Atheists plan conservative outreach with booth at CPAC

[rug]

February 25th, 2014
06:00 AM ET

By Dan Merica, CNN

Washington (CNN) - American Atheists, an outspoken organization that advocates for atheists nationwide, will have a booth at the 2014 Conservative Political Action Conference.

The atheist institution, which is well known for its controversial billboards and media campaigns, informed CNN of its inclusion on Monday night, and a representative from CPAC confirmed that the group will have a booth at March’s national annual gathering of conservative leaders and activists. American Atheists hopes to use the forum to tap into the conservative movement and bring conservative atheists “out of the closet.”

“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.

Silverman coming to CPAC will be “the first step of many” in reaching out to Republicans.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/25/atheists-plan-conservative-outreach-with-booth-at-cpac/

[Goblinmonger]

1. Good

American Atheists isn't a political organization and is trying to help those of all stripes deal with their atheism.

[rug]

3. That's naive. It's helping the republican party grow precisely when it's hemorrhaging.

[Goblinmonger]

7. You're fucking kidding, right?

You seriously think the American Atheists setting up a booth in an attempt to let people know it's OK is going to help the republican party grow? Do tell.

Oh, and given your support of the RCC:

[cleanhippie]

54. +1

[bluestateguy]

2. There are a few conservative atheists out there

They tend to be libertarian, and viciously anti-Islam too.

[rug]

4. There are also neoliberal atheists who tend to be viciously anti-Islam.

[Goblinmonger]

8. There are also religious people

that are pricks, too. What's your point? Some people are assholes and some aren't. Some people are religious and some aren't.

And if you want to go into trends about whether theists or atheists as a whole are more liberal, let's have at it.

[rug]

11. It looks like Silverman is striving to start a new trend.

You do find that "good" don't you?

Go on, have at it.

[Goblinmonger]

15. I think he is trying to let atheists know

that it is OK to be an atheist and try to help those that feel like they can't come out.

Yeah, I think that's a good thing.

Or perhaps you would rather atheists just stay closeted? Or just conservative ones?

Go on, have at it. Let me know why atheists should continue to feel threatened about coming out just because they are conservative. I'd love to hear your reasoning on that one.

[rug]

17. Maybe he should go on Stormfront and embrace the closeted supremacist atheists while he's at it.

If you think it's a good thing, why don't you?

Go on, have at it.

[Goblinmonger]

18. The ACLU protected the Constitutional rights of skinheads

Perhaps you think that was a bad idea, too.

And I think the likelihood there are a lot of closeted atheists at Stormfront is pretty low because they come from KKK roots and that is an organization that is the far right wing of Christianity.

[rug]

21. Well, there's the daily analogy fail.

Don't you think the supremacist atheists should have their minds saved as well?

[Goblinmonger]

23. I think if a group is trying to help closeted atheists

then supremacist atheists should get that help, too.

Again, you don't answer the question:

Should the ACLU have protected the Constitutional rights of the skinheads?

[rug]

26. They should and do. What does that have to do with AA supporting CPAC?

[MADem]

51. The Ayn Rand/Paulbot/anarchist crowd.... nt

[Warren Stupidity]

59. the pauls are deeply religious and most of the idiots are unaware Rand was an atheist.

I assume you meant libertarians. Anarchists are on the left.

[MADem]

60. There are people (clueless, but they exist) who don't find any conflict (yet) in

touching ALL those bases. Most are under thirty, in that "immortal" era where they think they know it all and have no clue how much they don't understand.

They don't necessarily know what these things mean or entail, but they hear a few things they like, they affect the symbolism and spout some of the catch-phrases. A lot of 'em made trouble at Occupy in Oakland, e.g.

[longship]

5. As an atheist, I like this; as a Democrat, not so much. R&K nt

[rug]

6. Which trumps?

[cleanhippie]

9. I applaud any effort to curb insanity by injecting reason.

What better place to start than wingnut central.

[rug]

13. I'm sure you'll find the republican platform oozing with reason.

[cleanhippie]

55. Having this group there is the first bit of reason seen from GOP in a long time.

Now it looks like the insane are highly against it, and have revoked their invitation.

[cbayer]

10. Really? That's unfortunate.

Demographic data shows that atheists tend to lean liberal/progressive.

Are they just picking a fight? This has greatly riled Perkins, so if that is their goal, it's working. And using words like "frightened" and "threatened" seems just a tad antagonistic. And this is the first time I have heard them refer to themselves as "the marines of the atheist movement".

It's really unclear, at least to me, what they are trying to accomplish here.

[Goblinmonger]

12. Do you really think this will change the demographics?

Do you really think atheists (especially those that might be conservative) might not feel frightened or threatened about coming out? Are you really that naive?

