Tying Atheism into Political Bundles

54


Discussion by: RobertDeanIII

I don’t understand the notion that for one to be an atheist they must be associated with a certain political group, namely liberals or what some call the left. It is about as idiotic as the notion that for one to be pro-life one must be a Baptist conservative living in the southeastern United States. I think that what is important about atheism, thought and reason is the ability, foremost, to even begin thinking reasonably about anything. A pro-life stance, which is often wrongly thrown into a politically conservative pot, can be reasonably argued based on the merits of fetal pain research. Of course, this has, or should have if argued, have nothing to do with politics but a person’s concern that a living being may suffer pain after 20 weeks gestation.

          Again, that atheists are liberals or democratic-socialists and religious Americans are conservative-republicans, is a gross misunderstanding of what comprises the American nation. Yet I’ve seen this kind of simplification, a poor stereotype of course, shared from both the religious and non-religious. That you could be for free market capitalism and yet call yourself a free-thinker brings, in some circles, as much ridicule and disdain as calling oneself a religious democratic-socialist at a church in southern Georgia.

          I think that such ridicule has no merit and that the people that lambast one’s political beliefs without an ear to listen, especially those that think they are a part of some political collective of which they have joined for the sake of being in a collective, have by default rejected free thinking.

          What are you thoughts? Perhaps I’m being too harsh?

54 COMMENTS

  1. I agree with your view that nobody should assume you are of the political “left” if you’re an atheist.

    I don’t even like the terms “left” and “right” in politics, because I don’t see a correlation between all the policies that are usually labelled “left wing”, or all the policies that are labelled “right wing”.

    But do you have any examples of this ridicule that you seem to be so upset about?

  2. Speaking as a lefty here.

    First and foremost, there is no valid point for being pro-life (a stupid name btw) when being well informed about abortion. There’s nothing wrong with being ‘pro-life’ yourself but there is an issue of pushing your ideas onto others because you feel you’re right. That is the difference between being overly conservative and being more politically left.

    Right wing in American politics is too conservative and based on total capitalist ideas. They also continue to demean women and reduce their sexual rights. They appear to lack any consideration about the environment and feel that corporations are more important than the populace in general. It uses religion as a reason to do all the above. It hasn’t always been this way but that’s what’s happened.

    There is nothing wrong with wanting some level of economic foresight but that’s not politics these days. Politics to me seems to be clearly what’s best for the political parties and little for what’s best for the populace that puts the party in power. Most people are completely clueless about who they vote for.

    In a better world the idea of right, left and centre would be great but unfortunately we don’t live in that world.

    • In reply to #2 by Nick LaRue:

      The claim “no valid point” unfairly discredits without evidence that people are concerned that, “a living being may suffer pain after 20 weeks gestation.” I assure you that the doctors who conducted such research are more knowledgeable than me or you on these matters. Their research should be taken seriously. Whatever my or your political position may be on the matter, the evidence is not related.

      • In reply to #12 by RobertDeanIII: / #2 by Nick LaRue:

        The claim “no valid point” unfairly discredits without evidence that people are concerned that, “a living being may suffer pain after 20 weeks gestation.” I assure you that the doctors who conducted such research are more knowledgeable than me or you on these matters. Their research should be taken seriously. Whatever my or your political position may be on the matter, the evidence is not related.

        In any discussion (which is a bit off topic) of fetal development, I would suggest refernce to this link:-
        http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

  3. Categorising people as “left” or “right” politically has about as much validity today as having “atheism” under a heading of “chosen religion”.

    Every element of life, for the thinking person, is able to be evaluated independently from the next. Don’t let society’s and the media’s static laziness cement any topics/views as belonging to one camp. It’s a rubbishy, out-dated unworthy framework you should shun entirely.

    • A man after my own heart. I’ve been trying to get people to accept this for years on other forums. ‘Liberal’ has become an insult, and synonymous with ‘left,’ by people who don’t have a clue what each means. I say ditch the labels; take everything on its own merits, using reason and logic. I doubt if any person of reasonable intelligence, and who is free of superstition, is ever going to be genuinely ‘right wing’. It’s no coincidence that the fundamentalist Christian brigade in the US is always classified as right wing. Another misused label is ‘socialist’. Depending on the user it might mean ‘liberal’, Communist, bleeding-heart, ‘left-tard’, even fascist for crying out loud.
      As someone with a great love and respect for the English language, I find this abuse of it particularly offensive. An ever increasing number of useful words and terms are being rendered meaningless through misuse.In reply to #3 by Timothy McNamara:

      Categorising people as “left” or “right” politically has about as much validity today as having “atheism” under a heading of “chosen religion”.

      Every element of life, for the thinking person, is able to be evaluated independently from the next. Don’t let society’s and the media’s static laziness ce…

  4. This seems to be a confused bundle of strawmen and simplistic assertions, which is much more a reflection on whoever is making these strange claims, than anything to do with atheism or politics. The OP does not seem to reflect an informed view on anything!

  5. Since atheism is actually a non-position I do not see why any ideology should be mixed in with non stamp collecting, so to speak. Still, humans are human and will tend to correlate one thing with the other regardless of that correlation being valid or not.

  6. I agree with you if I catch your meaning correctly. I have friends and relatives who are on the right side of the spectrum (some very right – Limbaugh types) who are unashamed, declared, atheists. My brother in law actually is a personal friend and golf buddy of Limbaugh (I’m not a fan in case you’re wondering – more left of center if we’re using an x-bar chart for labeling purposes).
    What I think you’re looking at is a weakness in the political system which is hopelessly two party now. My “righty” folks (don’t mean to offend – they’ve got great names for me) tend to be wealthy single issue voters who are really interested in taxation and economic theories, anti-Keynsian, who are hard working, want to protect what’s theirs, etc, etc, and look at this “social conservatism” phenomenon as a necessary evil so to speak to get their guy elected. The ones I know are quite uninterested in religion, abortion, etc , and tend to look the other way when social reformers get the attention. The real conservative power comes from these types of conservatives. Seems a cynical view, but the ones I know, readily admit it privately.
    If the platform changed tomorrow to be pro-abortion, remove all religious totems from Washington, and stay anti-tax, anti-keynsian, they’d be erfectly happy. Especially since they are beginning to recognize the harm being sone to their electoral prospects by the “social right.”
    This has been my experience and perhaps unscientific. But an observation just the same to help understand why there is a correlation. Would like to hear what you think.

