Atheists for Huckabee

Don’t worry: this is not an attempt to persuade your 2016 vote one way or the other. Instead, I am trying to make my position clearer to many of you who remain baffled at my political conservatism. 

Obama Messiah

To most atheists, skeptics, humanists, etc., it appears self-evident that political “Progressivism” (Leftism) is the logical political stance for them (us). As I have tried to explain before, I reject this connection and remain surprised that such tough-minded skeptics turn right around and embrace failed, dreamy ideologies long ago discredited by history and based on sheer faith such as they would never be caught dead applying to religious questions.

When Liberals vote based on their Socialist, pacifistic, and Politically Correct faith, sure with closed-eyed certitude, heedless of the foreseeable consequences, I see them as merely one more sect of faith-fueled theocrats. I call it “political snake-handling.”
I see them as imperialistic and intolerant in their ceaseless efforts to scrub public space and speech of religion. They look to me like the Red Guards trying to impose their own Cultural Revolution. [1] They are the mirror opposites, I think, of the Christian Reconstructionist nuts. [2]

And as long as a political candidate is not a Christian Reconstructionist (someone who wants to replace the Constitution with Deuteronomy), I consider his or her religious faith irrelevant. I base my vote on real-world policy, things like the economy, smaller government, and foreign policy. I’d much rather have a Pentecostal or a Roman Catholic in the White House than a Socialist.jesuschrist karlmarx with halos Obviously, I plan to vote Republican in 2016, as I have in every election since that of the disastrous Jimmy Carter. I don’t care much for Rand Paul and his isolationist tendencies, but I’d even cast my ballot for him if Hillary Clinton or Pocahontas, er, I mean Elizabeth Warren, were the Dem nominee.

Frankly, I’d prefer Mike Huckabee, a Southern Baptist minister whose religious beliefs I categorically reject. I think his stand against PC and Islamo-fascism is vitally important. These ideologies are dangerous to free speech and national security. Unlike President Neville Chamberlain II, Huckabee appears to have learned the lessons of history. If he becomes President (and the same is true of most other Republicans), we have a good chance of averting another Holocaust in Israel. (Watch Obama allow it and then say that at least it solved the Israeli-Palestinian problem.) Huckabee will not vainly imagine he can make nice with the apocalyptic fanatics in Tehran, whose every action serves to demonstrate their incorrigible, anti-Semitic intractability.

Huckabee, I’m pretty sure, holds certain apocalyptic beliefs himself. He most likely believes all the nonsense about the Antichrist, the Rapture, and Armageddon, the stuff I debunk in my book The Paperback Apocalypse. But that hardly means he thinks it’s his duty to bring on the End Times, an absurdity often ascribed to Ronald Reagan with no justification whatever. Pat Robertson, okay, but my point is that Huckabee is more like Reagan than Robertson. (Similarly, many of our militant secularist pals used to try to convince us that George W. Bush was a Reconstructionist, thereby revealing their gross ignorance.)

mike huckabee as moses

I do not like it when I hear Huckabee make contemptuous cracks about atheists (e.g., how their holiday should be April Fool’s Day),  but I don’t care. I am not a whining “victim.” To hell with “sensitivity.” I’m drawing a wider circle that includes him. Admittedly, it’s more troubling when, as recently, he said something to the effect that atheists should be fired from government posts, but I think atheist alarmists have missed his point. Huckabee, I think, takes the bait of those whom I call “Westboro Atheists,” the kind of atheism I repudiate. They are almost all “Progressives” supporting the ruinous policies of the current regime, and I think that is what Huckabee blames them for. Hell, I’d like to see them on the bread line myself.

One reason I think Huckabee opposes atheists insofar as they are “Progressives” is that he gets along fine with George Will (an atheist), Charles Krauthammer (an agnostic leaning toward atheism), and  Karl Rove (an agnostic). These guys are my (and apparently Huckabee’s) kind of non-believers.

But Huckabee opposes Gay Marriage big time, doesn’t he? I don’t, though it is not a major concern of mine. But Huckabee’s opinion is moot. Like him, Reagan was Pro-Life, but he never really did anything about it. What could he have done? In the same way, a President Huckabee would never be able to turn back the clock on Marriage Equality even if he wanted to. Besides, he seems to have softened his position a bit lately, comparing belief in Gay Marriage with using profanity and narcotics: he is tolerant of colleagues and friends who do any of these things.

