand that, having lived in the US as well.

About a year ago, I and another Danish skeptic had a brief, but pleasant meeting with a skeptic from the US on visit to Scandinavia. She was seriously considering emigrating from the US, simply because she was fed up with the harrassment she got from her colleagues and neighbors. They were even dumping garbage on her lawn!

And why? Because she, in a careless moment, let on that she was an atheist.

Sure, it's anecdotes. Shanek can feel free to dismiss them. That would only prove that his anecdotes are evidence, but others' aren't.

Claus, how does that in any way go to support your claim that "If you don't [have a religious faith of some sort], you can't win" or "that the US is invariably interconnected with a supernatural being"?

CFLarsen

10th February 2005, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by shanek
A person can get elected President with a vote total less than 20% of registered voters.

If unopposed, yes. Tell the whole story, please.

Originally posted by shanek
I've made my influences and experience clear. No one has refuted them.

Oh, yes. With evidence, no less. However, your opinion is not the final say on this.

Lurker

10th February 2005, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by shanek
A person can get elected President with a vote total less than 20% of registered voters.

Sure. Let's cut through the BS here. Do you, Shanek, think an atheist would stand a reasonable chance of being elected in a Presidential race against any candidate that was not a total disaster?

Me? As I mentioned before, I don't think so. There is a strong anti-athiest bias out there. Need I remind you that Bush Sr said atheists are not patriotic and perhaps should not even be considered citizens? Did he get excoriated for such a silly remark? Not that I recall. I wonder why not...

Lurker

Thanz

10th February 2005, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Of course, and I have no doubt that some of the people who answered that it wouldn't make any difference really would consider it a problem. But it seems equally obvious to me that many people who honestly think it's a problem (and maybe don't even think about it being prejudiced or bigoted) might very well vote for an atheist if everything else about him matched what they want in a candidate.
But you have nothing to back this up. Their answer to the question makes your statement here false. The question is designed as - if the candidate from YOUR PARTY was otherwise qualified, but an athiest, would you vote for them? And about half say "No". It sure makes it look like atheism is a tipping point kind of issue - especially considering the numbers for the other categories on the same question.
Yes, but again, people often say one thing in a hypothetical, completely meaning it, and yet do something else when faced with the reality of the situation.
In the abstract, yes. But you haven't given me anything in terms of facts or argument that would indicate any sort of significant deviation from the poll numbers. Possible? yes. Probable? There is nothing to indicate that it is. I think we should start from the premise that people will do as they say they will unless there is a good reason to doubt it. I haven't seen what that good reason could be from you - again, either in facts or in argument.
In one situation, we have a hypothetical candidate and the only thing we're told about him is that he's an atheist (other than the vague "otherwise qualified" thing). We're told nothing else about him, and nothing whatsoever about his opponent(s).
Not quite. We are also told that they are the candidate for YOUR party, whatever that may be. So, the assumption is that as a democrat (for example), the democratic candidate is qualified and happens to be an athiest. Do you vote for him? and half the people say "no"
In another situation, we have a real-life atheist candidate where the person in question may not even realize he's an atheist because it might not even come up, but who may have all sorts of other things in common with the voter, such as political philosophy, party affiliation, similar background, etc. Here, the person is given a lot more information about the candidate than his religious affiliation (and no one may even be making a big deal about that), and of course they also know about his opponent(s) and, even if they are prejudiced against atheists, may consider him the lesser of two evils. How many people vote on exactly that criteria?
I think that you are ignoring the essence of the question. It is immaterial who the other guy is for the question. Elections are not just "vote for A, or vote for B". Unfortunately, too many people just don't vote. Which may be the case for an athiest candidate - not that supporters vote for the other guy, they just don't vote for you.

I see it as being the same issue as makes economists evoke ceteris paribus. This effect will take place, as long as all other things are equal. If all other things are equal, the person will vote for a religious person over an atheist. But how often are all other things equal?
Can I remind you of this the next time you use ceteris paribus in an economic argument? Just say that it invalidates the argument because the real world is different?