  7. In reply to #7 by Smill:

    In reply to Neodarwinian, post 5. Hi. You write, ‘atheism is actually a non-position’. I think being able to state ‘atheist’ about oneself is a reflection of one’s having questioned more than whether ‘god’ exists or not, but also equally (if not more so) questioning religion; and the role of wome…

    Atheism is simply not accepting theist claims for their particular brand of magic man.

    ” Religions are, in effect, political institutions, and to challenge them is a political act “

    This, though arguable correct, is anti-theism and not really the subject under consideration. If you wish to be this thing you are then you are more than an atheist. Good or bad, things may mean many things, but they may not mean anything you want them to.

  8. @ Nick LaRue – I’m going to have to call bullshit on the “…there is an issue of pushing your ideas onto others because you feel you’re right. That is the difference between being overly conservative and being more politically left.”

    That’s not divided along the right/left spectrum; there have been and still are plenty of leftists who would quite happily force you to do things their way if given the chance. They even use most of the same style of justifications for their position. The fact that at this particular moment in history it’s most often a right winger taking that stance is not germane.

    Getting back to topic at hand, I have noticed a marked tendency among a significant (for given value of significant) portion of the atheist community to blithely assume that any atheist is automatically, broadly speaking, a leftist, which of course is nonsense. Ayn Rand (despicable woman) was an ardent atheist and politically somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun.

    Being an atheist simply means that there’s a single particular brand of fuzzy thinking you don’t subscribe to, it doesn’t mean you won’t believe in any other garbage logic. This one of the reasons I didn’t think much of Richards’ brief campaign to get atheists to refer to themselves as “brights”. You can be an atheist and still believe in UFO abductions, libertarianism, crystal therapy, communism or any other variety of stupid BS.

    Ridiculing a belief in and of itself is not necessarily a rejection of free thought (a nebulous term if there ever was one). If when challenged, one can produce a logical reason for the ridicule then you have thought things out & RFT hasn’t occurred. If it’s just some sort of Pavlovian reaction, then yes, the accusation stands.

  9. You’re not being too harsh. It is simply a sign of the times. Very few people have the time, patience, or ability to handle multiple variables in their head at one time, so they simplify. There are two sides, liberal or conservative. If you are not with them, you are against them. Join the tribe. Recite the accepted creed. And go ye therefore!

    Whether we like it or not, atheism is being stereotyped as a liberal position. A lot of liberals seem to be coming out as atheists simply as part of a team building exercise. For example, the following was offered as a definition of “Athiesm Plus”:

    Atheists plus we care about social justice,
    Atheists plus we support women’s rights,
    Atheists plus we protest racism,
    Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia,
    Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism.

    While I agree with all of the additions, I think the order is screwed up. Critical thinking and skepticism seem to be the 5th most important aim of the atheist rather than reliable conceptual tools used to arrive at a conclusion of Athiesm. (also see Jamy Ian Swiss rant http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2013/5/7/jamy-ian-swiss-at-the-orange-county-freethought-alliance-conference-may-4-20?videos=true).

    Atheism is being stereotyped as an exclusively liberal position and there are a lot of loony liberals who like it that way. We methodological naturalists have to just keep plugging away.

  10. From a purely statistical standpoint, if atheism is positively correlated with a particular political stance – “left” instead of “right” for instance – then that’s simply a fact based on demographic data. This does not mean that one necessarily causes or has a considerable effect on the other (which of course it might), but the tendency for atheists to be on the political “left” and religious people to be on the political “right” cannot be dismissed simply because it is frowned upon as a gross oversimplification or because of related reasons that might echo such phrases as “black and white” or “pigeonhole”. A trend is still a trend and it should be explained rather than disregarded or sneered at. I’m not overly knowledgeable in the area of politics, but I do think that we should inquire into potential underlying causes behind correlations between atheism and political positions and, indeed, all relevant parameters that might elucidate the atheist mindset with regard to other disciplines, ideas and concepts.

  11. It seems to me that the way the confrontation of religious mythology has gone is predetermined by the fact that there are no grounds for debate. This was true from the start, as we all know, because one side was responding to mounting evidence assembled over generations in new fields, while the other was never interested in evidence in the first place. Inevitably, then, since it is not a debate but an argument, the conversation becomes circular. Atheists are being tagged as fundamentalist, now, and RD labelled – it’s a consumer society – an extremist. There was never going to be a victory. It has been a vital holding action against the Bush administration -and Bush was a deeply confused man- and the inevitable religious and paranoid response to jihadism.

  12. “But do you have any examples of this ridicule that you seem to be so upset about?”

    Just one important example, apparently.
    It’s simply a framing issue I think.
    Folk who belong to the diminishing “political collective” of ‘pro-lifers’ dislike being regarded as the conservative fringe dwellers they’ve now become, even among their religious peers. They’re equivalent to modern advocates for slavery or reintroduction of public flogging for criminals. They frame their bio-theological ideology as ‘pro-life’ because it sounds nicer than ‘anti-woman’s rights’ or similar. If human pain and suffering really concerned them they might instead campaign for women and children’s rights, rather than pretending eggs magically morph into sentient, miniature people upon fertilization.

    Attempting to frame this egg adulation as being pro-life is way too ambitious I reckon.
    Famous anti-abortionists, as they stridently once called themselves, such as Timothy McVeigh, Joseph Stalin, or Robert Mugabe are hardly pro-life people, or supportive of women. Although this hyper zygoticism (ensoulment) originated with Catholic bio-theological extremism known formally as Canon Law, post-modern devotees tend to be conservatives who believe removing a woman’s reproductive rights would be a socially progressive move.

    Few atheists or so-called leftists would agree with that.

  13. Please keep in mind that to think of the right-wing as: support of crony capitalism and the hating of minorities and women, is as ignorant an idea as the left-wing being: support of communism and genocide for the greater good. Such ideas bear the same idiotic mark as the world’s thought on ‘race’, or that Americans are drunken red-necks with grade school educations and the French are brown-trouser, crumpet-munching weaklings.

    An intellectual has the propensity to support and idea only as far as he or she has thought about it. Typically, much like Hitchens or Chomsky had and has habits of altering their views, intellectuals form their own ideas and often lack terms to put them under. Hitchens said he was left, aspired to Thomas Paine’s ideas, and thought a fetus was classified as human. Chomsky seems to change, or refine perhaps, his views on democratic-socialism and anarchism rather frequently. Chomsky in particular when asked if he was a socialist responded that socialism was so variable it had lost its meaning. So what did he do? He spent an hour, much like Plato, defining his views so their was no confusion. So next time someone says “I’m left” or “I’m right” ask them, “How so?” That way, you are not drinking media-sensation flavored Kool-Aid.

