The National Atheist Party Has Formed… July 7, 2011

The National Atheist Party Has Formed…

A few people formed the “National Atheist Party” back in March and several state chapters have since formed… all on Facebook:

The National Atheist Party is a diverse, all inclusive, progressive, secular political movement and a response to the lack of representation for all free thinking people who are legal, law abiding citizens of the United States. We demand emancipation from the religious dogma that has infiltrated our government and has unfairly influenced political decisions and policy making. We are for the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, and therefore incorporate the right to use the power OF the PEOPLE to restore equality to our Democracy using reasonable, rational and non-violent means. “POWER TO THE PEOPLE!”

The National Atheist Party is open to people of all races, sexes and sexual orientations, and cultures. We are committed to a government free of superstition and bias and are guided by principles of equal opportunity, recognition of merit, and economic responsibility. The National Atheist Party does not seek to inhibit the religious practices or beliefs of any group, but is committed to the idea that religious preference is a private matter and has no place in the government or workplace. We support the separation of church and state, and seek to ensure its strictest interpretation.

First of all, rational people should know how to turn off the CAPS LOCK key…

And of all the acronyms you could’ve gone with, you chose that one?!

They are serious about this — they just need to raise enough money to register as a legit party. Truth be told, I think it’d be great if we could get atheists to vote in a bloc — maybe politicians would start to take us more seriously if we did — but we’re independent thinkers and it’s not like we would automatically listen to some random “party head” who told us how to vote.

It’s not fully fleshed out yet and it’s easy to spot some problems. Like in the Charter. Some of the party’s platform issues are very general, while others are hopelessly narrow because they’re so focused on what atheists want. Their Education platform, for example, is more concerned with proselytizing teachers than whether all kids have access to a good public school in the first place.

But if NAP is serious, I would like to know which candidates they would support in the next election when more than 99% of all major candidates for Congress or the Presidency say they believe in a god… and I’d like to know if they would support a religious candidate who supported them on most (or all) of the platform issues.

(Thanks to Nathan for the link!)

"The way republican politics are going these days, that means the winner is worse than ..."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"It would have been more convincing if he used then rather than than."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Sinfanti

    I thought the seal would have an empty lasso surrounded by cats.

  • 1984

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

  • Rich Samuels

    Someone was taking a NAP when it came to centring that horrendous seal/logo.

  • cate


  • I am glad that they did not decide to use the logo with the eagle on it. The Latin on it is such complete gibberish that I could never figure out what it is trying to say.

  • I’m with Rich, the logo has to go.

  • AteoAbsurdo

    *agrees with 1984*

    We need a secular movement more than an atheistic one.

  • Trace

    After the latest “kerfuffle”…good luck!

  • Cortex

    Put me down for the secularist party as well. And the logo is hideous. What’s up with The Thinker? Is he wearing a cape? Is he on fire?

  • What about the following for a moto?


    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.

  • Rich Samuels

    @Cortex Questioning what was on his back was my first response to. It appears to be an Eagle. If you look really closely you can see some yellow talons.

    I’m not sure what a man who has been amputated just below the knee, perched on the toilet, with an eagle on his back and overly fanciful taste in toilet paper is meant to represent though; I suggest a caption competition.

  • There are no words….

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

  • ACN

    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.


    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.

  • SeekerLancer

    This is another example of “Atheists have idiots too.”

    And I too agree with 1984 on the secularism point.

  • Nick

    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.

  • Dmitri

    Something that stood out to me (apart from things already mentioned):

    “…we do not want government to engage in the practice or the perception of engaging in the practice of promoting any one religion. To that end, we seek to strip churches, synagogues and mosques of the tax exemption status they now enjoy…”

    I may be wrong, but aren’t religious institiutions tax exempt because church and state are deemed separate?

    I agree, a Secular party would be better than an exculsivley Atheist one.

  • @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).

  • iota

    Agree or not, at least they are doing something.

  • T-Rex

    2 words.

    herding cats

  • Dmitri


    Oh yes, I think it’s wonderful to see some sort of organized political effort being made besides lawsuits (although those can be helpful too).

  • Josh

    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.

