As far as we can tell, Jefferson WAS an atheist. It's almost 100% certain he wasn't a Christian in any way that we recognize it today anyway. I can't say for sure, because Jefferson never told anyone. He found the question indecent. The guy had his faults, like selling his own flesh and blood, but he did have his high points too.

As for the campaign ad...I have a friend who is a belligerent atheist. He's sort of the atheist equivalent of a black panther or something. I think he's a little paranoid, but he does have something...atheism is by its very existence an objection and a threat to all religion. So it stands to reason that atheists are going to be thought poorly of by very religious people. I do know some very religious people that are more open-minded (my roommate comes to mind), but even there...he has a hard time understanding how atheists might feel a little put down by our overwhelmingly theistic society.

And then you see bullshit like this. Oh well, maybe it will help him understand better?

Me and my husband think Atheists are awesome, as do a lot of Pagans and Satanists, which some of my web friends are. Then again, being of minority religions that really embrace inclusiveness and really off the wall ideas do tend to have a unique veiwpoint on life and politics.

It's common for one social group to have low opinions of others or even false perceptions. It's what makes us human. It could be both negative (Pagans are all worshiping Satan, Atheists are immoral) or positive (All Italians are romantic, all Irish are poets) or waay off base (all Naturalists/Nudists are horny all the time, all Mormons are brainwashed).

As for me, I have noticed that in the State I lived in, it was very hard to find out what it would take to become able to conduct weddings with legal authority. The only ones who seemed to have any idea were all Christians, which I am not. I know there is always the internet, but it is very hard when you don't want to get a certificate not worth the paper it's printed on from a firm in say, California.

It's not just Atheists. Any minority religion/philosophy/wtf gets the short end of the stick, no matter where you go.

I find that my roots as a Marine brat haunt my political views. If we're going to have a President, he better goddamn well be a pro-military President. I'm not talking about one who starts wars at the drop of a hat. I'm talking a President who recognises the sacrifices the Armed Forces make for the sake of keeping our country safe and free for generations to come. He had better have the better interests of the military dependents -- for you civilians, that means homemakers and minors. Obviously, any President who throws away our nation's lives like so many pawns in a game of Chess doesn't deserve my vote. Neither will one who slashes defence spending. I may not be a military dependent these days, but the old feelings are still bottled up inside.

It's predictable, too. Whenever a Republican enters office, the first thing they do is turn to the military and life gets better for the dependents. Unfortunately, I've noticed that recent Republican Presidents like to start fucking with the Third World, so there's a tradeoff for everything. Whenever a Democrat enters office, things get peaceful, but the dependents suffer greatly. Just look at the Clinton and Bush II dynasties (if you will excuse my use of such a term) as examples of how the two major parties in our nation's sociopolitical framework act. I suppose there's no middle ground.

And then you have the lunatics that think the military should be abolished. (I went to high school with a bozo who thought this way. He also wanted the police to be abolished. You'll always have your psychos, I guess.) Are you fucking batshit insane? Cut off our sword arm to save the shield arm? Especially when we haven't annihilated Osama bin Laden and neutralised the other rogue nations? (This is something I don't expect happening, even two generations from now, by the way. And by neutralise, I don't mean bomb them back into the Stone Age. Read The Onion's Our Dumb Century if you want more about that.) People may diss the military and hate it for what it does, and we are stretched awfully thin, but goddammit, we do it for the sake of keeping this country and its allies safe!

There's an old adage known as the Mercenaries' Creed. It goes something like this:
We, the willing, led by the unknowing,
are doing the impossible, for the ungrateful.
We have done so much, for so long, with so little,
that we are now qualified to do anything with nothing.

I wouldn't elect Obama because he strikes me as too much of a pacifist. And people wouldn't take him seriously, due to his heritage. Damned if I'll vote a President who wants to pull our troops out of Iraq, unless he's going to restation them in Afghanistan. Then I might reconsider

I wouldn't elect McCain because his old record of being a maverick seems to have flipflopped toward traditional Republican values, and damned if I'll be voting another President in who bases his decisions on his faith.

I think I'd elect Howard the Duck on the All-Night Party ticket. Yes, that sounds good.

(Fun fact: Howard the Duck is an underground comic character. In the 1980 election, he got more write-in votes than Mickey Mouse. Trufax.)

Neither will one who slashes defence spending.

I don't recall the exact number, although I probably should. If you come from a military family, you might. In a conventional war though, the US Navy's fleet is the equivalent of most other modern countries combined. It's something entirely absurd - especially given the remote likelyhood of a war featuring the US v. most of the EU combined (and if that war ever happens, something's gone horribly wrong... no one could possibly end up a winner).

I'm not anti-military by any means. One of my most desired legal careers is in the JAG Corps, actually. And I'm not for getting rid of the US navy or anything silly like that. We have a /ton/ of military spending though, both in terms of maintanance and additional cost from our more recent "interventions". I think there's a tiny bit of money, at least, that could be slashed.