  14. People with an outlook on the world they call Atheist are prompted by many reasons and motivations. Whether they are rooted in independence, the need to group or simply rebellion is often disclosed by their assumptions about others and personal inclusions of notions about other things having nothing to do with Atheism as necessary components of Atheism..

    To assert independence from ‘religions’ and god worship is not always a matter of thoughtful individuality. Some folks can’t seem to get beyond a need for external authoritative, or group sanctions to validate their own and others’ thoughts. This same disability seems to also blind them to others’ freedom from that need; even sometimes to dispute validity of such orphan ideas. In short: If your points of view or beliefs don’t ‘belong’ they lack validity sufficient for audience; or because you support a position held by a group, you can only be understood by them as a member of the group. Both are signals to ‘bar the door’ intellectually. This cognitive impairment is rife.

    The very same garden variety folks tend to also (overlapping with my earlier post) try to construct and impose a doctrinal structure and oversight of those with whom they ‘group identify’. I think they just cannot feel secure about what they BELIEVE they think without external support; therefore deciding it must created it wherever they sense it is absent.

    Experience with what you are pointing out is really vexing and sometimes daunting. Regardless of the issue, if an individual asserts a strong, well thought out position, to the public at large, about half of them will mentally bolt like stampeding cattle as soon as they recognize it as incompatible with what they’ve taken to be manifest, non-reasoned truth. You become one ‘of ‘the opposition’, case closed, minds closed. Sadly many of the remaining other half roots-on ideas that comfort them as though it is a sporting event and you are a member of THEIR team. Winning and losing trumps reasoning.

    Those who occupy the middle ground because of distaste for herd identity are also labeled by both ends of the spectrum as not ‘standing’ for anything; a vile practice meant to discredit any mavericks. I think they reveal deep feelings of jealousy and distrust of any who are perceived as roaming free between the corral fences.

    Political correctness and non-’religious’ orthodoxies are just as effective at imprisoning minds as any holy church. Criticism of notions with PC sanctions earns every bit as much venom and hysteria as questioning virgin birth at a church gathering. Speak for bodily sovereignty, you’re a left winger. Talk about the genius behind the US Constitution, you’re a right winger. Complain about government interference in family formation, you’re a left winger; in medical care, you’re a right winger; in drug use, your’ a lefty and it goes on and on.

    Our authoritarian, all powerful system of public schooling has made independent questioning and critical thinking heresies; punishable by tactics like shouting down, filibuster, name calling, deprivation of respect and civil rights; with a little help from the press when necessary. When answers to questions like when life begins, who sleeps with whom, human made global warming, social engineering are held to be determined by manifest, untouchable truths, emotions trump objective thought even temporarily, for the sake of discussion.

    Atheists must endure these frustrations regularly as part of the desert landscape.

  15. Myself, I’m not exactly thrilled with being associated with being politically left. Gun control and comprehensive restrictions on GMOs are typically associated with the left, yet I disagree with them both. On the other hand regarding most issues (social equality, protection of civil rights, environmental conservation, a robust social contract, et al.) my position is consistent with classical liberalism (though less and less so the progressive movement or the rightward-sliding democratic party)

    So that said, I won’t say that Atheism is inconsistent with Republicanism or conservatism, but it is inconsistent with specific positions, such as pushing specific religious agendas in school (teaching biblical Creationism in biology).

    Regarding abortion, specifically, the arguments in favor of access are nuanced. Even if we were to attribute personhood to the fetus, we have to point out that when a woman is denied abortion, her right to control her own body (and her womb is still hers whether or not someone else is squatting there) is being infringed. Considering that pregnancy has significant negative health effects (generally, much more so than abortion or contraception) and statistically is almost certain to affect her future welfare, there really shouldn’t be any further argument about the rights of a zygote or fetus overriding hers.

    But the ability to feel (that is, detect and respond to pain) is one of those considered as a point for fetal personhood and it also coincides (about 22 weeks) with the beginning of higher brain functions, which is the point in time the US uses to determine when personhood ends (for purposes, say, of harvesting for transplantable organs). (There is a lot of disinformation as to when things happen, so be sure to try to confirm your information from multiple sources.)

    Useful: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when2.htm

    Also: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_argu.htm

    My concern has been the uniform lack of approaches of the pro-life sector in the US when it comes to preventing abortions, which is to say legal obstruction. Germany has the lowest abortion rate in the industrialized world and yet has full access. They also provide a robust welfare system, essentially recognizing that bearing and raising children is a service to society that should be encouraged. Here in the US, not so much. Over 70% of children born of mothers turned away for abortion grow up in poverty. Many of them on the pathetic welfare program we have. Also in need of reform is our abominable foster-care program. The pro-life community has been conspicuously silent on these issues.

    Ectogenesis (artificial wombs) is a field of science being developed without any support from either side, when free nation-wide access to it (and a fast, cheap transference procedure) would solve the abortion concern outright by separating the fates of mother and fetus. Albeit it might aggravate other controversies, but they are much more easily managed than the abortion issue.

    • In reply to #20 by Uriel-238:

      Gun control and comprehensive restrictions on GMOs are typically associated with the left,

      I don’t understand how anyone who claims to be governed by reason and critical thinking can be against gun control. The data on this is overwhelming. The US has the most lax gun laws of all the industrialized nations and we have the most gun violence and murders. And not just by a little but an overwhelming degree. And the same goes for the data about the personal consequences of owning a gun. It shows overwhelmingly that you are less safe with a gun in your house rather than more. A gun in the house is far more likely to be used in anger or accident against someone in that home than for self defense.

      And most of the arguments by pro-gun people are highly irrational. They are couched in terms of honor and the right to own a gun rather in rational discussions of the pros and cons on society of encouraging gun ownership.

      • There is a way, outlined in the Constitution, to make changes. Bill of Rights protections are not subject to change because of opinions or unconstitutional laws or executive orders. The Constitution is not set in concrete. If there is sufficient support for an amendment affecting or even abolishing the Second Amendment, the states will ratify it.

