Atheism on the political right 58

World Religion News recently interviewed Lauren Ell, the founder of REPUBLICAN ATHEISTS.

She makes many interesting points, among them these:

WRN: Is there a historical precedent for this [Republicans being atheists], or would you call this a relatively new thought process?

LE: I don’t think atheist Republicans are new. They are new in the sense of being more outspoken about their atheist views, but they have existed as far back as the Civil War era. My organization, Republican Atheists, is the first organization I know of at this point that is representing atheist Republicans.

WRN: So you’ve mentioned you had this treatment by certain podcasters and writers, could you go into that in more detail?

LE: I started Republican Atheists in February of 2017 as an experimental project. I haven’t been involved with atheist organizations at all in the United States, such as American Atheists, Freedom From Religion Foundation, or Secular Coalition for America. Originally I had assumed these organizations would take some interest in Republican Atheists. I didn’t expect them to embrace our political views, but I thought at least they would maybe mention the existence of Republican Atheists to their base, considering many of these atheist organizations claim they are representing the entire atheist community in the United States. But I found when I contacted groups I did not get much response from them. They did not respond to the idea of mentioning Republican Atheists to their base. I was in contact with the Secular Coalition for America who at first had interest in Republican Atheists and said they would publish a guest article by me. I was in touch with their media coordinator and we discussed a topic to write about, and I wrote an article for them. It ended up being scrapped because they didn’t like my wording in the article, so I wrote it according to what they recommended and did multiple edits over a period of months. Despite all that time and effort of meeting their requests, at the end of the day they did not publish the article and didn’t even mention Republican Atheists to their base. They actually have not been responsive to me ever since. Some organizations haven’t responded to us at all, so I keep chipping away to build our relevance in the atheist community.

WRN: I would be interested in knowing about podcasters because you mentioned that specifically.

LE: I had an experience with one atheist podcast called Cognitive Dissonance. I actually hadn’t listened to them much, but I sent them an email introducing myself and offered to be interviewed on their show. They agreed to do a 45-minute interview. I was pretty excited because they are one of the more known atheist podcasts. I would say they have around 17,000 followers on Facebook. I ended up doing the interview with them, but they hung up on me 15 minutes into the interview because I mentioned something they didn’t agree with. They called it “the dumbest interview they’ve ever done”. I have actually been met with much more interest in gaining understanding by Christian podcasters.

WRN: What was the particular issue they didn’t agree with?

LE: We were talking about prominent movements such as Women’s March and the Occupy Movement which was big back in 2011. We discussed who is behind the movements in terms of people who financed protests, and I mentioned the name George Soros. The hosts didn’t want to continue the conversation after that.

In the course of the interview Lauren was so kind as to make favorable mention of our editor-in-chief, and simple vanity brings that part of the interview to this post:

WRN: So they’ve associated specific views on issues that don’t relate to Christianity directly, but they still associate it with Christianity. You’re saying within the Republican Party base you can reach a similar conclusion but through a different process and different thinking?

LE: Yes, that is what I do when I communicate with Republicans and Christians. I don’t bring up my atheist views up front and instead focus on what we have in common. I actually never really feel the need to talk about my atheist views unless I am trying to make a point about the existence of atheist Republicans. When I talk to people, I try to find what we have in common in terms of political policies and social policies. We’ll talk about education, taxation, freedom of speech, and so forth. I find a commonality with them, and once we have that commonality, they see that even though I’m atheist we have a lot in common. That is the situation I like to be in.

RN: This reminds me of Christopher Hitchens who was both an outspoken atheist and had several politically conservative stances. Is there anyone who you look to as a person who’s advocating besides of course yourself?

LE: There is a woman who is very impressive, and I wish she was mentioned a lot more. Her name is Jillian Becker, and she manages a blog called The Atheist Conservative. One thing I point out about Jillian Becker is she does not promote the Republican Party. Her thing is just conservatism, and there’s a difference. I always have to point out there’s a difference between an atheist conservative and an atheist Republican. I know a lot of people get it intertwined and sometimes conservatives get a little irritated. But Jillian Becker and I get along pretty well because we see eye to eye on a lot of issues. If you look her up you will see she has an impressive resume. She’s on Wikipedia. She has spoken with the British Parliament in regards to terrorism in the past. She’s a published author, has been featured in interviews, and is very outspoken. She is older now, so I wish she was mentioned more often. I also note Heather Mac Donald who is a published author and a conservative atheist. She was recently shut down on college campuses in California, and she has been interviewed about it.

