Atheist Group Makes CPAC Debut

[stone space]

Atheist Group Makes CPAC Debut

snip------------

Jamila Bey is a mom, a business owner, a Pittsburgh native—and a board member of the group American Atheists. She also, apparently, identifies as conservative. After introducing herself to the crowd, Bey used her three-minute spot to invite audience members to drop by the American Atheist table in the exhibition hall and learn more.

American Atheists is at CPAC on a mission, according to the organization’s president, David Silverman. “By our calculations there are approximately 17 to 20 million atheists in this country who would vote Republican but don’t,” he says. “And we theorize, very reasonably, I think, that they don’t vote Republican because the Republicans are pushing them away. I don’t vote Republican because Republicans push me away.”

The group wants conservative leaders to consider doing the unthinkable and not leading with their faith. “If they come out with ‘We’re a Christian nation,’ that’s akin to saying I’m somehow less of an American. So why should I vote for that?” Silverman asks. “If somebody comes out and says, ‘I can’t trust people who don’t pray,’ well, I don’t pray. So when the conservatives come out, instead of saying we’re for small government, and responsible gun rights, and a strong military, they’re saying all of that after they say I’m a second-class citizen.”

Silverman thinks this would be a win-win, benefitting both atheists and the GOP. Republicans would gain access to tens of millions of secular voters who agree with them on the issues already—and right-leaning nonbelievers would get a real choice. Right now, “atheists by and large only have one party for which to vote,” he says. “We’re voting Democrat in huge numbers, but it’s a defensive move. It’s not because we agree with the policies, it’s because atheists are afraid of Republicans, because Republicans are overtly hostile to us. And that’s wrong.”

snip------------------

http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/27/atheist-group-makes-cpac-debut

[cbayer]

1. Not really a debut. They were there last year.

Silverman has conservative leanings and is self-aggrandizing.

I would rather see FFRF there making the case for enforcement of the 1st amendment. I think they could make the case pretty effectively and it would appeal to the libertarians.

The idea of bringing atheists into the Republican Party strikes me as very questionable. He doesn't vote
Republican because they push him away? So he would vote Republican if they didn't? Really?

He says that atheists vote with Democrats because they have no choice and not because they agree with the policies? Really?

I wish they would replace him.

[stone space]

2. I'm not sure where he gets his numbers.

But it does make some sense to me that atheists raised in Republican families might be statistically more likely to be closeted.

And it's not hard for me to imagine that some of them might be deterred from voting GOP because of its rather open hostility to atheism.

But he throws around some pretty numbers. Probably bigger than he can justify.

[cbayer]

3. Atheists are more likely to have liberal political views, but I agree

those coming from more conservative backgrounds are probably more likely to be closeted.

Their rather open hostility to atheism extends to all kinds of groups that atheists demographically tend to support.

He always exaggerates. Hell, he even just plain makes stuff up sometimes.

BTW, this source is libertarian and their analysis is clearly from that perspective.

[Fred Sanders]

4. Proving that aethiests also can be very wrong about how extremist religion infested Republicans can be reasoned with.

[cpwm17]

5. Here's Jamila Bey speaking at CPAC:

[cbayer]

6. Well, she's brave but it's really unclear where she stands politically.

And that loose use of the word "secular" continues to be problematic. When she says that 40% of that age group is "secular", what does she mean? Does she mean they support separation of church and state, because she can't possibly mean that they are atheists.

And even though she fudge her numbers to make it that much scarier, they didn't seem interested in the least.

[pinto]

8. She danced a bit around the facts in her brief comments, it seems.

40%? That's got to include atheist/agnostics, unaffiliated, and categories etc. that fall outside of clearly defined religious persuasions. She was reaching for secular. A more palatable approach in that venue I presume. Though not by much.

I noted the nod to family, undefined, but a buzz word for CPAC. And the mention of President Lincoln. I kind of think this group would hardly endorse a man who's overriding goal as President was to preserve the Union. Maintain a federalist, unified democracy. Don't think that goal is quite on the CPAC agenda.

Oh, and he used the Presidential option of issuing an Executive Order. Agggh!

[Warren Stupidity]

7. yawn.

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise-social-and-political-views/

[kwassa]

9. It would have been nice if Pew included independents.

Many claim to be independent, don't necessarily identify with a party, but in actuality lean one way or the other in party preference.

and while there tend to be more religious folk voting Republican versus Democratic, it isn't a huge difference. More Catholics vote Democratic, a fact I pointed out before. There are a lot of religious Democrats.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. In 2010 and 2014, more Catholics voted Republican for House Rep

http://www.pewforum.org/2014/11/05/how-the-faithful-voted-2014-preliminary-analysis/

(Overall 2014 House vote was 51% R, 45% D; 2010 52% R, 45% D; 2006 44% R, 52% D; so slightly more Republican than the country average)

Presidential Catholic votes are more likely to go Democratic, but pretty closely match the country as a whole:



http://www.pewforum.org/2012/11/07/how-the-faithful-voted-2012-preliminary-exit-poll-analysis/