Huckabee would shelve Global Warming fears, which is certainly okay with me, since I strongly suspect the whole thing is yet another Progressivist scheme to control, i.e., screw up, the economy. As my old professor, Robert Beckwith, used to say, “Figures don’t lie, but liars sure do figure!”

Vote for whomever you want. I am just sharing the sort of calculus I bring to bear on politics. I don’t think there is a particular political stance inherent in atheism or humanism, as some do (remember the recent flap over “Atheism Plus”?). I do not even see atheism as politically relevant. You don’t have to be a secularist to be against Christian theocracy; most Christian fundamentalists repudiate it, too (e.g., Norman Geisler, Chuck Colson). And I am equally leery of any possible atheocracy.

So says Zarathustra.

 


[1] Yeah, I know our Westboro Atheists are not resorting to actual violence like the culture-purging Red Guards or the Taliban. You know what I mean.

[2] Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law; Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics; Gary North and Gary Demar, Christian Reconstruction: What It Is, What It Isn’t.

 

This entry was posted in Politics, Religion. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Atheists for Huckabee

  1. demertens2012@outlook.com says:

    Well, thanks, Dr. Price. You have helped me to understand my own ambivalence about our politics and some of our religion. I understand now why I would turn to your scholarship (and others) to sort out the Jesus stories, but become enraged when some small-minded prick files a law suit against a little crossroads somewhere in America that wishes to have a Nativity scene in the village square at the Christmas season.

  2. Jwoods7535 says:

    Thank you for your support of Gov. Mike Huckabee as a Presidential Candidate ! We believe him to be Reaganesque since before 1980 when Mike worked with James Robinson Evangelistic Association as their Public Relations Person. Mike reserved the ReUnion Arena for its first venue, the Public Affairs Briefing, and scheduled the speakers for the event in which Gov. Ronald Reagan made his national debut. Mike Huckabee has been a social and fiscal conservative all his life. Dick Morris even said he was a fiscal conservative. Mike Huckabee will be wonderful leader on the world scene. United With Israel is naming him their 3 millionth member. Netanyahu was 1 millionth. PM Benjamin Netanyahu has declared that Israel has no greater friend than Gov. Mike Huckabee. I believe Gov. Mike Huckabee will be a great President and will be elected in 2016!
    I’m just praying we have enough intelligent voters like you to make it happen. Thank you !

  3. djkrause says:

    Bob: Nicely done. For some years I have attempted to argue my left-theological, right political stance, and have been embarrassed at the people I find in my room. This helps.

  4. Fez says:

    I’d be interested to hear more specifically which failed ideologies were discredited by history. I’ve gotten the sense before that Dr. Price conflates liberals and communists. Wake up Democrats, communism failed! To me this is a basic straw man. In addition to the religious stuff (anti-gay, Christian leaders communicating with God through prayer and nice feelings in their tummies), I reject much of modern Republican fiscal and environmental policy because of the evidence. Spending on infrastructure, research, education is investment. And history clearly bears out the benefits of government involvement. Trickle down economics doesn’t work. I’m not sure which economists one would point to, to show that tax cuts would not ADD to the deficit. I’d be happy to change my mind if I saw the evidence. And then of course climate change. Claiming it’s a scheme to control the economy is not evidence based.

  5. randy says:

    “I’m just praying we have enough intelligent voters like you to make it happen. Thank you !”

    Jwoods7535: If this is the method by which you expect to be politically victorious, then don’t be surprised when you fail. Prayer won’t get you anything but the deluded feeling you are doing something to help your cause.

    While I agree that Robert is an intelligent individual, your backhanded insult of all who … is cheap and unworthy of anyone who claims to be intelligent. There are plenty of intelligent individuals who will not vote for Huckabee. And their vote for whomever the democratic candidate is will not be evidence that they lack in intelligence, despite your insulting insinuation.

    Nicely said Fez. I admire Robert’s intellect when it comes to discussions of matters concerning religion and some other topics. But he is as prone to irrational and poorly constructed arguments as any religious believer pontificating about their religious beliefs when he starts discussing politics.

