Secular Coalition's Congressional Scorecard

[clark]

Mods: I don't know where this best belongs, PA&SA, CSS or PD. Please move if you see fit.

Announcing the Secular Coalition for America's 109th Congressional Scorecard (http://www.secular.org/scorecard/2006/). This scorecard ranks how members of Congress voted on several issues important to atheists.

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

[EverLastingGodStopper]

Wow, I have this open in my browser from my emails earlier today.

The link is a must-click.
"With the political strength of the religious right and the irrational demonizing of the nontheist community, I am very proud of these members of Congress," SCA Director Lori Lipman Brown said. "Our republican form of government was designed to protect the rights of individuals and minorities over the whims of the majority of the moment. It is very sad that so few members of Congress fully live up to the ideals embodied in our Constitution."
This might be more CSS than PA&SA, we'll see...

[Russell's Teapot]

My Representative, Bill Walsh, scored a zero :banghead: Both of New York's Senators scored 100, so at least that's some consolation.

[Revolutionary]

My representative scored 0 also. My senators were 0 and 60.

[lpetrich]

I've calculated how many Congresspeople have which scores:

House Scores:
Party 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
All 165 17 30 17 10 10 31 17 70 58 8
D 3 0 2 3 6 6 29 17 69 58 8
I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
R 162 17 28 14 4 4 2 0 0 0 0

Senate Scores:
Party 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
All 36 14 3 3 3 2 6 2 2 11 18
D 1 0 0 1 2 2 5 2 2 11 18
I 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
R 35 14 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

House Statistics:
Party Number Average StandardDeviation
All 433 39 37
D 201 75 18
I 1 80 0
R 231 7 13

Senate Statistics:
Party Number Average StandardDeviation
All 100 40 41
D 44 82 23
I 1 60 0
R 55 5 9

One can easily tell that there is a glaring difference between the two parties; the Democrats are nearly all good and the Republicans nearly all bad.

It is instructive to look at who is in the tails of these distributions; who are the best Republicans and worst Democrats. The best Republicans usually come from "blue" states -- the northeast and west-coast ones. The worst Democrats usually come from "red" states -- the southern and Great Plains and Rocky-Mountain states.

There are further statistics that one can calculate, like whether there is the tendency to vote the same way on subsets of the bills; I will report on such calculations as I make them.

[clark]

The Scorecard made today's edition (http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/UndertheDome/091206.html) of The Hill:

Lightening bolt more likely to hit Senate

For House staffers who continuously gripe about the Senate’s lack of good faith, it’s official. The Senate is in fact more “godless” than the House when it comes to upholding the separation of church and state.

The folks at the Secular Coalition for America awarded 18 members of the Senate (and only seven in the House) a “perfect score” for “commitment to the separation of church and state, and their willingness to protect the interests of the non-theistic community.”...

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

[Revolutionary]

Sen. Bill Nelson is only 60, but if Katherine Harris were elected, she would be -50 or so. What a theocrat.

[PopeInTheWoods]

My Representative, Bill Walsh, scored a zero :banghead: Both of New York's Senators scored 100, so at least that's some consolation.

Since you're in upstate NY, I think you mean Jim Walsh (http://www.house.gov/walsh/), who sadly is my congressman as well (Bill Walsh was coach of the SF 49ers). At least he won't run unopposed by a Dem this year like he did in 2004. I don't know if whoever emerges from the primary will have any shot at beating him though. He's on some powerful committees and brings home the pork. From what I've heard, he himself is not a godbot, but he's a Bush-enabler and panders to the crackpots in the heavily gerrymandered district (he represents parts of Rochester and Syracuse, while Louise Slaughter (score 90) covers parts of Rochester and Buffalo - how screwy is that?).

Andy

[EverLastingGodStopper]

Mod Note, moving thread from PA&SA to CSS, since this topic is more issue-oriented than activism oriented.

[Dick Springer]

I checked the Maine scores. The two senators (both slightly moderate Republicans) agreed with each other on all votes, as did the two representatives. The senators voted the wrong way on all except one judgeship nomination but voted the right way on stem cell research and on the federal marriage ammendment. The two representatives, both Democrats, voted to support the Boy Scouts and the Soledad cross but were OK otherwise. I have argued with my representative (Tom Allen, who was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford with Clinton) on previous church-state votes. His record is excellent on everything else. Discouraging.

I notice that Bernie Sanders, the Independent representative from Vermont, whom I believe is an atheist, voted to support the Boy Scouts and for the Soledad cross also, but was OK on all other votes.