We too are admirers of Heather Mac Donald, and strongly recommend her books – all of them.

Read the whole interview with Lauren Ell here.

Posted under Atheism, Christianity, Conservatism, Religion general, United States by Jillian Becker on Thursday, June 14, 2018

Tagged with , , ,

This post has 58 comments.

  • Reshufflex

    Since I’ve been absent for @a decade, here’s my 30c. Atheism from an intellectual angle is one thing: an absence of theism. That’s it, folks. Yes, that states the obvious, but it underscores as well why atheists who befriend atheists are certainly free to disagree politically with each other. The two entities are apples and oranges. Moreover…

    That most atheists are progressives or not conservatives is principally a result of 1) traditional conservatism embraces theism and religious foundations ; 1a) conservatism yields to morality as god-based; 2) progressives align with a scientific grounding on most matters; 3) progressives condone or promote statism as a viable agency for social good. All of those elements, respectively, make atheists/ism more cozy and sexy when jumping and landing in the leftist camp.

    The political air there is just easier to inhale. There’s equally the issue, if you want a macro answer, of academic influence, which is to say, peer pressure. Academia and godlessness has a direct relative of academia and progressive politics. Identical twins born of separate mothers, we might say.
    Thus, the pressure to be one is the pressure to be the other. Groupthink has no boundaries, least of all amongst the intelligentsia.

    • liz

      “progressives align with a scientific grounding”? Ha! Yeah, like Marx did.

      • Jeanne

        Reshufflex, Progressives only align with science when it furthers their Progressive Agenda….but let’s not talk about Anthropogenic Climate Change or a fetal heartbeat or the problem with suggesting to a child that his or her gender is in question or that children of divorce and/or single mothers will all be just fine.

        I will accept that conservatism “embraces” a concept that free citizens need to be ethical and value traditional principles, but that does not necessarily imply theism and deity-given rights. Just because theisms promote some “universal ethics” does not make them wrong. As for statism being an “agency for social good”…well, they are either ignorant of history or arrogant enough to have a cult-like belief that “They” are the ones who will make it work this time.

        But I do agree with you that peer pressure plays a role in linking many atheists with Progressivism, Statism, Communism or Socialism. Who wants to think differently and make waves by pointing out flaws in their belief, when you can go with the flow and be “cozy and sexy” in a crowd of Left-leaning atheists, who only want to decide for everyone else what they should think and believe and how they should act.

        Most atheists, however, have a history of standing against peer pressure. It is then a wonder to me why they use it against their fellow atheists to shut down any discourse about alternative political and societal ideas.

        • mike famous

          Hi Jeanne,

          “…but that does not necessarily imply theism and deity-given rights.”

          Of course not. But conservatism traditionally underscore morality with god(s). I’m an atheist so I think absurd the idea, but as a conservative I accept the tag. From Burke to Buckley, the legacy has been established.

          Also, you’ll get no argument from me on the illusions of statists or in statism. I’m not so agreeable with your assertion that atheists “have a history….pressure.” Most atheists lead lives of quiet and opt for the status quo. Notwithstanding a few loudmouths, we are seldom seen nor heard from in the agora.

          • Jeanne

            Mike, if there is an innate moral language in human beings, does thinking it comes from a deity really make any difference when it is believed by some that “God” is within each of us? I guess I sort of accept the tag, as well. And..yet, there are those atrocities done in the names of gods, according to the words of gods. And…yet, that are atrocities done in the names of humans, according to the words of humans. Perplexing, is it not. How to get to ethical behavior without gods or humans? LOL

            Most atheists do lead quiet lives, maybe that is where we went wrong. But…peer pressure? Talk to my kids. And…if we lived in town or in a development? Jeez, everybody knows everything about everybody and “no, you can’t play with those kids whose parents are evil atheists and are going to hell, so you tell them so.”

            So…this is not Reshufflex? This is Mike, right? He was making that point about peer pressure.

            Oh wait, I see what you are responding to. Are you kidding? If you want to raise kids to fit in, then you raise them to be like their surrounding peers and surrounding families. If you want them to have a spine, then you raise them according to your non-belief in gods. We live in an overtly Christian, with some other religions, area. Public schools…overtly Christian. Local Governments,…overtly Christian. Local businesses…overtly Christian. That’s it. I assumed most atheists have a history of standing against peer pressure.

