Democratic Party Embraces Nonreligious Voters Officially

[Cheerful Charlie]

https://secular.org/2019/08/democratic-p...r-meeting/

Democratic Party embraces nonreligious voters at annual summer meeting

Press Release / August 26, 2019
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) this past Saturday embraced American nonbelievers for the first time, adopting a resolution that recognizes their contributions to society and to the Democratic Party.
This move by the DNC, which was unanimous absent one abstention, demonstrates that they are living up to the big-tent inclusive values they regularly espouse, though it also shows they recognize the value of courting the largest, fastest growing religious demographic in the nation.  It was first passed in the DNC’s Resolutions Committee on Thursday.
At nearly one quarter of the total U.S. population, nonreligious Americans—one third of which are Democrats and nearly half of which are independent—will represent a sizeable voting bloc in the upcoming election. This resolution marks the first time a major U.S. political party has specifically courted religiously unaffiliated people across the nation.
...

Finally, nonreligious voters can have a political party that does not demonize them.  Progress is being made.

[Minimalist]

They may as well because the Trumptard morons will stick with their Chosen One.... the philandering, criminal, traitor, who has so much in common with their silly-assed godboy.

Meanwhile the Nones will continue to grow and the religitards will die out.

No loss to anyone.

[grympy]

Atheism and being other than heterosexual are not political issues in Oz. It has been traditional for Labor politicians to be atheist. Pretty sure most Labor Prime Ministers have been atheist. Now, are are several openly gay politicians in parliament. Penny Wong is one, and a minister of the crown . Some dickhead made the mistake of criticising her and her wife for having a baby. There have been no criticisms since.

Aussies don't like long forms, especially if the think they are intrusive.So ,where the census asks about one's religion thousands of Aussies have been writing "Jedi" . Some 60,000 . That's 0.37% of our population, not far below Scientologists.

The Australian Atheist Foundation has had a campaign urging people to write "no religion" if that really is the case. Currently there are enough Jedi to effect funding in various ways, perhaps less than ideal to many atheist.

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

O/T: I've always though Barack Obama was atheist. Perhaps elitist of me; I've alway thought of him as far too intelligent, educated and informed to be theist .That he didn't dare to ever say so so publicly because so many voters are too fuck witted to be able to separate church and state .

Thoughts?

[Minimalist]

I agree.  Intelligent people simply cannot be dumb enough to believe the nonsense that any type of religitard puts forward.  They can, as with Obama, fake it quite well.

[arakish]

And I find it, as Mr. Spock would say, "Fascinating."

I also find this amusing.  As if I could care.  The Democrats are still 90+/-% religitards.
Does not mean I shall vote for any of them.

Ain't no damned politician ever been worth my vote.

I vote by writing in Jean-Luc Picard for President and William T. Riker for Vice President.

All politicians deserve a one way trip to Hell.

In all my many decades of life, I have found only three things require no intelligence:

1. Stupidity
   
2. Religion
   
3. Politician
   

I am absolutley positively sure about the last two, but not so sure about the first one.

rmfr

[mordant]

And I find it, as Mr. Spock would say, "Fascinating."

I also find this amusing.  As if I could care.  The Democrats are still 90+/-% religitards.
Does not mean I shall vote for any of them.

Ain't no damned politician ever been worth my vote.

I vote by writing in Jean-Luc Picard for President and William T. Riker for Vice President.

All politicians deserve a one way trip to Hell.

In all my many decades of life, I have found only three things require no intelligence:

1. Stupidity
   
2. Religion
   
3. Politician
   

I am absolutley positively sure about the last two, but not so sure about the first one.

rmfr

This is definitely a case where the perfect is the enemy of the good. You're basically saying that democracy doesn't work. The alternatives are better then? No, they wouldn't be, either, because politicians, and by extension, politics and public policy are inherently corrupt and unworkable.

So in other words politics involves people, therefore, there's no point in trying to make it work, and you're not suggesting any alternatives either.

