Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Would a 1930’s German Jew Vote for the Nazi Party? Ask a McCain Supporting Atheist.


John McCain’s one time abhorrence of the Religious Right, their polices, their politics, their objective to insert religion into our lives, our constitution and our government, is a thing of the past. Now he embraces them. His selection of a charismatic fundamentalist VP who believes in Creationism, rejects Evolution, insists only ‘abstinence” be taught to school children, et al, is proof of that. It was a cynical ploy to cement their allegeance. McCain has sold his "soul" to the Religious Right to get elected.

But more than that, he has declared openly that when elected he will appoint judges in the same mould as Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts. That is to say, the most conservative and religious members of the Court. Justices who have in the past made their pro-religion sympathies clear.

Why is this of importance now? Because the next administration will be appointing between one and three Supreme Court Justices. Those appointees will determine the tilt of the court for many years to come. Those appointees will either represent votes to retain our personal freedoms, or will be votes to truncate them in the name of religious fervor.

McCain has made a promise to the Hagees, Robertsons, Dobsons. He made clear that he would welcome the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Let’s make this real simple. McCain has become a tool of the Religious Right. He is a “maverick” like I am Jesus Christ. His judicial appointments will be a victory for the religious conservative extremists.

So, you atheists out there who claim to be dues paying members of Freedom from Religion Foundation, or Military Freedom Foundation, or Americans United for Separation of Church and State, or any other activist organization which seeks to preserve our freedoms from those who would impose their religious fanaticism upon all of us … a vote for McCain is a vote for the Religious Right and counter to where you are putting your both your mouth and your money..

- If you agree that the Right’s extreme fundamentalist religious precepts should not be part of our secular government;
- If you agree that the government should have no say in who can marry;
- If you agree that "abstinence only" sex ed shouldn't be gov't funded;
- If you agree the government shouldn’t be deciding what books should or should not be in libraries or what you can and cannot view on the internet;
- If you agree women should have complete control of their reproductive rights;
- If you agree that family alone should determine with their doctor when their brain dead loved one should be allowed to die;
- If you agree that homosexuality isn’t a choice but by genetic variation that shouldn’t be punishable by second class citizenship;
- If you agree that religious symbolism in our public schools and government buildings is a violation of the Constitution; and biblical precepts have no place in our secular laws;
- If you agree that teaching creationism in public schools works against our youth's intellectual advancement, and for religiosity;
- If you agree that pastors who use their church to overtly support a political candidate or party should lose their tax exemption ...

Then voting for McCain is the last thing you would do.

But, if you agree with George H.W. Bush that “Atheists aren’t patriots, and maybe not even Americans.”, or Falwell’s legacy, or Robertson, or Hagee, or Dobson then voting for McCain is exactly the right thing to do.

If you go that route, if you vote McCain, do yourself a favor: stop contributing to those atheist and “wall of separation” foundations, because you’re voting against those organization’s efforts.
You may as well be a 1930’s German Jew voting for the Nazis.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Gee Hump,

You are sounding more and more liberal with every blog...

Next thing you know, you will be ranting FOR gun control and FOR amnesty for illegals, and FOR the implementation of a Nanny state…

- Fastthumbs

p.s. All kidding aside, you are spot on...

Joyce said...

I don't agree with you on this one, Drom. There are many issues that Obama supports that I do not yet I plan on casting my vote for him. What you are saying here about how it is in total conflict for an atheist to support McCain is the same stuff that the religious right is accusing me of as an Obama supporter.

One example of this is how they allude (or outright accuse) those of us who support Obama as not being prolife (which I am) as well as other issues that to them seem to be totally in opposition of my Christian faith. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

There is no candidate that any side is going to be in complete agreement with and some issues that may be in opposition of solid personal convictions. That doesn't make me a traitor or a deserter of my convictions or my faith, nor does it makes anyone of other beliefs a deserter of their convictions.

It's a matter of coming to a personal decision which is inevitably going to include taking the good with the bad. The candidate we choose is going to support issues that we disagree with. There's no getting around that. We have to responsibly weigh the good with the bad and make our decisions accordingly.

DromedaryHump said...

Fast: Heheh...thanks thumbs.


Joyce:
There are plenty of issues i disagree with Obama on. Gun control, size of government / governments role in buisness...the very fact of liberalism's pandering giveaways and socialistic philosophy disgust me.

I am a moderate...thus you can assume at leat 1/3 of what obama's political perspectives are will offend me.

What I am saying is simply this:
I dont know what we'll get with Obama vis-a-vis his liberal agenda. I DO know what we will get from his Supreme Court appointees..or at least...fairly certain.

I KNOW what I'd get from McCain...more GW Bush; and I DO KNOW what we'll get on his court nominees.

I'd rather opt for the Unknown / Known of obama, than the Known/known of McCain.

Personal Freedoms and a Non Theisticaly controlled Court are PRIMARY to me. They are to any atheist activist. If someone is going to proffes that they hold that as important... but then "vote their pocket bpook" or decide they dont want to see a blackman in the whitehouse, I have nothing but distain for them.

NOW..I didnt say any atheist who votes for McCain "isnt a true athest" as your christian bretheren like to toss around at eachother like hand grenades. An atheist has only one definition: no belief in god/gods.

But don't come into an atheist message group, profess your distain for a phiosophy that would make atheists, homosexuals, and women 2nd class citizens, say you support organizations that fight religious incursion into schools, the military, and government, and then, when the chips are down say.. "Fuckit , I'm voting for the White Guy and his Fundie VP...let the future of the Supreme Court and their rulings be damned."