        • liz

          Well said!

      • Reshufflex

        Hi Liz,

        Well, I’m uncertain what Marx as an individual, re: scientific grounding, has to do with progressives as a whole. That some giraffes are short does little to deny that most giraffes are tall. In any case, my point is that reason or rationality ( ie, scientific grounding) versus revelation or religion, better serves to describe progressives, at least on a prima facile basis. That is not to imply that conservatives don’t follow a similar path; it’s just that in contrasting the political credos of the two, progressives more generally align to a scientific grounding. But I suspect you figured that out.

        • mike famous

          Edit: prima facie, and any other typos

        • liz

          The connection between Marx and Progressives in relation to “scientific grounding” is that they both have none. Since their theories have no basis in fact, they make things up using intellectual sounding jargon.
          The political air on the left may seem easier for the completely uninformed to inhale, but to anyone paying attention it’s actually more like the air in a gas chamber.

          • mike famous

            Hi Liz,

            1) global warming;
            2) Big Bang;
            3) abortion;
            4) civil liberties;
            5) Darwinism/evolution

            The above fields are viewed by progressives through a prism of, or as contingent on, science- whether social, biological, physical or otherwise. I’m not sure which progressives you’re referencing when you assert that they’ve no scientific grounding (as to their views.)

            • liz

              They see most of that stuff through a prism of pseudo science.
              Man made global warming is a crock they came up with by cooking the data in order to have a platform from which to attack eeeevil capitalism.
              Big Bang is one theory, not necessarily held only by progressives.
              Abortion is a big issue with progressives, who are science deniers in this case. Life begins at conception – a scientific fact, which they deny.
              Evolution they happen to be right about, but it’s not an exclusively progressive opinion. Darwin wasn’t a progressive, he was an actual scientist. Unlike Marx, a fraud, who’s ideas are the foundation of progressivism.

            • mike famous

              Hi Liz,

              If your argument includes the propositions that global warming isn’t scientifically grounded and 2) that life begins at conception ( and that that is a fact), I think we’re about done with this exchange.

            • liz


            • Jeanne

              Not good. More discourse, not less. More opinions, not fewer. That is how Democracy works.

            • Democracy? The search for truth is by means of contention. Democracy has nothing to do with truth or the search for it. At its best it involves debate, persuasion, but there’s no saying that the most benign rule will result from it.

            • Jeanne

              I was sort of quoting the chant of Progressives and should have put quotations around it. Still…it does not work with fewer opinions and less discourse, Jillian, that would be a dictatorship or oligarchy. I don’t seek to shut down anybody interested in sharing their opinions, as long as it stays civilized and fairly intelligent. And…one never knows when somebody on the fence may think…hmm, she has a good point there. I know we are not a Democracy, but again, I was taking liberties with their favorite chant. They shut us down and we shoo them out the door? What does that solve?

            • Have you ever brought someone from the Left over to the Right by means of an argument? Or do you know of any case when it has been done?

            • Jeanne

              Well, Jillian, because the internet is so anonymous, we can never know that it hasn’t. I also do not think of forum posts or blog comments as arguments, but as discussions. There have been turning points in my life and I would be hard pressed to tell you exactly what made a difference in the way I considered a change of mind. Keeping at it means that possibly the whole of my and other atheists and conservatives discussions may make a turning point for someone, but we will most likely never know.

              I have heard callers to some Conservative radio shows tell the hosts that they started listening on a whim and found that the more they listened, the more they found themselves in agreement.

              I guess a turning point for me was when I visited a site that was being dissed by an atheist forum and whose host was considered uncouth, uneducated, evil and absolutely wrong with a suspicious agenda …and I agreed with everything he was writing about. That was Rush Limbaugh and that was a turning point for me.

            • Reshufflex

              Actually, there are numerous examples, including Hitchens and Krauthammer. The former was an erstwhile but avowed socialist, the latter a longtime liberal. I’ll concede that argument, per se, may not have accounted for their political transformations, but some combination of argument, dialectic and education certainly did. Surely, their respective allure for robust debate shape-shifted their ideas (and not a moment too soon).

