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.
Nah, I want a system of laissez-faire capitalism that is more laissez-faire than anything that has existed before. All those services can be provided - and better provided - by private organizations without needing a government to just steal from people. I want the government to have no control over the economy. Most people are lazy and want the government to steel from the productive rich in order to provide for the lazy or looting poor. Under capitalism without regulations you would still be free to donate money to any organizations you wish that would accept your donations.
While it's true that being an atheist doesn't directly impact on politics, I think the point is that taking the need for evidence and reason seriously (which is how we generally tend to get to atheism) does transfer to politics to some extent. Unless one compartmentalizes, which is common among us human beings.
As someone very concerned about Climate Destabilization, I find it hard to comprehend a reasonable person, who presumably respects science,failing to care about his environment. While lots of the public don't pay attention to the changes happening on our planet, an atheist isn't just an average Joe. Atheists think. Atheists question authority. You're a young man, so you'll live long enough to experience the fossil fuel shit hitting the fan.
...an atheist isn't just an average Joe.
Isn't an average Joe or Jane?
I stand corrected.
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.
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?
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.