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.
The mentality of "well, I've got mine, brother, you get your own" comes straight from Ayn Rand, and her theory of Objectivism which in part says that the basis of morality is the pursuit of one's own happiness. This is the part the modern day tea baggers in the GOP tout as gospel. Of course, they always tend to leave out one little, eentsy, weentsy, teeny, tiny part of her overall philosophical outlook which happens to be a key component. ATHEISM!
I find it absolutely assinine that they sing the praises of Ayn Rand and Jesus in the same breath.
I'd like to see those right wing conservatives who tout Ayn Rand as a hero explain this.
Excellent observation Pat. And not only was she an atheist and an objectivist, she clearly was a proponent of selfishness, which, after all, is objectivism. The old Republican philosophy was an obligation of the rich to care for the poor. There is no vestige of that thinking in the modern Republican theory, nor in the modern mega-churches.
I think the modern Republican philosophy is the poor are there to serve the rich. With as little in return as possible.
I think I might have been OK with some of the fiscal issues of the Eisenhower republicans. Then again, that is prehistoric on most human rights issues. As I recall, he wasn't comfortable with some corporate issues - didn't he say not to trust the military-industrial complex?
Paul Ryan, the Repub with a budget, has seemed able to keep Rand's Objectivism and his own Catholicism in compartments distant from each other.
Even last year when some Papal criticism came his way, he managed to look calm, cool and collected.
Days ago in a committee hearing shown on C=SAN, he threw a near-tantrum at a witness. Might he be cracking up?
If you are FOR:
LGBT rights. (Marriage equality and civil rights).
Science over superstition.
Tax reform. (Equitable taxes)
Labor rights. (Fair living wage).
Healthcare rights for all.
Then YOU can't honestly be a Republican.
Well said Gene. The one I really don't get is the Republican insistence on their purported belief in individual rights, yet their desire to deny the same for others who don't act or think like them. Your first 3 examples typify this. Keep women at lower wages for the same work, demonize LGBTs, and work toward the creation of a Christian theocracy. Some freedom!!!
That's a result of the split between the Libertarian small-government Repubs and the Xian big-government Repubs.
Paraphrasing, a party that divided will not stand.
That is well stated. The lights go off like a pin-ball machine with a big win. I would like to add environmental responsibility. And voter's rights. And civil rights.
Gene, a great overview! Thanks.
Reading the black conservatives Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele, gave me more of an appreciation of conservative viewpoints.
I doubt either of them are religious. They certainly are not fundamentalist Christians