Weak Teavangelicals

Despite great efforts, Billy Graham and his flock failed to pull out a Romney win. Is the 'values voter' era over?

By Chris Lehmann

If Barack Obama’s win proves one thing, it’s that Republicans can no longer count on the religious Right shepherding its flocks to the polls to produce a GOP victory. It’s not that evangelicals didn’t try. As the 2012 [RETURN TO ARTICLE]

  • Reader Comments

    The Evangelical movement can’t help but to wane off, just as the Tea Partiers are expected to simply walk away into the night. Both movements depended on two major groups to

    composed their base: Impoverished blue colars and retired old coots.

    Since old people can’t live forever and unemployed rednecks can only be mobilized in political activities for so long before their economic reality finally settles in, and since both groups have more or less been indoctrinated in the FU Altruism Ayn Rand way of thinking, the community they created was a hollow one, nearly devoid of any support.

    My friend knew one of those batty cat ladies with 6 “support our troops” bumper stickers and who regurgitated everything Glenn Beck said on Fox. Between being coaxed into giving money to her wealth gospel group and maxing her remaining credit card balance to drive that old ‘89 Ford Escort to the Lincoln monument for Glenn’s moment of fake glory, she lost her house and probably died of exposure for shunning community shelters and soup kitchens since Barack Secret Muslim Obama was a community organizer “and those places are a breeding ground for communism”... her words.

    They’ve done such a good job at making wound-up toy soldiers out of these poor fools but these movements all have selfish generals so the culture war was bound to be lost sooner or later…

    Posted by Alexandre Richard on Nov 15, 2012 at 1:10 PM

    Evidently, there a many people within the Christian right that do not grasp the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans simply do not wish to live in a Christian theocracy and do not see evangelical preachers as knowing what’s best for all of us.

    Posted by ORAXX on Nov 16, 2012 at 1:20 PM

    The real problem for the right is that Evangelicals are a small minority of the people in this country. Their congregations are aging almost to extinction. Young and educated people don’t buy into the sanctimonious crap they’re peddling. From their heavy handed politics to the weekly scandals involving their champions of family values the evangelical church has shown itself for what it truly is: empty air.

    Posted by Cozman57 on Nov 16, 2012 at 5:21 PM

      46 percent of white working-class Americans believe that capitalism is “at odds with Christian values.” 

    I haven’t read a polling artifact that has cheered me as much as that in a long time.  It makes me wish I wasn’t a polling skeptic.  We should be doing everything we can to get that figure much higher. 

    I’ve also come to believe that a left which is not powered by religious convictions is unlikely to be very influential.  While the religious right’s assumed eclipse is good,  I doubt any other suggested motivating force for the left will work for it to gain office, change laws for the better and sustain that change.    I’m entirely skeptical of a de-religionized left ever going anywhere.

    Posted by Anthony McCarthy on Nov 17, 2012 at 1:41 PM

    I’m inclined to agree.  Personally, I always vote my Christian values, but they don’t include racism, greed, or keeping people “in their place.”  But then, I actually read the Bible.  It often seems as though a lot of the right wingers don’t bother with it.

    Posted by Jane Hawes on Nov 17, 2012 at 2:58 PM

    A left that expects/requires participants to express religious convictions will instantly lose at least half of its current members.

    Copying one of the most offensive attributes of the right wing is hardly the way to broaden the appeal of liberal viewpoints.

    Posted by rodentrancher on Nov 18, 2012 at 9:48 AM

    The problem is far more that anti-religious expression is believed to be a requirement on the left, that hostility to religion is widely assumed to be an expression of being a leftist and that people whose religious belief is important in their lives are somehow tainted in the way your second sentence indicates.  I’ve come to be extremely skeptical of leftists who make hostility to all religion an assumed attitude and common practice.  It almost always comes with a coercive enforcement of their preferred ideological expression and attitude.

    I would question the idea that “half of the current members” of the left are hostile to religion.  Any surveys I’ve seen would indicate that the large majority of people who could be considered liberal or on the left are religious believers.  I’m entirely unimpressed with the track record of electoral and legislative success by the anti-religious “left” from the Herbertists down to today.  That kind of “leftism” has far more in common with the worst of the right than it does with the civil rights movement, the last notable series of achievements of the left in America. 

