I’ve just joined the forums, and this is my first post.
Of the candidates for president in the US 2008 elections who have a realistic chance of being nominated and/or elected, which one best fits our objectives? Based on his stance regarding the separation of church and state, I’m currently leaning towards Barack Obama, despite his obvious religiosity. you can hear his entire speech here: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/faith/
There is no chance that anyone running on an atheist/agnostic or secular humanist platform will be given any serious consideration by enough people, to my great dismay and displeasure.
I’m not going to make a decision until we get closer to the primaries. At that time things will heat up and we’ll get much more information.
I understand about waiting before making a decision who to vote for. But there’s a lot of information available now to help us determine where a candidate stands on the issues central to CFI, secular humanists, skeptics, and atheist/agnostics. I was hoping to spark a discussion along those lines.
I offered a link to a speech by Obama in which he states his religious beliefs, but also upholds the idea of separation of church and state. The religious right often misunderstands, or worse, ignores, the original intentions of the Constitution’s framers when they purposely left any mention of a god, as the basis of the forming of a country and its government, out of their writing. My fear is that one or more of the Republican candidates would change that omission if they could one way or another. Those candidates must be identified early on in the process so we can lobby for others who don’t hold those views.
<Does anyone know where Hillary stands on this?>
Hillary is more agile, so she dont stand, she dances. Barring some shift in the fundamentals, like economic chaos or some as yet unimaginable scandal or fuckup, She will dance around this asking for input and gaging the effect on electability.
She is a pragmatist, not an ideologue. Since I’ve lived in Arkansas for most of the last 30 years, I’ve been watching her & Bill a long time. Her stump speaches never before dealt with this, nor will it now. She never spent much time in church, either in pews or pulpits.
I’ve enjoyed what Richardson has said, so far, but any of the top four Democratic candidates would be far better, to my mind, than any of the Republican candidates. Hillary, however, would be my last choice for precisely the reasons daybrown mentioned.
From a pragmatic view:
Hillary - There are a great many people who would vote against any woman, and who have been turned off to her by the unrelenting attacks.
Obama - While we don’t like to admit it, there are still many people in the U.S. who just won’t vote for a person with above a minimal level of melanin pigmentation. In addition, his lack of significant experience in federal government will be used as a major disability by the Republicans.
Richardson - The same negatives as Obama to a lesser extent because he’s Latino so isn’t as highly pigmented. However, I believe he has a few skeletons in his closet that will be attacked by the Republicans.
Edwards - Seems to be the least vulnerable to attack. The worst I’ve heard from the Republicans is that he’s too pretty.
Just because a candidate is pro-choice does not mean that s/he doesn’t have an objectionable religious stance. If I could ask the current crop of candidates only one question, it would be “Where do you stand on the issue of separation of church and state?” If any candidate said something to the effect of “Our nation was founded on christian principles…”, that would be an automatic dismissal from my consideration. And not completely because I am definitely anti-religion, but because it would indicate that s/he has not read the Constitution, is unaware that mention of god was purposely left out of the Constitution or is purposely ignoring it, and/or is ignorant or unaware of the history and discussion surrounding the writing of the Constitution and how that document came to be.
Thanks for the link to Obama’s speech. While of course I didnt agree with all of it, I think it is among the most thoughtful and interesting addresses on the subject I’ve heard from any poltiician. I agree that clearly and atheist or agnostic has no chance at being elected, so while I disagree with some of Obama’s ideas about the need for and value of faith, I certainly don’t think he represents a threat to secular Americans. In fact, if he can break the monopoly of the right wing on religious rhetoric and convince more Christians that shared values, regardless of religious or secular underpinings, are more important that what one believes, maybe he can do some good for us as a minority.
I disagree that American isn’t ready to elect a black man or a woman. I think his inexperience is a weakness in practical terms, and historically the first of a minority to get into a position of power and promoinence is usually a conservative, since they are the most likely to be suspicious of minorities (e.g. Clarence Thomas, Margaret Thatcher, Condoleezza Rice), but I think he his potentially electable. I do NOT think Hillary is electable, not so much because of her gender as her baggage from her and her husband’s previous tenure in the White House. And I agree that she is even less likley than the average Democrat to take an actual position on an issue based on principles rather than polls.
What is the possibility of CFI inviting position statements or even POI appearances from representatives of the various candidates campaigns? Of course, most wouldn’t take us seriously, especially on the right, but it might be possible to elicite some attention to secularist issues, or more broadly issues about science and government if that’s less threatening to them.
Logicisrefreshing, you listed something a a quote from bodido and with an embedded quotation from me. However, I’d like to ask where you got that. It’s certainly not even close to what I said on my post of that date earlier in this thread.
I cant say as I was disappointed watching the Democratic candidate debate. I didnt expect anything, and still dont see anything that will come near to actually dealing with fundamental stresses on the republic.
My Ozark hillbilly friends tell me we are at that awkward time when it is too late for them to fix things, but still too early to drag the bastards out to be shot. Course, they been saying that a few years now. I marvel at how long we can put up with the ambiguity.
Mostly the postings are like listening to neurotics in group psychotherapy argue about politics. They talk right past each other, each more interested in the attention of the group more than actually resolving any issues.