              As to Jeanne’s point of “democracy” prevailing with respect to discussion, she’s not incorrect in implying that a marketplace of ideas is better than a limited one. I believe that was her central point. Changing minds is never easy, of course, and the task doubles in difficulty when absolutes and rigidity serve as the basis for discussion, but there’s a solid reason for axioms like “ nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.” Truth simply has a better chance of emerging as more not fewer voices are heard.

              I hasten to add that I apologize to Liz if she, or anyone, got the likely impression that I found her closed-minded; that wasn’t my intent, and I’m sure she’s quite the opposite and gifted in her thinking. I meant only that discussion fast reaches a point of diminishing returns when “facts” become conflated with consensus and when emotion interferes with understanding. We all wrestle with that problem. As a conservative, I spent years in an atheist forum-wholly a gaggle of progressives-and too often reasoned exchanges devolved once core convictions came under real or imagined assault.

              Finally, I suspect that the author of the letter you (?) attached for this topic suffered that exact fate. Im forced to suggest that she seems terribly naive. Expecting as she apparently did that atheists qua atheists would eagerly accept her republicanism because she was an atheist in arms, if you will, was silly. It’s as if she thought atheism was a synonym for objectivity or that atheists were immune to political divide. All nonsense. She may as well have thought we would all warm to her hairstyle or diet.

            • All good valid points.

              Thank you.

            • Jeanne

              And yet, atheists of all sorts pride themselves in having the wit and fortitude to successfully abandon their former religion, while others take pride in having never believed because they were reared in intelligent and educated families or they were of superior intelligence as a child, saw through the falsity of deity belief and were never tainted with religious belief.

              That same wit and fortitude allowed them to become superior in their political beliefs…and yes, we feel the same. I don’t think I have ever had a discussion with Progressive atheists that did not immediate dissolve into nastiness from them about my intelligence, upbringing and education. Some of my opinions concerning principles even take flak from Conservative atheists. All I have ever asked is to be considered worthy of their time and respect during what could be an intelligent discussion, which if kept civil, could bring in many points of view from other people intelligent enough to abandon deity belief and escape from religion.

              So…no, it is not silly to expect that such a point of agreement give all of us a commonality. It is not as whimsical as a hairstyle or diet. It is not a fad or a passing fancy. For some of us revealing that we are atheists still carries some danger, if merely social or familial. I suspect that much younger atheists, whose parents were atheists and who debate online don’t have that same feeling of danger, which accompanies the revelation that one does not believe in God. As the wife of a former elected official and hopeful re-elected official, I have to mind my speech and actions, because we live in an overtly Christian locale.

              The internet certainly reveals the essence of personality in its anonymity. Perhaps I have always been naive to expect civility among intelligent people or perhaps atheists now are simply less intelligent. Perhaps it takes much less effort to reason or no reason at all to disbelieve in God.

              I do so enjoy beating a discussion to death… Sorry, all. LOL

            • liz

              I can relate to alot of that! Can’t really discuss religion (or lack of it) if you want to maintain friendly relations with most people.
              Same goes for politics…I read somewhere that the average IQ is going down, so I’d guess that is a factor, combined with the leftist controlled brainwashing that passes for education (must be a correlation there), which has resulted in the breakdown of civility.

            • Reshufflex

              I’m skeptical about all this, “pride, wit, fortitude and superior intelligence” stuff you’re imparting to atheists in terms of their being or becoming atheists. Of course, I’m mindful that the USA is principally a religious ( mostly Christian) nation; I’m mindful that there are pockets ( eg, Bible Belt) of devout religiosity; and I’m mindful that convention and repute are easier upon the believer and religious than the reverse. I get it.

              But let’s not get carried away. This ain’t Saudi Arabia, Iran or Pakistan. We do have SOCAS. It’s the law, and has been at least since the 1960s ( The 1A didn’t become incorporated in terms of “separation” until then). Moreover, the social and legal trends of keeping religion out of the state has only risen and expanded since then. And when’s the last time religion/belief was coin of the realm in colleges, Hollywood or music?

              The point being that, on the whole, becoming or being an atheist doesn’t exactly require doing backflips and reinventing the wheel. Yes, yes, yes….yes, yes, yes….I understand that it’s still difficult in the agora and beyond to identify and celebrate one’s atheism. But being an atheist doesn’t generally entail or necessitate a cri de coeur, martyrdom or a resistance movement. And I get that your (husband’s) political ambitions seemingly belie that proposition. However, your atheism per se is therein not the difficulty you confront; the difficulty resides in transposing your atheism into or as part of his political posture in a theistic community.

