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: 1291

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Lots of different people from different parties make valid points. 

Liberal bias and conservative bias both ignore valid issues.  They try to hide the valid issues by caricaturing the opposition. 

The Libertarians are outside of both parties, but I think the Libertarian platform does away with too much government regulation. 

There is at least one difference, Ronnie.

Both parties redistribute taxpayers' money. They redistribute some of it in different directions.

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"


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. 


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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service