Religion
Related: About this forumRepublican lobbyist to lead atheist group
By Kevin Bogardus - 05/03/12 11:16 AM ET
Edwina Rogers will head up the the Secular Coalition for America.
Rogers, a longtime Republican lobbyist who has worked in the George W. Bush White House and for GOP senators, will start as the atheist lobby group's executive director on May 3.
She earned some fame for her appearances on "The Real Housewives of DC." She is the former wife of Ed Rogers, another GOP lobbyist and co-founder of K Street powerhouse BGR Group. The two filed for divorce in 2010, according to press reports.
"For too long, the 50 million secular Americans have been ignored, underappreciated and undervalued — that’s what drew me to the Secular Coalition for America," Rogers said in a statement. "It’s time to change that. Secular Americans are increasingly pulling together as a voting bloc that demands attention — a constituency that is due formidable representation in Washington, D.C."
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/225221-gop-lobbyist-to-lead-atheist-group
And here's a plan: "Herb Silverman, the coalition's president, said they hope Rogers will help introduce the group to conservatives."
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
immoderate
(20,885 posts)With several atheist groups I have found the conservative members to be arch Libertarians. They are "free market" purists who always fall back on "not pure enough" as an excuse why trickle down never works.
--imm
brooklynite
(94,579 posts)The two have no linkage.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)Similarly, if I reference female atheists, you would understand that as "females who are atheist," since there's no such thing as female atheism. I don't see any ambiguity.
In some places, atheist groups I've observed are dominated by atheists who happen to be Libertarians.
In some places atheist meetups discourage politics. Understandable, since Socialists appear as well.
--imm
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
dmallind
(10,437 posts)Atheism isone of those things like equal marriage and choice that is associated with liberalism as if it were 1:1. Obviously there is a fairly strong correlation in reality, but just like the liberal Christians here go to great lengths to show that not all believers are reactionary conservatives, atheists need to do the same in reverse, and I say this even though as an atheist I personally have far more traditionally "liberal" views than the alternative (albeit less doctrinaire - or consistently left if you prefer - than many DUers).
But as I said today in the A/A group I DO feel atheist groups spend too much effort and focus on ancilliary issues, albeit almost always "good" issues from my POV. Choice is a vital cause, but NARAL doesn't march with us against taxpayer funded religious displays. Equal marriage is a basic right, but HRC doesn't file amicus briefs against enforced school observances. Why then do atheist groups often play on their home fields, not as individuals who agree but as the atheist group?
Most of my problem here is with dilution of focus on the raison d'etre if organized secularism - resisting theocracy per se. But part is that I don't think activist groups should repel potential members who may disagree about other issues. HRC does not exclude Baptists does it by taking a stand on sola scriptura? Why should atheists exclude Republicans by taking a stand on politics? Sure we'll not attract many right wingers and sure we'll keep fewer, but as far as the goals of organized atheism are concerned I don't give a toss if the person campaigning next to me against establishment is also against choice or equal rights. I care about those issues sure, but not to the point of exclusion of all others. How many here talk about fundy family or friends? If absolute purity of association were vital we should have none such who are not shunned. Why should atheism be different? Why should we shun right wing members?
rug
(82,333 posts)The other half getting people like Bush and Lott elected.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Logically that political agenda might perhaps possibly have something to do with the absence of belief in gods. Maybe.
"About the Secular Coalition for America
"The Secular Coalition for America is a 501(c)(4) advocacy organization whose purpose is to amplify the diverse and growing voice of the nontheistic community in the United States. We are located in Washington, D.C. for ready access to government, activist partners and the media. Our staff lobbies U.S. Congress on issues of special concern to our constituency.
"Our member organizations are established 501(c)(3) nonprofits who serve atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers and other nontheistic Americans. Their purpose in founding the coalition was to formalize a cooperative structure for visible, unified activism to improve the civic situation of citizens with a naturalistic worldview. A number of additional organizations have endorsed our mission statement.
