I'm going to ask a very controversial question....

[kentuck]

Does every group of people, no matter how controversial or how small, deserve inclusion in the Democratic Party and deserve to participate in the Party Platform and the development of the Party's "public image"? I ask as a followup point to a post about atheists being ignored by the Party.

Let's assume, for argument sake, that atheists make up less than 10% of the nation? But 90% believe in some type of religion or God of their choice. Should the Party give the 10% a voice in the Party's message development at the risk of alienating the other 90%? Or should the Party be tolerant of everyone but not necessarily include these groups as if they were the "mainstream" of America? How intelligent would that be politically?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Yes and no

It's a hard debate to tackle, but any time you're trying to represent the interests of about 100 million people, it's downright impossible to please everyone. So you create a platform that caters to the most people possible. So no, it really isn't feasible to make sure that the 10% of atheists are 100% pleased if it means risking the 90% of non-atheists. You do, however, try to accomodate them as much as possible without driving the rest of the group away, and if a severe injustice is being done to that 10%, you try to get the other 90% on their side as well. That's where the Democratic Party has been able to be inclusive of minorities. The people of our party understand that minority groups need help too, and it's because of that understanding that we've been so able to accomodate their needs, and let as many people into our "big tent" as humanly possible.

[trumad]

4. No

because where does it stop?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. At the point where you start driving away your base.

[trumad]

10. Exactly

but where is that point? It's a fine line...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. It definitely is

That's why you need good party leadership, to ensure we don't cross that line.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

46. As Theresa put it last night,

everyone is invited to 'join the conversation'. Inclusion and tolerance have more to do with listening to everyone's views and respecting differences than being held hostage to the tyranny of a myriad minorities.

[readmylips]

2. Ron Reagan is Atheists...

Atheists covered by a huge liberal star by the name of Reagan...who's never been a republican.

[Iris]

8. Ah, but he's never been a Democrat, either!

[vi5]

3. As an atheist, here is the thing........

I don't expect them to pander to me. And I understand that they have to pander to the larger percentage of people who believe in all that stuff.

But it doesn't make it any less dissapointing to realize that we live in a place where that HAS to be an issue. Most other countries have plenty of people who are religious but don't feel the need to have their politicians inject that aspects of their life into the public sphere.

I'm not asking them to pander to my lack of religious beliefs, I'm just asking them not to pander to it at all. It should be completely separate. The me-too ism of having to say "God Bless" after every damn speech is just sad to me. That people feel they HAVE to inject that into everything. If you believe in it then fine. I'm not asking anyone to denounce anything. But why does something that is supposed to be personal and spiritual have to be exploited like that?

[Ravenseye]

6. The Problem is that they need to.

Every politician in this country has to at least pretend to be religious because the majority of americans in both major parties are, and many think that you can't be a good leader if you don't believe in God.

Sad, but thats what the masses feel.

Ok, so to lead you've got to lie anyway so whatever. Tack on God Bless America. All you're really saying is "I love this place, and I hope it doesn't get hit by an asteroid anytime soon."

Inclusion into the mainstream isn't necessary either. The message shouldn't be "Athiests are OK"....the message should be "The Separation of Church and State is important to this party, and as such we can't support anything that favors one religion, or even athiesm, over another."

[Tyler Durden]

12. Welcome and I LOVE YOU!

How very succinctly you come to the crux of our modern dilemma: Trying to please EVERYONE, we infact please NO ONE.

AND how impossible it is to eternally ride the fence in a Republic, where eventually (in EVERY Republic to date) it becomes "Government by Popularity or Beauty Contest."

I LOVE this line: Ok, so to lead you've got to lie anyway so whatever. Tack on God Bless America. All you're really saying is "I love this place, and I hope it doesn't get hit by an asteroid anytime soon." May I PLEASE steal it on rare occasion?

Once again, WELCOME. I look forward to your posts.

[Ravenseye]

49. Thanks

Sure use away.

[HamdenRice]

9. Well said ...

This is not a very difficult issue -- it was solved about 350 years ago in England after the end of religious wars and carried over to the American colonies and developed into the First Amendment. Atheists are not asking for an atheist platform; they are asking for a return to the Constitutional principle that the government should stay out of religion. That's a principle that everyone -- atheist, Catholic, Seventh Day Adventist, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Unitarian -- who is not a fundamentalist Christian, end-of-time, hoping-for-the-rapture, Pat Robertson-following theocrat.