They are trying to let all atheists know that it's OK to be an atheist. Odd that you think that is a bad idea.

[rug]

14. Looks like some here find it fortunate.

Amazing.

[Goblinmonger]

16. Let's put this a different way:

Should gays feel OK to come out but there shouldn't be outreach to conservative gays? Because fuck the conservative ones.

Please explain the difference.

[rug]

19. I know you prefer to hide behind other oppressed groups but it really doesn't work.

You can confine your atheism to an internet message board but your straight privilege protects you elsewhere.

Go on, stand on your own two feet.

[Goblinmonger]

22. So are we pretending that there is only privilege in one thing

And once you have that, everything else disappears?

Yes, I'm a white male. I things pretty good. But are we going to pretend there isn't Christian privilege in the US? Stand on your own fucking two feet.

And it hasn't gone unnoticed that you haven't answered the question:

Should conservative gays stay in the closet? It apparently helps the Republican numbers if they are out.

[rug]

27. I'm not the one pretending an intellectual conclusion equates to gender orientation.

It's up to conservative atheists if they went to have the courage of their convictions.

Unlike Silverman, no one should pay a dime to CPAC for the privilege of going in there to get them.

[cbayer]

20. I wouldn't know and don't care to know.

However, I am not surprised.

[Goblinmonger]

24. Do you think closeted atheists

should continue to feel the way they do just because they are conservative?

OR, put another way:

Should American Atheists only help closeted liberal atheists?

[AtheistCrusader]

25. An opportunity.

Possibly a good one to convert people right on out of 'conservatism', which isn't exactly a perfect overlap with the Republican Party Platform.

Because as we can all see with the mistreatment of Log Cabin Republicans, showing Republicans that there are people among them of different nature (Gay, or Atheist, or even non-Christian religion) doesn't result in positive inclusiveness, it tends to provoke vicious reactionary attacks upon their own. It actually drives radicalization of the party, and that has the net effect of driving people right out of their party.

So, possible win, but I feel bad for people of various classes that come 'out' inside their party, because they are immediately mistreated for it.

[rug]

29. You assume nonbelief in god(s) is antithetical to conservatism.

It isn't.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. Another candidate for the 'That's not what I said' game of nuance.

I did not assume that, and you can keep your fucking strawmen to yourself.


I agree Atheists can be conservatives. This might be an opportunity to lead them away from conservatism, because they sure as hell aren't welcome in the Republican Party, the dominant, self-proclaimed 'conservative' party.

There is not 100% overlap between the Republican Party and the concept of Conservatism.

I'm perfectly happy to see Republican conservatives that happen to belong to one class or another, exit the party and stop voting with them, even if they remain 'conservatives'.

(The Republican party is dominated by evangelicals, and they WILL 'eat their own' when a Republican is 'out' as an atheist or a homosexual. They openly deride 'Log Cabin Republicans'.)

[rug]

33. Tsk, such sensitivity. What you did say is this:

An opportunity.

Possibly a good one to convert people right on out of 'conservatism', which isn't exactly a perfect overlap with the Republican Party Platform.

This "opportunity" to convert people from conservatism is the AA (paid) booth at CPAC. Now why would a liberal, as opposed to atheist, group do that?

[AtheistCrusader]

34. Many reasons.

For one, if they are encouraged to 'come out' they will find out how welcome they are in the 'small government republican party', which isn't small government at all.

Put it this way, if a 'conservative' in the closet atheist comes out, and then is mistreated by the Republican Party, we win, if they leave the party. They might become a libertarian or some other politically-right group, but they won't be voting lock-step holding their noses in the Republican party, and that's a win for us.

[rug]

36. Is Silverman doing this to diminish the reublican party or augment the atheist community?

Which do you think is his priority?

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Probably grow the atheist community.

But it's going to have unintended consequences that will be beneficial to us.

They might even get run out of CPAC which would be hilariously beneficial to us.

[rug]

38. The unintended consequence will be the growth of the republican party.

http://unreligiousright.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-are-there-republican-atheists.html

Fuck the republican party.

Fuck CPAC.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. I honestly think it's going to shrink it, because

there's nothing those atheists can do, together to even partially overwhelm the evangelical stranglehold on the party.

The tea party/ron paul republicans/libertarians tried it in the last primary, and they got the door slammed in their faces, and a lot of them bailed out as a result.

Unless the Republican Party starts embracing atheists (I will not hold my breath) this works in our favor.

[rug]

40. It starts March 6. Let's see what happens.

BTW, the booth they bought is right next to the RNC booth.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. Hahaha expect fist fights.

I won't say you are wrong. But I think you are wrong. But we shall see.

My powers of prognostication have been wrong before, and if this bolsters R(TM) numbers, then yes, that is a bad thing.

