Thu May 31, 2012, 10:52 PM
rug (47,243 posts)
Does this candidate have a prayer?
Posted at 04:26 PM ET, 05/31/2012
By Herb Silverman “South Carolina is too small for a republic and too large for an insane asylum,” observed Congressman James L. Petigru, shortly after South Carolina seceded from the Union in 1860 and declared itself a republic. I’ve lived in South Carolina since 1976, and stories about our politicians no longer surprise me. The comedy group Capitol Steps takes its name from the escapade involving our former congressman John Jenrette, who had sex with his wife on the steps of the U.S. Capitol in the late 1970s. More recently, our former governor Mark Sanford was intimate with his “soul mate” in Argentina, which he mistook for the Appalachian Trail. Perhaps South Carolina is not too large for an insane asylum. Some might argue that I’m also a candidate for this asylum. After all, why would a liberal, Yankee, Jewish atheist like me run for governor of South Carolina? Well, it wasn’t through blind ambition or unrealistic expectations, and certainly the devil didn’t make me do it. In 1990 a colleague at the College of Charleston, where I was a math professor, pointed out that the South Carolina Constitution prohibited atheists from becoming governor. Since the U.S. Constitution bars religious tests for public office, I asked a local ACLU lawyer how this obviously unconstitutional provision could be removed. He said that to mount a legal challenge, an open atheist would have to become a candidate. And he added with a smile, “The very best candidate would be you-in a race for governor of South Carolina.” After giving this surprising suggestion much thought, I agreed to run as a write-in candidate. I assumed, in my political naïveté, that state officials would consent to bring South Carolina into compliance with federal law. They didn’t. Governor Carroll Campbell said, “The South Carolina Constitution was fine as it was because this country was founded on Godly principles.” . http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/does-this-candidate-have-a-prayer/2012/05/31/gJQAKLf14U_blog.html
The answer is no.
|
16 replies, 1299 views
| Author | Time | Post | |
| rug | May 2012 | OP | |
| elleng | May 2012 | #1 | |
| longship | May 2012 | #2 | |
| dimbear | Jun 2012 | #3 | |
| dmallind | Jun 2012 | #4 | |
| rug | Jun 2012 | #5 | |
| dmallind | Jun 2012 | #8 | |
| cbayer | Jun 2012 | #7 | |
| dmallind | Jun 2012 | #9 | |
| cbayer | Jun 2012 | #10 | |
| dmallind | Jun 2012 | #12 | |
| cbayer | Jun 2012 | #13 | |
| dmallind | Jun 2012 | #14 | |
| cbayer | Jun 2012 | #15 | |
| cbayer | Jun 2012 | #16 | |
| cbayer | Jun 2012 | #6 | |
| muriel_volestrangler | Jun 2012 | #11 |
Response to rug (Original post)
Thu May 31, 2012, 11:08 PM
elleng (40,520 posts)
1. YES, the answer is NO, and
|
this country was NOT founded on godly princples.
|
Response to rug (Original post)
Thu May 31, 2012, 11:26 PM
longship (17,658 posts)
2. Great read.
|
The guy's got a good sense of humor.
|
Response to rug (Original post)
Fri Jun 1, 2012, 01:36 AM
dimbear (5,114 posts)
3. Acceptable alternatives: worship of Satan, Thuggee, Kali, Ahriman, Ba'al
|
Santa Muerte, Santeria, FSM, Cthulhu, Xenu. Just not nothing.
|
Response to rug (Original post)
Fri Jun 1, 2012, 09:17 AM
dmallind (10,437 posts)
4. of course not
|
...but believers here keep telling us we are inventing the wholesale anti-atheist bigotry and discrimination that makes it so.
|
Response to dmallind (Reply #4)
Fri Jun 1, 2012, 03:39 PM
rug (47,243 posts)
5. Do you believe the only reason he'd lose is because he's an atheist?
Response to rug (Reply #5)
Fri Jun 1, 2012, 09:25 PM
dmallind (10,437 posts)
8. Only in this case? No. But it is sufficient in and of itself
|
When 50% of voters say they would never consider voting for an otherwise well-qualified atheist candidate, it's hardly likely such candidates can attract the votes of every single non-bigot voter and win.