"While the Coalition was created expressly by and for nontheistic Americans, we also enthusiastically welcome the participation of religious individuals who share our view that freedom of conscience must extend to people of all faiths and of none. Accordingly, our staff works in cooperation with a variety of other organizations and coalitions where common ground exists on specific issues, and our e-mail Action Alert system is open to all who visit our site."
http://secular.org/about/main
Just a guess.
edhopper
(33,580 posts)keeping legislation secular and promoting science and reason over "faith based" policy.
She also appears to be troubled by the Religious Right's control on the Republican Party.
rug
(82,333 posts)
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Along those lines, if the republicans do repudiate the religious right, they are likely to be more, not less competitive. So, any effort to purge the republican party of the religious right would have the net effect of promoting the rest of their murderous agenda.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)GLBT issues for instance? Also, wouldn't the republicans ridding themselves of the religious right stop the trend of our entire political system moving slowly further right of center? Maybe even reverse it?
I dunno, just tossing it out there as food for thought.
rug
(82,333 posts)to cooperate on anything of value.
Assuming they become "reasonable" om one issue, it will surely come at the expense of another group, which will promptly be demonized by them.
They will unite and divide as promiscuously as mutating bacteria so long as their overriding agenda of promoting the wealthy and the entrenched is maintained.
Romney is their perfect candidate.
I hate to see any organization attempt to lend them credibility.
edhopper
(33,580 posts)She is working for a group that wants to push back against the current GOP agenda.
rug
(82,333 posts)dmallind
(10,437 posts)Atheism is not political. Neither is establishment.
rug
(82,333 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Notice the word "state" in there? That makes it a political concern. Unless you have some magical way to keep government from doing religious things without ever having to deal with the government.
rug
(82,333 posts)Inexorable disqualifier.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)that Republicans can't think church/state separation is important?
rug
(82,333 posts)Unless your single issue outweighs all rational political thought.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)from someone who has the Pope that they do.
rug
(82,333 posts)And this has nothing to do with the Pope. It has to do with an atheist group hiring a republican to lobby.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)This is a non-partisan group of atheists that brought someone in to further the church/state separation issues. There is no reason to believe that she does not share those same views on church/state.
You are railing against this and using it as a means to belittle atheists.
Yet, you belong to an organization that has a much further right, conservative in its top leadership position and you seem to have no problem with that. A leader that covered up pedophiles, is clearly anti-gay, is clearly anti-woman's rights, among other problems. Do you denounce the leader of your religious organization (which is much more clearly tied to the issues I listed than the atheist group is to Dem vs. Rep issues) with at least as much vigor as you do this decision (and I would think with even more vigor given that he is an infinitely larger tool than she is)?
rug
(82,333 posts)As it is, we're discussing atheists hiring republicans to speak for them.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Unless he has a good recipe.
You seem to be making the false equivalence that atheist = Democratic and that's just not the case. There are Republican atheists, believe it or not. There are even Republican atheists that aren't dickheads. Hell, there are even Republican atheists that aren't dickheads that believe in and fight for separation of church and state. She seems to be one of them. I'm sure if she doesn't fight that fight, she will not long be in their employ.
And to make the link clear again, since you disapprove of atheists hiring someone that you perceive as being an untrustworthy asshole, what's your position on the asshole that runs the organization you belong to?
rug
(82,333 posts)which is an atheist organization hiring republicans to attract conservatives. It appears you approve.
I don't.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)then I'm all for it. Unlike you, I tend to understand that you don't have to be a Dem to think the 1st Amendment is important. Hell, there are Dems here on DU that clearly don't seem to think church/state separation is that important. This isn't a Dem vs. Rep issue. They want to attract more people to the group to increase their power and financial base. There is NO indication they are going to water down their position or activities in order to do so.
And I'm wondering what your very strong positions about the leadership of an organization you don't belong to (neither do I, btw) transfer to the organization you do belong to. Were you happy when they picked Pope Ratzy?
rug
(82,333 posts)And again, the topic is not the Pope but atheists hiring republicans to attract conservatives.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Again, why do you conflate atheist with Dem? This is a group advancing a secular agenda.
