Connecting Atheistic Humanism to Liberalism

currently watching: The Wire-Season 2 (finished the 1st season in 4 days..its quite good)

currently listening to: Boy Least Likely To-The Law of the Playground

Continuing with my working thesis that one’s belief in God defines their political beliefs, I will now try to connect the dots between Atheistic Humanism and American (Social) Liberalism.  Please note, I am not saying all liberals are atheists.  Rather I am pointing out the similarities in beliefs and that nearly all atheists would be apt to vote for liberals.

Going to go through this by running down typical liberal positions on common issues (I pulled these stances from various sources, though mostly its from my own experience and observation of the political landscape).  My responses are based on my previous post covering the 6 main points of humanist manifesto 3.

First-the most polarizing topic: Pro-Abortion

Humanist Manifest 2, in the “individual” section, it says abortion should be a recognized right.  In addition to that, a more philosophical reasoning for supporting abortion comes from Humanist Manifesto 3 point #2 which specifically outlines that people are the result of random unguided change.  In effect this cheapens life to the point of total obscurity.  When life is devalued, it’s very easy to define life’s beginning (and ending) at whatever point is convenient.  Thus, an atheist doesn’t feel like they are murdering an unborn child with abortion because they justify it by saying it was never a life (or much of a life?) up to that point.

Second: Pro-Homosexual Marriage

I refer to Humanist Manifesto 3 point #4 for this (and further detailed in manifesto 2, the “individual” section). With sexual exploration of all kinds (between consenting adults) being strongly encouraged along with the general pursuit of individual happinesses, this would lead to an obvious acceptance of homosexual activity.  Its questionable to assume humanists would really need marriage, but if its needed to achieve particular societal benefits then certainly a humanist would go along with the idea…clearly objecting to any religious part of it.

Third: Public education, universal health care, welfare, and other social programs

Refer to humanist manifesto 3 point #6 here.  societal happiness increases individual happiness so a humanist would pursue at a minimum a lot of major social programs like education and health care that assumingly helped society.

Fourth: Protecting the environment

Humanist manifesto 3 point #2.  “Humans are an integral part of nature”  pretty easy.  we came from nature, we return to nature.  Essentially with nature and the environment being all that there is it becomes more than necessary to protect it, almost with a religious fervor.

Fifth: Cutting Defense/adverseness to military engagement/gun control

Humanist manifesto 3 point #5 talks about resolving conflict peacefully and without violence.  What an idealistic world humanists live in.  Either way its clear liberals and humanists agree on this subject.

Sixth: Progressive taxes/socialism

Humanist manifesto 3 point #6 is all about socialism.  “We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.”  i.e. they are all about a redistribution of wealth.

Seventh: Separation of church and state

This appears to be obvious.  If you don’t believe in God, then clearly you don’t want it to be a part of your government.  Humanist manifesto 2, in the first 2 points, talks about religion.  its an amazing read.  and its certainly clear humanists want nothing to do with religion as it interferes with the pursuit of human needs and ideals.  Liberals and their allies in the ACLU have long pursued the separation issue so there is no doubt atheists and liberals agree here.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Conclusion:

I believe almost all of the opposition I have faced in political discussion is based on whether someone believes in the God of the Bible and his son Jesus Christ.  Rather than get into arguments anymore with people over the sometimes trivial issues in politics (as hard as that is for me), I’m simply going to figure out if someone believes in Jesus first and either ask more about that or just drop it.  because I won’t find any common ground or resolve any arguments if we differ on our belief in the God of the Bible.

What next?

I think i’d like to go a little into origin issues. I now believe evolution to be the #1 tool for creating opposition to Christianity (and thus spreading atheism), and since it is taught in public schools, its influence can’t be ignored.  I will be working from an idea that an acceptance of evolution is just as much a faith as creationism, and no more a science than creationism.