[DemBones DemBones]

17. I'm religious but could do without the political

speech conventions that pander to the religious ("God bless you," "God bless America," etc.) Even though I grew up with prayer and Bible reading in public schools, it's always bothered me, this civic religion that wants prayer and mentions of God in political settings. With a man in power who talks much of being a Christian but shows little evidence of it in his actions, it bothers me more than ever.

[Union Thug]

23. Dead on...

... and this lunacy provided the perfect wedge point for brilliant and manipulative conservatives: one that allowed a shift from the idea of class conciousness being an economic condition to one marginalizing the 'oppressed' xtian. Damn the economic disaster impacting the blue collar xtians, so long as those godless liberals were oppressin' god fearin' brethren, those same religious fundies were perfectly willing to vote against their own best economic interests to make sure some freakish evangelical nut would scream about ABORTION on the senate floor.

[rainy]

5. Religious beliefs are not relevant to politics so............

The question is moot.

[Spentastic]

11. What about homosexuals and blacks?

Oh, they're just a bigger minority right?

Disparate groups can align with many issues but should expect to have their views at the very least considered. No need to pander to any group but all this "God Bless" shit is pandering pure and simple.

If 90% of the white population thought blacks were worthless would you ignore the 10% that didn't?

[kayell]

16. Hi Spentastic

great minds and all! :hi:

[kentuck]

18. And there are different degrees of controversy....

Don't you think Blacks and Gays are more accepted now than just a few years ago? Do they have the same effect on the people at large or the Party Establishment?

[Spentastic]

24. One could

Argue strongly that acceptance had to gained at expense of people espousing exactly the views in your initial post.

Tolerance, compassion and respect are not things with boundaries to be defined by the party elite in order to garner maximum votes from the mainstream.

[kentuck]

28. And do you sacrifice short-term support for long term gain ?

And are there times when you cannot sacrafice short-term support ?

[Spentastic]

29. What you mean

Let the German's have Chzechoslovakia?

As it see it, Atheists are not asking for much. Just an admission that they exist and that God Bless blah blah blah doesn't define them or help very much really. I've not seen anyone advocating Church burning.

Why is it atheists you would so easily cast aside?

[theboss]

35. How is it pandering if they believe it?

The central thesis is wrong. You seem to think that Carter, Clinton, Obama, etc do not believe that invoking God; that would be pandering.

I say it is central to their natures and just as natural as saying "Good morning" or "Good evening." For someone like Clinton to not mention God - in my opinion - would be pandering. That goes doubly so for an actual man of the cloth like Carter, Sharpton, or Jesse Jackson.

[Spentastic]

37. Fair enough

Invoking God at an event designed to win a supposedly secular government seems odd to me.

I'll freely admit, I find belief on that scale troubling. I would prefer it not interfere with the process of Government.

That's just me.

[theboss]

38. I don't see how it is insenstive to invoke what I believe to be true

That's like saying I should never mention the fact that I vote for Democrats when I visit my Republican family members.

It would be insensitive to rub it in their faces and cause an argument. But I would find it equally insenstive for them to expect me to censor a huge part of what I am to keep them appeased.

[Spentastic]

40. Apologies

Mid edit post. I took that out for that reason.

Still strikes me as odd. But then I don't believe, so it would. It does however have an impact.

[kayell]

13. Hispanics make up only 13% of the nations population, and blacks only

about 12%. Should the party give the minorities a voice in the Party's message development at the risk of alienating the majority? Or should the Party be tolerant of everyone but not necessarily include these groups as if they were the "mainstream" of America? How intelligent would that be politically?

After all, think how we are alienating the white supremacist vote.

[Spentastic]

19. Spooky

I agree why would we want to alienate republicans? If we got their votes, we'd win all the time!

[theboss]

39. Minor quibble: it is wrong to be white surpemacist

It is not wrong to believe in God.

You would have 90 percent of the party censor themselves to appease 10 percent.....when they aren't censoring you at all.

[kayell]

43. It is wrong in a country that believes in seperation of church and

state to treat atheists as lesser, and it is wrong in a country that believes in seperation of church to pander to religion.

It is not wrong to believe in God. It is wrong to force your views and prejudices on others, and to discriminate against those who do not believe in God.

[LittleApple81]

15. Isn't the description that I heard in the convention "democracy

is the rule of the majority and the protection of the minorities?"

[rman]

20. should religion be a wedge issue within the Dem party?

How intelligent would that be politically?

[Tyler Durden]

21. Where is "Klaatu" now that we need him?

I agree with your concept in that it is the way to retain or obtain power in a "Beauty Contest" based election of a Republic in decline.

