The National Atheist Party Has Formed…

Wouldn’t it be wiser to start a secular party?
That would have been more inclusive…

WELL SAID!

I’m with Rich, the logo has to go.

After the latest “kerfuffle”…good luck!

What about the following for a moto?

EQUITAS GLOBUS

Then they could be “Team EG”

I think a secular party would be better as well. Then they might actually be able to field a candidate instead of just proclaiming who else is the lesser of two evils.

There are no words….

On point:
This logo might be one of the ugliest things since the disgustingly yellow American Atheists “You know it’s a myth” ad.

Also, I’m with 1984 here. I think it’s more important to promote secularism in government than to promote atheism. The US government has no business promoting any particular religious ideology. It should be completely secular.

Aside:

The platform does leave us conservative atheists out in the cold, unfortunately.

This is one of the problems with forming new political parties in non-parliamentary systems. If they’re really serious about political change, this would probably be better cast as a “secularism” interest group rather than an “atheists!” political party. Secularism shouldn’t be a left or right, liberal or conservative thing.

I don’t understand why all these atheist things have SUCH POOR DESIGN. Really, it’s VERY consistent. Many of the posters, logos, etc., posted here are VERY ugly.

@Sinfanti, “I thought the seal would have an empty lasso surrounded by cats.” Haha!

As for the candidates they should consider supporting, I would think Gary Johnson would make the top of the presidential list. While he is a Christian, he doesn’t go to church, has said repeatedly that he doesn’t believe God has any business being brought up in political debates, strongly supports separation of church and state, is very scientifically minded (evolution is science, climate change is at least shown to some degree by science), and believes government should base its policies both on the constitution and sound cost-benefit analysis (which is probably the most logical process you’re likely to find for determining federal policy).

2 words.

herding cats

I don’t get it. What would be the difference between an atheist party and a secular party? In practice, not in splitting hairs over definitions.

I’d register as a “secularist” without hesitation.

I also disagree that parties, especially ones like this, need to take a clear stance on every issue. A basic platform would establish the type of candidate that suits the party (for example, one who opposes proselytizing teachers) and primaries would enable members to choose, by majority, between those with, say, different ideas about the role of charter schools. This would even satisfy Jeff, right?

I’m just going to hold out for a National Secularist Party.

LOL! 24 comments, 24 examples of the “cat herding” problem!

You’re welcome.

Regarding atheist v. secular, here’s their answer from their FAQ:

We’ve had to answer this question numerous times. We are the “atheist” party for several reasons.
1. The founders of the party (me, and Mark Smith) are atheists. LOL.
2. We know that there is a bad connotation to the word, and we want to re…claim the word and make it a positive connotation. Much like the African-American activists of the 50s did with “negro.” They don’t use it now, but it was a necessary first step.
3. Humanist and Secularist are terms that the public doesn’t understand very well – there is not an immediate understanding that we share a belief that gods, especially the God of Christianity – which is forced down our throats in every walk of life – does not exist.
4. Christians don’t call Secularists, secularists. Christians call secularists “atheists.” So you are one whether you want to claim the label or not. When 80% of the population calls you an atheist, you should own up to it and depower them, not scurry to find some other less castigated term, in the hopes of escaping the stigma. As far as Christianity is concerned, Atheists, Humanists, Secularists, Pantheists and Pagans are ALL going to Hell.
~Troy Boyle

Here’s my issues with those:
1) A joke, apparently, because that’s not a good enough reason.
2)Reclaiming, if that’s necessary, is good. As individuals. As members of groups that are not endorsing specific candidates. But as a political party? We often complain that something like prayer in school in exclusionary to us, even though we could simply “have a moment of silence while everyone else prays.” Well, by its nature and definition, the word “atheist” will exclude those who are not, despite any protestation that there is no religious test to be a member. For example, my wife’s values are very secular and humanist, but she is not an atheist. Her initial reaction to the question “Would you join the NAP?” was “I’m not an atheist.”
3) Educate them. Also, not all those with secular and humanist values are atheists.
4) Then maybe “secularist” is the name that needs to be reclaimed. And if you are not an atheist (no religious test for this party, right?), then no, you shouldn’t accept the term as applying to yourself.

This is one of the main reasons I’ll be voting for Ron Paul. He is unabashedly Christian, and holds some pretty nutty personal beliefs (in my opinion), but he’s always been firm in wanting Government to stay out of it. He has not pushed any legislation that encroaches on church/state separation, and he has consistently voted no on bills that do.

I think that in order for a party based around a platform of church/state separation to be successful, it would have to be inclusive of religious people who also want the government out of it. The loudest seem to be those that want to use the force of law, but I know there are many who don’t. If we could organize people across the spectrum of faiths or lack thereof, my feeling is that it would be a large and powerful force.

But, as with the libertarian followers of Dr. Paul, we atheists and skeptics are independent and strongly individualist. It will be challenging (to put it mildly) to create a platform on which we can all be comfortable, but I think it’s well worth trying.