        This is orderly and based on the wishes of ‘the governed’. If you can’t do that you are wasting time and breath on opinions about civil rights. Maybe the Klan or the Communist party or some other group will listen. They also complain about protections of civil rights. Until or unless there is a new amendment ratified, it doesn’t really matter if people oppose the owning guns. In reply to #21 by Red Dog:

        In reply to #20 by Uriel-238:

        Gun control and comprehensive restrictions on GMOs are typically associated with the left,

        I don’t understand how anyone who claims to be governed by reason and critical thinking can be against gun control. The data on this is overwhelming. The US has the most lax gun…

        • In reply to #27 by SilverWun:

          There is a way, outlined in the Constitution, to make changes. Bill of Rights protections are not subject to change because of opinions or unconstitutional laws or executive orders. The Constitution is not set in concrete. If there is sufficient support for an amendment affecting or even abolishing the Second Amendment, the states will ratify it.

          I understand all that. And I would be for a constitutional amendment that redefined the right to bear arms in a more rational manner. I would also be for a constitutional amendment that taxed the Catholic Church and put the money in my personal bank account and both those things would have about the same potential to pass.

          To amend the constitution takes a lot more than a majority in both congresses. It takes a supermajority I think 2/3 but definitely more than 50%. And even that isn’t enough it also has to be ratified by a majority of states. In the current political climate they can’t even pass a budget. The chance of any change to the constitution is pretty much zero and even more so for one about guns that would send the right into apoplexy

          This is orderly and based on the wishes of ‘the governed’. If you can’t do that you are wasting time and breath on opinions about civil rights. Maybe the Klan or the Communist party or some other group will listen.

          Rhetoric like that is childish. Have you ever actually been involved in any political movements? I have and its hard work and requires compromise and you don’t always get what you want right away but you accomplish nothing with empty rhetoric especially that implies violent change.

          They also complain about protections of civil rights. Until or unless there is a new amendment ratified, it doesn’t really matter if people oppose the owning guns.

          That is the kind of attitude that I find so often in the US left and its one of the reasons I think the US left is so pathetically ineffective. They behave like children throwing a temper tantrum “we demand everything!” and end up getting nothing.

          There are a lot of things that can be done short of amending the constitution and if you were actually involved in the movement to do something about gun violence you would know that. For starters just enforcing the laws on the books. Congress won’t approve key positions and has been defunding the ATF for years, decades actually. And next just bring back things like the assault weapons ban and bans on extended clips and get rid of the loopholes you can drive a truck through and require real background checks for all gun purchases.

          I agree those are stop gap measures and much less than what the US really needs but they would be a real change and would save lives and would start us on the right directions. Unlike an amendment to change the second amendment these ideas have broad support, even among conservatives, and they have a real chance to be passed if people got involved rather than just empty talk.

          • There is nothing at all irrational about the Second Amendment. A ‘super majority’ is what was intended. The founders were not total Democrats. They even tried to hold the Senate safe from the mob until a later amendment allowed senators to be elected at large. Had they seen how the plan for an ‘enlightened electorate’ via public schooling would turn out they would probably have required a four fifths majority to amend.

            Most of the ‘hard work’ of political movements is effecting compromise on the part of the opposition and when it doesn’t happen labeling it ‘obstructionist or reactionary’. When you move to deprive people of liberty they do get a bit testy and it is natural to expect violence to occur if the attempt is made by force; force also being violation of the fundamental governing document with illegitimate legislation that is to be enforced long before challenges can be heard by the judiciary. We are being subjected to that tactic in a wholesale manner right now and it very much jeopardizes the sociopolitical and economic stability of this country.

            If anything is childish about our political scene, it is our president who whines about being limited by a pesky constitution and a congress that was wisely created to check executive branch usurpation of power; something that occupies most of his time that isn’t spent on vacation or the golf course.

            I agree with the part about enforcing laws that are on the books. Those who commit violent crimes would be targeted by that kind of solution. Trying to take guns out of the hands of the MILLIONS of people who do not commit violent crimes solves nothing but to make them defenseless against those who would victimize them; be those people law breakers or law makers. Laws limiting gun sales ONLY to those who have been convicted of violent criminal behavior or those with mental illness, especially if they are under psycho-pharmaceutical therapy, are rationally based and would be public self-defense. Mass murders have undeniably occurred because of these ‘loopholes’ but rendering the population at large defenseless is like throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water. States can more easily and comfortably enact new laws to control this. Central government has no business in it.

            Be of good cheer! All talk isn’t empty. It might appear so now, but the picture will rapidly change if there is anything ‘done’ by unconstitutional means to disarm the American public. If and when that happens the talk will be walk and it will be loaded.
            In reply to #29 by Red Dog:

            In reply to #27 by SilverWun:

            There is a way, outlined in the Constitution, to make changes. Bill of Rights protections are not subject to change because of opinions or unconstitutional laws or executive orders. The Constitution is not set in concrete. If there is sufficient support for an amendmen…

          • Americans go berserk when I point this out (not irrational at all), but if you actually read the Second Amendment it is referring to a militia, NOT every nut-jobs right to own an arsenal of guns. It’s not even written terribly well. Frankly I’ve become de-sensitised to it when I hear about yet ANOTHER school shooting. How many more do you have to have before you acquire some sense? In reply to #34 by SilverWun:

            There is nothing at all irrational about the Second Amendment. A ‘super majority’ is what was intended. The founders were not total Democrats. They even tried to hold the Senate safe from the mob until a later amendment allowed senators to be elected at large. Had they seen how the plan for an…

          • In reply to #38 by missbutton:

            Americans go berserk when I point this out (not irrational at all), but if you actually read the Second Amendment it is referring to a militia, NOT every nut-jobs right to own an arsenal of guns. It’s not even written terribly well. Frankly I’ve become de-sensitised to it when I hear about yet ANOTH…

            One of the interesting things about the second amendment is that while its worshipped now by the gun fetishists it was in some ways, believe it or not, an example of the revolutionary idea (which unfortunately is long dead) that the US should avoid wars and avoid the problems associated with a professional standing army. The idea was that citizen militias would band together in case of external threats but there would be no professional army because they were afraid that as generals got power and formed alliances with business there would be incentives to go into wasteful wars. Another example of why I think people like Jefferson were so brilliant.

