i still don't put it out there in writing on my page, but i do mention more 'atheistic' ideas whenever i can. so, gradually i'm coming out, but since i do live in the Bible Belt, i don't go out of my way for it. (and i want to get in politics, and unfortunately, the only requirement for that seems to be 'god bless my constituents.'

when i first put it up, i said 'Pastafarianism,' but later changed it to a four-word set which describes my own personal philosophy -- i won't repeat all the words here, since they are uncommon words i don't want a google search of them by my friends to find this comment! one of the words, though, was Ambition. they were all related to me doing exactly what i want to do and my overall goal-oriented approach to everything. a couple months ago, i changed it to Organic. i don't really know why i chose that, to be honest, but i wanted to put something, and i think Organic pretty much throws out religion (except maybe Jainism).

but i do have a quote by Nietzche, and am a member of the 'Government + Religion = Disaster' group. it's probably not hard to guess i'm an atheist, but i like to keep it subtle. kind of like that Temple professor and his 'gott is tot' sign.

Many of the pundits and commentators would add, when talking about this, '...the Godless Americans PAC...(haha)...I've never heard of this organization!' While an atheist organization may seem to some to be completely oxy-moronic, I think now might be the time for us to organize. The country is changing. Many of these same pundits agree America is still a center-right nation (with the voting down of gay marriage in even 'liberal California), but I think we can organize and run some strong candidates, in local elections in 2010. We have to start local for anyone to trust us. I'm considering running for office in 2010, but for me and where I am, it will probably make more sense for it to be 2012.

I think the observation here is the country is *becoming more open-minded, albeit at a pace slightly faster than that of snail, and if we don't act soon, we lose our chance.

*I told a friend of mine how I believe voting for Barack Obama was a step forward for atheists, and she can completely see my argument on that (she voted McCain), but a gay friend of ours voted McCain, and against an amendment to ban gay marriage (which failed, of course). I haven't had a chance to ask him, but I do wonder how much he questioned his own rights when voting.

I'm one of those atheists opposed to abortion, yet I have no intentions at all on overturning Roe vs. Wade. I may not agree with it, but there are many laws I don't agree with! After decades of litigation, Roe vs. Wade stands strong, and that is a good thing. In addition to the fact that it is still the law, I also believe that overturning it would fuel the religious nuts and lead our country downhill, more than it already has been. It's not that I'm consciously going against religion, I'm just going for progress.

So did I. I thought they did a good job compared to everyone else (though who could beat CNN's 'hologram'?!). And after Obama was declared the winner, I thought their website was the most congratulatory -- it was a very large picture congratulating him. All other sites gad it in a normal news-format for at least another ten minutes.

I immediately changed my facebook status to express my happiness at the loss of a bigot in the Senate!

I, too, live in the Bible Belt -- I went to an Obama/Biden Rally yesterday with Joe Biden, and it was led, of course, by an invocation. The man is a Unitarian Universalist pastor, so I guess I expected a little less god during it. I don't think I've ever heard omni- so many times in my life! He didn't say Jesus specifically, though as I kept my head raised and eyes open amongst a flock of people who may have been staring at their shoes, I wondered about this very subject.

The other day I came across an article about 'Prayer Warriors' -- and how people believe that god will decide the election -- so they need people to carry out his will! I, of course, have to wonder how such an omnipresent god would be unable to make one of two men the President of the United States of America? Hmm..tough. Clearly. My favorite part of that article was that both sides believed god was on their side, and have been holding Prayer Circles and Phone Banking on behalf of their chosen candidate. A rabbi was interviewed, and he reported he sent a prayer out to his flock , in Hebrew and English, to be read at the voting booth! Oy, vey!

That's weird? See, I thought that the Constitution "is the rule which under girds our laws."

Strange.

*And don't bother with the Christian-centric view you argued: Hammurabi's Code was the first set of known written laws, and he was certainly not a God-fearer. The basic tenets of every religion are the same. From the Mayans to Islam, from Christianity to Buddhism, it has always been the same basic set of laws. I suppose anthropogically, it can be assumed that the ability to do right and wrong is written in our genes, not in ancient scrolls.

I don't want to take over vjack's blog, so I'll try to be quick. (edit...I tried)

Honestly, I truly do not understand what your deal is with computers. Like I said before, it doesn't concern me at all whether or not the President can use a computer, and if he checks his Facebook every night or even reads a blog. It doesn't. Now, yes, of course any representative decision-maker must be able to associate himself with the public s/he represents, but what is the big deal with that person using a computer? Do you really feel better if the President mentions something about YouTube or the internets (sic.) or the latest free songs he got from iTunes? I prefer, personally, to have a decision-maker who spents the brunt of their time making decisions than syncing music and keeping up with the 'lingo' of the day (and one of my Master's Degrees is in Public Policy).

