It is incredibly rare that political pundits pay much attention to Atheists and unfortunately when they do they tend to reinforce rather than dispel ignorance and intolerance. I understand how headlines work but a recent piece in The Hill still is a bit grating. "Obama's atheist problem" is not a particularly good title to start with. It implies he has a problem with us, which would further imply that he actually thinks much about atheist to begin with. I doubt that. Occasionally inserting a vague throw-away line into a speech or two, though better than nothing, doesn't show that much concern or thought.
Mellman's initial concern is both superficial and a conflation.
"Fresh Gallup data make it clear that President Obama is hemorrhaging support among white atheists. The president’s vote is down 10 points since 2008 among whites who profess no religion..."
Not identifying with a specific religion does not automatically make someone an atheist. The more generic term "non-religious" tends to include plenty of theists. The notion that he is "hemorrhaging" atheist support is premature and misleading. If by support Mellman means votes I wouldn't worry too much. If he means favorable rating then he might have more of a point. Pointing out that Obama has been more favorable toward atheists than previous presidents is like saying it's better to have one form of cancer over another. Sure, it is technically true but it would be better not to have cancer at all. Vague, ineffectual support may be counted as an emotional victory but serves no real practical purpose.
As an atheist (as a liberal I have a whole other set of problems with him) Obama only made one campaign promise that I cared for in any way. Even his claim to reform the "Faith Based Initiative" fell way short of what it should have been. Within months of taking office he backed away from his pathetically weak promise. Mellman is incredibly naive to think Obama had much support among atheists over issues directly related to being an atheist. I'd be surprised if he got many votes from atheists beyond the reason that the other guy would have been even worse on such issues. That, of course, assumes an atheist point of view even came into play. Being atheist does not say much about an individual' politics. There seem to be two sizable political camps within atheism: liberals and libertarians. The former tends to favor Democrats while the latter seems to favor Republicans.
Mellman still seems to think that for Obama, "Reclaiming the godless must be a priority." I'd love it if that were true but I have no reason to reach such a conclusion. He has yet to pay much attention to us. Put bluntly, he doesn't have that much reason to do so. We don't make up that much of the electorate. By we, I mean actual atheists not the non-religious. It is for that reason that groups like the National Atheist Party have emerged (I am a member). Unfortunately, since the NAP is in its infancy it will probably be a few more years before it will be able to exert much influence. Until we are able to pool our resources and efforts more effectively, which we are moving towards, I see my self voting the way I have always voted. I'll cast my vote for the lesser of two assholes.
I look forward to the day I can cast a ballot for a candidate I actually want. It will take some work but I think it can be done. If you're interested in working towards such a goal at least take a look at the NAP.
No comments:
Post a Comment