Do you think Obama will pay attention to a poll?

Perhaps there ought to be a poll like this:
Will Obama pay attention to a poll?
Yes: ()
No: ()

"new tradition"

My ass. Bush did this too I'm sure.

"...new White House tradition?"

Please consult a dictionary.

Does Obama think that the right will hate him any less than they already do?

Who says this is aimed at the right?

@#4 Pyrrhonic
"Does Obama think that the right will hate him any less than they already do?"
Well, perhaps the right would have him even more if he did not. Who knows?

*sigh*

because we haven't had enough godbotting in government yet (though somehow I doubt this is a new thing, anyway)

voted. of course.

Hmmm.... I am a subscriber to USN&WR, and got a call from Quinnipiac University tonight. I didn't pick up (no ties), but then a Google search turned up that they had a polling arm that did work for, amongst others, USN&WR. Anyway, I voted online.

No is nosing ahead. Woot, Woot, the underdog may just win.

I really wish he would. Less godbotting in government please. I would vote, except I'm at work and friendlyatheist.com is blocked.

D:

No, I don't support it, but I really could care less about the tradition though.

Also - "new" has apparently changed its definition.

"Yes" is sinking fast...

Just voted. No has pulled significantly ahead now. As for polls, I've never heard of a politician who didn't follow them compulsively. Well, there was W., but the staff never read that part of the paper to him.

[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[X] Don't care

"Friendly Atheist" my ass. I posted that poll in the previous topic (@65).

Hello? Hello? Is this thing on??

( ) Yes
( ) No
(X) Netflix

I'm a happy little CyberBullet,
happy as can be,
pointed at another poll,
and fired by PZ :)

[ ] Abort
[ ] Retry
[X] FAIL!

If it's his belief, and the belief of the majority of those attending, then fine. As an athiest, I have no problem with that. I could twitter, or check my email, or any other task I spend time on. Get over it, he's a christian president. He respects the views of other religions, and of no religion.

CatBallou, I recognised it [pat on back].

I voted "no" ... 3 times.
I am reeeally against it. And they reeeeally need a better polling program.

Special poll version for Southerners:

( ) Yes
( ) YES!!!
(X) Yes, Jeeezus, YES!!!!

1. 39.46% Yes
2. 60.54% No

Way back in February, Firedoglake revealed that

In a departure from previous presidents, [Obama's] public rallies are opening with invocations that have been commissioned and vetted by the White House.

- which, for some reason, was considered quite scandalous.

Just voted. 59.82% No and 40.18% Yes. Hooray! It is moving in the right direction.

Yes()
No()
AsianSexRobots(X)

Religions are useful for manipulating the fool public. There's no reason why a politician would give up a tool like that. Humans are weak, and that isn't going to change any time soon.

dboy

Christopher Hitchens thinks that Obama is a closet atheist.

I don't think he is. I think he believes in heaven, hell, the devil and god.

But more importantly, Obama understands that this is a SECULAR SOCIETY. When the founding fathers created this country, it was a secular experiment. Don't worry. He understands this.

And again, PZ- GET BACK TO BIOLOGY. No one cares what you think about politics. How do you think the great mammals of north america went extinct? meteor? ice age? human overhunting? GET BACK TO BIO!!!

congratulations america - you have another religious nut job as your leader.

Wow; anyone notice the decidedly incongruous seeming ad at the top of that page? 'find sexy christian singles'...... Is there a good irony meter repair centre around?

and his new administration is hardly any better than the last. lmao

No is at 64% whooooooo!!!

I also suspect Obama is a closet atheist. He's a smart guy, the smarter you are the more likely it is.

Well, perhaps it might be a tradition in the future. That may be what they are getting at. Well, if it does, then it would be up to us reasonable citizens to reverse it, although it would be better if it never became a tradition in the first place.

And again, PZ- GET BACK TO BIOLOGY.

blah blah blah blah blah

And again, PZ- GET BACK TO BIOLOGY. No one cares what you think about politics.

