Republican Atheists

Hello all, I am new here to this forum, thanks for having me.
I am a representative of a group known as Republican Atheist.
We are a group that aligns with conservative values but are simply not believers. That is the simplest way to put it.
We reject the direction of the democrats and the toxicity of “wokeism”.
We are supporters of the Constitution and the culture which created it.
I am curious if there are other atheists in this forum?
As you might expect, we have been having trouble making connections with both sides of the debate. Atheists seem to reject us due to our political and economic beliefs, and unfortunately, much of the GOP seem to reject us because of our lack of religious belief.
Again thanks for having me and looking forward to your answers.

1 Like

Happy to be the first to welcome you. I’m not quite an atheist (I’ll always have a soft-spot for the Aristotelian idea of god as a prime-mover and store for the virtue we pursue). Of course, those aren’t proper grounds to call myself a believing christian (leaving me in that milieu you mention). Yet that doesn’t stop me from appreciating religion’s contributions to western civilization. And I’ve yet to experience that issue networking with christian conservatives.

Unfortunately, the break with left-leaning atheists seems inevitable as their public beliefs aren’t a spread of religion and civics, but entirely towards the latter (and woke). In short, there isn’t much room for common ground. On what shared values can both be atheistic if one is prone to rejecting positive values all together?

1 Like

I am not a gatekeeper for New Founding, but personally I find the “Atheist [insert political belief]” mentality to be counter-productive to our goals. If people are personally atheists and fighting for our side, well and good we certainly do not want to scare them away or purity test away any allies. However, it is often rare that these kind of movement provide more than they take away.

One example is in the Secular Pro-Life movement. I don’t know of anything meaningful they have accomplished to eliminate abortion, but this mindset ends up providing tacit validations to the accusations of the enemies of pro-life. So now most of the mainstream pro-life movement is basically arguing, “You can be an atheist, you can be a feminist, you can treat all women as victims and especially those women who get abortions,” and so on, when in actual fact feminism, atheism, and deciding that women are not responsible for their choices is one of the main reasons we have this fight over abortion in the first place.

The social reason this happens is that when the left fights the make everything into a personal moral flaw in the people of the right, and most people do not have the stamina to handle sustained criticisms even when they are illegitimate. The “secular pro life” position gives them a pivot to avoid some of the illegitimate criticisms (you just want to control women, you hate women, you are imposing your religion on others), etc. and it fosters disunity within the movement. Now the original activists who saw fighting abortion as a logical extension of their morals and worldview are edged out of the movement they created, such that it’s no longer acceptable for the founders of that movement to hold the views the founders held.

I see no reason why an Atheist Republican group should exist. Just be a Republican group. There is nothing about Atheism that contributes to being Republican, at least nothing that those on the right should want.

5 Likes

Ben, try 2 ignor yor basik mistrust uv atheists. We jus wana let uthr repubz no that atheizm iz a vyabl belief sistm. It duzn kolor our vue o th konstitushn nor iz it an atemt 2 divyd. America 2 us iz al about th individul, freedm 2 expres that & patriotizm. By kritisyzin us u do much 2 weakn th movemnt. Lets try 2 work tgethr

Thanks for your reply.
I think it is a mistake in this day to not have sub-categories of Republicans. The youth of America has become far more secular and thumping the Bible louder will just chase them away.
This is a fear I have going into the midterms, that the main GOP will appear as they did in the 1980’s and appear a Bible revival instead of a political party. They will lose in spite of Democrat failures.
What Republican Atheists (or Conservative Atheists) offer are secular arguments for many of the same principals the GOP offers.
Thanks for your response, it is much appreciated.

1 Like

Personally, I don’t buy it. If we really want to take a realpolitick approach, we just need propaganda. Voting is a game of numbers and most people don’t make decisions based on ideology because very few people are principled. Winning means convincing unprincipled, low IQ people to vote for you and the left has an upper hand because they are absolutely shameless in their methods.

It would be vastly more effective to just make right wing propaganda than to “change to adapt” to the younger generation.

The irony of the 80s is that all the policy was neocon and the religious right did basically nothing to stop to flood of degeneracy on social issues. Reagan even signed no fault divorce laws, his wife was pro abortion, and his son is a cringe fedora tipper.