              Look at it this way: would you like to guess how many academics are atheists? How many scientists? Doctors? There are tons. The secular crowd is enormous. But I would certainly not imbue them with the descriptions you provide, insofar as their atheism. Ditto most atheists. I submit that the majority today became or become atheists for the simple reasons that 1) they’re too damn lazy to engage belief or religion; 2) have zero interest emotionally or intellectually in going to church ( what could be duller?); 3) would rather spend their time on social media, which is pretty much the anti-magnet of religiosity and faith, not to mention that it’s all-consuming.

              I’m sorry, but I no more take “pride,” in my atheism or feel as if (my) “wit, “fortitude,” or “superior intellect” defines it than if I were characterizing why I don’t go biking, don’t knit or eschew
              watching reality tv shows. I simply prefer doing (or “being”) other things, for a host of reasons. Same with being an atheist. To me, it’s virtually an afterthought in the scheme of things.

              Final point: you argue that it’s not silly to expect our point of agreement (atheism) to “give us all a commonality” in (as you imply) other areas, like politics. Again, this assertion makes little sense. I won’t bother repeating what I wrote, supra, as to why. I’ll simply ask you this, in the manner of a Socratic inquiry:

              Can I anticipate, since we ( you and I, or others) are atheists, that you’ll necessarily or from decency embrace my hairstyle and diet? Or my sexual preferences? Or my economic perspectives? What if I dislike cats and dogs or kids? I think you get the point.

            • I agree with a lot you say in this comment. But not this:
              “I submit that the majority today became or become atheists for the simple reasons that 1) they’re too damn lazy to engage belief or religion; 2) have zero interest emotionally or intellectually in going to church ( what could be duller?); 3) would rather spend their time on social media, which is pretty much the anti-magnet of religiosity and faith, not to mention that it’s all-consuming.”

              It is absurd to say that that it is “lazy” not to engage in “belief or religion”. Sheer nonsense.
              If one doesn’t believe, obviously one doesn’t go “to church”.
              Social media are not “the anti-magnet to religiosity and faith”. No connection whatsoever.

            • Reshufflex

              Why is it nonsense to say laziness (intellectual is what I meant) can explain why one doesn’t engage belief or religion? I don’t engage a hundred topics or more for precisely that reason.

              Secondly, many people go to church who have no faith or who aren’t believers. Churches offer moral guidance, serve as communal gatherings and teach scripture, apart from proselytizing and converting people to a given faith. And how many people go to church just for image?

              I’m not a big social media type so I’m happy to accept your better understanding of it.

            • I believe you if you say that you are intellectually lazy. Who should know but you? But for you to conclude that others are not religious because they are intellectually lazy is presumptuous and silly.

              You just have to win your little debating points, don’t you? Or think you win them. Okay so some people go to church sometimes who are not religious. Nothing follows from that.

              You don’t have to be a “social media type” to know that making use of social media has nothing whatever to do with being against religion.

              You do sometimes make good points – in a ponderous and arrogant manner. But you also write a lot of crap. I liked some of your comments, but now there are more that I don’t like.

              I think you enjoy just being argumentative. Whether you want to carry on here or not is up to you, of course. But I rather hope you won’t.

            • mike famous

              Thanks for the personal attacks. Is that generally your approach during conversation, or just when you confront a reply that exposes the flaws in your comments? Also, you clearly have issues or difficulty reading what’s actually been said versus what you infer was said. But I’m happy to leave you with your little blog of emptiness. I don’t want to shatter a small mind.

            • I wasn’t talking to you. I have been subjected to insults from Reshufflex, and it is to him/her that I am responding. But you bring good news if you are telling us that you are going away. CORRECTION: Ah, I see that you ARE Reshufflex! Why do you need two pseudonyms for one comment section? A weird kind of deception.

            • Jeanne

              Ahh…I thought that was the case. I think I asked this of him in a reply.

            • Jeanne

              Reshuf/Mike, I don’t think you get the point. I have never met an atheist who doesn’t believe himself or herself to be more intelligent, educated and stronger than theists specifically because they either reasoned that God did not exist or were reared as atheists.

              That commonality ought to mean something when one meets another atheist. Something between them that is much, much more than diet or pet-loving or hairstyle.