    A movement that spends more time deriding the large majority of people than in actually making progress is bound to fail, as the left in the United States has as its face and voice became increasingly anti-religious and materialist.  There is nothing I’ve seen in materialism that can sustain civil rights, equality, and the rest of the genuinely leftist agenda.

    Posted by Anthony McCarthy on Nov 18, 2012 at 10:36 AM

    Your premise is based on a false dichotomy. Indeed, most on the left are not “hostile” to religion. However, most consider religion to be one’s own personal affair. Your idea that religious belief should be the basis for participation in politics would be profoundly offensive to many religious people on the left, as well as to the approximately 20% of Americans (Pew Forum poll, Oct. 2012) who are non-religious.

    And assuming the left follows your suggestion, there would be the interesting matter of deciding which religions were “acceptable”. I gather you’re willing to write off agnostics and atheists. What about Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Wiccans, followers of Asatru? How on earth would you incorporate religion in such a way as to be acceptable to all of these?

    And perhaps you can point me to evidence of this supposed abuse of religion by the left - I am entirely ignorant of any examples in current American politics. All I’ve seen is an entirely understandable refusal to allow certain religious beliefs (on birth control, evolution, gender identity, etc.) to be forced on those who don’t share them.

    Posted by rodentrancher on Nov 18, 2012 at 11:06 AM

    I don’t think I’m misreading the left as it’s expressed regularly in the media and online forums.  I don’t think I’m misreading the academic presentation of the left or the assertions of anti-religious voices on the left.  If you can’t see it, go to Democratic Underground, Eschaton, Pandagon, etc. and you’ll see it in abundance.  You’ll read it in The Nation, and other organs of the left media.  Perhaps even here.

    I am glad that the civil rights leaders in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and a myriad of other groups and individuals informed their political thinking with their religious convictions.  I am no less glad when any religious person finds support for equality, environmental protection, economic and political justice in their religious beliefs.  It’s my experience and my reading of history that the people who base their liberal-leftist politics on that kind of religious belief actually get things done more consistently than those who are motivated by anti-religious ideology.  I have never encountered a religious person on the left who did not show great deference to religious pluralism, including those who didn’t believe.  It was Christians and Jews in the congress who passed the Civil Rights Act which covered atheists and agnostics, after all. 

    By an enormous percentage, religious people not only practice birth control, for example, but support the rights of people to easy access to birth control.  There is a growing consensus among religious believers in many currently uncovered legal rights.  If we hadn’t had religious support for marriage equality, here, in Maine where I live, we would never have passed it by referendum.  If we had only the anti-religious vote, we would never have it during our lifetimes, perhaps ever. 

    A left that is unwelcoming to religious people who take religion seriously will never be a force that can change anything.  It will be a left that is voluntarily a minor influence.  It is as irrational to believe that anti-religious invective strengthens the left as one that includes pervasive misogynistic expression.  Women are just over half of the population, religious people comprise well over 80% of the population.  A left that is hostile to a majority of the population cannot succeed even on the lowest level of numbers, never mind being counterproductive in terms of the purported leftist agenda.  Numbers count, unless you mean to take power like the Herbertists or the various, other anti-religious regimes in history have.  Regimes that the anti-religious “left” have held up as positive examples.  That’s the only way that they can take power if the majority of the people don’t agree with them.  Their records aren’t exactly something to be proud of, despite their high flown and empty rhetoric.

    Posted by Anthony McCarthy on Nov 18, 2012 at 12:12 PM

    Oh, and as to your 20% figure from PEW, here’s what they had to say in their press release of that figure:

    ” However, a new survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life, conducted jointly with the PBS television program Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly, finds that many of the country’s 46 million unaffiliated adults are religious or spiritual in some way. Two-thirds of them say they believe in God (68%). More than half say they often feel a deep connection with nature and the earth (58%), while more than a third classify themselves as “spiritual” but not “religious” (37%), and one-in-five (21%) say they pray every day. In addition, most religiously unaffiliated Americans think that churches and other religious institutions benefit society by strengthening community bonds and aiding the poor. “


    As with so much anti-religious common wisdom, when you look at the sources, it ain’t necessarily so.

