No. No.
Once again- Atheism is the absence of belief in theism.

Not having a defined belief is not the same as having a belief.
A machine that does not have any widgets is not the same as it having a type of widget.

The only truly rational person is Agnostic, since the Atheist is a believer in that which he cannot prove. The Agnostic recognizes that arguing the existence/nonexistence of an entity without physical evidence is in itself irrational.

The Democrats, while trying to attract secular humanists, should have avoided any statements about religion altogether. As it is, they now can't avoid the perception they are antireligious, potentially alienating the majority of voters. I'd say this was a dumb, unnecessary statement that will only have a negative effect.

Yes, both children understood my position.

Those aren't non-religious religions as that would just be a contradiction.
The things you listed either are also religions (e.g. baal, moloch, gaia) or are the secular descendants of religious ideas (e.g. communism, environmentalism are just modern and more consistent versions of Christianity).

In other words, unless you are anti-religious, you can't be anti-any of the things you've listed.

You already agree with them on all the fundamentals.

Making a play for atheists as if that alone is sufficient to "share the Democratic Party’s values" is a smart move on their part and is a massive danger to Objectivists.
Atheism is necessarily one of the first steps a rational mind takes and without it you cannot built the philosophical foundations required to achieve a proper understanding of ethics or politics.
By tying something so fundamental to their values they are making a play for the support of rational people.
This is something the religious left (ie conservative movement) has no counter to.

Deplorables?

It stands for everything people hold important to their existence: Honor, love of country, love of your neighbor, honesty, sacrifice, all the things that are missing from the agenda of the left.

People who love America - I am excluding the left, Omar, Tlaib, Lemongrass etc who are not Americans by principle. They may have been born in this country as they like to boast about it but that is immaterial to what they represent.

Not being Christian, I will still borrow from their lexicon of hating the sin, but loving the sinner. I gauge people on their actions, as do many more religious folk. It's ironic that liberals who purport to love the groups you note, but don't really do anything that helps them.

I had a black friend who was physically disabled and had worked his way through two PhDs. He was fascinated with how black representatives who represented poor districts seemed to be able to mount expensive reelection campaigns. His research discovered that they were backed by real estate investment trusts (REITs) that invested in prisons and low cost housing. His conclusion was that these backers needed to keep those minorities poor and criminal.

I would try to make an insightful reply to your post, DrZ, citing outside examples...but a brief scan of just the entries on this Objectivist thread is a pretty comprehensive tour of the rejection of homosexuality and pagans.

You and I and many others have friends who are gay and/or Wiccan, but the very first post (olduglycarl) equates witchcraft with communism and, if you read down the list, you can easily see what the reception these people would get in our Gulch...and we are probably more broad minded than the Republicans are.

All of these people do not want to be 'liberals', but if the liberals are the only people who will accept them, then that is where they will go.

Objectively speaking, what does someone's religion or sexual preferences have to do with valuing freedom and responsibility? Nothing, in my mind. So why do we slander them and make sure that anyone in those categories knows not to hang out with us?

Jan

Did you make that same offer to your daughter?

Jan :>)

The other groups that should be included are the New Agers(fluffy bunnies), nature-based spirituality groups(Wicca, Goddess groups, & pagans etc). The Dems are trying very hard to pick up every fringe element, saying that they have representation in the Demon-crat Party. I find this amusing see that in Northern Europe and Russia pagan groups are growing in number as an ethnic identity. Druids in Great Britain, Asatru in Scandinavia, and Rodnovery in Eastern Europe and Russia. Putin is allowing these groups to grow in Russia because they are a ethno-centric. The most popular pagan metal band in Russia is Arkona. Songs like Slavsia Rus, and Oj, Pechal Toska(Oh, My Sorrow). Arkona and other Russian Metal Bands end their set with Oy Da Ne Vechen( a Russian folk song) which the entire audience sings along. So, maybe the Dems will have to create a unifying song(never happen).