On the other hand, the "mainstream" can go "CHENEY" itself.

[truthspeaker]

22. it's possible to alienate neither by being religion-neutral

[LWolf]

25. Everyone deserves inclusion. eom

[Warren DeMontague]

26. It's not a question of "accomodating" or "including"..

From where I sit, it's a question of not turning a secular political event into a religious revival. Now, I don't think the Democrats have done that, and I personally don't get worked up at elements of ceremonial deism or "god bless america" or whatever. Generally I think the context that that stuff has been used, this year as well as traditionally, in the Dem. Party is far less offensive and onerous than how it gets bandied about in the GOP.

For instance, the GOP convocated their 2000 convention to "Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ" (that sound you heard was me barfing on my shoes... I'm an atheist, or more specifically a spiritual free agent secular humanist with buddhist, taoist, and erisian leanings-- but my heritage, at least for half my family, is Jewish) Now, there are (believe it or not) some Jews inthe Republican Party-- Ben Stein, for instance, was up on that stage at one point. Now, what- less that 10 percent of the population is Jewish, right? I'm sure the percentage is even less in the GOP. So, does the GOP need to always "pander" to the Jewish minority in it's ranks? Well, no. But more specifically, does the GOP need to adopt a message that is so blatantly non-inclusive, i.e. convocating the convention to "Our Savior, Jesus".

Again, I think Secular politics should be like sporting events.. You don't bring religion into it because it's like taking a hot dog into the library. Just the wrong place. Why everyone feels there has to be references to the deity ladled all over the place, I have no idea. The founders made the constitution 100% secular, and that's the basis for our government-- "God" isn't mentioned once. So, why not ask the same of our major political gatherings?

That said, I don't have a problem with the level of "God Bless America", etc. that the Democrats have displayed. Doesn't bother me. I've been extremely overjoyed with this convention so far.

[Ripley]

27. How big a percent of Americans are gays?

Or Native Americans?

If you are going by percentages, then clearly the Atheist/Agnostic group is being discriminated by the Party of Tolerance.

[kayell]

30. You seem to think that atheist are asking for an atheist platform

when we simply want the party to recognize the principle of seperation of church and state. I doubt that many people who vote Democratic are going to be terribly upset if the party decides that mingling religion in politics is not appropriate. Most of the liberals I know who are religious recognize that this is a guiding principle of our country.

People who rigidly refuse to vote for those who don't flaunt an ultra-religious stance have a name - Republicans.

[Selwynn]

31. NO.

The "big tent" concept is ridiculous when taken to extremes.

Including everyone means standing for nothing. The party shouldn't even be tolerant of "everyone." We don't need to develop a tolerant attitude towards racists and homophobes for example. We don't need to be "tolerant" of those who believe as Clinton said, that we should act unilaterally at every opportunity and in cooperation only we have to. In fact, I'd say Clinton did a decent job in "drawing the line" where "inclusiveness" cannot go.

As far as religious beliefs - the Democratic party would be best if it kept religious discussion out of its platform. That would include thesists and non-theists or atheists alike.

[dryan]

44. I agree with your first point....

After the McGovern reforms of the early 1970s, the Democratic Party went on a tangent about inclusion. I attended some of the Platform Committee meetings during that time that were held in Miami and they would go on endlessly. The party developed planks on every issue under the sun in an effort to be inclusive. These attempts went far beyond religious preference, ethnic groups, race, etc., and I felt that some people were using the party who had private agendas or axes to grind. Whether people like it or not when a person running for Coroner, Tax Collector, state senate, or whatever who is running on the Democratic ticket doesn't want to have to defend a national platform that is unpoular in his/her area and may cause him/her to loose his race.

[bloom]

32. Tolerance of religion or a non-religious worldview

should be basic IMO.

Groups should not be "included" just because the "majority" approves.

I would hate to think of public opinions swaying so as the majority had no concern for disabled people, for instance.

[qwlauren35]

33. Here's my 2 cents....

The Democratic party is made up of a LOT of factions.

The pro-choice faction. The gay-rights faction. The African-American faction. The soccer-moms faction. The environmentalist faction. The anti-war faction. The civil liberties faction. The "separate church & state" faction....

Some of them are small, some are large....

