Possible to be an Atheist AND Republican?

[mc6809e]

Okay, so how big is the tent?

I really buy into most of the political philosophy of the Republican Party. I was a huge fan of Reagan. I think conservatives are mostly right in their criticism of popular culture.

I hate the excessive pragmatism of the left. Their economics is bunk. The hold they have on education is tragic.

Most of my family are politically left so when political discussion arises, I'm usually on the side of the right.

Now recently I've seen a couple of articles on Townhall.com that have me seriously thinking I'm making a mistake. Both of them have come out pretty strongly against those skeptical of the existance of a god. I mean they were thoroughly bashing.

So, am I politically homeless now or what? I know the political left has it wrong. I believe in capitalism and freedom and strict interpretation of the constitution, etc, etc.

But not a god.

So, do I stay or go?

[GeronL]

There are atheist Republicans, there are atheist FReepers. (believe it or not).

Try not to get offended by a couple of articles on a website. Just get used to being attacked for being on the right period.

and no, I am not an athiest

[mc6809e]

I've spent the past 10 years getting used to it. Until recently, I worked at a University. I felt like I was 1,000 miles behind enemy lines.

Anyone to the right of Marx is basically unwelcome.

[dsc]

My journey back from the left was incremental, and agnosticism was about the last thing I gave up. First it was the easy things--the welfare state, the evils of socialism and communism--then gradually the difficult things--divorce, abortion, contraception, erotic displays of female nudity--and only finally, kicking and screaming, did I finally become unable to persist in my hard-headed denials of God.

I remember one "aha" moment. I realized that in on-line discussions, there were good people and...well, not good people. I was in disagreement with the "not good people" on practically everything: homosexuality, drugs, prostitution and other sexual immorality, abortion...only on one issue did I find myself aligned with them and against the good people: the existence of God.

I had to ask myself, "What's wrong with this picture?"

[Pahuanui]

Yes, and it's preferable.

[alpha-8-25-02]

your works may well be great
i am born again,marine veteran,card carrying republican.
you can continue to be on the right,why not?
however you are a product of the secular world,you want the world to have meaning.you are conservative and probably a good person however you do not know the LORD because He has not chose you to believe in Him.
ephesians 2v8-10
8)for by Grace you have been saved through faith,and not of yourselves;it is a gift of God,
9)not of works,lest anyone should boast.
10)for we are His workmanship,created in Christ Jesus for good works,which God prepared beforehand that we should walk
in them.

[NZerFromHK]

I'm glad that you raised this question because I had had a similar struggle for a long time. Unlike you I'm a Christian and I was led to believe that a true Christian will make you a social and moral conservative but political and economic liberal (or even a socialist/communist). It was (and is) a very popular concept among Asian Christians. In other words, you were expected to believe like Jerry Falwell on issues like abortions, porn, school morality, but like Noam Chomsky on issues like US foreign policies, free market, social welfare, military. It wasn't until a few years back that I see that a careful study of the Bible points to American conservatism rather than European Toryist (or Asian) paternal conservatism or socialism.

There are people politically on the right who are outright atheists (Steven den Beste seems to be one, Glenn Reynolds of instapundit looks like an atheist to me). And true to the word, there are also good conservative Christians who are from the anti-Iraq war "peace movements" and oppose GE and "big corporations greeds". Although IMHO as other bros (and sis) in Christ have said, once you look deeper into issues, you may find that your belief on atheism change.

[gravyfreak]

No, I don't think it's possible to be a Republican and an Atheist at the same time. If you are a Republican you obviously believe in goodness and truth. If you believe in goodness and truth it follows that there must be an author of the truth which you already accept.

[visualops]

My only comment would be that, if you reflect on it, you may find a conflict between the humanism and moral relativism of atheism, and the moral certitude of Republicanism & conservatism. In other words, how can you espouse beliefs based in part on concrete concepts of right/wrong and good/evil yet profess there is no God?

[gg188]

There are homosexuals who show up in sanctuaries, and pro-abortionists who claim to be Catholics. Homos who want to be Boy Scouts. There are confused people who don't understand ideology and politics and issues and ideological consistency.

[Thoramir]

Yes, it is certainly possible, though probably not easy. However, no one should be persecuting you over it. Unfortunately, there are some who will.

[ponyespresso]

It wasn't until a few years back that I see that a careful study of the Bible points to American conservatism rather than European Toryist (or Asian) paternal conservatism or socialism.

Care to share some of those American conservatism verses you were studying?

many thanks

pony

[gcruse]

Have you checked out libertarianism?

[Hephaestus]

You ask good questions, mc6809e. Indeed, how big is the tent? Will they welcome my opinion? Or just my vote?

I hear you about agreeing with MOST of the Republican Party platform. And yes, the left has little if any clue. The same unrelenting logic that caused me to reject superstition has also caused me to vote nearly the straight repub party line in recent years. (I did have to vote against some Republican judicial candidates who where confusing religion with law.)
So many people, falsly I think, confuse atheism with communism and other far-left perversions.

I have stumbled across those republicans whose christianity shrieks with the same shrillness as the Taliban - they seem to grasp neither that no imaginary deity has any appropriate role in public policy nor that religion has no monopoly on ethics or morals. The historical significance of Seperation of Church and state eludes them as well. Indeed, history is rife with religious authority being abused in the most cruel and immoral manner - and shows the Roman Empire's mandatory christianity as having little to recommend it over the Taliban's enforced worship other than christianity's eventual mutation into something less nasty. I doubt Emporer Constantin was the moral superior to Mullah Omar for having forced christianity rather than islam.