Frankly, the Republicans haven’t even proven they are loyal conservatives and they always flub it when they are given power as they’re only interested in stock markets, importing immigrants, proxy war in some 3rd world nation to enrich contractors, muh low taxes, (eat hot chip and lie)!

Trump was refreshing but even he yielded to the Israel lobby, never tried to weaponize the federal agencies against our enemies, he kept the legacy media around longer than he needed, and even funded his enemies with the HBCUs.

We just need really simple propaganda, and it basically writes itself. Don’t be a loser. Don’t be a retard. Look how stupid blue hair people are. Don’t be a Karen. Communism is for weed smoking losers who suck at life. The loudest liberals are all severely mentally ill.

Everyone already knows these things are true. They just need permission to observe them and that is what good propaganda does.

Republicans fail because they want to be loved by their enemies. They want to maintain “decorum” in a war. They never want their enemies to pay. The left gets it. If republicans can’t do the job we need people who will.

3 Likes

Good points here that I have noticed for some time coming from where I come from. I won’t delve into my background in totality here, but I come from far left Brooklyn, NY as a black guy. I didn’t even know or met a Republican until about 21 years old, and that’s after being told they were all
“racist.” By the time I became politically aware, which was at the beginning of Obama’s term, and started looking into the Republicans, I immediately knew something was very wrong with them. Although they were not of course “racist”, they encapsulated many of the issues that I had seen of the far left that was destroying the communities that I come from; not to mention the very similar worldviews, ideologies, and general corruption and lack of fundamental values of the same far left. I see this now more today than I did back then. I see this within modern libertarianism as well who are hardcore atheists. Much of the right has inherited these views unfortunately, and I find have moved substantially to the left.
I’ll say this, I should probably be the last guy whose a Christian with my background, but I am. I also have my problems with the atheist worldview, as you’ve detailed that has caused immense problems throughout the “conservative right”, if they even exist at this point. I could go on an entire discussion about this, because I’m over 30 now, and have seen these problems on the right, the church, the West, this country, our institutions, and communities worsen because literally everything has been removed from a grounding on Christian principles. I would’ve never said this at 21 when I was uninformed, even as a Christian, but would now more than ever. We cannot thrive if we don’t have anything grounded on principles that are defined by a God that’s greater than ourselves and rooted in immutable truths. The older I get, the more I see, the more I read, the more I experience, and the more I observe is the stronger my position becomes. It’s imperative this is upheld, which is largely fading among conservatives, and in many cases has become anathema to them. I’m not saying atheists have no place, just to be clear, but we cannot fight, build, or move forward if Christianity and the connected principles are just a play thing and not at the forefront.
To end here, and this is perhaps something that is taboo, I largely do not believe that the GOP believes in Christian values. They use the patina of Christianity to get votes and nothing more. They need that voter base to get elected. This is why many of the agendas on the right largely fail, and never truly accomplish anything perpetually. In fact they’ve turned into voting messages and fund raising campaigns solely. We have a uniparty in this country. A good example of how I know: our borders are still open and the GOP are all in agreement to keep it going as they go on tv and run on it to get elected. Then they’ll use Christian arguments to claim “humanitarianism” and amnesty, which is the exact same tactic the radicals use except as a pejorative and decontextualization of Christian principles in regards to a nation and a society. I’m not saying we shouldn’t vote, but 90% of the GOP does nothing people think they do, and don’t believe, and certainly don’t do anything for us while outright conspiring against us. It’s far past time to clean house of these people and get back to first things.

7 Likes

“On what shared values can both be atheistic if one is prone to rejecting positive values all together?”

Could you elaborate on this statement?

I risk generalizing here (apologies in advance). If we consider the religious vs. lack-of-religion divide as one between the universe having a will behind it vs. coming about “causually”. The religious person is making a positive claim; that there’s a god/will in the universe. Whereas, the atheist makes a negative claim; that for lack of x we can’t make that positive claim. Faith is taking that leap towards god in spite of everything.

There’s a similar divide in our politics. The right tends to believe in exceptional individuals (inspired by god or otherwise) changing the world. Whereas, the left places more stock in institutions that supersede each other and mechanically shape our reality (Charles Haywood and Henok Elias touch on this: Piped).

