The American Spectator : Godless in Carolina

Text Size

Godless in Carolina

By David N. Bass on 11.3.08 @ 6:09AM

A Tar Heel mud fight that would make Jesse Helms proud.

RALEIGH, N.C. -- U.S. Senator Elizabeth Dole's hard-hitting ad highlighting her Democratic opponent's ties to an atheist political action committee has blown the lid off an already down and dirty Tar Heel brawl. It's the final chapter in a race that could be one of the upsets giving Democrats a supermajority in Congress. It's also an example of how the mainstream media and political spin doctors miss the point -- badly.

North Carolina's demographics are changing, but residents still prefer theists as their elected leaders. That's why Dole chose to run the ad against Kay Hagan, a five-term state senator from Greensboro and top Democrat in the General Assembly. (In fact, she boasts about being a "budget expert" -- hardly a matter of pride considering state spending has swollen by $10 billion since she was first elected).

The ad points out that Hagan recently attended a fundraiser in Boston partly hosted by Woody Kaplan, an advisor to the Godless Americans Political Action Committee. The group advocates secular fundamentalism and seeks to erase every vestige of religion from public life. Lawyers for Dole claim that Hagan accepted $2,300 in campaign cash from Kaplan, a charge that Hagan hasn't denied.

The final seconds of the ad generated the most controversy. "Godless Americans and Kay Hagan," the narrator says. "She hid from cameras, took Godless money. What did Hagan promise in return?" A dubbed voice that could be mistaken for Hagan's then proclaims, "There is no God."

That's been the focal point of Hagan's response. In a press release put out late last week announcing a lawsuit over the ad, a spokesperson for the Hagan campaign said that Dole had impugned Hagan's "character, her convictions, and her faith." No mention of Kaplan's donation or Hagan's attendance at the fundraiser. The tactic appears to be working. Most North Carolina newspapers have rallied against Dole. The national media, of course, is on Hagan's side. But in rebutting the misleading parts of Dole's ad, commentators ignored the lion's share that's true. Hagan did attend a fundraiser in Boston hosted by big-time liberals, including Kaplan, and accepted a donation from him. She hasn't returned the cash even after learning of his associations, nor distanced herself from the radical atheistic group. Why not?

There is no religious test for public office in the United States, and rightly so. But Americans are free to vote for or against a candidate based on whatever they want, including religious belief. Such convictions color candidates' policy aims, whether they admit it or not. That makes it fair game.

Hagan says she is a committed Christian. I don't quibble with that, even though many of her positions are antithetical to biblical teaching (support for abortion on demand being one). But why, as a committed believer, would she attend a meeting partially hosted by individuals connected to a radical atheistic agenda? If she didn't know about the connections, why hasn't she publicly condemned the group's radical agenda in the aftermath of the ad fiasco?

The answer doesn't take much grey matter to figure out. Hagan can get more mileage from ripping Dole as a mudslinger than criticizing a far-left secularist group, even in relatively conservative North Carolina. It's a shame that the core points of the ad have been swallowed in a politically correct tsunami of media criticism. But that's politics.

It's a big question mark how the debacle will impact voters' attitudes on Election Day. A new Rasmussen poll gives Hagan a six-point lead over Dole, but a Mason-Dixon survey puts Dole at 46 percent to Hagan's 42 percent . The Cook Political Report lists the race as a toss-up. That's troubling for Dole, who was elected by a comfortable margin in 2002 to fill Jesse Helm's Senate seat.

The Obama effect could have a major impact on the race, too. Over 20,000 supporters attended an Obama rally in Raleigh on Wednesday. The crowd snaked around the General Assembly building and filled several downtown streets. Early voting returns indicate that Democrats are turning out big for Obama, and that can only help Hagan.

Worse for the GOP, Dole is one of several senators blocking the magic 60-member majority needed by the Democrats to have unchecked power in the Senate. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, chaired by the plucky Chuck Schumer, has poured $6.6 million into anti-Dole ads.

I wonder if some of that money is courtesy of Godless Americans PAC.

topics:
Election 2008, Barack Obama, Religion

About the Author

David N. Bass is a journalist who writes from the Old North State. Follow him on Twitter.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (28) | Leave a comment

Barry McGowan| 11.3.08 @ 7:05AM

" seeks to erase every vestige of religion from public life"?? Next time do your reseach and be honest. This kind of smear is no better than Dole's.

Melvin| 11.3.08 @ 8:35AM

Living in Jacksonville NC, I constantly hear from Obama and Hagen supporters that they will soon be on the receiving end of all the, "Free Stuff," that Obama will shower on them.
Unfortunately for these poor misguided souls, they are totally blind in acknowledging the fact that there is nothing in the world that is free.
But then again I'm also constantly being reminded by these financial burdens to society that it is their, "Right" to receive all this free stuff.

