The new era dawns: Atheists to have a booth at CPAC this year; Update: Booth canceled?

posted at 2:01 pm on February 25, 2014 by Allahpundit

Let’s be fair. Even if you hate the idea, this is a Grade-A bit of trolling. It might even distract the media from hunting down the kookiest conservative they can find and using him as a purported example of what most attendees are like. Everybody wins.

I was sworn to secrecy but I can’t hold it in any longer: We are, in fact, planning a coup of the conservative movement from the booth in the hall. Our first official act will be to purge the Fox News “Special Report” panel of believers and install George Will and Charles Krauthammer there instead.

Wait a sec.

“Just as there are many closeted atheists in the church pews, I am extremely confident that there are many closeted atheists in the ranks of conservatives,” said David Silverman, president of American Atheists…

Meghan Snyder, spokeswoman for CPAC, said American Atheists were included in the confab because “conservatives have always stood for freedom of religion and freedom of expression.”

“CPAC’s mission is to be an umbrella for conservative organizations that advance liberty, traditional values and our national defense,” said [Family Research Council president Tony] Perkins, who spokes at CPAC in 2012. “Does the American Conservative Union really think the liberties and values they seek to preserve can be maintained when they partner with individuals and organizations that are undermining the understanding that our liberties come from God? Thomas Jefferson warned against such nonsense.”

The social conservative leader added: “If this is where the ACU is headed, they will have to pack up and put away the ‘C’ in CPAC!”

Guy Benson had the same thought I did when I read the boldfaced part. Wasn’t GOProud just denied a booth — again?

What’s the theory by which the atheists are in and the gay conservatives aren’t? GOProud will be there because they agree with Republicans on most issues. American Atheists will be there because, I suspect, they’re hoping for some easy publicity when reporters stumble across their booth and can’t resist the fish-out-of-water story of nonbelievers at ground zero for conservatism. (If they’re really lucky, some prominent social con like Perkins will stop by their booth while cameras are rolling.) But even if you’re willing to assume that they’re attending just to remind people that some conservatives are atheists too — which, I assure you, is true — then GOProud warrants the same benefit of the doubt. There will be gays at CPAC; if the event’s all about freedom of expression and representing the diversity of the movement, why not a booth for them?

In fact, no matter how sharply GOProud may diverge from the rest of the party on gay issues, it’s a cinch that they’re more conservative than a nominally unaffiliated group like American Atheists. Here’s a fun fact from Pew:

In recent elections, the religiously unaffiliated have become one of the most reliably Democratic segments of the electorate. Exit polls conducted by a consortium of news organizations indicate that in 2000, 61% of the unaffiliated voted for Al Gore over George W. Bush. By 2004, John Kerry’s share of the unaffiliated vote had increased to 67%. And in 2008, fully three-quarters of the religiously unaffiliated voted for Barack Obama over John McCain. In 2008, religiously unaffiliated voters were as strongly Democratic in their vote choice as white evangelicals were Republican. Obama’s margin of victory among the religiously unaffiliated was 52 points; McCain’s margin of victory among white evangelical voters was 47 points.

“Religiously unaffiliated” isn’t the same as “atheist” but it would be a strange result indeed if the strongest skeptics among the “unaffiliated” broke sharply from the rest of the pack in partisan identification. Approaching this from a different angle, it’s also undeniably true that while most Democrats are religious, the percentage of religious Democrats is notably lower than the percentage of religious Republicans. Late last year, the Harris poll found that 87 percent of GOPers believe in God versus just 72 percent of Dems (and 70 percent of indies). In 2011, Gallup found that 90 percent of Democrats believed in God — as opposed to 98 percent of Republicans. Here’s another one from Gallup, this time from 2008:

gallup-god2

There are a few atheist conservatives — and I do mean “a few.” If I had to guess, I’d bet they’re comparable in numbers to gay conservatives, if not fewer. But they’re not in the middle of the gay marriage battle that’s raging right now, which apparently makes them a bit more tolerable at conservatism’s biggest event. That’s the real answer to Guy’s question, I take it. I can’t think of another explanation. Exit quotation from CNN: “In 2013, American Atheists launched a billboard campaign against three Republican politicians: former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.”

Update: That was fast.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Do you think hurting people is fun? Would you really be happy if you tortured your enemies? Would it make you happy to rape a child? Would watching some one’s head explode because of the bullet you just shot at their head be a moment you would remember with happiness? If the answer is no to these questions, then your view of morals and a Creator is wrong.

thuja on February 25, 2014 at 5:37 PM

There are many people in the world who would answer yes to those questions. You take the cultural morality of the west too much for granted.

sharrukin on February 25, 2014 at 5:43 PM

I advocate aggressively spreading our cultural morality–at least those points we all agree on.

thuja on February 25, 2014 at 6:12 PM

First, you missed my point about taking away all the specific dogma and boil it down to basic principles, morals and values.
Second, that kind of attitude and belief is why so many people see Christians as intolerant.
Third, if you truly believe that, you aren’t much different from the Muslim radicals – except that maybe you aren’t out actively killing infidels (I don’t know – maybe you are).

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2014 at 5:50 PM

First, Jesus’ claim is as basic as it gets.

Second, no it isn’t tolerant at all. Very dogmatic. But He said it; you’ll have to take it up with Him.

Third, to suggest Jesus’ assertion leads to “actively killing infidels” is a non sequitur and ignores His other teachings.

davidk on February 25, 2014 at 6:14 PM

I know this conversation has veered from the OP, but I’m trying to understand how an atheist can believe in morals at all.
Effay5 on February 25, 2014 at 6:08 PM

So you don’t think morals of any kind pre-date Christianity or any other organized religion?
How do you think groups of humans managed to get together and work together and stay together without killing each other – if not for some kind of moral behavior that everyone agreed to?
Morals and values that allow us to get along and work as a team are the basis of civilised society – and were developed long before Christianity or any other religion. If not, then I seriously doubt civilised human society could have ever developed.

