Why All Of The Atheists In Congress Are Closeted

[cbayer]

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2014/08/26/3475792/why-there-are-no-atheists-in-congress/

BY JACK JENKINS
POSTED ON AUGUST 26, 2014 AT 2:34 PM


CREDIT: AP

Outside of prominent roles in television or the music industry, being elected to national office is often one of the most visible steps a minority group can take to win acceptance in American society. Yet, for the millions of Americans who openly identify as atheist, the goal of political representation currently remains just out of reach: At present, no one in the 113th Congress identifies as an atheist.

But when Maggie Ardiente of the American Humanist Association spoke to Brian Pellot of the Religion News Service earlier this month, she let slip a striking revelation about a potential hidden “atheist caucus” on Capitol Hill.

“We already know of 24 members of Congress who have told us privately that they don’t believe in God, but they won’t come out, of course, and if we tried to out them they would deny it,” Ardiente said.

The accuracy of Ardiente’s claim is, of course, unprovable. We live in a society where people get to self-identify their religious affiliation (or lack thereof), and the U.S. Constitution expressly prohibits subjecting candidates to a “religious test.” This makes forcing the issue of an elected official’s religious affiliation — or even the lack thereof — legally awkward, albeit common practice in some parts of the country.

more at link

[merrily]

1. I don't so much care who believes in God as I care who believes in

strict separation of church and state. What people believe in their hearts is, in my opinion, very different from enacting laws to hurt gays, to dominate women, to help religions in general, etc. The Bill of Rights gives protection for what people believe. And, in any event, you cannot (yet?) legislate and enforce mind control. The Bill of Rights, though, also gave us a tool for separating church and state.

Unfortunately, The Family/The Fellowship has been lobbying actively in D.C. for a very long time, backed by a lot of money. The separation of church and state folks have not been lobbying as actively or as long or with as large a treasury.


And now, the Democratic Party seems to be advancing for the Presidential nomination someone with connections to The Family.

I agree with Truman. The way for Democrats to win elections is not to become more like Republicans, which is the DLC/Third Way/New Democrat strategy but to become more like (traditional) Democrats--at least on domestic policy.

[cbayer]

2. Agree, one can be a secularist and still be a religionist,

and it is possible for one to want to enact hate whether they are religious or not.

Still, I look forward to the day when one's religious credentials won't mean much when someone wants to run for office. As you say, it's more important to judge them on their actions, not their beliefs or lack of beliefs.

I'm not going to get into the Clinton/Family debate. I think it's a rabid tool used to divide democrats and used very effectively. You can think what you wish about it. Like Truman, I don't think using or endorsing republican strategies is going to do us any favors.

[merrily]

3. You think I used a rabid tool?

[cbayer]

4. No, not really. But I've seen it used in that way.

[merrily]

5. I see nothing rabid about Democrats--or anyone--

discussing on a political message board someone who apparently wishes to be the Democratic nominee for the highest office in the land, especially before the primary begins.

[cbayer]

6. I took the opportunity to review some of your recent posts, and I

see that you have a specific agenda. I'm not interested in engaging in that debate with you. If you are interested in discussing this article or this topic, I would be glad to do that.

If you want to discuss the Clinton/Family connection, you might consider starting your own thread on it.

[merrily]

7. My specific agenda is that of the 90% versus the 10%. Nothing in any of my posts

requires you or anyone to discuss anything with me. My first reply to you was on topic. You could have ignored the comment about Hillary and the family. Instead, you chose to post something highly provocative about that one line in your reply to me. So, yes, I responded to your provocative comment. And now, you've made it even more personal. So, to the extent you feel this thread has gone off topic, consider your own part in that.

[cbayer]

8. You are correct. I regret having noted it at all.

Forgot who I was talking to, lol. Momentary lapse.

[merrily]

9. " Forgot who I was talking to, lol." More ad hom.

This is not the first thread on which you have attacked me personally while I was posting on substance. And yet, religion is your favorite topic.

[trotsky]

13. It's happened to many of us.

I guess that's her agenda.

[merrily]

14. I am sorry that is happening to you or anyone.

I don't know what else to say about it.

I know I usually post on issues. I rarely even get tempted to go ad hom, unless someone attacks me personally first. Even then, I try to fight the temptation.

[trotsky]

15. I think you did well here.

You kept it on the topic and not the person, unlike the other individual.

[merrily]

16. Thanks.

I've posted on message boards since 2004. I never put anyone on ignore or used hide thread or anything like that. I figured I could always just stay away from any thread or poster that was bothering me.

