The Dems' "Unity" Event: Secularists Semi-Invited
When first avowing his religious credentials for president, Barack Obama said -- and then repeated many times since -- that "secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square." The party that will soon nominate Obama is to be praised for its acceptance of and respect for its religious members. However, it is the nonbelievers who are now being ignored.
Hearing of the plans for the prayer/unity/values event leading off the convention on August 24, Ron Millar, Associate Director of the Secular Coalition for America, wrote a letter on July 2 to Leah Daughtry, CEO of the Democratic National Committee and planner of the "big tent" event. He asked Daughtry if nontheistic Americans were welcome and, if so, how this would be manifested.
While not replying directly to the Coalition, Daughtry did discuss the request with the Associated Press. "Atheists speaking at an interfaith service ... does that work?" a "befuddled" Daughtry was quoted as asking in a July 19 story by the AP's Eric Gorski. "I don't quite know. But they're part of the party, you treat them with respect."
The first sign that treating them with respect was not a priority for Daughtry after all was her lumping all notheists--who include not only agnostics but also humanists, skeptics, and believers in spirit but not a personal god--under "atheists." And the second came with the announcement of the lineup for what had once been thought of as a "values" and a "unity" event: no one represents the millions of secularists. Daughtry: "Democrats have been, are and will continue to be people of faith - and this interfaith gathering is proof of that."
But what about those Democrats who are not "people of faith"? Are they not invited? Or invited just to watch others pray? Should their own outlook not even be acknowledged?
If the Democrats are trying to strike unifying chords among their entire kaleidoscopic range of liberals, moderates, and progressives, it should be obvious that secularists cannot dare be left out of the "big tent" event, and that it should be about beliefs and values, not solely about religion.
Secularists remember all too painfully one of the most dramatic presidential addresses in American history. At the National Cathedral three days after September 11, 2001, the president's speech so filled with religious language that it was virtually a sermon. As he delivered it, Bush stood flanked by Jewish, Muslim, and Christian representatives, with no one invited to stand alongside them whose presence might acknowledge the existence of the tens of millions of secular Americans. At this most important collective moment in the recent history of the United States, it was as if their president was telling them that they did not exist. The United States had become a nation of believers.
Yet one of the most remarkable implications of the data presented in the new Pew U.S. Religious Landscape Survey is that atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, and believers in an impersonal God or universal spirit -- people who do not believe in God at all or who do not believe in a traditional God -- will be a huge share, perhaps as much as 40 percent of Democratic voters in November.
Another Pew discovery: Two out of every three Americans say that their moral values do not come primarily from religion. In other words, whatever their faith, these are people who live largely or wholly secular lives.
It turns out that deciding to welcome faith into the public square was the easy part. Now the rest of the Democrats -- the many with underlying beliefs that can't be neatly categorized as "religious"--must be invited to join the political conversation as well.
Thomas Jefferson glimpsed such problems when he called for a "wall of separation" between church and state, treating the first as private and the second as public. In any case, excluding some so that others feel included is no way to create common ground.
"Ronald Aronson is the author of Living Without God, published by Counterpoint Press and now in bookstores."
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Hey, I'm agnostic and well, I'm worried about Obama's plan to continue the faith based program!
See Ronald Aronson's Profile
It's a free country, so why can't people who want to pray go ahead and do so. Why should secularists make a big deal about it? Why not live and let live?
This good have forced me to do a lot of rethinking since writing the op-ed. But this is a public, not a private event. It's not a religious meeting of Democrats who want to pray, but a nationally televised event financed and staged by the political party that aspires to govern us all. But are ALL Democrats are people of faith, Leah Daughtry? Those who are are speaking as if the rest of Democrats didn't exist. Not offered equal time, they are simply being treated as invisible.