              I agree that for me, as well, my atheism is the last way I describe myself and nobody ever has to know about it. For many, many years nobody did, until my kids outed me in middle school. They thought being an atheist was normal. LOL

              You say you do not take pride in being an atheist, yet I doubt that to be the case. There is in me (and I have no ego according to a psychologist) a bit of pride that I feel because I do not follow rituals of superstitions and I know why I do not. I am sorry that others are trapped for whatever reason they are, but I know that I am either stronger, better educated or more intelligent than they are…or perhaps all three. Or…they have an alternative agenda.

              You are not from the US? It is just a different world as far as religions go, and indeed, many places are much like Saudi Arabia. The law of the Church is stronger and of a higher power for most theists in these places. Just as racism is a scratch below the surface in some places in the US, so does Christian obedience to “God’s Word” over US law come out.

              For the record, I don’t get insulted easily, usually preferring to continue the discussion as civilly as possible. But…I have a lot of practice debating with elderly evangelicals online. Catch more flies, you know?

            • Jeanne

              What does this mean…”featured by The Atheist Conservative?”

            • Where did you see it?

            • Jeanne

              It’s gone. It was on my “beating a discussion to death” apology to all in a reply to Reshuf/Mike.

            • liz

              Not when speaking to a closed mind. That’s why leftists don’t debate issues – they use them as clubs to bash people with.

            • Jeanne

              But Mike thinks you have a closed mind, Liz. Shouldn’t we persist in sharing what we think is worth our “belief” and continue to engage to encourage thinking? I always think of whom may be reading and deciding about their own “belief” from what is said on both sides.

            • liz

              Mike already stated he was done with the discussion.
              I understand your point, but I already made my position clear; to take it any further would be pointless.

            • Jeanne

              Aww, Liz, you never know when he might be haunting the site just to see what we are saying about him. Plus, I am just offering up my viewpoints on what he wrote for readers to contemplate.

            • liz

              Point taken.

            • Jeanne

              Mike, there is quite a difference between the concept of global warming and anthropogenic climate change leading to global warming and not global cooling, except not too long ago it was indeed leading to global cooling before it changed to global warming, whichever seemed easier to fool some of the people some of time. I agree that we are in a warming period, at least we have been since the most recent ice age. But…are we going to enter a cooling period soon? Some scientists think the data show this to be the case. Are we now in a sort of flux situation? Maybe so. Sort of a peri-menopause before we actually begin a slow cool down.

              What does begin at conception, an Audi? No, it is the beginning of a human life. Is it human, though? Well, it isn’t a goat. Does it qualify as life? I guess that is what you are questioning. It most certainly is growing quickly from newly conceived to an embryo and fetus and in utero infant. That qualifies as life for me. I do not know why it doesn’t for others. Abortion stops the progress and ends life. That is a fact. Hardly means that I am totally anti-abortion, but I am pro-life.

              You don’t think such discussions are worthy of your time? Hmmm…

            • Jeanne

              Mike, these fields are also viewed by Conservatives, including religious Conservatives, through science-minded prisms. Only by some religious people do such as these get viewed only through their god’s word. Many Christians accept evolution and climate change and the beginning of the Universe as some sort of “Big Bang” and accept the necessity of abortions…only with eyes wide open as to what actually is happening.

              What does science have to do with civil liberties? Most Conservatives have a far better grasp on the Constitution than most Progressives do, whether or not they are devout theists.

            • Reshufflex

              “What does science have to do with civil liberties? Most Conservatives have a far better grasp on the Constitution than most Progressives do, whether or not they are devout theists.”

              Civil liberties on a limited scale relate to social science, say progressives, insofar as they are grounded on demographics, statistics, social Darwinism and a “living constitution.” You can start blaming that mess on W. Wilson and the early 20th c progressives. It’s only gotten worse. Thus do things like privacy rights ( the essence of legal abortion) and same/sex marriage rights emerge.

              Those civil liberties are extracted from the constitution via the notion of a living constitution or by imbuing judicial interpretation with social science; ie, judicial activism.

              I disagree with your second sentence, unless you have some empirical data to share supporting it.

            • Yes, we know. “…say progressives”.

              “Social science” is not science.

              But how can you disagree that religious people see issues “through god’s word’?

              Did you see my agreement with you below?