Makes it easy for you at least, as you enjoy the benefits of civil society until it collapses -- in part because folks like you won't participate.

[Thumpalumpacus]

They may as well because the Trumptard morons will stick with their Chosen One.... the philandering, criminal, traitor, who has so much in common with their silly-assed godboy.

Meanwhile the Nones will continue to grow and the religitards will die out.

No loss to anyone.

I think the tides of history and demographics are against the Repubs.   I'm not sure how right or wrong I am.

[Thumpalumpacus]

O/T:  I've always though Barack Obama was atheist.   Perhaps elitist of me; I've alway thought of him as far too intelligent, educated and informed to be theist .That he didn't dare to ever say so  so publicly because so many voters are too  fuck witted to be able to separate church and state .

Thoughts?

It's a possibility. He could also be a well-compartmentalized believer. I don't know and would be surprised if many outside his family know. He strikes me as circumspect.

[grympy]

O/T:  I've always though Barack Obama was atheist.   Perhaps elitist of me; I've alway thought of him as far too intelligent, educated and informed to be theist .That he didn't dare to ever say so  so publicly because so many voters are too  fuck witted to be able to separate church and state .

Thoughts?

It's a possibility. He could also be a well-compartmentalized believer. I don't know and would be surprised if many outside his family know. He strikes me as circumspect.

He strikes me as circumspect

Well yes, and?  The man is seasoned, highly intelligent, professional politician . Are you using 'circumspect' as a polite  euphemism for 'hypocrite?'

( I don't really believe there is a provable link between  intelligence, knowledge  and theism or atheism.  Spend  a bit of time on this or any other atheist forum if you think I'm mistaken )

Gore Vidal  said in an interview, "A person who becomes president has  already been bought ten times over." Not saying I necessarily agree. However, my political position is based on the notion of realpolitik .  

[SYZ]

Ain't no damned politician ever been worth my vote.

I vote by writing in Jean-Luc Picard for President and William T. Riker for Vice President...

In my opinion, an informal vote is as bad as a non-vote (obviously) and shows a lack of necessary
interest in our democratic political mechanisms.  A deliberately "spoilt" vote is an abrogation of peoples'
duty to preserve the very system of democracy that allows them to make such a silly decision, and
can only be seen as counterproductive in the overall process of appointing a government.

And all too often, those same non-voters have the temerity to talk shit about politicians they may've
well thrown out of power had they used their vote in a responsible manner.  As far as I'm concerned,
for example, any American who voted informally at the 2016 election simply helped Trump to defeat
Clinton, by an error of omission.  No informal voter thus has the right to criticise Trump's performance
as you get the government you deserve.

US voter turnout in 2016 was an absurdly low 61% of the citizen voting-age population.  This compares
unfavourably with the more than 91% voter turnout here in Australia in 2016.  And the Americans are
now wondering how or why Trump made it to the Oval Office!

[Cheerful Charlie]

Sometimes, you have a choice. Half a loaf or a warm cow flop. Trump is what you get if you aren't careful and don't get out there and vote for the best alternative.

[Minimalist]

I vote by writing in Jean-Luc Picard for President and William T. Riker for Vice President.

Then you may as well save yourself the trouble of voting because you accomplish nothing.  It is not a "protest."  No one will give a flying fuck what you did.

Being a cipher helps no one, except fucking Trump.

[SYZ]

A bit off-topic, but these are a couple of detailed observations about Australian political
leaders and their religious or non-religious status.  On noticeable point is the fact that
our first female prime minister was pilloried by the media for three principal reasons:
Her publicly confirmed atheism, being a childless female, and being unmarried to her partner.

The religious beliefs of Australia's prime ministers, by Professor of political science John Warhurst

and

Best of 2011: God under Gillard, by Professor of modern history Marion Maddox which includes a critique of Warhurst's writing.