Well, that's not quite true. I care what PZ thinks about politics...

(Also, interestingly, I don't really care what 'John Doe' thinks about... well... anything, really...)

I love this site. An hour after posting the poll, it's gone from 53% to 47% YES, to 68% to 32% NO.

Wow, drew. Support mob rule much. How about if we tried a hypothetical rewording to see if maybe it would be a better idea to support all viewpoints, and be a president to all Americans, not just the majority:

If it's his belief, and the belief of the majority of those attending, then fine. As an athiest, I have no problem with that. I could twitter, or check my email, or any other task I spend time on. Get over it, he's a racist president. He respects the views of other racists and those who are not racists.

And good going, misspelling atheist. Usually, only godbots spell it that way.

You might be happier at Matt Nisbett's blog. You're exactly his type. Google the name. I'm not providing a link to that Uncle Tom.

Hey, PZ! Why don't you create a poll here that asks us what topics you should post on? The choices could be something like:

( ) Atheism only
( ) Science only
( ) Whatever the hell PZ wants

I suspicion he'll dismiss us internet fools with a dickhead-like smirk as he did the Marijuana question at the town hall.

And to think that LGBTs and our allies got a lot of crap from people (even from some people here on Pharyngula) for suggesting that having Rick Warren deliver the invocation at Obama's inauguration was the camel's nose under the tent . . .

And a lot of crap for disliking that decision and daring to express such . . .

I think most American politicians have a
church affiliation to avoid making waves
& to connect with people who can further
their careers. I agree with John Doe: even
if Obama is a theist of some kind, he seems
to respect those of us who are not.

who cares?
Look, I don't want some congressman ignoring climate change because the bible said man can't destroy the earth.
I don't want education thwarted because of anti-science curriculum.
But really. Who cares about this?
Where's your tolerance?

Also from the US News site:

"I've learned that the White House will kick off its much-discussed plan to reduce abortions tomorrow morning with a conference call to religious leaders and abortion-rights advocates that will feature key White House aides. The call reflects the White House plan to bring faith-based groups, including conservative ones, together with pro-abortion rights organizations to reduce demand for abortion. Until now, those two camps have frequently been at loggerheads."

Why do I get a sick feeling when I read stuff like this..

@28

You got sexy Christians? I'm seeing ad banners for a Muslim dating service. Maybe they're trying to catch the secret Muslim market.

I actually support Obama praying in public even if (indeed, especially if) he's an atheist. There is only so much real progress -- to do with education, healthcare, a greener economy, regulation of blind capitalism, etc. -- that the US public is willing to tolerate at once. If, in addition, the president doesn't bow to sky daddy, there might be a very nasty reaction. So let's leave it up to his judgement. He's clearly a very bright and well intentioned guy and I'm willing to cut him a lot of slack.

To Henry@41:

If Obama is the strategic thinker that I think he is, then what he wants to do is get the RR to accept sex education and birth control as the default means of preventing abortions.

@40:
Where's your tolerance?

It's not about religious tolerance. If nothing else, it's about separation of church and state. Religion has no place in secular proceedings.

() Yes
() No
(X) Find Sexy Christian Singles

@43:
There's some merit to that view. Ideally, Obama should only come out as an atheist in the 2nd half of his 2nd term (and proceed to educate the country on religion). However, it only makes sense in Obama's head. For us, he can never be enough of a radical godless infidel. We must hold his feet to the fire at every opportunity - on religious nuts, marijuana, carbon emissions, etc. If we don't, we are letting crazies and conservatives run the country without a fight. Especially as members of society unaffiliated with politics ourselves, we have the freedom to demand exactly what we think is right without fears and compromises.

SomeGuy, I understand that Obama can't come out and reject religion, and I don't expect him to. But when he's chosen some of the most conservative (and anti-gay!) men to be his "spiritual advisers," or whatever they're called, I do object. If he were merely after individual spiritual comfort and guidance, he wouldn't need a panel.
If he wants to hear from faith communities, he should be hearing from a much wider sample, including atheists.
This reminds me of when Cheney called his secret panel to discuss energy issues. No opposition heard from!