  • T-Rex

    I’m with Nick too. That logo is a mish mash of nonsense. “The Thinker” with a bird of prey on his back in front of a shield in front of an off center atom? With an acronym of “NAP”. C’mon, what is with the horrible designs, banners, billboards, etc. by atheist groups?

  • 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?

  • The logo is clearly a depiction of Prometheus about to have his liver torn out by an eagle. This punishment was given for committing the sin of giving humanity the gift of fire (and by extension artifice, science, and even philosophy). Quite apt really. Although the liver isn’t in a person’s neck. Maybe the bird is perching there in wait.

    Alternatively the logo is clearly a constipated pirate with a parrot on his shoulder. That accounts for his position and missing leg. Also apt for us atheists to secretly revere the FSM as our deity.

    I wouldn’t vote for a single issue party.

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

  • TwinDNA

    I agree with Dmitri, if they take away their tax exempt status, they would have the right to participate in the political arena. Thus voiding the whole separation of church and state issue. Which is what we are trying to keep intact. I also agree with everyone else that a Secular Party does make more sense, and that logo for NAP is not very appealing.

  • Roxane

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

  • TwinDNA

    I don’t like cats…

  • 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.

  • My observations on a quick first read-through:

    So, what exactly is this “scientific community’s consensus of when a fetus can be said to be an independent organism” they are going to use as a basis for their policy on abortion?

    Have “mandatory use and safety courses” been shown to be effective in reducing gun crime/violence/injury? A party based on rationality and science should have stats out the wazoo for every platform point here….

    “Churches shall be treated as any other for-profit business, when a profit is being made.” The last clause is silly.

    Setting a ceiling on punitive awards will result in the ceiling being given out. Working on a set of guidelines to reduce abuse and make awards more appropriate would be a much more rational choice.

    Increase international popularity by reducing UN peacekeeping missions? As a Canadian, I find that an strange concept…

    Organ donation seems a strange addition.

  • Paul

    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.

  • TwinDNA

    I take that back. I’m fine with cats. Hate the whole “Herding Cats” idiocy. It’s almost like saying we should never band together with any common goal, but always remain separate and scattered. And that’s a stupid concept, IMHO.

  • AnnaG

    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.

  • Max Exter

    Should have gone with the Allied Atheist Alliance. Three A’s. Most logical.

  • “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


  • Nordog

    The National Atheist Party is a diverse, all inclusive, progressive, secular political movement and a response to the lack of representation for all free thinking people who are legal, law abiding citizens of the United States.

    All inclusive? I don’t think they know what that phrase means.

  • Mickey Mantle

    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.

  • walkamungus

    “The Thinker,” in context, is the small central figure over the doors in Rodin’s “The Gates of Hell.” Um. Well, most people don’t know that…

  • Brice Gilbert

    @Wally Real

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

  • CdaHumanist

    Agreed with many of the above, we need a more inclusive secularist party.

  • Rich Hugunine

    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?

  • Defiantnonbeliever

    1) “herding cats”- cats gather rather quickly at the prospect of fish for lunch.

    2)bad logo etc.-feel free to join and contribute

    3)’conservative atheists are left out in the cold’- so are log cabin republicans, both useless to themselves and others

  • Frederick Wesley

    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.

  • Patrick

    I’m with Frederick – it’s good to see some action in this area, rather than none. And I agree about using “atheist” rather than “secular” for the reasons given. And what does the name and logo stuff really matter at this stage? Let it evolve as it will.

  • Daniel

    “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.

  • Old McDonald

    This is hilarious. Listen to all the atheists bickering “I’m THIS kind of atheist.” “No! I’m this kind!” “I like this word!” “I like that word! They used the wrong word!” LOL. You’re like – children. Support this group, you idiots. No one else wants you.

  • 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

    Why does each and every poster have an opinion on what the NAP should or should not be; should or should not call itself; should or should not advocate; should or should not blah blah blah? It’s an atheist party! Woohoo! The only one in HISTORY. Woohoo! You finally have a party! Woohoo!

    Jeff P., you’d make a nice footrest, but no one is suggesting you should be.

  • @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. 🙂

  • Dan

    Wow. Way to not look into things, bud. The page some of you are looking at were the platforms that were up for vote and is not our Charter. Here’s a though: why don’t you actually contact the group to get their view on things? But, then again, I’d hate for you to actually do some research.