Also given the fact that we haven't actually seen the issue come up to know what would happen. Now, I'm not saying there's a good chance we'll have an atheist President in 2008 or anything, just that I'm not comfortable assuming what will happen based on this one poll.
I think that the poll is much more interesting as an indicator of prejudice than as a predictor of electoral behaviour. And as an indicator of prejudice, it shows a significant prejudice against athiests. Just the fact that they answer in that manner, regardless of what may happen if it ever came to pass, indicates that prejudice.

Thanz

10th February 2005, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by shanek
As reported on skeptic.com, 49% said "Yes"...but there's a third option, "Don't know." How many people responded with "Don't know"? The implication here is being made that 51% would not vote for an atheist, but that assumes facts not in evidence. If even 2% answered "Don't know," then it's possible that 51% might vote for an atheist President.
From your second link:Between now and the 2000 political conventions, there will be discussion about the qualifications of presidential candidates -- their education, age, religion, race, and so on. If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be...An atheist...would you vote for that person? (1014 answered question)
Yes, would vote for that person (48.39%), No, would not (48.24%), DON'T KNOW/REFUSED (3.36%)
So, the yes and no factions are pretty even, with about 3% in the middle.

Please don't forget that this is being asked for people of their own party. It is saying that an athiest would lose about half of the support from people registered in his own party. If you think that an athiest (or for that matter, anyone) could get elected after losing the support of half of the people registered for your party, you are dreaming.

Let's say the democrats nominate an athiest. Given the latest election results, I think it is fair to say that the Democrats may be a little more tolerant to athiests - less bible thumpers. So, let's put the loss at a third rather than half the voters. The GOP puts up another Bush like dude. They lose very little, and gain some from the democrats. They go into the election, and Athiest has 66% support from his party. Bush clone has 95% from his party, and 10% from the lost democrats. Don't you think it would be an absolute landslide?

shanek

10th February 2005, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
If unopposed, yes. Tell the whole story, please.

No, Claus, not necessarily unopposed. Bush won with this percentage in 2000.

shanek

10th February 2005, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by Lurker
Sure. Let's cut through the BS here. Do you, Shanek, think an atheist would stand a reasonable chance of being elected in a Presidential race against any candidate that was not a total disaster?

Depends on what you mean by "reasonable." Was John Kerry's chances "reasonable"? And he was a Christian. If an atheist had no better chance than Kerry, it would still be comparable to what he had achieved.

Did Mondale have a reasonable chance in 1984? Same point as above.

There is a strong anti-athiest bias out there.

Sure, there is.

Need I remind you that Bush Sr said atheists are not patriotic and perhaps should not even be considered citizens?

Nope.

But I think that most people have priorities other than religion when selecting a candidate. In fact, the only issue that mattered in last year's election was what party the candidate belonged to.

shanek

10th February 2005, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
But you have nothing to back this up.

I have presented precisely as much as you have.

And about half say "No".

Again, we don't know that. We just know that 49% said "Yes." We don't know how many people said "Don't know." What if that were 15%? Then it would only be 36% who said "No."

Besides, 49% saying a definitive "Yes" in a country where 90%+ proclaim to be Christian? That should tell you something...

In the abstract, yes. But you haven't given me anything in terms of facts or argument that would indicate any sort of significant deviation from the poll numbers.

Neither have you. We're both just pointing out effects typical to polls. Neither one of us knows how that plays out in this particular one.

Also, assuming a 5% confidence interval, that means that there's a 1 in 20 chance that the numbers are completely and absurdly wrong.

I think we should start from the premise that people will do as they say they will unless there is a good reason to doubt it.

Fine. Then don't allow for an exception one way while not allowing for an exception the other way.

I think that you are ignoring the essence of the question. It is immaterial who the other guy is for the question. Elections are not just "vote for A, or vote for B". Unfortunately, too many people just don't vote. Which may be the case for an athiest candidate - not that supporters vote for the other guy, they just don't vote for you.

Well, that weakens your position. Because if that's the case, they won't register a vote for either candidate, while those who are left vote for you.

Can I remind you of this the next time you use ceteris paribus in an economic argument?

Absolutely. That's why I point it out.

Just say that it invalidates the argument because the real world is different?

No, it doesn't invalidate the argument. It just puts it into perspective.