The problem with an “atheist” party is that “atheism” doesn’t say a damn thing about political philosophy. Personally I am a liberal and a humanist so I want efficient government with social safety nets, less wars, universal health care, good public education and strong labor protections with higher taxes to pay for it all. There are many conservative, libertarian atheists that would disagree with me.
I think atheists would be better off exerting our influence on both the Democratic and Republican party to pull them away from religious influence and back toward rationalism and strong separation of church and state.

And the logo is clearly The Thinker with an American eagle on his shoulder, but I agree – it is rather stupid.

“The National Atheist Party is a diverse, all inclusive, progressive, secular political movement ”

Wait what about anarchist atheists? What about the small government converatives that are also atheists? What about the Ron Paul/Libertarian crowd.

How is that going to be all inclusive? lol.

Wake up people!

Ron Paul already laid out the basic principles:

1) Rights belong to individuals, not groups; they derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government.
2) All peaceful, voluntary economic and social associations are permitted; consent is the basis of the social and economic order.
3) Justly acquired property is privately owned by individuals and voluntary groups, and this ownership cannot be arbitrarily voided by governments.
4) Government may not redistribute private wealth or grant special privileges to any individual or group.
5) Individuals are responsible for their own actions; government cannot and should not protect us from ourselves.

Ten Principles of a Free Society by Ron Paul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul732.html

~WR

No political party in the 234 years since this nation’s founding has openly supported atheists. No currently political party does so openly and enthusiastically.

I think its about time. This is a VERY young movement and an early effort. I’m sure that it will evolve and change as the party leaders and members learn and grow. Most of the comments in this thread have been graceless and typical of the Celtic nature of atheists. An organized minority is a strong minority. It would be well that you remember that.

@Wally Real

Sorry, but your going to find a ton of atheists who don’t agree with Ron Paul or libertarian/objectivist ideals.

I agree: “Secular Party” is better than “Atheist Party” – but the majority of ill-educated and brain-washed Americans might read “Secular” as “Socialist”.

And that logo / symbol is ***HORRIBLE***! Will someone PLEASE recruit a GAY ATHEIST to design something decent – simple with a flair?

Why all of the negative criticism? Why not a little support for their interest along with, what you consider, suggestions for positive growth?

I’ve considerd myself an atheist for more years than the apparent age range of most of these critics.

It concerns me that there is no shortage of self proclaimed atheists that express themselves as supernatural beings.

“The Thinker,” in context, is the small central figure over the doors in Rodin’s “The Gates of Hell.”

Worse than that, The Thinker is supposed to be Dante… one of the more famous Christians around.

I suspect that the eagle is supposed to somehow turn him into Prometheus, who would be a much better figure (ignoring the obvious problem of featuring mythological characters on an Atheist logo).

It’s a good idea, but so poorly executed as to have a negative net effect. See the ensuing Seven in Heaven debacle.

Atheism should not be a political party. The more the merrier on Atheist Political Action Committees, but as a political party, it’s far too one note to fit in. What are the official Atheist views on Gun Control? Education? Immigration? There are none. I even know both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Atheists, both who use their atheism to inform their views.

There are simply better ways to make an impact than another irrelevant political party. The U.S. is a two party system and an Atheist party would be nowhere big enough to draw people away from the two main ones to make an impact.

If the NAP could recruit Hemant to run for office, he would get both the Mexican and Gay vote!

Seriously, they would be better off as a political action committee instead of a party.

@Old McDonald,

You might be on to something there. Tonight when my wife places her foot in my lap wanting a foot massage, I’ll tell her that for now on I’m just a foot-rest. 🙂

The very first comment makes the same comment I was going for… that “logo” is horrible! It is so busy… too many individual icons. Do they really need the eagle AND the stripped banner in the back? The thinker AND the atheist atom swirl? Gee willikers. Keep it simple, srsly.

Hmmm. Old McDonald sounds like one of the admins of the NAP fanpage on Facebook. Probably Troy Boyle or Jacob (can’t remember his last name). I’ve heard similar arguments from them.

Regardless, Jeff P. is dead right. A political party was not the smart move. A PAC or a Lobby group would have been the smarter/better move. I suggested that on their NAP-Ohio group on FB. Of course, if Old McDonald is one of those two, good luck making suggestions. They think they know it all and will probably just attack you personally, like Old McDonald did above.

Maybe “American Secularist Party” instead of “National Secularist Party.” The latter is just asking for frequent Obama/Osama-esque slips.

I’m starting a “National Non-believers in Ghosts Party”.

Who’s with me?

Shouldn’t the National Apathists Party respond to this?

Haha I think this group should be formed specifically to troll the religious right and its voter base.

“The National Atheist Party is pleased to announce its endorsement for Sarah Palin!”

*thousands of simultaneous head explosions*

I really feel like this is time and energy wasted — it’s simply not feasible for the foreseeable future in America (I desperately wish it were otherwise). Our energy and money would be better spent targeting the worst of the theist politicians and/or on public education campaigns, be they at election time or not.

How about Atheist Secular Action Party, We get things done!

You may as well form the national “a-fairyist” or “non-stamp-collector” party. By attaching specific political ideologies to atheism, they are defining atheism for EVERYONE, while ostracizing all atheists who don’t share their political views. They are creating a huge PR image which other public atheists will have to answer for. All that defines the atheist demographic is the simple meaning of the word: no belief in god. That’s it.

