The SCA’s New Leader

I had an open mind until I heard Greta Christina’s interview. Here’s the transcript:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/05/08/transcript-of-interview-with-edwina-rogers/

Did you know the GOP is not anti-gay, anti-choice, and anti-separation of church and state? That must be true because Greta hasn’t asked every single Republican if they’re against those things. Apparently, having an anti-choice mission statement and passing anti-choice legislation does not mean that a political party is anti-choice. The things you learn!

One argument in her favor is that she may be able to open some doors in Congress that have long been closed to us because of her experience and connections.

Yeah…yet, I myself am not necessarily concerned about those “doors” at this particular point in time. I think there is plenty of work to be done widening the doors with those who could and/or should be political allies for us (in other words, those who agree with us on most issues) that I don’t find the need to bother opening doors with those we disagree with on nearly everything (or, as you put it, “the wrong side of every one of those issues”).

I’ll just add that it seems, from the skimming I’ve been doing on other blogs, that she’s been trying to claim that Republicans aren’t as against secularism and that the religious-right isn’t as powerful as we think. Perhaps you’d like to push her on that. Or maybe that would be beating a dead horse.

FYI: Edwina Rogers has an “Ask me anything” up on Reddit right now: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/tdbbh/iama_republican_from_alabama_who_now_leads_the/

As I’ve commented on other blogs, the Greta Christina interview is a bad sign. If Rogers had said something along the lines of, “Yes, the Republican party mainstream is badly wrong on issues of gay rights, abortion, etc., and I wish to change that from the inside,” then we might view this as a start to forging an alliance with social progressives/fiscal conservatives. Even that would make a lot of people uneasy, but it’s not entirely ridiculous.

Instead, she completely denied that the GOP is anti-choice and anti-gay. It’s just incredible — and I mean “incredible” in the most literal sense. Really, she kind of comes off as a reality-denying Republican spin doctor. Go figure…

I also did not appreciate the nod to anti-choice atheists. Yes, they exist. But fuck them. I do not want them on our team.

Re, Greta Christina’s interview; possibly useful numbers from the GSS:

On a particular church-state separation issue, PRAYER: “The United States Supreme Court has ruled that no state or local government may require the reading of the Lord’s Prayer or Bible verses in public schools. What are your views on this – do you approve or disapprove of the court ruling?”

2010, by PARTYID: Strong Republicans, disapprove 71-24; non-Strong Republicans, disapprove 58-40; Independent Near Republican, disapprove 58-39. (Though Democrats also tend to slightly disapprove; but that’s a close tossup.)

HOMOSEX: “What about sexual relations between two adults of the same sex?” (always wrong, almost always wrong, wrong only sometimes, or not wrong at all)

2010, by PARTYID again: always wrong SR 71, nSR 53, and INR 52%.

The GSS has too many abortion questions for me to sort through them all, but there’s a similar pronounced lean to the one coded ABANY (74,64,68) for abortion opposition.

I suspect she may be a usefully deluded sort, but not essentially part of the reality-based community. Alternately, she may prefer a much lower Wall of Separation than the traditional secularist position.

I thought her post may have been a good thing when I first heard about it. Since reading the GC interview I have changed my mind 100%. To deny that the republican party is pro-life and anti-gay, in the face of all evidence shows she is either blatantly dishonest, or completely deluded. Although a dishonest lobbyist may be a useful tool, I dont think it’s worth it to make gains by following an ethically ambiguous path such as this. Full disclosure…I’m a Canadian.

The level of Orwellian efforts to directly contradict reality is at an extreme high.

In an airport some time ago when Santorum was still in the primary and had polled well, I saw a Fox News panel “prove” that Santorum was “not anti-gay”. A straw man liberal type was set up to argue that Santorum is anti-gay, and more attractive, aggressive anchors were set up to shout down the “unfairness”.

It’s almost surreal. Why bother to deny that Santorum is anti-gay? Why does the entire Santorum-supporting base, which supports him because he is anti-gay, tacitly prefer that the very trait they support him for be, while simultaneously made obvious, aggressively “officially denied”? I suppose it’s just an extension of the US media efforts to position the Republicans as the permanent default. You say you don’t want “anti-gay”? Well, we’ll deny that the Republicans are anti-gay. Now you have to vote for them. They’re the default unless you can prove otherwise.

