News/Article: [url=http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040309-112656-2924r.htm

Atheists to enter political fray[/url]]

Atheists and other nonbelievers set up a political action committee yesterday to endorse candidates and lobby lawmakers to remove all traces of religion from the government.

...

Most politicians won't want public support from their new group, which they are calling the Godless Americans Political Action Committee (GAMPAC).

So Ellen Johnson, the president of American Atheists, who announced the formation of the new group, proposed an unusual approach: GAMPAC could use the threat of endorsement to pressure lawmakers into siding with the group on issues.

"If a candidate says, 'Don't endorse me,' we will have to say we have the right to endorse somebody, but perhaps we can talk about what we can get in terms of promises from that candidate to help us out in return for not endorsing him," Miss Johnson told a sparsely attended news conference at the National Press Club.

---

© source where applicable

Ellen Johnson is a four-letter fruitcake and so is anyone who supports her and this nonsense. Personally, I'd say "endorse me" and then tout their endorsement as support of me doing the things they say they oppose.

Are you saying that they do not have the right to endose whoever they wish? I mean, nobody says anything about a religious group endorsing any particular candidate, why would this be any different?

Originally posted by Busheses

Are you saying that they do not have the right to endose whoever they wish? I mean, nobody says anything about a religious group endorsing any particular candidate, why would this be any different?

Read it again carefully. It's not about their right to endorse whomever they wish. It's about them abusing that right as a threat in order to essentially blackmail candidates into supporting them. It works like this:

Candidate: "I support displays of the Ten Commandments in courthouses."
Atheists: "If you don't stop supportiung that, we'll say we endorse you, which we hope will drive people away from voting for you."

Originally posted by Jinx72

Read it again carefully. It's not about their right to endorse whomever they wish. It's about them abusing that right as a threat in order to essentially blackmail candidates into supporting them. It works like this:

Candidate: "I support displays of the Ten Commandments in courthouses."
Atheists: "If you don't stop supportiung that, we'll say we endorse you, which we hope will drive people away from voting for you."

Now tell me. If you truly know a candidate and you know where he/she stands on issues like the one you presented, but suddenly, you hear that he/she has been endorsed by a group known for not aligning with this candidate, you:
a.) Shy away from that candidate in thinking that perhaps what you thought you knew about that candidate might not be accurate
b.) Think that such endorsement is just another endorsement to that candidate and while the supporting group and the candidate might not align on many issues, perhaps he/she is the candidate that the groups believes can better represent everybody.
c.) Try to find out exactly where the group is coming from by endorsing such candidate.
d.) Other (if you choose this option, please explain).

Well, that tactic worked for Al Franken when he ran for President. He got all the gays to support Al Gore. ... Oh wait, that was a book, not real.

I can see it now:

Newsmax
Former Chief Justice Moore loses Senate race because of atheistic support

Moore who was a staunch Christian who was removed from the Alabama Supreme Court when he refused to remove the sacred two ton stone monument of the Ten Commandments, lost in the US Senate race to Democrat Jim Hoglo. What cost Moore the election was his switch from Christianity to Atheism.
"We thought he was an avid christian, but when we heard that Infidels.org supported him, we realized he had to be a god hating misotheist. So we voted for the Democrat," said Betsy Boogle.

Such reasons were given in exit polls that showed Alabamians were turned away from Moore's ties to atheism. "People were confused about the endorsement of Infidels.org," stated political expert and Newsmax owner, Ima Jackov. "There is no way in the world an atheist group could support someone unless that someone was an atheist. So Moore's turning to the religion of evolution cost him the election."

And rightfully so.

Read it again carefully. It's not about their right to endorse whomever they wish. It's about them abusing that right as a threat in order to essentially blackmail candidates into supporting them. It works like this:

Candidate: "I support displays of the Ten Commandments in courthouses."
Atheists: "If you don't stop supportiung that, we'll say we endorse you, which we hope will drive people away from voting for you."

- Um, that would be incredibly stupid. Do you really think an atheist group is going to come out endorsing someone like Roy Moore? You destroyed this as a possibility in your OP! All the official would have to do is keep doing the things they're doing, and presto, American Atheists looks like they're supporting the ten C's in courthouses.

- Anyhow, this political action group isn't worth anything; politicians need religion, and any elected official caught even casually endorsing this group will be strung up by the dominant religious reich currently embedded in the government. Imagine the spam emails Mr. and Mrs. Joe Christian would get. "DID YOU KNOW... Senator Bob Smith sided with ATHEISTS to try to keep OUR LORD AND SAVIOR out of the very government HE CREATED?!?!?!?!?!11!!!1!oneoneone"

- They should just spare us. America isn't ready for the word "atheist" yet.

Originally posted by Jinx72

Ellen Johnson is a four-letter fruitcake and so is anyone who supports her and this nonsense. Personally, I'd say "endorse me" and then tout their endorsement as support of me doing the things they say they oppose.

Don't specialist groups support specific political candidates all the time, including and especially fundementalist and other conservative relgious groups? I can't imagine atheist support can come even close to being as influential as support from the religious right, who use this "tactic" to great effect.

Originally posted by Busheses

Now tell me. If you truly know a candidate and you know where he/she stands on issues like the one you presented, but suddenly, you hear that he/she has been endorsed by a group known for not aligning with this candidate, you:
a.) Shy away from that candidate in thinking that perhaps what you thought you knew about that candidate might not be accurate
b.) Think that such endorsement is just another endorsement to that candidate and while the supporting group and the candidate might not align on many issues, perhaps he/she is the candidate that the groups believes can better represent everybody.
c.) Try to find out exactly where the group is coming from by endorsing such candidate.
d.) Other (if you choose this option, please explain).

