Why Atheists Can't Be Republicans

CJ Werleman's just published  Atheists Can't Be Republicans.

That atheists are secularists is one reason why atheists can’t be member of today’s Republican Party.

The Grand Old Party (GOP) is ... a theocratic sponsor,...

Atheists can’t be Republicans because the economic and social policies of the Republican Party have been proven abjectly false and dangerous. Much in the same way religion is false and dangerous. In other words, atheists who cling onto modern U.S. conservative ideology are hanging onto ideas that have either been proven mythical at worse or remain unproven at best. If atheists applied the same litmus test to their political ideology as they do to theology, then clearly an atheist cannot be a Republican.

Atheists are the fastest growing minority in the country. We now have the critical mass to shape elections and policy. Were atheists able to establish a monolithic political demographic, one that is based on proven economic and social policies, then our potential political power would translate into saving this country from the clutches of the American Taliban and Wall Street.

On the other hand, the author also says,

... I have come in contact with as many idiot atheists as I have with idiot Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

Tags: Atheism, politics

Views: 1310

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I gave up on both major parties years ago, and changed to Green, not because they're more honest or have the remotest chance, but because they don't take money from corporations.

Without Greens in Congress, a Green president will fail.

I will take Greens seriously when they have candidates in local races.

But until they support a national initiative and referendum, why would I trust them to refuse the money that has long corrupted the major parties?

First, I agree that an atheist can be a blithering idiot, though I've never met one.  And an atheist can be totally selfish -- see Ayn Rand.  So I never call myself an atheist.  I'm a Humanist.  That's an atheist or agnostic with a moral compass who accepts responsibility for his or her actions and their results, and tries to make the world better.  So I've not met a Humanist who was a Republican in the 21st century.  In our local Humanist chapter we had a member who was a Republican many years ago; when the Republican party embraced evangelical religion and selfishness he found something else to occupy his Saturday mornings.  Now we are not all Democrats, but we are generally, to some degree, progressives.

"Peter Albert David Singer, AC (born 6 July 1946) is an Australian moral philosopher. He is currently the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. He specialises in applied ethics and approaches ethical issues from a secular, preference utilitarian perspective. He is known in particular for his book, Animal Liberation (1975), a canonical text in animal rights/liberation theory."

"In 2004 he was recognised as the Australian Humanist of the Year by the Council of Australian Humanist Societies, and in June 2012 was named a Companion of the Order of Australia for his services to philosophy and bioethics."

"In a 2001 review of Midas Dekkers' Dearest Pet: On Bestiality, Singer argues that sexual activities between humans and animals that result in harm to the animal should remain illegal, but that "sex with animals does not always involve cruelty" and that "mutually satisfying activities" of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals"

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

Humanist is a label, just like Atheist. It doesn't automatically mean one isn't a douchebag. Any observant religionist will bring up Singer when you play the Humanist card.

An article by Nicholas Wapshott on what happened to the Republican party.

Wapshott points out the other elements of the Republican party besides the religious-right social conservatism that people here concentrate on. 

He writes a lot about the Libertarian faction of the Republicans.  The Libertarians don't have that socially-conservative agenda that so many here, including me, dislike. 

The Republicans are not one-dimensional.  They are a complicated mixture of different sorts of people, with different passions.  They cannot be characterized in some simple negative way such as "wishing to dominate" or "wishing to feel superior".

It's my impression that The Republican Party has made efforts to become more one-dimensional since the Tea Party gained ascendance.

Luara, thanks for the Wapshott article.

...the conservative Stanford economist John B. Taylor suggested this week, “Rhetoric aside, many both inside and outside the government quite reasonably seek to return to the kinds of policies that worked well in the not-so-distant past. 

People and books have shown me pieces of some of the distant past. They include:

  • Lincoln's Republicans were three parties who agreed only on ending slavery.
  • In 1912 a Taft-Roosevelt split resulted in a win for the Dem's Woodrow Wilson.
  • A 1929-33 non-response by Hoover to the Crash gave the Dem's FDR a win.
  • A 1948 nomination for the stiff Dewey gave the Dem's Truman a win and Western Conservatives a severe pain.
  • Both parties wanted Ike. He chose the Repub ticket and his moderation irritated Western conservatives even more. With Bircher help, there followed an expulsion of moderates.
  • Rockeller and Eastem moderates did nothing to help other moderates but those in Congress helped Dems enact civil rights laws. Southern Dems left.
  • Nixon's Southern Strategy brought those Southern Dems to the Repub Party and they brought their racism with them.
  • Reagan invited the evangelicals to the Party and they brought their big-government authoritarianism with them.
  • The Dems electing a black man blew the lid off the sealed pressure cooker.