I have often noted that if George Wallace were running for office today, on a platform of segregationist legislation, he would deny being a segregationist, express outrage at the idea that anyone could consider him a racist, expose his opponents as the “real” racists, and so on.

Whether she is doing it on purpose, or merely unconsciously responding to the trend, this is what is happening here. The SCA will now be an organization that declares the most blatant anti-constitutional religious authoritarianism to be “secular”.

Questions I would like to see:

*Why* do you identify as a non-theist? What brought you to this point?

What do you see as the fundamental difference between an a-theist and a non-theist that you chose the latter label?

What are the core values that you think atheists do and/or need to subscribe to?

Here is the 2008 republican party platform, and here are some polls showing how republicans vote/feel. Please take a few minutes to peruse them. When you’re done, please comment on your earlier assertions that republicans are NOT anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-separation of church and state, etc.

Considering that atheists are trusted less than rapists, how, specifically, are you hoping to help change this attitude/image to better further our goals?

James @8,

If Rogers had said something along the lines of, “Yes, the Republican party mainstream is badly wrong on issues of gay rights, abortion, etc., and I wish to change that from the inside,”

I think that her big problem is that she has been working within the Republican party for years and the party has been hostile to atheist values over that time, actually it’s probably not a stretch to say that they have become more hostile since the mid 1990’s. So in order to try and explain that away she either has to admit that yes indeed they are hostile and she has been ineffective in changing their minds or that from her experience the majority of the republican party’s values aligns just fine with those in the secular community and it’s the fringe of the party that has differing values.

What do you see as the fundamental difference between an a-theist and a non-theist that you chose the latter label?

I personally self-identify as “non-religious”.

I am not a member of any “atheist movement” and don’t wish to be confused for one.

I completely reject all religious and supernatural claims, but I don’t need to be a member of an “atheist movement” for that.

I strongly support the obvious right of anyone to say anything they want about religion, any time they want, but I don’t need to be a member of any “atheist movement” for that, otherwise.

I understand, in part, the intention behind the choice. There are numerous people who hold positions of power in D.C. who are right-wing conservatives. How can we get through to them? Edwina Rogers can get (already has) a foot in the door. Those conservatives would not give the time of day to any prominent member of the new atheist movement.

Great idea — political strategy.

Here is the problem. The available information confirms without a drop of uncertainty that Rogers is a liar. Rogers does not give a fuck about the atheist movement and all the work that we have done to get where we are.

Sure — she can get in the door. Can we trust her when she is behind those closed doors?

NO

I think the best thing Ed can do is brush up on the current data that the republican faithful have in regards to secular values as this seemed her greatest dodge tactic utilized during the Greta interview.

A question or two about Occupy, ongoing class warfare in the US, and Rogers’s position in the 1% would be most timely.

Not to Please mention the spare change she tossed in Rick Perry’s hat.

Many people identify themselves as “not religious, but spiritual”.

Your perseverence in this obsession with label words is silly on at least two levels.

First, it is factually wrong. “Not religious” means “not religious”. If it meant “not religious but spiritual”, then no-one would have to say “but spiritual”. You persist in arguing that “not X” implies “X”, and sadly, I knew you would. (The term “atheist” does not in any way rule out all anti-rational claims; there are atheists who deny climate change, vaccine efficacy, HIV, etc, and who accept non-credible claims about UFOs, for example.)

Second, your obsession with the exact term she uses to describe herself reveals poor priorities. The problem is that she is allied with a right wing authoritarian political party that acts against secular values, and against freedom of conscience and expression. If she called herself an atheist, the problem would still be there. A progressive who defends civil rights would be preferable, whether they called themselves an atheist or not.

No, I’m not going to dispute this based on polling data, which is irrelevant. A party is defined by what it actually does

Okay, but you should be ready to quote GOP policy platform documents, because she basically flat out said there was no document that said the Republican Party is anti-gay and anti-choice, and this is just factually false.

