Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Elizabeth Warren And Secularist Outreach
#1

Elizabeth Warren And Secularist Outreach
https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019...-director/

...
Sen. Elizabeth Warren said during a town hall meeting in Cedar Falls, Iowa last night that she would think about hiring a staffer whose sole job would be to connect with Americans who aren’t religious.
Among the Democratic presidential candidates who have hired “faith outreach directors” to communicate specifically with religious voters are Pete Buttigieg and Cory Booker. There’s nothing wrong with that, per se. There are a lot of religious voters who connect to candidates predominantly through the lens of faith, and if candidates can capitalize on that, they’d be fools not to hire someone to form that bond. (That’s different from creating policy based on one religion.)
But so far, no candidate has hired a “Secular Outreach Director.” That also seems foolish given that roughly a third of Democratic voters are non-religious.
...

Well this is going to get the far right GOP supporters drooling and screeching.  I like this.  I like this very much.  I like Sanders and Warren, and if Warren does this I will have no problems supporting her for President.
Sitting in the club car of the hell bound train.

The following 3 users Like Cheerful Charlie's post:
  • grympy, Phaedrus, Alan V
Reply
#2

Elizabeth Warren And Secularist Outreach
I told you she was smart.

The religitards aren't going to vote for her anyway.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#3

Elizabeth Warren And Secularist Outreach
I'm not sure why secularists would need a separate outreach program.  Unlike the religious, we understand ordinary English.   hobo
The following 5 users Like Alan V's post:
  • brewerb, Fireball, Minimalist, Inkubus, skyking
Reply
#4

Elizabeth Warren And Secularist Outreach
(10-24-2019, 11:53 AM)Alan V Wrote: I'm not sure why secularists would need a separate outreach program.  Unlike the religious, we understand ordinary English.   hobo

Yeah, I think I might be offended.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
Reply
#5

Elizabeth Warren And Secularist Outreach
I don't know what her definition of "aren't religious" is exactly. If it's "one who doesn't identify with organized religion but is still a believer" then it's probably a waste of her time. If it's "one who identifies as agnostic / atheist / secular humanist" then I'd be interested to hear her specific pitch toward that group, but I agree with others that a simple fact-based set of policies and principles is perfectly adequate. She's not going to openly support removing member-benefit tax exemptions so I'm not sure what her point is.
The following 1 user Likes mordant's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#6

Elizabeth Warren And Secularist Outreach
(10-24-2019, 01:40 PM)mordant Wrote: I don't know what her definition of "aren't religious" is exactly. If it's "one who doesn't identify with organized religion but is still a believer" then it's probably a waste of her time. If it's "one who identifies as agnostic / atheist / secular humanist" then I'd be interested to hear her specific pitch toward that group, but I agree with others that a simple fact-based set of policies and principles is perfectly adequate. She's not going to openly support removing member-benefit tax exemptions so I'm not sure what her point is.

I went through 80% of my life calling myself "not religious". Many people are sticking their nose out of the closet that way. I wouldn't scoff at that verbiage. It encourages folks to dare set the first foot out of the closet.
[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
The following 4 users Like Dom's post:
  • Alan V, mordant, Minimalist, brunumb
Reply
#7

Elizabeth Warren And Secularist Outreach
Hire me, I'm down.
"If a person gave away your body to some passerby, you’d be furious. Yet, you hand over your mind to anyone who comes along, so they may abuse you, leaving it disturbed and troubled — have you no shame in that?" 

Reply
#8

Elizabeth Warren And Secularist Outreach
(10-24-2019, 01:40 PM)mordant Wrote: I don't know what her definition of "aren't religious" is exactly. If it's "one who doesn't identify with organized religion but is still a believer" then it's probably a waste of her time. If it's "one who identifies as agnostic / atheist / secular humanist" then I'd be interested to hear her specific pitch toward that group, but I agree with others that a simple fact-based set of policies and principles is perfectly adequate. She's not going to openly support removing member-benefit tax exemptions so I'm not sure what her point is.

There is no specific pitch yet.  She was at a town hall meeting when this idea was suggested by a local atheist activist who asked her if she would consider this.  This seemingly for a few seconds caught her off guard.  But she agreed it would be something she would be amenable to looking into doing.

