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
Oh! The pain and embarrassment. As a federal employee, In 2004 I was at an EEOC conference in Miami. Imagine my surprise when every morning was started with lengthy, very evangelical, prayer led by a (paid ) invited minister. As the only one that didn't "rustle" and make a show of getting in the head bowed, respectful prayer position, I was indentified and excluded. Excluded from any following converstion at the table and throughout the conference. I suppose those that prayed thought that those that didn't were a threat to their own, insulated work community. I thought it very ironic, that an agency that investigates employers that include prayer during worktime, imposed that very mandate on it's own employees. I am afraid of where this inclusion of the religious right will lead our Country and it's Constitution, regardless of the candidate. I already feel excluded from even voting.
That is very disturbing but not surprising given that the current administration has obviously opened the floodgates of employement for peoples whose ideology matches their own, and barred others illegally. At most maybe a moment of reflection would be a more equitable way to include every person to quietly do their own thing. Excluding anyone, especially in government employ, violates laws, that have been largely ignored by Boooosh and his merry band of cohorts.
I personally do not participate in organized religion, however I do believe in a universal spirit that connects all of us. I respect it. I practice universal principals, I meditate, reflect, express gratitude and live by principals that are in many ways common sense and also some elements of all religions.
So to be categorized and excluded is a really huge mistake not to let everyone participate in the dialogue. I believe it might just lose the votes of some of that 40% which is totally counterproductive when we are trying to win an election with so many potential voters who believe differently than others. It is truly time to transcend our differences and unify the party.
I believe it might just lose the votes of some of that 40% which is totally counterproductive when we are trying to win an election with so many potential voters who believe differently than others
They won't lose mine just because I don't agree with their religious philosophy. How ridiculous. It would make me no better than them. You can't truly expect to unify a party with varying religious and value based differences but you can try to persuade them that you have somewhat of their best interest at heart. I didn't think atheism was a religion anyway. I am an advocate at keeping religion out of politics but if you want to win an election you have to pander. That's the reality.
40%? That's way too high... there are no atheists in fox holes.
Sure there are: the Russian and Chinese armies.
There are no foxholes in atheists.
The one's pointing their weapons are probably religious so the world hardly needs more of them.
Actually, there have always been a lot of atheists in foxholes - a friend's father who was a WWII European and Pacific theater vet being just one example, and Pat Tillman being another.
A large part of the U.S. Armed Forces is atheist. You have no idea what you are talking about.
I would cut them some slack. Daughtry, as CEO of the DNC, is apparently not the best at PR. But the point is that the Democrats are trying to show that the GOP doesn't have a monopoly on values and "value voters," which I would think is a good thing. But because some Democrats still writhe in disgust when politicians express their values in religious terms, they've compromised with this preparty deal.
I am not a religious person and I don't believe in an all-knowing God (although I do wonder who put that big ball of stuff that exploded into the universe). I do however believe in values that some call "Christian" values. I believe in the golden rule and I believe that we all should help the least of humankind. I believe in telling the truth and being true to one's loved ones. I believe that the state should never take a life out of revenge or anger. I wish there were no reason for any woman to have an abortion, but I respect that there may be reasons I cannot know that would cause a woman to terminate a pregnancy. I also believe that people are people and that no one is better just because of the color of their skin or the country in which they were born or the religious institution where they worship.
And yet I cannot be represented at the "Values" conference? Is this my Democratic Party? I often wondered what secular Republicans truly feel about the hijacking of their party by the religious. Now I know - a helpless abandonment.
Barack - I respect your right to worship any way you wish. Please respect my right not to worship as well as the fact I hold high the (old?) values of the Democratic Party.
Good post with some interesting points. However, quite frankly, I'm not really seeing the issue here.
As a person indifferent to religion, I have no problem with religious functions and displays. Plus, since I don't have a religious affiliation per se, I obviously don't have a problem with not being "represented" at a religious event.