  6. randy says:

    Oops. I left out a part of a sentence in my comment. The part of the sentence that begins “your backhanded insult” should have read in its complete form as follows: “…your backhanded insult of all who don’t share your political views is cheap and unworthy of anyone who claims to be intelligent.”

  7. randy says:

    So Bob please explain just how your conservative political views are more rational, more evidence-based and less faith-based than those of liberalism. I think it humorous how you have convinced (deluded) yourself that conservatism is empirically-based and liberalism is just a “dreamy” ideology.

  8. randy says:

    “I see them as imperialistic and intolerant in their ceaseless efforts to scrub public space and speech of religion. They look to me like the Red Guards trying to impose their own Cultural Revolution. [1] They are the mirror opposites, I think, of the Christian Reconstructionist nuts. [2]

    The first charge is patently and demonstrably false. While there may be some atheists who wish for this, liberalism as a political view does not have this as one of its objectives. That you think it does indicates you have constructed a very distorted view of liberals and liberalism.

  9. randy says:

    That Huckabee is friends with several prominent atheists who are conservative is not evidence that he would invite them into government service. I think it is you who missed Huckabee’s point.

  10. randy says:

    “Huckabee would shelve Global Warming fears, which is certainly okay with me, since I strongly suspect the whole thing is yet another Progressivist scheme to control, i.e., screw up, the economy.”

    On this subject you exhibit once again a complete abdication of critical thinking and skepticism. Your political ideology has completely shut-down your ability to employ reason and rationalism on this subject. It is a shame because in other areas you show remarkable intellectual skill.

  11. I.B.GodFree says:

    randy-well spoken. I am an avid reader/listener to Bob, principally for his insight on religion, and have been so for 10 years. One of his many endearing traits is his magnanimity when dealing with his opponents. He has no apparent interest in ‘converting” them to his way of thinking and reserves any disparagement to the hard core apologists (Craig, Wright, etc.).
    Bob steps into the political quicksand when he shoots from the hip at “liberals”. He seems unable to distinguish that there is an entire spectrum of liberals as he lumps them all in with big spending (for the sake of being big spenders I guess), pinko-commie, bleeding heart tree huggers. Rational thinking here is nowhere in sight. He has not even arrived at having any doubt about climate change-whether it is happening at all let alone how much is human based. A grand conspiracy abetted by tens of thousands of scientists all over the globe. It is as if he is auditioning for a spot on Fox ‘Views”.
    I still turn my head away, secretly close my nose and go on tuning him in whenever he discusses religion.
    Love ya Bob-I’m far from perfect myself.

  12. Gene says:

    Mike Huckabee says we should let God back in our schools so the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School, where 20 children and 6 adults were murdered by a crazed gunman, will not happen again.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1qEDAP361s

    The main stream news media and the liberal, socialist, Democratic party have done an outstanding job of equating conservatism with right wing religious nut cases. I find this very unfortunate and very much to the detriment of our country.

    Most people who vote Democratic seem to be voting against the impressions they have of the Republicans and conservatives, rather than voting for the ideologies of the Democratic party. (Anyone here the one about George W being stupid?)

    I am a conservative because conservative values are what made this country great. And the lack of conservative values will make this country just another member of the EU.

    Mike Huckabee, a religious nut case and a conservative. Does anyone think that we will see a candidate for President who is openly an atheist, or agnostic, in our life time?

    Thank you again Dr. Price. I find that I enjoy most your posts that I fully agree with.

    Gene

  13. I.B.GodFree says:

    Gene- paraphrases of your post:

    “The main stream news media and the conservative, oligarchic, Republican party have done an outstanding job of equating progressivism with left wing socialist nut cases. I find this very unfortunate and very much to the detriment of our country.”

    “Most people who vote Republican seem to be voting against the impressions they have of the Democrats and progressives, rather than voting for the ideologies of the Republican party. (Anyone here the one about Obama being Muslim?)”

    “I am a progressive because progressive values are what made this country great. And the lack of progressive values will make this country just another member of corporate America.”