The question is whether you support him doing it. Most atheists would not offhand, though SomeGuy gives a fairly good (if cynical) justification for why an atheist might support it.

@#41 HenryS
"Why do I get a sick feeling when I read stuff like this.."
Don't worry, it is only about reducing abortions, not about banning them. Or perhaps your sick feeling is about the participation of religionists... although this is unavoidable.

@#40 mimi
"Where's your tolerance?"
We all have tolerance when it comes to private practice and beliefs. However, there is a definite problem when they try to dictate public policy with it, because that's not private.

I actually support Obama praying in public even

It's the ones that do it in private that you have to worry about. ;)

Posted by: echidna | April 2, 2009 9:29 PM

To Henry@41:

If Obama is the strategic thinker that I think he is, then what he wants to do is get the RR to accept sex education and birth control as the default means of preventing abortions.
**********
If only that could happen but the wackos think most forms of BC are a type of abortion and god forbid that kids have sex education. Just like the strategy in appointing anti-gay, anti-abortion Tim Kaine head of the DNC.

@#47 jellay
"Ideally, Obama should only come out as an atheist in the 2nd half of his 2nd term (and proceed to educate the country on religion). However, it only makes sense in Obama's head. For us, he can never be enough of a radical godless infidel."

Well, we cannot really know right now, and we can only hope, but perhaps the variety of his experiences could have taught him to evaluate religions equally.

But when he's chosen some of the most conservative (and anti-gay!) men to be his "spiritual advisers," or whatever they're called, I do object.

Lord, give me strength and sway over thine enemies.

Too bad "Fuck No" wasn't a choice.

Mr. President, you've just been PHARYNGULATED!

En Vogue:

Back to life, back to biology
Back to life, back to biology
Back to life, back to biology
Back to the here and now yeah

However do you want PZ,
However do you need PZ
How, however do you want PZ,
However do you need PZ.

The poll has been corrected. It's now 77.68% against Obama's religious bullshit.

President Obama, the election is over. You can stop pretending you believe in a magic fairy.

We hired you for many reasons. Get to work and quit wasting time with childish praying.

to MAJeff (PhD)@32.:
Those blah blah blah's made me realise suddenly how much I had missed you being around.

HAHAHAHA!!!!!11!!1! I selected No and Submit, and the page cannot be found.

Methinks they pulled the poll although the results are 77% No.

Excellent.

[quote]Well, that's not quite true. I care what PZ thinks about politics...

(Also, interestingly, I don't really care what 'John Doe' thinks about... well... anything, really...)
[/quote]

I must admit, I found this funny. However, I didn't suggest for a second that my views mattered.

I'm just sick of biologist, like Dawkins and Myers, butting their noses into religion, theology, and philosophy.

One of the pictures which cycles through Myer's banner is of a giant sloth. We don't even know what happened to the giant sloth? How did it die? Why did it go extinct? meteor? ice age? over hunting my primative humans? GET BACK TO WORK, SIR! You are a biologist, not a philosopher. Hell, we don't even know for sure how LIFE BEGAN!!!

Talk about creatures, not preachers.

Re: John Doe

PZ can say what he likes- Christians pray (prey) in our schools, so scientists can think in their churches.

Nobody sais PZ was a subject matter expert on religion, but he sure knows a few things about biology, which theists do their level best to f*ck up. He's just more vocal than some.

Oh, and you're mixing evolution with abiogenesis.

I'm just sick of biologist, like Dawkins and Myers, butting their noses into religion, theology, and philosophy.

Yes, how dare people have opinions about anything other than what they are paid for.

I hope you get paid by your church to troll atheist blogs. Else this might be a bit of hypocrisy on your part, sir.