My only point is despite how fundamental these positions are, having at least one agreement is enough to get along (For the New Right, that has been a civic alliance between BAP and Christian types).

However, the R and L atheists completely disagree as they not only feud over politics but then how that politics forms the ground of their atheism. The rightist usually takes the glass is half empty approach while the leftist not only denies god existentially, but also on moral grounds (For an ex. I refer to Haywood’ on Franco where he mentions how the left still despises him for denying Spanish ‘progress’. On Francisco Franco • The Worthy House).


Also to Ben’s point, I entirely agree that realpolitik is necessary. That being said, even if a plurality of the new right are churchgoers, the rest being Atheists, pagans, or Christians lacking aligned-churches, they still need places to find community. If groups like ‘Republican Atheist’ can build conservative networks that wouldn’t exist otherwise, this can only be a net benefit. Especially if they’re moving towards the same tangible objectives. Bronze Age Mindset’s reception also supports your point that different arguments for the same principals works.

People don’t find really find community in their antagonism to ideas or other groups. There was a subreddit that mocked this for a while, /r/nongolfers where they ridiculed the idea that someone would wrap up their identity in not playing golf, comparing that to being an atheist. Being wrapped up in specifically being an atheist is a sign of antagonism to religious ideal, otherwise they would just go about life being non-religious. People unify over things like music, sports, hobbies, etc. they don’t unify in non-belief unless that unity is towards activism against that belief.

2 Likes

Some of the hesitation to creating only partially aligned subgroups may be (at least on my part) a concern for implicitly “agreeing” with the identifier. Similar to concerns for Log Cabin Republicans. I completely agree that R’s have not established that they are basing anything in Biblical values, no matter how many cowboy boots they wear.

Saying that to say, Jesus lived a perfect life, died on the cross and rose again to CONQUER death and if we humble ourselves to Him, He calls us to eternal glory with Him. And no matter how crazy the world gets, He is Truth. Please believe it!

1 Like

Short version: Politics and religion are two separate subjects. You can be interested in both. But they need to be kept separate. MAGA is a political movement rooted in the Republican Party (and Reform Party). There is no Conservative Party. There is no Christian Party. We should call ourselves Republicans and think of ourselves as Republicans (or MAGA).

The American tradition is pluralism—keeping religion and politics separate in order to protect both. Some of our founders were Christian, many were not. I would think that people who are strongly religious would avoid politics because politics is a dirty business, amoral at best.

Longer version: I’m not an atheist. I grew up Catholic, got a minor in Christian Studies at Hillsdale where my friends and professors were conservative Protestants. I recently read the enjoyable memoir by Biblical scholar Luke Johnson (The Mind in Another Place) though I don’t consider myself especially religious anymore.

Virtue signaling is a bad habit, no matter who is doing it. If you are secure in your beliefs, you shouldn’t need others to agree with you. What good is an opinion that can’t withstand scrutiny? I know that evangelicals feel they have a moral obligation to share the gospel, but that desire doesn’t really belong in politics. America is an extraordinarily diverse, heterogeneous country. The best political response to that is, in my view, pluralism and decentralization. There are beliefs and there are facts. In general, law and politics are built on fact. A politician has to represent everyone. A law has to apply to everyone. Playing “Who is the fairest of them all?” is a good way to drive people away and kill a movement.

I ask everyone to keep the main thing in view. Don’t be distracted in this time when there is so much to distract us.

You are assuming that the pro-life position must be religious. That’s not true. We’re talking about law, not faith or belief. In law, you have to prove your position using facts. You can’t prove religion. Believing something is true is different from knowing it to be true. You may want to corral your beliefs into MAGA. But that’s not politics. That’s evangelizing. Evangelizing takes place when you assume you are correct and feel obligated to convert others. You can’t do that with abortion because it’s impossible to prove when life begins. I’m pro-life, but ultimately that position rests on unprovable beliefs. It will never be a certainty.

Moreover, I don’t want lawyers, judges, and politicians defining life for us. I can do that on my own. My definition will necessarily differ from others. We have to be able to live peacefully with each other.

The issue these days is whether abortion is a national issue or a state issue. Possibly the decision will be made at the state level. In those states, the debate will continue. I suspect some states will keep it legal and some will not.

Sounds like America to me.

