Can an Atheist be a Republican?
 

I have a dilemma. I am a life long, card carrying Atheist. But I also agree with the Republicans on economic issues most of the time. Democrats stand behind social programs, too much. They believe in stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. I do not. No hand outs here.

But as you know, many Republicans tend to be passionate, righteous, Christian Right parrots, who quote Rush Limbaugh or some other opinionated, narrow minded, big mouth. I live in an area where I fear to state my beliefs publicly.

Unfortunately, no other political parties count. So I stand behind the Republican party and hope that they do not force my children to pray in school or go on a witch hunt for the truly godless.

What to do......:D

<----- Atheist and a right winger squared to the tenth power!

I don't think anyone has suggested checking membership cards or asking questions about religious preference. The Republican party has iits share of loudmouths (I believe you mentioned Limbaugh) but for some reason Republican loudmouths tend to make more sense than do those of the Democrats (hope you caught the latest performance for the Hon. Robert C Byrd D. WV) If that doesn't win some kind of award for total phony the contest is rigged) and dont forget the Kennedys. Glad to have you in a Republican state of mind - and it doesnt hurt to be on the winning side occasionally.

With the next presidential election about 18 months away, many Americans today think President Bush will be re-elected to a second term and, in head-to-head matchups, Bush bests the top Democratic contenders.

In the latest FOX News nationwide poll of registered voters, conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corporation May 6-7, a majority (61 percent) predicts Bush will be re-elected, while 20 percent think he will be a one-term president.

Republicans are confident in their party leader retaining his office, as fully 85 percent think Bush will be re-elected compared to only 38 percent of Democrats. Independents fall in between with 57 percent thinking Bush will win in 2004.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86357,00.html

It looks to me like your political views may be more inline with the libertarian party. Libertarians believe in a bare bones governent with little social programs, and no government enforced morality. They believe abortion marijuana, should be legal and religion should be free. Might want to check them out.

Or, you could just be an Independant.

I too have been a lifelong atheist and agree with the Republicans more than Democrats. But quite frankly, politics has little or nothing to do with religion and that's how it should be.

Though I supposed politicians can assist the religious group of choice. But that's not really the point.

Being an atheist Republican is like a black guy joining the Klan.

How do you figure that? Religion, for some people, has nothing to do with politics.

I am a republician christian and I believe that the first amendment holds true:
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof;"

In other words, congress cannot pass a law that says you must worship a particular god, nor can they pass a law saying you can't worship at all.

Now to quote Frank Herbert (Author of Dune) "When religion and politics ride in the same cart, the whirlwind follows close behind."

half the things that bush is doing has stuff to do w/ religion.

he moral callings, and his moral duties and quoting from the bible in every speech he gives.

he's anti-abortion cuz of his religious beliefs, and he's anti other things cuz of this.


as somebody suggested, libertarian is the way to go.

i tend to go democrat cuz i'm pretty moderate on economic issues, but very left on social ones.

I think you mean Democratic Senator <b>Robert Byrd KKK</b> of West Virginia

Don’t forget, the Democrats are fine with a Klansmen as their spokesperson... "The Dean of the Congress"
he disgusts me.

I only go to church for funerals and weddings. Religion is not for me. But if helps other get through the day – fine they have that freedom.

I personally don't like Mr.Byrd, or the Democrats, for that matter. But I think some Republicans just use him as a scapegoat to cover up for their own policies toward African-Americans in this country. I know Democrats aren't perfect on this issue, but that's not the point.

Back to the topic, I can understand voting for a Republican if I liked him better than the Democrat challenger and no independent had a decent chance of winning. As far as joining the party, you should realize that a majority of Republicans are fundamentalist Christians who are actively trying to break down the wall between church and state while actively trying to promote their religion over others.

This statement by a prominent Republican says alot about how many Republicans view atheists like you and I:

"I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
-Former President George Bush

if sr's views are that extreme, consider W 10x

I guess cause there are many religious groups that seem to lobby towards the Republicans, so as a result, you lose the whole "seperation of church and state" ideal with that party in a way. They're trying to reinstate school prayer, and everytime Bush talks he mentions "God" in every other line. I'm not even an atheist and it bothers me.

