The leftists & voter apathy

[wyoguy]

I've been suspecting for some time that there was a correlation between voter apathy and liberal world-views. Non-religious folks seem to voice that the only real concerns they have about organized religion is that it does tend to be organized, and the moral standards of these groups have been denying individual freedoms since we threw the tea into the harbor.

It's my view that the left is lacking a concrete foundation to build on, unlike the right. They don't have a cohesive platform that can inspire voters to rally to a cause, and as newer, more liberal views come under the spotlight, they only serve to splinter the left even further. All this, I believe, creates an underlying sense of apathy in the left-leaning, potential voter.


Thoughts?

P.S. Mods, I was torn as to which category to post this in, being both religious and political in nature. Please move it if you think it is better suited elsewhere.

[isaone]

I am actually not certain that 'Leftists' vote in smaller numbers than others.

Do you have any data indicating that those who are left handed fail to vote in the percentages like those who are right handed ?

[Aussie]

Seriously, do people still think there's only a left and right like it's that black and white?

[Jack]

Haven't you heard? There are those attempting to recreate the atmosphere of pre-Civil War America. They aren't pleased with having destroyed the economy and our image in the rest of the world. They want to complete the job by alienating and demonizing everyone who doesn't agree exactly with their opinions. Never mind that it's not constructive or conducive to solving our national issues. We no longer have the "commies" to hate, we need enemies to be happy, so we have people trying to make enemies of their fellow Americans.

[wyoguy]

My main point is that atheists don't have squat to bitch about when it comes to organized religion, except that we tend to be organized. We tend to find common moral ground and vote accordingly, en masse. Been that way for a couple of hundred years or so, in the USA anyway.

Atheists lack the foundation to even start such a force. Their moral groundwork starts somewhere in the middle of the conservative right's territory and meanders left from there, to espouse an, as yet, imaginary system of social reform that is capable of curing all of humanity's ills.

It would seem that the only recourses atheistic liberal activists really have, is to infiltrate and undermine the already established theistic voting blocs, which is what we have seen, and continue to see. Or, more overtly, to make an end-run with a judge that is willing to legislate from the bench, which is what we have seen, and continue to see. Both options are self-destructive in the long run. Once you've liberalized theism so far, it stops being theistic and you're right back where you started. Judicial end-runs are just flat-out unconstitutional and might very well be the undoing of the entire country. Neither option has much of anything that would seem noble.

I'll make no bones about it, I'd really like to see same-sex marriages nullified and Roe v Wade overturned, and I'll be voting for candidates that could potentially make that happen.

[Jack]

So the actual point of this thread is the objection of any non-believer to having America become a theocracy, specifically a Christian theocracy. It shouldn't matter if the opposition is coming from the left or right as long as it opposes Christian morality becoming the basis for our laws. That's a much more debatable topic than the vague left-vs-right allusion in the OP.

[isaone]

So yes I know you did not mean left handed people. Really though can we stop with the pejorative 'leftist' label. The next thing I expect is "America Love it or Leave it"

One reason that Atheists do not vote as a single bloc is that to have become an Atheist in a culture that detests non believers we must be independent thinkers. As a group we must be skeptical of authority. As such we vote as we each feel we should as opossed to ow our 'leaders' tell us to.

I am curious though concerning your premise. Please show me the statistics that show that us Liberal/Atheistic/commie/weirdos vote less than y'all flag waving/Christian/conservative/Ditto heads ?

[wyoguy]

Okay, quick questions Jack...

Do you think that the USA has moved closer to, or further from a theocracy over the last 200 years? Further from, huh...

What are you really worried about?

[wyoguy]

Quote by: isaone I am curious though concerning your premise. Please show me the statistics that show that us Liberal/Atheistic/commie/weirdos vote less than y'all flag waving/Christian/conservative/Ditto heads ?

Ain't got none...

Never claimed to.

Oh... and please stop insinuating that atheists have a corner on the market on any kind of thought. It would be just as easy for me to say that you are being led around by your nose.

[Jack]

Quote by: wyoguy Okay, quick questions Jack... Do you think that the USA has moved closer to, or further from a theocracy over the last 200 years? Further from, huh... What are you really worried about?

It has been moving closer to a theocracy based on fundamentalist Christianity in the last 40 years, and there's a real concern about the recent efforts Muslims have been making to force non-Muslim countries to elevate their mythology to the level of legal status. It's happening in England. How long before a city or state here faces the same dilemma?

