Democrats diss atheists, but still count on our votes

Aug 31, 2016

By Robyn Blumner

Unlike Bernie Sanders, I am an atheist. Why is the Democrat Party taking me for granted?

Why did members of the Democratic National Committee think it OK to tar Sanders, who says he’s Jewish, as an atheist? Bradley Marshall, the now former chief financial officer of the Democratic National Committee, thought this would be a way to hobble Sanders’ appeal in Kentucky and West Virginia. “My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist,” Marshall wrote in an email to DNC colleagues.

Marshall and others in the DNC resigned over this dirty trick. He issued an apology to the DNC on Facebook. But there’s one group Marshall didn’t apologize to, the group he maligned — atheists.


Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

8 comments on “Democrats diss atheists, but still count on our votes

  • (I couldn’t open the link to the article. Could be my computer.)

    Just don’t let your hurt feelings cause you to vote for Dr. Stein, fellow non-theists! That’s a vote for Trump. Reason and Science is counting on you not to do that.

    Why do you need acknowledgement? Atheists enjoy the same rights that everyone else does, and the democrats understand that a lot of their voters are atheists, as many of them are closet atheists themselves. Why should they bring this up now in a public statement during an election? Too risky; it’ll give ammunition to the other side, who will paint democrats as “godless.” Religious democrats and conservative democrats might not vote.

    Here’s Dan Savage on The Green Party. He’s a bit vociferous, but I agree with him.

    If you’re interested in building a third party, a viable third party, you don’t start with president. You don’t start by running someone for fucking president.

    Where are the Green Party candidates for city councils? For county councils? For state legislatures? For state assessor? For state insurance commissioner? For governor? For fucking dogcatcher? I would be SO willing to vote for Green Party candidates who are starting at the bottom, grassroots, bottom up, building a third party, a viable third party.

    You don’t do that by trotting out the reanimated corpse of Ralph fucking Nader every four fucking years. Or his doppelgänger, whoever it is now, Jill Stein and some asshole-to-be-named four years from now. You start by running grassroots, local campaigns. And there’ve been — and I’m sure we’re going hear from lots of people out there listening — there have been a couple of Green Party candidates who’ve run in other races here and there across the country. But no sustained effort to build a Green Party nationally. Just this griping, bullshitty, grandstanding, fault-finding, purity-testing, holier than thou-ing, that we are all subjected to every four fucking years by the Green Party candidate.



    Report abuse

  • Why dis atheists?

    to prove you are Christian, solidly to court Christian votes.
    because you are a Christian and have been trained since birth to hate atheists, gays, and Muslims.



    Report abuse

  • No one within the Democratic Party establishment stood for atheists…

    Amusingly enough, the only speaker at the DNC who directly mentioned atheists was a preacher from North Carolina (he used the term “those who have no faith”) in the middle of a speech that, while making many obviously good points, also gave me at times the odd feeling of watching a Sunday mass at some mega church rather than a political convention:

    Atheists mentioned @ about 6:35

    Dan, good for you that you could not open the Miami Herald link – an incredibly annoying video ad starts every 15 seconds or so, and it can’t be stopped or muted.



    Report abuse

  • I am still slightly open to being convinced to change my mind (not that it matters, since my state is very blue), but my logic for voting third party (Green) is this:

    Clinton and Trump are the least popular candidates in (at least recent) history, so whichever wins will likely be extremely unpopular from the start
    An extremely unpopular president will provoke an electoral backlash in 2018, likely resulting in the other party gaining control of Congress (for an example, look at what the Clintons achieved in 1994, after Bill won with 43% of the vote and appointed Hillary to manage health care reform, a job for which she was wholly unqualified and which, in typical fashion, she disastrously mismanaged)
    Either Trump or Clinton is likely to be a one-term president, because of extreme unpopularity
    Even if Clinton were to someone restore her image, no party has held onto the White House for more than 12 years since Harry Truman’s surprise victory in 1948
    A Republican landslide in Congress in 2018, followed by another landslide in 2020, combined with a Republican capture of the Whitehouse under a fanatic like Cruz, would be a nightmare of barely imaginable proportions

    In summary, it seems far better to suffer through four years of Trump followed by a Democratic Whitehouse (maybe even with a progressive at the helm) with a Democratic Congress, than to suffer through four years of Clinton followed by eight years of a fanatical Republican like Cruz (possibly followed by another Republican), with a Republican Congress behind him.

    Where am I wrong? Does anyone really believe that Clinton won’t drag the Democratic Party down again, the way she did in 1994? It still hasn’t recovered and you want to let her do it again? Does anyone really think the Democrats can hold onto the Whitehouse for 16 years? Even under a competent leader it would be a longshot. Under an incompetent, corrupt, dishonest basket case like Clinton, how can it possibly happen?



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.