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2014 at 6:18 PM

First, Jesus’ claim is as basic as it gets.
Second, no it isn’t tolerant at all. Very dogmatic. But He said it; you’ll have to take it up with Him.
Third, to suggest Jesus’ assertion leads to “actively killing infidels” is a non sequitur and ignores His other teachings.

davidk on February 25, 2014 at 6:14 PM

You can believe whatever you want – but I don’t have the same beliefs.
I don’t have to take it up with him, because frankly I don’t believe in him, so I don’t accept “his claim”.
So thanks for stating outright that you are most definitely NOT tolerant. That says it all right there.

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2014 at 6:22 PM

besser tot als rot on February 25, 2014 at 6:11 PM

Many, including Aquinas, made the leap from natural revelation to God too quickly.

He and they seem to indicate that natural revelation was enough to argue for the God of the Bible.

God is the Wholly Other (Totaliter Aliter). If not for His self-revelation in the Bible, we would not know the One of Whom the heavens declare.

davidk on February 25, 2014 at 6:24 PM

Do you think hurting people is fun? Would you really be happy if you tortured your enemies? Would it make you happy to rape a child? Would watching some one’s head explode because of the bullet you just shot at their head be a moment you would remember with happiness? If the answer is no to these questions, then your view of morals and a Creator is wrong.

thuja on February 25, 2014 at 5:37 PM

“There is no difference between killing an unwanted puppy and an unwanted baby.”~thuja

davidk on February 25, 2014 at 6:27 PM

The Spanish Inguisition, the Crusades….

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2014 at 4:37 PM

Zzzzz.

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 25, 2014 at 6:28 PM

You can believe whatever you want – but I don’t have the same beliefs.
I don’t have to take it up with him, because frankly I don’t believe in him, so I don’t accept “his claim”.
So thanks for stating outright that you are most definitely NOT tolerant. That says it all right there.

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2014 at 6:22 PM

Huh? Christians believe that you’ll take it up with Christ, regardless of whether or not you believe or accept “his claim.” What does any of that have to do with tolerance?

besser tot als rot on February 25, 2014 at 6:31 PM

As a conservative atheist, let me say the following: I’m glad they were denied a booth.

CPAC is for conservatives. Although I bring up my atheism when people accuse me of being a theocrat, past that it is irrelevant to my politics. I believe in articulating arguments based on principles, facts, and logic. Unless an argument is specifically religious in nature, I am not at all impelled to use my lack of faith in those arguments. I contend that we need to stop the slaughter of babies, preserve the nuclear family, and encourage the development of virtue — all of which are conservative ideals — all of which I’ve never had to invoke God for.

So if the atheist group wants to establish a booth promoting strong sentencing for criminals, or to protect the unborn, great. If their purpose though, as is heavily hinted at in the article, is to instead undermine conservatism, then there’s no need for conservatives to provide them with a platform to harm conservatism.

Stoic Patriot on February 25, 2014 at 6:31 PM

Zzzzz.

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 25, 2014 at 6:28 PM

That inning was played hours ago.
You snooze you lose.

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2014 at 6:31 PM

Huh? Christians believe that you’ll take it up with Christ, regardless of whether or not you believe or accept “his claim.” What does any of that have to do with tolerance?

besser tot als rot on February 25, 2014 at 6:31 PM

I don’t.
That was a direct response to his line:

Second, no it isn’t tolerant at all. Very dogmatic. But He said it; you’ll have to take it up with Him.

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2014 at 6:34 PM

So you don’t think morals of any kind pre-date Christianity or any other organized religion?
How do you think groups of humans managed to get together and work together and stay together without killing each other – if not for some kind of moral behavior that everyone agreed to?
Morals and values that allow us to get along and work as a team are the basis of civilised society – and were developed long before Christianity or any other religion. If not, then I seriously doubt civilised human society could have ever developed.

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2014 at 6:18 PM

With a belief in Adam and Eve, I believe God’s morals have been with humanity since the start. That may be a different discussion however.

I don’t think a successful civilization could start without morals… but I don’t see a way morals would come into being without a Creator.

If we were to come into being through evolution, then how does following a code of morality jive with natural selection? There is no evolutionary reason to give up my advantage of furthering my lineage by following morals.

Call it the difference between instinct & conscience. Animals follow instinct and do not have a conscience… for the most part. They may act a way they are trained, giving the appearance of choosing a right action, but they are really weighing the benefits/punishments and choosing accordingly.

Humans are wired differently. We have instincts (a baby suckling without being taught, etc), but also follow a higher conscience. We are taught our morals by those who bring us up, but ultimately have a choice in how we act. We can go against our morals (see the unconscionable acts that happen worldwide) for inexplicable reasons, but will generally follow our conscience and morals we have learned. Animals don’t have that level of conscience like we do.

Effay5 on February 25, 2014 at 6:34 PM

“There is no difference between killing an unwanted puppy and an unwanted baby.”~thuja

davidk on February 25, 2014 at 6:27 PM

Obviously, I stand by a closely related sentiment, but I doubt I used those exact words. I think you are being dishonest. Also, I rather suspect that a huge majority of the population would be more upset to see to see someone drown puppies than they would be about a woman taking the abortifacient morning after pill, so you can stop with the act that my sentiments are that far out of line with actual American culture. .

I don’t mind your obsession with me, because I actually could argue for abortion all day. I just think it is a little rude to other people who may want to read about other topics.

thuja on February 25, 2014 at 6:35 PM

thuja believes there is no difference between killing a dog and killing a baby.

It has no morals.

davidk on February 25, 2014 at 5:27 PM

Lets say I take thuja for his word. Still, the person killing is acting in a world that has morals, and should that person not base his beliefs on morals and law. I have no right to take a life based on the morals of the victim. Am I making sense?

HonestLib on February 25, 2014 at 6:41 PM

I don’t think a successful civilization could start without morals… but I don’t see a way morals would come into being without a Creator.

Simple agreement between 2 men – I won’t kill you if you don’t kill me – we work together to get food, and share it so we both eat better.

If we were to come into being through evolution, then how does following a code of morality jive with natural selection? There is no evolutionary reason to give up my advantage of furthering my lineage by following morals.

How do herds or packs of animals get along?
They work together and help each other so they all live better and longer.
Do animals have to believe in your God in order to do that?

Call it the difference between instinct & conscience. Animals follow instinct and do not have a conscience… for the most part. They may act a way they are trained, giving the appearance of choosing a right action, but they are really weighing the benefits/punishments and choosing accordingly.