It is essentially a good step forward to making sure the Democratic party is truly a big tent that welcomes secularists of any stripe in contrast with the GOP who is not exactly secularist friendly.  As the Nones cohort keeps growing, that segment of the population can no longer be ignored.  At the rate the Nones are growing, by 2029 Nones will be the largest religious segment of the Population, outnumbering either Catholics or Protestants.  The political parties cannot ignore secularists much longer.

Which will act as a counterweight to the Christian chauvinists that are the backbone of the GOP and want their religion to affect us all.

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019...catholics/

...
We know the number of non-religious Americans remains on the rise while the number of Protestants and Catholics continue dropping.
It leads to a fairly straightforward question: When will the “Nones” outnumber any single religious group?
Any answer is speculative, of course. You would have to assume the demographic trends continue as expected, and there’s no 9-11-like event again, and that religious groups won’t suddenly fix their problems and become super-popular again. Religion, like politics, can experience serious shifts in short amounts of time even if the trends appear to be heading in a certain direction.
But Professor Ryan P. Burge of Eastern Illinois University decided to speculate anyway. He used data from the 2018 General Social Survey, traced data from 1980 onward, and used statistical software to see what religion might look like a decade from now.
With all the caveats in mind, and the reality that future predictions obviously have higher rates of error, he looked at the more conservative end of the non-religious numbers and the more optimistic end of the religious ones. He wanted to know when the lines (even with error bars) stopped overlapping.
The answer? 2029.
...

I caught a few minutes a few weeks ago of Lush Rimjob ranting and raving about the latest Pew study showing a continuing rise in Nones and young Americans abandoning Christianity.  I sense a culture war in our future over the shift in religious self identification in the US.
Sitting in the club car of the hell bound train.

Reply
#9

Elizabeth Warren And Secularist Outreach
(10-24-2019, 01:40 PM)mordant Wrote: I don't know what her definition of "aren't religious" is exactly. If it's "one who doesn't identify with organized religion but is still a believer" then it's probably a waste of her time. If it's "one who identifies as agnostic / atheist / secular humanist" then I'd be interested to hear her specific pitch toward that group, but I agree with others that a simple fact-based set of policies and principles is perfectly adequate. She's not going to openly support removing member-benefit tax exemptions so I'm not sure what her point is.

https://www.pewforum.org/2018/04/25/when...they-mean/

Check this out.

56% of religious believers believe in the God of the Bible.  23% believe in "some higher power/spiritual force"
Among non believers at 19%, 10% are atheists who do not believe in the God of the Bible or "some higher power/spiritual force".
9% do not believe in the God of the Bible but do believe in "some higher power/spiritual force".  This 10% atheists figure agrees with polls over the last few years from Gallup.  The believers who do not believe in the God of the Bible align with the findings of the 2006 Baylor study "Piety in the 21st century" which found 155 of believers think of the laws of the Universe as "God".  Not the Bible God.

Verily, tis a head scratcher.  This means 42% do not believe in the God of the Bible.  Other surveys have shown that at the margins of belief and disbelief, there is some doubt among some about if their beliefs are correct or not.

Who knows where everybody are getting these not very orthodox ideas about God.  If anybody here wants to become a guru/cult leader, here is a peg to hang your cult on.

This Christian or non-Christian is not a simple either or situation.  The 23% of Christians who do not believe in the Bible God are probably not very comfortable with the toxic Christianity of the more zealous evangelicals and fundamentalists.  These would most assuredly be more comfortable with secularists.
Sitting in the club car of the hell bound train.

The following 2 users Like Cheerful Charlie's post:
  • Alan V, mordant
Reply
#10

Elizabeth Warren And Secularist Outreach
(10-24-2019, 04:52 AM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote: Sen. Elizabeth Warren said during a town hall meeting in Cedar Falls, Iowa last night that she would think about hiring a staffer whose sole job would be to connect with Americans who aren’t religious...

She was responding to  atheist activist Justin Scott, from American Atheists, who asked her of she'd hire
an outreach director specifically to reach out to people without faith, as there were so many outreach
directors targetting people with faith.  When Warren used the term "Americans who aren’t religious", I
read that in a purely generalised  sense of what she meant.  She was referring to the voters who
aren't led to vote blindly and solely by the dogmatism of their religious faith, but not necessarily those
who're atheist or agnostic or humanist.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 1 user Likes SYZ's post:
  • Alan V
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)