News:

Look, I haven't mentioned Zeus, Buddah, or some religion.

Main Menu

Conservative/Republican atheist

Started by jduster, August 25, 2010, 05:58:02 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Intercourseman72

I see as much difference between "atheists tend to be mainstream liberals" and "atheists tend to watch mainstream (not-so-mainstream as well) liberal news and entertainment" as I do between "men tend to be interested in watching sports" and "men tend to watch Sports Center".

It's a conclusion that follows directly from the premise that atheists to be liberal. C0ct0pus Prime's "Fuck Fox 'News'" series is very popular among atheists and the young Turks also attract a lot of religious skeptics(and that's just Youtube). It's considered anomalous really that someone even claiming to be an atheist (S E Cupp) winds up on Fox "News" generally supporting conservative views.This is not so much the case on Kieth Olberman or Rachel Maddow.  Compared to watching conservatives on TV and on the Internet (other than for amusement), I would say that atheists overwhelmingly watch more liberal stuff.

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "Intercourseman72"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I think atheists tend to reject right-wing parties because of the conformity those parties typically demand.  Every atheist, at one point in his or her life, was a non-conformist, and many still are.

Most atheists are fairly mainstream left-leaning. Not my conception of non-conformity. There surely is political diversity among atheists and non-religious people, but I am pretty sure you will find them overwhelmingly watching Kieth Olberman, The Young Turks, etc and either laugh at or detest Sean Hannity or Niel Cavuto. Maybe there will be some Nietzsche mixed in with their left-leaning views, but it's nothing I would consider "mavericky".

I have emphasized the qualifier in my statement for your benefit.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Thumpalumpacus

Also, these charts show that the only religious group which votes more consistently Democrat than the "unaffiliated" [it doesn't separate out atheists] is "black protestant".

Also, if you sort the data presentation by frequency of service attendance, you will clearly see that there is an inverse relationship between deep religiosity and liberalism: those who attend "at least weekly" are more likely to vote Republican over Democrat (52%-41%), while those who "seldom or never" attend show a markedly reversed pattern: 57%-33%.  This shows a stronger correlation between atheism and liberalism than between religiosity and conservatism, it seems to me.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Intercourseman72

Mexican Catholics also very consistently vote democrat. The southern border of the US is very blue around election time.


The Black Protestant thing is probably why Mississippi is the only state in the "deep South" that consistently votes democrats into office. Though, they are probably not the archetypal democrats like Hillary Clinton. Bill Clinton maybe? This is why east of the Mississippi River along the river is also so blue. Not necessarily an indication of being liberal or conservative though.

Thumpalumpacus

Illegitimi non carborundum.

DropLogic

Quote from: "jduster"I do criticize the Republicans for being fiscally irresponsible, but most of the debt is the fault of a broken entitlement system, necessary defense spending, and a Democrat-controlled Congress.
I'd hardly call our defense spending necessary.  We have over 700 military bases around the world that are fully staffed...and they twiddle their thumbs.  You could argue that they'd have no where to work if they came home, which is a valid point.  We would have to have a new industry ready to train hundreds of thousands for this idealistic idea to work.  I'm still working on that one in my head..lol.
I think you'll find a lot of people on this board are near the center.  The extremes of any spectrum are usually negative in nature.

notself

Quote from: "DropLogic"I'd hardly call our defense spending necessary.  We have over 700 military bases around the world that are fully staffed...and they twiddle their thumbs.  You could argue that they'd have no where to work if they came home, which is a valid point.  We would have to have a new industry ready to train hundreds of thousands for this idealistic idea to work.  I'm still working on that one in my head..lol.
I think you'll find a lot of people on this board are near the center.  The extremes of any spectrum are usually negative in nature.

Closing a military base takes several years. By reassigning military personal as the bases are closed, civilian contractors on other bases could be cancelled.  The army used to have military personnel perform maintenance, provide food services, manage clubs and recreational facilities.  All of these duties are now contracted out and the cost of contracts is much heavier than when the military performed these tasked directly.

Civilian contractors would have to find new customers or new services to sell, but that is the purpose of the free market system.  In the meantime, our military people would have new venues for service and would also be freed up to serve in our current and future war zones.  This would reduce the amount of people rotating into war zones 3 and 4 times.  Eliminating military bases in Europe and Japan would force those countries to pick up more of the burden for their own security.  