    The history of the United States is the history of the continuous progressive transformation of this country.
    All the great accomplishments of US democracy, from the revolution itself to health-care reform, have been progressive accomplishments and they’ve come about because progressives rallied for change and said “no” to the old order.
    It was progressives who in the 1760s and 1770s took the streets and then the battlefields of the United States to fight against British tyranny.
    It was progressives who, because they believed that all men are created equal, rallied against slavery and pushed former President Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.
    And it was progressives who, because they believed that all people are created equal, started the push for women’s rights.
    It was progressives, who, because they believed, as Thomas Jefferson once said, that a well-informed citizenry is essential to democracy, created the first public schools.
    It was progressives who, because they believed in democracy in the workplace, fought for the right to unionize.
    And it was progressives, who, because they believed in the inherent dignity of all work, passed the first workplace safety laws and banned child labor.
    It was also progressives who, during the New Deal and then the Great Society, created Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the programs that are the bedrock of our social safety net.
    And who do you think it was that fought to end Jim Crow and lead the fight for gay rights? That’s right, you guessed it, it was progressives.
    Literally every great turning point in US history happened because progressives made it happen. Name it and progressives were behind it.
    Conservatives, of course, fought these changes at every step of the line.
    Conservatives opposed the revolution.
    Conservatives opposed freeing the slaves.
    Conservatives opposed women’s rights.
    Conservatives opposed – and continue to oppose – public education.
    Conservatives opposed – and continue to oppose – democracy in the workplace.
    Conservatives opposed child labor laws.
    Conservatives opposed the New Deal.
    Conservatives opposed Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
    Conservatives also opposed the civil rights movement and continue to oppose the gay rights movement.
    Name a great achievement in US history and conservatives were against it.
    (Thanks to Truthout; http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/29270-the-conservative-attempt-to-re-write-our-progressive-history)
    As to Bob’s fascination with Fox news-he recently said in a Bible Geek (15-006), while proclaiming himself a “political conservative” that “Fox is not a propaganda mill”. Trying to demonstrate to Bob that he is not thinking clearly here is very similar to an attempt to get conservative Christian to read one of Bob’s many great books. Wanna see? Bob read, say, a book about the brilliant Roger Ailes by Gabriel Sherman-the Loudest Voice in the room?

    http://www.amazon.com/Loudest-Voice-Room-Brilliant-News—ebook/dp/B00AD6O6BU/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1424776888&sr=1-1&keywords=the+loudest+voice+in+the+room

    Bet Bob will not read it, and if he does will conclude that it is a shaft job on a great American-same as the Christian conservative will say about Bob’s books shafting Jesus.

    Still love ya Bob, warts (yours and mine) and all!

  14. randy says:

    “Most people who vote Democratic seem to be voting against the impressions they have of the Republicans and conservatives, rather than voting for the ideologies of the Democratic party. ”

    Now Gene, just what makes you think that it seems like most people who vote Democratic are doing so for the reason you cite. What is your evidence for this rather silly, vacuous caricature of liberals? This comment strikes me as rather insulting, and intentionally so. It can’t possibly be that most people who vote for Democrats do so because they agree with the positions of Democrats rather than Republicans? Nooooo, in that fictional world you seem to have created inside your mind, Democratic voters are just some kind of unthinking automatons, puppets on marinette strings. We can’t possibly be voting our conscience or our principles, because we don’t have any, so you seem to think. Could this be just more pompous bloviating from a conservative who has attached themselves to the delusion that conservatives have discovered THE TRUTH and that all others are completely clueless?

    “I am a conservative because conservative values are what made this country great.”

    Yet another unfounded claim. Just what is your basis for this claim? What values are you speaking of? You seem to be filling your head with revisionist history. The Founding Fathers were not conservatives. The values upon which the nation was founded were not conservative values. They were downright radical, revolutionary. The expanding circle of liberty that has occurred in this country: rights for blacks, women, gays and lesbians, etc. was not the result of conservative impulses. The civil rights movement was not spearheaded by conservatives.

  15. randy says:

    Allow me to add one more to your excellent list of Progressive achievement I.B. Godfree: creation of the middle class. It was Progressive policies of the New Deal and Johnson’s Great Society that was partially responsible – and not just a little bit partially responsible – for the creation of the Middle Class, which is now under assault from conservative policies and ideology. Destroy the Middle Class, as is being done, and you seriously injure the values and institutions that make this country something to be proud of.

  16. Gene says:

    Flamers gotta flame. Or as they say in Logic 101, “Ad hominems gotta ad hominem.”