There is a mountain of evidence that says that the minimum wage laws cause unemployment. It's not even a controversy in economic circles. But that means that ceteris paribus you will have increased unemployment when you raise the minimum wage. If, for example, you're entering a period of prosperity, unemployment is going to drop at a rate faster than the increased minimum wage can pull it up. So you'll see a minimum wage with decreasing unemployment. It doesn't mean that the minimum wage doesn't cause unemployment; it just means that there are other factors at stake.

I think that the poll is much more interesting as an indicator of prejudice than as a predictor of electoral behaviour.

I agree. But it is being presented here as a predictor.

And as an indicator of prejudice, it shows a significant prejudice against athiests.

I have never denied that such exists.

shanek

10th February 2005, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
From your second link:

Interesting. I only see asterisks:

Yes, would vote for that person ( *%), No, would not ( *%), DON'T KNOW/REFUSED (*%)

So, the yes and no factions are pretty even, with about 3% in the middle.

What's interesting is that the percentage saying "No" is less (albeit slightly) than the percentage saying "Yes." So then, ceteris paribus, being an atheist would help more than hurt.

(By the way, I'm ignoring the points about the "same party" because it's a bogus point for this question; they're referring specifically to the nominating conventions. So of course you want to ask about only one's own party, and in that you have significantly more than one candidate to choose from!)

Beerina

10th February 2005, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by c0rbin
I cringe everytime I hear the words "founded on Christian principles." I have no problem with someone suggesting that the Constitution and Christianity share similar principals, but going beyond that is inaccurate, contradictory, and retrograde thinking.

Ironically, if they truly followed the important principles people see as the good side of Christianity, then we'd arguably be in a freer society. Isn't one such principle turning the other cheek? (Of course, it would break down as you couldn't imprison even murderers.)

Another such would be wondering where, oh where, did Jesus say to take money from the rich at the point of a gun and give it to the poor. Or even the middle class. Or anybody, and give it to anybody else, for any reason, at the point of a gun?

Methinks if a Christian God truly exists, far, far, far fewer Christians are going to Heaven than they think.

Earthborn

10th February 2005, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by Beerina
Another such would be wondering where, oh where, did Jesus say to take money from the rich at the point of a gun and give it to the poor. Or even the middle class. Or anybody, and give it to anybody else, for any reason, at the point of a gun?Of course there were no guns at Jesus time, so it's a bit strange to expect this. :)

The words atrributed to Jesus leave no doubt however about how he felt about rich people. Instead of taking money from the rich at the point of a gun, he expresses himself more strongly in favour of forcing rich people give to the poor. If the rich don't give all their possessions to the poor, they risk eternal damnation: "It is more likely for a camel to crawl through the eye of a needle, than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God."

Make of that what you want, but it sounds to me like he argues that rich people do not have any moral rights to their property at all.

DavidJames

10th February 2005, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by shanek
In fact, the only issue that mattered in last year's election was what party the candidate belonged to. Really? Care to share those facts which led you to this unequivocal, no wiggle room assertion.

Of course there are people who will blindly choose based on party, but to claim it's the only reason you sure must have some dandy evidence to back that up.

shanek

10th February 2005, 07:53 PM

shanek

10th February 2005, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn
Of course there were no guns at Jesus time, so it's a bit strange to expect this. :)

There were so! Didn't you see Jesus Christ Superstar? :p

The words atrributed to Jesus leave no doubt however about how he felt about rich people. Instead of taking money from the rich at the point of a gun, he expresses himself more strongly in favour of forcing rich people give to the poor.

When did Jesus ever use or condone the use of force to accomplish this?

If the rich don't give all their possessions to the poor, they risk eternal damnation: "It is more likely for a camel to crawl through the eye of a needle, than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God."

That isn't what he was talking about. He was talking about the corrupting influence money has, not that they'll be punished for refusing to give to the poor.

And remember that Jesus rebuked Judas after he got on Mary's case for buying expensive oils instead of saving the money for the poor. He told them to appreciate what they had. So it was hardly an absolute.

shanek

10th February 2005, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by DavidJames
Really? Care to share those facts which led you to this unequivocal, no wiggle room assertion.

Just look at the vote totals, combined with the turnout figures. Republicans showed up in droves. Do you really think the people whose presence constituted that additional turnout were ones that had studied the issues?