And apparently Mr. Mojo took my comparison the wrong way. Most Republicans are not fans of atheists. Klansmen are not fans of African-Americans. Allying yourself with a group that doesn't like you too much isn't the best political choice, in otherwords.

religion is anathema to me. is that negative enough for you?

my politics are conservative.

I decide what positions I support - not some political party.

you are conservative and the republicans are conservative.

both of you have different sources for being conservative, yours might be education, experience something like that.

but for majority of republicans, the conservative stance is a result of godly influence.

<b>Killer Yoda</b>
I understood your analogy,(a jew at a Nazis party or a Yankee fan at Fenway – also work)

I wanted to remind people of the Byrd=Klan connection…where’s the outrage?!
End of line…

<b> fredbowsnowski</b>
Both major political parties visit churches to garner support. How many times have we seen a Clinton in a Harlem church? Parties candidates go to churchs an pray with many different congregations – anything for a vote and money.

People also made a big deal about John F. Kennedy being Roman Catholic, and he was a democrat. He quoted God also, I don’t think he tried to convert anybody

Whenever Bush mentions something about God, I’ve tune it out. Because it means nothing to me. But I know that to many people, it means a lot.

We have “Freedom <i>of</i> religion” not “Freedom <i>from</i> religion”. The separation of church and state is still in effect – or are you saying that people can’t talk about their god whom ever it maybe? There’s no way Congress would pass a law that says we all have to Christian. Checks and balances work. If the president asks you to pray for the soldiers or Columbia astronauts, you don’t have to pray. He asks you, not tells you.

<b>The Dude</b>
<i>“but for majority of republicans, the conservative stance is a result of godly influence.”</i>

Please, just stop talking… If religion was all that mattered to people about political parties would 90% of blacks vote for Democrats? Don’t they both pray from the same book? Don’t they both go to church on Sundays?

For the <b>majority</b> of conservatives i know (and in my business i know lots) – its lower taxes, stronger foreign policy. If you join a party based on religion – then you really are a sheep.

<b> maximusveritas</b> for your bush quote include the date - August 27, 1987

you really think bush sr changed his views now?

I'm very conservative and there can't be anyone on the face of the planet that hates religion more than me. No god has ever had any influence on me and never will.

you're not part of the majority then.

congrats! :)

It seems funny to me then that religious organizations get tax exempt status, it's kind of like violating the constitution to me. Churches should have to pay taxes just like any other for profit business. (Church's are indeed businesses and they do operate for a profit, even if they operate under the guise of non-profit. How then would they have events and add on to the church?)
-On another note, it should be illegal for any politician to so much as mention or make reference to his or her religious beliefs because it should have no standing, and they use that as a means to get votes, which is a violation of the constitution.
- I am also an atheist republican, at least your not alone lol

Dude, I'm interested to know how you determined that the majority of conservatives arrived at their positions as a result of religion. That's not my experience at all. Not that I've seen data on it. I was wondering if you had.

Religion is a huge influence on a lot of lefties, too. The whole liberation theology thing, the influence of churches in the African-American community, the Anglican US governing body (I forget what it's called)........... it's not like there aren't very influential and very large religious blocks on the left side of the aisle that think their religion gives rise to their politics.

I just don't think religion per se is determinative of politics generally.

On the right: against homosexuality and abortion, for teaching of creationism and prayer in schools, insistence that "we're a Christian nation", and all manners of science denial from global warming to evolution.

On the left: a lot of black people go to church.... anything else? The American left is pretty consistent about the wall between church and state.

c'mon Will, there are a lot of very leftwing churches. If you want to talk about black ones, you can start with the one that our pres went to for twenty years. Riverside Church here in NY comes to mind immediately. Third world Anglicans (what we call Episcopalians in the US) wanted to break away because the mother church - archbishop of canterbury, and pretty much the whole hierarch of the american church - was doing things like recognizing gay priests.

And really, Will, the icon of the civil rights movement was a christian preacher. Fellow named King. I think you might have heard of him.