[rug]

42. That was fast.

CPAC reverses decision, will not allow atheist group at conservative conference

February 25th, 2014
02:53 PM ET
By Dan Merica, CNN

Washington – Organizers for the 2014 Conservative Political Action Conference will not allow American Atheists to have an exhibition booth at the conservative conference, the group's spokeswoman said Tuesday.

The decision comes just hours after American Atheists, the outspoken organization that advocates for atheists nationwide, announced that it would have a booth at the event. David Silverman, president of American Atheists, tells CNN that a groundswell of opposition from high-ranking members of CPAC compelled the group to pull the invite.

Meghan Snyder, a spokeswoman for CPAC, said in a statement to CNN that “American Atheists misrepresented itself about their willingness to engage in positive dialogue and work together to promote limited government.”

"I'm surprised and I'm saddened," Silverman said in response to the announcement. "I think this is a very disappointing turn of events. I was really looking forward to going."

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/25/cpac-reverses-decision-will-not-allow-atheists-at-conservative-conference/

[AtheistCrusader]

47. VINDICATION

LOL

Like seriously, there would have been fist fights. These people supported Rick Santorum, they think Atheists are the damn devil incarnate.

[cbayer]

48. AA "misinterpreted itself"?

That's hilarious. What exactly did CPAC expect?

[AtheistCrusader]

50. Probably for them to be seen and not heard, and to be unobtrusive and

basically non-existent, like the GOP wants libertarians to be about war, abortion, church/state, drugs, etc.

Oh, they want their votes but they better be quiet as a church mouse on something like ~50% of republican party platform planks for social issues, most foreign policy, and a shitload of domestic fiscal policy.

[cbayer]

52. I'm wondering if the change came once CPAC saw the layout for their booth and the

materials that they planned to distribute.

AA has a history of being pretty provocative.

I'm beginning to think this was all an orchestrated publicity stunt, which would actually be a better explanation than that they really wanted to have a booth there imo.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. Tend to agree.

Still, useful. Shows atheists how welcome they are around Repubs.

[cbayer]

56. i suspect they would give the same warm welcome to any groups

that tend to have a liberal/progressive agenda.

It's all looking like a stunt to me.

[LostOne4Ever]

28. Don't conservatives have belief in god as a party plank at this point?

If not they could have fooled me

A conservative atheist seems like a contradiction in terms if you ask me, but If there any then I got to think this is a good thing. Isolation is not fun.

Though coming out as a conservative atheist seems like an invitation to be discriminated against. Hell, I would be surprised if the AA booth isn't vandalized before the conference even starts.

[rug]

30. Apparently not.

https://www.facebook.com/AtheistRepublicans

[LostOne4Ever]

32. ROFL

They *laughing* have a banner depicting a bunch of left wing radicals!

They have posts against republican theocrats!!!

That site is pure comedy gold!!!

[AtheistCrusader]

35. Hahah 2 years old, has 260 members.

ROFL

A political force to be reckoned with.

[LostOne4Ever]

43. AND THEY'RE OUT!!!!

Last edited Wed Feb 26, 2014, 04:12 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024565865

Very subtle message rethugs. Very subtle indeed.



Edit: Damn it Rug beat me to it by an HOUR!

[rug]

44. What do you think of Silverman"s quote?

"Christianity is bad for conservatism and they did not want that message out there."

Sounds like he thinks CPAC would benefit from his booth.

[LostOne4Ever]

45. That or he is pandering

Honestly, he probably feels the same way we do about conservative atheists, but is going through the motions for the sake of inclusiveness.

At least that is what im going to tell myself

[MellowDem]

46. I'm guessing he's trying to normalize atheism...

by broadening it's visibility to the most religious conservatives out there. Hence the many appearances on Fox. I don't think it will hurt progressives. And it's not like atheism is an ideology.

As for saying Christianity will hurt conservatism, it already has, badly. Whenever you use a belief system based on faith to prop up a failing ideology, bad things will happen.

Are secular conservatives better to deal with? I think so. It's easier to reason with someone who uses the same general forms of thinking to come to their conclusions. Not a lot that can be done for the "god said so" argument.

[cbayer]

49. Are secular conservative better than what to deal with?

I hope you are not advocating for secular conservatives as opposed to liberal/progressive religious people, but I fear that you are.

That to me is a very bad sign and why people like you need to be vigorously confronted.

[MellowDem]

57. Not at all...

Secular conservatives are easier to reason with than religious conservatives is what I was saying. Most progressive religious people aren't very religious at all, or their faith is very vague, making them much more like just another secular person on most subjects.

[cbayer]

58. I agree with that.

Many progressive religious people are very religious. Their faith may not meet some narrow definition that applies primarily to fundies, but I am glad you recognize that you have more in common with them than you do difference.