[Gavinicus]

Scorecards like these all have their faults, but the Senate scorecard is especially weak. Most of the votes are on judicial nominations (with two for each nominated judge or justice), with only two votes on substantive issues--and neither of those (stem cell research and defense of bigotry marriage) directly impinge on religion. I think the House of Reps scorecard provides more information, with a range of issues that directly impact government entanglement with religion.

But the point made earlier is well taken. As PZ Myers (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/) has said, "the lesson is that the godless should never, ever vote Republican, but that Democrats are only mostly safe."

[LambdaCalculator]

Since I, like Dick Springer, am a native Mainer (and Portlandite, as he lives on Peaks Island) I looked up both my Senators and our two Reps. Wasn't all that surprised by Snowe and Collins, as I've known for a long time that they are often rubber-stampers for whatever Republican agenda happens to exist at the time, despite their reputation for moderation.

The Reps were really no surprise either, Allen (the Rep from my district) and Michaud are both firmly left-of-center Democrats and can usually be trusted to cast the right vote. Not always, of course. I'd rather have four Feingold (100) progressives up there than what we have now (but I don't think that Jean Hay-Bright, a Senate challenger the Collins, really even has a chance of winning, and no one else is on the ticket).

[inmeitrust]

My rep, Oregon's 3rd district, scored 100, as did one my my senators (Wyden). The other Oregon senator is an R lapdog, only 20%, which is more than I would've guessed.

[ninewands]

Hell, the best any of my Congrressional "representatives" could manage was Kay Bailey Hutchison's score of 10 for voting in favor of the Sacrificial Stem-cell Bill (a/k/a the "Let's Give George an Easy Veto for the Radical Religious Base" Bill of 2006). Both Cornyn and my Congresscritter, John Culberson, scored a perfect Bush Sockpuppet 0.

<SIGH> :eek: :( :crying: :down: :angry: :rolleyes: :banghead:

[chapka]

Scorecards like these all have their faults, but the Senate scorecard is especially weak. Most of the votes are on judicial nominations (with two for each nominated judge or justice), with only two votes on substantive issues--and neither of those (stem cell research and defense of bigotry marriage) directly impinge on religion.

I agree as far as the judicial nominations go. It's especially egregious that they included cloture votes, since it's perfectly possible to be opposed on principle to the use of parliamentary delaying tactics to avoid voting on a judicial confirmation, but still not support a judicial nominee. In fact, looking at the actual scorecard, there are many Senators who did just that; they get a "-" on every cloture vote and a "+" on every vote for nomination. I don't see how that's twice as pro-secular as someone who voted against cloture and against the nomination.

Regardless, judicial nominations are complicated things. The main effect of the fact that 80% of the votes considered were judicial nominations is to make the results look incredibly partisan. For example, John McCain and my not-batshit-crazy senator, Arlen Specter, got "+" scores on each of the two substantive issues, but "-" scores on each judicial nomination. That leaves both of them at 20%. Most of the Democrats who got two "+" ratings on the substantive issues ended up with 100% ratings, because they voted the party line on judicial nominations, most likely for reasons that had nothing to do with religion. As far as secular issues are concerned, I don't think this is a very good measure.

As for the last two issues, I can see why they're included. Frankly, I don't think I've ever heard a reasonable explanation for banning either gay marriage or stem cell research that didn't involve religion. (Hell, I've never even heard a reasonable religious explanation for banning stem cell research but not IVF.) But it's true, they're not really directly religious issues like many of the House ones are.

[crazyfingers]

Hell, the best any of my Congrressional "representatives" could manage was Kay Bailey Hutchison's score of 10 for voting in favor of the Sacrificial Stem-cell Bill (a/k/a the "Let's Give George an Easy Veto for the Radical Religious Base" Bill of 2006). Both Cornyn and my Congresscritter, John Culberson, scored a perfect Bush Sockpuppet 0.

<SIGH> :eek: :( :crying: :down: :angry: :rolleyes: :banghead:

You have my sympathies. My rep, Barney Frank, as well as Senator Kennedy and Kerry all had 100.

As it is, Frank is way better than Kerry or Kennedy on CSS issues.

[NonHomogenized]

Great. My elected "representatives":

Rick Santorum - 0% (No suprise; he's a royal douchebag)
John Peterson - 0% (No real suprise here, either.)
Arlen Specter - 20% (And that was the best of the bunch :( )

[Nightson]

My Senators got 90 but my rep got a 0. That's just sad in California.

[Dick Springer]

My rep, Oregon's 3rd district, scored 100, as did one my my senators (Wyden). The other Oregon senator is an R lapdog, only 20%, which is more than I would've guessed.

