There’s been a lot of back and forth here on the Albuquerque city council election between incumbent Don Harris and challenger David Barbour. Harris was re-elected, but certain issues have not yet been resolved.
In summary, Harris criticized Barbour for being an atheist and contributing to a “Charles Darwin” scholarship, among other things. He sent out the following mailing which specifically goes after Barbour’s non-theism:
Several readers wrote to Harris complaining about his tactics. He sent a form letter to many of them and a short apology to at least one.
Over the weekend, he sent a statement to me. I’m printing it here in full (including the intro):
Dear Mr. Mehta:
I respect [and] appreciate public service of and involvement of all kinds, including your web site.
I have taken some time to review many things on your site. You espouse friendliness, fairness, openness, and a desire to have a real dialog with members of the faith community. With that in mind, I think you should make some concessions. In particular, (1) What you did with regard to my city council race was also a political attack. (2) It is neither objectively fair nor persuasive to non-Atheists to be hyper-critical of me while treating the other politician involved (Mr. Barbour who has run for office before) uncritically in terms of communications or motives.
I do have a statement for you to publish if you like:
Mr. Barbour first presented himself as an ultra progressive, espousing universal health care, “trams” (streetcars), global warming and publicly-financed internet. The picture of the bearded, beret-wearing radical came from his own initial campaign literature. That is who he is, a far-left, recent San Francisco transplant.
After realizing that this image was a losing strategy in our part of the City, he presented himself as a clean cut, fiscal-conservative, church-going Democrat from Pueblo Colorado. That is not who he is, and it should be expected for me, his opponent, to expose him and tell the voters who I honestly believe him to be.
I brought up Atheism and treated it merely as part of a bundle of ultra liberal attributes, and to contradict his own political messaging. I certainly did not mean to criticize or offend any thoughtful Atheists. And, I’m sorry that any took offense. I do not intend to use similar messages again. In fact, I will counsel others in political circles against similar messages if the opportunity arises.
Something as personal as religion should be left out of political campaigns. Atheists are a diverse group and cannot be accurately characterized as all having the same political leaning.
Sincerely,
Don Harris
My responses:
What you did with regard to my city council race was also a political attack.
I publicized a mailing that Harris sent out, a mailing which was already made public in a local Albuquerque newspaper. There was no attack, simply restating what was local knowledge.
My concern in this particular race had nothing with the candidates’ policies and everything to do with religion. To use Barbour’s ties to atheist organizations as a weapon against him is an offense to anyone who believes in a similar way. I’m offended that Barbour’s involvement and support of a local Unitarian Universalist church was used to instill some sort of fear in constituents who are taught that non-religious people are in some way not worthy of holding public office.
If that’s a “political attack,” then it’s one that needs to happen more often. Harris would not have gotten away with it if he substituted the word “black” or “Jew” in the place of “atheist.” We need to defend ourselves from bigoted, unreasonable attacks.
It is neither objectively fair nor persuasive to non-Atheists to be hyper-critical of me while treating the other politician involved (Mr. Barbour who has run for office before) uncritically in terms of communications or motives.
I was not criticizing Harris for his policies nor did I purposely avoid any criticism of Barbour. I don’t know their policies nor was I concerned with them at this time. As a person who lives well outside the voting district, my main concern was the way the word “Atheist” was used in a derogatory manner by Harris.
If Barbour used Harris’ faith as a rallying point against his candidacy, without good reason, he ought to be criticized, too. Did he? I haven’t heard or seen any evidence of that.
Did Barbour do anything to warrant the anti-atheist sentiment used against him by Harris? Again, not that I’ve been made aware of.
… he presented himself as a clean cut, fiscal-conservative, church-going Democrat from Pueblo Colorado. That is not who he is, and it should be expected for me, his opponent, to expose him and tell the voters who I honestly believe him to be.
If Barbour switched his positions, then Harris has a right to point that out.
But Barbour is a church-going guy: He attended a Unitarian church. It may not be Harris‘ kind of church, but it is a church. And Barbour does not contradict his church-going status when he gives money for a local science scholarship.
I brought up Atheism and treated it merely as part of a bundle of ultra liberal attributes, and to contradict his own political messaging.
Conservative/Liberal politics aside, not all atheists are liberal. If you want to go after him for his stance on the issues, then do it. There’s no need to go after a person’s faith unless it affects how he or she will vote on particular issues.
I certainly did not mean to criticize or offend any thoughtful Atheists. And, I’m sorry that any took offense. I do not intend to use similar messages again. In fact, I will counsel others in political circles against similar messages if the opportunity arises.
Disregarding the “thoughtful Atheists” comment for now, this is what we need to hear.
I appreciate that Harris will not do this again and that he’ll advise others not to do it either.
Something as personal as religion should be left out of political campaigns. Atheists are a diverse group and cannot be accurately characterized as all having the same political leaning.
Right on.
Though, like I said before, religion shouldn’t be attacked unless it affects how the person is going to vote. If it doesn’t affect that, then an elected official’s religion isn’t a major concern for me.
I could easily vote for a Christian if I knew that candidate supported my beliefs on issues like science education or stem cell research.
And I would vote against Christians if I knew their fundamentalist beliefs would guide them on issues like gay marriage or comprehensive sex education — voting against them because they think the Bible tells them to, instead of voting against them for any “real,” concrete reasons (none of which I’ve ever heard).
But to vote against a person just because of the label? And to use that label to scare people into voting for you? That’s sinking pretty low. That’s what Harris did — he capitalized “Atheist” and used that term twice in a pullout box in the mailing — and that’s what I was so upset by.
If you want to go after his “liberal” policies, so be it. If you did that, none of this would’ve been an issue.
…
I emailed Barbour several days ago seeking a response to Harris’ email, but I have not heard back from him.
Klingenschmitt: I Lost My Navy Chaplain ..."
Update: Canadian Court Rules Against Pastafarian ..."
Klingenschmitt: I Lost My Navy Chaplain ..."
Update: Canadian Court Rules Against Pastafarian ..."