Tom Paine| 11.3.08 @ 9:12AM

Senator Dole seems to have alienated many constituents by a) spending all her time in DC; and b) not actively pursuing her state's interests in legislative sessions.

The God ad -- a joke now to the whole country -- is just the last straw. Hagen's rebuttal to Dole's cynical and unbelievably stupid ad has to be the best in modern political advertising.

Brian Westley| 11.3.08 @ 9:23AM

20 years ago, politicians would be criticized for accepting money from gay advocates.

40 years ago, black advocates.

80 years ago, Jewish advocates.

The point of Dole's ad is to get elected by demonizing people. It makes no difference if they are atheist, gay, black, or Jewish.

Mark Sochor| 11.3.08 @ 10:54AM

Brian: Let me see if I get this right. Taking money from atheists, that want us all to deny the existence of a supreme being, is the same as money from Jews, Blacks and Gays? Have you actually read our founding documents?

Diana| 11.3.08 @ 12:19PM

Mark, you are obviously missing the point of Brian's post. Dole is using bigotry - bigotry that you obviously share in - in an attempt to get elected. Perhaps you don't have a problem with bigotry. Some of us do.

You should probably read those founding documents yourself. Then you should read the Treaty of Tripoli. You should read the notes on the federal convention. You should read Jefferson's letters. Perhaps then you wouldn't be implicitly relying on a distortion of history.

Oh, and atheists don't necessarily want everyone to deny the existence of a god. Most of us just want people to stop using the government to push their unjustified beliefs on us.

Thurly| 11.3.08 @ 12:57PM

The woman taught Sunday School. I'll bet she'd dispute the assertion that her positions are antithetical to Biblical teachings.

That's the thing with extremists, they don't acknowledge the possibility that somebody who believes differently could be right.

In Romans (the second chapter) Paul made the case that there are things that are lawful for him to do but, because of their beliefs, not lawful for other Christians to do. Christ said judge not lest you be judged. Each of us will have to stand before our maker. God will decide who has been led a good-faith life.

Jesus wasn't about changing the world politically, he was about spreading the good news. His kingdom is not of this world.

Each Christian must listen to their own heart. It's the individual's relationship with God that counts. At least, that's my read of the Bible. Reasonable people can disagree and obviously do. Who is right? You? Me? Neither of us? Both of us? Jesus left a lot of room for any -- perhaps all -- of the above answers to be the correct answer. It all depends on how well various Christians listen to their hearts.

Spicy Joker| 11.3.08 @ 1:08PM

This charge that Dole doesn't spend enough time in her state is so typically disingenuous of Democrats. At few (if not all) of the black Democratic Congressman in my state don't even live in their own congressional districts.

Brian Westley| 11.3.08 @ 1:09PM

Mark Sochor writes:
"Let me see if I get this right. Taking money from atheists, that want us all to deny the existence of a supreme being..."

No, you don't have this right. Atheists generally don't CARE what other people believe; you can believe anything you like. We get the same rights, and can decline to believe in any gods, right?

"...is the same as money from Jews, Blacks and Gays?"

When it comes to demonizing politicians for even considering them as equal citizens, yes.

"Have you actually read our founding documents?"

Yes. Have you? No religious test for public office. No establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Atheists have the same rights as anyone else.

Tom Paine| 11.3.08 @ 2:12PM

Mark --

I think that the "founding documents" are fairly free from references to Christianity.

Thomas Paine was a famous atheist, of course. Jefferson was some kind of deist, although to call him a believer takes things a little far. Franklin and Washington were quiet about their religious views (unlike Republicans today), but both were functionally deist. NONE of them believed we were a "Christian" nation or anything of the kind.
Our first treaty, negotiated by Jefferson, was signed with a Muslim nation.

No matter how you measure, Dole's message was deceptive and extremely stupid.

But I don't have to tell that to the citizens of North Carolina. Very obviously she is going to lose her seat, and I think this ad will have had everything to do with that.

Wayne Renfroe| 11.3.08 @ 6:39PM

How can someone be so stupid as to put out an ad like this?

JERSEYMAN| 11.3.08 @ 6:53PM

Cherrypicking our history for "deists" to advocate modern notions of secularism is a household industry, but ignores the vast bulk of the historical record.
You know, we can have a separation of church and state and still be a Christian nation. It is not either or.
Making the case for the Deism or athiesim of the founders ignores the larger role of Congregationalism and Presbyterianism in preparing the population for self-rule. It also ignores the constant reference to Biblical precedents in the colonial documents.
If it wasn't Christianity of the particularly English and Scotish Protestant type that gave rise to the nation then what did?
Ever read the Mayflower Compact?

