I’ll admit it. I had caught Obama fever.
It started when my girlfriend’s mother gave me a copy of Dreams from my Father, Obama’s bestselling 1996 biography. Reading it got me very excited about Obama’s candidacy, and once it became clear that it was going to be a contest between Obama and McCain I enthusiastically threw my support behind Obama. A McCain presidency promises a fresh social conservative in the Supreme Court following Justice Stevens’ imminent departure, something that, as a freethought activist, I felt I had to oppose. Meanwhile, Obama has been explicit in several speeches about his staunch support of church-state separation. To me, the choice was obvious.
Then my wake-up call came, in the form of Obama promising to promote and enhance faith-based initiatives across the country. I was shaken; was there any candidate who could help us progress as a society, who would not actively promote conformity to mainstream religious modes?
The answer is simply no. This election is noteworthy, among many other things, for the fact that the Evangelical Christian bloc is up for grabs for the first time in recent memory. They carried Bush II to victory in the 2000 and 2004 elections, swinging states like Ohio into the Red and helping him capture the White House. However, the evangelicals are not as excited about McCain as they were Bush II, and both camps know that they have to mobilize to target this very motivated group of voters. The first real appearance of the two candidates together was the recent Saddleback Church forum, hosted by celebrity evangelist pastor Rick Warren. Before they debated on real issues, they instead got on-stage in front of the nation and tried to out-Christian each other, jumping through the Judeo-Christian hoops to prove that they are Christian leaders who will lead a Christian nation with Christian values towards a Christian world.
As an non-believer and a secular freethought activist, this sickens me. Many who decry the role of religion in Middle Eastern politics passionately advocate a Christian stranglehold on our own government, the worst of which we have seen since Bush II came into office. Christianity disproportionately dominates our government, unreflective of the true nature of the American religious demographic: anywhere from 4%-14% of Americans(depending on who you ask) consider themselves to be non-believers, not including many who keep their mouths shut about their disbelief. Despite this fact, one has to ask: where are the non-religious politicians? Well, here’s one, and he’s not the first; California Gov. Culbert Olson, a Democrat who served from 1939 to 1943, declared his atheism as well. But these men “came out” close to or after the end of their political careers, when they had little left to lose by such an admission. It would seem as though the non-believer is among the last of the political outcasts; the Democratic Party has a black man running for president with a Catholic as his running mate, and it came narrowly close to nominating a woman. A Jewish man was a Vice Presidential candidate in the 2000 election. The Democratic party openly supports civil unions for homosexuals. Yet, for all of its talk, the “party of inclusiveness” shuns those whose worldview tends toward the skeptical.
Given the current socio-political landscape, this makes bitter sense. To formally recognize non-believers as a political entity would be instant suicide for any political party. The best that we can hope to do is to vote for someone who would hurt our cause less, and in this case, the choice is clearly Obama. However, it is a regrettable choice, one that hurts more and more with each election cycle as we grow as a subset of the population while facing the same political disenfranchisement year after year. Perhaps someday the non-believers will know the joy of having a real say in politics, like women, minorities and soon homosexuals. Until then, we’ll fight the good fight until the world considers our voice a legitimate one.
Comments
RSS
Digg!
Stumble
Tweet
More by Max Jackson
Author Tweets
tweets loading 
I think that you might be exaggerating the regretability of the faithless voting for Obama. Yes, he professes Christian belief. And yes, he does support faith-based initiatives (however, if properly enforced, the restrictions that he has in mind will make these government contributions indistinguishable from those provided to secular philanthropic organizations). But to portray him as a “lesser of two evils” for the cause of secularism is misleading and might cause quite a few voters staying at home rather than voting for Obama. In a democracy with a clear religious majority, openly nonreligious politicians will find it hard to get elected. That’s the situation, and while it is so, we need to support politicians that share secular values. And Obama certainly does: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvKX16Eygs0
A.S. you are right, the reality is that in the game of politics, you simply would not be able to be elected unless you wore your religion on your sleeve. That obviously won’t change anytime soon as frustrating as that may be. But why shouldn’t Obama be able to say that he is a Christian, or anyone for that matter. He has just the right as a non-believer to say that they are an Atheist (although that probably won’t happen anytime soon). I find it would be very presumptuous to believe that Obama would support faith-based initiatives and not secular ones. In fact it would be presumptuous to assume so for any outright Christian without looking at their record. It’s a problem I find among many secular rights advocates, who would bemoan politicians for speaking about their religion, and not even bother to look at what they have said or done for secular rights, simply assuming they wouldn’t support Atheist.
I also want warn those who use GLBT rights as a means to explain the causes of secularism. I was once told in a discussion with another Atheist that gay marriage is what GLBT rights advocates essentially seek, and that they should also see it as similar to Secular rights. Please, the GLBT cause is much more complex then that. There are parallels between both causes no doubt. That can also be said of feminism and minority rights. All these causes can’t simply be discussed as being the same! I find it frustrating to hear sometimes that the Civil Rights Movement to include the Womens Rights Movement. Both movements had it’s own advocates and histories, they just happen to occur in conjunction.