Like it or not, the fact is it's there. Religion is very influential in a certain segment of leftie thinking. You can't just dismiss it.

Of course there are left wing churches. What I don't see is religion sneaking into liberal politics. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

I guess being an atheist myself, that's why I would prefer to describe myself as a Conservative than a Republican. I register and vote Republican, though, since there's only the two choices, realistically. I have many things in common with those who have faith, including an issue with abortion. But I don't consider my self fanatical about any particular topic. So I can disagree with some Republican beliefs and still share their conservatism.

My armchair, mostly uninformed take: Religion sneaks into liberal politics via an overemphasis on peace and compassion, but, lefty churches generally aren't big on proselytization so the religious aspect doesn't necessarily get that much public emphasis.

I don't see atheism & repbulicanism as necessarily opposed. I am agnostic (admittedly that is not atheism) and conservative. I have registered independent, but tend to vote for republicans.

I think Jefferson said it best: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

I've never heard of these leftist churches...

I have always wondered if it wasn't for the abortion issue if more religious people would side with the democrats since Jesus wanted people to live in peace, help your fellow man, live modestly (less materialistic), etc...

Jesus would be considered a communist by modern American conservative standards. I've read the Bible a good half dozen times now, and the character is throughly anti-establishment, anti-rich, anti-war, anti-death penalty (probably), and pro-social justice, pro-selflessness, pro-equality, and pro-social programs.

However, can you point to any passage (and I'm Catholic, so you've got an awful lot of leeway plus several more books I'll consider that most Protestants won't) in which Jesus tells his Disciples (or anyone else) to go out, take people's money from them by force, and use that money to pay for such things?

Jesus tells his Disciples to "feed my sheep" -personally-. He tells his followers to give out of their own abilities and their own treasure. Nowhere does he advocate, that I've ever seen, robbing one man to feed another or rebuild another's house.

Additionally, while He says bluntly that the wealthy have a difficult time entering the Kingdom Of God, He also makes it clear that this is because they are more tied to "this world," having built up treasure in it which binds them to it emotionally and spiritually. Nowhere does he say that being wealthy is inherently evil, or that the rich deserve to be punished. Joseph Of Aramathea, the man who donated his own personal tomb for Jesus's burial after the Crucifixion, was one of the wealthiest men in Roman Palestine at the time, wealthy enough to gain personal access to Pontius Pilate and his superiors. Something tells me that if Jesus was "anti-rich," as you put it, he wouldn't have had somebody like that hanging around except to throw unpleasant things at Him.

Folks like Sojourners and Unitarians primarily. Then to some extent, Lutherans and Episcopalians (my stepmother belongs to a liberal Episcopalian church) and even some Methodist and Catholic churches are socially liberal. Being a Christian and a conservative are not as exclusively tied together as the Christian right would like people to think.

christianity is a complicated phenomenon. lots of sides to it. the gospels have a pretty radical social message which various people have tried to turn down (see dunedan's post above for an example, one that pushes them away from social problems/class conflict etc. an makes everything all touchy-feely individualism) where others have done the opposite (most recently liberation theology, but that's really a new packaging on an old possibility)...christianity's been in bed with dominant political powers throughout it's history and at the same time it's provided alot of people the basis for mobilizing to change significantly (if not altogether) the nature and holders of political power.

so there's nothing to the bizarre-o claim from the us mainly evangelical protestant right that they and they alone are "real christians"...


and if you want to think about the relation of judeo-christian theology on "left" thinking, the notion of Revolution isn't really that different from any number of messianic ideas.

I don't think Jesus would be comfortable as a Republican.

I'm no expert on gospels or Christianity, but I tend to think people see in it what they bring to the table. Making pronouncements about what Jesus would or would not have liked about one American political party or another strikes me as somewhat frivolous. What would Aristotle have thought about open-source software? Roll that one around your head a bit and let me know if it makes much sense even to ask that question.

Jesus hung out with poor & destitute, prostitutes, lepers and infirmed. He also hung out with the tax man.

Based on that, I think he could be democrat or republican.

You're not quoting Jesus.

I never did trust Saul. Seems a bit unlikely that God appointed Hitler. Or Palin.

