TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Godles Americans PAC?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Godles Americans PAC?

I saw on C-SPAN earlier today about a new political action committee that has been formed called "Godless Americans" which they say they are a ACLU-like organization for athiests rights in America. According to GAMPAC, there is 39 million non-religious Americans. They feel that athiests in America are treated unfairly. I visited the website and seem to be legit, so I donated $100 to the group and supposedly I'm a member of some sort....???

I'm still not sure what to make of this group, an ACLU with less money or just a political fringe group? or both?

Religion is important money-making tool in US. That is why atheists are mistreated.

Feel free to flame me.

The way I see it they're going to have absolutely no effect at the moment, maybe in 30 years time, but at the moment they're naive to try and get this going. The religious right still has such a strong foothold in the US as to make any endorsement from a group like this a bad move politically. The religious right has a much larger propaganda machine, and any group like this will just end up attracting the old 'atheists are out to murder our families, the communists are invading!' type diatribes.

It was interesting to note that the group may actually end up threatening to endorse a particular party, rather than threatening not to endorse them. They've also got next to no money to give out at the moment, which is what really matters.

The group itself is essentially a brainchild of American Atheists (www.atheists.org), one of the major US atheist's rights groups. They may have some minimal effect, but they simply don't have the pulling power that the religious right does. To be honest, I think you'd be better to donate to the ACLU, as I really don't think the US (considering the fact that it's the most religious Western nation in existence) is ready for a group like this yet.

Even some Democrats have already asked them to not endorse candidates using their name. Just a group of freaks with a PAC...

The fact is most Americans are religious, but also to be fair, most are not extremists like Pat Robertson and gang.

Actually my aunt is a bit of an extremist Catholic like Mel Gibson, but we're used to it lol.

We also have a significant problem with our educational system in the US.

The main problems I can see with this are that politicians who pepper their speeches with biblical references may easily manipulate these same masses.


All I ask is that our government respect religious freedom and the separation of church and state as it has for about 200 years (until this recent administration), and I couldn't care less about some stupid plague at the Grand Canyon.

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok Just a group of freaks with a PAC...

In what way are they freaks?

Good for them. Religion is what all the problems of the world come down to these days.

quote:

Originally posted by Galapidate Good for them. Religion is what all the problems of the world come down to these days.

These days?

If this Godless Americans is in any way related to the American Atheists (with Madline O'Hare or whatever) then I wouldn't have bothered. Far too militant for my liking - much better to convert the Christians by becoming more Christ-like than by becoming more antichrist-like. Atheism isn't about shitting on what 90% of the people do, it's about ensuring that the 90% can't shit on what the rest of us do. If people want to believe fairies live in the sky then I'm not one to disuade them from that perspective...

HOWEVER

If they want to start prostelytising in the classroom then they'll need to start getting past me first. Religious education is highly desirable (so long as each religion is given equal footing - "here is a myth, this is why people believe in it") but religious prostelytism isn't. It is the job of atheistic humanists to lead from the front, to develop a moral theory based not on god but on humanity, and to live with a compassion and tolerance exceding that of the conservative Christian. Nonetheless, the atheist should also recognise - and this is where the American Atheists fail - that religion is often at the forefront of moral liberalism (the Anglican Church here in Australia is always the first to criticise the conservative government) and that the key is therefore not to abolish religion, merely bullshit religious bigotry and fundamentalism.

Then again I'm drunk, so I cannot be held responsible for any future impromptu post edits that may alter the meaning of this post.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade If this Godless Americans is in any way related to the American Atheists (with Madline O'Hare or whatever) then I wouldn't have bothered. Far too militant for my liking - much better to convert the Christians by becoming more Christ-like than by becoming more antichrist-like. Atheism isn't about shitting on what 90% of the people do, it's about ensuring that the 90% can't shit on what the rest of us do. If people want to believe fairies live in the sky then I'm not one to disuade them from that perspective...

Unfortunately it is. The chair is the current president of AA, and it looks like they (AA) have probably played a key role in setting this up. If it was the brainchild of one of the major Secular Humanist councils or organizations, then I would be slightly more optimistic about it's viability.

quote:

Originally posted by CortexBomb These days?

Ok fine, always

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade If this Godless Americans is in any way related to the American Atheists (with Madline O'Hare or whatever) then I wouldn't have bothered. Far too militant for my liking

Whats wrong with militant athiests?

What about the re-emerging movement to take "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance?

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Bliss What about the re-emerging movement to take "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance?

Hah, that doesn't really bother me lol.

It will be resolved by the courts I guess.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSZ All I ask is that our government respect religious freedom and the separation of church and state as it has for about 200 years (until this recent administration)...

The funny thing is that Dubya doesn't seem to realize that he's screwing himself up the ass with his religious supporting. Almost every president in our history (hmm, maybe EVERY) has said "God bless America" at one point or another, but every president has been ambivalent/ambiguous/MODERATE on his religious views, not bringing them into the spotlight and not letting them take over his campaign and term. The key to winning a broad base of supporters is being moderate, and the first principle of politics is that a political leader will strive to keep himself in office in any way he can -- hence by winning a broad network of supporters. Dubya is too conservative, too supportive of everything religious. Most Republicans are. Democrats are going to float down the same river, too. Vote for the Miss Bliss party.