In the early days of the nation theology was firmly established in the government but was a more general assumption. Our nation was nowhere near as diverse as it is today. Even so, the founding fathers saw the value of tolerance and inclusion. Neither of those are religious values.

[Aussie]

Quote by: wyoguy Ain't got none... Never claimed to. Oh... and please stop insinuating that atheists have a corner on the market on any kind of thought. It would be just as easy for me to say that you are being led around by your nose.

By who? Some guy in robes claiming he has the answers to all of lifes questions yet provides none?

[wyoguy]

Quote by: Jack It has been moving closer to a theocracy based on fundamentalist Christianity in the last 40 years, and there's a real concern about the recent efforts Muslims have been making to force non-Muslim countries to elevate their mythology to the level of legal status. It's happening in England. How long before a city or state here faces the same dilemma? In the early days of the nation theology was firmly established in the government but was a more general assumption. Our nation was nowhere near as diverse as it is today. Even so, the founding fathers saw the value of tolerance and inclusion. Neither of those are religious values.

And I'm the one who's derided as delusional...

This country has been in a moral decline since it's inception and has sped up over the last 40 years, if anything. Go to a movie some time and try envisioning that same film being offered 40 years ago. No way. Try to envision two gay men french kissing in public 40 years ago. Just wasn't done. In my town alone, there are 3 strip clubs and 2 porno shops. That's up from 0 topless bars and 0 porn stores 40 years ago.

And now it's shame on the religious conservatives that try to dig their heels in and slow the descent?

[wyoguy]

Quote by: Aussie By who? Some guy in robes claiming he has the answers to all of lifes questions yet provides none?

Nope. What answers are you providing?

[Jack]

And now it's shame on the religious conservatives that try to dig their heels in and slow the descent?

Around 80% of Americans claim some sort of religious affiliation and I doubt that statistic has changed all that much since the 50s. Who are the clients of those porn shops (casinos, hookers, drug dealers)? It can't all be the non-believers. They don't constitute a sufficient customer base to keep those operations in business. If religions can't keep their own from patronizing those businesses, what hope can they have of forcing the entire country to abide by their morals?

[isaone]

[QUOTEwyoguy]Oh... and please stop insinuating that atheists have a corner on the market on any kind of thought. It would be just as easy for me to say that you are being led around by your nose[/quote]

I at no time have stated that Atheists have a corner on thought. My statement was that in our current society only people who are willing to go against the grain will become Atheists. Therefore they are more likely to be independent thinkers and less likely to be followers of leaders. If this is not a true statement please explain to me the error in my logic.

Feel free to tell me I am being led but provide evidence to that effect.

[wyoguy]

Quote by: isaone I at no time have stated that Atheists have a corner on thought. My statement was that in our current society only people who are willing to go against the grain will become Atheists. Therefore they are more likely to be independent thinkers and less likely to be followers of leaders. If this is not a true statement please explain to me the error in my logic. Feel free to tell me I am being led but provide evidence to that effect.

Against what grain? I've only been a Christian for the last 25% of my life. The first 75% was spent doing exactly what I felt like doing, thinking exactly what I felt like thinking. That hasn't changed one iota. It's my heart and priorities that have changed. As for all your independent thought and denial that you have a leader that you follow, perhaps the onus actually belongs on you. Provide evidence that your particular thoughts have been independent of any influence and that you answer to absolutely no one.

[Dr_Acula]

Quote by: wyoguy And I'm the one who's derided as delusional... This country has been in a moral decline since it's inception and has sped up over the last 40 years, if anything. Go to a movie some time and try envisioning that same film being offered 40 years ago. No way. Try to envision two gay men french kissing in public 40 years ago. Just wasn't done. In my town alone, there are 3 strip clubs and 2 porno shops. That's up from 0 topless bars and 0 porn stores 40 years ago. And now it's shame on the religious conservatives that try to dig their heels in and slow the descent?

There is absolutely nothing unmoral about pornography, strip-tease or gay kissing.

[samsara15]

attibuting any unity to them is giving them an attribute that does not match reality. More unity tends to exist on the Right, but even there, breaks down.

Morality is an individual definition. One person's version of morality is no more correct than another's. It's simply an individual preference.

Or perhaps morality is a definition imposed by society, In which case, consider the ancient Aztecs. Human sacrfice is OK, in their world view.