This is a discussion about the worthiness of people in leadership positions. You just can't bring yourself to say that your Pope is a fucking asshole, can you? Or you don't think he is.
rug
(82,333 posts)republican candidates and republican agendas.
You can ignore that only with blinders.
Since we're not discussing the Pope in this thread, ache though you may, I'll be happy to identify the assholes in this story.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)It is about fighting for a secular government. What's your point? There are no blinders. Do you want to take all Republicans and put them in concentration camps so that we never have to deal with them again? These are people that are like-minded on the single issue that this group is organized about. Why shouldn't they be included? Why should the general public be led to believe that church/state separation is just an ultra-liberal godless atheist commie position?
rug
(82,333 posts)Downthread trotsky says the SAC is a progressive organization with progressive goals. That is far more than what you're saying, which is that it is an organization of "like-minded on the single issue that this group is organized about".
So confusing.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)How did you think I would respond to this? Did you want: Oh, noes!!!1! trotsky forgot the talking points during our conversation about how best to deal with this lobbyist problem?
BUT, you are misrepresenting his point, which I have come to expect from you. He DOES NOT say that the SAC is a progressive organization but, instead, states that the goals of the organization are compatible with progressive goals (which CANNOT be said for your organization, btw). And that point, actually, is completely in line with what I was saying. Which is good, because then I won't have to beat trotsky's ass with a rubber chicken at the next meeting.
That's like saying you can't hire a gay advocate for a union or a female advocate for a business group. Political spectrum position has nothing to do with secularity (haven't believers tried to use Rand as a taunt enough to make this clear?)
When she starts advocating politically offensive causes in the name of atheism - like the Christian lobby does in the name of Jesus - THEN we'll have a problem. This however is the opposite - a politically offensive person advocating for a nonpartisan cause. How well she does the latter is the important criterion.
rug
(82,333 posts)This lobbyist's entire career has been pushing republican agenda. The fact that she now works for an atheist organization, that overtly wants to attract conservatives, doesn't alter anything.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)She's been hired to lobby for the group and bring in more support. If she can do that well, she's worth the money. Why should atheists give a rat's ass about the polistical bent of either their spokespeople or fellow atheists, when political bent is entirely irrelevant to the definition of atheism or the goals of atheists qua atheists?
rug
(82,333 posts)"Why should atheists give a rat's ass"? Because atheism is simply an absence of belief. This is politics.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Click on their Issues page.
Please tell me which of the SCA's goals stands in opposition to the progressive agenda.
After you've done that, I'll collect a list of links showing when your church's officials, that you personally help support with your money, have actively worked against the progressive agenda.
Ready? Go.
rug
(82,333 posts)Expect them to support a progressive agenda?
I notice you're taking a different tack.
As opposed to the "bipartisan" approach to secularism, you are now saying that SCA is more than an atheist organization but a progressive one.
If so, why hire a republican to recruit conservatives?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)However, none of their goals conflict with what we would generally consider to be progressive.
On the other hand, quite a few of them stand in direct opposition to the Republican agenda.
If there are conservatives who support the goals of the SCA, then they clearly don't think much of today's Republicans, and I would appreciate their help in advancing secularism and the goals of the SCA.
I understand why you refuse to discuss this from a factual standpoint and instead want to attack, attack, attack this hiring. Your support of a far worse institution that fights against the progressive agenda daily must be difficult to stomach sometimes.
rug
(82,333 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Mote in our eye, beam in yours, and all that. You straighten up the viciously anti-progressive organization you directly support (or leave it and stop supporting them), and you'll have a moral foundation on which to lecture others.
rug
(82,333 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Which, if you had bothered to inform yourself, you would know.
From http://secular.org/about/main
And if those conservatives support keeping politics and religion separate, all the better. We don't have to agree on political issues to agree that religion should not be front and center to justify political stances.
You seem to be very confused about what this organization does, and how politics works.
rug
(82,333 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)I'm not going to let you.
You straighten up the viciously anti-progressive organization you directly support (or leave it and stop supporting them), and you'll have a moral foundation on which to lecture others.
rug
(82,333 posts)Please do explain. I'm all ears.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)And you took only a selected set of words from the excerpt I posted.
