Source: David Koepsell: The End of Faith in Politics

From WhyNotWiki

Secular humanism / atheism  edit   (Category  edit)

Separation of church and state  edit   (Category  edit)

Religion and politics  edit   (Category  edit) Category:Religion and politics

David Koepsell (2007-{02-03}). "The End of Faith in Politics". Free Inquiry: Volume 27: Issue 2: 16-. Retrieved on 2007-02-25 20:36.

Recently, a spate of articles, newscasts, books, and other media have focused on the “New Atheism,” bringing attention to some fine best-selling books by FREE INQUIRY contributors such as Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Susan Jacoby, and Richard Dawkins. Many of us feel it is high time that our worldview gets some limelight, following what seems like a decade of public emphasis on faith. Bill Clinton rolled to resounding reelection in 1996, based in part on his support in the South, fueled, no doubt, by his open appeals to Bible Belt “values” voters, by his proclaiming his Baptist roots, and first proposing “faith-based initiatives.” [...]

Democrats jockeying for presidential runs in 2008 will likely follow the success of red-state Democrats who position themselves also on the “Left Hand of God,” as Michael Lerner suggests. They will risk alienating those of us who value the separation of church and state as a fundamental and necessary component of truly free inquiry. They may also be misinterpreting the lessons of the 2006 midterm elections.

...

Fundamentalists will arrive loaded for bear going into the next election cycle. Having lost their direct political influence that they had through the Republican majorities in the House and Senate, and with ballot-measure losses in places like Missouri and South Da¬kota, they will come out swinging again in 2008. Expect more gay-marriage-ban amendments and concern over Supreme Court nominations to be trotted out to mobilize their core voters as never before, history of inaction and hypocrisy be damned.

Brace yourselves for 2008. Misinterpreting the results of 2006 will no doubt lead to significant challenges for secular progressives who worry about the continued encroachment of religion into public policy. In fact, while evangelicals and other pro-theocratic voters seemed to show up in nearly the same numbers as before, secularists and friends of science voted in relatively greater numbers than in previous elections, perhaps energized in part by the war in Iraq and political corruption. Whatever the motivation, this illustrates a great new hope that is well-supported by the demographics—that we are a growing force in a coalition of secular progressives and conservatives who are sick of the alliance of religion and government and able to influence policy through elections. The challenge for us is to get our politicians to recognize this. The question is: how?

I think we can learn a lot from other minority groups that have made themselves more visible, injecting themselves into the popular culture and public conversation. Transforming a despised minority into an accepted minority is absolutely necessary if our ideas are to enter the American mainstream. Given the fact that fewer people would accept an atheist or secular humanist president than a homosexual one indicates that we have a long way to go. But it also suggests a path toward acceptability. Homosexuality has become mainstream, while atheism, unbelief, and everyone’s favorite scapegoat—secular humanism—have lagged behind on the very fringes of public acceptability. No open agnostic, atheist, or secular humanist has won a major public office yet, and this must change. Meanwhile, open homosexuals have been elected to numerous offices.

...

While we are certainly involved in defending the rights of secular humanists and in maintaining the integrity of science through efforts such as the Center for Inquiry/Office of Public Policy, political efforts alone will not accomplish our aims, and we cannot bet the farm on it. The last election cycle has illustrated how little we can depend on any one political party to defend secularism. We cannot dismiss popular culture as base or low, or we will cede the largest avenue for dissemination of ideas in the world today, we would cede this ground at our peril.

Best-selling books that cite our philosophy and bring atheism to light as a prominent worldview are certainly a good start. The fact that Richard Dawkins’s new book, The God Delusion, has remained on the best-seller list for many weeks has definitely increased public awareness, at least among those who still read books or who check The New York Times Book Review. However, much more has been accomplished, in my estimation, by the fact that Dawkins was satirized on a recent episode of South Park. That show is watched by people of all ages, by the literate and highly educated as well as those who may be less so. People who may never have even heard of Richard Dawkins were suddenly exposed to him and his viewpoints, albeit by way of satire. This is a much more promising way to get us past the general problem we face of “preaching to the choir,” whereby most of our publications only reach those who already agree with us. We should take more note of these opportunities and their potential for lasting impact.

In sum, we need to work on all fronts. As a think tank, the Center for Inquiry may be able to influence opinion makers, but we need to do much more. Most people still don’t know us, and even fewer like us, and all the position papers and CNN appearances in the world aren’t going to change that.

You gotta at least give 'em credit for all their efforts! Even though I disagree with them.