Its simply a contradiction...like a 1930's jew voting for the Nazi Party because dispite their little anti-jewish quirk, the Nazis may more parallel their finaicial or nationalistic feelings. I think we know how that orked for them.

No...that thinking doesn't wash. Worse, it sucks. Thats my opinion, it's not negotiable.

DromedaryHump said...

Fast...just for the record, although I know you were jesting, allow me to revise and extend my remarks.

I have approx 60 guns... and they will have to kill me to take any.

illegal immigrants should be shot at the border, or if already here, deported.

as for nanny state: i say if ya wanna eat trans fat, eat it. Want to wear no helmet on a cycle, don't. Let kids drink at 18, smoke in bars, fuck political correctness, and if you wanna use the "N" word in its original form (aka Nigger), thats your right of freedom of speech.

Have no fear... It's far more likely i'd become a wiccan and start worshipping a fuckin tree, than I become a liberal.

;)
Hump

Tracey said...

I gotta ask my mother if she ever had a one-nighter with a camel because you and I think so much alike. I said a while back that who I vote for depends heavily on the veep nominee. While I'm not wild about Obama, he will get my vote in an attempt to keep those fundamentalist assholes out of the White House. All office holders take an oath to uphold the Constitution. I doubt Palin would uphold the Constitution if it ever conflicted with her bible. As for McCain, he sold out. He just straight up sold out.

Oreo

DromedaryHump said...

Oreo...
Amen.
Oh, and say hi to your Mom for me... it's been a long time.
: )

Hump

Joyce said...

Tracey/Oreo said: "All office holders take an oath to uphold the Constitution. I doubt Palin would uphold the Constitution if it ever conflicted with her bible."

I agree with you. And I know that I often refer back to my friend Jaime's statement of voting for a president and not a pastor yet that rings so true to me and is something that I am committed to acting on in the way I vote and support my country's constitution.

If only my brethren (as Drom so lovingly refers to them. lol) could think the same I'd feel much safer.

Anonymous said...

Paul wrote a lot of crazy, challenging stuff. But I don't think he was saying that tyranny is all fine and dandy in Romans 13. There's many verses in the Bible addressing submission. Jesus' followers are called to submit to God, to eachother, spouses submit to eachother... and it seems that Paul is emphasizing our need to accept certain things we can't change. Instead of submitting to my urge to vandalize Bush's house and spew vengeful words about him on the internet, I have no choice but to accept that God allowed him to be in Office for some reason. God lets us do all kinds of foolish things besides electing idiots... We have the capacity to do good, but more often choose folly. I know you're gonna hate this comment & delete or rip it to shreds :-)
Shirl

DromedaryHump said...

Shirl,
I wouldn't delete or tear it up. Even though you posted it to the wrong blog entry. But then, youre a theist and must be given some latitude.

What say we deal with the actual words, not what it "seems" to say to you.

He clearly says govt / rulers do no harm to good citizens, only to evil doers.
DOES HES OR DOES HE NOT?
Is TIS OR IS THIS NOT ACCURATE?

Paul says all rulers are there by divine will?
DOES HE OR DOES HE NOT?

Paul says that to protest/rebell against the ruler / govt would be the same as rebelling against god.
DOES HE OR DOES HE NOT???

Now... you can play the GW Bush analogy that totally misses the mark, and you can turn ablind eye to Pauls' obvious fallacy about govt / rulers not doing evil to good citizens; and you can even justify that all rulers are by divine placement because he didnt kill them out right...

But you cannot deny that A) he was wrong and/or lied/and or was moronic in his assesment of govt as being always benificent toward good citizens, and B) that He equates rebellion against a ruler with action against God.

Now please. Stop playing fast and loose with words, with re-interpretation, with faulty logic and utter blindness, and deal with this as it is written... not like you'd LIKE it to be written.

Fundies have done that distortive text crap for years, then close their eyes, cover your ears, and shout "NYAH NYAH NYAH" so reality cant reach their brain.

Paul was a liar, or a deceiver of his people, or a damnable fool, or he suborned tyrany. Take your pick.

At least attempt some intellectual honesty. I hear theists are capable, yet I so rarely see it.

Hump

Anonymous said...

I don't "endorse" tyranny. All I can say is that I work with the text as best I possibly can. It has spoken to me, touched my soul all my life. When people let me down I had the Psalms and Ecclesiastes and other favorite books that comforted and inspired like nothing else. Not any church or religious leader- just this tattered old book. I've studied Taoism and some philosophies that were fascinating, but they didn't change or grab me. What's Truth for me is clearly not Truth for you or many other people. It's a personal experience leading us to certain choices. I find it sad that you spend so much energy trashing others' truth.
Respectfully, Shirl

DromedaryHump said...

Well shirl, if you don't endorse tyranny, then you don't endorse Pauls statement that i predicated this post upon. Good for you... maybe you aren't a Paulist.

What I find sad is that people are so weak, so lacking of self confidence, self esteeem, drive, motivation and courage, that they have to rely on a book of horrific stories, the promise of Disneyland in the sky, and convoluted mythical stories of living zombies in order to get a grip on their life. And that they call those things "Truth".

All that tells me Shirl, is that they deny and fear reality, and prefer fantasy and escapism in its stead. If that self delusion is the "Truth" you embrace, youre welcome to it.

Just try not to hurt anyone.
Regards,
Hump