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.
Luara, Republicans have done some things many A/N folk would have supported. (In political discourse I avoid the use of terms such as 'good' and 'evil'.)
In the 1960s, moderate Repubs gave the Dems the votes necessary to pass the civil rights bills.
Southern Dems, whose ancestors had owned slaves, walked. Many turned mean and violent.
But far right Repubs had been expelling moderates since Ike's presidency, and some Repubs knew the Party would soon be losing elections. They went south and recruited people who were Dems because the Repubs of Lincoln's time had freed the slaves.
Balancing the budget may be crucial for our future. The national debt may hurt us all in the end.
It's more than crucial to folk younger than I; the national debt will hurt them badly.
There was a time when Republican administrations were fiscally responsible. But Reagan and the two Bushes have been borrowing record-setting amounts, leaving an increasing federal deficit.
The Dems, cowed either by their Viet Nam disaster or by Repubs calling them taxers and spenders, did not return the compliment and call Repubs borrowers and spenders.
That 1980s fiscal policy change was as stark as the early 1970s social policy change.
From the early 1920s until the early 1970s, for instance, Repubs introduced and supported the Equal Rights Amendment; the Dems opposed it.
Paraphrasing an ancient expression, an unexamined political party loyalty is not worth having.
In 1974 I ran in a Repub primary, hopng to unseat a Repub incumbent. Men I worked with teased me with "A moderate Republican is a lonely man." I was too busy campaigning to notice.
When Reagan invited the evangelicals into the Party, I left -- vowing to not vote Repub again. I haven't voted Repub since then.
Michael, the First Amendment protects your right to give the word "steal" any definition you like.
Only with stealth candidates will views like yours win Libertarians a majority in Congress or in any state or local legislative body.
Oh my goodness! There isn't a single sentence you wrote that I can agree with. So, you think water should be privatized, and highways, and airport regulations, and food inspection, and education, and medicine, and prisons, and the military? And you think taxes are theft even as you use the goods and services that government provides? You are not an environmentalist, which means what? Being an atheist like Ayn Rand, you see power residing in the individual and not in the community? Sadly, how a person perceives the world influences how that person votes.
I agree wholeheartedly that the way government taxes and spends is contrary to my value system. However there are some things that a society is responsible to provide. First of all, protection of individuals and property. Providing education to all children, regardless of race or gender, or religion or political persuasion. An educate public is a better public. I do not believe that religion of any kind has a place in public education and federal funds should not be used to support private education. Health care for everyone is an essential and it can be done without breaking the bank. First of all, get the insurance industry out of the way of effective delivery of heath services and then put in strong government regulations about how public health care is delivered. Care for the very young, elderly, disabled, war injured has to be a public expense. Private families cannot do the work needed and work full time. If we all share in giving care, then individuals don't wear out from providing essential basic care. Water has to be available to everyone, without any thought of ownership. Perhaps the delivery system of water can be private, but only if all people are served the basic needs for water. Sewage is the same. and garbage. What about police and fire protection? Individuals who have the means can buy more protection for themselves, but basic needs need to be a social responsibility.
I do hate the fact that some people are just lazy, but to declare all people who are poor are lazy is ludicrous.
I am not a communist or socialist, nor am I Laissez-faire capitalist either. They all will fail because of their basic designs. There are better ways to manage a society and others have found those ways.
Well said, Joan.
Nah, I want a system of laissez-faire capitalism that is more laissez-faire than anything that has existed before. All those services can be provided - and better provided - by private organizations without needing a government to just steal from people. I want the government to have no control over the economy. Most people are lazy and want the government to steel from the productive rich in order to provide for the lazy or looting poor. Under capitalism without regulations you would still be free to donate money to any organizations you wish that would accept your donations.
While it's true that being an atheist doesn't directly impact on politics, I think the point is that taking the need for evidence and reason seriously (which is how we generally tend to get to atheism) does transfer to politics to some extent. Unless one compartmentalizes, which is common among us human beings.
As someone very concerned about Climate Destabilization, I find it hard to comprehend a reasonable person, who presumably respects science,failing to care about his environment. While lots of the public don't pay attention to the changes happening on our planet, an atheist isn't just an average Joe. Atheists think. Atheists question authority. You're a young man, so you'll live long enough to experience the fossil fuel shit hitting the fan.
...an atheist isn't just an average Joe.
Isn't an average Joe or Jane?
I stand corrected.