Let's not try to simplify what is not simple. Provide easy answers in an arena where there are no easy answers.

.

[Nocebo]

Quote by: wyoguy Atheists lack the foundation to even start such a force. Their moral groundwork starts somewhere in the middle of the conservative right's territory and meanders left from there, to espouse an, as yet, imaginary system of social reform that is capable of curing all of humanity's ills.

My morality started with the premise: Live and let live.. and then I went from there. That is extremely liberal, but it implies not economic liberalism. In fact, it is more Libertarian than right-wing. There are two dimensions, usually, in politics, and to group economic and social liberalism under the same term "Left" is inaccurate, because economic liberalism is not causally linked to social liberalism.

This Atheist typing right now is a Libertarian. I'm a leftist on social issues and a rightist on economic issues. There isn't a bone of Socialism (economic leftism) in me. There isn't a bone of Religion (social rightism) in me.

Society is being increasingly secularized, to the dismay as resentment of religious adherents. Your sweeping pronouncements are in part caused by a clear misunderstanding of politics and in part by the fear the your opinions will soon be in the same category as Roman and Greek Mythology. In an attempt to undermine the credibility of Secularism, you inaccurately shove it under the umbrella term "Leftist," a classical pejorative term used to classify anyone who isn't congruent with the establishment. This is an inaccurate, fear-based accusation.

Atheism isn't a force, it is the lack of a force. You are the establishment, the force of morality, and you see its support and power morally dissolving into the now-accepted-but-before-derided practices: homosexuality, abortion, pornography, and not keeping the Sabbath holy! That dissolution is anthropomorphically described as a force, when in reality its a passive neglect, due to the ever-decreasing need for and credibility of religion.

It's understandable, but wholly inaccurate to place Atheism under the same hood as Leftism.

Quote by: wyoguy I'll make no bones about it, I'd really like to see same-sex marriages nullified and Roe v Wade overturned, and I'll be voting for candidates that could potentially make that happen.

Thanks for providing evidence for my above argument. You are the religious establishment, and you fear your loss of power. Go cry somewhere else? Morality has moved on without you.

Quote by: isaone I at no time have stated that Atheists have a corner on thought. My statement was that in our current society only people who are willing to go against the grain will become Atheists.

Saying that people who are willing to go against the grain will become Atheists is equivalent to saying "people who are willing to be atheists will become atheist." In fact, you imply that (one of ) the grain(s) is theism, so what you have said is plain tautology...

I also cannot conclude that people who think independently, which I think you wanted to say, are more likely to become atheists, because that implies that people are more likely to have the emotional integrity and rational insight that Atheism requires. That is something I disagree with.

You cannot causally link independent thought to Atheism, just like you can't causally link independent thought to getting straight As in school. Everyone takes test independently, but hardly anyone gets straight As...

You see, concluding a claim independently doesn't mean that you choose the right one. If that were true, wyoguy would be an Atheist, and everyone would get 100% on their math tests.

(Yes, I am assuming that Atheism is correct. That assumption has been validated countless times on this forum. I don't want to get into it because I do not want to incense wyoguy, who has enough fear and loathing toward Atheism already.)

[Morality Games]

And now it's shame on the religious conservatives that try to dig their heels in and slow the descent?

In keeping with the logic that founded this society, Christians have rights like choosing not to attend strip bars, and asking other Christians and non-Christians to do the same for so-and-so reasons. They also have the right not to pursue homosexual desires, and asking people to refrain from homosexual activity, again, for so-and-so reasons. These are fully respectable powers and are the same given to every person in every sub-community in the United States.

They are, for instance, the same powers I have -- I can ask people not to have faith, and provide reasons for why I think they shouldn't, but my authority doesn't go further than that. Either they will dismiss me and continue to have faith, or they won't. We're all on the same footing. That's part -- not the whole but just a part -- of what it means to be a free society.

Religious conservatives are enthusiatic to emphasize that the United States is a free society, but their political policies (which are, by the way, Constitutionally illegitimate) suggest their love of freedom includes the freedom to force other people to conform with their unconfirmed moral views.

There is no confirmation, for instance, that homosexual marriage actually hurts people in a way which would necessitate denying homosexuals the right to marry the person of their preference. There is only the distaste of some Christians toward homosexuality.

Murder, on the other hand, has been confirmed to hurt people in a way which necessitates its being outlawed.