See above.

Humans are wired differently. We have instincts (a baby suckling without being taught, etc), but also follow a higher conscience. We are taught our morals by those who bring us up, but ultimately have a choice in how we act. We can go against our morals (see the unconscionable acts that happen worldwide) for inexplicable reasons, but will generally follow our conscience and morals we have learned. Animals don’t have that level of conscience like we do.
Effay5 on February 25, 2014 at 6:34 PM

I don’t see much difference.
That “conscience” has still allowed humans to do far more evil things than any simple animal.
Call it what you want – instinct, conscience, learned behavior – when used properly by the majority, it all results in a more civilised society where everyone benefits more – hence survival of the fittest.

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2014 at 6:44 PM

Time to go home.
It’s been fun.

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2014 at 6:46 PM

I guess I don’t see what the big deal is. I mean, sure, atheists are mostly a bunch of kooks, but so are birthers, truthers, abortionists, etc. Just because someone is mistaken about some issue or another, I don’t see why they should be automatically put on the outside.

Knott Buyinit on February 25, 2014 at 6:47 PM

I guess I don’t see what the big deal is. I mean, sure, atheists are mostly a bunch of kooks, but so are birthers, truthers, abortionists, etc. Just because someone is mistaken about some issue or another, I don’t see why they should be automatically put on the outside.

Knott Buyinit on February 25, 2014 at 6:47 PM

Abortionists–well, except for that baby killing thing. Not too many American birthers and truthers are advocating killing the unborn.

A lot of atheists do, but there are quite a few pro-life atheists on Hot Air.

davidk on February 25, 2014 at 7:05 PM

The Christian right should be threatened by us.”

Is that a threat?
/

And for that reason I am out.

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 25, 2014 at 7:08 PM

thuja on February 25, 2014 at 6:35 PM

That’s what you said “no difference.”

davidk on February 25, 2014 at 7:08 PM

Lets say I take thuja for his word. Still, the person killing is acting in a world that has morals, and should that person not base his beliefs on morals and law. I have no right to take a life based on the morals of the victim. Am I making sense?

HonestLib on February 25, 2014 at 6:41 PM

I think the most important thing to ponder is within an atheistic evolutionary worldview, a person has no absolute foundation upon which to build an ethical system.

The practical outworking of that is mentioned at the end of the Book of Judges: “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”

Two or a hundred or a million may agree upon a system of laws, but it is ultimately arbitrary.

davidk on February 25, 2014 at 7:23 PM

Atheism, or secularism, is destroying our country. There is nothing conservative about it.

fight like a girl on February 25, 2014 at 7:25 PM

Two or a hundred or a million may agree upon a system of laws, but it is ultimately arbitrary. davidk on February 25, 2014 at 7:23 PM

Even worse, it’s just opinions.

Akzed on February 25, 2014 at 7:26 PM

Obviously, I stand by a closely related sentiment, but I doubt I used those exact words. I think you are being dishonest. Also, I rather suspect that a huge majority of the population would be more upset to see to see someone drown puppies than they would be about a woman taking the abortifacient morning after pill, so you can stop with the act that my sentiments are that far out of line with actual American culture. .

I don’t mind your obsession with me, because I actually could argue for abortion all day. I just think it is a little rude to other people who may want to read about other topics.

thuja on February 25, 2014 at 6:35 PM

This will be the only time I comment directly to you, until I forget and comment directly to you again by accident.

I walk in a very Liberal world that almost worships abortion. In public they would nod at your statements and give you a golf clap. In private they would shudder and want you to shut up. Dude you have made your beliefs clear and, for the most part, you are too far out there. When it comes to abortion, your views are not mainstream and border on being…I want to say this nicely…..troubling.

My advice when the subject of abortion and religion come up…step away from the keyboard and think about a Happy Meal from Uncle D’s. Dude you are out there.

HonestLib on February 25, 2014 at 7:26 PM

HonestLib on February 25, 2014 at 7:26 PM
Huh?

avagreen on February 25, 2014 at 7:42 PM

davidk on February 25, 2014 at 7:23 PM

Honest question. Hopefully after being here for ten years I will not be a noob and can start a question without “Honest”. Chuckle!

Is it possible for you to understand, with me being a non-believer, that I have a belief system very close to yours on many issues. I ask these types of questions because I just don’t understand the religion thing, but still I know the values you have are ones I admire and respect. Heck, I hope all of us would understand right vs. wrong.

Well, I would not discuss this with DarkCurrent because he makes my head hurt sometimes. In a good way.

Just asking in a good way.

HonestLib on February 25, 2014 at 7:43 PM

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRO_XXS7KPdBH3AU2dt0cxTtt8k2oJzWwWHNxReWQXIyzxw1iwTHQ

davidk on February 25, 2014 at 7:33 PM

Sweet baby. NO less a human than one breathing air.

avagreen on February 25, 2014 at 7:44 PM

HonestLib on February 25, 2014 at 7:26 PM
Huh?

avagreen on February 25, 2014 at 7:42 PM

I get that response a lot. Ask me a direct question and I will blabber away.

Cheers.

HonestLib on February 25, 2014 at 7:47 PM

My thought process is let everyone come. Show me, entice me, lure me. Despite my misgivings at the time, forced to go to Catholic schools, I don’t think I could have gotten a better education. I envied my mother’s belief, though she suffered 14 years of a debilitating illness, she was the calmest and surest of the family that God would take care of her. She lived with a smile and died with a smile, for that I am willing to listen.

BelleStarre on February 25, 2014 at 8:01 PM

CPAC and the American Conservative Union become a bigger joke with every passing year: the Fed Ex-UPS scandal, Militant Islam being off the agenda because of Grover Norquist and the ACU being pro-amnesty.

CPAC has become nothing more than an event geeky twentysomething RINOs attend in hopes of getting lucky.

bw222 on February 25, 2014 at 8:06 PM

davidk on February 25, 2014 at 7:23 PM

Honest question. Hopefully after being here for ten years I will not be a noob and can start a question without “Honest”. Chuckle!

Is it possible for you to understand, with me being a non-believer, that I have a belief system very close to yours on many issues. I ask these types of questions because I just don’t understand the religion thing, but still I know the values you have are ones I admire and respect. Heck, I hope all of us would understand right vs. wrong.