JD, you don't run this blog, so you need to apologize to PZ, who's name appears on the masthead, for your commands. PZ has made it clear time and time again this is HIS blog, and if you don't like the way he runs things, you will leave. Maybe you need to go and start your own blog. That way it will cover exactly what you want to. I won't visit it though.

I swear I've seen this poll before, like weeks ago. I thought it was here. Bleh.

I'm just sick of biologist, like Dawkins and Myers, butting their noses into religion, theology, and philosophy.

from wiki

Most scholars agree that the Hebrew Bible was composed and compiled between the 12th and the 2nd century B.C.E.

Teachings and world views from a tribe of Jews from 3200 years ago should effect today's world beliefs. Because?
Some guy had a burning bush talk to him? .. and this bush even told him of a great flood... that really happened 800 years before..and Noah died 350 years after the Flood, at the age of 950.. well, that's sounds all plausible, right?

you're just as well to defend 65 million year old fossils as Satan planting them their to temp out faith.

Charlatans fooling their believers out of wealth, and gaining their influence... the oldest profession in humanity

@Joe Doe, I'm thinking something about pots and kettles.

And you just broke my irony meter.

John Doe@26 said

PZ- GET BACK TO BIOLOGY. No one cares what you think about politics.

Considering that this may be the most popular blog on Science Blogs, I'm guessing that a lot of people care.

He's like a Pied Piper of snark.

Over 80% when I voted.

Though to be honest, if by "community religious leaders" we mean Native American tribal elders and Zen sangha senseis (any Pastafarian equivalent of a priest?), it would be nice to see Obama make the outreach for diversity's sake. Or just to piss off the fundies. Both valid reasons.

Yeah its stupid from the angle of including religion and prayer - where it isn't needed - but I think its clever of Obama in terms of being inclusive of local communities. Politically shrewd - why not.

Is it really necessary to go into the debate about church and state? I'm completely against it - but as long as religion plays a big role in communities, this is a clever move.

Random Mutant, you have to turn off your popup blocker before you click Submit.

A lot of people have a problem with a black man in the White House. Religion of a certain sort seems to go right along with that. BTW, have you ever researched the prayer breakfasts? They are run by people who believe they are rich because they are better and god wants it that way.

If he uses the local community's belief instead of his own personal preacher/rabbi/priest/whatever, and he is willing to do it not just with Christian communities but also with different religions, then between the lines, it seems like he is saying something along the lines of "I respect your belief but I don't have any specific preference of my own".

Be a bit easy with Obama. I remember him saying something about laws and religion with the clear message that any law must always make sense without invoking religion.

As long as it does not, in any way, interfere with his politics, I really don't care. So far, I cannot see that. When suddenly he will say: "I think we should do this and that because this is what Jeebus would like us to do", then I'll be worried.

John Doe @62:

You are a biologist, not a philosopher.

Christ, I hope that's ironic. I mean, PZ is not Aristotle, I'll give you that. The problem is that when you look, most philosophers were not philosophers:

In 1667 Locke moved into Shaftesbury's home at Exeter House in London, to serve as Lord Ashley's personal physician.

Leibniz, Spinoza and Descartes were all well versed in mathematics as well as philosophy, and Descartes and Leibniz contributed greatly to science as well.

Aristotle wrote on many subjects, including physics, poetry, theater, music, logic, rhetoric, politics, government, ethics, biology and zoology.

And now, I will rewrite a hundred times: "I mustn't feed the trolls...."

John Doe: May I please direct your attention to the subtitle of this blog: "Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal". Yes, PZ is a biologist, and writes about biology. He is also an atheist and a liberal, and has a tendency to write about those subjects, as well. If you are really so interested in Pleistocene Megafauna and its extinction, perhaps you should do some reading on that subject? Then you could even start your own blog where you can write about that all you want, rather than telling other people what they should write about on their blogs.

Obama will be judged by the success or failure of his economic and foreign policies. All the religious crap that he is introducing will not help him in the least. First of all because his God doesn't exist, second because most religious people in the US don't like him anyway, third because non-religious people will be pissed of by it.