However, at one point, I began insulting a poster who had been stalking me from thread to thread; and I was ashamed of my own posting behavior. So, I put him or her on ignore to change my own behavior and thereby lost my "ignore" virginity.

Since then, I have put several other posters on ignore and I have come to appreciate the usefulness of it.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. You've been officially put on the shit list by the self-appointed official shit list keeper.

She's reviewed your posts.

Fun, huh?

And note that this whole sub-thread can only be characterized as a defense of The Family, a theocratic rightwing religious organization.

A serious WTF is the only appropriate response.

Don't worry, you are in good company.

[merrily]

12. Thanks, but I wasn't worried.

Never hid my "agenda," aka my political position. Never thought I was the only one on a political message board with an agenda a political position, either. Not even the only one in the exchanges between me and cbayer with an agenda a political position.

The idea that having a political position on a political message board is somehow wrong is unusual, to say the least.

[Starboard Tack]

17. What does this have to do with the OP?

"And now, the Democratic Party seems to be advancing for the Presidential nomination someone with connections to The Family."

What "Family"? What connection?

Apart from that sentence, your post is on topic and makes a ton of sense.

[merrily]

18. If you don't know what The Family/The Fellowship is, or what Hillary's

connection to it is, please google.

Thank you for saying most of my post made a lot of sense.

[Starboard Tack]

19. OK I got it. It has nothing to do with the OP.

So, your reason for bringing it up in this thread was what exactly?
I can only assume you are a Clinton basher and saw an opportunity to pop in here and hijack a thread which has absolutely zero to do with Hillary or The Family/Fellowship.

You might want to take your own advice, or was it HST's.

" The way for Democrats to win elections is not to become more like Republicans, which is the DLC/Third Way/New Democrat strategy but to become more like (traditional) Democrats"

We don't eat our own. Just sayin'

[merrily]

20. Okay, I got it. You have no interest in whether my reply had to do with the OP or not.

Rather, you posted to try to pick a fight
.
Also, you seem to have no interest in learning something that could be important to how YOU vote in a primary, something that most people who post on political boards don't need to ask about because it is very common knowledge to people interested in politics or religion.


As far as hijacking the thread, lmao. My response to you is the same as it was to cbayer in Reply 7 but it goes double for you.

You and cbayer seem unable to ignore one sentence in my post about, not you personally, but a politician not persoally involved in this exchange. Yet, unless I ignore insults to me personally from you and her, I, not the two of you, am hijacking the thread? Don't you take responsibility for your own behavior?

I say "double for you" because at least cbayer had the excuse that my Reply 1 was in response to her. You, however, came after me.

[Starboard Tack]

21. I think you posted to both derail a thread and pick a fight

There are forums for having the discussion about HRC, and there is this group, where you can post your own OP.
I came after you because you tried to hijack the thread. I think you do yourself a disservice by doing that, because all your other points were excellent.
I'm not even disputing the possible merit of your "Family" comment. The derailing is rude. That's all.

[merrily]

22. Again, see Reply7 & and stop playing Pot. Kettle.

Instead, take responsibility for your own posting behavior.

I came after you because you tried to hijack the thread.

Baloney. You know very well why you came after me. Apparently, so does everyone else on this thread.

The reason that this thread looks the way it does is that cbayer started attacking me about that one sentence, beginning with her Reply 2 and continuing for several posts thereafter. And then, apparently because that is a pattern on her part--and not only with me--other posters started commiserating with me. So, you saw fit to attack me in her place.

You'll forgive me if I end my participation in this quarrel with you on this thread. I don't see it going anywhere honest, educational or productive. So, it seems like a waste of my time.

[Heddi]

31. Fyi starboard tack and Cbayer are married

Hence, the tag team, which ST swears never happens

[merrily]

45. Thank you. I appreciate the 411.

Something other than pure outrage over happening upon a single political sentence in a post on a political message board that was otherwise agreed to by cbayer and praised by ST seemed apparent.

However, knowing they are married does help me and may help me and others even more in the future. I am not entirely sure I can fault spouses for supporting each other against third parties, even if that third party in this case is me. However, knowing helps perspective.

As an aside, I don't know if I recall getting this much help on DU before. I have never concealed that I am not a centrist, as are many of the most vocal on DU. So, usually, only one or two posters, if any, are moved to chime in on a disagreement that does not directly involve them or their own views. I think what happened on this thread says a lot as well.

