Hello,

I want to ask you a question. Why aren’t atheists and agnostics more upset about Barack Obama saying that we might want to rethink the separation of church and state during the CNN “Compassion Forum”? During that same forum Hillary Clinton had said that she believes matters such as abortion should be decided by the individual and not the government, which shows her long standing view that the separation of church and state is important. I feel that Hillary Clinton respects atheist and agnostic rights, while Barack Obama considers them a low priority. Please endorse and support Hillary Clinton. And I’m very interested in hearing your comments about which candidate is best in regards to atheist/agnostic rights.

- Tyler Young
Federal Way, Washington

I do not feel Billary respects atheists.  She only wants power, fame, and glory.  It’s all hype.

Secondly…

This is your third “Vote for Hillary” post.  Seems to me you are campaigning, which in turn is becoming spam and will be deleted if it continues.

Why do you (Tyler) feel that rational thinkers should be upset over a single broadcast? You don’t know Obama’s priorities. Your emotional presentation of your “facts” only hurts your case in a forum that relishes logic.

Actually I had written these thing in my personal journal, and decided to share them with other atheists and agnostics to see how they felt. I feel that these are very strong points. You can find my original posts on my myspace, I’m not some campaigner, I truly feel that she’s best for the job: myspace.com/elmerbront

I feel Obama respects the rights of the secular community. Who knows though?

QuirkyAndSuch - 25 April 2008 07:17 AM

I feel that Hillary Clinton respects atheist and agnostic rights, while Barack Obama considers them a low priority.

I don’t trust either of them on atheist/agnostic rights. Hillary has long associations with various extremely conservative religious figures (see my review of the book “Prince of War” for some discussion of Hillary’s relationship with Billy Graham, a truly unsavory figure), and of course Obama is completely over the top in his grovelling at the foot of The Cross. I don’t expect either one of them to roll back the dangerous (and probably unconstitutional) “Faith-based” aspects of the Bush years. Atheists are the single most disliked group in America, and pandering to the religious is de rigeur for election to anything from President to dog-catcher.

Considering Obama’s mother was an Atheist and devout skeptic, and Obama’s mother played a large role in shaping him, I will go with Obama.

Also I believe the only reason Obama joined the largest church on the South side of Chicago was to lay the groundwork to become a publicly elected official.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0703270151mar27,0,5157609.story

also using “Billary” is offensive. I do not like the woman, but it puts you in the same camp as Schwarzenegger calling all his state Senators girly men.

Speaking personally, I feel that either will be better for secularists than the Republican alternatives. But I favor Clinton primarily because of her repeated call to end Bush’s war on science, an issue Obama has mostly been silent on. And as a public speaker, and one who admires Obama’s rhetoric and skills and charm, I still favor Clinton because I think experience matters more than charm and being swept away by rhetoric. As an atheist, I might agree with Obama’s belief that everyday folks cling to guns or religion when the going gets tough, but what a bone-headed thing for him to say if he wants to represent all Americans as President.

I’m certainly happier with either of them than McCain, on most every issue. I thought Obama’s speech on faith was pretty thoughtful for a politician, and while I agree it’s sad that one must claim deep personal faith to be even remotely electable, I think he strikes a nice balance between the de rigeur religiosity of mainstream politics and what I suspect he actually feels and believes. I also feel pragmatically that he’s more electable than Clinton despite her being better at working the party and media machinery. I don’t think her experience is truly superior in terms of policy-setting ability, though it makes her a smoother public figure. Independants are never going to vote for her given the baggage from her husband’s terms, whereas Obama might be able to peel a few of them away from McCain’s camp. In any case, I doubt either of them represent the danger to secularism that the Republicans do, so I hope we can minimize the divisiveness of this interminable primary campaign and start focusing on the race against the real opposition soon.

mckenzievmd - 26 April 2008 03:59 PM

I hope we can minimize the divisiveness of this interminable primary campaign and start focusing on the race against the real opposition soon.

Oh man, how much do I agree with that sentiment!

Yes! I am a strong proponent of Obama. But Democrat all the way.

DJ Grothe - 26 April 2008 01:58 PM

Speaking personally, I feel that either will be better for secularists than the Republican alternatives. But I favor Clinton primarily because of her repeated call to end Bush’s war on science, an issue Obama has mostly been silent on. And as a public speaker, and one who admires Obama’s rhetoric and skills and charm, I still favor Clinton because I think experience matters more than charm and being swept away by rhetoric. As an atheist, I might agree with Obama’s belief that everyday folks cling to guns or religion when the going gets tough, but what a bone-headed thing for him to say if he wants to represent all Americans as President.

Eh, with much respect, I have to disagree with your premise as to why Hillary would be better for secularist than Obama.