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Bliss What about the re-emerging movement to take "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance?

Considering the "under God" statement's original intent back in the 1950's was to indoctrinate children in the classroom against Communism, I really don't have much of a problem with folks wanting to take it out now. Furthermore, it does go against those beliefs of an atheist, or those beliefs of those who believe in more than 1 deity.

It is an assumption of a particular religion, or group of religions, and is therefore a religious doctrine, which clearly and logically should not be placed in the secular classroom.

Any one know when the Supreme Court is going to rule on the pledge case?

i wouldn't be surprised they ruled in favor of the "slogan." Everyone seems to believe that the U.S. was founded on "christian principles" anyway, so why do something that would offend the fouding fathers?

quote:

Originally posted by nic01445 i wouldn't be surprised they ruled in favor of the "slogan." Everyone seems to believe that the U.S. was founded on "christian principles" anyway, so why do something that would offend the fouding fathers?

It would, and the Supreme Court would be entering a (at least) grey area of the establishment clause saying such a thing, i.e. the endorsment test.

Is it true that Bush has been trying to stack the SC bench with conservatives who are likely to tow the line with his conservative agenda? That's the impression I�ve got from the Americans that I�ve chatted to of late. Anyone able to elaborate on how your judges are appointed?

Either way, from my (admittedly limited) knowledge of the US constitution, the pledge does seem to be against the first amendment. Either way, it wasn't even in the pledge until the 50's when they wanted to denounce 'godless communism', and it's fairly evident that it's referring to the Christian (and Jewish, for that matter) god, which leaves atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, Hindus, Buddhists, pagans and so on out in the cold. Whenever religion and politics mix, it always gets ugly. You'd think that people would have enough sense to keep the two apart, essentially to avoid situations like this.

quote:

Originally posted by arctic Is it true that Bush has been trying to stack the SC bench with conservatives who are likely to tow the line with his conservative agenda? That's the impression I�ve got from the Americans that I�ve chatted to of late. Anyone able to elaborate on how your judges are appointed?

Presidents appointing judges with their political views has been going on since the 1700s, this is nothing new. CLinton put in some rather liberal justices durong his reign (Ginsburg and Breyer). Regan was the most notorious for putting up some conservatives on the bench....Kennedy, Scalia, O'Connor for example.

Supreme Court judges are appointed by the president BUT they have to be approved by the U.S. Senate through testimonies and interviews. The Senate then votes on whether the nominee will get the spot. Bush cant place judges, only nominate them.

quote:

Either way, from my (admittedly limited) knowledge of the US constitution, the pledge does seem to be against the first amendment. Either way, it wasn't even in the pledge until the 50's when they wanted to denounce 'godless communism', and it's fairly evident that it's referring to the Christian (and Jewish, for that matter) god, which leaves atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, Hindus, Buddhists, pagans and so on out in the cold. Whenever religion and politics mix, it always gets ugly. You'd think that people would have enough sense to keep the two apart, essentially to avoid situations like this.

The 1st amendment is not at issue here, its something called the establishment clause in the U.S. Constitution-- which states that gov't cannot establish or favor religion in any way. Theres also something within the establishment clause called the "endorsment test" which was a test created in the Lemon case. The endorsment test says that if the gov't in any way promotes or inhibits religion it is therefore considered to be unconstitutional. It has been argued that the pledge promotes religion in a gov't sponsored manner, hence it being unconstitutional.

quote:

Originally posted by arctic Is it true that Bush has been trying to stack the SC bench with conservatives who are likely to tow the line with his conservative agenda? That's the impression I�ve got from the Americans that I�ve chatted to of late. Anyone able to elaborate on how your judges are appointed?

Additionally Supreme Court justices can only be replaced when they step down. As of now, none of the supreme court justices have stepped down so Bush has not had the ability to appoint any new conservative justices.

What he HAS done is appoint 2 judges, blocked by congress, to one of the circuit court of appeals ... 5th, 9th I'm not sure which one ... at any rate, only one of the fillibusters was actually meritous in my opinion. And although he went over congresses' head, due to some weird congress on recess clause, the confirmations still must get congressional approval some time in 2005 otherwise the judges are removed from the bench.

Therefore, typically there is a fair balance on the SC so long as the nation is balanced between conservative and liberal. So don't believe everything an uneducated American may be saying to you

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Additionally Supreme Court justices can only be replaced when they step down.

...or die

quote:

Originally posted by PHALPAX Supreme Court judges are appointed by the president BUT they have to be approved by the U.S. Senate through testimonies and interviews. The Senate then votes on whether the nominee will get the spot. Bush cant place judges, only nominate them.

Yea but a Senate that supports the president will probably approve his judge nominations. As of now we have a Republican-controlled Senate and Bush is a Republican also. But all that may change this year! And it doesn't look like any judges are going to step down/croak anytime soon.

ANOTHER religion thread? Good God, this topic is going to get beat to death and then some.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.