We need an army. We need to be able to protect our nation, and defend our interests abroad. We also need to get with the times though. No one wants a nuclear holocaust, and it's pretty unlikely we'll end up with one (between major powers, at least.... a terrorist getting off a small bomb somewhere is much more likely and problematic).

Europe has gotten away with very small military upkeep because the US has had such an obscenely high one. I believe that if we were to cut our military spending by a modest ammount, theirs would go up slightly to offset it, and the overall order of the world wouldn't overly suffer.

The state of the military is something I've been thinking of a lot lately. And I'm sorry to have to say...I think it has to go. I don't mean the military itself. I suppose there's a need for some kind of army for national defense... though our army hasn't been used for that purpose since the civil war. And valeli is correct that our defense spending has in recent years exceeded THE ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD. This assumes that we plan to win a war with THE ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD. Does this make any sense at all?

But it's more than the money. Having this gigantic obscenely powerful army presents us with a great temptation. And indeed, why WOULD we maintain the most powerful fighting force the world has ever seen and let it sit around gathering dust? It would be stupid, wouldn't it? And so we must have our Iraqs, and our Panamas, and our Kosovos and Bosnias... But I reject the notion that the rest of the world is a bunch of idiots and children that can't survive without our largesse.

And what about Osama Bin Laden? We don't need aircraft carriers and armored divisions to fight him. What we need are special forces. Small units of soldiers to hunt him in the hills, not nation-smashing armies.

I would also point out that BUSH has done a very poor job of taking care of our soldiers. I agree with Bio that our soldiers do a great thing for us, even though it might be better if they did not. And they fully deserve to be compensated highly, much more highly than they are now. The current state of mental health care in the armed services is a disgrace, and needs urgent correction.

By the same token...I have to remind you that a mercenary is a soldier with no loyalty. Nothing like our troops.

What bothers me the most about military spending is how industry-driven it is, rather than need-driven.

Why are we spending a quarter-billion dollars per plane for fighter jets when we could already declare half the planet a no-fly zone if we felt like it while our soldiers on the ground in Iraq have been having body armor and silly string sent to them by family to help keep them alive?

There's no body armor industry in America, however there is one for fighters, so by God, need them or not, we're going to get new planes.

It's an awkward system that reacts poorly when the nature of war changes, such as it has at the start of the 21st century.

Paradox wrote:

It'll be very interesting to see what path the party takes in the next year or two.

I agree, but I'd caution against looking for that kind of rapid transformation.  I'm guessing this won't be settled till 2012 or possibly 2016.  The Party will immediately fracture into at least two factions.  You have the religious faction (Palin, Huckabee), the neocon faction (Romney, Karl Rove), and the paleoconservative faction (Ron Paul, arguably Giuliani).  I'm not sure the Republicans will figure out which of these factions is going to lead the way forward without at least one more divisive nominating contest.  Personally, I'm rooting for a total transformation and realignment of old coalitions.

Paradox wrote:

To be clear, though, whatever the map looks like, there is no grand mandate for the Democrats.  The electoral college often magnifies victories, but 46% of the voting population supported John McCain.  So far, the Democrats I've seen interviewed seem to understand this.  They got burned overreaching when Clinton was first elected, and it seems that they may have learned their lessons.

Yeah.  It looks like Obama won by six or seven points in the popular vote.  That's pretty good.  He's the first Democrat to win a majority since Jimmy Carter got 50.1% of the vote in 1976.  But it's not a mandate.  To Obama's credit, I think he acknowledges that.  In his victory speech last night he made a big point that he will be the president of all Americans, not just the Americans that voted for him.  As long as he maintains that consciousness he will be a good president.

Last edited by satyreyes (11-05-2008 10:41:57 AM)

I rallied for No on Prop 8 so to see it shot down does trouble me. I understand that some people believe in the "sanctity" of marriage (whatever that really means) but this is America, shouldn't people be able to have the choice to marry who they want to marry? A lot of people who voted yes, in our neighborhood stand behind the argument "they're going to teach about gay marriages in our schools."
Really?
I don't remember any teacher ever teaching me about marriage. It's not their place to do so, it's not their place to tell students marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

I also agree that the passing of the prop does little to help the seperation of church and state.

lex wrote:

I understand that some people believe in the "sanctity" of marriage (whatever that really means) but this is America

Those against it are under the impression that if two women or two men get married, it will lessen the value of their man-woman union. In other words, they feel "threatened" by it.

As far as we've come, we still have a long way to go. Sodomy laws in over a dozen US states were still in effect up until a 2003 Supreme Court decision. And even then, the military is considered a special case and its own sodomy laws are in full effect. It's amazing how deep such pointless prejudices run, but I think it's actually just one symptom of the true disease of our culture.

As for the current state of the military as (mis)managed by the Bush administration, ugh, don't get me started.