No, I’m not going to dispute this based on polling data, which is irrelevant. A party is defined by what it actually does

I don’t think that it is irrelevant as it was used as a tactic to deflect questions about the conflict between her supposed secular values and the values that the republican party openly endorses. She kept referring to a study that was 18 years old and anecdotal evidence that is not born out by reality. Data that actually reflects reality could be used to pry a definitive answer from her. The problem that I have is that we never really got a definitive answer as to how she could work within a party that is diametrically opposed to her supposed secular values.

harold @28 says:

First, it is factually wrong. “Not religious” means “not religious”. If it meant “not religious but spiritual”, then no-one would have to say “but spiritual”.

Sorry, but I’m going to vehemently disagree with your statement. Not religious means that you are not a member of, or do not follow the teachings of, any particular religious group. It says absolutely nothing about your belief in a supernatural deity.

If you do not believe in a deity of any kind, you are an atheist. If you don’t particularly like that label, then I might suggest starting out with an easy-to-believe-in god to get you off on the right foot.

So what in the hell is the SCA thinking hiring a paid liar who is so stupid she thinks she can get away with lying to us?

Well, we gotta give her this: she was pretty damn successful in lobbying the SCA folks to hire her.

Getting entrenched Republicans to stop equating secularism and freedom of religion with the Antichrist…that’ll probably be a bit harder.

Right now, though, I don’t think she has any intention of doing anything that radical. In fact, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find she’s using this as an opportunity to divide, discredit, and demoralize the SCA. At this point, I don’t see any realistic outcome that doesn’t include this.

I agree with abb3w, above, that Rogers has made it clear she is not part of the reality-based community, which is what is so disappointing/infuriating about her appointment.

Now, I understand the SCA may be taking the position that we should not be looking for “reality-based” in a lobbyist. However, if that is the SCA’s position, then I cannot support the SCA.

She seems to believe in a republican world of 20 years ago, a world that no longer exists. She seems totally oblivious to the current state of the political world relative to secular concerns.

It seems like she hasn’t read the SCA’s own congressional scorecards:

http://secular.org/content/scorecards/Congress/2011/summary

Republicans scoring an A: 0

Republicans scoring a B: 0

Republicans scoring a C: 6

Republicans scoring a D: 5

Republicans scoring an F: 230

Reading through her responses to Greta Christina’s interview as well as her responses on Reddit, it seems like she’s in denial about the reality of her own party and she hasn’t stated any critical thinking as to why she remains a self-acclaimed Conservative Republican (who is so entrenched in its mindset that she has trouble getting over the automatic referral to the Democratic Party as the “Democrat Party”).

I would urge people here to compare the interviews with Edwina Rogers to the interview Ed Brayton did with Fred Karger, a gay Republican, and the first openly gay man ever to run for a Republican party nomination. You’ll have to find culture wars radio on the public reality radio website, since I can’t seem to make a comment with a link appear here.

The contrast between his portrayal of the Republican party – of which he is still a member – and Edwina Rogers’ portrayal of the Republican party is striking. I do think he engages in a certain amount of amount of nostalgia – much of it not plausible – and expresses much more hope for the future of gay rights in the Republican party than I think is justifiable. But he is very clear that the Republican party is presently profoundly anti-gay. He shows quite clearly that it is possible to hold and work values the Republican party strongly opposes, and yet not engage in the kind of dishonesty Edwina Rogers engaged in.

SCA stands for Secular Coalition for America, not Socialist Coalition of America.

Such incisive wit! A Nobel prize must be coming your way!

Secularists instead actually care about truth – with the exception of a few tribalistic liberals. – Michael Heath

Riiiight. All the “libertarian” secularists who deny the reality of climate change because it conflicts with their free market ideology are all “tribalistic liberals”, are they?

I agree with TxSkeptic: someone (Ed maybe?) needs to find out who signed off on this hiring decision and ask them what the Hell they were thinking. Was a large amount of money involved? Did some Republican millionaire say to them “I’ll support you if you hire this friend of mine?”

Dan J –

If you do not believe in a deity of any kind, you are an atheist. If you don’t particularly like that label, then I might suggest starting out with an easy-to-believe-in god to get you off on the right foot.

This sneer, with its authoritarian overtones, actually illustrates what I currently dislike about the term “atheist”.

The actual reason I don’t call myself an atheist is largely my age and history. When I was young, “atheist” meant a person who ideologically actually denied even the possibility of god. This type of atheism was quite common then, as it was adopted by people who claimed to be ideological communists. People like me, who just didn’t believe in gods or the supernatural, were referred to as “agnostics”.