I saw a lot of people go in to the polls when I was stumping. It was a steady flow throughout the day. But I'm unaware of anyone who waited more than 10 minutes in that long line, except for the exceptionally long ones at breakfast and lunch time. They didn't have time to do anything other than vote straight party.

Earthborn

10th February 2005, 10:15 PM

When did Jesus ever use or condone the use of force to accomplish this?Saying that someone will be excluded from the Kingdom of God, which means ending up in the 'furnace' where there is 'wailing and gnashing of teeth' does not strike you as a threat of force by God himself?

Jesus himself has used force against the money changers in the temple. You can interpret it anyway you like, but to me it looks like he was no friend of the rich.That isn't what he was talking about. He was talking about the corrupting influence money has, not that they'll be punished for refusing to give to the poor.Uhm, no. A rich man asked him what he had to do to get eternal life, and Jesus told him that it wasn't enough to follow the commandments, he also had to give away everything he had to poor.And remember that Jesus rebuked Judas after he got on Mary's case for buying expensive oils instead of saving the money for the poor. He told them to appreciate what they had. So it was hardly an absolute.Demanding that the rich give everything to the poor does not mean the poor are not allowed save up money to buy expensive oil to anoint their loved ones who are about to die.

Earthborn

10th February 2005, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by shanek
They didn't have time to do anything other than vote straight party.I'm not too familiar with voting in the US. Can you explain why it would have taken people more time to vote for the candidate they wanted instead of a party?

In a party list democracy as we have around here, people vote for a specific candidate as part of party list. Whether someone votes for that person because s/he is belongs to a specific party, or whether someone votes specifically for that person is irrelevant and can't be determined.

CFLarsen

10th February 2005, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Just look at the vote totals, combined with the turnout figures. Republicans showed up in droves. Do you really think the people whose presence constituted that additional turnout were ones that had studied the issues?

No, because modern politics isn't about the issues. It's all about personality.

Originally posted by shanek
I saw a lot of people go in to the polls when I was stumping. It was a steady flow throughout the day. But I'm unaware of anyone who waited more than 10 minutes in that long line, except for the exceptionally long ones at breakfast and lunch time. They didn't have time to do anything other than vote straight party.

Rubbish. You believe that people only think about the election when they stand in line? People (well, not Libertarians, of course) are simply mindless sheep?

How condescending.

You forget the incessant media focus on the candidates' persons. Lives, families, values. Not a lot of politics, all about character.

Which is why Americans wouldn't want to see a Godless atheist as their president. Atheists are seen as immoral, lower-class citizens in the US.

You really want to dispute that? Go ahead.

CFLarsen

11th February 2005, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by shanek
No, Claus, not necessarily unopposed. Bush won with this percentage in 2000.

Wrong. Again.

Presidential Candidate: George W. BUSH
Party: The Republican Party
Electoral Votes Received: 271
Valid Votes Received: 50,461,080

Number of registered voters: 141,850,558 (From 1998 elections, figure excludes North Dakota and Wisconsin)

Source: CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/election.watch/americas/usa4.html)

Which means Bush won with 36% of the registered voters. Not 20%, like you claimed.

Don't you ever check anything??

Lurker

11th February 2005, 05:46 AM

Originally posted by shanek
What's interesting is that the percentage saying "No" is less (albeit slightly) than the percentage saying "Yes." So then, ceteris paribus, being an atheist would help more than hurt.

No, you don't know how to properly apply the poll results. If it is split 50/50 that DOES NOT mean 50% will vote for the atheist. It certainly does lok like 50% WILL NOT though as they have already said they would not. Of the 50% who may, they may be swayed by party association and issues.

The point is, THE BEST the atehist could get is 50%. The best the Christian could get is 100%. You do not see the difference there?

Lurker

shanek

11th February 2005, 06:18 AM

Originally posted by Earthborn
Uhm, no. A rich man asked him what he had to do to get eternal life, and Jesus told him that it wasn't enough to follow the commandments, he also had to give away everything he had to poor.

The phrase appears three times in the Gospels. Once in Matthew 19:

23 Then Jesus said to His disciples, "Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." 25 When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?" 26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Hard. Not impossible.

