Dearest Ellen
20 February 2008 by BobOkay, take a breather, Ellen. Just relax a second.
I’m not disagreeing with much of what you say here.
I, too, feel the things you feel about all of this, and have felt the things you’ve felt.
But I don’t think that should lead to the advice you’re giving.
In fact, I think it’s just the wrong message for us.
Your intentions are honorable, obviously. And you know I respect what you stand for.
(That’s why I’m posting this on our blog.)
I saw you on CNN, and I was very proud.
But your specific advice for this situation is just not entailed by any of that.
There are other paths to follow, and other things that need to be done.
I’ll leave the rest for any other comments that people want to give.
20 February 2008, on 2:18 pm
I’m sympathetic to Ellen’s argument, but I can’t deal with another 4 years of Republican rule, so I’ll vote on election day. Money, on the other hand, will remain in my pocket.
20 February 2008, on 2:59 pm
I agree with nearly all of what Ellen says, but the religious right would love it if we atheists stay out of the election process. We’ve already been called un-American and unpatriotic and many god botherers would rather we do stay out of the politics that they claim as their own.
I hate how all the candidates are pandering to the religious right, and all this god talk instead of discussing the issues and explaining just what this “change” is going to be (other than a campaign slogan).
We’ve got to keep on fighting the good fight. It will make the Christian population happy if we all just shut up and carry on like we don’t exist (which is what it will be like if we stay home and act like Nov 4th is just another day).
20 February 2008, on 3:11 pm
Everyone seems to be in agreement that Ellen is correct… right up until she asks us all to stay home on election night.
Sorry, but the Xians have tried to silence me too long. I won’t play into their hands. My voice will be heard.
20 February 2008, on 4:17 pm
Not to mention the fact that a president’s religion is not going to have much of an effect on policy, at least not dramatically. Does Ellen honestly think that as soon as someone like, say, Mike Huckabee gets elected, that Congress and the states are just going to roll over and turn this country into a theocracy? It’s the same reason why I don’t really care about a candidate’s position on the Federal Marraige Amendment, since the president has very little power over amending the Constitution.
20 February 2008, on 5:28 pm
Ron Paul is supposed to be a devout Protestant, but I have never once heard him discuss it. He never seemed to pander to the religious right, except to say as an OB/GYN he delivered over 4000 babies, so he has a pro-life stance. Immediately following that statement, he goes on to say that abortion isnt an issue the federal government should be dealing with…it should be decided at a local level.
Now perhaps this is avoiding the responsibility of handling the subject, but I think its the wisest move of any of the candidates concerning abortion. I believe he takes the same stance on gay marriage, but I could be mistaken…
20 February 2008, on 8:05 pm
Ellen, dear, you’re cutting off your nose to spite your face. While there may be an almost coherent argument for putting a Huckabee in power, in order to really illustrate for moderates just why we don’t want that kind of rube at the helm, your argument is ridiculous.
First, we are not an oppressed minority. We are not riding in the back of the bus, we are merely annoyed that the driver seems to be preoccupied with the rearview mirror when he/she ought to be paying attention to the road ahead. There’s a big difference.
Second, given the choice between a religious hucktard who wants to rewrite the constitution in crayon and one who panders to the religious for their vote while fully focused on issues like poverty, healthcare, and education(science, science, science!), the decision is clear. We’re not gonna go straight from a born again xian president to an atheist one overnight. We may need a moderate religious first, maybe a jew, and then a liberal xian before we’re ever gonna get an atheist, much less an outspoken one.
Yeah, that sucks a little. Yeah, it would be nice if the general population were quicker on the uptake intellectually. Yeah, it will be nice one day to sit back and laugh about the burning stupid. But, for the time being, Ellen, think of yourself as the first one up on christmas morning. All the presents are ready to be opened but the rest of the family is still asleep. The correct response- as hard as it is, is to wait until every one is ready. You can even bang pots and pans or poke your parents sleeping forms.
Going up to your room, closing the door, and refusing to participate is just juvenile and hardly worthy of someone so supposedly intellectually advanced.
As stated in a previous post; more cheese with that whine?
20 February 2008, on 9:29 pm
Going up to your room, closing the door, and refusing to participate is just juvenile and hardly worthy of someone so supposedly intellectually advanced.
I was surprised when I heard about this…that someone who is head of a major atheist organization has this kind of mentality. Maybe someone new needs to take the helm.
20 February 2008, on 10:06 pm
Needless to say, I was really surprised to hear her advice given the circumstances. It’s difficult to get around this particular attitude given her comments.
21 February 2008, on 9:59 am
Sorry to jump on the bandwagon but you’ve disenfranchised yourself in this instance. One factor enabling the religious to have as much influence as they do over your life and mine is that they vote.
By all means campaign for their attention, but don’t forgo your vote, and don’t campaign for us to stay out of it and let the opinions of the often ignorant masses exercise undue influence over our ilves.
21 February 2008, on 4:13 pm
She’s got a point. GLBT, human rights, and secularist organizations are largely ignored by the Democrats, because they know they don’t have to do anything for us to keep getting our votes - the other guy is actively trying to destroy them on principle.
