Atheists' lobbyist hoping Democrats gain control of Congress

[NVMojo]

Somehow, I really question the timing of this article, especially in the major NV Repuke supporting newspaper ...

WASHINGTON -- As the chief lobbyist for atheists in the nation's capital, former state Sen. Lori Lipman Brown is keeping a close eye on the Nov. 7 midterm elections.

Democrats may gain a majority in the House and possibly the Senate. For Brown, 48, such a result might change her job dramatically.

"There are some things we would like to see moved that haven't gone anywhere under current (Republican) leadership, and some things that we would prefer not to be spending our time fighting against," Brown said.

For example, Brown would like to see progress on legislation that would require all pharmacies to fill prescriptions for birth control or refer customers to someone who will if a pharmacist has religious or ethical objections against the prescription.

On the other hand, Brown hopes for a lull in legislation that would permit military chaplains to evangelize soldiers.

more...

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Oct-30-Mon-2006/news/10469928.html

[Doctor_J]

1. If she really wants us to win, she should keep her mouth shut

Yeesh. Why give Rove ammo to get the fundies out next week?

[NVMojo]

2. exactly ...even though the Repukes have more than proven they

are not the "morals and values" crowd.

[MindPilot]

5. Yeah! Democrats wouldn't what to be thought of as actually

STANDING for something. Shut up and win, now THERE'S a successful election strategy. :eyes:

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. Yeah!! Nothing inspires hatred more than atheists with an agenda

For God's sake, why don't they just shut up and sit at the back of the bus already!

:sarcasm:


You've marginalized gay people; so now I suppose it is atheists' turn. Who next? Labor? Crimeny, and people wonder why so many liberals have come to despise the Democratic Party.

[asthmaticeog]

24. I respectfully submit that labor was FIRST to get thrown under the bus.

After gays and atheists, the next to go will probably be pregnant women. Can't you already hear it? "Oh, you just HAD to have your reproductive freedom during an election year! Couldn't you just WAIT until we won congress and then continued to do nothing about it since there's another election in only two years that you'll have to wait 'til after so we can win that one?"

[Solon]

29. Actually, I think that Atheists have been sitting in the back of the bus...

ignored, for the entire time this country has been around. In other words, no party even bothers to throw them under the bus, for they were never in front of it.

[TechBear_Seattle]

49. I sit corrected. n/t

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jokerman]

4. Comparing Atheists to NAMBLA???

What a highly offensive load of shit.

[MindPilot]

6. Haven't you heard about all the child molestation that goes on

in the Atheist religion? :sarcasm:

[BlueManDude]

7. Apologies. I made my point badly

The point was that in the RW world of Fox News atheism would be on par with some kind of deviant behaviour that should be linked to Democrats.

Again - no offense intended.

[Jokerman]

9. Apology accepted.

You're correct in saying the two groups might trigger a similar reaction from some right-wing fundies but I'm concerned when I see it on DU.

Thanks.

[O.M.B.inOhio]

10. This atheist appreciates BlueManDude's comment

The RepugnantOnes are trying to get out their base by painting the Democrats as the gang who aim to destroy God, guns, nuclear heterosexual families, flags, white privilege, male privilege, cars, America, apple pie, etc. Ken Blackwell (Repug candidate for Ohio Governor, the prick who was likely instrumental in stealing Ohio in 2004) did in fact try many times to associate Ted STrickland with NAMBLA in their debates.

They're doing a lot of what I've heard called "dog whistle politics." That's where a political message is heard only by the intended audience. The funny thing is that only liberal intellectuals seem to notice the code in the seemingly innocuous ad or speech; the "dogs" themselves aren't aware of the racist, sexist, homophobic, and antiSemitic overtones.

[Kolesar]

11. GOPs are playing to the base to save a few legislative races

...where the vote will be a lot closer than the Blackwell blowout next week. It may make a difference for them. They certainly cannot play to the middle in any district that is not extremely gerrymandered.