[cleanhippie]

23. "I think you posted to pick a fight"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218149852


Yeah, you are not part of the problem. Not part of the problem at all.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. unbelievable.

[cleanhippie]

26. Actually, it's quite believable.

It's really quite common.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. I thought you didn't tag team.

[cleanhippie]

27. "Do as I say, not as I do"

[Starboard Tack]

30. I rarely do and not in this case.

Check the thread. That would be you and CH. You guys make a good team, btw. Very well matched.

[cleanhippie]

32. Uhm, you and your wife tag teamed a poster well before anyone else showed up here.

"Facts don't cease to exist because they are ignored" -Aldus Huxley

And considering your latest flamebait OP that got hidden after just 22 min this morning...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218149852
...you really have no credibility left at all.

[Starboard Tack]

34. So sweet that you are both following us around

Love you guys.
Clean Hippie! and his buddy Warren Stupidity!

The perfect tag team, perfectly matched in every way, perfectly self described. You guys truly rock

Psst! It's Aldous, btw! One of my heroes.
Here's another.
"There's only one effectively redemptive sacrifice, the sacrifice of self-will to make room for the knowledge of God." - Aldous Huxley

[cleanhippie]

35. Follow YOU around? Again with the projection.

Sorry your last couple of your A&A alerts got left alone. But that's no reason to project YOUR behavior onto others.

You have a nice day.

[Starboard Tack]

38. There you are again, you sweet thing.

I didn't alert on anything, btw. I stay away from the noxious fumes. Must be your "projection".

[cleanhippie]

39. Lol.

Yeah, it's me, not you.

[Starboard Tack]

40. Right again.

Bless your little hippie heart

[cleanhippie]

41. Bless yours.

Perhaps if you had some hippie in you, your passive-aggressive condescension would melt away.

You have a nice day.

Or do you feel compelled to have the last word?

[Starboard Tack]

42. I'm an original hippie and never thought about getting clean

I'm as dirty as dirty can be. I feel compelled to do nothing, but I love that you come for advice and comfort. Now, I must to bed as the hour is late on my side of the world. So I will leave the last word to you, dear heart. Night night.

[Brettongarcia]

10. This topic was essentially posted earlier; see the brief discussion there?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218149260

[TheNutcracker]

28. You need to review the Fellowship with members of the political elite, Bill Nelson, Hillary Clinton

and more

[cbayer]

29. Is there something about this article that is a dog whistle for The Family

or The Fellowship.

Or is this just an opportunity to drag a GD fight into this group?

What did you think of the article?

[cleanhippie]

33. No one is required to follow your rules.

How about you start with the regular offenders of posting off-topic from the OP instead of berating others.

Or just ignore it. That works really well. People can post whatever they want. You don't make the rules.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. Perhaps it is because of the smothering fake religiosity that pervades national

Last edited Thu Aug 28, 2014, 07:32 AM - Edit history (1)

politics, that The Family is emblematic of, and that forces politicians to keep their non-belief to themselves.

You can have a hug-fest over this post, rather than a discussion, in some other forum.

In this one it is likely that different viewpoints on this issue will be raised. Perhaps instead of getting all upset about those different viewpoints, you two could either discuss the issues raised, or ignore them.

[merrily]

46. As you well know, I have posted in this group without reference to politics.

My reply on this thread however, had to do with separation of church and state, and The Family/The Fellowship is highly relevant to that issue. I do not apologize for including a single sentence about that in a post about separation of church and state with which you agreed and that your husband praised.

As far as whether it was that single sentence in my post that took this thread off track or the provocative posts of your and your husband, I again refer both of you to my Reply 7, the content of your own posts about that single sentence and about me personally and in fact to all the posts on this thread.

[cbayer]

47. I objected to the link you made between Clinton and the family.

Big deal.

I am still unclear on what that has to do with this article and didn't want to discuss it here. I merely told you that and told you why.

You have taken that way past where I intended it to go.

BTW, I was on the jury of your post that was hidden today. I voted to not hide it and clearly saw it as sarcasm. But I do think you may want to keep in mind that the way one comes across on an internet board is not always the way one intends to.

You pushed my button and I pushed yours back. That's unfortunate.

Perhaps we can reconcile this on another topic, but I think this one is done.

[merrily]

50. The OP is about religion and politicians. This is a political message board.

Primary season is beginning. My reply was about separation of church and state. I don't think my comment was at alln removed from the rest of my reply, which your husband praised and you agreed with, nor do I think it was removed from the topic of religion and politicians.

