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: 1876

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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.

The less well off  Republicans ought to be angry with the rich Republicans....

Those less-well-off Repubs would be angry if their leaders -- political and religious -- weren't stoking their fears of immigrants who will take their jobs, their fears of gays who will take their children, their fears of non-believers who will take their opiate, and conservative men's fears of independent women.

When I was learning political activism, another activist told me that political slogans have a purpose, to shut down the thinking.

Slogans that stir fear of the future motivate conservatives. Slogans that stir anger at the past or present motivate progressives. And slogans that stir guilt at their comfort motivate liberals.

Seneca's warning -- Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful -- can be adapted to emotions. I'm working on how to state it.

The most significant achievement of conservatives is the reduction in union membership over the last fifty years. As union membership has declined dramatically so has the middle class share of income:

Thanks for the pic. I remember hearing in the 1980s that both Dem and Repub policies encouraged manufacturing jobs going overseas.

I didn't know if the claims were accurate, but I had years earlier decided that money corrupts both parties.

In my not-very-humble opinion, reform requires a national initiative and referendum, which requires an amendment to the Constitution.

The main impetus for jobs going overseas has been profit—using lower paid foreign workers increases profits. American workers cannot compete since the cost of living is so much higher here.

If you want the maximum number of manufacturing jobs in the u.s, eliminate the minimum wage and reduce or eliminate taxes on manufacturers, eliminate health insurance laws, and have as few regulations as possible. Otherwise is is likely to be most cost effective to have so many goods manufactured overseas.

Profit is not evil and Money is not evil. You do work, you earn money, you trade your money for goods and services you want and need. Business owner's motive for operating a business is to earn a boatload of money and the more the government steals from business owners in the form of taxes and regulations, the less motive they have to operate their businesses and the less ability they have to employ people and the less their businesses can produce and the higher the prices for consumers is. It makes no sense to inhibit employer's ability to make enough profit while at the same demanding that they have to provide so many jobs and furthermore pay a minimum wage and provide so many benefits and still charge a low enough price to consumers.

Otherwise it is likely to be most cost effective to have so many goods manufactured overseas.

You're right, Michael; in some Asian countries there is no minimum wage, few or no taxes on manufacturers, no health insurance laws, and few or no regulations.

Before America's brief progressive era in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the near slave-labor conditions you favor existed here. Working people in those Asian nations will fight for and win what working people in America fought for and won.

You seem unaware that America's predatory capitalism is now slowly but inevitably effecting its demise here.

You also seem unaware that political democracy has in some countries replaced, and in other countries is replacing, political tyranny.

Similarly, economic democracy has in some countries replaced, and in other countries is replacing, economic tyranny.

Michael, you seem unaware of so much, including that the economic Libertarianism you admire occupies history's trash can.



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