[Doctor_J]

18. No, but Fox and Hate radio and all the other GOP media nuts will

Like BluemanDude said, this is fodder for Rove and all of his media cohort

[Polesitter]

57. Yeah! NAMBLA should sue!

[Lance_Boyle]

12. I had no idea I had a lobbyist.

I feel so... dirty.

[onehandle]

13. What a Bush like comment Brown made.

"I really wouldn't care if 99.9 percent of the people in the United States had a different belief than I do," Brown said.


I'm for total separation of church and state, but we have an election to win.

82% of Americans believe in God, and this publicity is no help to us right now.


I want the lobbyist system destroyed.

[VegasWolf]

14. Yes, but with ALL of the pandering that the Democratic Party is serving

up to the Christian Reich, I don't think that you have to worry about this lone lobbyist.

[maxsolomon]

20. 82% gave a knee jerk reaction to a leading question

and it becomes the most cited statistic on DU. that stat is way suspect. people say that kind of stuff because admitting you are an atheist, or have doubts, or simply are not concerned with the question is socially unacceptable in a thoroughly propagandized nation like the US of goddamn A.

WHAT god? what KIND of god? Old-testament Yahweh? New-testament "God"? Allah? Zeus? Krishna? A being? A concept? The ultimate nature of reality?

if Atheists have a Lobbyist, its the least effective lobby in Washington DC.

[Zhade]

31. What a moronic comment YOU just made.

Pushing for secularism, which benefits believers and nonbelievers alike, is hardly "bush-like".

[Marnieworld]

45. Her statement was accepting differences

Hardly bush-like. Besides she is jewish pushing for secularism, the separation of church and state which many religious people are supportive. I think standing up for the Constitution is a good thing in an election.

[Zhade]

47. Some people will use any excuse to slam atheists.

How dare we not believe in gods for which there is no proof!

Sheesh!

(I agree with you - standing up for the Constitution is ALWAYS right!)

[Vidar]

54. I absolutely agree with you on secularism.

[davhill]

15. Expect to see more headlines like this

As Republicans desperately try to shore up their eroding base

[Stand and Fight]

16. This article stinks to high hell... As a resident of Nevada.

As a long-time resident of Nevada -- born and raised in Las Vegas -- I have to say that I agree with the OP on this. The timing is just a wee bit too convenient given the slant of the majority of papers in the silver state. I mean, come on... Who -- other than right-wing Evangelicals -- would care about this? :wtf:

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[superconnected]

19. Guess truth hurts...

Interesting how you attack other religions in your post while supposedly defending your own from attack, and considering that attack wrong.

[dmallind]

21. Well for a start

atheism is not a religion, but the lack of belief in any of them. Atheism cannot be attacked any more than lack of belief in Santa Claus can be attacked as a viewpoint. The only possible "attack" on atheism is positive evidence of the existence of any deities. Being a negative definition, atheism says only what attribute you lack, and nothing at all about what attributes you possess.

For another thing I don't recall any atheists saying religious Democrats should shut up and go away because they are so reprehensible that they lose elections. In fact I think most of the time the idea is the reverse - that liberal Xians are not doing enough to shout about the co-option of their faith by the right wing.

[superconnected]

26. Yes, somehow I figured you wouldn't be able to "get it."

Unfortunately I don't have time to explain it to you so, babbly on.

[Zhade]

35. Um, we atheists know what we think and believe.

YOU don't. YOU'RE the one who doesn't get it.

You are, quite simply, incorrect.

[dmallind]

38. Now there's a devatsating rebuttal.

Starting with are you sure you figured *I* wouldn't be able to get it?

So perhaps someone else with more time to spare from their busy schedule (of posting snide and pointless posts claiming but of course not sharing superior knowledge?) could tell me why atheist democrats should shut up and stay quiet and when atheists have said the same about politically active religious democrats?

Anyone?