    It was never my intent to steal from Dr. Price any liberal vitriolic circumlocution that might otherwise have been cast in his direction.

    I first heard this definition of religion from a lecture by Daniel Dennet, a noted philosopher and atheist. “A religion is a system of beliefs that incorporate a supreme being from whom favor is sought.” I wonder if Mr. Dennet, a liberal himself, would have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that liberalism, with the government as it’s supreme being, most certainly fits this definition. I think he might – but with clarifications. And you thought Europe had thrown off it’s need for religion?!?

    As a conservative, I want to be the supreme being of my own life. I want to ask not what my country can do for me, but what can I do for my county.

    In regards to politics, here’s the bottom line for me. Venezuela, the country in South America, not my friend, ran out of toilet paper in May of 2013. This happened because their socialist government controls every aspect of it’s citizens’ lives. A capitalist, free enterprise society would never run out of toilet paper because individuals, unshackled from an oppressive and tyrannical government, would seize the opportunity for economic gain by meeting the demand for soft, two ply convenience. Competition, by the way, keeps down prices for us consumers. (Has anyone seen medical costs go down since our government grabbed 7% of our economy with ObamaCare?)

    Maybe we all can agree on at least this one proposition. We’ve got to start somewhere.

    “The job is not finished until the paperwork is through.”

    gene

  17. randy says:

    “Or as they say in Logic 101, “Ad hominems gotta ad hominem.”

    Methinks Gene doesn’t know what an ad hominem is since none were actually employed in any of the comments directed at him.

    And like far too many of his fellow conservatives he confuses liberalism with socialism. They are not the same Gene. Liberals in this country are not advocating the brand of socialism found in Venezuela, though actual socialists might be doing so.

  18. Gene says:

    DO NOT allow anyone to share opinions that are not the same as yours.

    DO NOT allow anyone to share their own experiences and the meanings derived from them, unless you have had the same experiences and similar meanings derived there from.

    DO NOT define the words, phrases, and concepts that you criticize and attack. If someone should define, for example, ad hominen, liberalism, and socialism, showing clearly just how firmly your head is stuck up your ass, you will be able to proclaim, “I WAS TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER DEFINITION!”

    Tora! Tora! Tora! (You’re probably thinking “Is this guy Jewish?)

    And never, never, be nice.

    At the end of a long day of cowardly, and of course, anonymous, trolling and flaming, you can pride yourself on being right.

    Some of us like being happy.

  19. randy says:

    I did prevent you from sharing your opinion Gene, since obviously you did share it. I hope you are not operating under the delusion that your opinions, however, should be free of criticism. Is criticism of a person’s opinions an act of attempted censorship?

    I did not prevent you from sharing your own experience, since obviously you did share it.

    You did not correctly use the term ad hominem because none were actually directed at you. If I am wrong them please point out the ad hominem you think was directed at you. And you did essentially equate liberalism with socialism. I have no doubt you think the two to be equivalent. But you are wrong.

    You want definitions? Okay.

    ad hominem: marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.

    Your character was not attacked. Your contentions, statements, and claims were criticized.

    liberalism: belief in the value of social and political change in order to achieve progress
    socialism: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies

    Liberalism and liberals do not advocate for government ownership of major industries. We do advocate for regulation of industries and the capital markets. But this is only because without regulation, free markets and major industries and corporations can be just as inclined to abuse and take advantage of peopled as can be authoritarian forms of government.

    Now perhaps you’ll share the definitions of liberalism, socialism and ad hominem that were in your mind at the time you wrote your remarks.

    What cowardly anonymous trolling are you speaking of? My name accompanies each of my remarks. No pseudonym there. Randy actually is my name. Labeling my comments cowardly may make you feel smugly pleased with yourself but fails completely to actually address my criticisms of your remarks. Call it flaming if you like. Does not change the fact that you were wrong. Finally, what part of what I wrote was not nice (if it is I whom you are accusing of not being nice)? Admittedly I was a bit sarcastic in one of my remarks. But you deserved it given the insulting and inaccurate caricature of liberals your remark assumed.

    It never occurred to me to consider your cultural identity. It is irrelevant to me whether your are Jewish, Hindu, Arabic or any of the other hundreds of possible identities. In this forum I concern myself only with what you say, not who you are.

Leave a Reply