by I very much appreciated Cali's take on this. (posted below)
So, perhaps the framing for this particular splinter of atheism is more of a regional thing? It was founded in the US, after all. We have our own unique set of issues that we are facing in regards to the atheist community.
John P.M. hinted as such as well.
Subject: Atheism+ hits the MSM
Subject: The National Atheist Party
Calilasseia wrote:I'll repeat once more what maiforpeace posted earlier in the thread, taken from the NAP website, which amkerman ignored completely whilst riding his tired little hobby horse. Appropriate parts highlighted.A reminder: The NAP welcomes secularists of all religious backgrounds, including none at all. Anti-theist statements, jokes, memes and hate-speech are a violation of our code of conduct and certainly not conducive to party unity. Many of our members are anti-theists, I know, but some of our members are also Christian, Buddhist, Wiccan, Pagan (and others) secularists. We do not discriminate against anyone for any reason. All are welcome here, provided they share our goals. Our goals are: 1) to give atheists a voice in public policy - something no other political party openly allows; 2) to reinforce the Constitutionally-guaranteed rights of all Americans to the freedom of religion, including the freedom FROM religion; and 3) to defend the concept of the Wall of Separation between church and state, under constant attack by "Dominionists" within the Christian Right, who seek to establish a Christian theocracy.
Under the auspices of #1, we have developed a platform, by polling YOU, our members, in order that public policy can be guided by evidenced conclusions and scientific principles. It is through that platform that we accomplish advocacy. A proactive and positive approach to atheism and politics that is designed to show the world that atheists are everyday Americans.
This party will not, under any circumstances "combat" religion. It is in our mission statement and founding principles that we support the right of Americans to worship how they choose, if at all. What we don't support is anyone's attempt to force their religion on others or into the publicly-funded arena.
Of course, the above facts won't stop amkerman from continuing to peddle his "atheism is a religion" assertion, which has been roundly destroyed elsewhere. Indeed, I educated him with respect to this matter, in this previous post, which elicited this farcical pretence at a response from him when I educated him, followed by this synthetic excuse for not bothering to pay attention to the lessons I've been dispensing. Of course, it wasn't the first time I introduced him to the relevant concepts - this post was an earlier such outing, dated 13th March 2012, which of course he ignored because it didn't genuflect before his presuppositions, and demonstrated this by posting this piece of trite drivel, on 24th March 2012, after I had educated him with respect to the relevant issues. I don't expect him to address any of this, of course, because he openly admitted that he can't be bothered in the relevant posts I've linked to above, and has also demonstrated in one of those posts, a penchant for erecting synthetic excuses to justify his evasion of the substantive issues, in the form of asserting that the dismantling of his canards is "juvenile and inflammatory".
Now, returning to the actual subject matter, namely the NAP, I regard it as a tactical mistake for them to choose the label they have, not least because they have stated above that they welcome anyone who shares their core objectives, regardless of whether or not those persons indulge in any supernaturalist vices or not. As that quoted piece Mai kindly provided us with explains, the organisation in question seeks simply to establish the Jeffersonian wall of separation in a robust, consistent and coherent manner. Those forming this organisation consider this to be is necessary, precisely because that wall of separation is under concerted and duplicitous attack by ideological theocrats. It's not as if we're lacking evidence for this. Nor are we lacking for evidence pointing to the poisonous effects of religiosity, within the American arenas of discourse and policy making, one of the nastier manifestations thereof being a truly vicious, Streicher-esque demonisation of anyone who fails to genuflect before mythological assertions, and treat said assertions as fact. On occasions, that demonisation yields murderous consequences, as the case of Arthur Shelton tragically informs us. This poisoned discoursive atmosphere, lamentably, provides evidence supporting the claim that the existence of an organisation such as the NAP is a pressing necessity.
That there are possibly better ways forward, I do not doubt. But I am not going to be churlish, and deride the courage of those seeking to do their best to address the relevant issues in a positive manner, in the discoursive environment within which they have to operate.
is what a troll would say.