    • In reply to #20 by Uriel-238:

      I won’t say that Atheism is inconsistent with Republicanism or conservatism,

      I disagree with this statement. Conservatism in the U.S. is specifically about preserving social, institutional and political norms to preserve the balance that keeps mankind from falling into anarchy due to Man’s ‘beastly’ nature. Religion is a central core to this philosophy. Libertarians and neoconservatives aren’t really conservatives in the traditional sense.

      • In reply to #22 by Skeptic:

        In reply to #20 by Uriel-238:

        I won’t say that Atheism is inconsistent with Republicanism or conservatism,

        I disagree with this statement. Conservatism in the U.S. is specifically about preserving social, institutional and political norms to preserve the balance that keeps mankind from falling in…

        I don’t completely agree with your assessment of right wing ideology but IMO there is a more important point than trying to characterize the ideology and that is simply looking at the rationality of the arguments and the evidence that supports them. There are a few exceptions (e.g. GMOs) but for the most part the evidence on issues like Climate Change, Teaching of Intelligent Design, Healthcare, etc. the reasons and data on the left side are overwhelmingly stronger. Indeed, with the US Republicans even calling what they say an argument these days is a stretch, their rhetoric falls consistently to the level of emotional utterances with little coherent thought behind them.

  16. First, RobertDeanIII, tell me a little more about why this bothers you so much. My dad said to me once when I was young, “sterotypes exist for a reason.”

    I’m an atheist, have been since about 8. I wasn’t political then. I went to the university of texas for my undergraduate degree and there learned about the differences in the two parties and elected to become a republican.This was the early 80s just as Reagan was taking office. I made this decision based on what I thought at the time was the best way to run the government for the betterment of ALL citizens. I was wrong. I now call myself an independent. I’m pro-choice not pro-abortion and mainly also because I’m pro-life. Life of the mother to live hers as she sees fit and life of the child born into a situation where the mother can’t take care of that child. In other words, I want that child to have a decent life. Also, I think what a woman does or doesn’t do in the privacy of her doctor’s office is her business and not yours. I’m anti-gun, again because I’m pro-life not pro-violence and death. I could go on, but my point is, I have opinions that should be settled law at this point. We shouldn’t have to endlessly debate this shit because one party or the other doesn’t like the status quo. I’ll give you we have a second amenedment right to guns, but not uzis and ak47s and stuff. We should be able to protect ourselves from the government but that statement seems ironic in light of how the republicans feel about abortion vs gun control. Don’t legislate away my right to an abortion if I see fit and I won’t legislate away your right to have a gun. Seems fair.

    As to the fetus feeling pain thing, from what I can tell it is based on the fact that they use anesthesia during surgery on the fetus in utero. This is more to imobilize the fetus than because of a “belief” the fetus feels pain. Even if it felt something, it wouldn’t know how to process that yet seeing as the nerve/brain connections aren’t wired yet. It is a stupid argument. Abortion is about punishment of women doing something religious old men think they shouldn’t be doing. Plain and simple. They did the “dirty deed” now we’re going to make those bad women pay.

    As I see it, none of these issues have anything to do with the fact that I’m an atheist or not. However, I do think they’re being used to manipulate a good deal of the religious people in the USA for an agenda of which most are truly unaware. If republicans can get to people on one issue (guns or abortion) problem solved. They have a voter for life most likely. If they can make it about pleasing god, well, all the better.

    So, now, I’m a “lefty” I suppose, but not because I’m an atheist. But because the republicans have shit the bed.
    /end rant

  17. Is there a correlation between the left wing and athiesm in point of fact?

    The thing my experience suggests is most conservative voters I know tend to be more likely to be anti-science (with some exceptions), therefore more likely to be against the idea of doing anything about global warming for example. I’ve been in pleanty of arguements on this site to refute the claim that all athiests share the scientific concensus about AGW. Having said that, all the hippy types I know (very left on most issues) are against vaccination and pro all sorts of woo.

    Clearly its more complicated but is there in fact any correlation?

    • There is plenty of scientific evidence to argue against the now Orthodox and therefore unassailable doctrine of human caused climate change. Enough to at least introduce some new perspectives. ‘Global Warming’ should be listed as a faith and given all of the attendant privileges of a theology so that it won’t be taken so seriously. In reply to #26 by Reckless Monkey:

      Is there a correlation between the left wing and athiesm in point of fact?

      The thing my experience suggests is most conservative voters I know tend to be more likely to be anti-science (with some exceptions), therefore more likely to be against the idea of doing anything about global warming for ex…

  18. The OP asserts atheism to be “unthinking” unless atheists endorse a ‘pro-life’ stance and not much else.

    That euphoniously repackaged, sciency-looking political relic, is actually pro-(egg)life(ism), nee Anti-Abortionism. Adopting lower case letters helps disguise the extreme political position behind that saccharine new slogan. Half humanity is alienated immediately, atheists or not, just for attempting to resurrect this archaic Vatican political goal.

    Yahweh/Jesus, the chimeric ghost/god remains so disinterested that She delegated nature to abort many more eggs annually than have ever progressed to a foetus or to birth, ever. The OP claims atheists are “idiotic” if they side with women on this contentious, US-centric issue. Akin to arguing atheists must support capital punishment to be considered rational.

    The OP title should plead ‘Incorporate Eggistentialism’ because everything else is glossolalic camouflage for that central proposition. It is the only “intellectual” aspect of the OP about which the author will entertain any subsequent discussion, apparently.

    • In reply to #30 by Len Walsh:

      The OP asserts atheism to be “unthinking” unless atheists endorse a ‘pro-life’ stance and not much else.

      That euphoniously repackaged, sciency-looking political relic, is actually pro-(egg)life(ism), nee Anti-Abortionism. Adopting lower case letters helps disguise the extreme political position beh…

      Eggisentialism, I like that! The thing is I can actually see making a case that discouraging women from having abortions is a good idea. But its the way you do that that matters. For starters you don’t do it by teaching teen girls abstinence only birth control. You teach them real birth control especially condoms and you remind them that boys their age are sex obsessed maniacs who won’t want to use them.

      The other ways you could discourage abortion would be to not stigmatize girls who get pregnant out of wedlock. To give them free pre-natal care, free doctor’s or midwife care for the birth, and then have a well funded adoption system as well as a system for single moms who decide to keep their baby so they can continue with school and provide for their babies.

      That kind of pro-life movement I would be all for and if the pro-life movement was really about caring for life that is what they would be proposing. But of course pro-life for the vast majority of them really comes down to “we don’t enjoy sex and we hate anyone that does and want them to suffer for it”

  19. SilverWun, you’re the lucky one I reckon. You will likely never understand why the rest of the world puzzles over such a paranoid fetish for guns.