I realize that right wing Christians attempt to create straw man versions of what “atheists” believe, but nevertheless, it is true that very dogmatic forms of atheism did and perhaps do exist, typically associated with authoritarian command economy ideologies.

In recent years, no-one can much agree on the definition of “atheist” or “agnostic” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

However, let’s get back to your sneer. I find it obnoxious, only mildly so, but on many levels.

First of all, it assumes that you control the language and that you get to tell other people what they can call themselves. I am not religious at all, I don’t believe in any gods or miracles, but I prefer to call myself “not religious”. Of course, “not religious” can have ambiguity, as has been correctly pointed out here, but I deal with that by explaining exactly what I mean by “not religious”. I don’t play word games with definitions, I say outright that I don’t believe in gods, miracles, the supernatural, etc.

Second of all, it implies a feeling of superiority to all people who have any religious beliefs. I simply don’t share that attitude. I am vehemently opposed to right wing religious authoritarians, but it’s the “right wing” and “authoritarian” parts that I have a problem with. Incidentally, I am sick of liars who falsely accuse other people in the name of either defending or attacking religion. Anyone who mis-represents my statement here, and implies in any way that I fail to oppose evil behavior by religious people or done with ostensible religious justification is a liar. Of course I oppose torturing, murdering, raping, child molesting, lying, cheating, stealing, etc. I oppose those behaviors whether connected to religion or not. However, some religious people don’t behave that way or condone those behaviors. Yes, I know you may claim that the Dalai Lama condones or justifies the Spanish Inquisition just by being “religious”, but to me, that is no more logical than claiming that you condone Stalinist purges, simply because Stalin was also an atheist.

Thirdly, your statement reeks of “movement hijacking”, that is, of claiming that a commonly supported position is the “property” of one specific group. You openly state that I must label myself as you label yourself, or else I must take up believing in gods. Do you realize how stupid, negative, and pointless that is?

Lastly, but related to the third point, you make no sincere effort to persuade. Your comment was designed to aggressively insult, confront, and antagonize me. You may or may not deny this, but choice of words speaks as loudly as literal meaning of words (also flawed in this case). Rather than an effort at persuading me that it is a good idea to start calling myself an atheist, you pounced with a defensive jeer toward people who don’t call themselves atheists. This reinforces my impression that your actual goal is to identify with a tribalistic ingroup. Within the ingroup, approval is desperately sought, disapproval is perceived as terribly crushing, and purity tests are routinely imposed, with the implied threat that whoever does not obsessively defend the latest ambivalent, obnoxious-sounding slogan from some recognized “leader atheist” will be socially excluded from the ranks of “true atheists” (I may be wrong here but base this impression on my observations). That’s fine for you, if you want it. It’s all perfectly legal and ethical. But it’s not for me.

The actual reason I don’t call myself an atheist is largely my age and history. When I was young, “atheist” meant a person who ideologically actually denied even the possibility of god. This type of atheism was quite common then, as it was adopted by people who claimed to be ideological communists. People like me, who just didn’t believe in gods or the supernatural, were referred to as “agnostics”.

In other words, you avoid the word “atheist” because it was made into an epithet by right-wing propaganda. Understandable, but not very helpful.

I realize that right wing Christians attempt to create straw man versions of what “atheists” believe, but nevertheless, it is true that very dogmatic forms of atheism did and perhaps do exist, typically associated with authoritarian command economy ideologies.

“Perhaps?” Don’t you think you should try to fact-check the propaganda you’ve been fed? That’s kind of an important matter to be hazy on, don’t you think?

I am not religious at all, I don’t believe in any gods or miracles, but I prefer to call myself “not religious”. Of course, “not religious” can have ambiguity, as has been correctly pointed out here, but I deal with that by explaining exactly what I mean by “not religious”.

If you have to keep on explaining what the label you’ve taken means, maybe you should find a less ambiguous label.

I’m an atheist for two reasons.

A.) I don’t believe in the supernatural “deities” of ANY religion.

7a//Z;sub-part ∜∞.) I like sleeping in on Sundays.

