I Do Not Trust Edwina Rogers to Represent Our Interests

I’ve sat out the Edwina Rogers fiasco since the Secular Coalition of America announced they’d chosen her as their new Executive Director, waiting to see if my initial revulsion would pass. It hasn’t. I read the transcript of the interview she did with Greta Christina, and the entirety of her Ask Me Anything on Reddit, hoping she could somehow allay our fears and prove she’s capable of representing us effectively, despite her sordid history in Republican politics. But I didn’t have high hopes. Put it this way: I’ve learnt over the last decade that when one trusts Cons not to kick them in the teeth, they’d best have an excellent oral surgeon on speed dial.

Edwina’s managed to meet expectations: she outright lies, she avoids the hardest questions, she babbles nonsense in reply to most of the questions she deigns respond to without bald-faced lies. She is exactly what I suspected she was when I heard some absolute morons had chosen a Republican operative neck-deep in the Bush administration, yammered on Faux News, and who has donated generously to Rick bleeding Perry, to become executive director of the Secular Coalition of America: an unmitigated disaster.

Not all atheists are liberals, and I suppose it could be a good idea to get some secular conservatives on board at times – if they don’t end up compromising the values held by the vast majority of us. As several people have noted, a Republican lobbyist as part (not head) of the SCA isn’t such a horrible idea. And I rather think it would be nice to give the Rabid Right something to worry about from within its own ranks, so the idea of developing a coalition of secular Republicans and siccing them on the fundies actually tickles me. So no, I have no objection per se to having a Republican working with the SCA.

But surely, surely, the SCA could have chosen a better Executive Director than this Bushie. She can’t reach across the aisle to elected Republicans – the bunch currently in office here, there and everywhere are, overwhelmingly, theocratic freaks frantic to install god as our ruler. They’ve already demonstrated that they’ll abandon their own policies if a liberal expresses approval. And I cannot dismiss the fact that she actively supports some of the worst of them.

Not to mention she thinks she can pull a fast one on skeptics by outright lying to them, thus demonstrating a spectacular inability to understand the people she’s supposed to represent.

What good is she? How can she possibly represent our interests?

I’ve only one thing left to say, because Greta Christina summed up my thoughts quite well here. I just wish to tell the Secular Coalition of America that a group of people too bloody stupid to realize that choosing a former Bushie to lead them would be an utter catastrophe has not got my support. I’m ashamed of them.

Other views here at FtB:

The X Blog: Secular Coalition of America Hires ex Bush White House Advisor as Executive Director; Edwina Rogers on Energy Policy; Edwina Rogers on War in Iraq; Introducing Edwina Rogers (updated slightly); and Edwina Rogers and the Secular Coalition of America,

Almost Diamonds: Attempting the Impossible? and You Can’t Always Get What You Need

Camels With Hammers: A Republican to Head the Secular Coalition for America?; Edwina Rogers vs. Michael J. Fox; and The Pros and Cons of Hiring A Republican to Represent Secularists.

Butterflies and Wheels: A woman in secularism; So far so not good; That interview; Zing; and About the questions being asked.

Blag Hag: Controversy comes with the new Secular Coalition for America Executive Director and Ask Edwina Rogers anything on Reddit;

Pharyngula: Who is going to be our spokesperson on Capitol Hill?; Good questions, ____________ answers; and The crash test.

The Crommunist Manifesto: Edwina Rogers: the unanswered questions.

A Voice of Reason in an Unreasonable World: Secular Coalition For… The Right Wing GOP?

Greta Christina’s Blog: Edwina Rogers: Processing… processing…; Transcript of Interview with Edwina Rogers, New Executive Director for the Secular Coalition for AmericaTranscript of Interview with Roy Speckhardt, SCA Board, About Edwina Rogers, and Edwina Rogers.

Dispatches from the Culture Wars: The SCA’s New Leader.

The Atheist Experience: Thoughts on the SCA’s new Executive Director.

The Uncredible Hallq: On Edwina Rogers, the new Republican head of Secular Coalition for America.


*People prone to complain about FtBers weighing in on the SCA’s choice should first consult Lousy Canuck: The uniform groupthink of The Freethought Borg.

**A note on commenting for those who haven’t commented here before: First-time comments go automatically to moderation. Due to the vagaries of work, sleep and adventuring, I may not be able to fish them out for several hours, so please be patient. Feel free to swear. You’re welcome to disagree, and argue both for and against Edwina Rogers, but keep it within bounds. Gendered epithets, misogyny, abuse of other commenters, and other misbehavior won’t be tolerated. You might wish to review the cantina’s comment policy before you comment.

I Do Not Trust Edwina Rogers to Represent Our Interests

6 thoughts on “I Do Not Trust Edwina Rogers to Represent Our Interests

  1. 1

    Whatever the politics of individual secularists, we all tend to prize honesty. Rogers is not honest. In her interview with Greta she treated us as if she were being interviewed by Fox News, thinking that anything she said would automatically be accepted. She made statements which a minute or two with google showed to be absolutely untrue.

    I’m less concerned about Rogers’ politics than I am with her honesty and her regard for the people she’s supposed to represent. She doesn’t respect us so why should she represent us fairly?

  2. 2

    Not to mention she thinks she can pull a fast one on skeptics by outright lying to them, thus demonstrating a spectacular inability to understand the people she’s supposed to represent.

    Yup. It’s not so much that she lied — which is not a good thing, of course, but you know, it’s a fact of life that people lie all the time. It’s that she told a bunch of obvious lies to an audience of skeptics. Um, yeah, you can’t do that….

    “Hmmm, let me think of the #1 pet peeve of the community I’ve just been asked to represent, and then the very first time I engage that community, I’ll do exactly that. What can go wrong?!?”

    In other news, the new executive director of the Rock-and-Roll Fan Club announced in his first press conference that “guitars are stupid”.

  3. 3

    But…but…she wrote ARTICLES about the religious wingnuts! Plural! In some publication she never cited! That’s proof that she really doesn’t agree with the policies she’s been overtly advocating, as the centerpiece of her career, for twenty-odd years straight, right? I mean, her longtime colleagues must be SOOO shocked at this side of her true personality that they’d never seen before…

    Not to mention she thinks she can pull a fast one on skeptics by outright lying to them…

    “Thinks?” She DID pull a fast one, on the SCA at least. That’s one more national anti-theocratic organization punked and discredited, O’Keefe style, possibly for good. Mission accomplished.

  4. 4

    The only possible explanation is that she thought she was applying to lead the other “SCA” – the Society for Creative Anachronism.

  5. 5

    “Thinks?” She DID pull a fast one, on the SCA at least.

    Unlikely, considering how obvious the issues about Rogers are. A couple of minutes with Google would have warned the SCA board members that Rogers was a high risk hire who had to be handled extremely carefully if she was hired. Any minimally competent effort to vet her would have shown her unfamiliarity with honesty and empiricism. Like Sarah Palin, she was pretty clearly not chosen on the merits. Why she was chosen is a matter that can only be speculated about.

  6. 6

    I wouldn’t trust her a whole lot more if she were a progressive lobbyist these days. Most of them seem to think that their purpose in life is to make Democratic politicians look good, not to identify the ones who aren’t supportive.

    If the SCA can find someone who is willing to honestly call out any politician who doesn’t support atheist concerns, then they should hire that person no matter what his political philosophy is. The ones who are willing to “work with” politicians of one party or the other aren’t worth the time and money they cost.

Comments are closed.