Mark 10, same story:

23 Then Jesus looked around and said to His disciples, "How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!" 24 And the disciples were astonished at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, "Children, how hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." 26 And they were greatly astonished, saying among themselves, "Who then can be saved?" 27 But Jesus looked at them and said, "With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible."

And Luke 18, 25-28 says the same.

I stand by my interpretation.

shanek

11th February 2005, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by Earthborn
I'm not too familiar with voting in the US. Can you explain why it would have taken people more time to vote for the candidate they wanted instead of a party?

Because to vote for the candidates you actually have to go down the list checking individual boxes. To vote straight party, it's just one box at the top. Or one button on voting machines.

shanek

11th February 2005, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Rubbish. You believe that people only think about the election when they stand in line? People (well, not Libertarians, of course) are simply mindless sheep?

How condescending.

No, Claus, it;s true. I talked to the people goging into the polls. Only a scant few said they had already made up their minds. And a lot of them said they were just going to vote straight Republican.

So stop making claims about things you don't know the first thing about.

shanek

11th February 2005, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Which means Bush won with 36% of the registered voters. Not 20%, like you claimed.

Don't you ever check anything??

Nice bit of dishonesty, there, using votes from 2000 but registered voters from 1998. According to the Center for Voting and Democracy, the increase in the number of registered voters between 1998 and 2000 was ten times the increase in turnout. Turnout in some states was as low as 40%. For example, in Arizona, 51% voted for Bush but turnout was only 42%. So he was chosen with only 21.4% of the Arizona vote. Nevada chose him with a close 50% but only had 43% turnout, choosing him by 21.5%. And this assumes that everyone who showed up cast a vote for President; that's certainly not the case.

I think it's time to put you on ignore. You have nothing to offer this forum but lies and personal attacks.

Good-bye, loser.

shanek

11th February 2005, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by Lurker
No, you don't know how to properly apply the poll results. If it is split 50/50 that DOES NOT mean 50% will vote for the atheist. It certainly does lok like 50% WILL NOT though as they have already said they would not.

Uh, excuse me? 50% specifically answered "Yes" to "would you vote for that person." They said they would vote for the atheist. You can't have it both ways; you don't get to dismiss the fact that more people said they would vote for the atheist than said they wouldn't.

Of the 50% who may, they may be swayed by party association and issues.

They didn't say they would.

Thanz

11th February 2005, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by shanek
I have presented precisely as much as you have.
Well, no. I have the poll results on my side - you have nothing.
Again, we don't know that. We just know that 49% said "Yes." We don't know how many people said "Don't know." What if that were 15%? Then it would only be 36% who said "No."
Covered elsewhere.
Besides, 49% saying a definitive "Yes" in a country where 90%+ proclaim to be Christian? That should tell you something...
Yes. It telss me that a lot of self-proclaimed Christians do not live by what I would consider Christian principles.
Neither have you. We're both just pointing out effects typical to polls. Neither one of us knows how that plays out in this particular one.

Also, assuming a 5% confidence interval, that means that there's a 1 in 20 chance that the numbers are completely and absurdly wrong.
Hardly a great argument. The trend is consistent over time. I have conceded that there may be problems with polls in general. But you haven't presented a reason why there may be a problem with THIS poll.
Fine. Then don't allow for an exception one way while not allowing for an exception the other way.
I don't think I am. I am just presenting an argument for why someone might say X and do Y, based on perceptions of bigotry. You have just said that people may say Y and do X, which I agree is possible, but I don't see the reason why that would be so. I have asked for the reason, but you haven't provided one.
Well, that weakens your position. Because if that's the case, they won't register a vote for either candidate, while those who are left vote for you.
I don't think it does, as the other guy still gets all the votes from his party. you have to make do with less than full support.

