Religion
Related: About this forumAtheists can’t be Republicans
The secular have no place in today's GOP — and libertarian atheists should realize that now
Saturday, Oct 26, 2013 12:00 PM EDT
By CJ Werleman
We atheists like to chastise the religious for their child-like belief in an imaginary friend, but, equally, the time has come for the atheist movement to grow up.
It’s understood that the so-called new atheist movement began at the start of the new millennium with the mainstream emergence of luminaries Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and others. For much of the first decade of the new century, the atheist movement behaved like a curious child in search of meaning to its own existence. Now that the child is a teenager on its way to adulthood, it needs to start acting like a grown up.
The atheist movement comprises more than 2,000 groups and organizations in the U.S. today, but the movement, in composition and purpose, has failed to establish a coherent cause outside of validating non-belief and offering platitudes towards protecting the separation of church and state. Another thing one notices with the atheist movement is the fact it is predominantly upwardly middle-class, white and male. Sikivu Hutchinson writes, in her essay “Prayer Warriors and Freethinkers”: “If mainstream freethought and humanism continue to reflect the narrow cultural interests of white elites who have disposable income to go to conferences then the secular movement is destined to remain marginal and insular.”
The movement has an image problem. An image that isn’t helped by the ceaseless and over-simplified fear-mongering over Islamic terrorism from the likes of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins — rhetoric that not only ignores our long history of foreign policy blunders in the Middle East, but also echoes the neo-conservatives, the Israel lobby and the entire right-wing echo chamber. Nathan Lean, author of “The Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims,” writes, “The New Atheists became the new Islamophobes, their invectives against Muslims resembling the rowdy, uneducated ramblings of backwoods racists rather than appraisals based on intellect, rationality and reason.”
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/26/atheists_cant_be_republicans/
Somebody should tell S. E. Cupp, Penn Jillette and Edwina Rogers.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Walk away
(9,494 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)groups. You could make the same argument for log cabin republicans and women in general, but both of those groups are a part of the Republican party.
rurallib
(62,465 posts)I don't think so
Seems to me that if those folks are republicans because of economics, they really need to do much more analysis
Leontius
(2,270 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)
cbayer
(146,218 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Can't think of anyone who has said there can't be Republican atheists nor Democrat Christians.
But keep building your strawmen.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)ps. relax, having a stroke over a joke would suck.
eomer
(3,845 posts)I think that was the author's intent.
Not sure whether everyone in this thread missed his point or else got it and didn't think it was worth addressing. But, just in case, I believe his point was that a person who insists that beliefs about religion should be based on evidence and careful logic should also insist that positions on other matters should be based on evidence and careful logic. And if they did the latter then they wouldn't be Republicans.
rug
(82,333 posts)If you want more information about the author, this is his website.
http://www.cjwerleman.com/
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The way I read this is that the Republican party has a theocratic base and that secularlists aligning themselves with this are being entirely inconsistent.
In addition, he stresses that organized atheism has an opportunity to be more inclusive and address important social issues like economic inequality. He argues that this is a natural fit and that the growing atheist community has an opportunity to seize some political power.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)
MisterP
(23,730 posts)the Dems are more in a grid form--vertical columns for each sector (environment, gays, women, labor, Christian Left, Black, Latino, etc., etc., etc.), and horizontal layers (the sector's organizers, state legislators, Congress, Presidential and party tier); the sectors often have nowhere to "break" to and so can have their demands delayed or ignored
the Republicans have four nuclei all interacting with one another: each of these has their own leaders, separate traditions, motives, and language, spokes-freaks, periodicals even (since they're all richer than the Dems' sectors): these are 1) right-libertarians, 2) Religious Right, 3) big business, 4) warmongers
#s 1 and 3 are quite tight (1 is basically a wholly-funded subsidiary of 3, in fact): they present corpo ideas--deregulation, GMOs, warming denial, the whole worldview--in a way that pretends to be friendly to the Dems' sectors ("only libertarians are the gays and Blacks and potheads' friends"--quite funny since their leaders are geriatric paleocons who would literally shit themselves if Sammy Davis came into the room) and biting the hand that feeds it: it lets smug Objectivists pretend to be on the side of Reason and rebellion
the funny thing is that one of 1's founders is 2's central figure, Gary Freakin' North
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)But I know that if i say something like "No real Christian would callously support programs that will hurt millions" people would quickly point out that people calling themselves Christians do just that.
Bryant
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)Not ONE of them has ever identified as a "Republican".
I have met some "Libertarian" atheists.
From my experience, most atheists are progressives/liberals.
Rob H.
(5,352 posts)Except for the "libertarian" part. I even know a socialist atheist and a Communist atheist, but no self-identified Republican atheists.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I would love to see some of the atheists groups coalesce and become more politically active. I agree with the author that this rapidly growing group has an opportunity to become a potent political force. As the bulk of atheists have liberal/progressive political views, this could be a very good thing for the Democratic Party.
His stages of growth analogy is a good one, imo. There is an adolescent flavor to some of what we see within the growing atheists groups, but I also see movement towards a more adult position. That's a good thing.
MindPilot
(12,693 posts)Which means they have a tax-exempt status that proscribes any political activity. And trust me--I serve on the board of one of the groups and our shit needs to be in way better order that a church subject to the same level of scrutiny.
I would like to see thing change from the other direction; instead of Atheist groups becoming more politically active (I suspect most Atheists are already individually more politically active than the average) I would like to see politicians openly courting non-believers like they were actual real people who make up 15%-20% of the population.