The Democrats are talking the language of common ground, respect, and inclusiveness while looking towards one constituency. What about tens of millions of others whose sources of values come from elsewhere than God - from reason, from history, from science, from nature, from non-personal spirits?. A values and belief event that doesn't recognize this, is not a big tent but a tent meeting.
That's the argument, restated, but how to settle it? By watching on Sunday. Perhaps the Democrats will "get it" and put representatives of non-theistic approaches to life on the podium. Perhaps they'll find a way to acknowledge other-than-religious believers. Perhaps it’ll wind up being a genuinely unifying, inclusive event. If so, false alarm. Obama’s original impulse to find common ground will have prevailed.
Blatant religiosity in politics is one of the basest forms of pandering, and is completely disgusting to me. We have seen the results of such on the RIght, and I have no doubt that if encouraged, some sort of moral distortion will arise out of the application of religiosity to the Left.
The people who believe in fairytales always want to flaunt their power over others; time and again we have seen that such only leads to negative/evil policies for the masses, and the concentration of power to so-called holy men. There is no disputing that science and progressive efforts have suffered historically from religious influence, and the modern era is no different.
Religion should be checked at the door; the right to PRACTICE your religion without interference should be enough, but for power-hungry religious types, it never is--they can never reasonably resist their urge to force the non-believers into what they believe is morally acceptable.
To me [maybe because I was raised in a Christian environment] Christianity is the worst offender, as their religious beliefs [as defined by their religious texts] clearly defines humanity's right to freewill, and then they go out and organize todo everything they can to LIMIT freewill.
Obama deeply loved his mother and was profoundly influenced by her. She was also a secularist and perhaps even an atheist. He is hardly anti atheist but he is a devout Christian and this is a faith forum.
The 'thing' about Christians, is that they feel a compulsion to 'sell' their version of life to EVERYBODY........and THAT is a problem.
I have NEVER felt the urge to proselytize the philosophy I have embrace for over 38 years.
Those that 'say', don't know.
Those that 'know', don't say.
There is no way that Religious freedom compromises the non-believer's rights....
Social Justice is all over the place in the U.S. The problem is the disagreement with what Social Justice is....The church simply helps people to define it...
Social Justice is the protection of people that we disagree with. The Talaban, for instance, will kill people to declare they are gay; but we will protect that right to choose that even if the church does not agree with the lifestyle.....
The press makes problems for us by blowing things so out of proportion when it comes to social justice.
Sorry, but those who value truth, reason, logic, evidence and facts have their rights violated and compromised every day and in many ways. The reality based community DO have their freedoms impinged and remains the most hated group in America.
Nope, not quite complete. Don't forget that there are both religious and secular humanists. And Freethinkers do not only have the option of Humanism when they move to describe their positive personal and unique set of beliefs. They come in all flavors.
http://atheism.about.com/od/abouthumanism/a/religioushuman.htm
Denver is planning it's own party for whoever they deem "dissenters".
A CBS news crew has uncovered an ominous warehouse holding facility in Denver, consisting of chain-link steel cages topped with barbed wire, standing at the ready to receive thousands of protesters at this year"s Democratic National Convention.
The warehouse is located on the north-east side of Denver and is owned by the city. It appears that officials wanted to keep it a secret until the convention began. The police captain captured on film warned that if made public, the facility could be compromised "by people who are potentially trying to be disruptive."
You can see the video of them exploring the facility and filming before they were asked to leave here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQEc3ejHIaM
I'm feeling VERY left out of my country right now.
I feel it's been kidnapped by a bunch of "faith-based" kooks who can't think for themselves without some megachurch to run to for their 7-11 runs.
I do not recognize the country I grew up in.
I do not recognize the churches I grew up in.
I do not recognize any kind of "democracy" in this theocratic push.
I DO see our very own Taliban raising it's multi-heads.
I DO see the downfall of a great country in the name of a nasty little vengeful god with a small g.