Anyone.....?

[asthmaticeog]

25. I fail to see which religion he attacked. nt

[superconnected]

27. I'll assume, and hope, you're only playing dumb.

[Solon]

28. Well I guess I'm dumb...

because I'm trying to figure out how you could possibly think that his post was an attack on ANY religion. He was bitching about the "Shut up you fucking minority!" attitude here at DU. Pick the minority.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Solon]

33. Well, if this were Slashdot, you'd get a -1 mod for arrogance...

I'll give you that. You're so far from the context of his post and this thread that you are orbiting Jupiter while everyone else is on Earth.

[Ignis]

34. I'll bite. What religion did he attack?

Please copy and paste the actual text of the attack from the original post. Some of us are just too 'dumb' to have telepathy, apparently.

[asthmaticeog]

40. Name the religion he attacked.

I'm waiting.

[Marnieworld]

46. He attacked "bigots"

IS that a new religion I am unaware of?

[Bluebear]

55. Why so arrogant?

nt

[Zhade]

32. Atheism is not a religion; it is the lack of one.

Please educate yourself on the difference between 'strong' (assertive that there are no gods) and 'weak' (lacking belief in gods due to the lack of evidence for them) atheism. The first asserts an unsupported belief, the second does not.

</public service announcement>

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. Yeah, what religion did he attack?

If you think using the expression "Jesus Christ" is an attack on religion, then you need to grow up and get a life.

[brentspeak]

22. Who's paying this "lobbyist"?

[dmallind]

42. Dunno but I'm guessing GAPAC

Godless Americans PAC which was launched at the Godless Americans March on Washington a few years back.

if so then, in part, the answer is "me".

[Zhade]

43. Why, do you think she's not a legitimate lobbyist?

Do you think the issues she raises awareness of (like, oh, the benefits of secularism and the separation of church and state for both believers and nonbelievers) are not valid issues?

Why the automatic suspicion from you? Is it because she dares to state the fact that she has no religion and follows no gods? Is it the timing? What?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

48. She isn't doing anything different in this past weeks.

It's the media who, for some reason (yeah right), chose to focus there NOW.

[John Gauger]

23. What a surprise!

A lobbyist is watching the Congressional elections! I'm shocked that a Congressional lobbyist would concern herself with Congress.

[Zhade]

36. Best post in the thread!

NT!

[Solly Mack]

37. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2505051

[dmallind]

41. um

Nice thread and all that, but is there some relevance to this topic?

Best I can work out is there may be some tenuous connection about party loyalty trumping other association but I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say.

Help?

[Solly Mack]

44. there's nothing "tenuous" about it

one side telling people to shut up is absolutely no different than the other side doing the exact same thing

one reminded me of the other..as I was reading through this thread

[dmallind]

50. Well OK

But the situations are completely different. The Republicans after all ARE doing something detrimental to their party by definition - endorsing the opposition.

The lobbyist is on the other hand expressing a very valid interpretation of issues which in large part reflect the opinion of most Dems regardless of their personal faith. Most of us, believers or not, want pharmacists to dispense whatever is prescribed, right?

Most Republicans on the hand are not likely to want Dems to be elected.

However I agree with the spirit of your point - it is normally self defeating behavior to censure the voices of a subgroup in your own party.

[Zhade]

51. Trust me, SM is one the same page. She rocks.

NT!

[Solly Mack]

53. Thank you!

I think you rock too!!! :)

[Solly Mack]

52. Well, that's just spiffy and all

It really is

I didn't appreciate people telling the lobbyist to "shut up" and that's what reminded me of the other article

group-think, lock-step.... ick

sorta goes counter to that "big tent" so many like to brag about one minute...only to prove just how narrow that tent is the next minute

[leesa]

56. We have a chief lobbyist? Funny!

I can't believe you are falling for this!

[MindPilot]

58. Did you even read the post or are you being deliberately dense?

:wtf: are you talking about?!