Atheist Group Calls For DNC CFO To Resign Over Proposed Attack On Bernie Sanders’ Faith

[think]

Atheist Group Calls For DNC CFO To Resign Over Proposed Attack On Bernie Sanders’ Faith

By Nick Wing - 07/25/2016 03:03 pm 15:03:29

In a leaked email, staffers proposed playing up rumors Sanders is an atheist.

One of the nation’s largest atheist groups on Monday called for the resignation of Democratic National Committee CFO Brad Marshall, following revelations that he’d wanted to tarnish Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) by questioning his faith.

“Entertaining such a cynical and bigoted line of attack violates any number of basic American principles: It presumes a religious test for holding office, something expressly prohibited in the Constitution,” said leaders of the Center for Inquiry, a reason-based organization that champions secular society, in a release.

In a May email leaked last week, Marshall appeared to question Sanders’ Jewish identification and suggest he might instead be an atheist. While he didn’t call out Sanders by name, Marshall referred to upcoming presidential primary contests at the time.

“Does he believe in a God,” wrote Marshall. “He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.”...

Read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-dnc-atheism_us_579643dbe4b02d5d5ed24da2

[Act_of_Reparation]

1. As an atheist, this was the most personally upsetting aspect to the story.

Impartiality, collusion with the media... this is politics, and that kind of crap, while not excusable, is expected. And honestly, I don't think it made much of a difference in the long-run.

But the whole "don't run the atheist because they don't poll well with the Southern Baptists" schtick... fuck that noise. They're supposed to be fighting bigotry not fucking reinforcing it.

[think]

2. I am surprised he wasn't forced to resign BEFORE DWS. His actions were beyond the pale...

[whatthehey]

10. To be honest it didn't bother me.

In a way it is vindication of any complaints about how poorly atheists are perceived and represented. A political operative who did not know this would be a very poor one. The emails I've seen show no personal or desired animosity towards atheists, just a recognition that it already exists. Using public negatives that one personally couldn't care about is basic politics (and it's worth noting that unlike with Pete Stark, no such internecine attack was actually made).

They should fight bigotry? In a campaign? How? You could have Ingersoll himself use a 30 minute all-channel broadcast explaining that atheists are perfectly moral, rational, patriotic public servants and all it would do is raise animosity against the atheist candidate. The distrust and scorn towards we nonbelievers is the product of centuries of special pleading and generations of indoctrination. The best thing the DNC et al can do for us is exactly what they did, regardless of perfectly accurate internal discussions - keep any recognition of unorthodox religious opinions out of the public sphere as much as possible.

[Act_of_Reparation]

14. I disagree completely.

First and foremost: we're talking about a primary election here, a contest between members of the same party. If Southern Baptists had a problem with Bernie Sanders' perceived atheism, they would have made that objection known at the polls... and voted for another Democrat. The DNC had literally nothing to lose here, and it would have been the perfect time to make a statement on the normalization of non-belief.

Second: You can't be a passive anti-bigot. Working within the framework of anti-atheist sentiment legitimizes and reinforces that sentiment. If an atheist decides to seek office with the Democratic party, the discussion should not be about the Southern Baptist's objections, but what the DNC is going to do to help that candidate succeed.

Third: The DNC is supposed to be working for all registered Democrats, and atheists are Democrats, too.

[mainer]

3. Yes, he SHOULD be fired. Imagine if he'd said: "He's a Jew. Can we use that against him?"

No difference. It's still bigotry.

[Bluenorthwest]

4. Brad Marshall, enforcer of institutional bigotry.

Brad's 'peeps' are a group that holds bigotry against LGBT as well as anyone who is not Christian and Brad expresses a willingness, nay a gleeful eagerness to bait his bigoted peeps with information that will rile their prejudices up against any Democratic candidate he does not care for. Any that he is prejudiced against.

[treestar]

5. Only someone determined to be a victim would consider that an attack

He is talking about voters, and how they might be bigoted. Why do people have to lose their jobs over every mistake they make? And what of people who've said worse whose emails weren't hacked?

[think]

6. So if a DNC member had suggested using Hillary's religion against her you'd be OK with that?

[treestar]

7. They didn't say they were using it against him

They were wondering about some voters' reaction. And there's no context, either.

And what about people not hacked? Who knows what might have been said by them?

[think]

8. Good luck all in ....

[Exilednight]

9. You can only hold accountable those that are caught.

You're suggesting that we should let every rapist go since all of them aren't being held accountable since there is a lack of evidence identifying others who committed the same crime.

[treestar]

11. I am not suggesting that

what a straw man and it's mean of you to make that up about me.

Those emails were private so they were not supposed to be read by anyone outside. You're saying it is OK for hackers to do that. I could as easily say that you are therefore in favor of the government seeing everyone's emails. If it's OK for hackers, why isn't it oK for the NSA?

[Act_of_Reparation]

15. No, he's not talking about bigoted voters.

He's talking about capitulating to the whims of bigoted voters. He's talking about reinforcing and legitimizing distrust of non-believers.

[LanternWaste]

12. I'm sensing rather a lot of political innocence and naivete

I'm sensing rather a lot of political innocence and naivete, as though people are blithely ignorant that this has not been a standard practice (both inter- and extra-party) for the past 150 years of electioneering on all levels.

Seems even more naive to think that a political organization will suddenly change standards in the middle of the convention, and dump the nominee in the middle of the game, predicated merely on tactics proposed by staffers and then rejected just as quickly.

Babes in the woods. "think" maybe cute and self-validating, but lacking the necessary qualifier "critical", it's quite disposable without any loss at all.

[think]

13. Excuse me? Would you be comfortable learning the CFO of the DNC suggested using Hillary's religion

against her?

Why would he even consider this as a supposedly NEUTRAL party?