I would like to preface that I am not a very big Obama fan either. It was only about a month ago I decided to switch from Hillary for Obama. Mainly because before a month ago Obama was pure rhetoric, with zero substance. However the last month his website has been updated substantially with policy initiatives and he has finally had to address being attacked negatively. Unfortunately most of those negative claims are being driven by Hillary Clinton, and her former campaign chief Mark Penn.

I feel Hillary’s commitment to ending the anti-science movement, is a mute one, since any Democratic in the Oval office would end that immediatly with the team they would bring in.

Experience also is something that is kind of a lame argument, if you will. How much experience did John F Kennedy have before entering the white house? How much experience did Reagan have (I do not support him just pointing out) and how much experience did Bill Clinton have? He was never a Senator or a lowly Congressmen. he was a governor from a small unimportant fly over state.

Through careful study of both Candidates and Obama’s commitment to refuse all money from special interests (please read this story of a guy who had his check returned from the Obama campaign

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/7/124812/3285/604/491642 ) and the fact that Obama’s mother was an atheist is the reason I am going to vote for him in 2 weeks in the primary, and will vote for him again in November.

I have to ask you, what has Hillary done in the United States Senate in the the last 8 years for secular progressives? Thats 8 years of being a powerful Senator from the great state of NY, and if she really was committed to stopping the anti-science initiatives that the Bush administration has been implementing since the very first hour they took office, then I must have missed something.

Also I have to say, it’s time we get some fresh people into the White House, It’s been Bush/Clinton since 1988!!!

Ohh and speaking about anti science and the people perpetuating the message, watch terry McAuliffe thank Fox News on behalf of Hillary as being fair and balanced.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ2nVor0bSI

Also if you are interested I would direct you to a website called opensecrets.org Do a search for donations to the 2008 presidential election and type in News Corp. and you will see every major executive at News Corp (Fox News) has donated to Hilary. Included Rupert Murdoch he has given the maxim allowed by law.

dougsmith - 26 April 2008 04:19 PM

mckenzievmd - 26 April 2008 03:59 PM

I hope we can minimize the divisiveness of this interminable primary campaign and start focusing on the race against the real opposition soon.

Oh man, how much do I agree with that sentiment!

Oh no—I think neither candidate can actually get elected. 
Fallacy number 176: Wishful Thinking

http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#WishfulThinking

A reasoner who suggests that a claim is true, or false, merely because he or she strongly hopes it is, is committing the fallacy of wishful thinking. Wishing something is true is not a relevant reason for claiming that it is actually true.
Example:

There’s got to be an error here in the history book. It says Thomas Jefferson had slaves. He was our best president, and a good president would never do such a thing. That would be awful.

The Democratic party is currently picking a McGovern-Dukakis-(maybe Kerry) type left-wing liberal; Obama has less experience than any recent Democratic candidate and is more liberal. 

If the Democratic primary were choreographed by the Republican National Committee it would follow more or less the path it’s on. Both Obama and Hillary are deeply flawed as national candidates.  This should have been an easy election for Democrats to win with a candidate like Kerry, Edwards, or Gore.

rationaljeff - 26 April 2008 05:24 PM

how much experience did Bill Clinton have? He was never a Senator or a lowly Congressmen. he was a governor from a small unimportant fly over state.

and the fact that Obama’s mother was an atheist is the reason I am going to vote for him in 2 weeks in the primary, and will vote for him again in November.

you will see every major executive at News Corp (Fox News) has donated to Hilary. Included Rupert Murdoch he has given the maxim allowed by law.

I want to address these three points you made. The first comment shows exactly why the Obama camp isn’t right for America. It’s totally elitest, and snobby. Arkansas is one of Americas 50 states, and talking about them like they don’t matter is exactly why Obama got hit so hard over his “bitter” comments. The Obama camp is out of touch, and looks down on those they don’t agree with. Just like Mriana calling Hillary “Billary” ... it’s snobby and not appropriate.

And Barack Obama DOWNPLAYS his mothers atheistic beliefs. He tends to call her “spiritual”. And it worries me more that Obama has enough bad judgement to start out with an atheist parent and decide to be religious. That’s much worse then starting out in a religious family and staying that way like Hillary did.

And as for the donations? Who cares? Hillary stands for what she stands for. Obama is the one being scared to go for what he believes in. He says he supports universal health care. but his plan leaves out 15 million americans uncovered. That’s not universal health care, he just says that because it sounds good to people.

DJ Grothe - 26 April 2008 01:58 PM

I favor Clinton primarily because of her repeated call to end Bush’s war on science, an issue Obama has mostly been silent on.

I think that’s a wonderful point. Some might say that he feels the same ... but the fact that she talk about it (all the time I should add) and he doesn’t tells me that she’s more commited to the issue, and that it’s a higher priority for her.

Medical research funded by the government has been dramatically reduced during the 8 Bush years ... we need someone that considers science a high priority and I feel that Clinton understand this more. I also feel that she can do it more quickly, because she already has ideas about this issue. Obama isn’t talking about it because he isn’t ready to deal with it, even if he wants to.

Never mind