Let's not try to pretend that my problem with your posts or with your husband's was simply honest disagreement over issues. The problem was with your going ad hom while I was sticking to issues--and not for the first time with me-- and with his posting for the purpose of picking a fight with me. And, as best as it appears from this thread, that is behavior of yours that is not limited to me.

It was honest of you to vote not to hide my post. Now that you brought it up, though, I had two problems with the hide.

One was that I could not understand how anyone could honestly have missed the sarcasm, even without the emote. In fact, I considered adding the emote but thought adding it would insult the intelligence of DUers. I mean, who seriously expects most kindergarteners to support themselves or create jobs?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1078&pid=20411


So, I thought the hide was bad and perhaps punitive for my other posts. However that happens and is part of posting on a board with a jury system (and expressing opinions that are different from the majority), so no problem for me. (Oddly enough, the post that got hidden was sarcasm in support of the majority view. So, go figure.)

The second issue I had was that two jurors found the need to include with the vote on the post attacks on me that had nothing at all to do with the content of the post in question, instead of sticking to the purpose of the jury. The purpose of a jury is not to allow jurors to take anonymous pot shots at a poster with whom they have political or personal disagreements when that poster cannot reply and they may influence other jurors against the poster in general.

Only 3 posters voted not to hide.

IIRC, both posters who took the pot shots also voted not to hide on the ground that they knew I was a leftist being sarcastic and not a RWer. And, IMO, that was the only part of their explanations that were relevant to their jury service. The pot shots were an abuse of the jury system, IMO.

So thanks for bringing that up and giving me a chance to express my opinion about it.

[cbayer]

55. Ah, I am assuming that you have been given some slaps on the back from

my fan club. If that's the case, be assured of one thing. This has nothing to do with you.

Let's just let this go, ok. I have nothing against you. You have your own issues that you feel strongly about, and so do I. We bumped heads over one where we both have strong feelings, but are coming from opposite directions. If you feel that I made it personal, then I apologize. I will be more careful about that in the future.

In regards to your hide, I think that if anyone knew where you stood on things, they would know without question that your post was sarcasm. However, It seems clear that the majority on the jury are not at all familiar with you. As I recently took the time to find out more about you, I knew. Had that not happened, I might have voted to hide it. When someone writes something that could come from the right, they take the chance that others will not get it. I doubt very much it was punitive, but can't know for sure.

If you feel the jury remarks were abusive, then you have the opportunity to report them to the administrator of the site.

Anyway, lesson learned, I am sure. So much can get lost when all you have is the written word and are without all the other cues that generally accompany human interaction. I frequently step in it when that was not my intent.

I hope that you and I can move past this. I don't know you very well at all, but I do know that you are passionate about the things you believe in. So am i and I suspect we have much more in common than we have differences.

[Heddi]

58. Seriously? You wonder why she took it personally, Cbayer? Why, it could have NOTHING to do with your

statements
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218149810#post6
"I took the opportunity to review some of your recent posts, and I see that you have a specific agenda"

and

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218149810#post8

"Forgot who I was talking to, lol"

Yeah. Why could she EVER take those comments personally?

Oh..wait...because you made statements that you knew someone would take personally.

As someone who always chides other people for making personal attacks about and towards you, you sure do dislike it when others see the comments you make for the nasty barbs that they are. Of course,....you never mean it that way. No never. Someone is just misunderstanding you. It's the medium. It's the internet. Here's a clue---the internet has been around a long, long time. Most people have learned how to communicate effectively and have their tone and intent understood well. I'm sorry that apparently you haven't, as you always seem to blame the medium, rather than the typist, for any and all "miscommunications" regarding what you're saying and how it comes across.

Then again, it's always someone else's fault that your'e misunderstood, isn't it

You are truly, ridiculously amazing in your outright inability to see how you interact with other people, and how you contribute negatively to the tone of *any* conversation you partake in.

I know you won't read this...whether real or pretend ignore. But I know Starboard Tack will read it to you, as he has openly stated that he often reads you posts of posters that you're "ignoring."

[Autumn]

59. Jury results on your post

On Thu Aug 28, 2014, 05:23 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Seriously? You wonder why she took it personally, Cbayer? Why, it could have NOTHING to do with your
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=150151

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Post is one long personal attack that contributes nothing to discussion on hand.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Aug 28, 2014, 05:38 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Speaking of someone's behavior is not a personal attack.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I wouldn't hide it in GD, but this is a group, so civility standard is a little higher, and the criticism in the post is awfully personal.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: this is DI. anything goes.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Post is one long true statement and there is more, much more some of us remember and some of us see what goes on. So I think it contributes much to the discussion.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree with the alert.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sometimes posters makes my head hurt...I will let this personal combat stand...