Thanz

11th February 2005, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Interesting. I only see asterisks:
Obviously, I am just cooler than you. :p
What's interesting is that the percentage saying "No" is less (albeit slightly) than the percentage saying "Yes." So then, ceteris paribus, being an atheist would help more than hurt.
I think Lurker has covered this, but this argument makes no sense. If the question is "If your party nominated a qualified candidate for president, would you vote for him?" the answer should be pretty close to 100%. But when you ask them "if your party nominated a qualified candidate for president who was an athiest, would you vote for him?" the support gets cut in half. There is no way this can be seen as helping more than hurting.
(By the way, I'm ignoring the points about the "same party" because it's a bogus point for this question; they're referring specifically to the nominating conventions. So of course you want to ask about only one's own party, and in that you have significantly more than one candidate to choose from!)
I disagree. Here is the question again: "If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be...An atheist...would you vote for that person?" The question talks about the person nominated (past tense) for president. Not a question of who do you want nominated, or who would you vote for to BE nominated, but rather AFTER the nomination has been decided, your party puts up a generally qualified athiest. Do you vote for him? and the answer is close to 50% no.

CFLarsen

11th February 2005, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Nice bit of dishonesty, there, using votes from 2000 but registered voters from 1998. According to the Center for Voting and Democracy, the increase in the number of registered voters between 1998 and 2000 was ten times the increase in turnout. Turnout in some states was as low as 40%. For example, in Arizona, 51% voted for Bush but turnout was only 42%. So he was chosen with only 21.4% of the Arizona vote. Nevada chose him with a close 50% but only had 43% turnout, choosing him by 21.5%. And this assumes that everyone who showed up cast a vote for President; that's certainly not the case.

I think it's time to put you on ignore. You have nothing to offer this forum but lies and personal attacks.

Good-bye, loser.

Ah, the Drama Queen tactics. I'm not surprised.

The Center for Voting and Democracy links to the Federal Election Commission:

States reported a total of 149,476,705 active registered voters for the 2000 federal general election. Active voter registration in those states covered by the NVRA rose slightly to 73.80 percent of the Voting Age Population (VAP) in 2000, as compared with 73.45 percent in 1996, while active voter registration nationwide (including states not covered by the NVRA) declined slightly to 72.63 percent in 2000 from the 1996 all-time high of 72.77 percent.
Source (http://www.fec.gov/press/press2001/062101nvra.html)

149 million registered voters. That fits with the 1998 numbers, Wisconsin and North Dakota excluded, plus, of course, the general increase in population size.

So, Bush got 50,461,080 votes. 34% of the registered votes, and not - I repeat: not - as you claimed, 20%.

I have no idea where you got that "ten times" stuff from, but it is clearly fallacious. You have been shown wrong, yet again.

I can understand why you put me on ignore. It won't stop me from pointing out where you are wrong, and where you spin. And I'm being nice here.

CFLarsen

11th February 2005, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by shanek
No, Claus, it;s true. I talked to the people goging into the polls. Only a scant few said they had already made up their minds. And a lot of them said they were just going to vote straight Republican.

So stop making claims about things you don't know the first thing about.

Once again, you extrapolate from your own, very limited experiences. You talk to some people at one polling station, and immediately think that it is representative of the whole country.

Lurker

11th February 2005, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Uh, excuse me? 50% specifically answered "Yes" to "would you vote for that person." They said they would vote for the atheist. You can't have it both ways; you don't get to dismiss the fact that more people said they would vote for the atheist than said they wouldn't.

Let me get this straight, you are saying a candidate being an atheist would immediately attract 50% of the vote despite any other positions? Republicans that answered "yes" to this question would vote for an atheist Democrat and vice-versa?

Clearly you have no idea how to apply the poll results. What it tells us is that for many people, a candidate being an atheist would immediately eliminate theem from consideration.

Again, you ignore my other point. What do you think the percentage would be if instead of atheist we used Christian. I posit it would be 99% would vote for a Christian and ~1% (or less never would.

Again, an atheist is limited to 50% of the vote and a Christian is limited to 99% of the vote. No bias against atheists in your mind? Dream on...

Lurker

Lurker

11th February 2005, 10:17 AM

Shanek:

By the way, at my polling station you had to punch cards and you could not punch one place to get all the candidates of one party. You had to punch for each contest.

I suppose each distrcit has different technology.

Lurker

Kerberos

11th February 2005, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by Lurker
Let me get this straight, you are saying a candidate being an atheist would immediately attract 50% of the vote despite any other positions? Republicans that answered "yes" to this question would vote for an atheist Democrat and vice-versa?