A president's, or any other elected official's, personal religious views should not really have a role in their decision making. The president's job is to protect the rights of all people by upholding the Constitution, which treats all Americans, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack there off, as equal. As someone else here already commented, "You may vote with your religion in mind, but the government shouldn't control religion and religion shouldn't control the government
How I dream of the day when a person running for political office when asked about his/her religious views can say "it's none of your business" and that be the end of it then and there.
This is not a religious event. It is a political one.
It is frighteningly both, together.
I love the democratic party. I'm very happy that faith has finally been put on display. Not every dem is a person of faith. That's fine. Those who have no faith/or do not profess to be a follower of any religion should NEVER pretend so just to get votes. But Senator Obama is a person of faith and walks and talks it.
One of the most loyal group to the dem party is African Americans. Certainly not all but many, many are persons of faith. Social justice and who they vote for (change) comes from the church. That has been true over many decades. This is the first time ANY dem (outside of Jimmy Carter) has recognized the importance of such.
There is a place for faith and secular process in the party and indeed in governing. One does not exclude the other. Please don't get Religious Right confused with faith. We will be alright with ALL of us in the same white house!
I can't disagree with you more. The church does not hold the patent on social justice. I'm as socially conscious as anyone in any church, I just don't need the crutch!
"Social justice and who they vote for (change) comes from the church. " I suppose you don't think social justice ever comes from the Synagogues and Mosques. Of course Jews and Muslims need not apply for the job of POTUS because it is not the "right" kind of faith, correct?
Separation of Church and State ... I don't want anyone in office who allows his personal belief in lies and myths to influence public policy - like not being in favor of gay marriage, like spending tax payer dollars on a faith based initiative, etc.
Give me an atheist or Liberal Jew any day over a Christian, especially one that showcases his faith. And some Christian he is - pro-death penalty and ready to go to war in Afghanistan. The hypocrisy is sickening.
An Atheistic Amen to THAT!
there are more agnostics and atheists in America than ever before.
The Right-Wing has no clue how much they have turned people off to religion.
I tend to think it hasn't turned off a majority of anyone in the south or midwest regions of america.
This to me is just looking for something to complain about. "Atheists not invited to prayer event!" You wouldn't invite vegetarians to a ribs barbeque, would you? For people of faith, such gatherings are important; for secularists, they're not. Why does one group of people doing something meaningful to them have to be interpreted as an insult to others to whom that activity is not meaningful? Being a member of a diverse and multi-cultural society is all about tolerance for differences, not being offended that people are different in what is important to them.
Is it really worth conceding secularism to get votes from evangelicals? Why won't a history lesson just suffice...
http://tin
Sounds to me like it is time fro me to find a new party. Obama had me until now *sigh*. *Off to look for another candidate*
You too eh? I hear Nader is in the run this time of year!
FISA was the "deal breaker" for me. Until then, he almost had me after Kucinich left the race. I was very torn because I really believed that Cynthia McKinney, the Green Party nominee, was the better candidate but I was falling into the what if that helps McCain way of thinking.
I realized that I haven't voted for someone I believed was right for the job of POTUS for almost forty years. I've always voted for the lesser of two evils or voted against the other guy and it never feels good. It never feels right.
I've read and considered the liberal Democrat blogs and articles that say we have to hold Obama's feet to the fire because he is our only hope. Well, FISA showed me that his feet are coated with asbestos and I don't believe he is our only hope.
I wish all of us who care about civil liberties and the Constitution and are viewed as "extremists" by the Democratic party would solidly get behind a third party candidate. I saw what we can do and we don't have to do it for a Democrat.
runcynthia
Atheists the new gays, staying in the closet.
ROFL c'mon! We Atheists have been in the closet a lot longer. In the pre-christian world gays were totally accepted, Atheists scorned and killed.
Gays have huge political clout, Atheists have negative clout. It is actually less than zero. =P
Well I for one will not stay where I am told.
You have at least one other in the foxhole behind you...
