HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » Does this candidate have ...

Thu May 31, 2012, 10:52 PM

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

Thread informationRemove bookmarkTrash this thread

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to rug (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2012, 11:08 PM

1. YES, the answer is NO, and

this country was NOT founded on godly princples.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2012, 11:26 PM

2. Great read.

The guy's got a good sense of humor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Original post)

Fri Jun 1, 2012, 01:36 AM

3. Acceptable alternatives: worship of Satan, Thuggee, Kali, Ahriman, Ba'al

Santa Muerte, Santeria, FSM, Cthulhu, Xenu. Just not nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Original post)

Fri Jun 1, 2012, 09:17 AM

4. of course not

...but believers here keep telling us we are inventing the wholesale anti-atheist bigotry and discrimination that makes it so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #4)

Fri Jun 1, 2012, 03:39 PM

5. Do you believe the only reason he'd lose is because he's an atheist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #5)

Fri Jun 1, 2012, 09:25 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #4)

Fri Jun 1, 2012, 03:42 PM

7. Who has said that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #7)

Fri Jun 1, 2012, 09:27 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #9)

Fri Jun 1, 2012, 09:31 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #10)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 10:07 AM

12. I know with near 100% certainty you'll merely deny. quibble semantically and rationalize

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #12)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 10:25 AM

13. I will just let these stand on their own merits.

I do appreciate you finding them, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #13)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 10:33 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #14)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 10:36 AM

15. Think whatever you want and assume whatever you like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #14)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 02:17 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Original post)

Fri Jun 1, 2012, 03:42 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Original post)

Sat Jun 2, 2012, 08:30 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread