Comments on: Tom Vilsack’s Wife http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/02/tom-vilsacks-wife/ Atheism with Positivity Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:59:02 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: August http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/02/tom-vilsacks-wife/comment-page-1/#comment-6566 August Fri, 23 Feb 2007 21:37:09 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/02/tom-vilsacks-wife/#comment-6566 Ah, behold the power of disappointing the atheist lobby! http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/23/us/politics/23cnd-vilsack.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin Vilsack blames the "crowded field" for his inability to get any traction with his campaign--but I think we all know that if you don't the atheists in your pocket, you're going no where fast in American politics. (oh... wait...) Ah, behold the power of disappointing the atheist lobby!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/23/us/politics/23cnd-vilsack.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Vilsack blames the “crowded field” for his inability to get any traction with his campaign–but I think we all know that if you don’t the atheists in your pocket, you’re going no where fast in American politics.

(oh… wait…)

]]> By: Friendly Atheist » Barack Obama Announcement Preview http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/02/tom-vilsacks-wife/comment-page-1/#comment-5339 Friendly Atheist » Barack Obama Announcement Preview Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:26:16 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/02/tom-vilsacks-wife/#comment-5339 [...] I’m all excited now. Even more excited than when I met Christie Vilsack. Technorati Tags: atheist, atheism, Barack Obama, Springfield, church-state separation, Christie Vilsack, Humanist Network News, Christianity Share This Popularity: 1% [?] [...] [...] I’m all excited now. Even more excited than when I met Christie Vilsack. Technorati Tags: atheist, atheism, Barack Obama, Springfield, church-state separation, Christie Vilsack, Humanist Network News, Christianity Share This Popularity: 1% [?] [...]

]]> By: FriendlyAtheist http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/02/tom-vilsacks-wife/comment-page-1/#comment-5218 FriendlyAtheist Wed, 07 Feb 2007 21:11:10 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/02/tom-vilsacks-wife/#comment-5218 Helen-- We brought the brochures to use for education purposes... but like I said, no one we met really seemed interested in having a serious conversation about the topic. So we left the brochures in the hope someone might pick it up and read it at a later time. Helen– We brought the brochures to use for education purposes… but like I said, no one we met really seemed interested in having a serious conversation about the topic. So we left the brochures in the hope someone might pick it up and read it at a later time.

]]> By: Helen http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/02/tom-vilsacks-wife/comment-page-1/#comment-5217 Helen Wed, 07 Feb 2007 20:38:58 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/02/tom-vilsacks-wife/#comment-5217 Hmm. That's useful... place a bunch of brochures on a back table and take off. What about maybe (just maybe) trying to educate people at the event about what it really means to be an atheist? Just a sugegstion. Hmm. That’s useful… place a bunch of brochures on a back table and take off. What about maybe (just maybe) trying to educate people at the event about what it really means to be an atheist?

Just a sugegstion.

]]> By: King Aardvark http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/02/tom-vilsacks-wife/comment-page-1/#comment-5121 King Aardvark Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:16:17 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/02/tom-vilsacks-wife/#comment-5121 I mistrust all people of a political bent. Anyone who <i>wants</i> to be a politician is up to no good. At a conference for an engineering research network under which my masters research fell, we had a meeting to decide on the grad student president (roll is basically a liason with the profs who run the research network). Only one guy threw his hat into the running. He was obviously very political and ambitious. After much prodding, eventually someone else volunteered to run against him. The first guy got up and gave a well prepared speech with also sorts of political hogwash. The other person got up, introduced herself, said she would listen if we had any complaints or concerns, and sat down. She won in a landslide. That just means that engineers hate politicians. I mistrust all people of a political bent. Anyone who wants to be a politician is up to no good.

At a conference for an engineering research network under which my masters research fell, we had a meeting to decide on the grad student president (roll is basically a liason with the profs who run the research network). Only one guy threw his hat into the running. He was obviously very political and ambitious. After much prodding, eventually someone else volunteered to run against him. The first guy got up and gave a well prepared speech with also sorts of political hogwash. The other person got up, introduced herself, said she would listen if we had any complaints or concerns, and sat down. She won in a landslide.

That just means that engineers hate politicians.

]]> By: C. L. Hanson http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/02/tom-vilsacks-wife/comment-page-1/#comment-5110 C. L. Hanson Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:49:47 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/02/tom-vilsacks-wife/#comment-5110 I'm 35, and since, say 2001, converted to being a Democrat. Just sayin'... ;-) I’m 35, and since, say 2001, converted to being a Democrat. Just sayin’… ;-)

]]> By: Richard Wade http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/02/tom-vilsacks-wife/comment-page-1/#comment-5096 Richard Wade Mon, 05 Feb 2007 07:38:53 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/02/tom-vilsacks-wife/#comment-5096 txatheist and Krystalline Apostate, Apparently no less than 8 states have clauses in their constitutions limiting or prohibiting non-believers from holding office or other civil rights afforded to believers, some requiring oaths or statements affirming belief in God. Not to worry however, as a supreme court case in 1961 determined all such parts of state constitutions to be unconstitutional. You can read all about it in an excellent article here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm These ugly relics of the past remain in the various state constitutions because it would require the difficult process of amending the state constitutions to get rid of them. Besides, most politicians wouldn't want to touch that issue with a ten foot pole, risking accusations of being anti-religious. So they are like old, ignored laws that we find quaint, like men can't wear certain kinds of beards, or women must keep their skirts to their ankles. I find their continued presence an annoyance, but I don't think they're a threat, because the U.S. Constitution trumps the state ones, and it has been tested in the Supreme Court. I was just having fun with what Mrs. Vilsack could have been thinking; I think it was probably exactly as it seems, a curt, negative dismissal. Oh well, persevere. txatheist and Krystalline Apostate,
Apparently no less than 8 states have clauses in their constitutions limiting or prohibiting non-believers from holding office or other civil rights afforded to believers, some requiring oaths or statements affirming belief in God. Not to worry however, as a supreme court case in 1961 determined all such parts of state constitutions to be unconstitutional. You can read all about it in an excellent article here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm

These ugly relics of the past remain in the various state constitutions because it would require the difficult process of amending the state constitutions to get rid of them. Besides, most politicians wouldn’t want to touch that issue with a ten foot pole, risking accusations of being anti-religious. So they are like old, ignored laws that we find quaint, like men can’t wear certain kinds of beards, or women must keep their skirts to their ankles. I find their continued presence an annoyance, but I don’t think they’re a threat, because the U.S. Constitution trumps the state ones, and it has been tested in the Supreme Court.

I was just having fun with what Mrs. Vilsack could have been thinking; I think it was probably exactly as it seems, a curt, negative dismissal. Oh well, persevere.

]]> By: Krystalline Apostate http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/02/tom-vilsacks-wife/comment-page-1/#comment-5084 Krystalline Apostate Mon, 05 Feb 2007 01:48:27 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/02/tom-vilsacks-wife/#comment-5084 txatheist: <blockquote>Mary Beth Harrell who has been a lawyer for 20 years “I was unaware that people who didn’t believe in a divine power couldn’t hold office.”</blockquote> As I understand it, Texas requires that you take a religious oath upon entry into office, doesn't it? txatheist:

Mary Beth Harrell who has been a lawyer for 20 years “I was unaware that people who didn’t believe in a divine power couldn’t hold office.”

As I understand it, Texas requires that you take a religious oath upon entry into office, doesn’t it?

]]> By: txatheist http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/02/tom-vilsacks-wife/comment-page-1/#comment-5072 txatheist Sun, 04 Feb 2007 19:43:27 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/02/tom-vilsacks-wife/#comment-5072 Richard Wade, It's possible that a misunderstanding took place. I can't speak for what Hemant reported but this I can speak to. I asked candidate Mary Beth Harrell and Matt McAdoo who ran for office in Texas this question at a run-off discussion for all area voters held at the local library the following question. "If you win this election will you support a bill that supports the US Constitution and that would change the TX Constitution to remove the words that require a politician believe in a Supreme Being to hold office in Texas? " Mary Beth Harrell who has been a lawyer for 20 years "I was unaware that people who didn't believe in a divine power couldn't hold office." Matt McAdoo " I support a states right to govern ourself and not allow atheists to hold office if the majority supports this view". He did say he didn't think it was right on a personal level later. Richard Wade,
It’s possible that a misunderstanding took place. I can’t speak for what Hemant reported but this I can speak to.

I asked candidate Mary Beth Harrell and Matt McAdoo who ran for office in Texas this question at a run-off discussion for all area voters held at the local library the following question.

“If you win this election will you support a bill that supports the US Constitution and that would change the TX Constitution to remove the words that require a politician believe in a Supreme Being to hold office in Texas? ”

Mary Beth Harrell who has been a lawyer for 20 years “I was unaware that people who didn’t believe in a divine power couldn’t hold office.”

Matt McAdoo ” I support a states right to govern ourself and not allow atheists to hold office if the majority supports this view”. He did say he didn’t think it was right on a personal level later.

]]> By: Mike Wagner http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/02/tom-vilsacks-wife/comment-page-1/#comment-5062 Mike Wagner Sun, 04 Feb 2007 11:01:36 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/02/tom-vilsacks-wife/#comment-5062 I would almost settle for finding a Democrat that would simply not do anything to <em>harm </em>us, let alone help us. I recently changed my voter registration from Democrat to Independent. The next change will be to Socialist. I would almost settle for finding a Democrat that would simply not do anything to harm us, let alone help us. I recently changed my voter registration from Democrat to Independent. The next change will be to Socialist.

]]>