Well, I would not discuss this with DarkCurrent because he makes my head hurt sometimes. In a good way.

Just asking in a good way.

HonestLib on February 25, 2014 at 7:43 PM

The other day DarkCurrent and some others were pointing out that some non-biblical writings predate the Bible. And especially the Golden Rule. Implying that the Golden rule and other moral writings were not original with Jesus.

I pointed out that God has written His law on the hearts and minds of man. So, no, I don’t find it surprising that people develop a personal moral code similar to mine–which I draw from the Bible.

The issue is the afterlife, being with God for eternity. To be able to spend one’s eternal life with God, he/she must live a perfect moral life.

But that is impossible. Even if I said that I am going to live my life according to my own rules, I fall short. I cannot live, no one can live, by my (his/her) own moral code perfectly. We all fall short.

So how do we get to where we can spend eternity with the Heavenly Father? A perfectly just God will not let us even near Him, let alone live with Him for eternity. He must reject us, and we spend eternity apart from Him.

The answer is, Jesus lead a perfect life. He alone can go into the Father’s presence. But then on the cross he took on Himself all the sins of all the people who have ever and who will ever live.

Since Jesus was fully God as well as fully human He suffered eternal separation from the Father. And now God justice has been satisfied.

We can accept what Jesus has done on our behalf. When we do that, the Father imputes (not infuses[store that away for later]) His righteousness to our account and He reckons us (it is a legal, forensic act) perfect. We are then able to enter into eternal life, and when we die, we will spend eternity with him.

davidk on February 25, 2014 at 8:11 PM

that my sentiments are that far out of line with actual American culture.

thuja on February 25, 2014 at 6:35 PM

Talk about dishonest ….most Americans don’t think you do and think that abortion should be allowed at any time.

and a bonus:

By definition, a wanted puppy has more value than an unintended and unwanted fetus for those whose business it is.

thuja on March 30, 2013 at 8:45 AM

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 25, 2014 at 8:19 PM

If I thought that David Silverman’s group really supported conservative values then I’d not have a problem with him attending CPAC. However, I think he is doing this as a publicity stunt. I’ve heard representatives from this group on Michael Medved and they mostly seem to want to erase Christianity from America. They’re the anti-Christmas decorations group and the anti-cross group and they are promoting their religion of non-belief.

Here is their goal:

Now in its 50th year, American Atheists is dedicated to working for the civil rights of atheists, promoting separation of state and church, and providing information about atheism. Over the last fifty years, American Atheists has:

Fought fervently to defend the separation of religion from government
Appeared in all forms of media to defend our positions and criticisms of religion and mythology
Held atheist conventions and gatherings throughout the United States, including “Atheist Pride” marches in state capitals
Demonstrated and picketed throughout the country on behalf of atheist rights and state/church separation
Published hundreds of books about atheism, criticism of religion, and state/church separation
Published newsletters, magazines, and member alerts
Built a robust and diverse community of local affiliates, partners, and activists
Fostered a growing network of representatives throughout the nation who monitor important First Amendment issues and work on behalf of the organization in their areas
Grown a network of volunteers who perform a variety of important tasks in their community, from placing American Atheist books in libraries to writing letters and publicizing the atheist perspective
Preserved atheist literature and history in the nation’s largest archive of its kind. The library’s holdings span over three hundred years of atheist thought.
Provided speakers for colleges, universities, clubs, and the news media
Granted college scholarships to young atheist activists

Ibanez Lotus on February 25, 2014 at 8:37 PM

Morals and values that allow us to get along and work as a team are the basis of civilised society – and were developed long before Christianity or any other religion. If not, then I seriously doubt civilised human society could have ever developed.

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2014 at 6:18 PM

Morals and values that exist apart from right and wrong that come from outside of man can only ultimately be enforced through a sword or a bullet. But then, this IS the history of the world.

Civilization begins with order, grows with liberty and dies with chaos.
Will Durant

So by what measure of comfort does anyone look to the atheists for governmental wisdom? Communism anyone?

These mealy-mouthed concessions for the atheists to “join the conversation!” boggle the mind, and speak more to making sure no one feels victimized or marginalized. When your basic precepts are in danger of being poisoned by fad philosophy, it’s better to rescind the invitation. At some point conservatism and atheism must part ways.

somewhatconcerned on February 25, 2014 at 8:44 PM

God is the Wholly Other (Totaliter Aliter). If not for His self-revelation in the Bible, we would not know the One of Whom the heavens declare.

davidk on February 25, 2014 at 6:24 PM

Hard to properly address this, but, if the Bible is truth (and I believe it to be), God revealed Himself numerous times, was declared by those to whom He revealed Himself, and was believed in by others based on that declaration, long before any Scripture was written.

Now, if you had said “His self-revelation in the WORD“….

questionmark on February 25, 2014 at 9:04 PM

HonestLib on February 25, 2014 at 7:26 PM
Huh?

avagreen on February 25, 2014 at 7:42 PM

I don’t explain things good. Just got from my nightly walk and think I understand your “huh”. What thuga talks about is not supposed to be public and those that “worship” abortion would shudder knowing he is telling what is in their hearts. I will add that my abortion friends do not say all the troubling things that he says.

Is that clear? I’m from Redneckistan and English is not my first language.

HonestLib on February 25, 2014 at 9:16 PM

Ibanez Lotus on February 25, 2014 at 8:37 PM

I don’t know if this is related to Silverman’s group, but recently this was posted by someone I know on facebook:

Dear Theists,
We’ll top caring what you believe in…
just as soon as what you believe in stops
influencing the decisions of those in power,
thereby affecting our lives.
Negatively, I might add.
Yours truly,
Concerned Atheists

Which to me says “If you’re religious, shut up and stay out of politics.”

That is the position of a TOTALITARIAN, not a conservative or even a libertarian.

questionmark on February 25, 2014 at 9:19 PM

A lot of atheists do, but there are quite a few pro-life atheists on Hot Air.

hear, hear.

