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.
Well, Thomas Sowell had an interesting perspective.
In any case - viewing Republicans solely in terms of social conservatism is a caricature. It's a way of picking out what you DON'T like, and using it to characterize the whole.
There may be many Republicans who feel the party has been hijacked by the religious right - somehow the religious right become associated with traditional Republican issues like individual freedom, fiscal conservatism and free markets.
Again - you are concentrating on the socially conservative aspects of Republicanism - and not on what about the Republican positions is valid. It's a caricature, because you and others concentrate on what irks you - but not on what is valid or what is there to learn from, in what Republicans say.
You asked for arguments against gay marriage, but perhaps I should not have obliged, since I am not personally arguing against it. But Thomas Sowell does make valid points in that article.
Luara, I don't recall seeing a post in which you described what you find valid, or what you see to learn, in what Republicans say.
Did I miss it?
To put the issue of gay rights to marry in the same sentence with legalizing marijuana is a bit crass, don't you think?
I'm not a member of either of the big 2 parties and personally can not see any difference between either party. What is clear to me is that neither party has kept a single campaign promise in years. My belief is that if you can not see what both parties are doing to this country, then their propaganda has done it's job! Our governing bodies will break every law on the books to keep the gravy train running! To anyone who thinks that all athiest must not be Republicans ...................I say wake up! The two party system is a full of illusion designed to distract your attention! (Oceans 11) It's a looky-loo!...!......... When you should be thinking about your constitutional rights as citizens, your distracted by the outrage overwhich party did what?? I think we should stop being Asses or Elephants and start being concerned citizens!
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.