Valeli wrote:

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and hope you all don't hate me for it. I'm not really for the government allowing for gay marriage though. (I don't think they should have any say in marriage, actually... although there are a few "arguable" reasons why they would want to have some small input on it... i never realized that until somewhat recently, actually. In large part, it's the same sort of reasoning that might underlie statutory rape laws).

That's a little different, though.  It sounds like you're not against gay marriage; you're against the government being involved in marriage at all.  I actually agree.  I think marriage should be a religious institution, not a civil one, and I think churches should be able to marry who they please.  Unfortunately, no one is talking about getting the government out of marriage altogether, so the second best thing is making sure that prejudice against homosexual relationships is not written into our laws and constitutions.  (I do think that there is a good argument to be made for legally recognizing a committed relationship, though; I'd rather call that a civil union, which can exist in addition to or instead of a church marriage.  Naturally, since civil union would be a government institution, it would be open to people of all orientations.)

I think if McCain had run on a platform more consistant with his old image, and hadn't picked someone like Mrs. Palin, he might very well have done better. Which makes me question the fractioning/implosion of that party. . . . They could do fine, in my opinion, if they manage to ratchet down the partisanship and bitterness a bit, rather than electing to ratchet it up instead.

Well said.  I don't attach much importance to party labels.  I tend to see Democratic and Republican politicians as about equally corrupt, ineffective, divisive, and/or clinically retarded until proven otherwise.  I would be happy to vote for a Republican if he campaigned in accordance with the best principles of conservatism -- humility, common sense, and honor -- instead of the worst -- fundamentalism, exceptionalism, and prejudice.  McCain lost my vote when he abandoned the former three principles.

Last edited by satyreyes (11-06-2008 06:21:13 PM)

Keep in mind that the first marriages ever made were between men-- men who wanted their households joined in order to conserve capital and provide for their heirs.

I would have to disagree there. It really comes down to defining marriage, however. Evidence shows that the concept of a union meant to legitimize heirs and grant exclusive sexual rights is probably as old as humanity itself. Additionally, that's very difficult to prove given the multitudes of societes and cultures. Are you thinking of a specific location and institution? I believe the Catholic Church performed male marriages at one point for exactly the reasons you specified. Or am I mistaken in this?

However, this "traditional" concept of marriage is indeed very flawed. Marriage has not been universally defined as between a man and a woman. A perfect example of this is many Native American cultures in which medicine men are stressed to take aspects of both genders. Thus, they transform into a third gender and enter the union perceived as something akin to a spirit. Additionally, in these cultures and others, people could transition from one gender to the next. This shows that gender is not necessarily equivalent to sex. It would perhaps be more accurate to say marriages worldwide favor a "feminine and masculine" merger than one necessarily dictated by the scientific terms of male and female.

This isn't limited to cultures other than American, either. Colonial America encountered the case of T. Hall - someone who was raised as a woman, but dressed frequently as a man. Eventually Hall confused people so much that he (I'm just using the male pronoun to save time) was brought to the courts so that his gender might be determined. Physical inspection seemed to point towards him being male, but men in his presence swore he was female. Eventually the courts dictated that he did possess both genders and had to dress in a mixture of clothes. The ruling on Hall's capability to marry is a bit unclear, but it is made evident that societal conceptions of gender are created, not implicit.

The point here being that gender has always been perceived with a certain amount fluidity, and our modern perceptions of it are a fairly recent occurrence. Therefore, what many consider a tradtional of form of marriage is a romanticized and historically inaccurate institution. In addition to differing conceptualizations of gender, I fully agree that marriages were intended primarily as political and economic mergers. Hence both the popularity of polygamy in various countries and the predominance of male/female unions in order to make heirs.

My argument for gay marriage is this: Firstly, claiming that marriage defined as between one man and one woman as a universally accepted timeless institution is a gross generalization. Secondly, with a new legal system and means for individuals to support themselves (historically people depended on marriage for protective familial ties), the intent of marriage has shifted and can now accommodate gay marriages far more easily. And finally, defining marriage from the viewpoint of a SINGLE RELIGION is a violation on the separation of church vs. state.

Basically, a lot of the stuff everyone has heard of before, but with an added emphasis on history. Because I'm a nerd.

I have no objection to any of this. You're all quite right, about the shifting roles of gender and marriage. And I think a very good argument can be / is being made for the state to provide all these people with equal rights. Call it whatever you want. Civil Unions for all governmental sanctionted "partnerships" seems as good a term as any to me.

I still don't like the state getting involved in defining marriage though, in any particular sense. Maybe the traditional notion has been romanticized, etc, but if Sarah Palin and Pals want to have their little club/church where marriage is between a man and a woman, I think that should be their right. If other people have another little club where it's deffined differently, more power to them as well. They can do whatever they want, without forcing anyone to subscribe to those beliefs. Repeat this ad nauseum, until you run across some sort of pairing that raises legitimate issues worth being worried over (marriage to minors, i would argue, is something worth being worried over, that should not be permited because a little club is in favor).

Anyhow, just my two cents. Not trying to upset anyone, but i wanted to toss my view out there. I love you all.