Atheism, or secularism, is destroying our country. There is nothing conservative about it.

on the contrary, what’s destroying out country is self-assured egocentrism. it goes without saying that many modern christians are among the worst card-carrying offenders of the soi-disant keepers-of-the-truth club.

there’s nothing intrinsically conservative about atheism — or homosexuality, for that matter — but some of us are certainly possessed of conservative bona fides as serious as any religious — or straight — conservative’s.

i second the notion that cpac oughtn’t admit any overt trolling, but good grief, lay off the ticket punching already. the properties of conservatism are not yours to define, nor is its exclusivity yours to defend.

jaxisaneurophysicist on February 25, 2014 at 9:22 PM

Hey HonestLib,

I’ve seen and appreciated many of your comments since you jumped on board, so…

What are your HONEST LIB beliefs/political stances, as opposed to the self-proclaimed official HOT AIR “conservative/libertarian” viewpoints, and/or the viewpoints of some of the more prominent commentators here?

If you don’t mind me asking.

Willing to reciprocate if necessary.

questionmark on February 25, 2014 at 9:26 PM

I mean, should Christian conservatives keep their lips sealed about their faith and doctrine as well?

JetBoy on February 25, 2014 at 2:26 PM

Well, that’s what we’re constantly told. It renders one “toxic”, or something.

ddrintn on February 25, 2014 at 9:30 PM

Exit quotation from CNN: “In 2013, American Atheists launched a billboard campaign against three Republican politicians: former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.”

Why? Not one of them is holding office.

ddrintn on February 25, 2014 at 9:33 PM

But the reality is, men and governments can in actuality take away your rights, despite them being “God-given” or from any other source. If a tyrannical government wants to take away your rights, and has the power to do so, they can and will.

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2014 at 4:33 PM

You’re saying then that there are “rights” to be taken away. Based on what? A government that takes away “rights” will ( a la Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia) merely say that there are no such things as inherent rights at all.

ddrintn on February 25, 2014 at 9:40 PM

I have always wondered when leftists use the term “Right wing Christians” ,, what does that actually mean? Since Christians follow Christ’s teachings and are guided by the Holy Spirit, does that make Jesus a right winger? One may call Christ intolerant but when the Final Judgement comes I don’t think your case well be helped by calling Him intolerant.

garydt on February 25, 2014 at 9:43 PM

Which to me says “If you’re religious, shut up and stay out of politics.”

That is the position of a TOTALITARIAN, not a conservative or even a libertarian.

questionmark on February 25, 2014 at 9:19 PM

I think this is my biggest problem with the organized atheist movement – Christians are to not voice political opinions or beliefs, even though everyone else is promoting their own agendas.

These groups misconstrue the separation clause on purpose and the only religion they ever overtly attack is Christianity. They hate to see any representation of Christianity in public, whether it be a cross on Mt Soledad, crosses on veterans monuments and graves, Christmas Trees, etc. Honestly, they seem to think that just seeing a cross will convert someone to Christianity. I think the idea is to erase Christianity from America, making it much easier to turn the country to socialism.

Christians believe God exists, that is why it is a belief. It can’t be proven with physical evidence, that is why it is called faith. The atheist movement knows that God doesn’t exist, even though they can’t prove it. They are unwilling to admit that this is also a belief and not fact. Agnostics are honest with themselves and admit that they really don’t know if God exists or not.

Ibanez Lotus on February 25, 2014 at 9:45 PM

I have always wondered when leftists use the term “Right wing Christians” ,, what does that actually mean?

garydt on February 25, 2014 at 9:43 PM

A Christian who’s pro-life and generally votes GOP. It’s like the term “Far Right” to denote anyone to the right of, say, the editorial board of the NYT.

ddrintn on February 25, 2014 at 9:46 PM

I think this is my biggest problem with the organized atheist movement –

Ibanez Lotus on February 25, 2014 at 9:45 PM

My biggest problem with the “organized atheist movement” is, how do you “organize” around a belief in nothing? It’s like “Organization of Anarchists”. Contradiction.

ddrintn on February 25, 2014 at 9:49 PM

@ddrintn ,,,,, I was being sarcastic when asking that right wing question. I was just wondering if the leftists would dare to call Jesus a right winger. I would like to see them explain that one out.

garydt on February 25, 2014 at 9:59 PM

My biggest problem with the “organized atheist movement” is, how do you “organize” around a belief in nothing? It’s like “Organization of Anarchists”. Contradiction.

ddrintn on February 25, 2014 at 9:49 PM

Ha! I think the organized anarchist group is called Occupy Wall Street.

Ibanez Lotus on February 25, 2014 at 10:03 PM

If you look at Silverman’s tweets, he’s going on about how this proves that conservatives are non-inclusive. I believe this was a stunt and he knew what the outcome would be.

I’ve often wondered why Christians aren’t supposed to vote based on social issues, but so many other groups (i.e. gays, abortionists, socialists, etc) can. I’ve read so many times that conservatives shouldn’t vote their beliefs, but should vote on fiscal issues. Then, when a conservative candidate says he’s pro-life or anti gay marriage many moderates decide not to vote for him based on these social issues. Should that matter, as long as the guy is fiscally conservative?

Ibanez Lotus on February 25, 2014 at 10:10 PM

What is sad here is the use of semantics to play games with a movement. Conservative is an adjective implying ‘traditionalist’

Atheism has never been a conservative position in the US. Examine the Declaration of Independence. Do a poll

CPAC was the place where the hard core ‘conservative kooks’ ie religious nutter, pro lifer, traditionalistas gathered. It was a place where even secular pols could make a stab at winning converts. Changing the meaning of ‘conservative’ will not change the hearts of the audience.

Keep it up, the audience will change, and the traditionalists will find a home somewhere else. So what was the point of CPAC?

Pols go there to woo the audience. Are they going to go there and be forced to take sides of Bible versus anti Bible?

It would be too easy to form an atheist group, or a gay marriage group. It looks to me like they rebels are trying to force a redefine. How does a conservative redefine the Bible? The Bible is the line in the sand

entagor on February 25, 2014 at 10:31 PM

By definition, a wanted puppy has more value than an unintended and unwanted fetus for those whose business it is.

thuja on March 30, 2013 at 8:45 AM

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 25, 2014 at 8:19 PM

I totally stand by my statement from almost a year ago for the simple reason it is a tautology.

thuja on February 25, 2014 at 10:34 PM

I totally stand by my statement from almost a year ago for the simple reason it is a tautology.

thuja on February 25, 2014 at 10:34 PM

If you and I don’t agree on the cultural norm of the value of human life, then what does it matter if we agree on matters of liberty or property? Don’t you have to be alive first for there to be a question of rights in the first place?

gryphon202 on February 25, 2014 at 10:48 PM

Hey HonestLib,

I’ve seen and appreciated many of your comments since you jumped on board, so…

What are your HONEST LIB beliefs/political stances, as opposed to the self-proclaimed official HOT AIR “conservative/libertarian” viewpoints, and/or the viewpoints of some of the more prominent commentators here?