Clearly you have no idea how to apply the poll results. What it tells us is that for many people, a candidate being an atheist would immediately eliminate theem from consideration.
Nononono, Shanek is totally right, an atheist would get 49% of the vote, of course a woman would get 95% a black would get 92% and a homosexual would get 59%. (http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9527.htm) So obviously a party should norminate a black, homosexual, atheist woman who would clearly get a whooping 295% of the vote, thus soundly defeating any conventional candidate. Of course even this super candidate would be defeated by a black, homosexual, catholic woman who would get 340% of the vote since catholics enjoy support from 94%. I wonder why no party have ever thought of this brilliant strategy.

shanek

11th February 2005, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
Well, no. I have the poll results on my side - you have nothing.

Uh, Thanz, the claims are about the poll results. So you can't claim they back you up; that's assuming the conclusion.

Yes. It telss me that a lot of self-proclaimed Christians do not live by what I would consider Christian principles.

Christian principles say not to support non-Christians, even when they're perfect for the job?

What about the Good Samaritan?

Hardly a great argument. The trend is consistent over time.

No, the trend is increasing over time. That means things are getting better.

I have conceded that there may be problems with polls in general. But you haven't presented a reason why there may be a problem with THIS poll.

You haven't presented any reasons why the problems with polls in general don't apply to this one, either.

I don't think I am. I am just presenting an argument for why someone might say X and do Y, based on perceptions of bigotry. You have just said that people may say Y and do X, which I agree is possible, but I don't see the reason why that would be so.

I have explained the reason in great detail.

I have asked for the reason, but you haven't provided one.

That is absolutely not true. I described it in detail, and you responded to it.

I don't think it does, as the other guy still gets all the votes from his party. you have to make do with less than full support.

And again, many Presidents have been elected with less than full support.

CFLarsen

11th February 2005, 12:11 PM

Total denial.

shanek

11th February 2005, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by Lurker
Let me get this straight, you are saying a candidate being an atheist would immediately attract 50% of the vote despite any other positions?

If we take the poll at face value, which all of you are insisting that we do, then yes.

Republicans that answered "yes" to this question would vote for an atheist Democrat and vice-versa?

No, the poll specifically said "your party."

Clearly you have no idea how to apply the poll results. What it tells us is that for many people, a candidate being an atheist would immediately eliminate theem from consideration.

And for many others, it woudln't. It seems to balance out, 50-50.

Again, you ignore my other point.

No, I don't; I've already explained why it's invalid.

No bias against atheists in your mind? Dream on...

I never said this. Cut with the strawmen.

Thanz

11th February 2005, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Uh, Thanz, the claims are about the poll results. So you can't claim they back you up; that's assuming the conclusion.
I see what you are saying. But with respect, you are the one with the heavy burden. I am claiming that we should assume that people will do what they say, unless there is a good reason to doubt it. You even agreed with this premise. In order to shift the poll results to any significant degree, you need to come up with a specific reason to doubt their word - something other than polls are sometimes unreliable. That just isn't good enough.
Christian principles say not to support non-Christians, even when they're perfect for the job?

What about the Good Samaritan?
Interesting. The people who I was referring to are the ones who change their vote to "No" based solely on the candidates Athiesm. Why did you assume the other way?
No, the trend is increasing over time. That means things are getting better.
Indeed they are. But they still show a consistent, significant bias against athiests - even more so than against homosexuals.
You haven't presented any reasons why the problems with polls in general don't apply to this one, either.
Perhaps because I am not saying that they don't. But if that is your only argument, it is quite weak. It is simply not enough to shift the significance of the poll. The poll is strong evidence in favour of a particular position. You don't have any contrary evidence, and your only attack on the poll is general instead of specific. That makes your position and argument quite weak.
I have explained the reason in great detail.
I must have missed it. Are you just referring to the general "sometimes people say X and do Y" thing? That is not enough. I need to know WHY you think they would say X and do Y - like I explained why I thought someone would say they would vote for a woman and then not do it.
That is absolutely not true. I described it in detail, and you responded to it.
I am confused then. Can you please indicate the posts you are talking about?

shanek

11th February 2005, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
I see what you are saying. But with respect, you are the one with the heavy burden. I am claiming that we should assume that people will do what they say, unless there is a good reason to doubt it.