I take both of these as your admission of defeat on the issue. I will gladly continue discussing the issue at hand, but will not go down your absurd sidetrack. Please lay on a trademark one-liner to confirm your defeat.
rug
(82,333 posts)Utter defeat.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)I expect them to care about secular government and separation and equality in all ways for people of no faith.
I don't give a damn how many more conservatives we can get to support that except to maximize the number of any and all supporters. I wish every single progressive, moderate and RW nutcase did.
The Democratic party can fight the political battles. Let the SCA remember, and stick to, what the S means in the first place.
rug
(82,333 posts)I won't repeat what I said earlier about hiring a republican but I stand by it.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)An absence that can be acknowledged by people anywhere on the political spectrum, and yet an absence which is associated in many minds with only part of that spectrum. Reaching out to the other parts is not a bad thing. Absence of belief per se is apolitical and should be seen that way. Maybe a RWer can carry that message betterr than a stereotypically liberal spokesperson, no?
rug
(82,333 posts)dmallind
(10,437 posts)What cost is there in getting as many people as possible to support it? Would you complain if Republicans supported gay rights or choice or unions? Why should I complain if they support secularism?
The SCA should never legislate any more than the RCC. Why should I care how many Republicans are members?
rug
(82,333 posts)What do you suppose these republicans want in return in exchange for a visit from their old friend? Immigration help? LBGTQ help? Maybe Hitchens'-type war mongering? You can't make a deal with the devil even if there is no devil.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)The SCA is not in or ever going to be in a position to make such trades, any more than NARAL, which could also use more conservative support, is.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)They support politicians of both parties who support abortion rights. Granted, there aren't many Republicans who do, but that's beside the point. NARAL supports a critical plank of our party platform, a woman's to a safe, legal abortion. Are they evil because they give money to a few Republicans who also support that goal?
Ask rug. He has an interesting opinion on the issue of abortion.
rug
(82,333 posts)And if it has nothing to trade she won't be a very effective lobbyist.
Joseph8th
(228 posts)Atheism is very political, IMHO (atheist here) -- at least when organized. Sure it's personal when it's in my own head, but when religion comes up in conversation with others, it's necessarily always political... I for one don't do theology, and don't think religion qualifies as 'philosophy'... in fact the only interest I have in religion is in its relationship to the wall that separates it from the state.
If hiring a conservative lobbyist helps keep that wall strong and high, I'm all for it.
edhopper
(33,580 posts)SCA promotes secularism in legislation.
She ALSO (see that is a new sentence that refers to but does not connect directly with the previous one) is concerned by the Religious Right's impact on the Republican Party. Though this is not a part of her SCA duties, just a personal aspect.
I am inferring that this concern is the reason she is working at SCA.
SCA seems to be bi-partison.
rug
(82,333 posts)otganization.
Nothing - I'll repeat - nothing good can come of that type of bipartisanship.
It is the downfall of most single-issue political organizations.
I would like to see more Republicans who are environmentalist, who want to do something about Global Climate Change. Who fight for the separation of Church and State.
Nixon started the EPA and Goldwater was one of the founders of Planned Parenthood.
rug
(82,333 posts)I'm not going to discuss the virtues of Nixon and Goldwater.
you miss my point again!
Bye bye
rug
(82,333 posts)HW passed the ADA. Let's join hands.
LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)Yes, if one must have conservative politicians it is better for them to be anti-theocratic, pro-environment, liberal on social issues, than otherwise. But if they are economically right-wing and opposed to the provision of public services - and most Republicans nowadays are- then they will still be destructive. You cannot do much to preserve the environment if you don't support public spending and government regulation. You cannot be socially liberal for those below a certain income, if you are economically right-wing - the threat of severe poverty is just as coercive as the police state.
There is no reason why all secularists and atheists should be left-wing, any more than that all religious people should be right-wing, and in the UK there are plenty of counter-examples to both. But I am not joining forces with any right-wingers, religious or secular.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)based on her history.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)on the other hand, fuck Republicans.
rug
(82,333 posts)Response to rug (Reply #24)
edhopper This message was self-deleted by its author.
LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)laconicsax
(14,860 posts)If a total asshole (I can call Rogers an asshole, right) is going to head up the SCA, I can't help but think that it's the first step of a plan to broaden GOP appeal and shake loose the nutty fundamentalists who may be seen as a growing liability.
edhopper
(33,580 posts)who think this organization has gone completely off track by having a conservative at it's head, also think that churchgoers should leave and cut all ties to Churches that go along with the GOP agenda and have very conservative leaders...like the Catholic Church for instance?
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)For example, if the Republican leader says gay marriage is bad, then I would not want to belong to that group.
If the Republican leader just sticks to acceptance of atheists, and leaves all other politics out of the group, then I could overlook some personal differences.
edhopper
(33,580 posts)but I was talking to people here who think that a Republican leading an atheists group is unconscionable, but don't seem to have a problem with conservative religious leaders of their churches.
struggle4progress
(118,285 posts)Wife of Washington Lobbyist Uses Money as Wrapping Paper
by Rigel Celeste
... Edwina Rogers .. wraps her presents in .. sheets of real, government-issued, dollar bills. The wife of Washington lobbyist Ed Rogers gets the money sheets from the United States Bureau of Engraving (you can order them .. yourself ..) and then slices and dices as you would any wrapping paper to best fit the gift and get the best pattern on the front of the package (in this case it's lining up Washington's face just right). No matter that she regularly cuts several bills in half in the process, to be frugal she sticks to the dollar paper and only uses it to wrap "small" gifts ...
http://www.luxist.com/tag/edwina+rogers/
The E-Sylum: Volume 11, Number 38, September 21, 2008, Article 31
WOMAN USES UNCUT PAPER MONEY SHEETS TO WRAP PRESENTS
The Republican lawyer was filmed for the pilot of "PowerHouse," a peek inside homes of local VIPs -- hers being an 18,000-square-foot McLean mansion. Rogers shared one of her trademarks: Covering small gifts with sheets of uncut U.S. currency. A clip was posted on Hotline last month, then made its way onto blogs and the "Colbert Report" Monday as a symbol of K Street's wretched excess.
That's so not what she meant. The health policy lobbyist (previous gigs in the Senate and White House) started wrapping inexpensive presidential cuff links in dollars 10 years ago -- as small, under-$20 thank-you's that would comply with ethics rules. "I was trying to be perfectly legal, but be unique and interesting," she said. "I only use it on tiny gifts." Friends love it, especially foreigners ...
http://www.coinbooks.org/esylum_v11n38a31.html
PowerHouse: Republican Lobbyist Edwina Rogers Wraps Gifts in Money
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
Silent3
(15,214 posts)..."In God We Trust"?
struggle4progress
(118,285 posts)Silent3
(15,214 posts)But given that she's supposed to be an atheist, there's more irony in the "In God We Trust" part.
I find irony more interesting than simple crassness. 
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I think one can be a lobbyist and not even believe in or support the goals of the organization you work for.
And I suspect she's just that kind of person - bought and sold.
edhopper
(33,580 posts)but she definitely does not like the influence that the Religious Right is having on the laws and the GOP. She is advocating secularism in government.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I have met many a lobbyist who didn't support the things they were lobbying for. It's a lucrative business and also has political rewards.
I would not assume anything about her actual beliefs, lack of beliefs or motives here.
edhopper
(33,580 posts)I am just not decrying her new position.
I can only go by what she has said and what she want s to do.
"For too long, the 50 million secular Americans have been ignored, underappreciated and undervalued — that’s what drew me to the Secular Coalition for America," Rogers said in a statement. "It’s time to change that. Secular Americans are increasingly pulling together as a voting bloc that demands attention — a constituency that is due formidable representation in Washington, D.C."
If she is effective in stopping primarily GOP lawmakers from writing theocratic laws, more power to her.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)I understand the joke you were making, with the cash wrapping paper, but you actually touched a something of a real issue. Is there any reason why that message has to be on the currency?
Taverner
(55,476 posts)It just means, one less strawman...