Any additions or corrections?

The current Republican party bares actually no resemblance to the GOP of the not-too-distant past. 

Their fiscal policies have been proven time and again not to work.  In fact they do more harm to the economy than good. 

Their social policies are a relic of a delusional 1950's suburban mindset and of ancient biblical dogma. 

There are current members of the GOP in congress that should be tried for treason for purposefully shutting down our government.  They came to Washington with that sole purpose and stated so. 

Their international foreign policy is arrogant, overzealous and xenophobic.  

Their national platform regarding any person who is not straight and white is arrogant, overzealous and xenophobic.  And that includes their attitude toward non-white U.S. citizens who were born in this country.

They want to dismantle much of our government and put it into the hands of corporations and the free market with absolutely no critical regulatory oversight in place.

They want to enjoy the fruits and labor of the working class but don't wish to pay them or even acknowledge their value.  Mitt Romney's remark about the "47%" sums up their attitude succinctly. 

A large majority wish to install the rule of biblical law above our constitutional laws. 

They want the freedom to declare personal responsibility but refuse to acknowledge responsibility when their actions harm others. 

I could go on, but I'm tired and angry.  Honestly, I cannot think of anything good that the Republican party stands for. 

Our whole political system is so whacked. From the dark-age conservatism of the Republican Party, the Tea Party and the religious right nut-jobs to the Supreme Court-sanctioned corporate buyout of the democratic process, all power and influence has been taken away from the will of the people. The Democratic Party is by no means innocent either, but I blame the lion's share of our problems on the GOP.

Excellent summary! I agree with your assessment. Not only does a wall have to be built between church and state, the functioning of our government needs to revamp with the points you mention as part of a new Constitutional Convention. 

The Republicans make good points as well. 

- Republicans tend to be realistic about our need for energy and to use resources, as in oil drilling.  Many people hate the idea of drilling - they push it offshore into deep water, for example.  But those same people also want to drive their cars and have other benefits from oil.  I appreciate the realism. 

- Republicans tend to be in favor of free markets and competition.  The free market is a powerful force for efficiency and for giving consumers what they actually want, not what some bureaucrat thinks they want.

- Bureaucracies should not be involved in our lives any more than is necessary.  When Republicans are in favor of limited government, they are pushing for freedom. 

- When the government spends more than it takes in, that is probably bad for the economy.  It causes inflation, which eats away at people's savings. 

These things have their limitations.  I don't believe in an unlimited free market. 

But, why don't other people try to see some good in Republican positions?   All I have read, have been generalized statements picking out the faults that you see - making a negative caricature of the Republicans. 

The people who disagree most, often have most to teach you.

This is also true of social conservatives like Thomas Sowell.  He often has good observations. 

I find reading conservative commentary to be useful.  I don't agree with everything they say, obviously.  BUT, the conservatives make good points that are left out of liberal commentary!

The fact is, we have to get off fossil fuels. That is realism in the rawest form. 

Free markets, unregulated, result in growing household income inequality. In some countries, everyone is poor and needs to develop markets. Other countries allow unfettered free markets and they ultimately lead to class warfare. The most successful markets have been when those who produce the goods and services enjoy the benefits of sharing profits. 

Our nation had the largest middle class, the lowest poverty rate, lowest infant mortality rates, lowest mother mortality rates, the best infrastructures during the time of high taxation on profits and wealth, and strong regulation of markets. Just look at any method of measuring these factors and you will see the trend lines. In 1975, +- , the middle class began to decline in relative numbers and wealth grew, all the above measures began to decline. Just look at roads, for example. They are a measure of how the economy is going. 

The great deficits come about during war, and the USA has been at war since the end of WW I and II. Great wealth was created and if it were not for labor unions, those who produced the goods and services of war machines would have increased the spread of the income gap. 

I have read a lot of Tomas Sowell and I see and hear little basic sense in his writings and speaking. His philosophy is flawed. 

"The least productive people are usually the ones who are most in favor of holding meetings. 

Thomas Sowell

The Apollo Moom Project could not have happened without the use of meetings of people from all over the world. Ed Lindaman had a great hand in making that communication work and all it took was training of those involved. It is a learned skill. To criticize a process that is misunderstood and malpractice is just another sign of prejudice. Sowell, of all people, should understand that. 

The reason to confront a line of thinking is because it creates problems that impact people's lives. Hunger is political, so is health care, and wealth gap, and education, and money in elections. These all can be managed with well trained leaders and representatives of government, which, sadly, does not happen.

  

 

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Supporting Membership

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service