I thought of something similar when I saw the title of this thread pop up on my radar again. I was thinking how the world was completely different then. I felt a little weird with the post I made above. Especially considering the references in the above quote were originally about wealthy Romans paying tribute to Caesar.

I don't think Jesus would be comfortable as either a Republican or a Democrat. He'd probably be an anarchist and the powers that be would seek to punish him somehow.

Some things never change.

i have long figured that jesus wandering around the contemporary united states would have been met with an unfortunate accident long ago.

I always thought that David Foster Wallace was the second coming of Christ. It's tragic, really.

Really, I don't think we know enough about Jesus to say that (or to say it's wrong, for that matter). We have only very limited information about his life, very little of it first-hand and none contemporaneous, and what we have was cherry-picked (or given a gloss) to make certain points.

It's not "by force", it's by contract. By being a citizen of a country, you are required to pay taxes to pay for services provided to you as a citizen. A government no more takes money by force than McDonalds takes your money by force when you order a hamburger and fries. You've agreed to an arrangement, and as such you are required to live up to your end. If you receive the services but do not pay, you are in breach of contract and thus are obviously subject to punitive measures. In the more fortunate countries, you can choose the legislators that put in place the rules and can vote on state and local government rules yourself, thus having the freedom to control your contract to a point.

If you do not want to pay the government for the services they provide, you can find another country with another contract more to your liking. I should warn you, though, a country with a very small government in which most are armed, taxes are very low, there are few to no social programs and there are no unions looks more like Somalia than it does the conservative's romanticized notion of pre-industrial America.

Will, no such contract exists. You signed no such contract and neither did I. The social contract is a philosopher's construct -- which is useful for certain purposes, but because there is no written contract no one knows its precise terms. It certainly doesn't tell you the proper level of services or taxation. The state imposes its requirements, definitionally, by force. If it was a contract you could opt out. But you can't.

I'm talking about the reality of what citizenship entails. No, I never put pen to paper, but by living in this country and enjoying the benefits of government services, I am required to pay taxes. It no more or less coercive than any other arrangement of good or services for currency.

And you most certainly can opt out. You can leave. You move to another country, get a job, and become a citizen there. If you were unsatisfied with a rental agreement, you'd need to leave in order to "opt out".

Nope, there is no opt-out -- if you move to another country you still have to submit to the threat of force from the authorities there. The only place you get protection by contract is a place where there is no govt, where you need to hire mercenaries to protect you, and even then you need to worry that someone else can pay them more.

No, there's no opt-out. You just can't get around the fact that govt means the use or threat of force. We accept it because we need to but let's not sugarcoat what it is.

First, that's not strictly true. There are places on Earth where no government asserts power. There are many islands that, while are considered territory of a government, do not have government presence. There are also failed states in which large areas are entirely lawless. That's not really the point, though.

My point is that your agreement with the United States government does have an opt out, just like a rental agreement or mortgage. Still, unless you want to be homeless, you'll probably want to enter into a different agreement eventually, but you do have that homeless option. You're acting as if they're all the same agent, though, which is not true. There are many governments with many different contracts. They are not just one big "we're going to use force to coerce money" unit.

Edit: we're getting a bit off topic. This conversation may be better hosted elsewhere if you wish to continue.

Stand firm in your convictions.

If you go to a party meeting, in my experience even in different states and counties, they begin a meeting citing the Pledge and then followed by a prayer. In many cases it is not simply a generic prayer, but a prayer to Jesus and if a pastor is doing the prayer it usually turns into a sermon. A gentle reminder to the Chair that not everyone is a Christian, wants to be converted and that the meeting is not a religious service usually helps for a few months - you have to be persistent. Another option is to become the chair and set the agenda, excluding the prayer all together. But actually, this is not a Republican Party issue, generally in some parts of the country, even at youth football games they will do a prayer right after or before playing the national anthem, it can be a bad example to the kids when the home team announcer is asking Jesus to help the home team rip the little heads off of the other team, figuratively. I have also gone to civic and service organization meeting where they do the same thing. I generally don't go to Democratic Party functions and I don't know what they do. When I was in the Libertarian Party, they made it a point not to pray, but they did read the party mission statement before each meeting - to me the first 5 or 10 minutes of any meeting is a good time to do some manicure work, so I always bring a nail file and clippers.