BTW, small quibble; being a christian does not mean that one believes in “GOD”. Being christian means that one believes in the divinity of JESUS and accepts his teachings as necessary to live a proper sort of live–or at least it used to.

Well, it could have been worse.

At least they didn’t hire S. E. Cupp.

So one can be a christian and only believe in a third of god then.

Good to know.

Dingo

Re dingojack @ #60

It is my information that not all Christian sects believe in the Trinity.

I do not see the value of a label whose primary purpose is to obscure your true beliefs in situations where honesty is a viable option. If you’re going to go ahead and explain that you are an atheist after identifying as not religious, why bother with the first step?

I do not find the term “atheist” to be more precise than the terminology I already use. You say it is, but I see arguments about what it means all the time.

It might be mildly dishonest for me to use the term “atheist”. It might carry implications that I share attitudes and social preferences with members of the “gnu atheist movement”. That would not be perfectly honest, or at least, would not be precise. While I do agree with them on some core issues – lack of belief in the supernatural, general preference for progressive policies, extremely strong support for total separation of church and state and extremely strong hostility toward enforced religious observation – there is a key difference. I like “nice” liberal religious people. I think Reverend Barry Lynn has done a great deal of good work against religious authoritarians, for example, even though he is religious. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_W._Lynn

I do agree that I fit the definition of atheist that this writer uses.

While this comment came the closest to being persuasive, it still boils down to “call yourself atheist or I will apply a subjective or inaccurate insult to you” (in this case, the wholly unjustified accusation of dishonesty).

That’s at least three or four “call yourself an ‘atheist’ or I will inaccurately or subjectively insult you” comments now.

harold;

I apologize for the tone of my earlier comment. I hadn’t intended to come off so condescending, but realize now that’s exactly how it looks. I also violated one of my own rules: We are what we self-identify as. For that, I also apologize. [I think I had been reading too many comments about the North Carolina situation last night, causing my blood pressure to rise.]

As ildi pointed out above @43, the ARIS report includes a category for “none”, or those who would use the term “not religious.” While I realize that this term is accurate in describing your position on religion (as it is in describing mine), I feel that it is a woefully inadequate term.

Many different groups refer to themselves as “not religious,” and (from the ARIS reports) it seems that many of them do believe in a deity of some sort. It’s my personal preference to not have my stance on religion be associated with those who might be described “just spiritual,” “new-age,” or something similar.

The term atheist certainly does carry a lot of “baggage” with it from the past, and applying that label to ourselves can have grave consequences, depending on where we call home.

The term “agnostic,” as seen from just the comments here, has a lot of ambiguity associated with it. I consider myself to be an “agnostic atheist,” while there are those who feel that position is impossible.

Our use of written language consistently traps us, and hinders our communications. I hate that, especially when we’re (most of us here in the comments) all on the “same side” (if you want to call it that) in this situation.

Pierce Butler:

A question or two about Occupy, ongoing class warfare in the US, and Rogers’s position in the 1% would be most timely.

Silentbob responds:

SCA stands for Secular Coalition for America, not Socialist Coalition of America.

Raging Bee:

…or Rich Randroid Coalition of America. Your point…?

The point seems obvious, but Silentbob also directly answered your question, such questions are irrelevant to secularism when interviewing a new director. OWS isn’t about or even representative of secularism, in fact that movement’s vague meanderings appears to demonstrate they have more in common with the populist tea baggers who wanted Wall Street to implode than anything to do with secularism.

We all know some business sectors and plutocrats are exploiting social conservatives’ favoring a more theocratic state; but OWS isn’t effectively working that angle. Instead they appear to be following Michael Moore’s incoherent argument that we should replace capitalism with democracy. [And I consider myself a big, long-term Moore fan, but that argument which he promoted in his latest movie was his worst argument ever.]

Dan J –

Thanks very much for the comment, and my apologies for making a big deal out this, as well.

There is very little disagreement here.

As I noted above, the important aspect is not the exact term that she uses to describe herself, but her contradictory affiliation with a party that openly supports authoritarian theocratic policies in the spheres of reproductive rights, gay rights, science education, and arguably environmental policy.

