Let me again emphasize that I personally think the attacks on the Edwards bloggers were reprehensible and utterly inexcusable and I fully support and sympathize with the bloggers. I just don't think that the attacks were not to be expected and I wasn't surprised at the degree to which they escalated and I'm a total half-assed newbie to the world of blogging.
The uproar in response to the attacks I just found pointless. It was akin to castigating wild tigers for their propensity for eating meat, and insulting every feline, including your own personal lap cats, while you're at it. Sure, shoot the tiger attacking you but don't set yourself up (and possibly your party) to get clawed bloody by Fluffy and Sweet'ums when they were just minding their own business.
In other words, I don't understand why there seems to have been such an effort by atheists (still ongoing in some arena's) to alienate Democrats of religious persuasion while fighting back against the Republican religious extremists.
For one thing, and a point that is wholly overlooked by many, is that African-American Democrats by far and large are of religious persuasion. Their voices are out there on the blogosphere clamoring to be heard, but they, like many, many others are locked out of the discussion, especially on the "big box" bloggers who are overwhelmingly white, and for the very most part, male. The white males are prevailing again, this time in the Democratic blogtopia. (I would say the "left" but I'm sick and tired of that bullshit, too. If you support Democratic candidates, you're Democratic whether left, left-center, center or swinging from the ceiling.)
Jack and Jill Politics, Skeptical Brotha, Angry Black Bitch, Oliver Willis, and Francis Holland are a few of the voices that deserve to be heard. Not that I would even attempt to determine their religious persuasions or lack therof, and not that they may care a whit for me, especially since I'm a southerner. And especially since I'm a southerner who believes the south is getting a lot of bad raps unjustifiably, since I think it has progressed far more than most of the rest of the country.
To expound a bit on race in the south for a moment, all I know is I've never heard the "n" word used so often and so casually as I have heard up north, literally turning my stomach, and never have I been so embarrassed as when shopping out west when a black person entered shops I was in, watching clerks literally falling over themselves to watch their every move. I always walked out in disgust. I've never seen either in TN, NC, SC, TX or GA where I've either lived or spent a lot of time, though that's not saying that bad, unjustified things never happen to African-Americans in the south, they most certainly do, but I do think great strides have been made by both whites and blacks in the south and I think its evident in that many African Americans are moving back to the south. They wouldn't be doing that if they were feeling mass hatred from southern whites.
It is simply true that demographically, the south has a lot more African Americans and since they almost invariably vote Democratic, the Democratic party is practically disenfranchising them by writing off the south and that pisses me off no end. I've even seen discussions about whether SC is "worthy" of having an early primary, as though we could be more unworthy than any other single state of the Union. Hell, yes, we've got some crazy damn politicians here, for sure, and on both sides and of both races. So do other states. We have political operative who take money to support certain candidates. So do other states. We are just under the microscope because we are SC. And most of our crazies are Republicans. We are talking about the Democratic primary.
Anyway...
I have no problem with bloggers who are atheists. They have every right to be themselves and express themselves. I just think they need to realize that they are a very small percentage of the Democratic voting bloc and just because atheism is echoing around in the company they most often keep, atheism is not going to win any elections.
As I noted earlier, my belief system is based on buddhism, taoism, Judaism, spiritualism, Christianity, and a large degree of quantum physics, to which I should probably add a big dollop of Baruch Spinoza, humanism, druidism, wicca, and "God" knows what else. But just because I basically believe that "God" consists of everything in existence, up to and including the space between the smallest units of matter in the universe doesn't mean that I am wise beyond all others and therefore qualified to look down my nose at those who have a more conventional belief system.
It's a turnoff. If its a turnoff for me who half expects every church of an established religion to erupt in flames should I pass by it within a mile of it, then I can safely predict that this wallowing in atheism sublime is turning off a whole hell of a lot of religious people, even devoted Democrats and, perhaps more importantly, religious independent voters.
We don't need it. It defeats the purpose of electing those who will most likely promote the wide-ranging interests of the Democratic party.
So, if you will, please cut it out.
Democrat and Independent Thinker..."The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -Nietzsche
Commenting on many things, including..."A government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from." - Keith Olbermann
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Cut what out, exactly? Should atheists cease to express their opinions? Should atheists cease to object to people trying to base public policy on personal religious beliefs? It would be highly objectionable if your message were "atheists should just sit down and shut up in order to avoid giving offense to the religious sensibilities of potential voters."
So, if that's not your message (and I want to assume it's not), it would help if you could explain just what it is and how it differs from the above. Try to keep in mind how it might look if you took your message and replaced "atheist" with "Jew" or "African-American." If such a replacement results in an objectionable message, then it started out as objectionable but you didn't realize it.
"Should atheists cease to express their opinions?"
No, atheists should express their opinions, however, expressing their opinions and justifying them based on being an atheist is no different, nor more noble, than those who express their opinions and justify them as being based on personal religious beliefs.
Should atheists cease to object to people trying to base public policy on personal religious beliefs?
Objecting to people trying to base public policy on personal religious beliefs just because you may be atheists gives your argument no weight whatsoever. Objecting to it based upon reason and the principle that it is objectionable because public policy should not be discrimatory against any persons, regardless of religion, or race or any other divide, however, is compelling.
It would be highly objectionable if your message were "atheists should just sit down and shut up in order to avoid giving offense to the religious sensibilities of potential voters."
Yes, atheists should sit down and shut up if they can't express their viewpoints without intimating that those who do hold religious beliefs are less worthy of their own viewpoints than atheists simply because atheists think their religious viewpoints are invalid. Vice versa applies. Neither stance is right. Two wrongs do not make a right. Tolerance and acceptance should be exercised by both sides. Doing otherwise results in nothing more than a pissing contest and does not serve the Democratic Party nor does it help elect Democrats. Religious extremists generally do not exist in the Democratic Party, but many Democrats are religious and insulting religion itself in fighting back against religious extremists is self defeating for Democrats.
Try to keep in mind how it might look if you took your message and replaced "atheist" with "Jew" or "African-American." If such a replacement results in an objectionable message, then it started out as objectionable but you didn't realize it.
Yes, I would find promoting a Jewish or African American ideology to the EXCLUSION of all others to be unacceptable, just as is promoting an ideology based on atheism.
Try tolerance, acceptance, inclusion, and compromise in expressing your viewpoints and I won't find YOU so objectionable.
Actually, "YOU" are not objectionable and I apologize for getting ticked off at you. I'm having problems with my temper lately which is actually a symptom of a rare condition I suffer from.
I appreciate your comments.
However, I don't get how you get off defending atheists right to violate the sensibilities of the religious while accusing me of violating the sensibilities of atheists for asking atheists to not violate the sensibilities of the religious.
This is all just too absurd.
its wonderfully written. i appreciated it.
Post a Comment