    When the ‘Flat Earth Society’ heard that your President equated them with climate science deniers they were highly indignant. In fact they were outraged over being associated with those ideologues who so obstinately reject climate science. They held a press conference to protest how they were being made to sound ridiculous.

    The Bloomberg headline was ‘Flat-Earther Protest: Climate Change More Credible than Round Earth’ while Salon’s tag was ‘Actually, even the Flat Earth Society believes in climate change’.

    • The rest of the world isn’t and really never has been our concern when it comes to our national constitution. That is why we remained free for so many years and why our own dismantling it with unconstitutional unchallenged legislation has led to our current chaos. Our fetish is freedom and the second amendment exists to ensure that if tyranny does compromise the Bill of Rights that ‘the people’ have a means of defense. Bear in mind, I’m not denying climate change or even the possibility of warming. What science can show, if the global warming propagandists would ever openly debate among scientists, is that climate change is constant and cyclical. The world has gotten along for millions of years without us and will continue after we’re gone. It has lots more time than we and our demise will be far more direct than a gradually inhospitable climate. Look what happened to Chicken Little. He’s long gone and the sky is still up there… In reply to #31 by Len Walsh:

      SilverWun, you’re the lucky one I reckon. You will likely never understand why the rest of the world puzzles over such a paranoid fetish for guns.

      When the ‘Flat Earth Society’ heard that your President equated them with climate science deniers they were highly indignant. In fact they were outrag…

      • In reply to #33 by SilverWun:

        The rest of the world isn’t and really never has been our concern when it comes to our national constitution.

        In fact people like Jefferson and Madison were very aware of the impact things like the constitution would have on the rest of the world and were also very concerned with the image of the US as a world power. Its always been a concern. Some of the founding fathers (e.g. Hamilton) were concerned that the US would be too much of an example and would inspire revolutions across Europe against monarchical power. Others (Jefferson, Paine) felt the same way but they thought such revolutions were a great idea. Either way to state that the US founding fathers were only looking inward is not at all accurate.

        That is why we remained free for so many years and why our own dismantling it with unconstitutional unchallenged legislation has led to our current chaos.

        What legislation are you talking about? Name a specific example.

        Our fetish is freedom and the second amendment exists to ensure that if tyranny does compromise the Bill of Rights that ‘the people’ have a means of defense.

        Fetishes can be fun in certain contexts (I could give some real specifics on that one but I’m sure the mods would say OT) but by definition they are irrational. The idea that americans need guns to protect them from the government is just so inane I shouldn’t even bother with a reply but I will anyway. The US government spends apx. as much as the rest of the world combined on our military. Have you ever seen an Abrams Tank? One Abrams tank could roll down your street and annihilate the whole block without the crew inside getting a scratch. Not to mention they could also level it with a cruise missile fired miles away from a fighter plane or drone.

        The people who talk about wanting guns to defend their freedom are IMO nothing more than immature little boys still playing war. They may have delusional fantasies about fighting the big bad gubmn’t but in reality most of them know less about actual combat than even someone like me who has never been in it. Also, in reality most of them would piss their pants if they were ever in a real fire fight.

        Your comment reminds me of the recent book by Steven Pinker The Better Angels of our Nature. He shows how so much violence comes down to insecure men trying to prove their masculinity with violence and the threat of violence. His alternative for a saner world for everyone is we start using reason to solve problems and stop using appeals to fetishes and I agree with him.

        Which brings me back to the data I mentioned which of course you ignored. The evidence is overwhelming that people with a gun in their house are less safe than people without one. A gun in the house if far more likely to be used accidentally or in the heat of anger against one of the family members than against an intruder. And the same goes for the nation. The US has the most lax gun laws of any industrialized nation and the most gun violence, and not by a little by a lot.

  20. Being a “Right wing” atheist myself I have often pondered over this subject. I once mentioned “Ayn Rand” at a Brisbane Atheist meeting, it brought about as much scorn as uttering “Richard Dawkins” at a Baptist prayer session.

    It’s probably safe to say that Milton Friedman was at least an agnostic if not an atheist.

    It often does seem these days that the “New Atheists” are as much a mouthpiece for homosexual marriage, militant feminism, global warming and socialism as they are for disbelief in someone who walks on water, changes water into wine vandalises fig trees and drowns pigs to cure lunatics.
    New Atheists complain about right wingers forcing religiosity on the populace but cannot see that taxing every working person to pay those who don’t work is forcing socialist ideas on the capitalist!
    Atheism was progressing well in the 1960′s. Barry Goldwater gave sevral speeches where he chastised evangelical preachers and had a stripper/pole dancer to entertain at a Republican convention.
    The question I ask is would the “New Atheists” make more progress in obliterating religion if they just ignored issues other than what the word means: Disbelief in any kind of supernatural god.

    • In reply to #36 by cosmx:

      Being a “Right wing” atheist myself I have often pondered over this subject. I once mentioned “Ayn Rand” at a Brisbane Atheist meeting, it brought about as much scorn as uttering “Richard Dawkins” at a Baptist prayer session.

      It’s probably safe to say that Milton Friedman was at least an agnostic…

      This comment is just ‘wow’. Where does one begin with this? So ‘mouthpiece’ for gay rights, womens rights, global warming (science in other words) and caring for others is somehow wrong in your view? Really? How sad.

      The biggest issue with right wing capitalist thinking is that taking a view of nothing but money as being important above all else and placing value on everything basically turns science investigation into a waste of time and money. Which going by the track record of the right shows this to be true. Unless scientist are working on the latest military device or medical breakthrough it’s a pointless exercise in their eyes. That’s a very narrow view of value in my eyes.

  21. Cosmx: I’m so tired of that BS about lefties or Dems wanting people to pay more taxes so lazy people can sit around and not work. REALLY???? Do you HONESTLY think we’re that stupid??? Pick up your remote and switch off fox news. I know the BILLIONAIRE Rupert Murdoch doesn’t want to pay more taxes than he does now and that’s fine. I really don’t care if all the billionaires don’t pay any more taxes but think about it. They aren’t paying a fraction of the rate they’re actually taxed at because of loopholes that have been legislated in by, hmmm, let me see, oh yes! Republicans! Also, corporations are paying a fraction of what they owe. Again, laws legislated in by Republicans.