Disagree. Your moral outlook is under-girded by your religious (or irreligious) views, and politics always concern moral stances on human interaction. Our goal is not to virtue signal but to win and once we win, to act like it by using our power.

Abortion is not a state’s rights issue. It is an immutable moral issue and no state has the right to permit it any more than a state would have the right to permit its citizens to be raped. I’m fine using states rights to achieve our end if that is the best way, and it probably is. But it’s not like states actually have this right.

Our politicians are going to define life whether you like it or not, so I intend for our politicians to win and dominate over their politicians. Then go on a warpath prosecuting those who have made this genocide possible and capturing as much plunder as possible in the process.

It’s actually dead simple to tell when there is life. That’s why you can detect miscarriages. Everyone knows when something is alive. The baby is alive at all stages of development. Leftists have stopped even trying to hide it and they know they are killing babies. Stop trying to moralize or compromise with demons and just focus on defeating them.

I as a Christian I care about evangelization and I want us to do that but politically law does not exist to evangelize but to impose its will on others. I am absolutely open about my intentions to impose our (virtuous) moral will on others and dominate over their (depraved) moral will. It’s not our job to make them believe it, it is our job to make them submit to it. I am positively enthusiastic about throwing murderers in jail and letting the others fear.

Pluralism has failed. Someone is going to win, and we’re going to make it Christians. Republicans have failed because they try to please people they have no business pleasing. We’re not going to try the same failed strategy for another 45 years.

1 Like

“politics always concern moral stances on human interaction”

Of course it doesn’t. Is the speed limit a moral issue?

If politics relied on morality, we would have to have representatives who are morally good in order to represent us. Not only is that impossible to judge, it has never happened and and it never will. Or do you believe it’s possible to divine the moral status of people you have never met? You think politics is a contest between the moral and the immoral? That’s what Dummycrats think.

You blur the lines between morality, religion, politics, and law.

"The baby is alive at all stages of development. "

This is a belief, not a fact. It’s OK to believe it. But you won’t prove it because it can’t be proven. You would have to set down criteria for defining life. Are you sure you know the difference between opinion and fact?

You may not like it, but the court has been talking about whether to leave this subject up to the states. That’s the best you are going to do, so take it or leave it. That’s not my opinion. If you are hoping for outlawing abortion, that will be done at the state level, if at all, not the national level. That’s where the argument has been for a long time.

Utter foolishness. You can’t prove any of these wild assertions.

Win? Win what? What are you hoping to win?

This is creepy stuff. You must love Gates and Fauci, because this is how they “think”.

Frankly, you don’t belong in this forum. This mindset is the polar opposite of what the nation needs to address what it is up against.

It is a scientific fact that the baby is alive at all stages of development. It’s not debatable. You don’t get to make up facts. No one denies it is alive, they pretend to deny it is a baby (but they know it is and are lying). It’s actually hilarious you are trying to lecture me on this when you are so obviously wrong.

The speed limit is a moral issue, because its either a method of protecting human life with safety or stealing from the public to fund a government. Both are morally related. Bad example.

To win we will ban it on a state level. But if we have the ability to get a federal ban we should do that too. When New York and California cry about it, I will tell them, “imagine if the situation were reversed” lol. I’m fine with incremental victories when only incremental victories are possible. Otherwise we go for big victories. If you were pro life you would not be content with Californian babies being murdered as long as Arkansas babies are saved.

Christians used to rule America and they can do it again. There is absolutely no reason for globalist, Atheist, homo pedophiles to do it.

You need to go back to the drawing board to learn the basics of power, moral philosophy and civics.

Not very Christian, are you? See, that’s the problem. When you make grand claims, people will call you out. They will want to see you walk the walk. When you point the finger, you have four fingers pointing back at yourself. You need to start with yourself, start with the mirror, then when you are perfect you can return to evangelizing. You don’t know that you are talking to the son of a doctor who delivered many babies in his lifetime. I have a profound understanding of life in all its forms. And I have a fairly good understanding of Christianity and the Bible. I conclude that you are old and unhappy. I feel that way too sometimes. I hope you are not too old to change, because you have a lot of changing to do. You should know that I am MAGA all the way, chief, and I ain’t a-goin’ nowhere.

This is just plain stupid. It’s a fantasy.