That is the only way it could be good for the Democratic party.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)What is prohibited is campaigning or advocating for specific candidates for elected office. It is not at all prohibited to advocate or campaign for specific issues.
I agree that politicians speaking to the non-religious is a positive thing, though the majority of atheists tend to be liberal/progressive and probably vote Democratic (if they vote).
I'm not sure there is any evidence that atheists are more politically active than most. It is clear, however, that the religious right has been very politically active.
The more groups that there are to counter them, the better, imo.
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)I do have some issues with some of its claims.
The big one, is that the author is trying to attach political issues to atheism.
[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]The atheist movement comprises more than 2,000 groups and organizations in the U.S. today, but the movement, in composition and purpose, has failed to establish a coherent cause outside of validating non-belief and offering platitudes towards protecting the separation of church and state.
Atheism, is simply the lack of a belief in any gods. So it makes sense that there would not be a "cause" outside of that. What implications, or "ought" statements, are you going to get out of the "is" statement of atheism? Specifically, the author mentions income inequality. How do you go from "I lack a belief in any gods" to "we need to fight income inequality?"
Now, if we are talking about Secular Humanism, then the author would have a point. But, while all secular humanist maybe atheists; not all atheists are secular humanists.
The author, also seems to imply most atheists are "apolitical" if not outright conservative. While atheism itself may be apolitical, most of us are in fact liberals. We went overwhelmingly for Obama and tend to be much more liberal on individual issues as a whole:
I don't even want to go into the problems with the paragraph about Dawkins and Harris on islamic terrorism. Lets just leave it at 1) they don't speak on the behalf of all atheists, and 2) we are critical of all religions equally. It would be hypocritical to attack a Christian minister spreading homophobic propaganda and then ignore and pardon some Imam doing the same exact thing.
Yes, there is a tendency on the behalf of some atheists to over generalize and stereotype that crosses into islamophobia. But there are religious people of all religions that do the same exact thing. Similarly, there is a tendency for some people to over generalize and stereotype us to the point that honest criticism of religion is twisted to look like its bigotry.
Religion itself is not above criticism. Its like the right wing Christians here in America who claim that attacking their homophobic stance is anti-christian hatred instead of what it really is: calling a spade a spade.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)highlights why *new* atheism can be much more broadly defined.
As the author points out, there are more than 2,000 groups and organizations based on something that includes a lack of belief but probably much more. I doubt these groups just get together and say, "Hi, I'm Judy and I don't believe in god". They may have a number of other issues that they meet or organize around.
You go on to say "we are critical of all religions equally". I would suggest that goes far beyond a simple lack of belief in a god. I would also suggest that it can't be applied to all atheists, as many aren't critical of religions at all. They just don't subscribe to any.
I do agree that there can be a tendency for both believers and non-believers to overgeneralize and stereotype the *other*. This leads to the problem you describe in both directions, and any criticism of atheism, or atheist *leaders* is sometimes twisted to look like bigotry as well.
The behavior of some christians, muslims, jews and atheists is clearly not above criticism. The attempt to so narrowly define atheism is often a smoke screen to hide the objectionable behavior of some who define themselves as atheist, imo.
MindPilot
(12,693 posts)"offering platitudes towards protecting the separation of church and state"
The level of litigation and legal victories--including at the Supreme Court level--regarding state-church separation issues are far more than "platitudes".
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Rogers I have no opinion on. Jillette is a reactionary/entertainer. He is reacting to a perceived threat, and as an entertainer, his schtick is to take it to the limit and beyond.
He is not a serious/credible intellectual when in-character.
rug
(82,333 posts)Rogers was a republican political operative and is now the executive director of SCA.
I didn't say Jillette is credible but he is an atheist.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)She is clearly working an angle for profit with certain news/demographics.
Some choice quotes:
“I really aspire to be a person of faith some day.”
“Obama delivered another slight to religious America when he became the first president in the history of the United States to mention atheists.”
"Today, I don't believe in God. But I'm open to being converted. I am!"
"As an atheist, I could never imagine electing - voting for - an atheist President... Religion keeps a person who is endowed with so much power honest. This is a person [George W. Bush] who's answering to a higher power every night, and not to the state. He doesn't think the state has all the power, and he doesn't think he himself has all the power. That's important to me. I represent 2% of the world. Why would I want someone who thinks that 98% of the world is crazy running the country?"
Title of her book:
"Losing Our Religion: Why the Liberal Media Want to Tell You What to Think, Where to Pray, and How to Live"
If I pretend those mental contortions are honest, all of her positions come off as a soft-agnostic, but I don't even buy that. I think she's another Beck, playing a character for money, because hey, that's where the money is. Beck isn't a libertarian, but he's happy to take their money, regurgitating their own nonsense back to them. Also defined as a Concern Troll.
"In an argument (usually a political debate), a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with 'concerns.' The idea behind this is that your opponents will take your arguments more seriously if they think you're an ally."
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I think a for-profit concern troll is more likely though.
I suppose the opposite is possible: She really IS an atheist, but has found a lucrative market pretending to be an anti-atheist champion for theists, posing as a non-theist.
Oh what tangled webs we weave...
WovenGems
(776 posts)If the only thing atheism does is remind us why we need to keep government and religion separated then they are doing enough.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Chickens voting for Colonel Sanders.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)They were all fairly wealthy professionals living in progressive communities. It was all about the economic positions of republicans. They had little investment in GLBT civil rights because they rarely experienced any kind of discrimination.
