USA Today’s Kimberly Winston reports, Atheists face uphill climb with new political party (Jan. 5, 2012 AD):
How viable is a political party with the word "atheist" in its name? Troy Boyle…and a friend founded the National Atheist Party, which they believe to be the first American political party…[he] got the idea to start the party while watching an interview with Richard Dawkins [who] wondered why atheists did not organize to influence politics…
Well, the prospect of a Dawkinsian politics is frightening considering that Richard Dawkins has made statements such as:
It's one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in?
[Interview with Gary Wolf, "The Church of the Non-Believers," Wired Magazine (found here and here)]
Dawkins hopes that this atheist societal interferences “might lead children to choose no religion at all” (from his article Now Here's a Bright Idea).
Of course, other celebrity New Atheists have already expressed their political sentiments. For example, Sam Harris looks forward to a time when:
…making religious certitude look stupid will be exploited, and we'll start laughing at people who believe…We'll laugh at them in a way that will be synonymous with excluding them from our halls of power.
[from Blair Golson, Sam Harris: The Truthdig Interview]
So, get ready from the PR stunt of, “We mean you no harm” while they take off their mask behind the scenes, including their attempts at Atheist child rearing.
In sadly, typical and common form, Boyle demonstrates the lack of knowledge of the issues with which he is dealing:
Boyle said. "Everyone seemed to understand implicitly what the National Atheist Party would stand for."
What it stands for, Boyle said, is no governmental favoring of religion — including no religion.
"We are convened with the idea that the Founding Fathers had it right," Boyle said in an interview. "The separation of church and state, the establishment of the U.S. as a secular nation — those two concepts are our watchwords. We don't want government to impose a religion, and we don't want government to impose no religion. We want government to be silent with regards to religion."
The USA may be a “secular nation” in that it does not have a “state religion” as it were. Yet, it is premised upon Judeo-Christian principles. For example, Thomas Jefferson, from whom the separation of church and state statement comes, attended a Christian church, Christian worship services at the Capitol Building (whether he was an deist or not)—something for which today, he would be impeached and sued by the like of the National Atheist Party.
The Declaration of Independence, penned by Jefferson, declared the USA’s independence as a nation and affirms that our rights come not from the government but that they come from “our Creator” and “nature’s God” and that these God given rights are protected by the government. Does the National Atheist Party also want government to be silent on this point, the very rights which give him the right to have his say?
The party's platform was decided on by a vote — again via Facebook — and includes hot-button issues such as gay marriage (for it) gun control (tighten it), abortion (a woman's decision), immigration (reform it), energy (green it), and the economy (legalize recreational drugs to create revenue and jobs)…
A November poll conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 67% of Americans said they would be "uncomfortable" with an atheist in the White House.
But why should 67% of Americans be "uncomfortable" with an atheist in the White House? Because they want to redefine marriage, tighten gun control, loosen abortion, legalize recreational drugs…oh, yeah, that’s why.
It will be great when an atheist runs for office. Candidates are barraged with questions about their faith and it will be great when an atheist is asked, “Do you really believe that life came into being when lightning struck a pond? [or, plump this up with the impressive scientific sounding language of your choice],” “Do you really believe that nothing caused nothing to explode for no reason and made everything for no purpose?,” “Do you really believe that information based systems just happened to happen?,” “Do you really believe that ‘morality’ is our interpretations of bio-sensory based chemical reactions in our brains,” etc., etc., etc. It would be great!
Boyle notes:
"We know we are a minority and we know that is not likely to change in the near future," he said. "We simply want the right to exist…
Well, at least he has that in common with God.
As has been chronicled in Atheism’s Public Relations Problems you must be on the lookout for how such issues are covered by the media. You will often find the atheist favoring media playing happy face nice guy with them but when you look into the issue yourself you find a whole different story—just the facts ma'am!
Comments