I need to sort through some of this stuff, so bear with me. First of all, as two major newspapers in North Carolina have pointed out, the ad is pretty sleazy and misleading. Hagan has called for Dole to remove the ad, I think with good reason. It's just flat-out wrong.
Second, the ad is based on the assumption that North Carolinians shouldn't or won't vote for an atheist, which might be true. But this has no place in a campaign! A candidate's belief in God or lack thereof is completely irrelevant!
Finally, Hagan has emphatically insisted that she does not support the Godless Americans PAC and that she is a believing Presbyterian. Fair enough. Obama has had to repeatedly assert his Christianity in response to claims that he is Muslim. But I went to the PAC's website, and this is not some freaky, radical, anti-American organization. From their website:
Now, granted, "godless Americans" doesn't sound all that great to most religious Americans and probably doesn't help their cause a whole lot. It sounds a bit in-your-face to me. But their goals sound pretty reasonable, and highly pertinent given the sleaziness of Dole's ad. I would actually put their goals in line with the ACLU's goals. The PAC does not seem anti-religious in any way. They merely seek to protect the separation of church and state, and to support atheist candidates and atheists' civil liberties.GAMPAC endorses candidates for public office who support the First Amendment separation of church and state; defend equal rights and protections for our nation's godless Americans; inform our community of the voting records of their elected representatives on issues of concern; and support our goal of having "a place at the table" in formulating public policy.
In addition, GAMPAC will facilitate the training and development of those godless Americans seeking to bring their organizations talents to the field of electoral politics.
I've pointed this out before, but a study from a couple years ago found that atheists are the least trusted group in American society, according to a survey done by University of Minnesota sociologists. Ugh.
UPDATE 1: See my follow-up post on this.
UPDATE 2: A reader and friend of mine comments that he agrees with everything in my post but my contention that the Godless Americans PAC is not anti-religious. I've got to disagree with him. Yes, it depends on how you define "anti-religious." But the Godless Americans PAC does not call for the eradication of religion in the United States. It calls for strong separation of church and state, and it works to get a place at the discussion table for non-believers, as my friend points out. It supports non-believer candidates. And I think this is great. That study by Univ. of Minnesota scholars points to a real distrust of atheists in our country, and I think I can accurately say that atheists are no less moral, no less American, and no less trustworthy than anyone else.
5 comments:
I agree with everything you write here, except that the GAmPAC isn't "anti-religious in any way."
I'd say they're precisely anti-religious in just about every way.
That said, I think they should have a place at the table and agree that religion and politics make a potentially dangerous and almost universally counterproductive mix.
Go Hagan!
Well, it depends on how you define "anti-religious." I'm saying they're not anti-religious because they're not for the eradication of religion in the United States. They're for the separation of church and state and for the protection of atheists' civil liberties. Like I said, this puts them in line with the ACLU in some ways. Contrary to widely held beliefs, the ACLU is no sense of the word anti-religious. They have defended unpopular religious groups in the past. Now, GAMPAC wouldn't go that far, obviously, but they are not anti-religious.
They endorse and support "godless" candidates, or atheist or agnostic candidates. But that's not anti-religious. Christian Right groups endorse and support Christian candidates. How is this different? In fact, I bet that Christian Right organizations are more explicit in their anti-atheism than GAMPAC is in their anti-religious-ness.
Yeah, I suppose we just define the prefix "anti" differently. I was going with the OED definition.
No worries.
Just to be clear, too, I really do agree with what you're saying here. The anti-religion thing is just a pedantic quibble on my part.
U.S. atheists are no less U.S. American, no less committed to the ethical and social good, no less trustworthy than any other U.S. citizen. One's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) should neither increase nor decrease his/her rights to full civic fellowship.
Keep up the good fight, Stephen!
Like I said, it depends on how you're defining "anti-religious." In one sense of the word, they're quite obviously against religion on a personal level. And they are probably uncomfortable with the extent to which religion influences politics and public life. But they don't seem to directly attack religion or religious persons.
Here's another example. Someone could be anti-gay, but still believe that gays and lesbians should have civil rights.
I don't know. Just some thoughts.
Post a Comment