    Posted by Anthony McCarthy on Nov 18, 2012 at 1:03 PM

    The Bible does not say that one man and one woman is the ONLY choice, afterall..King David had more women than most phone books..he was even chastised for dancing drunk and naked…and exactly where is Nod, you know that place Adam and Eve’s kids got wives??

    Posted by Dondura Miller on Nov 20, 2012 at 8:36 AM

    wonder how they’d handle it if they knew some of our founding fathers they love so much were agnostic or atheist?

    Posted by Dondura Miller on Nov 20, 2012 at 8:39 AM

    I agree with you..most of them refuse to look up entire sections or put statements from the Bible in a context it was written in, guess they are either not very smart or very lazy.

    Posted by Dondura Miller on Nov 20, 2012 at 8:41 AM

    There are way too many flaws in your logic. Those who do not have a religious affiliation are a very significant minority and, hence, basing public policy on doctrines of any religion in particular is an insult to ALL of them, even those who are uncommitted believers. Not to mention millions of christians who do agree with separation of church and state.
    And your claims of “hostility” among the left against religion are pure malarkey. Even the democrats included “god” in their platform. Why couldn’t they just stay neutral on the point? No one ever suggested they affirm not believing, you know. It is just silly when the majority claim “hostility"among when the minority are just expected to stay invisible. Invariably “hostility"among claims come from governments failure to wholeheartedly endorse the majority religion, as oppoosed to actually saying anything against it, ie, actual hostility. 
    As for civil rights issues, may I just remind you that the organizer of the march at which MLK gave his “I have a dream” speech was
    organized by the humanist Asa Randolph.

    Posted by NoCrossNoCrescent on Nov 20, 2012 at 10:04 AM

    Dondura Miller, first, I have absolutely no more interest in what the “founders” thought about religion than in their beliefs about the status of women, Africans and the native people of the Americas.  What they thought is historically interesting, it has no legitimate force in our politics today. Second, in every case I’ve looked into, Madison, Jefferson, Washington,.... the purported agnosticism and atheism of the “founders” is based largely on quote mining and mythology.  Jefferson was quite able to say a number different things, among those endorsing the theology of Joseph Priestley and his version of Christianity.  Madison, from whom one brief passage of his Memorial and Remonstrance is often taken to show his hostility to Christianity,  explicitly endorsed Christianity in the same document. 

    I’m unaware of any members of the Continental Congress who endorsed either atheism or agnosticism, quite a number of them were members of churches,  neither of which has anything to do with what I said.

    Posted by Anthony McCarthy on Nov 20, 2012 at 3:14 PM

    I didn’t bring up the PEW survey but it shows that, by a large majority, those who were unaffiliated were, nonetheless, religious believers.  As I recall those identifying themselves as atheists were fewer than 2% and not all atheists are bigoted against religious people. 

    Maybe you’re not very familiar with the left.  I’ve been a participant in it since the mid-1960s.  Anti-religious expression has been on display, increasingly, since the late 60s and has become a tsunami of hate since 2000.  If the left is identified with hostility to religion, it will never be more than of marginal influence. I listed a number of places you can go, some of the more popular left-identified blogs and magazines where anti-religious invective is freely expressed.  Pretending that isn’t there doesn’t make it any less obvious than the misogyny and racism that is on display in the Republican party and its media. 

    A. Philip Randolph was one important figure in the civil rights agitation of the last century.  By far, most of those who led and participated in the struggle were religious, many of them clergy members, the bulk of those who forced change were religious believers.  If atheists, insulting religious people, had pushed their way to the front of the movement it would never have succeeded then and I doubt it could today.  Randolph was a grown up.  He knew better.  He worked with the majority of people who were religious instead of insulting them.  I don’t know what he would have made of atheism c. 2012 as expressed online but I can’t imagine he’d have expected it to produce progress.  “Humanism”, the atheists club and not the intellectual movement by the same name, has changed quite a bit from its origins earlier in the last century.  It is about as much of a success as the Green Party is, in other words, not much of one.  After the buyout by Corliss Lamont it has degenerated.  I doubt it will ever be a productive force within the left or in politics.

    The idea that a left that was hostile to more than 85% of the population, or which was believed to be through the obnoxious expression of a loud splinter faction, could exert power and change laws is absurd.  As the anti-religious faction has taken the megaphone, the influence of the left has fallen to where it is today.