Tom Paine| 11.3.08 @ 8:00PM

Jerseyman --

The history of this issue is, as you would expect, complicated, but it does not bear out your view of things.

It is true that this nation was founded within a broadly Christian context and culture. However, the authors of the "founding documents" were quite unusual men, as we all know. George W Bush named "Christ" as the most important philosopher, but he would not have been much supported by the founders.

Jefferson and Madison and the rest read Rousseau and Hobbes and Locke for inspiration and philosophic guidance, not the Bible. (Jefferson famously disowned the Old Testament entirely and sliced up his New Testaments to reflect what he thought was historically feasible.)

So, you're right, up to a point. Most people in the US, then as now, were Christian. All the more to recognize the bravery and grit of the founders, who ranged in religious affiliation but largely rejected the tenets of Christianity.

Jefferson is the great embarrassment to so-called conservatives today. Jefferson loathed church and churchliness. As a Milton lover, he could only imagine belonging to a religion of one, which was anything but a Christian preference.

Tom Paine| 11.3.08 @ 8:06PM

And one more thing, before I let you scurry back into the shadows of Error.

The real homespun learning in this country is what passes for American history on the conservative right. I've heard ghastly distortions by the likes of Pat Robertson and other clowns like him completely fabricating nonsense about the alleged devotions of the Founding Fathers.

Believe none of it. Although they lacked the vocabulary of modern forms of atheism, and generally settled with what sounds to ears like a loose and disinterested deism, they were united in their embrace of the European Enlightenment, not now much valued among those favoring "faith based" approaches to understanding the world. The Enlightenment of Descartes and Hobbes and Kant often paid lip service to a kind of belief in God, but the philosophy itself was humanistic and centered on men's affairs in this world. They were not Christians, even though they were men of a Christian culture.

Lakewood Bob| 11.3.08 @ 8:11PM

To the uninformed Tom Paine, read the real Thomas Paines' "The Age of Reason" to find that he had a tremendous reverence for God. The Godly are not trying to force anything on the unGodly. It is entirely the other way around! Freedom Of Religion is anathema to the real bigots.

Tom Paine| 11.3.08 @ 8:59PM

Lakewood Bob

You can believe anything you want, Bob. I'm not a bigot, and I have no desire to prevent anyone from believing anything. It is not, however, accurate to portray the founders as Christian -- no matter what religious sentiment you can identify in their various writings.

The real bigotry is assuming that any "reverence for God" is a form of Christianity, perhaps.

At any rate, the Constitution and the Declaration do NOT mention Christianity. Referring to our "maker" is a rhetorical gesture, not a theological claim in the case of Jefferson, I can assure you.

Tom Paine| 11.3.08 @ 10:03PM

And you've got a lot of nerve calling me a bigot, Bob.

Did you eve read the story at the top of this thread. Senator Dole, who is supposedly a Christian, LIED about her fellow Christian's faith in what is certainly one of the sleaziest political ads I've ever seen.

Just exactly who is the bigot here?

Lakewood Bob| 11.3.08 @ 10:11PM

Tom Paine

My reference to a bigot was a general comment not directed at you but to those who call religious people bigots. It is a much over used and misunderstood admonition.

I agree,though, that a reverence for God is not of necessity an affirmation of Christianity. The founders, however, were striving to establish a government that would long endure, and freedom of religion and speech were important precepts.
Also, a majority of the people in the country were Christian.

If you will read more of the writings of Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and others, I believe you will find that the reference to "our maker" or the "creator" was not a rhetorical gesture. Jefferson's letter to Adams following the death of his wife expressed his views of a future life. He wrote: " It is some comfort to us both that the term is not very distant at which we are to deposit in the same cerement our sorrowing and suffering bodies, and to ascend in essence to an ecstatic meeting with the friends we have loved and lost, and whom we shall still love and never lose again. God bless you and support you under your heavy affliction."

No malice intended by me, Tom.

Tom Paine| 11.3.08 @ 11:12PM

Lakewood Bob --

I accept your assurance and apologize for being so affronted.

Not to be picky, but this quote from the Adams letter: Jefferson was comforting a friend after his wife died.

These men were sensitive visionary geniuses. Of course they speculated about the creator of the universe. Of course they had religious feeling.

However, they were also men of the Enlightenment who were working to expand a secular, public sphere and political discourse.

Jester| 11.3.08 @ 11:41PM

Ahhh... atheists. The last group that you can apparently be bigoted against safely. Hagan wants to be the Senator for all North Carolinans, but apparently that's just not OK.