[grympy]

A bit off-topic, but these are a couple of detailed observations about Australian political
leaders and their religious or non-religious status.  On noticeable point is the fact that
our first female prime minister was pilloried by the media for three principal reasons:
Her publicly confirmed atheism, being a childless female, and being unmarried to her partner.

The religious beliefs of Australia's prime ministers, by Professor of political science John Warhurst

and

Best of 2011: God under Gillard, by Professor of modern history Marion Maddox which includes a critique of Warhurst's writing.

Fascinating stuff, thanks

I loathed Lady Macbeth on her own merits ; she was  treacherous .  However, I was appalled at the  way she was treated because she was a woman.  I doubt it had anything to do with her atheism.

   Would love to see Penny Wong as PM ; rather her than Mr Bland 

 I believe there is a lot of truth  in the aphorism 'It doesn't matter for whom you vote; you always get a politician" (unless of course you vote for One Nation, in which case you get a moron. Or Clive Palmer; exactly like Donald Trump, except for Donald's charm and panache )

[SYZ]

...I doubt it had anything to do with her atheism.

From Eureka Street, Aug 2010:

Perth's [Australia] Catholic Archbishop Barry Hickey recently drew attention to Julia Gillard's
atheism and its potential to harm the interests of the Church. He said that her atheism might
influence Christian voters not to vote Labor. Some took his statement to mean that a vote for
Gillard is a vote for atheism, and that therefore Christians should choose non-Labor candidates
with Christian beliefs.

Hickey sees Gillard's "out and proud" atheism as a sign that her leadership could be conducive to
the flourishing of organised hostility towards churches and religious belief.

This position of intolerance ascribed to Hickey is not far removed from that of a dis-endorsed Liberal
candidate for a Western Sydney seat, whose ALP opponent happened to be a Muslim. He said: "I
don't know if we want at this stage in Australian politics a Muslim in the parliament and an atheist
running the government".

It could've been a mistake for Gillard to "declare" her atheism, almost as if she was giving witness
to a firmly held religious belief.  Atheism signifies a lack of belief. There's not a lot that can be said
about it without running the risk of it becoming a belief and its believers adopting the religious
posturing most atheists abhor.

Speech-writers encouraged Gillard, at the time, to use the language of Christian faith freely at times
of national grief, despite her professed atheism.  In expressing her, and the nation's, heartfelt
sympathies with the families of the victims of a fatal mining disaster earlier that week, Gillard had
pointedly avoided using religious language.  In a recorded statement, she simply expressed her
"condolences, best wishes, sympathy and support".  No "prayers".

Would love to see Penny Wong as PM...

Agreed.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I agree.  Intelligent people simply cannot be dumb enough to believe the nonsense that any type of religitard puts forward.  They can, as with Obama, fake it quite well.

The Right Things To Say® are so often repeated than many lifelong atheists can fake it without a hesitation.

[GenesisNemesis]

No atheist can call themselves rational and support the theocratic right wing, and no rational person can support authoritarianism, which is fundamentally hostile to critical/rational thought.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well yes, and?  The man is seasoned, highly intelligent, professional politician . Are you using 'circumspect' as a polite  euphemism for 'hypocrite?'

I know you're new here and probably don't know this about me, but I don't traffic in euphemism. As a writer by hobby I make it a practice to choose the exact word that I mean. I detest weak and neutered language. When you read a post from me it's best to take my words at face value. In this case, I meant "circumspect" in exactly its standard meaning.

In the future, you're best off reading my posts as the product of a straightforward person. While I love metaphor, synecdoche, and the other expressive tools of the writing trade, when I'm expressing an opinion, I will phrase it in the clearest language I can muster.

( I don't really believe there is a provable link between  intelligence, knowledge  and theism or atheism.  Spend  a bit of time on this or any other atheist forum if you think I'm mistaken )

Regarding forums, I've been around the virtual block a little, Grymp.