    Posted by Anthony McCarthy on Nov 20, 2012 at 3:38 PM

    Well. That is just as absurd as your last statements.
    The whole idea of “hostility"among is pure nonsense. Has any of your sources suggested that our money should say we are a nation without god? Or the pledge of allegiance should say we are a nation under no god? Followers of the majority religion (some of them) see hostility when there is just neurtrality.
    Of course the majority in the civil rights movment would be religious people-because there are more of them! Hello? How about those who stood in the way of the movement? KKK was a christian organization. And by the way, your way of dismissing Humanists in civil rights is neither original nor convincing.
    I always find it amusing when the majority complain of “hostility”. Wusses. It is the minority that need protection.

    Posted by NoCrossNoCrescent on Nov 20, 2012 at 3:52 PM

    NCNC,  what does anything you’ve said have to do with the discussion? 

    I didn’t deny there were “Humanists in civil rights”, I said that Humanists weren’t an important force in the political struggle for civil rights.  I don’t know what the combined membership of the AHA was in the years that the major civil rights legislation was being passed in the congress but I’m confident it was of minimal impact.

    If “Humanists” had adopted the, frankly, hostile attitude to religion that it did in the 1970s, it would have been 1. counterproductive to the effort of passing the legislation, 2. likely expelled from the effort due to their being a burden to the movement,.  It is a fact of history that, just as the abolitionist movement in the previous two centuries, the civil rights movement was religious in character.  I’m not lying about that to make religion haters happy anymore. 

    One thing that is clear about the KKK, it was violating the teachings of Jesus and the early Jesus movement which was radically socialist and egalitarian and pacifistic.  It was about as “Christian” as it was an expression of “justice”. 

    Lying about the abundant anti-religious expression on the allegedly leftish blogs I named and in the other media I mentioned is kind of silly as it’s there in plain sight.  If I did a search for it on this site I’m fairly confident I’d find it.

    Posted by Anthony McCarthy on Nov 20, 2012 at 4:29 PM

    Lol. Such an amusing line of apologetics for KKK. They weren’t christians, as much as they said they were christians! Well you know, some claim Stalin wasn’t a Marxist and bin Laden not a muslim! And they will give you plenty on Marx/Mohammad to prove that.

    And humanist weren’t a MAJOR force their in civil rights movment?  How about, being organizers of the biggest civil rights marches, like Randolph? Of course, I said there would be fewer of them around because they are such a minority. You completely missed that.
    As for the whole “hostility” nonsense. Which party in 2012the failed to kiss the butt of religion and mention god in their platform? Neither? Ok. I was getting worried for the overwhelming majority facing hostility from minority.

    Posted by NoCrossNoCrescent on Nov 20, 2012 at 4:39 PM

    You clearly don’t know what the word “aplogetics” means.  Which is not surprising. 

    Randolph was one person, he hardly, single handedly organized the March on Washington, Bayard Rustin was a major organizer of it.  And the March on Washington was hardly the entirety of the civil rights movement.  The AHA has always been better at blowing its own horn than it has been in doing anyt

    Posted by Anthony McCarthy on Nov 20, 2012 at 8:55 PM

    Did you get the memo yet that non-believers are a much smaller segment of the population than believers and so would have a smaller representation by proportion?

    Posted by NoCrossNoCrescent on Nov 20, 2012 at 8:59 PM

    When it’s a matter of passing laws in a democracy, numbers count. You might have noticed that numbers mattered more than a tiny little bit in the recent election.  The size of the atheist vote is so small as to be impotent.  There are about three times more Greens in my state than there are members of the AHA and Greens have next to no real political power in my state. 

    If the left wants to lose it will allow anti-religious bigots to become associated with the left.  The left doesn’t owe anything to people who would rather shoot off their mouths, costing us political support and the possibility of making coalitions with those the obnoxious brand of atheist alienate.  The left could lose every last vote from that group and it would probably be better off.

    Posted by Anthony McCarthy on Nov 20, 2012 at 9:14 PM

    FYI the religiously unaffiliated formed the biggest chunk of Obama’s voters. 20% of the population are unaffiliated and over 60% of them voted for Obama. The left will need this constituency in the future. As for the antireligious stuff, keep hallucinating.