Sure an atheist can be a Republican....so can someone who is gay....or someone who supports a woman's right to choose.

But, in all those cases, he/she would be very unlikely to ever rise to level of influence or power within the party....and with the party moving even further right, they are become even more marginalized if not outright ostracized.

---------- Post added at 07:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:23 PM ----------

In Texas, with the election of Tea Party supported and more extreme conservative candidates, the state House has moved even further rights and the current Speaker is facing a revolt because he is Jewish...and not Christian enough:

Dick Chaney, has a daughter who happens to be gay:

Cheney Offers Support For Gay Marriage (VIDEO)

Colon Powell on the right to choose:

Source: Speech to the Republican National Convention Aug 12, 1996

Colin Powell on Abortion

And it is my view that an atheist will be accepted no differently in the Republican party than in the Democratic party.

ace...your man Cheney is a states rights guy. To suggest, as in your link, that Cheney is progressive on gay rights or protected rights of any minority group (or women) is laughable.

I agree that an avowed athiest could probably never win a national or statewide election in either party.

Can a gay Republican win a primary in in statewide-elective office? I dont think so.

Can a pro-choice Republican survive a primary? Perhaps in a few states, but dont count on it.

Would Senate Republicans elect a pro-choice leader in the same manner as the Democrats elected a pro-life leader (Harry Reid). No way.

I am republican and I really don't care if a person is gay, or an atheist. I think viable fetuses should have a right to live. When I have discussions with Republicans we talk about the issues, more times than not liberals focus on identity politics.

You talk about issues? ...with who? Those folks you claim have "real" American values (paraphrasing) as you posted in another discussion?

When you run for elective office in NC supporting gay rights, let me know how that works out for you.

And as to identity politics, only one party has numerous candidates who campaign on restoring (imposing) their version of "Christian" values to the nation ( as opposed to candidates who simply say they have such values at a personal level).

---------- Post added at 08:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:07 PM ----------

Can you imagine a Muslim candidate winning a Republican primary anywhere?

Are you taking the position that there are no real American values?

I tried to explain the concept in the other thread, and I don't get what your actual position is. Are you suggesting there are no extreme right and extreme left values that are not reflective of what makes America the nation that it is?

Are you suggesting this country has no identity as defined by real American values?

There is the knee jerk reaction to the suggestion of real American values and then there is thoughtful reflection on the issue, let me know when you get beyond the knee jerk reaction.

Deal. I am considering getting more involved and I may run for a state office. My concern is not my position on gay rights, but my lack of tact. The country is changing and so is NC. Even the Democrats are forging new ground in NC:

Dec 8, 2010
Foxx 1st mayor to meet with gay community - CharlotteObserver.com

Yes. Niki Haley Gov. elect in SC is not Muslim, but she is female and of Indian descent. Not too much of a stretch for me to see a Muslim Republican win a primary. Or how about Jindal, he may even be a contender in 2012 for Pres. or VP. There are many in the party who don't fit your stereotyping.

I also find it very ironic on the issue of race for example. Black Republicans frequently win in mostly white and Republican districts, but you rarely have Black Democrats win in mostly white Democrat districts. But, Democrats often call Republicans racist. What's up with that?

ace...my problem with your concept of "American values" is when you (and those who share your values) suggest your values are MORE American than those with whom you disagree.

And btw, Mayor Anthony Fox is black and a Democrat.

We'll talk again when you can point to an openly gay man or woman or a Muslim winning a Republican primary.

I thought the only values that could be considered "American" are liberty and justice within the context of a democratic society.

All other values are across the board and should be defended because of the values mentioned above.

I find discussions of values often occur as though the 20th century never happened, but that's just me, maybe I'm hallucinating.

