A first for atheists and presidential debates.
Online For the first time in TV debate history presidental hopefulls were asked what they would do for "Non-religious" voters.
Last night's Democratic debate the second to last question was asked about non-religious voters and how the Canidates felt about them.
It is a first amoungst many firsts for atheists. But we need to keep up our voices so that the mainstreem and public and goverment wont ignore us anymore.
Some candidates at their websites allow you to submit video's directly to them. Youtube will do the same thing for the Republican debate as well, so this is not over by any stretch.
Lets see if we can get a video on that debate too. You should be able to submit questions for that debate on Youtube starting today.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
I have a sneaking suspicion that the republican candidates are going to be fried during their youtube debate if the questions are anything like they were for the dems.
So what kind of answers did this question get?
Found it:
http://www.youtube.com/v/8wON_v7_jyU
Obama said that atheists are scum.
Hillary said that atheists should get out if they dont like it.
Edwards said that we barbaque kittens.
Biden said we should all have blindfolds and be tied to stakes.
(Did I think that, or type it?)
In all seriousness.
Edwards gave the best answer and said what Kerry said and JFK said that "My religion is mine" and that he would not legislate his faith on others. BUT, in his online after debate, backstage answered to videos not answered on CNN he gave a more detailed answer toward "non-religious" voters saying the same thing.
Hypocrtically however the next video he answered delt with the poor and "faith based" chairty in his state, which kinda made me look at him like a hypocrite and suck up.
Obama said, "I am for the Seperation of Church and State. But he too, to me seemed a bit hypocritical stumping for votes in churchs prior.
I think these guys are typical politicians who may have some good intent in siding with us "secretly" while still pandering because of the risk of political suicide if they really took a stand.
It might not be that different than say Jefferson and Washinton being abolitionists who owned slaves.
I am not sure what to make of their answers. But, even if they are merely blowing smoke up our butts, at least we have become part of mainstreem and that they are willing to suck up to us as well.
I am not impressed with their answers as much as the fact that finally they were faced with the question. They still are politicians just as much as republicans and you have to take anything they say with a grain of salt.
MIND YOU TO THE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE READING THIS,
I am all for charity, even religious charity. But I think churches should not get government welfare anymore than rich people get welfare in the form of tax cuts. Both religious institutions and business should pass or fail on their own and I should not have my wallet picked because some CEO or preacher is inept at selling their product.
The free market works best when institutions do it on their own with their own resources and churches are using goverment money to advertise. "We dont prostilitieze" doesnt change the fact that a government funded "church blood drive" is a Christian advertisment saying "Hey look at me".
Both the left and right bilk the taxpayers and lie and say they dont "advertise". The Robterson type tax payers are forced to pay for Sharpton type Church chairities, and vice versa. If either side would read Jefferson's Virgina Religious Freedom act, they would realize, or at least they should, that what they are doing is a bad idea.
Paraphrazing Benjimen Franklin here, "A church that cannot survive on it's own I suspect is not a good one".
It is not the charity itself. It is the idea that it is ok for govement to fund an relgious advertisement, which is really what these people want. Both the left and right do it.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I watched the debates. I dont' normally, but I was curious to hear the questions for people who aren't in the media.
I'm not as concerned about the democrats pandering to the christians, it's the republicans we need to watch out for. They all have ties to various groups such as The Fellowship, Christians United for Israel, and Focus on the Family. These groups have pro-war, pro-morality legislation based agendas.
Support the Separation of Church & State!
Freedom From Religion Foundation
The two answers that I saw were excellent. I'm not surprised that the candidates worked to remind the public that the Demcrats aren't a bunch of godless fetus eaters like the corporate media likes to espouse. However we did have two candidates that essentially said they are being hired to be President, not preacher and that there really is a separation of church and state.
I can imagine the contrast with Republicans will be different. Outside of Ron Paul the Republicans will fall over themselves to brag about how Jesus wears their campaign button and if they had their way they'd round up all Atheists, Muslims and secular Jews and ship them off to Guantanamo.
The secular crowd was largely ignored in 2004 but in 2000 Joe LIEberman issued an apology for his anti-Atheist smear. These are all improvements when Atheists were either ignored or just thrown in as an evil Communist threat.
Progress is progress.
When are you running for election?
Brian, this is a great post and thank you for the update on the debate. I did not get to watch it so I was curious as to how the question was answered.