This isn't about me or any other voters, B. It's about the tactics of Ellen Johnson and her merry band of loonies, and their tactic to threaten candidates with an endorsement that they think would be unfavorable in order to get the candidate to agree with them. Do you not see anything wrong with that at all? What if it were a fundamentalist Christian group that threatened to endorse a candidate if he didn't drop his support of homosexual marriages?

Originally posted by Jimmy Higgins

Well, that tactic worked for Al Franken when he ran for President. He got all the gays to support Al Gore. ... Oh wait, that was a book, not real.

I can see it now:

Is that the Unmaking of the Franken Presidency? That's the one I have yet to read. I like the title though.

DunnySaze made an excellent point.

Originally posted by AtheistArchon

- Um, that would be incredibly stupid. Do you really think an atheist group is going to come out endorsing someone like Roy Moore?

If they thought that it would get the candidate to support their ideals, it's obvious that they would threaten endoresement, yes.

You destroyed this as a possibility in your OP!

I know.

All the official would have to do is keep doing the things they're doing, and presto, American Atheists looks like they're supporting the ten C's in courthouses.

Yep. Obviously Ellen Johnson and her kooky buds at AA haven't thought their plan through very well. Big surprise that.

- Anyhow, this political action group isn't worth anything; politicians need religion, and any elected official caught even casually endorsing this group will be strung up by the dominant religious reich currently embedded in the government. Imagine the spam emails Mr. and Mrs. Joe Christian would get. "DID YOU KNOW... Senator Bob Smith sided with ATHEISTS to try to keep OUR LORD AND SAVIOR out of the very government HE CREATED?!?!?!?!?!11!!!1!oneoneone"

Yep. More proof that this is a "half-vast" plan. As one of my friends quipped, "never attempt a vast undertaking using 'half-vast' ideas."

- They should just spare us. America isn't ready for the word "atheist" yet.

And it never will be as long as dunderheads like Ellen Johnson are leading the pack.

Originally posted by DunnySaze

Don't specialist groups support specific political candidates all the time, including and especially fundementalist and other conservative relgious groups? I can't imagine atheist support can come even close to being as influential as support from the religious right, who use this "tactic" to great effect.

I don't think some people are understanding what's going on here. The issue isn't about American Atheists using the issue of endorsement as positive support for a candidate. They are using the issue of endorsement in a negative way as a threat in order to cajole/blackmail the candidates into supporting their cause.

I saw Ellen whatshername from American Aheists explain that one on TV. She should have shut up while she was ahead. The more she tried to explain her intention the more clear it was that she was talking blackmail. Idiot.

If she and AA don't back down from this and apologize or try to save face by claiming that "it was a joke," I'd be surprised.

If they thought that it would get the candidate to support their ideals, it's obvious that they would threaten endoresement, yes.

- Ooookay. And then an atheist organization coming out in support of a theistic cause appears to the public as... uh... what part of this is supposed to be intelligent?

I know.

- Then we agree! "Blackmailing" theists like this would be silly! You explained why in your OP!

Yep. Obviously Ellen Johnson and her kooky buds at AA haven't thought their plan through very well. Big surprise that.

- *shrug* There are a lot of things I disagree with AA on. One of them is that America is ready for atheism... it isn't. Americans aren't educated enough as a general rule, and elected politicians will never endorse such a hated group of people.

- As for her tactics, I have no idea what she plans. It's obvious to me that if it's really what she implied above, that it will never work.

And it never will be as long as dunderheads like Ellen Johnson are leading the pack.

- Now now, remember that our dunderhead quotient is far less than your dunderhead quotient. If I had a nickel for every Christian political activism group, I'd be driving a new Ford GT40:

http://www.fordvehicles.com/fordgt/home.asp?bhcp=1

BTW, video of the announcement can be viewed at http://www.cspan.org. It's on the front page under "LATEST VIDEO" right now.

Hrm... 4-5 minutes into the video, Ms. Johnson presents a common fallacy among atheists: people who do not claim religion are "godless." Nothing like padding your positions numbers with misrepresented facts, false interpretations and plain old lies. If GAMPAC were only about secularism, she possibly would be in a better position to claim the non-religious were on her side, but it's not. It's about "godless Americans." Many of the non-religious are not "godless." (And many of the "godless" are not non-religious.)

Oh, and Michigan gubernatorial candidate and "openly avowed atheist" Douglas Campbell crowed like a rooster about the fact that he came in third out of 13 (though the results websites only list 4) in the race. Yeah, nevermind that he received only 1% of the vote and that was most likely because he was running on the Green ticket.

[quote=AtheistArchon- Now now, remember that our dunderhead quotient is far less than your dunderhead quotient. If I had a nickel for every Christian political activism group, I'd be driving a new Ford GT40[/QUOTE]Our representation among cranial rectumitis sufferers may partly be proportional. I think the native credulity among the bulk of the population creates nominal theists who are theists only by cultural acquiescence with no basis or even understanding of what they believe. That is to say that simply because more dunderheads accept the cultural norm of theism as a path of least resistance, it doesn't imply something dunderheaded about theism itself, or theists in general. Nor do I think many atheists are so blitheringly stupid as the AA president appeared to be yesterday.