GOP and Atheism
 

As an agnostic, I find the religious wing of the GOP a little trying. Naturally you'd think I'd secure a happy home in the Democratic Party, but, lo and behold, I happen upon a similar histrionic and emotive-driven worldview within the Leftist ranks. Non-empirical, non-rational, non-philosophical movements predicated on how I, blacks, gays, single women aged 18-34, seniors, etc. are all "feeling" actually end up making me feel nauseous. The progressive impulse to divvy up people based on racial, economic, sexual orientation, or gender identification is also a step in the wrong direction, IMO, and it's a tried-and-true tactic that heightening people's awareness to these superficial and mean differences will ultimately sway a good chunk of them to vote you into power. Of course, every little clique needs to operate under its own little mode of logic when reasoning through policy decisions, and that's the part that especially sticks in my craw. There is no "black logic" or "gay Latina senior citizen military veteran" logic: there is strictly human logic.

This comes back to the point I'm belaboring. Where does someone like me turn when evaluating political affiliation? If it's not the irrational religious freneticism on the Right, it's a different kind, but no less exhausting, irrational religious freneticism on the Left. Conservatism as a broader philosophy appeals to me (specifically Burke) because it is highly rational and it views human history as a sort of empirical demonstration of ideas: we keep what works and there's a high burden of proof to change things. None of this "getting involved to change the world" just for the sake of "getting involved" and "change." It's circumspect and scientific, and very agnostic.

If the GOP were to trend more towards this line of thought, I wonder how it would play with the masses. Like if the GOP ran a couple atheists for higher office and scaled back the religious talk in their platform. I wonder how the evangelicals would handle it, but I think they'd be open to the argument that this is actually how the Constitution was intended, and that religious freedom flourishes most in a secular, pluralistic society. Basically I'm wondering what both the irreligious and religious would think of such a move.

The GOP dropped any pretense to being anything other than the political wing of the Christian Taliban decades ago.

For all your distaste of left-wing "identity politics", to believe that the GOP will abandon its theocratic impulses is purely delusional.

Theocratic impulses are the same as any other totalitarian impulse, usually culminating in some sort of creepy 1984esque thought-police and paranoia. That kind of thing will never come at you directly, but instead under guise of being "for your own good" or "for the good of everyone." That's the kind of language emanating from the modern Left, and it is strikingly similar to the religious language of bygone eras. Medieval Catholics hunting down Jews or modern-day Islamists mutilating little girls are both examples of subsets of people attempting to lord over others by dint of some stunted and self-ascribed moral prerogative. The turn-off I experience from the religious Right (I think it's awfully hyperbolic to equate them with the Taliban, but to each his own) is the same turn-off I experience from the equally dogmatic and religious Left. It's a religion of State in service of some sentimental bull**** utopia that sounds like unfiltered hell to me. The left-wing version is worse because religion is in many ways on the wane, and its adherents (at least in modern-day America) are typically cognizant of the faith factor in what they preach, especially with the advent of modern science. Not so with progressivism. I've never met a group of crusaders more certain of their cause, and there is little chance of opting out of their faith-based mission.

That's why I think the GOP, if it were smart, should frame the discussion as thus, and embrace a philosophical type of skepticism towards all claims of truth, especially those that end in concentration of power. It dovetails nicely with their economic agenda.