It’s also true that if she called herself an “atheist”, it might at least imply a strong stance on purely religious issues. It’s trivial relative to the major issue of her being a right winger affiliated with authoritarians, but if people are taking it as a sign of intention to dissemble and provide “secular” fig leaf cover for authoritarian policy, in her case they may be right.

…such questions are irrelevant to secularism when interviewing a new director.

Are you sure about that? Given that the economic policies the new director supports include defunding and destroying secular institutions such as public schools and Planned Parenthood, and thus forcing people to depend on sectarian alternatives, I’d say there’s some real connection between economic ideology and a secular movement’s agenda. Especially since many Republicans support their cripple-our-democracy agenda because they want to destroy liberal secular institutions.

Ed writes:

There’s a fairly sizable contingent of libertarians in the secular community; I’ve heard estimates of about 10-20%, which seem reasonable to me (I don’t know if they’re based on actual survey data). Michael Shermer and Penn Gillette are prominent secularists who are also libertarians. Of course, being a libertarian does not necessarily mean one rejects AGW (Ronald Bailey, for example, famously changed positions on that issue a few years ago but remains a libertarian). But yes, there are many secularists who are libertarians.

I’d be interested in seeing that data. I also wonder if it’s a way for young people raised conservative to migrate to liberalism and therefore the population is predominately young possessing a still- developing political ideology. It was for me though I never became a member of the Libertarian party. This is one reason I was generally glad about Ron Paul’s recent popularity with young people while recognizing what a repugnant person he actually is, especially since young supporters seem mundanely ignorant of his past or positions he holds close to his vest.

Over the past four years now I’ve become increasingly skeptical the liberal libertarians have any influence or significant numbers – they don’t seem to have any in the public square at large or within either political party. Instead I observe conservative-libertarians as the sole predominant force within the libertarian movement, backed by money and now enjoying some formal power through elected office. Especially when the younger ones like Will Wilkinson and Dave Weigel seem to moving more towards what Ezra Klein and Matt Ygelisias espouse than the economic illiterateness of what Nick Gillespie promotes – which is equivalent to a conservative viral email.

I do not find the term “atheist” to be more precise than the terminology I already use. You say it is, but I see arguments about what it means all the time.

I don’t. It means you don’t believe in gods. It’s right there on the tin. I’ve never seen anybody who wasn’t disingenuously attempting to conflate atheism with something like Satan-worshiping disagree on that. Your own dictionary link explained its definition in eight words, and it’s the only definition I have ever known.

Atheist is more precise than “not relgious” because it describes what you are rather than what you are not. It’s more precise in the same way that “bicycle” is more precise than “not a car.”

It might be mildly dishonest for me to use the term “atheist”. It might carry implications that I share attitudes and social preferences with members of the “gnu atheist movement”.

Somebody might infer that, but that does not mean that atheist implies it. Personally I would wonder what the social preferences and attitudes of gnu atheists are supposed to be, because I’ve never seen any evidence that atheists are cohesive enough to be able to specify such things with any accuracy. I understand your desire to avoid the stereotypes and prejudices of others but you do yourself no favors by trying to pass with evasive language. (Again, depending on the situation. I certainly identify as not religious when my atheism would be a pointless distraction, for example at church on Christmas morning with my in-laws.)

…there is a key difference. I like “nice” liberal religious people. I think Reverend Barry Lynn has done a great deal of good work against religious authoritarians, for example, even though he is religious.

I don’t know who you have been talking to – possibly the same people who convinced you that “atheist” is some kind of negative term associated only with a tiny batch of polemicists on the internet rather than a broad term for people who don’t believe in gods – but hating religious people is not a trait of “gnu” atheists. Atheism is a trait of “gnu” atheists, to the extent that “gnu” atheism even exists as a thing rather than as a bogeyman in the nightmares of those who prefer quiet acquiescence to outspoken advocacy. Your “key difference” isn’t a difference at all.

While this comment came the closest to being persuasive, it still boils down to “call yourself atheist or I will apply a subjective or inaccurate insult to you” (in this case, the wholly unjustified accusation of dishonesty).

Well I didn’t actually subjectively insult you or call you dishonest, but with this bullshit claim I am going to outright call you dishonest. I did say that “not religious” obscures your actual stance, a statement I can back up with demonstrable statistical fact and clear logic. It’s not a lie and it’s not dishonest, but if you ask a man at a party if he is drinking alcohol tonight and he says “not beer,” most people would tend to assume that means “Yes, but something besides beer,” because it evades the more direct answer, “No.” Of course you say that you go on to explain yourself, but again that just makes me wonder why not just state the simple truth the first time around?