The acronym (zzzzz….) sucks, the platform is sketchy, they have a glaring paucity of candidates (if any) to select from, and they have the awkward task of somehow reconciling with atheists who disagree strongly with their platform, and believers who support it. (All of which you stated.)

It is so much easier to criticize (that means to find fault with)than it is to actually pick up the torch and carry it yourself. This political party is still in the earliest phases of its creation and development. Our intent is to give those a voice who have been marginalized by our government and society. We as atheists, desire open representation within our government and we deserve nothing less. We do not find it necessary to candy coat who we are and we are going to walk in the front door of the capital with our heads high and with pride. The name of our party is a calculated risk and your concerns and criticisms are duly noted. Thank you. This kind of response was expected from our fellow atheists, so it’s not a surprise. We are creating change and this is the pill that human beings have great difficulty swallowing. This is unfortunate, because the very reason we are all here is related to change and adaptation. We as atheists can no longer sit back and let change happen to us. That is unless you are satisfied with the changes the religious right have created. Are you satisfied with these changes? Is this why the many of you keep walking the same old path and have not taken it upon yourselves to do anything about it? The platform issues are still being developed and were created by your constituents. Conservative and liberal. The platform, as it stands now, was created and adopted by your constituents through the democratic process of a 2/3 majority vote. We put out questionnaires to find out what issues were pertinent to them and now we are putting it out to get more input. But all we seem to be getting is criticism. The charter can be changed to a certain extent through the same process in which it was created. If you don’t like what you see, get off the sideline, get involved, and give us your ideas and something to work with. It was never our intent to get involved in the 2012 elections. But if the opportunity arises, who knows. We are trying to create something that has never been created before. We need people who are forward thinking and not AFRAID to think outside of the box and have insights into this process, which are many. We’re going to make mistakes. No doubt about that. But we will learn from them and move on. Think about our forefathers for a moment and what it took them to create the foundation of what we now call America. They went head to head with the mightiest world power of their time and beat incredible odds. Many lost their lives and gave them willingly for the concept we now take for granted. Many got involved and gave their lives even though they may have disagreed. But one thing remained for these people in particular. Tyranny. Taxation without representation. Are we, as atheists, being tyrannized and discriminated against? The answer to me is quite clear. Yes! For far to long has this been going on for my liking and I’m not willing to be complacent sideliner any longer! So WE have created the National Atheist Party in response. You may disagree with the fundamentals of this party, the name, etc… But two questions remain, regardless of your stance. First. Can you set aside your personal bias’s, be objective and get a glimpse of the bigger picture? Second is simply this. Are you a patriot? I guess you’ll have to define what it means to be a patriot for yourself and decide how far you are willing to go to protect your civil rights and freedoms. Regardless of your answers, this party will move forward and embrace the challenges and obstacles that lay ahead of us and you. Regardless if you believe in what we are doing or not, we will continue to move forward and fight for you, so you can have open and unashamed representation in your government. Why? Because you deserve nothing less. I will look forward to your responses. Thank you.

Mark Smith
Co founder/VP NAP (YAWN)

I am sorry, but your critique is completely without substance. I expect more, to say the least. You state four problems that you have with the Party as it currently stands. The first two are that the word “PEOPLE” tend to appear in all capitals, and that you don’t like the acronym NAP. Starting your criticism off with these points makes your argument seem trivial and pointless. You don’t have anything more constructive to offer. But then you do try to offer something more constructive, but you utterly fail, I hate to tell you. Your most salient point is that perhaps some of the platform issues are too narrowly defined, but you offer no constructive criticism. Your last and also substance-less criticism is that if the NAP is serious, then they had better give you a list of atheist candidates they plan to endorse it 2012, because 99% of candidates intend to be religious. I suppose you answered your own question. They will endorse that other 1%. On the other hand, you seem to completely miss the point that NAP intends to run its own candidates, not simply endorse atheist candidates from other parties. Aside from the fact that when you yourself mention that the Party is still in the early phases of organization that is not yet registered as a “legit” party. So do you expect them to all of sudden be ready to give you a list of candidates in order to satisfy your need to demand? If the party is still in its organizational infancy, do you really expect them to be ready by 2012 in a way that makes your demand relevant in any way?

wow, now rationality boils down to fonts?  CAP LETTERS in order to highlight, emphasize, or sometimes just create an aesthetic on a page are irrational?

The inconsistency from this one FA (what an ACRONYM?!) who’s header font is completely unreadable is astounding.  I never mean to come here, but due to incessant/obsessive habits of a one FA, sometimes it’s unavoidable.

What if they got more fans than the FA?  That would surely be reason to chastise them… like-minded people only trying to do their part.  (And who ALSO supports theist groups??)

HMMMMMMMMM…… 🙂

I really dislike this party. I’ve already made it clear on their Facebook page that I disagree with the words ‘National Atheist Party’. I’ll join when it reads ‘National Secular Party’. One of them defended that ‘Nobody in the US knows what Secular or Humanist is!’ – I just wanted to kick them, honestly!