I would argue that conservatives haven't been unfriendly to the groups that you cite. It's the extremists in those groups that make it hard to welcome them. Black Lives Matter consider white people devils, so how do you develop a friendship with that minority group? I've had plenty of minority friends who aren't radicals. I've had gay friends and transexual associates I've worked with, but they aren't the ones who insist on parading near naked down city streets and having public sex. I've worked with lots of admirable, intelligent, strong women, and am married to a strong woman, but none of them refer to me as a pig, like many feminists do, just because of my sex. I have relatives with left wing views, but I treat them courteously, and discuss any subject they bring up in a logical fashion.

The NRA forcefully supports the right of minorities to defend themselves by force of arms if necessary. It's liberal city officials that make self defense nearly impossible in urban areas.

Evangelical Christians risk their lives in dangerous parts of the minority world here and overseas to relieve pain and suffering. I think you've bought into the image of conservatives sold by the Democrat-media cabal.

Please, it's not just Atheist Objectivist and it's not just Objectivist.

I also have a case this last week where an older brother was defending his younger sibs from verbal abuse and got too involved and was stabbed though his abd aorta and wrists slashed by the other kid. Luckily he is ok. but they try to spread there wings and do not quite know how to do it

I always try with my patients and my own kids. I remember the scene from The Fountainhead where the kid on the bicycle was looking at Roark's new resort and gained the courage. Even if it is 1/100 or less that one makes the difference

Yet, another nail in their coffins...

Its a herculean task teaching children properly these days, and for quite some time. I actively taught my kids for many years about this country, what we believe, who we are intended to be as a people as structured by the Constitution and I all but failed. College was the killer for my influence on them. Their natural desire to define themselves by opposing their parents was used by Colleges to insert its liberal idiotology under the guise of open mindedness, education and 'enlightenment.'
Needless to say the Bachelors degrees that should fill my heart with their joy of accomplishment is tainted by the prospect of my having added to the nations cancer. Depressing, but as a parent you have to try.

Incidentally, I had a $1000 no questions asked deal with my son for any black eye, far lip, or knocked out tooth of any punk who tried to intimidated or his sister. He never took advantage but I have had summits with every teacher, guidance councelor and principal to put them in their place. My children were never victims. One lesson that did take was that being a victim was a personal choice fed by fear. Unacceptable.

I've noticed that. Atheists who also are students of and aherents to Objectivism are the only ones who have an once of respect for the lives, liberties, and properties of themselves and of other people.

I agree with Thoritsu: This is wonderful news, and we need to make sure it is spread around as widely as possible. There are tons of people who value a personal or traditional link to a religion and who will be offended by this exclusionary behavior.

The problem with conservative groups is that they have been so unfriendly to gay, minority, feminist, and non-normative groups that those groups have had no alternative but to adhere to the Democratic party vote. Conservative organizations need to have a blue-collar and religious plus techie, and non-normative "ya'll come on in here" sort of attitude. The only thing that matters is whether the individual believes in freedom and responsibility.

I guess I am saying that it is nice to see the opposition say something really stupid, but we need to clean house ourselves - and then capitalize on it.

Jan

Look forward to it!

Think it already comes from pretend-unaffiliates who worship dead women and obfuscation.

I still have my "deplorable me" T-shirt

Thank you Dr. Z. I remember they just kept taking the vote till they got the result they wanted. Sad.

What is in the first translation an abomination,
will become something 'woke enough to be taught in junior school.
This is a serious case of unresolved contradictions.

A deep flaw for Objectivists but not of concern to the post-modernists/leftists/progressivistas who now control education and mass media.

Hmmmm. I wonder if they focus grouped and polled this first? Doesn't really sound like something that would be a winner with many. But then, considering all of the things that the left seem to be opening up about what they believe, I guess religion isn't really high on the list of things that they worry about too much.

The issue in question was whether or not to include a party policy against late term abortions. What they got was a lot of abstentions from Democrats from districts with more religious voters, and it took arm twisting galore and threats of yanking the financial plug to get the result they wanted, which was a wholehearted acceptance of abortion in any circumstance.

This reminds me of a circumstance of 2 or 3 election cycles past. The D's were taking a vote in a televised convention on some religous concerned process and they actually had to take 3 votes to get the one result that they wanted. Anyone remember this??