If you want to know the truth, I identify more with Barack Obama (I, too, grew up overseas, and my focuses are eerily similar to his), and I'm young. But I am not going to be foolhardy enough to pick someone just because he is me! Hasn't the country already learned that lesson with George Bush ('the guy you can drink a beer with')?

"Sound decisions" are ideologically based. Will either candidate make "sound decisions" with the GLBT community? No. And you know why I think that? Because my idea of a "sound decision" for that community is the freedom to marry and adopt and stronger, more enforceable laws against discrimination in the books. You have to keep in mind that what one person wants is not necessarily an option, and we have to endure another four, eight, sixteen, however many years of incorrect policies before we reach a "sound decision." Then, even if my desires for the GLBT community were to come true, well, guess what -- there will be another crowd of people who do not feel it is a "sound decision." George Washington couldn't make these decisions, Abraham Lincoln wouldn't be able to, and Theodore Roosevelt, well, he'd be likely to call us all a bunch of merry materialistic idiots. Nice pull on Chester A. Arthur, though...he hardly gets mentioned in contemporary debate.

Clearly my reference to Apple's Steve Jobs went over your head with him as an allegory for our technological expertise. I apologize. Remember, though, that as more and more jobs are moved overseas, our definition as a knowledge-based economy only receives more and more credit. The manufacturing of our ideas (knowledge) is done overseas. Next time, I'll pull out the NAICS codes for you and list it all by sector and trends (that's Census data, fyi).

Another example that went above your head was my use of the military argument. I brought that up to make fun of, and poke a hole in, your opinion of the need for a culturally relevant leader. Now, my argument still stands, but don't expect me to actually believe they are better choices for that reason. I think that having our leaders' children serving in a time of war is great, but when they apropos that with a comment about how 'God' is watching over their child's battalion and our troops and nation as a whole, I'm inclined to change the channel and vote 'for the other guy.' Besides, I'm of the opinion that their celebrity-status may endanger the mission, and their ability to be a normal soldier, sailor, airman, or marine is severely limited. Gone are the days when princes fought alongside peasants.

Yes, I agree that this Administration seems horribly out of touch with the needs of returning veterans. I just hope that we don't reach a point where we demonize the servicemembers for following orders, and have a repeat of the Vietnam Veterans, many of whom still have that as a label as they sleep on the streets. Our ability to war-monger and only feed a marching army is appalling.

Nepotism is a legitimate concern. And despite the aura of Obama's elitism, the fact that McCain's father and grandfather were both four-star admirals has me wondering about how he got to be a pilot. It's interesting that this was brought up with G. W. Bush (with much harm to Dan Rather...), but I have yet to see questions of nepotism with McCain, most likely because he was a POW. But in our supposed-anti-aristocratic America, I think a questioning of familial connections should be examined, always.

*In the future, avoid saying things like "stupid ideas" and "stupid policies." Interestingly enough, those words actually make you sound like a Republican who does not understand what's going on...like one who is out of touch...

He's culturally out of touch for not using a computer? His favorite band is ABBA (for some reason?!), now, yeah, that's dated, but I don't think it would have been appropriate or desired if Ronald Reagan listened to Madonna. So that's the pop-culture, completely superfluous.

You have to wonder, what exactly is the culture of America today? We're have a knowledge-based economy, to be honest, and our computers manufactured in Korea and Taiwan. American culture is unfortunately superfluous. I think (I may be mistaken) that Obama said something about what was on his iPod. I don't really care if a President uses an iPod or a computer, so long as s/he is competent to do the job. So why not elect Steve Jobs as President? He obviously understands computers, and I bet he's got an iPod and iPhone and any other hot items.

There are a great many Americans who know at least one person in the military serving in Iraq or Afghanistan (myself included). That is, unfortunately, a culturally relevant subject. Do you think it might be important for our leaders to have children in the war? McCain has two boys (one has already, and the other will be eventually, probably), Palin has one, and Biden has one. Yeah, Obama's daughters are too young to serve, but what likelihood do you think they would want to join the military? Maybe I'll eat my words in 15 years? So let's count it: Republican ticket has two candidates, both are parents of servicemembers in a warzone. The Democratic ticket has two candidates, only one of which is the parent of a servicemember in a war zone. Simple math would show the Republicans are more culturally relevant for that reason.

I hate that I sound like a McCain supporter, or gasp, a Republican defender (lol!), but I think it is important to defend both sides of the debate.

**I was reading up on it more, and most of the articles I read said that yeah, his shoulders hurt, but also that his fingers were injured so badly it makes typing (and writing) difficult, and he prefers to keep his schedule on notecards in his jacket pocket. Try this right now: take your left hand and put it on the joint of your right shoulder. Then take your right arm, and position it like you're holding a microphone. And now like you're at a computer (desktop or laptop, it doesn't matter). Feel the difference in the positioning of your shoulder? And perhaps you have an older relative in need or who has gotten a hip replacement? I'm sure they would confirm like mine that their hip feels more comfortable when turned a certain way over another. Aren't ball-and-socket joints amazing?