    As for the lazy so and sos who are getting welfare, some of them may be ok with that, but I know a few of them and they would rather work. Problem is, there are NO JOBS. Their jobs were moved over seas so the corporations could make more money. AND, pay LESS TAXES. Apple Corporation paid taxes on 1 billion dollars of revenue. Know how much they actually earned??? Bottom line? 64 billion.

    I would so rather pay someone to sit on his ass if he can’t find a job, than pay a CEO 350x his average employee’s salary. I’d also rather pay someone to sit on his ass than blame him while a banker robs all of us blind and is praised as a “creator.”

    TIRED TO DEATH OF HEARING THIS SHIT.

  22. Red Dog, your notes #35 and 39 were informative. I got a lot from them and I’m encouraged by the brilliance of Jefferson et el. You (and missbutton) explained the international historical relevance of your parochial militia politics succinctly for me. Thanks.

    Your earlier post 31 was salient to the OP’s only discernible proposal of “intellectually” aligning atheism with reinvigorated anti-abortionism, which is “often wrongly thrown into a politically conservative pot”.

    Truncated, you suggest: “The thing is I can actually see making a case that discouraging women from having abortions is a good idea… the way you do that that matters… You teach them… you remind them… The other ways you could discourage abortion… give them…”

    If only they’d learn, aye mate? ;)

  23. SilverWun #33

    “The rest of the world isn’t and really never has been our concern…”

    Thank you. Now I understand why you’re attempting to ‘Tie Atheism into a Your Particular Political Bundle”.
    The OP didn’t mention your fetish for guns or the War on Climate Science.

    An Old Athiest protests (#36) because modern atheism, and presumably the RDF, won’t formally reject authentic climate science, we won’t resurrect strident misogyny or tolerate homophobia like the good old days.

    He’s awfully upset because while he’s been ferociously busy trying to “obliterate” religion we’ve degenerated to a distracted “mouthpiece for homosexual marriage, militant feminism, global warming” and he’s personally being forced to fund it.

    Majorpain demolished the rest of the delusional nonsense.

  24. Sorry for coming late to the party. I unfortunately don’t get the chance to be on here as often as I want and can’t alway comment as quickly as I wish.

    To answer the criticisms about abortion. First let me clarify my position. In a perfect world we wouldn’t need abortion but this isn’t a perfect world and there are a lot of factors as to why someone wishes to abort a pregnancy. I highly doubt that this decision is taken lightly with most people. I looked up the statistics and I found something rather interesting. A common right wing tactic is to point to something and take the worse thing about it. Oh, 20 week abortions are bad! So are late term ones! However, the statics I was able to find show that just over 4% are at 20 weeks and just over 1% are late term. So call Bull Shit at me all you want. The facts show that most abortions don’t happen that late and your perceptions as to why women have them at that late stage are probably wrong too.

    As for the rest on this thread regarding capitalist thinking and gun control. I don’t know where to begin with this thing. I don’t fully get the fascination with guns and there’s nothing wrong with being capitalist but I think it needs to be done with some level of care. There was a time not too long ago that rich people actually care about community. This appears to have disappeared.

    • In reply to #43 by Nick LaRue:

      In reply to #36 by cosmx: “his comment is just ‘wow’. Where does one begin with this? So ‘mouthpiece’ for gay rights, womens rights, global warming and caring for others is somehow wrong in your view? Really? How sad.”..

      For the purposes of the this conversation, which is about tying atheism to political bundles it is irrelevant whether it makes you sad or not that someone has different ideas about the subjects mentioned above. …. and while I have spent a lifetime in Science, (yes! I was employed for decades by a filthy multi-national Chemical company that toasted babies with the sole intention of adding CO2 to the atmosphere and annoying red cordial drinkers….but they enjoyed using our products!) disbelief does not have to have anything to do with Science. I was about 8 years old when common sense told me that the idea of someone walking on water was ridiculous and any father who was prepared to kill his son, such as Abraham, was a bad man.

      I feel that religion is dangerous and would prefer to see all religion completely dismantled, Unfortunately while it is seen as a mouthpiece for a particular group, left wing in this case, atheism will alienate a huge part of the population. It is safe to say that 40-60% of the population in most developed “western” type societies is fiscally and socially conservative – ie: Prefer small government, lower taxes, feel safe with a military that is prepared to nuke any potential enemy and feel uncomfortable in the presence of homosexuals, pierced tongues, tattoos and baseball caps in the reverse position. I am pretty sure that is a fact. You may not like that, who cares? Get used to it!

      By associating atheism with the “Left” causes unnecessary disaffection of 40 to 60% of the population and while this is the case, atheists will always stay a small percentage of the population, as is the situation now. THIS is what I find sad.

  25. Nick, welcome to the party, you’re just fashionably late.

    Yes, the rhetoric coming from the right is hyperbole at its finest. They’ve raised it to an art form. Start with “pro-life.” They aren’t pro-life. Hell, they cheered every time GWBush executed prisoners (and he I think executed the most in US history at least recent history). It really and truly comes down to crime and punishment for them. Women shouldn’t be having sex other than to get pregnant. Punish them.

    A young black kid is walking through a nice neighborhood acting “suspicious.” He got what he deserved when he was killed. He shouldn’t have been there. He obviously didn’t have the right to stand HIS ground.

    None of us want abortions. I performed quite a few of them in medical school. It always left me feeling sad that the woman was in that situation and she didn’t want to be. I felt sorry for each and every one of them. I wanted to tell most of them that they were being used and they should get some self esteem but that seemed to fall on deaf ears. They’re so pushed to be sexual…it is either that or be alone. If we left the judgment out of it, we would probably have more adoptions.

    Sorry, I keep getting interrupted. Can’t keep a coherent train of thought. Will try to write more later.

    • This is why I love this forum. It’s the only place on the internet I have come across where those who think intelligently, logically and reasonably are actually in the majority. An anomaly indeed. In reply to #44 by MAJORPAIN:

      Nick, welcome to the party, you’re just fashionably late.

      Yes, the rhetoric coming from the right is hyperbole at its finest. They’ve raised it to an art form. Start with “pro-life.” They aren’t pro-life. Hell, they cheered every time GWBush executed prisoners (and he I think executed the most in U…

  26. I agree whole heartedly with what you are saying.

    Margaret Thatcher once said, “the facts of life are conservative.”