The grass is now looking greener in the other Portland. Our representative (in Portland, Maine) otherwise liberal, thinks government money to the Boy Scouts is fine, and supports the federal takeover of the Soledad cross.

[Dick Springer]

I agree as far as the judicial nominations go. It's especially egregious that they included cloture votes, since it's perfectly possible to be opposed on principle to the use of parliamentary delaying tactics to avoid voting on a judicial confirmation, but still not support a judicial nominee. In fact, looking at the actual scorecard, there are many Senators who did just that; they get a "-" on every cloture vote and a "+" on every vote for nomination. I don't see how that's twice as pro-secular as someone who voted against cloture and against the nomination.

Regardless, judicial nominations are complicated things. The main effect of the fact that 80% of the votes considered were judicial nominations is to make the results look incredibly partisan. For example, John McCain and my not-batshit-crazy senator, Arlen Specter, got "+" scores on each of the two substantive issues, but "-" scores on each judicial nomination. That leaves both of them at 20%. Most of the Democrats who got two "+" ratings on the substantive issues ended up with 100% ratings, because they voted the party line on judicial nominations, most likely for reasons that had nothing to do with religion. As far as secular issues are concerned, I don't think this is a very good measure.

As for the last two issues, I can see why they're included. Frankly, I don't think I've ever heard a reasonable explanation for banning either gay marriage or stem cell research that didn't involve religion. (Hell, I've never even heard a reasonable religious explanation for banning stem cell research but not IVF.) But it's true, they're not really directly religious issues like many of the House ones are.

Given the campaign of this administration to take over the judiciary by packing it with people recommended by its religious-right base, I don't see how you can maintain that religion is not involved in votes on judicial nominees.

[chapka]

Given the campaign of this administration to take over the judiciary by packing it with people recommended by its religious-right base, I don't see how you can maintain that religion is not involved in votes on judicial nominees.

Yes, this administration has attempted to "pack the court" as some put it with people who share its ideological views. This is not a new thing; it happens whenever the same party controls both Congress and the White House. Yes, many of Bush's judicial nominees are pretty far "right" on issues of judicial constructionism and/or abortion.

But this is not meant to be a NARAL score card; it's meant to be about church/state issues. Frankly, with the exception of Janice Rogers Brown, who really did have extreme, stated church/state views that were important in her confirmation process, I doubt anyone voted for or against most of these judicial nominees primarily because of their views on church/state separation. A judicial nomination is a complicated matter, and while religion may be "involved" in a decision, there are a number of other considerations. I'm not saying the organization shouldn't make recommendations or raise these issues during confirmation, but I think it's disingenuous to pretend that a vote for or against a particular nominee represents a statement on CSS issues, especially when it's almost certain that other issues (notably abortion) were a greater consideration. And including the cloture votes, even for people who then voted against the nominee, is simply indefensible.

It also makes the organization frankly less credible, because it smells like they're simply equating "republican" with "religious right" and assuming their conclusion. Frankly, if I were an undecided voter, this wouldn't convince me of anything except that this particular pressure group is in the pocket of the Democratic Party. A fair scorecard (and I think the House one was pretty fair) will favor the Democrats already; tilting the playing field towards the Democrats just lessens the impact of this scorecard and hurts their own cause.

[lpetrich]

I've checked their scorecard page (http://www.secular.org/scorecard/2006/) again, and it now includes a nice map showing how good each state's Congresspeople were.

[crazyfingers]

I've checked their scorecard page (http://www.secular.org/scorecard/2006/) again, and it now includes a nice map showing how good each state's Congresspeople were.

I guess I won't be leaving Massachusetts any time soon.

[Professor]

Marci Hamilton has an interesting take on the scorecard over at FindLaw (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20060921.html).

[lpetrich]

She claims that the conflict is really between different groups of believers, and that the Secular Coalition for America was mislabeling positions as secular vs. theocratic.

However, that Baylor study, which she so approvingly quoted, points to greatly varying levels of belief and participation; it also pointed to how different people believe in different kinds of God: Authoritarian, Benevolent, Critical, and Distant, and how these differing beliefs correlated with their positions on various social and political and moral issues like abortion. Believers in an Authoritarian God tended to oppose it while believers in a Distant God tended to favor it. In fact, believers in a Distant God often seemed very secular.

And I must say that I'm surprised that there was no indignation from theologians at the apparently widespread belief in a Distant God, because such a God seems rather close to no God at all.

[Palpatine]

Hahah, straight 0s for Nebraska. All three Representatives, both Senators.