If you don’t mind me asking.

Willing to reciprocate if necessary.

questionmark on February 25, 2014 at 9:26 PM

That’s a great question and one I did not expect. I am a Liberal and if I don’t get shown the door, my beliefs will become obvious, thus no need to point them out now. I have been around as far as posting on sites goes…if I remember correctly I had over 5,000 fans on HuffPost ( I never understood the fan thing and I never “Fanned” anybody), but was shown the door because I very vocal about President Obama and The ACA in a way that was not allowed. Was a moderator on a well known site, but left there because dissent was not allowed.

With all that blather above, I had to lurk here since 2007 since I never was able to register. Best, since I would be banned by now with my past history.

I do disagree with folks on this site, but since I am new and not a troll; I have no need to immediately argue as what good would that do? Well, I did argue with a few and would take that back if I could. I hope to build some amount of credibility if that is even possible….as I try to honestly debate, and wish that when we disagree……. we can all agree to disagree.

As in life and especially in politics, there are tests of acceptance and this site is no different. I can already see the long time posters who have their groups and their purity tests. We all want to be wanted in one way or another and I am no different, but I am old and not trying to join any group.

For example, Bishop will never accept me if I voted for President Obama the second time. I have not answered his question nor shall I as I don’t understand the silo viewpoint. I have read his witty responses and quite like the guy (in an internet way), but I understand the way it will be.

I look forward to learning a lot from you guys and standing together when we agree.

HonestLib on February 25, 2014 at 10:53 PM

thuja believes there is no difference between killing a dog and killing a baby.

It has no morals.

davidk on February 25, 2014 at 5:27 PM

thuja would never kill a dog

faraway on February 25, 2014 at 11:10 PM

I am a Liberal and if I don’t get shown the door,

Thats not how it works here. Even the trolls (which you are not) don’t get booted unless they become very obnoxious or start spouting threats/racial droppings, etc.

I had to lurk here since 2007 since I never was able to register. Best, since I would be banned by now with my past history.

HonestLib on February 25, 2014 at 10:53 PM

I suspect you don’t yet understand conservatives that well. We tend not to suppress contrasting opinions simply because we disagree with them. Most of us cannot agree on anything in any case including whether to have mushrooms or anchovies on the pizza.

sharrukin on February 25, 2014 at 11:24 PM

I look forward to learning a lot from you guys and standing together when we agree.

HonestLib on February 25, 2014 at 10:53 PM

Just stay away from racial slurs, and you will be just fine. For some reason, most liberals on this site lose it at some point and start going nonlinear with racial remarks, and then get banned.

John the Libertarian on February 26, 2014 at 2:30 AM

I totally stand by my statement from almost a year ago for the simple reason it is a tautology.
thuja on February 25, 2014 at 10:34 PM

It is only a tautology if you believe there is absolutely no objective value to human life in and of itself.

tommyboy on February 26, 2014 at 6:56 AM

thuja on February 25, 2014 at 10:34 PM

I stand by my statements over the past year . You’re a pos.

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 26, 2014 at 7:13 AM

thuja on February 25, 2014 at 10:34 PM

It is only a tautology if you believe there is absolutely no objective value to human life in and of itself.

tommyboy on February 26, 2014 at 6:56 AM

Thuja has no problems with abortion.None. In fact, he’ll defend infanticide. This one is evil and dark.

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 26, 2014 at 7:15 AM

I am extremely confident that there are many closeted atheists in the ranks of conservatives,”

One has to agree with truth–though I hesitate to agree that they are “closeted.”
Just mention God or abortion on most conservative sites and the spittle and sulfur-laced smoke will come from most every direction from the fiscal and libertarian types.

Don L on February 26, 2014 at 7:30 AM

I advocate aggressively spreading our cultural morality–at least those points we all agree on.

thuja on February 25, 2014 at 6:12 PM

You have no morals–in your eyes it is perfectly acceptable to kill a child in the womb.

zoyclem on February 26, 2014 at 7:33 AM

I think this is my biggest problem with the organized atheist movement –

Ibanez Lotus on February 25, 2014 at 9:45 PM

My biggest problem with the “organized atheist movement” is, how do you “organize” around a belief in nothing? It’s like “Organization of Anarchists”. Contradiction.

ddrintn on February 25, 2014 at 9:49 PM

Maybe they do believe and are completely obsessed with that belief. Even Satan, to his chagrin, believes in God. But these “professional” atheists fight (psychotically) what they claim is nothing, because they will not serve?

Don L on February 26, 2014 at 7:43 AM

“The Christian right should be threatened by us.”

Why should we be? We have God on our side. Atheists (by their own lack of belief) have…nothing.

zoyclem on February 26, 2014 at 7:50 AM

An atheist was seated next to a little girl on an airplane and he turned
to her and said, “Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike
up a conversation with your fellow passenger.”

The little girl, who had just started to a game on her phone, replied to the total
stranger, “What would you want to talk about?”

“Oh, I don’t know,” said the atheist. “How about why there is no God,
or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death?” as he smiled smugly.

“Okay,” she said. “Those could be interesting topics but let me ask
you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same
stuff – grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns
out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?”

The atheist, visibly surprised by the little girl’s intelligence,
thinks about it and says, “Hmmm, I have no idea.” To which
the little girl replies, “Do you really feel qualified to discuss
God, Heaven and Hell, or life after death, when you don’t know shit?”

And then she went back to playing on her phone.

Cherokee on February 26, 2014 at 7:51 AM

By definition, a wanted puppy has more value than an unintended and unwanted fetus for those whose business it is.