So whaddya say? Let's go find some lions for these people!
It's little wonder I've grown to dislike religion so much. It will be a great day when a candidate is asked about his/her religion and can reply with "none of your business" and that be that. If the Democrats become infested with fundies, I'll take my vote elsewhere.
For a long time people of faith haven't felt very welcomed or included in the Democratic Party. The comment that "secularists believe all people have the right to practice WHATEVER RIDICULOUS SUPERSTITION they choose" is patronizing and condescending. Secularists apparently have very strong beliefs of their own and they might be sensitive to the fact that everyone else also has strong beliefs. They say that there is no place for religion in politics and yet they are strongly propounding their right to their "religion" of secularism. Just because they call it something else doesn't make it any less a strongly held belief system. I haven't seen anything that said they weren't invited to the opening ceremonies, but they could show respect for others. I don't happen to believe in organized religion, but I do believe in good manners. I don't stand up in a Native American sweat lodge, talk out loud in someone else's church service, make fun of anyone's yarmulke or tell secularists in their own meetings that they seem rancorous. Mutual respect is a sign of personal strength, integrity and character. All I care about is that whatever Obama's personal belief system is, it seems to inspire him to acts of kindness and intelligent commitment to helping people lead more empowered lives. If there are a bunch of people who want to share that with him for part of one evening, I'm fine with that. Live and let live.
I wholeheartedly agree! This is whole argument is the equivalent of the "war on christmas"!
"secularists believe all people have the right to practice WHATEVER RIDICULOUS SUPERSTITION they choose" is patronizing and condescend
The way you say it, yes, it would be. Religious freedom is a serious matter, however. And religious freedom doesn't work without the separation of church and state. By the way, secularism isn't a religious belief, it is a political belief; one can be a faithful Christian and hold fast to secular principles.
Well except when Christians try to elevate secularism to faith or religion.
"By the way, secularism isn't a religious belief, it is a political belief; one can be a faithful Christian and hold fast to secular principles
Quite true, applebutter. The most secular christian defender of atheists is Reverend Barry Lynn.
Secularists do not have a religion. They do not believe in anything that is proofless. they make no claims that cannot be substantiated by observation, which makes it a framework vastly different from religion.
I am sick and tired of people trying to equate belief with non-belief. The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. Secularism and atheism are the DEFAULT POSITIONS OF THINKING MINDS. You believe is God, PROVE IT!?! I am not claiming to believe in anything butwhat is here that I can touch, grasp, and strike a stupid christian upside the head with.
Much more real than a mythical tale about a forgiving yet jealous, vengeful and angry father who loved the world so much he brutally killed his son so that there could be 25,000 different sects that follow him.
I'm having a problem seeing the issue here. As an atheist, I have no problem with religious displays. No single person stands for what I beleive in, and since I have no religious affiliation, I don't have a problem with not being "represented" at a religious function.
I recognize that many people need, want, and have religious views and am not at all averse to their practicing them. I just don't care. I think Mr. Obama made perfectly clear in his book his stand on religion, if anyone has any doubts check it out. If the convention were held near christmas and they wanted to have a tree I wouldn't care either. Personal freedom dictates that they be allowed to get together.
If you want to have a get together for non-theists, then go ahead. If you can get some numbers, then I'm sure they'll accomodate you at the convention.
Amen! :)
Hey! You made sense! Did no one tell you that you can't do that around here?
I'll play along for now and assume this is only so Obama can get the religious vote and dispense any fears that he's a secret muslim, but Obama is wrong in one thing: it is not unreasonable to ask that religion stay out of politics. You can vote with your religion in mind, but the government shouldn't control religion and religion shouldn't control the government.
I'm a hardcore atheist, but unfortunately most Americans aren't and they fear and misunderstand us. I do everything I can to change that fact in my daily life, but I don't want to jeopardize Obama's chances in November by making a stink out of this. The last thing Dems need is to serve up some sort of atheist ammunition that the Repugs can use against him this fall.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