[Russell's Teapot]

Since you're in upstate NY, I think you mean Jim Walsh (http://www.house.gov/walsh/), who sadly is my congressman as well (Bill Walsh was coach of the SF 49ers).
Wishful thinking on my part, I suppose. My mind probably got him mixed up with Bob Oaks (Assemblyman) and warped is name into "Bill".
From what I've heard, he himself is not a godbot, but he's a Bush-enabler and panders to the crackpots in the heavily gerrymandered district (he represents parts of Rochester and Syracuse, while Louise Slaughter (score 90) covers parts of Rochester and Buffalo - how screwy is that?).

Andy
I wrote to him to ask him his opinion on the evolution v. ID debate back in the beginning of the year and he had essentially the same opinion as Bob Oaks did- the canned "teach children both sides" response. Other than that, I haven't taken the time to find out his stance on other things, which I really should.

[Professor]

She claims that the conflict is really between different groups of believers, and that the Secular Coalition for America was mislabeling positions as secular vs. theocratic.

However, that Baylor study, which she so approvingly quoted, points to greatly varying levels of belief and participation; it also pointed to how different people believe in different kinds of God: Authoritarian, Benevolent, Critical, and Distant, and how these differing beliefs correlated with their positions on various social and political and moral issues like abortion. Believers in an Authoritarian God tended to oppose it while believers in a Distant God tended to favor it. In fact, believers in a Distant God often seemed very secular.

Yes, she is using the term 'secular' in the most restrictive sense where it refers only to non-believers, rather than in the broader sense of anyone who supports a secular government. Hamilton herself would fall under the second definition along with people like Barry Lynn. I think that she used the narrow interpretation because that is the one used by the Secular Coalition in their name.

And I love that Baylor study. Most studies mix atheists, agnostics, and 'undecided' theists together. But this study separated out the believers and agnostics and came up with 5.2% atheist. That's more than 1 in every 20 U.S. citizens! To my knowledge that is the highest percentage of atheists that has been reported.

And I must say that I'm surprised that there was no indignation from theologians at the apparently widespread belief in a Distant God, because such a God seems rather close to no God at all.

From the descriptions in the study, these believers sounded like deists. Certainly deists like Paine were treated as 'vile atheists' in the past, but I suppose they don't seem so bad now that so many actual atheists are walking around. ;) Certainly most theologians were ecstatic when Antony Flew converted from atheism to belief in a Distant God.

[lpetrich]

First, Baylor U Study: What Kind of God? (Merged) (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=180076)

Yes, she is using the term 'secular' in the most restrictive sense where it refers only to non-believers, rather than in the broader sense of anyone who supports a secular government. Hamilton herself would fall under the second definition along with people like Barry Lynn. I think that she used the narrow interpretation because that is the one used by the Secular Coalition in their name.
That's reasonable. In fact, the Baylor study found that many believers in a Distant God seldom or never go to a house of worship, read the Bible, or pray, which makes many of them not much different from atheists in practice.

They also are the most likely to believe in the legitimacy of abortion, nonmarital sex, divorce, porn, and gay marriage, and reject the death penalty, school prayer, and funding for "faith-based" organizations. And they are the least likely to support he Iraq war, to believe in a Saddam-9/11 link, and to support expanded government "War on Terror" powers.

And they tend to be the richest and most educated.

And in all of these, believers in an Authoritarian God were just the opposite.

So while there is no necessary connection between being pro-choice and being secularist, in practice, there does seem to be a definite correlation.

It's also significant which side uses religious arguments the most, which side waves the Bible the most in support of its positions. One doesn't see many pro-choicers claiming that God has given women sovereignty over their wombs, or claiming that Psalm 137 authorizes baby-killing.

And I love that Baylor study. Most studies mix atheists, agnostics, and 'undecided' theists together. But this study separated out the believers and agnostics and came up with 5.2% atheist. That's more than 1 in every 20 U.S. citizens! To my knowledge that is the highest percentage of atheists that has been reported.
Also, many of the "Unaffiliated" believe in a vague "Higher Power", whatever that might be.

From the descriptions in the study, these believers sounded like deists. Certainly deists like Paine were treated as 'vile atheists' in the past, but I suppose they don't seem so bad now that so many actual atheists are walking around. ;) Certainly most theologians were ecstatic when Antony Flew converted from atheism to belief in a Distant God.
This is either:

* Gross intellectual flabbiness

or

* Dishonest evangelism

I must say that I have some respect for those who called Benedict Spinoza an atheist, because what he called "God" was grossly heretical by traditional Xian standards.

[nogods4me]

Excellent, both Senators are 100 and my Rep was a 90.