Replace “fetus” with “Jew” and that’s essentially the same reasoning Hitler used to rationalize the holocaust. For each the assumption is that the victim has no “business” in the issue.

tommyboy on February 26, 2014 at 8:01 AM

I’m agnostic and conservative, so there’s one.

guinneach on February 26, 2014 at 8:39 AM

I just don’t understand atheists and why they feel it necessary to band together. What do they discuss at their meetings, just how much they dislike believers or God or ways to defend their non-belief from mentions of religion? Maybe CPAC could have a screening of Son of God one night and let the group have a booth.

Kissmygrits on February 26, 2014 at 9:10 AM

thuja on February 25, 2014 at 6:35 PM

That’s what you said “no difference.”

davidk on February 25, 2014 at 7:08 PM

By definition, a wanted puppy has more value than an unintended and unwanted fetus for those whose business it is.

thuja on March 30, 2013 at 8:45 AM

I stand corrected.

davidk on February 26, 2014 at 9:12 AM

God is the Wholly Other (Totaliter Aliter). If not for His self-revelation in the Bible, we would not know the One of Whom the heavens declare.

davidk on February 25, 2014 at 6:24 PM

Hard to properly address this, but, if the Bible is truth (and I believe it to be), God revealed Himself numerous times, was declared by those to whom He revealed Himself, and was believed in by others based on that declaration, long before any Scripture was written.

Now, if you had said “His self-revelation in the WORD“….

questionmark on February 25, 2014 at 9:04 PM

The Bible is that WORD recorded. The first chapter of Hebrews explains it well.

I have previously on Hot Air shown how one can reason to a “something that must exist.” Old Testament era shepherds and nomadic peoples have been mocked for being ignorant and unschooled.

But they were people of the same level of intelligence as people today and unencumbered by all the sensory inputs that we have cluttering our minds. After the flocks and herds were bedded down, I can imagine them sitting around the campfire debating the question we all have (or I would like to think we all have), “What is the ultimate reality?”

They had the stories handed down from generations about creation and that God was with Adam and Eve in the garden, but they had no revelation what God was like beyond what they could reason.

Reason, natural revelation, can take you to the point of realizing that there is something that must exist and that it has certain attributes.

When God commissioned Moses to lead the Children of Israel out of Egypt, Moses asked, “Whom shall I say sent me?”

God replied, “The them I AM that I AM.” “I AM the Something That Must Exist.”

Without the Self-revelation of God recorded in the Bible, we would know little about God beyond that He must exist and had certain attribues. God revealed Himself, His character and attributes, starting with Moses and on through prophets, kings, judges, and even common folk. This is what we have recorded in the Old Testament.

Jesus came and His life said, “If God was a man, this is what He would be like.”

He is God’s final Word to us. If we reject Jesus, we reject God.

davidk on February 26, 2014 at 9:43 AM

Honest question. Hopefully after being here for ten years I will not be a noob and can start a question without “Honest”. Chuckle!

Is it possible for you to understand, with me being a non-believer, that I have a belief system very close to yours on many issues. I ask these types of questions because I just don’t understand the religion thing, but still I know the values you have are ones I admire and respect. Heck, I hope all of us would understand right vs. wrong.

Well, I would not discuss this with DarkCurrent because he makes my head hurt sometimes. In a good way.

Just asking in a good way.

HonestLib on February 25, 2014 at 7:43 PM

I want you to now that you have commented enough here for us to recognize that you are that rarest of rare creatures, a truly honest liberal. We all appreciate your comments and questions.

You have earned respect among Hot Air commenters.

davidk on February 26, 2014 at 9:51 AM

Ibanez Lotus on February 25, 2014 at 8:37 PM

When will David Silverman’s group or similar group sue CPAC or similar group because their rights were violated alá the baker that was sued by h0m0sexuals?

davidk on February 26, 2014 at 9:55 AM

Morals and values that exist apart from right and wrong that come from outside of man can only ultimately be enforced through a sword or a bullet. But then, this IS the history of the world.

somewhatconcerned on February 25, 2014 at 8:44 PM

I would imagine a consensus law regardless of the source would have to be enforced by force.

There will always be those who prey on weaker persons no matter what the law.

It is for the strong (the duty?) to protect the weak.

davidk on February 26, 2014 at 10:02 AM

I don’t explain things good. Just got from my nightly walk and think I understand your “huh”. What thuga talks about is not supposed to be public and those that “worship” abortion would shudder knowing he is telling what is in their hearts. I will add that my abortion friends do not say all the troubling things that he says.

Is that clear? I’m from Redneckistan and English is not my first language.

HonestLib on February 25, 2014 at 9:16 PM

I think you may be correct. thuja’s statements are the logical outworking of his worldview. Others of his ilk may not appreciate his candor.

BTW, we speak redneck ’round heah.

davidk on February 26, 2014 at 10:06 AM

But the reality is, men and governments can in actuality take away your rights, despite them being “God-given” or from any other source. If a tyrannical government wants to take away your rights, and has the power to do so, they can and will.

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2014 at 4:33 PM

You’re saying then that there are “rights” to be taken away. Based on what? A government that takes away “rights” will ( a la Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia) merely say that there are no such things as inherent rights at all.

ddrintn on February 25, 2014 at 9:40 PM

At the first victim’s rights observance, Clinton’s AG (can’t remember her name) referred to “the rights granted by your government.” I can’t find the speech. I’m sure it’s out there somewhere.

davidk on February 26, 2014 at 10:35 AM

So you don’t think morals of any kind pre-date Christianity or any other organized religion?
How do you think groups of humans managed to get together and work together and stay together without killing each other – if not for some kind of moral behavior that everyone agreed to?
Morals and values that allow us to get along and work as a team are the basis of civilised society – and were developed long before Christianity or any other religion. If not, then I seriously doubt civilised human society could have ever developed.

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2014 at 6:18 PM

Can you really ask that to a Christian with a straight face? If I say I am a Christian, then I believe what the Bible says about the beginning of time. And if I believe that, then there is no time that antedates the beginning of what would become Christianity. Since God was at the beginning, so were morals. Have you read the story of the Flood, when humanity got off track and God had to grab the steering wheel and bring it back? And then what happened at the Tower of Babel, etc. etc.?

I am not defending the historicity of these events – though I happen to believe they were historical – I am just saying that your question makes zero sense. It’s like asking a blind man what people did before food was invented.