It is already getting more and more clear that he will be a huge disappointment. Still far better than McCain/Palin, but nonetheless.

It is already getting more and more clear that he will be a huge disappointment.

Really? It is? I must be dense or slow with the math or something. I'm glad you filled me in.

Oh my, it appears the emperor has no clothes! Bwhahahahaha! Suckers!!

@nonsense,

FYI, I even understand the point of that comic you linked to.

Wow, I'm shocked at some of the comments, how can you be ok with that sort of useless, discriminating and dangerous (as any or at least most influence of religion is dangerous) tradition. Did anyone of you even read Dawkins or *understand* Dawkins?
Someone was talking about tolerance (e.g. mimi). Serisouly, why do we have to tolerate religious people pushing their agenda, when they will never tolerate us expressing our opinion?

Perhaps just a case of " Keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer?" What better way to keep your finger on the pulse of religiobots?

Even if this rankles (and it obviously does), there may be a tactical value here. Perhaps some religious folks cannot discuss this topic with pro-choice people unless they get permission from their chosen arbiters of morality. Opening the meetings in this way could provide that permission. Not saying it isn't manipulative, but hey, isn't this politics?

I don't believe for a minute that Obama will stop making the conference calls after seeing this poll. And I don't think he should. I agree that, this early in his presidency, he needs to do something to assuage the religious contingent. But voting 'no' in polls like this could have the important effect of reminding him that, hey, there are plenty of Americans who would like to see reason trump religion in this country sooner rather than later.

I just voted 'no', and the poll is now at:

Yes 14%
No 86%

If the american president opens every single public ocasion with prayers from religious leaders, he isnt disrespecting the american constitution?

The same constitution that defends separation between state and religion.

Some people here appear to think that Barack Obama is a "closet atheist"...

If he really is an atheist (or an agnostic...) he disguise that very well...

I think Obama is better than Bush ( not very dificult...), but its far, far away of my favourite american president: Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

To tell you the truth, my friends, im afraid that Obama is religious deluded person, that was very well suported, and knows how to talk and convince a great number of americans.

Want to buy a F. D. Roosevelt clone for president! ;)

Perhaps just a case of " Keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer?" What better way to keep your finger on the pulse of religiobots?

Perhaps. I hope you are right. But what if Obama isn't a closet atheist, as some have suggested, but a closet religiobot?

HAHA just voted. It's now up to:

86% NO
14% Yes

I like Obama but I think this is incredibly disrespectful to his many atheist supporters. And I care what PZ thinks about politics. JD is just rankled that no one cares what he thinks about anything. Poor JD.

Consider for a moment that those of you who think that Obama is a closet atheist are right and that he only pretends to listen to those religious loons out of political acumen. Don't you think this is, instead of being praiseworthy, just being plain dishonest? Do you want to have yet another dishonest president?

I prefer to think that Obama is sincere in his display of religiosity, much as I dislike it.

@90 ... and I prefer to think of religious people as tolerant, loving, forgiving, and overflowing with the milk of human kindness.

When dealing with frightening, armed lunatics, it's important to smile, nod, maintain eye-contact, and speak in a calm reassuring tone.

Oh, please. No president in the history of the world has been completely honest about every aspect of his/her life. It's simply not possible.

Yes, I prefer well-placed dishonesty for good ends over the alternative, which would be someone genuinely religious in the office. Integrity sometimes means doing what's right, not necessarily what's entirely honest.

Do you want to have yet another dishonest president?

HAhahahahahahahah!!!! I love the funny comments on this blog!!!! Heee hee hee heee...

The US political system is constructed in such a way that it's virtually impossible for anyone to be elected who has not utterly compromised everything they ever believe in. Unless, of course, the only thing they believe in is attaining power.

Marcus Ranum, there is no doubt a selection against capable and honest people in almost any political system. The best politicians are people who don't want to be politicians.