I don't assert any connection between intelligence and religiosity, and I'm a little baffled as to why you seem to be chiding me over a view I haven't expressed and do not hold.

Gore Vidal  said in an interview, "A person who becomes president has  already been bought ten times over." Not saying I necessarily agree. However, my political position is based on the notion of realpolitik .   

Hmm. I've always associated Realpolitik with a specific foreign-policy outlook, Bismarckian. Correct to say, then, that a preference for that is a touchstone in your decisions whom to vote for and whatnot?

ETA: If you wish to reply to a post here, all you need to do is press the "reply" button in the lower right corner of the pertinent post, and then just make sure that in the ensuing reply page, you place your reply outside the quote tags:

[ quote]Original post you're answering [ /quote]

Your reply goes here, after the "[ /quote]". Note that the quote-tags will not have any spaces. I've added them here so the software won't parse them as a command, and display them instead.

[grympy]

Well yes, and?  The man is seasoned, highly intelligent, professional politician . Are you using 'circumspect' as a polite  euphemism for 'hypocrite?'

I know you're new here and probably don't know this about me, but I don't traffic in euphemism. As a writer by hobby I make it a practice to choose the exact word that I mean. I detest weak and neutered language. When you read a post from me it's best to take my words at face value. In this case, I meant "circumspect" in exactly its standard meaning.

In the future, you're best off reading my posts as the product of a straightforward person. While I love metaphor, synecdoche, and the other expressive tools of the writing trade, when I'm expressing an opinion, I will phrase it in the clearest language I can muster.

( I don't really believe there is a provable link between  intelligence, knowledge  and theism or atheism.  Spend  a bit of time on this or any other atheist forum if you think I'm mistaken )

Regarding forums, I've been around the virtual block a little, Grymp.

I don't assert any connection between intelligence and religiosity, and I'm a little baffled as to why you seem to be chiding me over a view I haven't expressed and do not hold.

Gore Vidal  said in an interview, "A person who becomes president has  already been bought ten times over." Not saying I necessarily agree. However, my political position is based on the notion of realpolitik .   

Hmm. I've always associated Realpolitik with a specific foreign-policy outlook, Bismarckian. Correct to say, then, that a preference for that is a touchstone in your decisions whom to vote for and whatnot?

ETA: If you wish to reply to a post here, all you need to do is press the "reply" button in the lower right corner of the pertinent post, and then just make sure that in the ensuing reply page, you place your reply outside the quote tags:

[ quote]Original post you're answering [ /quote]

Your reply goes here, after the "[ /quote]". Note that the quote-tags will not have any spaces. I've added them here so the software won't parse them as a command, and display them instead.

As it turns out, I've been on a few forums too, over a period of about 15 years.  

Although your understanding is historically correct, today the term 'realpolitic' has a broader meaning.  I use it  in that sense. 


"Realpolitik (from German: real; "realistic", "practical", or "actual"; and [i]Politik[/i]; "politics", German pronunciation: [ʁeˈaːlpoliˌtiːk]) is politics or diplomacy based primarily on considerations of given circumstances and factors, rather than explicit ideological notions or moral and ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism. It is often simply referred to as "pragmatism" in politics, e.g. "pursuing pragmatic policies". The term Realpolitik is sometimes used pejoratively to imply politics that are perceived as coercive, amoral, or Machiavellian.[1] "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik




As it turns out, I've been around internet forums for over a decade. 


THE FOLLOWING IS POSTED ON  THE ASSUMPTION  THAT YOU ARE NOT A MODERATOR. 

You obviously don't know  very well either. If you did you would realise  my question about a euphemism was facetious, as was the undertone of my post. . It was not my intention to chide you about anything. I'm sorry if I expressed myself poorly.,

Getting the quote  box muddled was a mistake I try not to make. 

I'm a cranky old bastard who doesn't suffer fools. I do not respond well to appeals to  authority .IE I couldn't care less that you have been here since the flood, nor about your  hobby as a writer . A skilled writer does not need to boast, his writing speaks itself.   I haven't noticed anything special. 