Sitting out isn’t the answer, but it’s a problem born of our effing two-party system. You have to pick a punch in the gut or a knife through your throat. It ain’t cake or death, sadly, but one of them is obviously worse.
21 February 2008, on 4:31 pm
Thanks for the post, Bob! Great comments, everyone.
Sorry for my scarcity again, but another work deadline is looming for me. I miss my GifSing! *sniff*
21 February 2008, on 4:32 pm
Personally, I’m both surprised, and NOT surprised at Ellen’s stance. Generally, I’ve liked her on most issues…when I’ve actually paid attention to the American Atheist Site. On her, albeit rare, media appearances RE various atheist oriented controversies, she sometimes seemed a wee bit too shy (wimpy?) for my taste; compared to someone like Chris Hitchens, fr’nstance.
In this case, her advice seems WAY to “pussy-like”…if you’ll excuse the expression!
[ala Dom Irrera?: "I didn't mean that in a BAD way!"]
Dom WHO? Just for an, off topic, laugh break?…”Two YouTs” (YouTubes) of his somewhat ‘classic’ shtick:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz7O-k38wrI
and…his final wish…and airline security shtick?…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR5XUoJXdVQ
OK; my apologies for going on a bit more; but regarding a previous comment:
Ummm…Benjamin?
RE your #5 comment about Ron Paul…what’s the big attraction to him, by the way?
I know many of us have yakked about him before on GifS. Of course he’s, practically speaking, out of contention.
Personally, I have no interest in any Libertarian types; but, specifically, RE his “Pro-life” (what BS that nomenclature is! I call it “Pro-Strife”!) stance; I say, keep government…both Federal AND State…COMPLETELY out of people’s personal lives; namely…bedrooms, and in particular…women’s vaginas.
This is rather OT…but here’s an email I wrote to Ron Paul at his Site after he had given a “Pro-Life” speech at an anti-choice rally…
1/22/08
Ron Paul…
I know I’m most likely wasting my time, expecting that this comment will actually reach you…however, I feel it’s time to speak out on this fiercely fought issue…
Your anti-choice speech on Jan. 22…is, in my opinion, purely “Faith-based (delusional) superstitious baloney”.
The belief that life begins at conception is just that…a belief…most often based on, fundamentalist, delusional religious beliefs.
In particular the “ensoulment” based belief rests on unproven claims; with a supposed basis for it in the Bible.
[Not to mention that there's absolutely no scientific evidence for the existence of any "soul"]
Your “credentials as an obstetrician”, not withstanding, proves nothing regarding any ‘cosmology’ of the perennial argument.
Basically,your opinion is at the same level as any other non-believer obstetrician, or even, casual observer, in that regard.
And what about “God’s abortions”…i.e…Miscarriages? Rationalize that in any, justifiably Faith-based, “Right to Life” argument!
I suggest reading this tract from the Freedom from Religion Foundation:
“What Does The Bible Say About Abortion”
http://ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php
My “Pale Blue Dot”, planetary…purely humanistic Regards,
[my actual first name]
I never heard back, by the way. Am I surprised?
21 February 2008, on 4:49 pm
Some really good points but the last thing I would do is encourage people not to vote.
If anything the disenfranchised should do all they can do vote their conscience en masse.
Wouldn’t that have a more positive and more significant effect than leaving these decisions to people who have no interest in the issues that effect us?
PS: Stogoe, the cake is a lie!
22 February 2008, on 12:10 am
I’ve been hearing this little tidbit all over the interwebs today. Apparently, Ken Ham is a piglet rapist. And what’s more, it’s been right there for us all to see in that “ken”, in the buybull, means “to know” and we all know that “knowing” biblically means “having intercourse with”. And, well, ham is ham. Therefore, to “ken ham” is to fuck a pig- “makin’ bacon,” I think they call it in Kentucky.
22 February 2008, on 2:37 am
Ellen makes some very good points, however…
Secularists avoiding the voting booths is likely a contributing factor to the mess we are in today. And honestly, if I was a candidate, and secularists decided to do as Ellen suggested, I would decide that, indeed, I did not have to answer to them–they aren’t part of the voting block.
No, as many have pointed out, this would feed into the fundies’ wet dreams. As was also pointed out, this is not, right now, the time to cut ones’ nose off to spite ones’ face.
And I don’t want another four years under a Shrub doppelganger.
22 February 2008, on 6:52 pm
What we need to do is all register independent until either one/both parties get their head/s out of their collective asses or we get a third party that is secular. Given this will take several years/decades but eventually this type of process will work. If no one but the party hardliners ever showed up to the caucuses or donated money then they would begin to do what they can to get our business. Boycotting voting is NOT a solution. It just adds to the problem.
23 February 2008, on 12:17 pm
We need to vote so we don’t have THIS happen again.
23 February 2008, on 11:17 pm
Here ya go Ellen:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid353515028?bctid=416343938
Barack Obama acknowledges we exist. He even points out the problems with following the Bible for the purposes of lawmaking…while speaking in a church!
Does she understand the irony of her position? We secularist are seen as a bunch that won’t band together and vote, so her solution is to encourage us not to vote instead of vote together for one candidate? Brilliant.