|
Response to dmallind (Reply #4)
Fri Jun 1, 2012, 03:42 PM
cbayer (120,011 posts)
7. Who has said that?
Response to cbayer (Reply #7)
Fri Jun 1, 2012, 09:27 PM
dmallind (10,437 posts)
9. If I find the cites will you accept and condemn it?
|
or quibble about exact wording etc? Not worth it without some change in your entrenched believers-do-no-wrong opinion.
|
Response to dmallind (Reply #9)
Fri Jun 1, 2012, 09:31 PM
cbayer (120,011 posts)
10. I've just never seen it said here and it would certainly fly in the face of all available data.
|
Your presumption that I have a "believers do no wrong" opinion is false. Lots of believers do wrong.
But I do read this group pretty carefully and I have not seen the position you describe voiced by any members: "believers here keep telling us we are inventing the wholesale anti-atheist bigotry and discrimination". If it is so, I would like to see it. |
Response to cbayer (Reply #10)
Mon Jun 4, 2012, 10:07 AM
dmallind (10,437 posts)
12. I know with near 100% certainty you'll merely deny. quibble semantically and rationalize
Response to dmallind (Reply #12)
Mon Jun 4, 2012, 10:25 AM
cbayer (120,011 posts)
13. I will just let these stand on their own merits.
|
I do appreciate you finding them, though.
|
Response to cbayer (Reply #13)
Mon Jun 4, 2012, 10:33 AM
dmallind (10,437 posts)
14. Thought so - no acceptance, no condemnation, and you'll never challenge anti-atheist prejudice
|
or even acknowledge it exists. Blinkers go with theism in other ways too I guess.
|
Response to dmallind (Reply #14)
Mon Jun 4, 2012, 10:36 AM
cbayer (120,011 posts)
15. Think whatever you want and assume whatever you like.
Response to dmallind (Reply #14)
Mon Jun 4, 2012, 02:17 PM
cbayer (120,011 posts)
16. I want to apologize for my snakiness.
|
You went to the trouble to do this and deserve a more thoughtful response.
Let me try to explain my issue here. While there may be exceptions, I think most of the believers that post here hold no animosity towards atheists as a group. There may be some individuals from all groups who are consistently negative towards other that see things differently or towards other specific members, but I don't think its generalized for the most part. When blanket statements are made about theists or atheists or agnostics or whatever, and when those statements are aimed specifically at DU members who participate here, it is divisive and damages the overall tone and quality of discourse. Why this happens, I am not completely sure, but I have my own theories. So I do have a negative reaction and do sometimes ask for something to back up those claims. You did find some instances which lend credence to what you claim and, again, I appreciate your making the effort to do that. Fortunately, most of those instances can be attributed to people that do not currently participate here and I am hopeful that the tone has changed or is changing. There is no question that atheists suffer some level of discrimination and prejudice. Anyone who claims that is not true is either misinformed or is being intentionally provocative. What is important is that we not allow that prejudice to flourish here, but try to address it and be able to discuss our differences without rancor. We may even find areas in which various groups can form alliances and work towards shared goals. |
Response to rug (Original post)
Fri Jun 1, 2012, 03:42 PM
cbayer (120,011 posts)
6. No, but he sounds like a good guy.
|
He's got at least 4 strikes against him, but his candidacy may lead to some progress.
Good for him. |
Response to rug (Original post)
Sat Jun 2, 2012, 08:30 AM
muriel_volestrangler (65,323 posts)
11. I love this bit:
|
South Carolina Public Television invited all the gubernatorial nominees to debate a week before the election. Incumbent Republican Governor Carroll Campbell knew he would have an easy election victory and declined, but nominees from the Democratic Party and the American Party (the old George Wallace party) jumped at the chance to debate me. Of course, afterward, friends assured each of us that we had won the debate, but one year later, there was an objective measure to determine the winner: Of the three participants, I was the only one who was not in jail. The American Party candidate was in jail for driving without a license and refusing to get one, while the Democratic Party candidate for a more traditional reason-tax evasion. |