Nor do I respond well to being patronised.  Do try to avoid  it in future ,there's a good chap.  

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm a cranky old bastard who doesn't suffer fools. I do not respond well to appeals to  authority .IE I couldn't care less that you have been here since the flood, nor about your  hobby as a writer . A skilled writer does not need to boast, his writing speaks itself.   I haven't noticed anything special. 

Nor do I respond well to being patronised.  Do try to avoid  it in future ,there's a good chap.  

If you think I'm a fool, so what?  I don't worry about the opinions of Internet strangers. Enjoy your feelings and keep me out of it, because your opinion of me is none of my business.

Not sure why you're having a go at me, and I'm sorry if I've somehow offended you, but if you don't like me, just block me and be done with it. Trust me, it won't hurt my feelings.

[grympy]

I'm a cranky old bastard who doesn't suffer fools. I do not respond well to appeals to  authority .IE I couldn't care less that you have been here since the flood, nor about your  hobby as a writer . A skilled writer does not need to boast, his writing speaks itself.   I haven't noticed anything special. 

Nor do I respond well to being patronised.  Do try to avoid  it in future ,there's a good chap.  

If you think I'm a fool, so what?  I don't worry about the opinions of Internet strangers. Enjoy your feelings and keep me out of it, because your opinion of me is none of my business.

Not sure why you're having a go at me, and I'm sorry if I've somehow offended you, but if you don't like me, just block me and be done with it. Trust me, it won't hurt my feelings.

 Mate I didn't say you are a fool, and don't  think that is the case . Nor am I having a go at you other than in the mildest way.

It was my perception that YOU were attacking ME 

Seems to me we have each been a bit oversensitive, and have misunderstood each  other. I do not intentionally make enemies on forums or in real life. I apologise for any offence. Can we please move on.

[Mark]

And I find it, as Mr. Spock would say, "Fascinating."

I also find this amusing.  As if I could care.  The Democrats are still 90+/-% religitards.
Does not mean I shall vote for any of them.

Ain't no damned politician ever been worth my vote.

I vote by writing in Jean-Luc Picard for President and William T. Riker for Vice President.

All politicians deserve a one way trip to Hell.

In all my many decades of life, I have found only three things require no intelligence:

1. Stupidity
   
2. Religion
   
3. Politician
   

I am absolutley positively sure about the last two, but not so sure about the first one.

rmfr

Certainly looks as if comrade Ara has completed his assignment here.  Hopefully no one has successfully been encouraged to deep six their vote since "they're all the same".

[Minimalist]

If the Orange Shitgibbon proves anything at all it is that they are not all the same.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I do not intentionally make enemies on forums or in real life. I apologise for any offence. Can we please move on.

Absolutely, we can. It may be me misreading as well, and if that's the case you have my apologies for such.

It's in the rear-view mirror here, these things happen. Peace, brotha.

[Cheerful Charlie]

Although your understanding is historically correct, today the term 'realpolitic' has a broader meaning.  I use it  in that sense. 


"Realpolitik (from German: real; "realistic", "practical", or "actual"; and [i]Politik[/i]; "politics", German pronunciation: [ʁeˈaːlpoliˌtiːk]) is politics or diplomacy based primarily on considerations of given circumstances and factors, rather than explicit ideological notions or moral and ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism. It is often simply referred to as "pragmatism" in politics, e.g. "pursuing pragmatic policies". The term Realpolitik is sometimes used pejoratively to imply politics that are perceived as coercive, amoral, or Machiavellian.[1] "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik

In the US,  realpolitik took on a rather ugly connotation after Nixon and Henry Kissinger.  It became an excuse to do amoral and illegal activities.  Being 'Stralian, you may not know that for many Americans, realpolitik is a dirty word. Just saying...


"Well, when the president does it, it means it is not illegal."
- Richard Nixon