One just hopes that now and then good people defeat the adaptive landcape of politics. Not being overly dishonest is the first step.

@#58

You meant Soul II Soul, I think.

Good one, though.

I wouldn't be surprised if Hitchens is right about BO being a closet atheist. He certainly seems to smart to believe in heaven and hell and his policy goals certainly don't take "God's will" into account.

As for the invocations, let's face it, this is a smart political move. He can't lose much by it and he mollifies those who like this kind of thing.

CatBallou:

But when he's chosen some of the most conservative (and anti-gay!) men to be his "spiritual advisers,"

They may nominally be "advisors," but if I were you I wouldn't bet the ranch on which way the influence is actually flowing.

Folks, we anti-Bush liberals and Democrats all thought it was A Feature, Not a Bug™ when Obama said, during the campaign, that he would have the courage to engage our geopolitical adversaries (e.g., Iran) in dialog; why would we imagine that such courage is sauce for the geopolitical goose but not for the sociopolitical gander? Alternately denying the existence of and waging war on those you disagree with is the W way of doing things; attempting to effect change through persuasion and moral leadership is, IMHO, A Better Plan®.

BTW, I doubt that Obama is a "closet atheist" in the sense that he's been consciously misrepresenting his beliefs; I think he's too honest for that. OTOH, I think he's been a spiritual seeker (as he's described in his books), in part because it's politically expedient, in part as a way to access aspects of his African-American identity that weren't emphasized in his upbringing, and in part out of a genuine search for meaning. However, I think he's too smart to be able to fool himself forever about the (non)existence of God. I wouldn't expect him to suddenly declare his deconversion — that level of unfiltered candor would, sadly, be political suicide — but I'd be shocked to see anything other than fundamentally secular policymaking from him.

Marcus Ranum (@93) and Drosera (@94):

Way too cynical! Get to know your State Representative or Congressman (they're usually more accessible than you imagine, esp. if you volunteer on the campaign), and then let me know if you still believe that only blackhearted villains want to serve in public office. No doubt there are a few blackhearted villains in office, and many elected officials whose ideology I find reprehensible, but in my experience the majority who seek public office (even among those I disagree with profoundly) do so for principled and public-spirited reasons. Frankly, if you're just a crook, there are other forms of dishonesty that are more lucrative, and easier to get away with to boot.

The fact that elected officials (and esp. candidates) need to avoid offending the diverse populations they serve by moderating what they say does not mean that they're dishonest people. If you fail to mention how ugly someone's outfit is, or how poorly groomed they are, does that make you a fraud? If you fail to leap up and call your grandmother a supersitious idiot when she begins to say grace over a family meal, does that make you a goddam liar?

There's a distinction to be made (but which is often not made in our culture) between honesty and unmoderated truthfulness. Truth-diarrhea is just as often a curse as a blessing.

Both Dawkins and PZ Myers have Ph.D. degrees. That's a Doctor of Philosophy.

So they are both fully qualified as philosophers, there is no higher qualification.

Philosophy is the use of logic, systematic methodology and reasoned argument to resolve questions and contribute to the body of knowledge

It means 'Love of knowledge' (or wisdom).

Quidam Ph.D.

I don't quite understand J.D.'s rants about content. I enjoy the biology (4' polychaetes - outstanding!) but I ALSO enjoy the politics and other social meanderings (to put lie to J.D.'s assertion about nobody caring).
In any case, poll now at 88.3% No, 11.7% Yes. And despite all of the cogent arguments above about various reasons for Obama including the prayers/invocations, I would prefer that he didn't. It just doesn't help us with that 'separation of church and state' thing.

Bill Dauphin @98:

Maybe I am too cynical, but it is hard to deny that honesty will not bring you very far if you want to become a successful politician who has to represent a particular party or ideology. For this usually means that you will be inclined to oppose and misrepresent the proposals made by members of other parties or ideologies, even when you privately think that these proposals have considerable merit.