With respect, no, you aren't claiming that at all:

The poll is essentially asking people to own up to their prejudices. I think that in general, people don't want to be thought of as prejudiced or bigoted. For example, someone might say that they would vote for a woman in order to avoid being labelled as sexist in the hypothetical, but in real life they would not vote for the woman. It may not even be overt - the prejudice may manifest in ways that make the person believe they are deciding on some other basis, even if a truly objective analysis of that basis reveals it to be without merit.

It would be naive to think that prejudice has been overcome to the degree suggested by the poll. I think that the 90%+ numbers are unfortunately too high for real life.

Again, you can't have it both ways.

Interesting. The people who I was referring to are the ones who change their vote to "No" based solely on the candidates Athiesm. Why did you assume the other way?

You said it went against Christian principles. That's what I was referring to.

Indeed they are. But they still show a consistent, significant bias against athiests - even more so than against homosexuals.

When did I ever say the opposite?

Perhaps because I am not saying that they don't. But if that is your only argument, it is quite weak.

Your argument quoted above is every bit as weak.

The poll is strong evidence in favour of a particular position.

The poll is a 50-50 split.

I must have missed it. Are you just referring to the general "sometimes people say X and do Y" thing?

I'm referring to the argument that people react differently in different situaitons. When they were asked the question in the poll, the very wording of the question automatically made the candidate's atheism the foremost, nay, the only, issue. I really, truly, and sincerely doubt that it would be such if an atheist candidate were to really run.

That is not enough. I need to know WHY you think they would say X and do Y

I have.

I am confused then. Can you please indicate the posts you are talking about?

This one:

In one situation, we have a hypothetical candidate and the only thing we're told about him is that he's an atheist (other than the vague "otherwise qualified" thing). We're told nothing else about him, and nothing whatsoever about his opponent(s).

In another situation, we have a real-life atheist candidate where the person in question may not even realize he's an atheist because it might not even come up, but who may have all sorts of other things in common with the voter, such as political philosophy, party affiliation, similar background, etc. Here, the person is given a lot more information about the candidate than his religious affiliation (and no one may even be making a big deal about that), and of course they also know about his opponent(s) and, even if they are prejudiced against atheists, may consider him the lesser of two evils. How many people vote on exactly that criteria?

I see it as being the same issue as makes economists evoke ceteris paribus. This effect will take place, as long as all other things are equal. If all other things are equal, the person will vote for a religious person over an atheist. But how often are all other things equal?

Also given the fact that we haven't actually seen the issue come up to know what would happen. Now, I'm not saying there's a good chance we'll have an atheist President in 2008 or anything, just that I'm not comfortable assuming what will happen based on this one poll.

Lurker

11th February 2005, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by shanek
No, the poll specifically said "your party."

And for many others, it woudln't. It seems to balance out, 50-50.

Balance out? How so? If 99% of people say they would vote for a Christian is that balanced out?

Shanek, I fear you and I will go round and round on this. Did you notice you again stand alone in your *odd* interpretation of the poll results? I don't think the denizens of JREF, by and large, are ignorant fools.

Lurker

Lurker

11th February 2005, 01:40 PM

Let's try another tack here. The question I have is whether a political candidate being atheist is a neutral position.

Think of abortion, if we polled people to ask if they would vote for a candidate that supported abortion we would expect to get some percentage like 40% who say they would and let's say 40% who would not.

Now, is abortion a neutral issue? No, it is not because if the issue were neutral we would expect to see the number of people who would NOT vote for a candidate who supported abortion to be close to 0.

If I have another poll that asked if you would vote for a candidate that was of European ancestry and 99% said they would and 1% said they would not, I would classify European ancestry as a fairly neutral trait.

If I had anotehr poll that asked if you would vote for a candidate that wore jeans from time to time and 100% said they would, I would classify that as a trait that has no impact, or is totally neutral.

So wearing jeans and European ancestry are fairly neutral traits in regards to politics.

Abortion and (dare I say it) atheism are not.

I hope my imperfect example helps.

Lurker