Yeah, it certainly is hard to find an atheist today. Your hyperbole surrounding anything that's not moderate protestant republican constitutional-originalism is really annoying and only serves to fracture the movement and hurt our chances to grow.
You inability to welcome new people speaking from their own POV is putting a dagger in the heart of Everything Ron has done to spread the message and appeal to a wide, culturally diverse crowd.
I don't speak for him, but oh I'm just
fine with atheists getting on the libertarian philosophy. Everyone else, too.
In my support for Paul this election, I've met personally three or four variations of Christianity, multiple atheists, a buddhist, a pagan I think, and holders of various philosophies, from conservate, libertarian, anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, and minarchists.
I had no problem with that.
What I Don't like the idea of, is of any metaphysical stance movement as he's touting, co-opting the freedom movement to push it's own ideals.
Discuss yes, share yes, debate, yes. Hold as viewpoint, sure, irrelevant. Organizationally push for? No.
I would like nothing more than to see Kokesh's idea of gaining supporters take off. A royal boatload of people at that rally become diehard liberty supporters and across the country joining into the number of supporters to the ideology as well.
But if that meant bringing along this, hardline, focused, secularist issue they're holding so closely, and having people infighting over their religion/metaphysical viewpoint every time it's even mentioned and fracturing things up as will result, NoThankyou.
That intent, was the theme of that rally. No dancing around it, that was the gist and the general; they want more people to be atheists.
That gist, isn't the topic at hand for the liberty movement. Attempts to conflating things like that into the theme and to the manner of how Kokesh is suggesting specifically, will cause problems.
This
is what Kokesh said clearly. Those are his own words.
"We have to admit that when we apply those principles of reason
and logic that lead us to be libertarians,
we also end up as
atheists."
"I'm not saying that you have to do this. . . but. . . as libertarians, as objectivists, as voluntarists, as anarcho-capitalists,
as people who want to create a better world for our children. . .
we have to do the same
thing to spirituality."
He doesn't want simply for more atheists, to be libertarians.
He wants more libertarians, to be atheists.
That is how he suggested it, anyway.
Whether that sentiment carries on for him past his personal opinions toward the topic, brought out more strongly from the emotions arisen during a rally,
I hope not. It's an unneeded qualifier and point.
I'm not interested, in any plans to deliberately and purposely spread atheism through the liberty movement, as some medium and tool to do so.
It's no different than some organized effort to tag on an insistent for convincing into being a muslim as a qualifer. Or for changing stances on animal rights; or, converting Mormons to Lutherans. I wouldn't like that being some core issue, either. I don't stand with support for anyone advocating that, either.
Elevating ANY sort of things above what should be, tertiary/quaternary issues like "I sure do wish there were more atheists in the world,"
in relation to core issues, isn't something I bode as being healthy for the movement's success, or for the situation at hand.
At it's least it's a distraction.
That said, it still doesn't however at lease in my opinion, conflict with any suggestion that people should go after the liberal secular demographic to turn them ideologically. That is great, no problem there, I like that. Not the issue. Probably should do more of that.
It's the approach and the inference of how and what Kokesh stated. What that implies out of him, that bothers me.
Think of like this, what if it was a Catholic group suggesting they need to start pushing to make all Libertarians Catholics.
And no people with that sentiment loosely of agreeing in opinion, arguing on the religion board casually with others on any various topic at hand to disagree on, with no orchestrated agenda to push that into a larger point in libertarianism, doesn't count as such. That's life. People debate about stuff.
However the implications sentiment such as Kokesh conveyed, implies a ready willingness to create a lot of damaging intensive infighting, to go chasing after the furtherance of another unrelated agenda. Specifically, intentionally, and with enthusiasm if need be. With that goal kept in mind. The ordeal of that intent to happen within the liberty movement itself. With the group just serving as another playing-field and tool in it all, to push said other movement.
I would speculate that other other secular movement would be willing to accept some damage in the process to ours, as acceptable so long as it saw a net benefit.
I am not interested in helping out another ideological movement like that, if it's taking away from or negatively affecting Ron Paul and the ect. related thereof.
Particularly if I think it would help them, it but probably cause problems for us.
What Kokesh should of focused his mind on there, was getting those people at that rally, to become libertylovers.
Not entertaining ideas of getting them on board from their movement he also prefers, simply he could then have their leverage to start
some generally unrelated in our case, pandering to conflate the two and absorb the two entities together.
Ours is diverse and doesn't care so much on that issue, when put in perspective. Theirs for that ideology, is consistent and seems to place a great emphasis on the matter.
It won't play out well.