Of course, nobody needs to be completely honest and truthful at all times. Suppose I have an aunt who is a very nice person, but who happens to have a bad taste in clothing. When she asks me how I like her awful new dress it would be in no one’s interest to tell her what I really think of her dress. So I would say something like “Yeah, nice.” This is not what I would call being overly dishonest. On the other hand, if every time when I met my aunt I would exclaim how wonderful she looks, while I really think the opposite, then I would be overly dishonest. Dishonesty is, in my view, also excused when this is directed at an opponent who is himself dishonest (or worse) and who would use your honesty against you (like when you are being interrogated by the Gestapo).

To return to the topic. If president Obama is in fact an atheist, then I think all his displays of religiosity and his counseling with religious ‘leaders’ would make him overly dishonest in my book. But I don’t think he is an atheist. Unfortunately, not every intelligent person is necessarily an atheist, as was already discussed in an earlier post at Pharyngula.

re: @101 on dishonesty in politics

The problem doesn't lie with Obama. I think the real problem stems from how the legislative and executive branches of the US government are structured. Unlike the UK, Canada and most other democracies, the US has no loyal opposition and no multi-party democracy. Look again at the range of parties that Canadians vote for (in a different thread). They have Marxists, Christians, Social Democrats, Greens, free market Liberals, regional parties, etc. The same is true in the UK to some extent and also in Isreal, France and so on. If we had that here, we could have an honest, table-banging discussion between the Southern Glory Secessionists, the California Treehuggers for Peace, and the Snotty New Yorkers for Profit, the Farmer's Party, etc. I'd really love to see that. Maybe one day that will happen. But for now, we're stuck with everybody pretending to basically have the same bland "All American" values in one of two flavors. Anyone who wants to get elected needs to be as near to vanilla as possible. No surprise this breeds hypocrisy. So my point: The problem is not with the president, it's with the narrow Republicrat system.

Oh, did I mention libertarianism? (Just kidding.)

There should be a third option to pick, FUCK NO

@nonsense:

Here in the Netherlands we have a multi-party democracy. However, this is not a panacea to the problems that you describe for the US. What often happens with us is that the parties in the ruling coalition prepare a very detailed agreement (‘regeerakkoord’) over policies to be followed more or less to the letter for the next four years after the elections. As this coalition normally has a majority in parliament this effectively renders the opposition powerless, since the politicians of the coalition parties will rarely vote against their own party line. So in a way there is even less dualism here than in the US. At the moment the coalition consists of three parties, two of them Christian, the third labour. Our PM belongs to the largest Christian party, which is mixed Roman Catholic and Protestant. The other religious party in our government is fairly orthodox protestant. So we can count our blessings -- literally. There is really no need to envy us, at least not for our political system.

Thank you ApeMachine for that articulate contribution to the discussion. I didn't say anything about a third option, did I? Now go look up what a minority government is. And when you're done doing that, look up what a vote of non-confidence is. Oh, and for good measure, look up what an opposition is. Once you've done that we can have a conversation about democracy.

@ Drosera: thanks. I didn't know there was so little actual parliamentary compromise in the Netherlands. I'm sorry to hear it. I think that minority governments are generally better for democracy precisely because they are forced to persuade and to compromise. I'm sorry that's not how it works out in practise in Holland. :-)

ApeMachine: just to be clear, the lack of a parliamentary system in the US is the problem. Not the lack of some 'third' party. No parliament = no democracy. That's the issue. That's what leads to a Republicrat monopoly and inevitably breeds hypocrisy and a plutocratic oligarchy. That was the point of my post.

Poll currently sitting at 11.28% Yes,88.72% No. Strong Work!

There is a poll here about the Gay rights case in Iowa.

Do you agree with the Iowa supreme court decision?

55% yes 14,284 votes

45% No 11,737 votes

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090403/NEWS/90403010

( ) Yes
( ) No
(X) I refuse to talk about my religion