            • Reshufflex

              But how can you disagree that religious people see issues “through god’s word’?

              I wasn’t aware that I did.

              “Did you see my agreement with you below?”


            • You replied to Jeanne: “I disagree with your second sentence, unless you have some empirical data to share supporting it.” Her second sentence is: “Only by some religious people do such as these get viewed only through their god’s word.”

            • Reshufflex

              I was referring to the second sentence of her post that I requoted from her original post; if you look for the re-quote, clarity should surface. Said otherwise, I disagreed not with the second sentence of her entire post but specifically with the second of just two sentences which I (re) quoted from her, and addressed. Hope that helps.

            • Jeanne

              I often get confused and accidentally reply to the wrong comment.

            • Reshufflex

              “Social science” is not science.“

              Two points: 1) You’re near the edge of the no true Scotsman fallacy ( I’m kidding); 2) it “is” to progressives when convenient.

            • Jeanne

              I don’t count the “social sciences” as actually science, but understand your point.

              I have no empirical data that I can provide for my assertion, merely anecdotal evidence. There is a project for a social scientist.

  • liz

    That’s great! Her organization and her mention of you in the interview!
    It’s so disappointing that most atheist organizations are run by leftists.
    I don’t doubt some of them receive some sort of funding from Soros.

    • Jeanne

      I have never understood why atheists are so intolerant towards other atheists who have a different viewpoint. if we consider ourselves to be able to reason out of deity belief and escape from superstition altogether, why aren’t all of our viewpoints worthy of discussion, at least? And not just intolerant, but rabidly offended that any atheist should dare to think differently and must be an uneducated idiot.

      • Jeanne – atheists are not intolerant of each other’s atheism, they are intolerant of each other’s political opinions.

        • Jeanne

          But with that intolerance of another atheist’s opinion comes insults and denigration of intelligence, education, etc. and all of it based upon a disagreement over politics or other personal differences. Disagree with the herd and you are shut down.

          • The Left tries to shut down conservative opinion. Conservatives do not do the same to their opposition. But there is no meeting ground now between the Left and the conservative Right. No discussion, no debate possible between them. They are concerned with different issues, they use different vocabularies – one could even say they think and speak in different political languages.

            • Jeanne

              Many years ago, when I was desperate to find others like me, I stumbled across your blog, Jillian. I just knew there HAD to be somebody else, who thought as I did. Up to that point, although I was considered a valued atheist member of a long standing forum, I was nearly hated because of my political views, which included faith in the Constitution to handle whatever came up, especially the Bill of Rights. The vitriol that was heaped on me for daring to depart the role of atheist in America was more than disturbing. I was a well respected elder with this site, who had been with it since its conception.

              I am a member of Republican Atheists, even tho I am a Democrat, because I am a Conservative. Kudos on the mention and praise from this group, btw.

              There is a reason why there is no Democrat Atheists; it is a redundancy to have a group especially for those whose members seem to believe that if one is an atheist, one is a Leftist.

            • liz

              Right – no discussion, because the left doesn’t want their little schemes exposed. The same way they use blacks by telling them they are victims of evil white capitalists, they use atheists by telling them they’re victims of the evil Christian patriarchy.
              As if slavery was still rampant, and as if Christians were still burning witches!

            • Jeanne

              Do you think that is what is going on, Liz? did me and my kids ever get along without them?

              I need to amend my post to say that not all of my atheist friends “heaped vitriol” upon me, but there were no defenders of my traditional principles and political leanings.

      • liz

        Yes, I don’t understand why atheists can reason well enough to conclude there is no God, but then throw reason aside and accept the ideas of the left unquestioningly. Just because there is no God doesn’t automatically mean government rule must take his place, and just because there is no “soul” headed to heaven or hell doesn’t automatically mean human life is worthless or meaningless. (which excuse I’ve seen used as their justification for abortion. But by that reasoning, all murder is justified.)

        • Jeanne

          Left leaning atheists believe that we might be smart enough to have no god belief, but we aren’t smart enough to be Leftists. I don’t get it. Is it because the Religious Right for so long dominated the public sphere and anything that is tainted with the Right and Conservatism is just wrong, evil and stupid? Even though we see each other differently, I have noticed that Conservative Atheists are far less likely to be as nasty to Progressive Atheists. I guess it is because we are outnumbered and try to play nice in order to get our point of view across and not get banned from forums.