Amen
I couldn't agree more. Those who are "secularists" make up more of majority in the Democratic Party than evangelicans. If those at the 'top' of the party can't see or understand it are going to blow this election. Can't they see what our "crusade" in the name of Jesus Christ has wrought. Not only destroying a country by bombing and a fleeing population, but our own with everything done in the name of christianity from starting this goddamn war, setting up phony political faith based charities and infecting every department and agency with religious nuts willing to subvert democracy in the name of Jesus Christ. Being an athiest and life long Democrat I feel since the Party has NEVER bowed to religious pressure in the past in the name of ' freedom FROM' religion' and keep the separation of church and state I take exception to this. The leaders, including Obama, are now taking a page from McCain and pandering to what ever they think is up there in the sky to avoid what is there below. What a crock. As Bill Maher has said, "If God is so powerful, why doesn't he destroy the devil so there isn't any more evil? Because if that happens ther will be no need to pass those gold plates every Sunday." The Democrats could screw up a two car funeral.
Seconded.
Amen again.
Thank you for thinking and writing so clearly.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."
-First Amendment, United States Constitution
"Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
-Article VI, United States Constitution
Just another example of the democratic party trying to do its best republican imitation. It's really outrageous and insulting, but most importantly wrong. The pathetic thing is that I bet most of the democrats, Obama included espouse almost uniformly secularist views when it comes to civics and governance but they actively repress such educated rationality for pandering to ignorance.
GOP Lite rides again! The Democrats continue their fight to prove they stand for nothing.
Nonbelievers being ignored? I think not. Democrats and Republicans can and will embrace thiests all they want. This is no different than embracing unions, veterans groups, or any other sector of society. All I, and I am sure atheists in general ask is, don't legislate religious doctrine. I will still vote Obama because the alternative is too scary.
As far as inviting vegetarians to a rib BBQ, why not? It is up to them what they eat when they know what is being served. Not inviting them is not an answer if you are trying to accomplish unity.
Yes, absolutely. Those who are reality-based are often ignored or rejected outright, told they are not citizens and will deservedly suffer eternal agony in the theist's loving god's torture chamber. Unions and the other groups you listed are assumed to be included in the process. Freethinker citizens are an anathema to the religionist Barbarians. The reason you wouldn't necessarily invite vegetarians (or why they might not accept if they couldn't bring their own food) to your BBQ is that it would fly in the face of one of their core beliefs. Akin to inviting a Jew or African-American to a KKK rally. What this article is saying is that you should not have a BBQ that is exclusive of a large compinent of your friends. Rather you should perhaps make the gathering broader and more inclusive, such as making it a "cookout" where more food would be served in addition to the "meat". More palatable to all, as the Democratic meetings should be. Currently the acceptance is mere lip service.
But how are atheists going to insure that religious doctrine isn't being included in legislation if they aren't even invited to discuss the agenda? I too will vote to Barack and have been a huge supporter for more than a year, but I have been very disappointed lately with all of the religious rhetoric lately. I find it insulting and degrading to my intelligence.
Just wanted to correct one thing in the article. Humanists are not a religious group. That's just what non-believers call themselves when they wish to define themselves by something they believe in rather than by something they don't.
Also, all this increasing religiosity shows a blatant disregard for the idea of the separation of church and state, and it is an insult to all rational people and our election process.
Thomas Jefferson said;
"If my neighbor has 20 gods or none what is it to me? It neath picks my pocket or breaks my leg."
Tom was wrong. the history of Christianity is one of repression, persecution and murder of heretics, Jews, witches and anyone else who disagreed with them. They are dangerous fanatics who want to turn their myths and superstitions into laws.
Remember George Bush said God told him to attack Iraq!
The crusades, the inquisition, the 30 years war, the Salem witch trials!
These people are dangerous.
Well Mr. Jefferson was a deist and a gentleman who would never think to make religion a qualification for public office. Even George Washington (who was a very pious Protestant Christian) never made his religion a public issue. Our Founding Fathers treated religion as a deeply personal matter. It seems we've digressed quite a lot over the past 250 years....
