Why We Must Beat Obama

[jordan179]

Introduction

There's been a lot of talk about the list of likely Republican Presidential candidates for 2012 being disappointing. I know I'm disappointed: I see no one who I would describe as even remotely "libertarian" who is not simultaneously isolationist to the point of trying to deny the existence of the rest of the world beyond American

Comments

[jordan179]

I understand the fear you atheist libertarians have of Christian fundamentalist social conservatives, really I do. But I'm telling you, y'all better get over that knee-jerk disdain, because for the most part, those guys are your allies against the FAR greater dangers of Socialism (represented by the Big O, almost all Democrats, and roughly half of Republicans and independents) and Islam.

Indeed, this was the whole point of my post. And I'd be willing to take someone who wasn't an "atheist" -- I strongly supported Ronald Reagan, and he was most definitely Christian. In fact, I find that the form of Christianity most common in America is quite compatible with sane political leadership.

Personally, I think it's too late to save America, because America by and large does not want to be saved.

Depends what you mean by "saved." It may be too late, in the long run, to save the American Republic. But by "the long run" I mean "the next several decades," and by "save," I mean "retain our full Constitutional liberties." If we re-elect Obama, we may not have several decades before the Republic falls, either to internal disorder or foreign invasion. And we will be very likely in that case to lose our global leadership.

[prester_scott]

In fact, I find that the form of Christianity most common in America is quite compatible with sane political leadership.

As someone else said in another thread, you are in no danger of Christian theocracy from any Christian politician on the national scene. None whatsoever. And if a Christian theocracy did arise, you would have the help of lots of Christians (orthodox ones, not just liberals) to oppose it. So I am glad you agree that voting with that fear in the front of one's mind is extremely short-sighted.

But by "the long run" I mean "the next several decades," and by "save," I mean "retain our full Constitutional liberties."

I agree with your definitions and I maintain that we cannot be saved whether Obama is re-elected or not, precisely because the majority of the American people either agree with Obama and his ilk in their basic outlook, and don't give a hoot about liberty as long as they are "cared for" and don't have to take personal responsibility; or they are too compromised to understand and to do what's really necessary.

[prester_scott]

Thanks for being rational about so much of this. Now be rational about that "imaginary grandfather in the stratosphere" garbage, and admit that you were being unnecessarily bombastic and you don't really believe that all theists are boobs, like it sounds like you are saying. Why won't you respond?

[jordan179]

Sure, I'll admit to unnecessary bombast. I think arguing over whether or not there's a God is a distraction from our real problem, which is whether or not there's going to be much of a future for the American Republic. Any time we doubt that such a society can decline into irrelevance, we should look across the Atlantic at Great Britain, and what she's become today.

[prester_scott]

Thank you. That kind of language detracts, in my mind, from an otherwise good analysis.

[cutelildrow]

I think that for an otherwise very rational essay, it was rather alienating a description, because not only are there a number of Christians/Catholics on his readerlist, but a fair number of pagans (myself included) and Jews. It is a great disservice to those of us who are religious and believe in a Deity/Deities to be instantly equated with insane, irrational and outright idiotic, and outright insulting; especially as most of us, bar a few trolls, have proven to be quite capable of very rational discussion.

It's as if by simply being religious, the implication is our arguments are instantly less valid and we are, as a whole, less intelligent. I certainly hope that is not the case here, though I've heard a bitter assertion from a friend that this is exactly what all atheists think.

Rather interestingly enough, I've met more atheists who are out and out more contemptuous of religious people than religious people who are contemptuous of atheists. The attitudes I've experienced range from "Ah well, perhaps someday, s/he'll find the way back" to "Oh, okay. *shrug, files away informational tidbit*."

[jordan179]

I was being unnecessarily provocative and I apologize to you and all other religious people on this blog.

[cutelildrow]

While I accept and appreciate the apology, I think also, you should note this on the main post itself. As you can see, that unnecessary provocation resulted in rather neatly and easily derailing from the topic discussed, and I think you rather hamstrung yourself and the rest of the points of discussion rather surgically. Being religious does not immediately equate to uninterested in science and technology, and I'm hard pressed to think of religious groups other than the small group of Christians who keep themselves to a very simple lifestyle and don't force others into staying into said lifestyle, and Islam's (inconsistent) doctrinal rejection of modernization that outright dismiss science and technology in this day and age. (Tibetan monks using iPods to help memorize their sutras come to mind...)

I, quite frankly, found it difficult to read past that initial paragraph, since the message is, that any religious reader, particularly of the Jewish and Christian stripes, is already held as out and out idiots and whatever opinion or rationale we might have is dismissible, and not valued as much as another atheist reader's might be. I know this was very likely not your intent, but the impression brought about by that paragraph is that offputting.

But yeah, I think it'd help if you put it up on the main post.