One argument in her favor is that she may be able to open some doors in Congress that have long been closed to us because of her experience and connections.

Yeah, because Republicans are such reasonable people, readily swayed by empirical evidence, eager to give the other side’s arguments a fair hearing, open to compromise and seeking out mutual understanding. And they’re getting more reasonable all the time!

Ack, borked the link: SCA.

democommie:

BTW, small quibble; being a christian does not mean that one believes in “GOD”. Being christian means that one believes in the divinity of JESUS

You apparently don’t know the meaning of ‘divinity’.

Really? WTF are you talking about?

Yes, really.

I am referring to the fact that your quibble has little merit and evinces your ignorance; in particular, that you apparently don’t know to what divinity refers.

It is true that one can be a cultural Christian, or even a philosophical Christian, but believing in “the divinity of JESUS” means to believe in the godhood of Jesus — the terms are synonymous.

Iogren –

Well I didn’t actually subjectively insult you or call you dishonest,

This is bitterly ironic considering what follows.

Here are your exact words – “I do not see the value of a label whose primary purpose is to obscure your true beliefs in situations where honesty is a viable option”.

but with this bullshit claim I am going to outright call you dishonest.

An extreme example of projection.

Now, in fairness, I don’t mean that you’re necessarily a routinely dishonest person. Probably not.

However, in this thread, you are unable to admit a mistake, and lapse into illogical argumentation when a mistake is pointed out.

Therefore, if this behavior is common for you, although you don’t necessarily mean to be dishonest, each time you make an error which others detect, you are doomed into at least mild dishonesty by your subsequent inability to acknowledge it.

I did say that “not religious” obscures your actual stance, a statement I can back up with demonstrable statistical fact and clear logic. It’s not a lie and it’s not dishonest, but if you ask a man at a party if he is drinking alcohol tonight and he says “not beer,” most people would tend to assume that means “Yes, but something besides beer,” because it evades the more direct answer, “No.” Of course you say that you go on to explain yourself, but again that just makes me wonder why not just state the simple truth the first time around?

Did you consciously think this was a valid analogy? If so, that is an extreme example of emotional bias derailing logical thought.

“Beer” is a specific term which only encompasses a subset of alcoholic beverages, but “religion” is a general term which covers all religion.

Your analogy would be the equivalent of me saying “I’m not Presbyterian”, and implying that I hold some other belief.

If I say “not religious, I don’t believe in gods, miracles, or the supernatural”, that is not analogous to the situation you present. In fact, it is the opposite.

Under no circumstances does “not X” imply “X”.

I can call myself whatever I want to call myself. I can call myself something illogical if I wish, but as it happens, I do not do that.

“Not X” does not imply “X”, and even though you demand that the nasty man on the internet won’t always call himself an atheist the way you want him to, you’ll have to live with it.

You can live with it by saying “Oh, wait, I like to call myself and ‘atheist’ but I see your point”.

Or you can live with it by petulantly raging and compromising your own honesty in a cycle of insult/deny insulting/false analogy/say anything to insist that “not religious implies religious” because your ego won’t allow you to retreat from an earlier statement.

But either way you will have to live with it.

Michael Heath @ # 68: … such questions are irrelevant to secularism when interviewing a new director.

No. The SCA is/aspires to be a highly visible organization. Anything likely to come up in public discussion matters in such a context: If Rogers had had four divorces, or dual citizenship, or (a kid with) a history of drug charges, or explicit hostility against vegetarians, or just about anything related to modern controversies, that topic should have been explored in detail.

The only way in which her blatant flaunting of wealth (a silver Jaguar, for crysake) can be seen as irrelevant is to take the side in our present class warfare which holds that no such thing exists, it’s all ginned up by the Democommies*, and we should all obediently ignore anything even slightly related to same.

*generically, as contrasted with the paragon and exemplar who posts comments here.

For many (though not the full 99%) of us, unrepentant 1%ers are, and must be, subject to the full actinic glare of the spotlight at all times.