Why do I, as a rational secularist, need to be "acknowledged"? Respected would be nice. Tolerated would be acceptable. And left alone, preferable.
Saying that Democrats acknowledging conventional theists somehow harms secularists (or Theravada Buddhists or Alexandrian Wiccans, for that matter) is akin to saying that civil unions somehow pose a threat to conventional marriages or that applying the writ of habeas corpus to everyone under U.S. jurisdiction or control somehow harms native citizens or that the existence of the Congressional Black Caucus harms Caucasians and Pacific Islanders. Such assertions are illogical--and potentially harmful.
Wow - A rational thinking person! I wish, like your screen name suggests, you were the standard.
I would feel better "STANDARD" if your promotion of "civil unions" rather than "same sex marriage" in your example of intolerance. You seem to have prejudices of your own as well.
"Respected would be nice. Tolerated would be acceptable. And left alone, preferable."
Indeed, and all that you say would be true, if we were working from an equal baseline; clearly we are not. There is a clear agenda to exault Christianity and to promote their beliefs as a means of political pandering. If religious folks had the same attitude that you express above we'd all be at that equal baseline, and we'd all be better off for it--but that's not the case, and such is an unlikely scenario in US politics, I'm sad to say.
Personally I expect A LOT more than acknowledgement. I expect to be heard and respected, not treated as a lesser member of the Democratic Party. Events such as these are used to set party platforms and agendas. If all members of the party aren't included in the discussions then we truly have become nothing more than the GOP Lite.
Why would none believers care about a faith-based unity event? Are you advocating a no-faith-based event? Why would there be a need to bring non-believers together around the issue of Christian faith.
I'm sorry, but this reads like a cry-baby article meant to shed faux unfavorable light on Obama's efforts to include people of faith, a group that traditionally leans Republican because of their gay and abortion stances.
Don't be like PUMA. Don't make this election all about one's personal need to be recognized.
"Why would none believers care about a faith-based unity event? Are you advocating a no-faith-based event?"
I am. Let's keep religion in the home and churches, and hearts and minds. Let's leave it out of our political process and our legislation. The founders were adamant about keeping religion and government separate.
What you suggest may cause massive schizophrenic. People are what their belief is.
If a non-believer and a believer agree we should do unto others as we would have them to do onto us, then you have an example of something different people of different beliefs share.
This article highlights our difference when we could focus on what we have in common regardless of race, sex, religion, etc.
The purpose of the event is issue a call to the faith community to step up to the plate and help effect change.
"...this reads like a cry-baby article"
Hear hear!
There is a strain of atheists whose atheism is as much an act of faith as any religion's. Ironically, it's always that strain that upset about an event like this.
Ridiculous. It takes as much faith (zero) to be an atheist as it is to be an atoothfairieist.
If you are going to pass around crap like that, how about referencing some of these so-called "faith" atheists. I'd like to meet them. Oh, wait, they don't exist; that's just religious people's attempt to try to make atheists into things they can understand. Never mind.
I agree that having a faith-based event might be preferable to hearing cry-baby believers whine about how the Democratic Party is ignoring them or is hostile to them.
yup, I believe we now have two states ... viz. United Christian States and United Secular Humanist States. Beyond that, we have one political party with two candidates running for the President of the United Christian States. It is strange that us United Secular Humanists own property in the United Christian States and have no real representation. ahh, this all sounds like the CSA (Confederate States of America) all over again. All we need now is a Manifest Destiny clause in the constitution then we will be in pickle. After that, Jefferson, Grant and Sherman will come down out of the "heavens" and fix us for another 100+ years or so. At that time, the Union will be whole again unless Robert E Lee gets his battle strategy refined. Anyhow, I do understand the pandering to christians that makes such a thing a need today. Otherwise, based on the mythological books angry christians make a lot of bloody battles.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