  • Kerri

    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.

  • Kerri

    And yes, I’m with @Evan… National Secularist Party is a much better idea. Make the platform a little more concise, less left on some things to include the less left of our atheist friends, and it’s a win. It is a great idea!

  • 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.

  • Vanessa

    Great idea! Except atheist rarely agree on anything, other than the non-existence of gods. So not sure how this is supposed to work…

  • Cortex

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

  • Brian Macker

    I think it’s a stupid idea. The most important political issues are the ones atheists are most divided on it. Better to work within existing parties.

  • Rob

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

    Who’s with me?

  • Daniel

    You’re like – children. Support this group, you idiots. No one else wants you.

    This is amazing marketing. You know, if you’re trying to keep someone in an abusive relationship.

    Among the many problems with their charter is that many, maybe even most of their platform seems based on things other than atheism.

    For instance, “I) Guns … The NAP wants to work toward closing the “gun show” loophole, …” ( Okay. I actually agree with that one, but not because of my atheism. “P) Foreign Policy … During the Bush administration, the U.S. saw its popularity decrease worldwide while overseas engagements with our military forces increased.” Again, regardless of whether I agree with this, I absolutely cannot see how it is a political stand based on Atheism.

    If a party is called an “Atheist Party”, its views should be based on Atheism. This charter largely reads as “We are Democrats who are Atheists”. Many of the atheists I know are Republicans.

    I’m certainly not going to join a seriously flawed party on the basis that “no one else wants me”. I think I’d do better identifying as independent and showing up at both R and D town halls to ask Atheism based questions about those areas of politics that are heavily influenced by religion.

  • WingedBeast

    Shouldn’t the National Apathists Party respond to this?

  • Masada

    Maybe they don’t understand what’s involved in creating a party, state by state. State rules differ and some are close to impossible. I support the Green Party because they stand for what I believe in for the most part, and for what I think most atheists would want (from an Atheist perspective – education, freedom of religion, etc).

  • Chade

    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*

  • CS


    Agreed. Quite honestly, the idea that atheists have anything in common beyond their atheism is a bit much to assume. There’s a lot of other issues that are relevant to political candidates beyond the way in which they interact with religion.

    I feel the need for a support group for more conservative atheists, ahaha.

  • The Dude

    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.

  • YashinNashi

    I hope they get at least enough support for the major parties to take notice. The NAP would be like a lefty Tea Party. It might hurt the democrats at first if it gets big enough to draw a way a significant number of voters. But then the Left will be forced to incorporate more secular issues in their platform. I think it’s the tale of every 3rd party in US history The green party made the Democrats the environmentalists and the Tea Party made the Republicans super religious.

  • scapa ybod

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

  • From the charter:

    From the perspective of the National Atheist Party, government and the agencies of government, should not promote or endorse any one religion or ideology over any other. To do so is to violate the spirit and the intent of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and to deny the intent of the framers of the U.S. Constitution.”

    (emphasis mine)


  • Matt G of St. Paul, MN

    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.)

  • Rich Hugunine

    @Frederick Wesley
    Why all the negative criticism?
    Because we’re skeptical. Ha ha ha!
    I like the idea of an atheistic / secular political party and am happy to volunteer if I can track them down. But that logo is way too complex.

  • Mark Smith

    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)

  • What about the following for a moto?


    Let’s not replace Latin gibberish with other Latin gibberish.

  • countryjim13

    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?

  • As the current head of the National Atheist Party’s Indiana
    page, I highly doubt that we’ll run as the average vote-for-who-we-tell-you-to
    party. Many of the member’s are too independent for that. While our platform
    isn’t perfect, I support it more than the Democratic or Green Party platforms.
    Of course, we voted on the platform democratically, so of course some concessions
    had to be made. However, I find it a nice mix of liberal and libertarian ideas.

    And as we are non-exclusive, of course we’d support a theist who held our
    viewpoints. Of course, another question is if someone would want a group with
    our name to say we support them, but that’s for another day.


    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??)


  • Salvatore Veneruso

     Greetings to all friends from the Italian National Party, Democracy Atheist Veneruso  ( )

  • 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!

error: Content is protected !!