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: 1284

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I wanted Ron Paul to be President or at least he was the best candidate at the time.

It seems that there is a lack of small government conservatives who also know religion is nonsense. Perhaps there are more small government conservatives who know religion is nonsense than we can imagine but they are afraid to say anything. Anyway I am rather sure that the earth will not go to hell because of continued use of fossil fuels. In fact 250 million years ago the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was 5 times today's level. Don't forget about the fumes that come out of volcanoes. When scientists finally make us all immortal, then I will start caring about the environment. And you will hate this but maybe if liberals would allow more oil drilling in the U.S we could quit depending on the Middle east for oil and lower the cost of fuels. George Carlin was another atheist who was not an environmentalist.

I believe there is an objetivist political party based on Ayn Rand's philosophy or politics but they are still rather unknown.

How many humans were around 250,000,000 years ago? That point is about as relevant as how hot the earth was four billion years ago. The concern is not how to keep the earth from melting, it's how to keep it sustainable for the human race.
Excellent response Joan. I'll never understand how people can be so selfish as to believe they have no responsibility for their fellow humans or country. I'm sure there is not a person on earth who doesn't agree that government is inefficient and downright wasteful but it is necessary.
There is actually a book I read, by Ayn Rand, called, The Virtue of Selfishness. It was only about 100 pages.

Oh yes, I read them all in the 1950s. They didn't make any sense to me then and they never have. I know, there is a revival of her writings and people today are just as enthusiastic about her philosophy now as they were then. 

"the earth is going to be fine" is mighty bold statement, especially facing the challenges we have today. Have you read the scholarly works on climate change and environmentalism? 

I remember the environmental fad when I was in 2nd to 4th grade. I read "50 things kids can do to save the earth" and heard the whole reduce-reuse-recycle mantra. I even use reusable handkerchiefs instead of paper napkins and tissues and I carry a dish towel in a plastic bowl to work so I will not need paper towel. As for "climate change", the liberals used to call it "global warming". I guess they had to change their vocabulary when they realized that the so called increase in temperature is rather negligible. maybe the planet is just warming up from the last ice age. But did you notice how cold last winter was? I drive to work and various places and can you drive a car (and use electricity or gas heat) while at the same time thinking fossil fuels are so evil? I think "climate change" is just liberal propaganda invented by people who have an emotional vested interest in hating our western lifestyle.

A couple of points.

1. Climate scientists have always preferred the descriptor "climate change" over "global warming" since there are many effects other than increase in the global mean temperature. Politicians finally adopted the preferred term.

2. The temperature in question is global mean temperature not the temperature you see on your thermometer. Since it is the average of thousands of temperature measurements across the planet, it usually changes very slowly, Without additional forcing from carbon dioxide emissions it would be decreasing at present.

3. The correspondence between carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and climate change is shown in the following chart. Earth's ice ages follow a long cycle of approximately 100,000 years due to small changes in the eccentricity of the earth's orbit which shifts how close it is to the sun. The cycles do not repeat exactly due to other orbital changes.

Allan, early on during the discussion, some reports did tell of global warming. When opponents heard reports of local temperature decreases, they gleefully attacked.

Our concern for accuracy in our work can get us into trouble when we go public.

It's why creationists can say the theory of evolution is "just a theory".

For instance, consider the  "...'just a theory'." I wrote in the above line. My putting the period outside the quotes complies with English rules of punctuation.

People who wrote computer code in the 1960s pointed out that following American rules of punctuation -- putting the period inside the quote marks -- would make language translation code all but impossible to write.

I realized this when I worked in Austin, Texas, one block from the UT campus. I took a noontime computer course and told my professor I programmed computers. He told someone and I was invited to a meeting of linguistics professors. They quizzed me on computer languages and I learned the value of terms such as "context-free" and "context-sensitive".

And I did it again; I put the period (a full stop in the UK) outside the quotes.

Thomas Jefferson reversed a rule of Parliament when he wrote his manual, allegedly to establish America's independence of England.

You know the term "Buy low and sell high."

Jefferson's rule -- and therefore Robert's rule -- on voting after "filling blanks" in a motion results in our buying high and selling low.

I pointed this out in an article published in the Journal of the American Institute of Parliamentarians and was pleased when people more expert than I acknowledged the problem. The less-well-known but far-more-readable Sturgis Standard Code, now published by the AIP, corrects the problem.

Allan, early on during the discussion, some reports did tell of global warming. When opponents heard reports of local temperature decreases, they gleefully attacked.

The seminal paper on this question seems to be Gilbert Plass's The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change published in 1956 in Tellus, Vol. 8, No. 2.Plass reviews the history of the theory and traces it back to Sir John Tyndall in 1861.

The journal Climate Change was started in 1977. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has used that name since it was formed in 1988, long before the issue became political.

There is no question that climate change is the result of global warming caused by greenhouse gases, but the claim that there was a studied shift by scientists from the use of global warming to climate change to make their conclusions more palatable to the public is just not historically accurate.

One person did an internet search for hits on both terms and found that climate change has always been the more common term in the scientific literature.

Anyone who thinks climate change is just liberal propaganda is either a fool or brainwashed by the repubs. Or both.

Two years ago I wasn't fully convinced on climate change, but I knew something was happening. Today I am convinced. Logic, weather patterns, birds, animals, change in TV reception, and many other things were a factor in changing my mind.

Republicans come in two flavors. The less well off  Republicans ought to be angry with the rich Republicans who constantly promote policies that disfavor them, but the fact is they are not. Years of talk radio have taught them that liberals are responsble for all their troubles. Liberals want to tax them so the money can be given to "those people" through social programs—programs that rob the taxpayers to give to the unproductive 47%. Liberals look down on their religion, their guns, and their fondness for NASCAR. So the 1% have the rest hoodwinked in a way you would never have believed. Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and others keep them in a constant stew about what liberals have done to them and they go for it every time.

Once in a while you get an issue that splits them—the increase in the debt ceiling is an example. Wall Street knows that not raising the debt ceiling could wreak havoc in the world economy and end up costing the United States dearly. The less well off Republicans think that raising the debt ceiling is equivalent to authorizing more federal expenditures and they insist on their Congressmen voting against it. None of the right-wing commentators help to clarify this issue for their listeners, but when it needs to be done Wall Street weighs in heavily.

RSS

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service