[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Texaslibertarian]

I'm glad I'm not the only one. If I'm not mistaken I think Barry Goldwater, a hero to most conservatives was an atheist or at the very least opposed to religion being interjected into public policy. It strikes me as funny when you see some of the religious conservative websites quote him. Robert Ingersoll was a vice presidential candidate for the republican party back in the 19th century and he was a famous agnostic.

As to the person who mentioned humanism and moral relativism, that is not necessarily the beliefs of all or even most atheists or agnostics. I for one am neither a humanist or moral relativist. However, I have little desire to get into a long philosophical debate at this point. Perhaps that is being a little lazy, ok.

I think Pat Robertson(with some help) hijacked the Republican party in the late eighties and early nineties for the christian "conservative" point of view. While I think both atheists and christian conservatives can agree on such as issues as defense, taxes, economic growth, deregulation, law enforcement, welfare reform, and limited government, there will most certainly be disagreements on issues related to religion, its role in government, and some christian positions on morality(though not all).

That brings to mind another point of agreement I think for some of us who are conservative atheists and agnostics with christians who are conservative and that is on issues like the breakdown of the american family and there are even atheist groups opposed to abortion access. I, myself, am opposed to abortion after the first trimester and believe very much that the breakdown of the american family is contributing to a sharp degree towards other social problems in our country. It wouldn't suprise me either if there were atheists who opposed gay marriage though I personally am not. There are some christian conservatives who will never be comfortable though standing side by side with atheists. I can understand this as many who place the Bible as their basis for their beliefs will look to Paul's admonition to not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers as he mentions in 2 Corinthians chapter 6. I can respect that. I don't believe in atheists or agnostics attacking christians or the religious for their beliefs or for their pursuit of their ideals or vice versa. However, it should be noted that the Republican party is in and of itself not a christian organization so that if one were to take a pure interpretation of that set of verses, then christians shouldn't be Republicans at all. They should then setup their own party or set themselves apart within society and just "render to Caesar what is Caesar's" as Jesus noted rather than intermixing with Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, agnostic, pagan, and other types of Republicans or conservatives. That having been said I would not begrudge christians who wish to take a more liberal interpretation of those verses and continue to contribute to the Republican party while advocating their own ideals.

Baptists, for instance, at the founding of this nation for instance were one of the biggest group of advocates for separation of church and state, however, now a days as Baptists(at least in terms of the Southern Baptist Convention) become more influential and more and more intertwined with Caesar in the form of politics, and as they have become essentially the "catholic church of the south", they are moving towards a different set of principles which they, of course, see as necessary to advance their agenda. Who would of thought that religious idealists would end up being political pragmatists. That is not to say that that is a change for the negative, but rather just simply a change. Religion in and of itself can have both positive and negative aspects. I for one respect such ideals while I do not share them.