Kay Hagan can and should be listening to the concerns of all North Carolinans, whether she agrees with their positions or not. As Senator, that's her job! And if they choose to donate to her campaign, as long as it's a legal amount (as it is in this case), their money spends just as good as anyone else's.

Jericho| 11.4.08 @ 1:29AM

What will we do for morality without religion, without God? We will need a substitution. Someone to direct us. Does any particular person seem to be applying for that position of awesomeness?

Yet there remains Depardue's words "No Substitutions" Chose Life (Christ) and Live.

Justin Adams| 11.4.08 @ 5:46AM

There are literally hundreds if not thousands of quotations from the founders of the U.S. expressing not only their belief in God but their belief that the nation would only survive if it retained Christian principles. If you don't know this you have been deceived by your education. If you do know but won't admit it then shame on you. Patrick Henry, famous for "Give me liberty or give me death" said this nation was founded on the religion of Jesus Christ. There are hundreds of quotes like this. They are not hard to find if you want to know the truth.

Jester| 11.4.08 @ 9:14AM

Patrick Henry? This the same Patrick Henry that opposed the adoption of the Constitution, was a sworn enemy of Jefferson and Madison, and was the country's first *Anti*-Federalist? That the Patrick Henry you mean?

Talk about being deceived by your "education".

Ed B. O'Brien| 11.4.08 @ 9:23AM

So thurley, if in my heart I want to murder .... someone... and in my own little heart I think it is ok, then it is ok? Wow, the bible really does give a lot of wiggle room. I'm sharpening my K-BAR as I type!
For the record, IT IS WRONG TO KILL LITTLE BABIES! I will be proud to stand before my maker and explain my position on this "issue"
By the way, all you "leftist" posters, we're onto your game. Why don't you take your illegal foreign donations and go to the Bahamas?

Web Smith| 11.4.08 @ 3:16PM

You are responsible.

You are about to elect a President and a legislature who will give you a bigger government and more spending. Your new President will give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, drastically increase the number of H-1B visas, and eliminate E-verify at a time when millions of American Citizens are out of work. Your new Commander in Chief will keep American soldiers in Iraq against your will. Your new Chief Executive will borrow, spend, give away, and waste billions of dollars when the national debt is passing $12 trillion. Against your wishes, your new President helped Bush give $1 trillion to the banks as his parting gift. Your new President and legislature will continue to take your money and give it to someone else. No matter how much you object, neither Public Servant Number One nor the legislature will listen and will continue to implement their own agenda. It doesn't matter if it's Democrat or Republican.

You are responsible for what you're going to get so, no whining later.

http://ewebsmith.com/Finance/notlistening.html

Greg| 11.4.08 @ 11:14PM

"No establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Atheists have the same rights as anyone else."

I don't think anyone is trying to deny the rights of Atheists (or Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, et al), at least I hope they are not, but your statement above is a very common misinterpretation of the intentions of the founding fathers with regards to freedom of religion, by which they clearly meant the right to worship (or not) wherever you choose, and also that the government not establish a national church or religion that was either sanctioned or made mandatory by the federal government. The poor treatment of Catholics in England who refused to convert to the Anglican church (as well as religious intolerance in other parts of europe as well) is clearly what they had in mind when they included this protection.

The establishment clause never intended to remove all vestiges or references to religion from public life or buildings or monuments, and it was never intended to limit speech by government officials or employees with regards to any religious preference.

I think what offends most moderate Christians like myself is this unyielding belief by many atheists or agnostics that they have a "right" under the constitution to sanitize all public spaces, monuments, offices and documents from any and all reference to any form of religion at all, and this simply not how the constitution was intended. Most Christians are (or at least should be) thoroughly content to let others lead their own lives as they see fit. We'd just like for everyone to stop having a cow everytime they see a nativity scene in front of a post office. It doesn't hurt anyone, and anyone that finds it "offensive" needs to find something useful to do with his/her spare time. If seeing the Ten Commandments or a nativity scene, or a Star of David is enough to set you off, then YOU are the one that needs to learn some tolerance, not us.

Ms. Know| 11.14.08 @ 11:18AM

The liberal illuminati have won Congress, and they have control of the government, and our pockets. It's a sad occassion.

Brian Westley| 11.28.08 @ 5:26PM

Greg, if towns have open forums where anyone can erect anything, promoting their favorite religious holiday or atheism or whatever, that's fine -- equal opportunity and all that. But all I ever see are Christians who want THEIR holidays promoted by city officials, and NO OTHER RELIGIONS OR VIEWPOINTS promoted by those same city officials.