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.

Views: 1875

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It's important to see the valid motives that Republicans have - not ascribe only bad motives to them. 

Some Republicans have a valid concern with the national debt.  I hardly ever see liberals mention such concerns - but they affect us all.

Some Republicans have a valid concern with personal freedom and choices, with living one's life free of government interference.  Having bureaucracies regulating your life is a nightmare. 

Many small business owners are Republicans.  They see the downside of big government, in taxes, paperwork and regulations. 

Some Republicans have bought Ayn Rand's philosophy, hook, line and that proverbial sinker. She looked at individuals as the primary focus of decision making and failed to observe the need for community. It is very telling that she decried government intervention, yet accepted her Social Security check each month. A philosophy of self leads to failure to see the effects of one's actions. She did not think a country needed a social services network, when, in fact, that is a prime element of the success or failure of an economic system. 

A garden gives a good example. A successful, knowledgable, observant gardener has an oversupply of many products. That oversupply, at least in my garden went into baskets to the local community center so people could take what they needed at no cost to them. It didn't hurt me at all to give from my abundance and I met a lot of very nice people by doing this. 

Government functions under the same principles; a well run economy is a successful one, producing goods and services, and the creators of those goods and services participate in sharing the profit. Wealth is not created by and for one person. It takes a community to produce goods and services, that create profits.  In such circumstances, there is always an abundance, and that can be shared with those too old, too young, too sick or disabled, to have their basic needs met. 

Relying on charity leads to two vulnerabilities. 1) Not all people in need are served; 2) charity is a good way to make great wealth, just by skimming off funds into the coffers of those who handle the money. 

Many small business owners pay higher tax rates than some corporations. Small businesses are the backbone of our nation's economy. Small business creates more jobs than mega-business, take better care of the land, and practice sustainable farming, for example.

In all due respect, that is nonsense. When you do work and earn money, it is YOUR money! You can be nice and donate some of it, but you random people can't just steal it, claiming they have to have some of your money in order to help all these poor people who can't or won't earn their own money. But in order for you to avoid feeling too guilty due to the fact that some people will not earn their own money, you want the government to steal from you? And from me? I do not want to just give money to people so they can get resources without doing any work to earn what they get. If you don't pay your taxes he government will eventually come to your house with big guns and haul you to prison...
Taxes are theft even if many people do not want to call it theft and I do not like getting robbed.
@ Michael Planko, so you're going to 'be nice' and donate what you want to have roads built and repaired. The same roads that you use to get to and from your job?? How about the hospitals you will, at some time in your life, need.
What about children?? Should they get jobs at birth or wait till they're three years old? And what if people don't want to 'donate' money for schools?

Luara, Repubs attack regulations so angrily that I want to know if they mean to repeal the late-1800s, early-1900s progressive-era's child labor laws, the pure food and drugs laws, the truth in labelling law, and every other protection for people who are not wealthy.

A few years ago, Clinton cooperated in repealing Glass-Steagall, which contributed to the 2008-09 crash.

The party's beloved "job creators" don't create jobs; people who buy goods and services create them.

And as Florida's Alan Grayson said in Congress, the Repub health care plan is "If you become ill, die quickly."

So much anger.

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.

of course this book is wrong, because I am an atheist and I typically vote for republican candidates (unless there is a libertarian or other good candidate(s) who are not democrats) because I want the government to be very small and I think anything and everything that could be provided by private organizations should be provided by private organizations instead of the government, and I think all taxes are theft, and I want the government to have no control whatsoever over the economy. I am not an environmentalist, otherwise I am not socially conservative and I recognize that both religion and governments overall more evil than good on average. I am an atheist like Ayn Rand. An atheist is just a label for "lacking belief in gods". Who people vote for or which kind of politics a person has has nothing to do with the persons religion or lack thereof.

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. 

Looking at the original posting, the question that comes to mind is: does the fact that you are an atheist make it morally or ethically necessary to vote for certain candidates and/or have a specific kind of politics and/or vote for candidates from one specific political party? Of course the answer is, no, you can have any sort of politics and still not believe in gods/religion. You can be a small government conservative and at the same time disbelieve in gods/religion.
Yes, individuals are rather important. My ability do do fun hobbies and activities is way more important than any government service. And I get to do less because the government steals so much from me. I don't want the government to steal form you either. If you do not pay your taxes government agents will eventually come after you with big guns and take your stuff and maybe also sentence you to time in federal prison. That is morally not better than getting robbed by any random crook.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service