Correction: I find that discussions of values often occur as though people want to undo what happened in the 20th century. The call to "return to core American values" to me sound like "let's get rid of the social progressivism of the 20th century."

there are a lot of conservatives who can't cope with the fact that value is a rhetoric, a way of framing certain types of sentences that are thereby made to refer to the world in a particular range of ways.

values have to be something substantive, like a tree stump or a napkin. things. things you can put in your pocket and walk around with and that won't leak out and stain your pants so you look incontinent. solid. like a bulldozer. but small. like a little bulldozer then. a matchbox.

values are things that you can put in your pocket and carry around that don't leak onto your pants just in case someone not inside your skull asks: "so just how american are you, anyway? and how would i know?" because that way you're prepared:

you can take them out of your pocket and line them up on the table in front of you.
tree stump. napkin. little yellow bulldozer.
i'm like totally american, bucko.

Either my point of view is twisted or yours is. The use of the term "more" in this context does not reflect superiority or inferiority in my opinion. A Chevy is more reflective of American values than a Cadillac - I say so what? My next car could be a Chevy or it could be a Cadillac - I determine what I value.

The point was that the there is a misconception that Democrats are materially ahead of Republicans on the issue of gay rights and acceptance. The thought that a major story locally would be the Mayor meeting with the "gay community" in 2010 says we (all of us) have a long way to go.

No we won't - because i don't care and I would not even know if a man or woman in elected office is gay or not unless they made a point of it. In my book there is no need to make a point of it.

---------- Post added at 04:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 PM ----------

A core question - what are those things that make cultures unique or identifiable?

---------- Post added at 04:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:30 PM ----------

Just stopping right there from your post. It makes me think that a person who believes the above has no foundation upon which they measure their purpose or course in life and that they would drift aimlessly.

Even in failure to live up to values, those that have them have a guidepost.

History, art/crafts, beliefs/values, social expectations/practices, language/dialect---things like that.

Using "history" as an example of what could help define national values in the context of your previous post :

the evolution of social progressivism was a reflection of national values, a call to return, would not create a condition where history would evolve differently. When there is a call to "return to core American values" it is a call to return to the core values that actually allowed for the social change that occurred in the 20th century.

Specifically for example, the core values that drove Martin Luther King during the Civil Rights Movement in the US was grounded in measuring a person by the content of character, or equal opportunity. Today civil rights leaders hold a core value of redress and equal outcomes. Given those two choices I prefer a call to the return of the core American values that drove the Civil Rights movement as exemplified by MLK, not a furthering of the current view held by many on civil rights. This defines the current value struggle in this key social issue. It is not about race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc. and I think the core question is misunderstood by many.

ace, a couple of things:

1) Is the gay rights movement not about measuring a person by the content of their character? If you support this idea of core values—and if Republicans do too—then this would mean supporting the idea of gay families as being legitimate families, including their right to have their marriages performed and recognized.

2) As one example, what is Glenn Beck calling for with regard to returning to core American values?

Would returning to these values you hint at make it easier for social change to accept homosexuality as a legitimate orientation? To accept the gay family?

Yes and no. I believe some see it as you describe and I thinksome see the gay rights issue as a sort of protest movement against what they may see as conformist values.

Having a core value doesn't make it the "right" (however you define it) value. At one point a core value of southern plantation owners was that slavery was perfectly acceptable. In the south that value was reflective of the culture. it took outside influences, including a war, to change that core value.

If a person was anti-slavery they were out of step with that southern cultural value. The point was not for that person to be insulted if they were told that they did not hold "real" southern values, but to celebrate that and then act according to their convictions. Those are the kinds of people that change the world.

I see the call for the return to core American values as a call to return to things like, the spirit of adventure, exploration, risk taking, individualism, fortitude, courage and some other characteristics that made this country what it is today. I do not see any of those things in conflict with the growing acceptance of gay rights.

I do acknowledge that there are some religious extremist who are activists against gay rights, but I think the numbers are small and their influence is diminishing. I also believe there are some people who, for a variety of reasons feel threatened by homosexuality. And I am consistent on this point, when a person expresses a legitimate concern about feeling threatened, we need to listen and address the issue in an adult manner. I also feel I have to repeat this but here it goes for the record - there are some people who simply hate and nothing can be done to change that - I think that number in percentage terms is small.