    In other words, the results of thrift and sober virtue, vs. reckless hedonism, speak for themselves. The results of feckless weak foreign policy in the face of aggression, or firmly confronting aggressors, do likewise. The results of free markets vs. central planning an socialism in the real world are also dramatic. It’s perfectly possible to believe in traditional moral values, a strong foreign policy for Western nations, and free enterprise without believing in any aspect of the supernatural.

    Even the Catholic Church has taught that there is a “natural law” – that is facts about human nature and proper human relations that can be deduced purely from observation and reason alone, rather than any divine revelation being necessary, and it says that most of the basic rules of morality can be worked out this way — including traditional social values such as monogamy / fidelity and opposition to abortion and homosexuality.

    • In reply to #46 by Carney3:

      I agree whole heartedly with what you are saying.

      Margaret Thatcher once said, “the facts of life are conservative.”

      In other words, the results of thrift and sober virtue, vs. reckless hedonism, speak for themselves. The results of feckless weak foreign policy in the face of aggression, or firml…

      I see a bunch of false dichotomies! Margaret Thatcher had the Falklands war because of her cost-cutting weak policy left them virtually undefended in the first place – inviting invasion.

      Even the Catholic Church has taught that there is a “natural law” – that is facts about human nature and proper human relations that can be deduced purely from observation and reason alone,

      You seem to buy into their dogmas, with circular “reasoning” wheeled out to support you preconceived conclusions.

      rather than any divine revelation being necessary, and it says that most of the basic rules of morality can be worked out this way — including traditional social values such as monogamy / fidelity

      A lot of human anthropology and numerous animal populations show this to be false.

      and opposition to abortion and homosexuality.

      This is just whimsical assertion! Reasoning about abortion, requires medical understanding and a grasp of the social and economic conditions affecting the people involved. There are no “natural dogmas” involved. They don’t exist! Opposition to abortion under this pretence is just bigoted ignorance.

  27. In reply to #48 by cosmx:

    It is safe to say that 40-60% of the population in most developed “western” type societies are fiscally and socially conservative – ie Prefer small government, lower taxes, and feel uncomfortable with homosexuality, pierced tongues, tattoos and baseball caps in the reverse position. I am pretty sure that is a fact. You may not like that, get used to it!

    What source have you used to arrive at this number?

  28. In reply to #48 by DHudson:

    In reply to #48 by cosmx:

    What source have you used to arrive at this number?

    I often wonder about people who have limited social interaction. Those that don’t find and opportunity to mix and chat with as many people as possible, from overpaid executives through blue collar workers and those in low paid jobs. I often wonder about people who have never experienced more than 1 country. Those who are deaf and blind to what Nixon called “The Silent Majority”

    If the actual figure in your country 38.34886637748899388% or 61.456388635526673% then I am wrong!!!
    Sorry – I must go now my red cordial is getting warm and I must get down to the tattoo parlour….

    • In reply to #50 by cosmx:

      In reply to #48 by DHudson:

      In reply to #48 by cosmx:

      What source have you used to arrive at this number?

      I often wonder about people who have limited social interaction. Those that don’t find and opportunity to mix and chat with as many people as possible, from overpaid executives through blue c…

      You haven’t got any sources, I take it then?

      • In reply to #52 by DHudson:

        You haven’t got any sources, I take it then?

        Silly question. Just about every anglophone (and some European) countries hold an election every 3 to 5 years. When you bounce back from trying to win another “Gotcha” moment it is quite evident that conservative parties win around 50%+/- 10% support. If you have any experience of business, or life for that matter, you would understand that the precise figure is not important..

        My contention is that religion should be abandoned and to do that a large slice of the population with different ideas about must be accommodated.That is not going to happen if the volumes of people who are needed to change the face of religion are ridiculed about their social or economic opinions that really have nothing to do with the existence or non existence of a god.

        Imagine if Steve Jobbs, Bill Gates or the many businesses that have started as small entities, Sony, Panasonic, McDonalds etc had said: “Wait! Do we have an absolute guaranteed source of information about the market? No? We will not try to sell anything and just plod along until we know exactly how many people will buy iPads, iPhones, want windows on their PC,…etc etc..etc.” … and if we do go ahead and market our products customers that are not 100% in favour of homosexual marriage and free medical treatment will be ridiculed!

        The “new atheists” that I encounter may well be academically bright, (or think they are bright) but would be useless at selling used cars. (An atheist John Templeton needed?)

        Maybe the “new atheists” don’t really care and prefer to just continue as small group on the fringe of society. That’s OK for those who want that but then maybe some “new atheists” would prefer to bound ahead and rather reduce religiosity to the fringe of society. In which case their task will be much harder.

        • In reply to #53 by cosmx:

          Silly question. Just about every anglophone (and some European) countries hold an election every 3 to 5 years. When you bounce back from trying to win another “Gotcha” moment it is quite evident that conservative parties win around 50%+/- 10% support. If you have any experience of business, or life for that matter, you would understand that the precise figure is not important.

          So from the accumulated results of elections you conclude that 40-60% of the western worlds population are against, among other things, homosexuality and abortion.

          Sorry, but I’m simply not buying it.

          The “new atheists” that I encounter may well be academically bright, (or think they are bright) but would be useless at selling used cars. (An atheist John Templeton needed?)

          Maybe the “new atheists” don’t really care and prefer to just continue as small group on the fringe of society. That’s OK for those who want that but then maybe some “new atheists” would prefer to bound ahead and rather reduce religiosity to the fringe of society. In which case their task will be much harder.

          What are atheists supposed to sell according to you?

  29. Cosmx, it’s ironic to me you find it sad because it is the conservatives who are equating atheism with the “lefties.” This is a strategy pure and simple. They’re smart enough to know (at least the ones in charge) that they’re “bundling.” They know exactly what they’re doing. Associating anything with atheism scores points in their favor. And, the very fact that this is so easy to see and is happening so easily (meaning people can be so easily moved to hatred by being thus manipulated), is sad beyond words.

  30. Cosmx, I think you’ve stumbled into the wrong room.

    Try next door where the Kathlo-Deists meet. You’d enjoy their politics because your archetypal, pre-Vatican2, biblical prejudices already coincide precisely with theirs. These blood-thirsty crypto-deists retain all of the bigoted baggage of Catholicism but reckon they’re too smart to accept biblegod/s. You would fit right in, which would seem a lot easier than convincing atheists to align with your hateful ideology.

Leave a Reply