I am troubled by Ashcroft's rolling back of privacy rights and by the far right's insistence that the religious dogma of Pat Robertson become the law of the land. I find the "In God We Trust" on our currency a pathetically poor substitute for the Founding Father's "E Pluribus Unum." I sometimes wonder if the religious right wants to kill "E Pluribus Unum" just as much as it wants to push "In God We Trust."

Yet the left often as not panders to the cultists as well. Slick Willie even trotted his womanizing butt to church on a regular basis - even toting a bible. I wonder whom he thought he was fooling.

The Republican party, and its Nonconservative (led amusingly by disaffected jewish democrats) Wing, offers an educated and coherent plan on foreign affairs and economics. I'm just not so sure about the areas of domestic policy so often polluted by religious doctrine.

For instance, in my opinion, if 3000 casualties convinced us to go to war and stay at war, 6000 plus people willing to shade our outdated marriage statues ought to be enough to get us to consider including more people within the law rather than pushing otherwise law-abiding citizens to operate outside of a sodom-era marriage definition. Both parties missed the opportunity to lead here - both parties opted instead to pander the caricature of the "religious" demographic.

But what is the religious demographic? While self-described "atheists" are no more numerous than Jews or Muslims (1%), the sum of atheists, agnostics, no-preference, and don't-know/refused is 14%. And the percentage of those who attend some religious service and label themselves as catholic or protestant or Jewish but don't really believe is considerable. Like 30% of christians and 50-plus percent of jews.

So I guess my point is: Keep the non-faith, brother! Eventually SOME politician is going to figure out that the non-religious/non-believers are worth going after, or at least not offending.

Until then, I guess we just have to shrug off the ministrations of the holier-than-thou and if necessary, cast the occasional non-republican vote just to keep 'em honest.

[NZerFromHK]

It is pretty difficult to summarize in a few words, but I think that the following points are brief summaries of why I think the Bible points to American conservatism over traditional paternal conservatism (and its closest relative in the Western world, British High Toryism or "organic" conservatism) nad socialism:

1) Russell Kirk has written an argument for "organic" conservatism that inequality (in both status and results) is the natural order of things, and that both are sacred as not to be disputed. You can see this trait of thought from High Toryism to traditional Asian paternal conservatism. But the Bible clearly points out that everyone is equal in the eyes of God in Galatians 2:28 (note that it does not support the modern leftist ideal of equality of outcome).

2) It has been hypothesised that Matthew 19:16-27, Acts 4:32-5:11 support socialism over free market, but a careful study reveal that for the rich ruler it was the money that was his stumbling block, or some modern people it could well be humanistic ideology, and the early Christians' putting properties into common use did not mean that this is to be compulsory. In other words, these verses do not mandate socialism.

3) In contrast, Micah 4:4 points out "every man will sit under his own vine and fig tree". This implies that God encourages private ownership and so we should favour private land ownership over centralized bureaucracies. Ephesians 4:28 also reinforces this point. This defeats the central tenant of socialism.

4) 2 Thessalonians 3:10 calls for good work ethic and this can only be achieved if a lot of modern welfare state provisions are abolished.

5) And about Christian pacifism, etc, there are many articles here that refutes that argument. Needless to say, they owe more to the 19th century romanticism than the Bible.

My two cents.

[kwick20]

How do you explain the existence of the physical universe? Evolution? Every evolutionary model that I have seen postulated is not only unscientific, but anti-scientific, violating a plethora of the laws of science. It takes a far greater faith (and a blind faith at that) to embrace the theory of evolution than it does to embrace the truth of creation. No matter what area of science one examines, i.e. physics, biology, geology,etc. evolution is always refuted, and creation buttressed (if one is intellectually honest).
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." Romans 1:18-22

[Dimensio]

only on one issue did I find myself aligned with them and against the good people: the existence of God.

To which particular God were you denying? Thousands have been proposed throughout human history, so it's hard to tell which is being referenced during any conversation.

[Dimensio]

How do you explain the existence of the physical universe?

Well, I can't speak for others, but I am willing to honestly admit "I don't have all of the answers".

Evolution?

Certainly not. Evolution deals with the current diversity of the species. It can not and does not attempt to explain the existence of the physical universe.

Every evolutionary model that I have seen postulated is not only unscientific, but anti-scientific, violating a plethora of the laws of science.

Perhaps you could explain this further? Of course, since you seem to think that evolution might be used as an explanation for the existence of the physical universe, I question your knowledge on the field in general.

It takes a far greater faith (and a blind faith at that) to embrace the theory of evolution than it does to embrace the truth of creation.

What, exactly, is the "truth of creation". No matter what area of science one examines, i.e. physics, biology, geology,etc. evolution is always refuted, and creation buttressed (if one is intellectually honest).

I'm sure that you can give specific examples of this. You will need to support a particular creation theory if you're going to advance one, just asserting "creation" and then claiming that it's the one creation story to which you subscribe doesn't cut it.

[Dimensio]

If you believe in goodness and truth it follows that there must be an author of the truth which you already accept.

I believe that there is truth, but that it is simply there, a function of what is. I don't ascribe its existence to an author.

Goodness, on the other hand, is a subjective term, and its varying definitions are always authored by humans.