MY personal view is that Kerry needs to be SILENT on the issues of the small factions. And needs to address the issues of the biggest factions, and especially those which will cross over to the undecided camp. Or better still, he needs to uphold and address the issues within the small factions which the larger factions can live with. For example, some people can live with Affirmative Action, but if Kerry promised reparations to African-Americans, he couldn't win the election. Some people can live with gays in the military, but if Kerry promised that every state would honor gay marriage, he couldn't win the election. Some people can live with first-trimester abortions for adults. If Kerry rolled back all of the little rules and regs that the states have set up and pushed for "abortion on demand", he'd lose the election.

AFTER THE ELECTION, if he wins, he can address the issues of the small factions that helped put him in office. But to address them in the platform just creates fodder for Republican mudslinging... and it will divide us instead of uniting us.

[theboss]

34. The Democratic Party may be more "religious" than the Republican Party

Hear me out on this one.

The Religious Right is a huge part of the Republican Party and makes up nearly the entirety of its Grassroots. And they are extremely forceful in pushing its religious agenda into the party platform. So, as a whole, The Republican Party pushes a more "Christian-centric" agenda.

But let's look at the parties individual for individual. 40 percent of the delegates at the DNC are minorities. And minorites are - by and large - extremely relgious. Something like 90 percent of blacks believe in God, and something like 75 percent of blacks attend church regularly.

Latinos - by and large - are extremely religious (and mostly Catholic).

And Democrats still get the vast majority of the Jewish vote (and whether they are practicing Jews or not, "religion" is still central to their identity). We ran a vice-president candidate in 2000 who could not campaign on Saturdays, for goodness sake.

Let's look at our speakers.... Jimmy Carter is an actual minister. Bill Clinton is clearly a deeply religious man and never seems more comfortable than standing behind a pulpit. The minister - whose name I forget - who served with Kerry positively rocked the house. Barack is obviously a deeply religious man. I don't know much about Ted Kennedy's personal faith, but his family is partly defined by its Catholicism (Rose going to mass everyday, etc). "Reverand" Al Sharpton is speaking tonight.

I mean, we are a pretty religious bunch.

Having said that, as you can see by the list, we are a pretty wide-ranging bunch too. Christian and Jew. Catholic and Protestant. It's all there whereas the Republicans push a largely Southern Protestant agenda.

Clearly, there is room for atheists and agnostics in the Party as we are tolerant of all beliefs. But I think you are asking a lot to ask a Carter or Clinton or on an Obama to not talk about their faith since it is central to who they are.

[Kanary]

36. The Founders went out of their way to protect minority groups

Who is the Democratic Party to do any less?

Kanary

[theboss]

42. They went out of their way to protect minority opinion

Minority groups? Not so much.

[JerseygirlCT]

41. IMO, strong support for the separation of church and state

is what atheists need to hear from our party. No one need give up their declaration of belief -- that would be dishonest. No one without a belief in God should be made to feel unwanted, but I don't think we need to tie ourselves in knots to include every group of people with a specific issue in a platform. We're inclusive, and we support your right to believe as you will. That's all that's needed.

[leftofthedial]

45. I'm a good liberal

I feel strongly both ways

[uncle ray]

47. this discussion sounds so 1984

are YOU good enough to be a member of THE PARTY?

and to think i was "this" close to actually calling myself a Dem.

at least the 10% of the population or so that is athiest have a strong opinion on why they are what they are, unlike half of the majority of religious people that don't give their religion a second thought, they were just born into it and pay no attention to what it means to be of a particular faith. that's just as bad as being a fundie.

too bad i'm not something cool and popular like gay or christian.

[RobinA]

48. I'm an Atheist

and I don't ask for inclusion, I only ask to be able to be free in my beliefs. I can certainly recognize that the majority of Americans believe in some religion and seem to want to hear about their religion from their politicians. I also understand that politicians are elected by the majority (most of the time). So pragmatically speaking, no candidate can afford to elevate a minority over a majority and expect to be successful. I certainly wish that every politician didn't feel it necessary to invoke god in his speeches, I feel it is inappropriate, but that's the reality right now.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

50. Yes. I like anal sex. I want representation. A greater % of Americans

prefer anal sex than prefer atheism..they, too, should have a voice at the Dem convention.

Frankly, I don't care whether the party caters in their marketing practices to one demographic or the other so long as they keep the wall up between church and state in the laws and in the courts.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

51. As a religious person, I want separation of church and state, too

When people start talking about the U.S. as a "Christian nation" or want to write laws according to "Biblical principles," I ask them how they would like it if they moved to an area that was majority Catholic (the "Christian nation" types are usually fundamentalist Protestants) and were required to attend Mass every Sunday or to one of the areas near Detroit that is majority Muslim and were required to follow Shariah.