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[trotsky]

62. ...

[brooklynite]

36. In 2012, I supported a candidate who, if she'd won her Primary would be in the House today...

She described herself to me as a "lapsed Unitarian", which is about as close as I can see a politician coming.

[merrily]

48. But actively connected to the Family?

Bill Maher recently opined that Obama was only pretending to believe in God to win votes. Maybe, maybe not. But I don't think that politicians get points for trying to have it both ways or for trying to get votes by deceiving voters. Where in pubic info is Hillary's religion identified as lapsed Unitarian? And if she is a lapsed Unitarian and nothing else, why did she associate herself with The Family? Not simply any religious group but the Family.

The Family does not believe in separation of church and state. They believe in "one nation under God." They also believe that those called of God to lead in politics are not subject to the laws of man or God that bind the rest of us peons.

Hence, David's murder of Bathsheba's husband is cited by an adulterous Family member politician. Are all of them that extreme? I don't know, but that same adulterous politician ran for office again. Why would a respected Democrat give the imprimatur of her presence to The Family, of all religious groups? Why would a lapsed Unitarian?

[brooklynite]

51. I'm responding to the OP which says nothing about The Family

[merrily]

52. Your reply was about Hillary and her alleged religious status, also not mentioned in the OP.

And my question to you was about the subject on which you posted.

Obviously, it's your prerogative to choose not to reply to my question to you for any reason you have.

[brooklynite]

53. No - my reply was about a House candidate...please reread #36

[merrily]

54. My apologies for literally misreading your post.

Somehow, my eyes saw "White" before House.

[Curmudgeoness]

43. There is a lot of truth in that billboard

and in the article. Every non-believer and every believer knows that if an atheist wants to win an election, they must keep their opinions about religion and God to themselves.

It is true that we will not know the true numbers of politicians who are agnostic or atheist, at least until religion is no longer an issue, believer or not.

[cbayer]

44. There is clearly a disadvantage to being non-relgious when it comes to politics,

so I am very supportive of those who are "coming out". They may not win this time around, but they push the door open a little bit more for the next person.

I think it's coming.

[merrily]

49. As I posted to Brooklynite, I don't think they get to have it both ways, though.

If you want to get votes by pretending to be a Catholic or a Jew or a Muslim or an evangelical, then you have to answer for that affiliation, as JFK had to for being a Catholic. I can respect that. I cannot respect trying to have it both ways by deceiving voters by associating yourself with a religion, then winking when someone seeks to hold you accountable for that association.

And, if you are brave enough to come out as a minority, such as atheist, you get credit for bravery and for helping to open the door, even if you lose the election.

I don't want anyone to misunderstand my next comments because I think members of the GLBT community faced on a daily basis--and still face--more than any group of humans should have to endure and I don't know how they ever did it or how they do it today. But, things got better for them when more and more of them started coming out.

Does that take personal sacrifice? You bet. Do you want all your voting choices to be politicians who won't will not risk a personal sacrifice, though?

[Curmudgeoness]

57. I would very much like to see non-believers run for office openly.

But I also know how hard it is on you and how expensive it is just to run for office. I understand why a candidate would not want to that handicap and to lose an election after all they put into it. I am not sure whether the secret atheists referred to in the OP affiliated with any religion or not, or if they pretended to be anything, since I don't know who they are. They may have been lucky enough not to have been asked directly.

But you are right, it would be a credit to them if they did declare themselves as non-believers. And it would help all non-believers if more people would admit to it. Since the hardest part is winning the first election, and incumbent status is a definite plus, I would at least like to see these atheists and agnostics declare their lack of belief now that they are in. But I also think it would be a huge problem for them. I have seen it firsthand, which is why I could never run for office---everyone who knows me is aware that I am atheist. At least I couldn't lie about it.

[merrily]

60. Maybe the time to be open about it is not the first time you ever run.

[Curmudgeoness]

61. That was just what I was thinking.

I hate that we have to be deceptive about it until we have proven ourselves, but once we have shown we are doing a good job, it is time.

[AlbertCat]

56. Why All Of The Atheists In Congress Are Closeted

Well duh! Like someone even needs to write a piece explaining it.



BTW... "The Family" being a secret religious brotherhood which has its member swear to things makes it about knowing politicians' religious affiliations or lack thereof. So it definitely is related to the thread.