    Posted by NoCrossNoCrescent on Nov 20, 2012 at 9:21 PM

    You need to do a bit of remedial work on fourth grade fractions and what percentages mean.  Barack Obama won more than fifty percent of the vote.  Try dividing fifty-one by two and see what happens, use a calculator, though.  And, as I pointed out above, the majority of people identified as “unaffiliated” describe themselves as religious.  You guys are about as bad at this as “Unskewed Polls”.

    Posted by Anthony McCarthy on Nov 20, 2012 at 9:29 PM

    18% of Obama voters were religiously unaffiliated.
    Since these voters are not christians, using christianity as a basis for public policy is an insult to them.

    Posted by NoCrossNoCrescent on Nov 20, 2012 at 9:39 PM

    You don’t get this percentages thing, do you.  And you don’t get that “unaffiliated” is a conglomeration of several groups that aren’t a real entity.  The majority of that group are religious, by their own definition. 
    And if the “unaffiliated” constitute 18% of his vote, 82% WOULD BE “AFFILIATED”. 

    Geesh, I hope you don’t count yourself as one of the “Brights”.

    Posted by Anthony McCarthy on Nov 20, 2012 at 9:47 PM

    Yeah, just remember that this is a group that is growing faster than any other minority. For atheists specifically the numbers have risen from 1% to 5%the in just five years. As a matter of perspective this is more than jews and muslims combined.
    Just as republicans got into trouble for ignoring a rapidly growing minority same will happen with democrats if they make the same mistake.
    Not turning their back on a minority isn’t so hard. Obama didnt turn his back on gays even though they are only 3-4%part of the population. http://mobile.bbc.co.uk/news/m…

    Posted by NoCrossNoCrescent on Nov 20, 2012 at 10:02 PM

    I’m always so interested in what straight people have to tell me about being gay, as a gay man.  I’ve been telling gay folks that it is stupid to think we could gain our rights without making allies among straight people since the early 1970s, even as the loudmouthed jerks wanted everyone to deride them as “breeders”.  If we hadn’t had the support of a large number of churches and religious people here, we’d never have passed marriage equality earlier this month. 

    I’m not shaking in my sneakers over atheists becoming a major force in American life.  Atheism is a fad these days, just as deism was in the late 18th century.  I look at countries like Albania where religion was suppressed and see that it survived.  I have every confidence that it will peak at well under 10% of the population as obnoxious atheists alienate far more people than they attract.  New atheists seem to be doing just what right wing “reborns” did, stigmatize themselves. 

    Materialism, the faith of most of the atheists I’ve ever encountered, is inimical to liberalism.  It can’t generate a sufficient belief in equality, inherent rights and a moral obligation to observe those in other people when it doesn’t suit you.  That’s necessary to have a democracy, you really have to believe those are real.  Most of the atheists I’ve encountered who believe they are liberals are, actually, libertarians.

    Posted by Anthony McCarthy on Nov 20, 2012 at 10:13 PM

    Lol. Resort to speculations when numbers are not on your side?
    You better educate yourself. In much of Europe atheism has been the norm for decades. Or stay in your bubble. Whatever.

    Posted by NoCrossNoCrescent on Nov 20, 2012 at 10:18 PM

    You really can’t subtract 18 from 100 and notice that the difference is larger than the subtrahend?  Call me unastonished.  As I am with the rest of your drivel. 

    “We are the 1,6%”, the rallying cry of the obnoxious atheists.  Only most of that 1.6% probably don’t want anything to do with you.

    Posted by Anthony McCarthy on Nov 20, 2012 at 10:24 PM

    Lol. Changing the subject again?
    No, we are 5%.
    As a gay person you shouldn’t be advocating hatred of minorities.  There are more of us than you!

    Posted by NoCrossNoCrescent on Nov 20, 2012 at 10:27 PM

    A Gallup poll?  Really, one of the worst performing polling companies in this last election, one of the ones that predicted the election of President Romney.  I’ll buy it on the day he’s sworn in.

    Posted by Anthony McCarthy on Nov 20, 2012 at 10:36 PM

    And with all of your hatred and ignorance (atheists have a “faith”), guess who the best friends of gay people are?
    90% of atheists support full equality for gays.
    Did you know that?