One of the reasons health care is free in most of Europe is because they spend very little on their defense budgets as compared to their gross national product.  The USA spends more on it's defense budget than Europe and China combined.  This has got to end.

Another way to reduce our budget deficit is to provide a catalog of American goods and services to all countries currently getting foreign aid.  Instead of sending cash to these country, they can select their aid from the catalog of American products.  This will eliminate the current situation where our cash foreign aid is spent buying weapons from the French or Germans.

Sophus

Quote from: "Will"One of the most famous atheists alive, Christopher Hitchens, is what would be considered in American politics a conservative  (for example, he supported and still supports the invasion of Iraq). He manages to get respect from people all over the political spectrum, though, in part because he has the courage of his convictions. I would say his being accepted by so many actually helps political conservatism move away from religion, even if just a little bit.

Is Hitchens really considered a conservative? As far as I know he has been a socialist his entire life and has stated "I am not a conservative of any kind."
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

Will

Hitchens is an interventionist. He believes in invasion and nation building, and continues to support the Iraq war despite the fact that virtually everyone on the left has given up on that quagmire. I'll have to see if I can dig up Hitchens' debate with Noam Chomsky following 9/11. Back in 2004, Hitchens supported President Bush for president, iirc. He supported torture for a time until he himself was waterboarded, verifying it was in fact torture.
I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.

DJAkuma

I fall in line more or less with a few of the other members above that are social liberal/fiscal conservative. I feel that punishing the successful and rewarding the lazy or unmotivated is not a good way to run or improve a society.

elliebean

Quote from: "DJAkuma"I fall in line more or less with a few of the other members above that are social liberal/fiscal conservative. I feel that punishing the successful and rewarding the lazy or unmotivated is not a good way to run or improve a society.
That seems neither socially liberal nor fiscally conservative to me.
[size=150]â€"Ellie [/size]
You can’t lie to yourself. If you do you’ve only fooled a deluded person and where’s the victory in that?â€"Ricky Gervais

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "Sophus"
Quote from: "Will"One of the most famous atheists alive, Christopher Hitchens, is what would be considered in American politics a conservative  (for example, he supported and still supports the invasion of Iraq). He manages to get respect from people all over the political spectrum, though, in part because he has the courage of his convictions. I would say his being accepted by so many actually helps political conservatism move away from religion, even if just a little bit.

Is Hitchens really considered a conservative? As far as I know he has been a socialist his entire life and has stated "I am not a conservative of any kind."

Hitchens caught a helluva lot of flak from the atheist community for his support of the Iraqi invasion.  In the eyes of the left, that was pretty much an unforgivable sin.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

DJAkuma

Quote from: "elliebean"
Quote from: "DJAkuma"I fall in line more or less with a few of the other members above that are social liberal/fiscal conservative. I feel that punishing the successful and rewarding the lazy or unmotivated is not a good way to run or improve a society.
That seems neither socially liberal nor fiscally conservative to me.

That's just one issue, maybe I have it backwards though.

Kylyssa

Quote from: "DJAkuma"I feel that punishing the successful and rewarding the lazy or unmotivated is not a good way to run or improve a society.



Your comment made me laugh, the bit about everyone who needs aid being either lazy or unmotivated.  You reminded me of this one type of homeless people I used to encounter - the conservatives who had recently become homeless.  Aside from those driven from their homes by brutal violence, they are always in the worst shock of any recently homeless people.  They still believe that being poor is caused by being stupid or lazy or bad people and they suffer a large amount of cognitive dissonance on the subject.  Then, they usually come to the conclusion that they are the only hard-working person to become homeless, that their situation is different and unique when it's actually common as dirt.  They have the most demands and complaints, too.

DJAkuma

Quote from: "Kylyssa"
Quote from: "DJAkuma"I feel that punishing the successful and rewarding the lazy or unmotivated is not a good way to run or improve a society.



Your comment made me laugh, the bit about everyone who needs aid being either lazy or unmotivated.  You reminded me of this one type of homeless people I used to encounter - the conservatives who had recently become homeless.  Aside from those driven from their homes by brutal violence, they are always in the worst shock of any recently homeless people.  They still believe that being poor is caused by being stupid or lazy or bad people and they suffer a large amount of cognitive dissonance on the subject.  Then, they usually come to the conclusion that they are the only hard-working person to become homeless, that their situation is different and unique when it's actually common as dirt.  They have the most demands and complaints, too.

I wasn't really referring to aid or state assistance, I was thinking more about taxation.