JoseQuinones on February 26, 2014 at 10:59 AM

JoseQuinones on February 26, 2014 at 10:59 AM

Are you saying all Christians are “young earth” creationists?
I know we have some here, but not even a majority, from what I’ve seen.
That’s the same kind of stereotype as some of the Christians in this thread saying or implying that all atheists are communist or pro-abortion or gay or pro-gay.

dentarthurdent on February 26, 2014 at 12:19 PM

What idiot thought this was a good idea? American Atheists is a militant lefty group that runs around the country bullying people into silence, just like the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State thugs and the Freedom From Religion Gestapo. They are the bastards suing to have the Ground Zero Cross removed from the 9/11 memorial at the World Trade Center.

pdigaudio on February 26, 2014 at 12:45 PM

I don’t see much difference.
That “conscience” has still allowed humans to do far more evil things than any simple animal.
Call it what you want – instinct, conscience, learned behavior – when used properly by the majority, it all results in a more civilised society where everyone benefits more – hence survival of the fittest.

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2014 at 6:44 PM

I’m afraid I did a poor job of explaining my thoughts there.

How I see it is that instincts are our “base code” as it were. These can be overridden by a higher code of morality.

To me, a herd mentality isn’t so much to work together as it is to not be the weakest member. You have a greater chance of surviving if you are encircled with weaker members that a predator would nab first.

The way humanity groups together is more from the higher perspective of morals which I don’t really see animals capable of. I don’t see animals protecting their weak (apart from maybe their offspring) the way we (Christians, Americans, whomever) will charitably give to those in a less prosperous position than we.

That may be the best distinction I can give an example for. We’d probably need to consult some sort of behavioral scientist to go much further.

Effay5 on February 26, 2014 at 12:49 PM

One more thing: reaching out to lefties in this manner is what is alienating the base of the Republican Party. The Big Tent theory doesn’t work when there are too many clowns under it. In other words, grow the party by getting them to agree with us, not by agreeing with the Left.

pdigaudio on February 26, 2014 at 12:51 PM

To me, a herd mentality isn’t so much to work together as it is to not be the weakest member. You have a greater chance of surviving if you are encircled with weaker members that a predator would nab first.

The way humanity groups together is more from the higher perspective of morals which I don’t really see animals capable of. I don’t see animals protecting their weak (apart from maybe their offspring) the way we (Christians, Americans, whomever) will charitably give to those in a less prosperous position than we.
Effay5 on February 26, 2014 at 12:49 PM

Some do, some don’t – just like human populations.
But you’ve got it backwards how herds generally work. One of the better examples is the musk ox. When confronted by predators, the strongest form a circle, facing outward with the weaker members of the herd in the middle. Those types of herds don’t intentionally sacrifice their weaker members. However in some herds, in which the animals favor using speed to get away from predators, such as antelope, zebras, etc, when the herd is on the move, they don’t pay much attention to the weaker ones who fall behind – and get picked off by predators.

dentarthurdent on February 26, 2014 at 1:46 PM

One more thing: reaching out to lefties in this manner is what is alienating the base of the Republican Party. The Big Tent theory doesn’t work when there are too many clowns under it. In other words, grow the party by getting them to agree with us, not by agreeing with the Left.

pdigaudio on February 26, 2014 at 12:51 PM

Atheist does not equal lefty any more than religious conservative equals Westboro Baptist Church.
An aweful lot of people here stuck on invalid stereotypes.

dentarthurdent on February 26, 2014 at 1:47 PM

I don’t understand this any more than I understand why atheists would form a “church”.

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2014 at 2:22 PM

They need a place to hide out to avoid collecting stamps.

Axeman on February 27, 2014 at 3:23 PM

Atheist does not equal lefty any more than religious conservative equals Westboro Baptist Church.
An aweful lot of people here stuck on invalid stereotypes.

dentarthurdent on February 26, 2014 at 1:47 PM

You’re right that it isn’t an exact partitioning. But the effect can be similar. Its the disqualifying effect that atheism can have.

For example from a utilitarian perspective, they have to find some pragmatic origin of “rights”. Endowed at birth from our “Creator” with like some invisible document of grant that follows us around doesn’t work. Thus if rights work, there must be a pragmatic, utilitarian origin.

Believing in God seems like a useless past time, and spreading that belief seems even less than useful. Thus, religious rights seem not as real to atheists as some of the rights they prefer.

Plus they don’t think that there is much to faith except gullibility, so they don’t share with religious conservatives a view of the basis of morality. Morality, if there is such a thing, must also be founded in empirical, observable reality.

It’s kind of the way that Nietzsche found “non-earth-centered” reasoning “nihilism”. He had examined the matter to his satisfaction and found nothing except the propagation of ignorance. Nietsche’s view was actually closer to the historical definition of nihilism.

Plus, it is also common to see religion as “dangerous”, and thus change “rights of conscience” to some sort of clever maneuvering to keep irrationality in check.

One group of us founds our adherence to the law on conscience and worldview, the other views as the law as the only wall against the irrationality of not “living in the visible world”. Thus on this side there is greater tolerance, if not advocacy, of judge-sponsored removal of religion (“the elements of irrationality”) to abuse of the “free exercise” clause.

I can’t help but notice that atheists have more sympathy for the insatiable expression of irrational appetite, then they do for words of rationale for things that they actively believe. Where, in one, the irrationality is inherent, in the other the “irrationality” is actually a claim that is made in opposition to the viewpoint.

And usually held with every bit of the same smugness of acting like “owners” of the conservation that we can get for the same price from liberals.

So it’s not an absolute partition, no. It must be remembered that at one time, in Why I Am Not a Christian, Bertrand Russell, bereft of any structure for moral insight at the time, appealed to the trust of the general public on the basis of 1) shame and 2) imprisonment. However, having written once that we could trust him to be moral based on that he wanted to avoid shame and imprisonment, once he thought he understood how morality was structured, he went on to campaign against shame and to legalize everything he felt fit into his system.

Once he thought he had the basis for rational morality down–when he couldn’t support any morality whatsoever before–his mindset was to remove all strictures upon himself that “didn’t make sense”.

Axeman on February 27, 2014 at 3:49 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3