Atheist Republican

[jcpopm]

edgf
er
ger
ge
rg
erg
rg
rg

[Brizz]

Can one be an Atheist and a Republican? Can one agree with the Republican Party in term of abortion, immigration, Iraq War, national defense, gay marriage, trickle down economy and all that except religions? I wonder how such atheist would be treated in the Republican Party. Any concrete example?

"Republican" has been turned into a dirty word as of late. That being said, I know tons of a-religious and/or atheist republicans. Literally hundreds.

[Zenrage]

Independents can have a moderate amount of success on state levels, but there need to be more of them (and they have to be successful) before any real federal positions can be filled by them.

The Libertarian Party will never get off the ground. Their platform is too contradictory to be of any benefit and Ron Paul is just batshit insane.He may have been popular when he was Bush bashing during the lat 8 years of federal level stupidity, but hell, even NIXON looked good against that assclown. At least Nixon knew that adding "under God" to the pledge of the allegiance was a violation of the separation of church and state and not only voted against it, but walked out of the session when the legislation was signed by Eisenhower. Ron Paul, on the other hand, wants Creationism taught in US public schools.

Regardless, they are still the closest thing we have to a third party. The Green Party has hopelessly tied its anchor to Ralph Nader who is even battier than Ron Paul.  And the other fringe groups are just loonies.

[nikkmichalski]

I'm sure it's possible, just not likely/common.

[-43-]

Big government republicans vs big government democrats...
Both parties are in a horrible state (democrats are worse at this point in time) I want a refund.

[Zenrage]

The size of a government has nothing to do with the amount of power either the collective government wields or any individual within the government wields. If the amount of power a government wields were related to its size, then the more government there is, then the less power any specific individual within the government would have.

What matters is how answerable the individual officials are to the public. The solution is not more or less government, but rather more elected officials in government and fewer appointees.

[-43-]

"Big" is reffering to the amount of power the govt' wants to wield.  It's a colloquialism for psuedo-authoritarian.

[SlapMonkey]

I'm a conservative atheist, which I suppose is a fairly close equivalent.

I disgaree about a lot of moral things the party preaches about, but I like their tax plans and general government philosophy of free markets and minimisng the size of the state.

I am on board with that thinking as well.

I live in Nashville, so on my way home from work everyday I listen to Phil Valentine. Much of what he says makes sense...but then there are those time where he makes reference to religion(s), and then he starts to lose logic points with me.

I still have a hard time understanding why a party that always talks about logical thinking and the like can base most of their lives on religion. Where is the logic in that?

I would also say that I'm a LIbertarian...I agree mainly with conservatives on fiscal and smaller-gov't ideas, but differ greatly on the their general concepts as to what is morally right and wrong (especially concerning the "why" factor).

[LoneMateria]

I still have a hard time understanding why a party that always talks about logical thinking and the like can base most of their lives on religion. Where is the logic in that?

Votes.  They just say what voters want to hear.  Whether it makes sense or not to the well educated they are not the majority of voters.  Guess who their target audience is?  The majority of Christians who hear a few key phrases and say this is who I want.

[EvolutionisRight]

Personally I believe that both parties are at fault. Instead of listening to the American people and to those who elect them, they become active in things on their own personal agenda. Both parties have their upsides and downsides, no one is perfect but how some of these people get into the position of power their in is just plain astounding.

[Whitney]

Personally I believe that both parties are at fault. Instead of listening to the American people and to those who elect them, they become active in things on their own personal agenda. Both parties have their upsides and downsides, no one is perfect but how some of these people get into the position of power their in is just plain astounding.

I agree, which is why I don't claim to be part of any party.

My only big problem with the republican party is that they have been overtaken by the right wing fundamentalist religious people.  I think most of the big issues I have with their views would be resolved if it were not for the religious influence (there would still be issues, just not ones that are nearly as insane).

[G-Roll]

Personally I believe that both parties are at fault. Instead of listening to the American people and to those who elect them, they become active in things on their own personal agenda. Both parties have their upsides and downsides, no one is perfect but how some of these people get into the position of power their in is just plain astounding.

I agree, which is why I don't claim to be part of any party.

My only big problem with the republican party is that they have been overtaken by the right wing fundamentalist religious people. I think most of the big issues I have with their views would be resolved if it were not for the religious influence (there would still be issues, just not ones that are nearly as insane).

My only big problem with the republican party is that they have been overtaken by the right wing fundamentalist religious people.

I used to dismiss this as BS but recent observations has lead me to agree with you. On religious/moral standpoints I always somehow seem to be in dissagreement with whatever republican is on tv. I might agree with what they say but then somehow god creeps into the fold. it doesnt change my stance it just leaves me with this feeling of.... :crazy:

[Whitney]

Im not saying there isnt an atheist republican at all. But they should try to be on more tv shows, to prevent the image of a right wing fundi takeover.

Yes, there are some of them...not many though (likely because of being annoyed at the religious influence on republicans).  I think they are not on the TV shows because republicans don't want to promote that image; they seem to want to promote the image of a right wing fundi takeover (seriously, I think they do otherwise they'd make a point to speak in opposition to the crazies).  It's the same reason why you don't see any prominent gay republicans...the republicans in charge don't want to be represented by a homosexual.  I'm hoping that they have let the crazy fundie takeover get so bad that even traditional religious people are starting to wonder is going on and work to tone it down a few (or 20) notches.

[EvolutionisRight]

I'm actually a registered republican myself. Not for their religious beliefs but for fiscal responsibility, lower taxes and a strong military wich should only be used to defend our country instead of invading others. Though getting rid of the taliban and al-qaida are important. Liberals don't seem to get it that they waged war on us first on 9/11. What this administration is doing is sending us back to a pre 9/11 way of thinking and calling the war on terror a man made incident instead. Frankly I wish more people would be outraged because of this crap, almost 3,000 innocent men, women and children were killed for no reason because a bunch of towel wearing jihadists believed they were doing "God's work."

[Ultima22689]

I'm actually a registered republican myself. Not for their religious beliefs but for fiscal responsibility, lower taxes and a strong military wich should only be used to defend our country instead of invading others. Though getting rid of the taliban and al-qaida are important. Liberals don't seem to get it that they waged war on us first on 9/11. What this administration is doing is sending us back to a pre 9/11 way of thinking and calling the war on terror a man made incident instead. Frankly I wish more people would be outraged because of this crap, almost 3,000 innocent men, women and children were killed for no reason because a bunch of towel wearing jihadists believed they were doing "God's work."

And how many of the thousands upon thousands of people have we killed invading Iraq? What did invading and conquering Iraq have to do with finding a couple of terrorists? The Taliban didn't attack the US, al-qaida did and they don't run a country. They isn't the entire middle east, it's a very small extremist group that happens to have it's origins in the middle east. Liberals aren't missing anything, the phrase war on terror is stupid because it's so broad it can apply to anything and give us the moral justification to do whatever we want all in the name of the war on terror and what do you mean by man made incident? Are you saying that we are literally waging a war on terror? So are we going to invade every country that isn't a democracy then? How can you specify anything in a war on terror?