Here’s one of those few issues I don’t have a set stance on. I’ve always been critical of the electoral college after 2000, though I’m not entirely sure how to fix the problem. Apparently, though, there is a fairly large movement to eliminate it in a backwards kind of way, though they aren’t getting too far just yet. Here’s where my problem comes:

Thursday’s votes represented the first legislative setbacks this year for the National Popular Vote plan, said spokeswoman Breeanna Mierop. It is a proposed agreement among states to cast their electoral votes for the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote.

“If you look at the population trends … if this were to become the law, our presidential elections would be controlled by the vote in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Houston,” said North Dakota state Rep. Lawrence Klemin, a Bismarck Republican. “They would decide who the president was, not the rest of us.”

Well of course. That’s how it already is. The big states (NY, CA, PA, FL, TX) have a huge say in who becomes president. It’s rare that anyone goes “And in a big development, so-and-so picked up Wyoming!”

But here’s the problem with Klemin’s assessment: what he is arguing is that simply by virtue of population distribution, some people’s votes should count more than others. That if there are 5mil people in NYC, each of those persons’ votes should be weighted downward so the 30k people in Kalamazoo get an “equal say”.

Which means that your worth as a voter changes depending on where you live. If you move from New York to some small city in Kentucky, now your vote is worth “more”. It’s unfair to suggest that where you live should have any bearing on your influence on presidential elections. It reinforces the concept of a divided country, by saying that New York is different from Dallas, that Philly is different from Lexington.

The suggestion is that these areas are inherently different, and that as a result, the individual people don’t matter as much.

More religion from me, sorry folks. Fortunately, this one is a little less rambling about religion and more on the straight social side. So CNN ran this story about atheists’ persecution in America, and I’m glad they showed that, but the little panel discussion afterwards was simply disgusting. Forgive me for linking to another blog, I can’t find it on CNN’s site. Multiple quotes ahead.

HUNTER: What does an atheist believe? Nothing. I think this is such a ridiculous story. Are we now going to take “In God We Trust” off of our dollars? Are we going to not say “one nation under God?” When does it end? We took prayer out of schools. What more do they want? …

First off, it’s simply ridiculous to say that atheists believe “nothing” or believe in “nothing” (the difference is subtle but real). Atheists believe all kinds of things, but none of them involve supernatural deities. And let’s not forget that “In God We Trust” was placed on money instead of “E pluribus unum” in 1956 and that “one nation under God” was added to the pledge in 1954, so if you’re going to talk about what’s more American…

Also, I’m wondering if there can be anything more ironic than having the nation’s official motto changed from “out of many, one” to a severely polarizing theistic phrase. Moving on!

HUNTER: They don’t have a good - marketing. If they had hallmark cards, maybe they wouldn’t feel so left out. We have Christmas cards. We have Kwanza cards now. Maybe they need to get some atheist cards and get that whole ball rolling so more people can get involved with what they’re doing. I think they need to shut up and let people do what they do. No, I think they need to shut up about it. …

Ah yes, the O’Reilly approach. Just shut up. Now keep in mind this is a story about atheists being hounded and harassed over their atheism. So when Hunter says they should “let people do what they want to do”, he’s not telling the Christians they should let atheists be proud and vocal about their beliefs, but that the atheists should let the Christians harass and harangue them OVER said beliefs.

HUNTER: I think they need to shut up about crying wolf all the time and saying that they’re being imposed upon. I personally think that they should never have taken prayer out of schools. I would rather there be some morality in schools. But they did that because an atheist went to court and said their child — don’t pray (INAUDIBLE). …

Once again, severe un-Americanism. Our country was founded on the principle of the melting pot, that we are United despite our differences. Prayer in school, the various God phrases, these were established later, in a country that purposefully kept religion out of all forming documents.

I also take great umbrage to the assertion that I cannot be moral without a belief in God.

HUNTER: Eight to 12 percent. (INAUDIBLE) They’re not hurting anyone. I personally don’t have a problem with an atheist. Believe or don’t believe what you want. Don’t impose upon my right to want to have prayer in schools, to want to say the pledge of allegiance, to want to honor my God. Don’t infringe upon that right.

Oh, so it’s all about YOUR right to those things. Not my right to pledge allegiance to this country without also being forced to pay lip service to a God I don’t believe in. Not my right to send my children to public schools without worrying that they may have a religion I don’t approve of forced onto them. Not my right to NOT honor your god.

I hate to be cliche, but I’ll leave you all with a quote. See if you know where it came from, and don’t click to see until you’ve guessed:

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”