    Posted by NoCrossNoCrescent on Nov 20, 2012 at 10:36 PM

    Nope. Not Gallup. Invent something better next time.

    Posted by NoCrossNoCrescent on Nov 20, 2012 at 10:38 PM

    If 100% of atheists support gay rights it would still be fewer people than if 10% of religious people did.  If I was forced to choose I’d go with the religious support, there are more votes there and they’re less likely to alienate people we could convince.

    Posted by Anthony McCarthy on Nov 20, 2012 at 10:40 PM

    Yep. That is what haters of minorities have always said. There are not enough of the minorities, so why bother.

    Posted by NoCrossNoCrescent on Nov 20, 2012 at 10:43 PM

    If atheists had to depend on atheists to support their civil rights they would still be uncovered by the Civil Rights Act instead of having been covered since the mid-1960s.  It was religious believers who made that a law covering atheists.  Atheists have never been discriminated against in the way gay people have been.

    Posted by Anthony McCarthy on Nov 20, 2012 at 10:45 PM

    Hm. You still didn’t get the memo that there would be more religious people supporting the law simply because there are more religious people in the world?
    And atheist and haven’t been discriminated against? Look at the bank note in your pocket. It doesn’t say we are all straight people. It does say in god “we” trust. (Minus 5% of the population.)

    Posted by NoCrossNoCrescent on Nov 20, 2012 at 10:50 PM

    You know what, NoNO?  I looked at a couple of the polls that lump together people who don’t say they’re members of an organized religion and I realized that they would include me in that group.  I am not a member of a church.  I obviously have nothing in common with you apart from a number of organic molecules and the ability to speak the same language, which shows you how unmeaningful the term “unaffiliated” is. 

    By their own testimony atheists experience of discrimination in the United States consist mostly of having to share the Earth with the vast majority of people who are religious and putting up with their talking about what they think, poor babies.  It’s just so hurtful to them to have other people exercise their rights of free expression to talk about their religious beliefs, they’re that sensitive.  Well, sorry but atheists have no right to the rest of the world shutting up to suit them.

    Well, even as I’ve always been opposed to putting a mention of God on money, I not being a Mammonist and finding the practice a minor form of blasphemy, you poor dears are not singled out to have your money marked with the mention of God.  Considering I think it’s a clear violation of the second commandment,  not to mention erasing a distinction between commerce and God, let me give you some advice,  toughen up, kid. I wonder what you’d do if you experienced real discrimination.

    Atheists have not been prevented from marrying, making contracts, ..... and any residual legal garbage, such as state laws targeting atheists have been superseded by the Civil Rights Act since 1964.  Now, don’t you feel better knowing that almost all of those stories about the horrible discrimination suffered by atheists are an urban myth?  Unlike glbt folks, any atheist born after 1964 has had the full protection of the federal government their entire lifetime.

    Posted by Anthony McCarthy on Nov 21, 2012 at 6:52 AM

    Lol. Look who speaks? You are the one coming here complaining about “hostility"nonsense against religion just because couple of newpaper columnists where not sufficiently deferential to your religion (which by the way you don’t have)? Toughen up!
    Oh, and your ignorance shows again. Maybe you need to speak to just a few of the people ostracized by closest family members for not holding the religion of their upbringing anymore? Or seeing their careers threatened unless they attend sectarian prayer they don’t believe in? Or, in Kentucky, having to declare god as the source of security of the state, or
    facing jail?

    Posted by NoCrossNoCrescent on Nov 21, 2012 at 7:18 AM

    1. You have no idea, whatsoever what my religion might consist of because I haven’t said anything about that.  2. a boy who doesn’t understand that 82 is a larger number than 18, not to mention the other meanings of the things he cited has no room for calling someone else ignorant. 3. there is no law that can protect someone from being rejected by other people, even in their own families, if you think that atheists have that happen more often than glbt people, you are ignorant.  4, employment discrimination on the basis of atheism has been illegal since 1964, anyone who thinks they have a case can bring it to court and seek relief and damages.  5.  any part of the government must maintain a wall of separation between church and state 6. private employers aren’t bound to restrict religious expression in their own establishments.  7. who has been jailed in Kentucky for refusing to “declare god as the source of security of the state”?  I can guarantee you that they could sue under federal law which supersedes state law. 