Great video by the way!
Also! The phrase “Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgendered rights” within itself implies issues beyond gay marriage.
More importantly, I feel somewhat frustrated that THESE are the men we are forced to discuss this election year. It seems like the country has a different energy than it used to compared to past election years. Almost as if the country has given up hope already. Gas prices rose from $2.86 to $2.90 last year and everyone was outraged and scared. Now, we go to the pumps, expecting to pay well over $4 a gallon, and americans obey quietly like abused animals. Even the most staunch McCain and Obama supporters find flaws with their political representatives, and tolerate it. It seems as though Mediocrity is America’s greatest export right now, and the world doesn’t seem to expect much more of us. We went from a golden age of economic and social leadership to being the first world’s B student, and we are slowly slipping. Americans were desperate for strong leaders to turn to, for a man to take this country and give us back the comforts and securities we have become accustomed to, and instead, we produce a man with wonderful ideals, but not very strong credentials. Whether or not he can be a truer voice for atheism, do you really think he can lead this country?
as an acting major, I am taking a very interesting directing class. We just recently learned about the audition process. Say you are casting a production of Hamlet. Two men show up who you are deciding between to play the title role. One of them seems aggressive. He has the chops, but he could likely take hold of the production and make it into his little show, which most likely is a completely separate show from the one YOU are planning on directing. the next actor is friendly, young, handsome, charming, charismatic, and inspiring to work with. You plan on casting him in a heartbeat, however, when he asks you “to be, or not to be,” you realise that his “chops” are not where they should be to carry this role. You then do what every director in the world would do: You realise that if he can’t perform in an audition, that a few, no matter how pressing rehearsals will never make him ready for opening night. you scrap your audition and start over.
the scary part is that america can’t scrap it’s audition. it can’t start over. it needs to choose one of these two leading men, and our production will no doubtedly sink.
think about how many more cynical children in public schools will scoff when their professors promise them that even though their field trip to see a crappy production of hamlet wasn’t a good example of shakespeare’s brilliance, that hamlet really is an amazing work of literature. right.
[quote]Whether or not he can be a truer voice for atheism, do you really think he can lead this country?[/quote]That is not a point either you or I made. I’m sure McCain’s extensive political career would make him a better leader. This is a reason to vote for him in this election, but not at all persuasive per se.[quote]Now, we go to the pumps, expecting to pay well over $4 a gallon, and americans obey quietly like abused animals.[/quote]I really don’t see what the average citizen can do about this except adapting to it. The only people who think they can easily make a change are the “prayer at the pump” wackos and those who think that offshore drilling will do away with our dependence on foreign oil. The only solution is to shift to using nuclear, aeolian, solar, etc. energy. Except for (maybe) nuclear energy, you won’t see any right-wing politician taking steps into that direction.
Regardless of other problems one might have with Obama (or with the fact that we can only reasonably choose between him and McCain), he is a candidate with positions that are mostly shared by nonbelievers. To say that he’s a “Christian [leader] who will lead a Christian nation with Christian values towards a Christian world” is simply false.
The reason that my girlfriend(Leah ^)’s mother gave me the book in the first place was because she was scared of Obama, thinking that he had ties to Louis Farrakhan and wanted to destroy the nation of Israel.
This isn’t true, unless you regularly watch Fox News. But the fact remains that people are irrationally wary of a man whose middle name is Hussein and who attended a madrasah as a child, and as such Obama has been fighting a tough battle to firmly establish himself as a Christian.
In fact, he has been pounding on his Christian faith far more aggressively than McCain has, as a cursory glance of the campaign’s past would show you. Is he really as Christian as he claims to be? Or is he just cynically exploiting the Christian vote? One thing to consider is his march towards the center since the primary season has ended. Is this cynical too? Which Obama is he? If you can still trust his leadership, then you are a far better human than I am. I, however, remain disillusioned after the cold slaps to the face the Obama camp has given me. Some progress is better than none, true, but nothing about the Obama camp inspires me to actively support him.
Yes, we should vote for Obama, there is no doubt of that. But my vote is being cast not because I like the man that Obama is, but because a McCain presidency would would be far, far worse. I find myself watching bitterly as Obama’s army of young idealists pump their fists in the air every time he opens his mouth, reflecting that I could have been in that crowd too, and almost was.
Obama has spoken passionately about faith-based initiatives, just see his July speech on the issue:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/amandascott/gG5xY3
Obama has pledged to expand on Bush’s faith-based initiatives to the tune of an additional $500 million per year.
The news isn’t all bad; Obama’s plan wouldn’t allow charities to “take religion into account” when hiring, while McCain’s limited words on FBIs indicate that he would allow such discrimination.
I too was upset that their first public forum was at that church with the pastor as the moderator. Good article! I’m glad you guy’s made this site.