    I’ll give you another clue.  If you think people don’t like you being obnoxious and rude to them doesn’t have much of a record of success in getting them to like you.  That, though, is something I have no fear, whatsoever, that you guys will ever learn.  I figured that out from looking at The Friendly Atheist whose friendliness seems to consist of being obnoxious and rude to religious people and calling it being friendly.  I guess when you think people are just material objects you don’t figure you need to be nice to them.  But, then, materialism can’t account for a moral obligation to treat people better than objects so it’s not surprising.

    Posted by Anthony McCarthy on Nov 21, 2012 at 7:56 AM

    I know, you find our very existence offensive. You wish ee followed a “don’t ask, don’t tell"rule. Everyone must be kissing the butt of religion or you’ll get upset. And you are telling me to toughen up? Hypocrite.
    Now, you know about those hypotheticals you mentioned about the law? They sound nice. Just that real life is not like that. If you don’t stay in the closet, consequences vary from vandalism to losing your job ti death threat. No point in you lying about that, the evidence is overwhelming.
    And no, the Kentucky law hasn’t changed with litigation and likely won’t. http://atheists.org/node/1072

    Posted by NoCrossNoCrescent on Nov 21, 2012 at 8:11 AM

    I am indifferent to your existence, I find your rude obnoxiousness rude and obnoxious and your meddling in progressive politics a hindrance to the political success of progressive politics.  The left will never succeed as long as the majority of people figure suppressing their religious beliefs are a requirement to being on the left. 

    Anyone being murdered is unfortun

    Posted by Anthony McCarthy on Nov 21, 2012 at 8:21 AM

    No, you hate us. A glance at your comments proves that. We are going to be involved with politics, much as you wish we just disappeared. And “requiring people to suppress their religious beliefs” is just a fat lie.

    Posted by NoCrossNoCrescent on Nov 21, 2012 at 8:28 AM

    I hate jerks who hijack the microphone and pretend to speak for the left who divide and damage it, lead it into futile dead ends and cul de sacs, who distract the left from its basic prerequisites for unrelated ideological motives, who cost us time and support out of childish pique and dishonest assertions, who are as ahistorical as they are illogical and irrational…. Hey, I guess maybe I do.

    The left will never go anywhere until we dump you.  That wouldn’t be all atheists, of course, that would be those who insist on being counterproductive jerks.

    Posted by Anthony McCarthy on Nov 21, 2012 at 11:47 AM

    Hmmm. You have been arguing a whole day and not a word about equality for women, homophobia, healthcare, energy…just ranting against a segment of the population.
    Counterproductive jerks? Look in the mirror.

    Posted by NoCrossNoCrescent on Nov 21, 2012 at 11:56 AM

    You don’t seem to be reading my comments as you pretend to answer them.  Like I said,


    Posted by Anthony McCarthy on Nov 21, 2012 at 12:04 PM

    I will leave your with a parting thought.
    As a Marylander I am proud of my YES vote on question 6, marriage equality for gays. It was a close vote and support from everyone counted.I am proud because I believe in fairness and inclusion.

    Not because I expect the attitude of friendship and support that 90% of atheists have toward gays be reciprocated, which it often isn’t.

    Posted by NoCrossNoCrescent on Nov 21, 2012 at 12:49 PM

    Atheists can like whoever they want to, I’m not objecting to atheists liking people I’m objecting to some atheists being divisive jerks.  Anyone who wants to do that can get the hell out of the left, as far as I’m concerned. 

    I worked on the Maine referendum and I worked on getting it through the legislature before.

    Posted by Anthony McCarthy on Nov 21, 2012 at 5:27 PM

    Not surprised that the thread quickly sinks into the quicksand of theological debate (with a pinch of history on the side.)
    Yet it’s the money really, that I smell in the above article (or more to the point, the lack of it.) When moral Repugs are short on funds, they’re liable to flex their animosities in the direction of the real culprits - the job-killers. Good for them. If reds and blues combined could manage to simultaneously become dis-amused for even 5 minutes with the architects of the current economic fiasco, we might actually see something accomplished.

    Posted by Jp Merzetti on Nov 24, 2012 at 9:41 AM

    Hey, you have been honored with your own post on my blog!

    Posted by NoCrossNoCrescent on Nov 25, 2012 at 1:37 PM