You may have heard the name Austin Petersen before, but if you havent youre probably going to soon. Hes a libertarian activist who has identified himself as an atheist and he recently announced hes running for Senate as a Republican. <\/p>\n
Petersen is probably most well known for being the runner-up for the Libertarian Partys nomination for President of the United States in 2016, losing only to Gary Johnson. Earlier this month, however, he said hes running for Senate in Missouri as a Republican (despite his lack of faith). <\/p>\n
I interviewed Petersen to ask him about how he plans to court evangelical republicans as a non-believer, his views on separation of church and state, and his move to distance himself from the word atheism. <\/p>\n
McAfee: You are a non-believer, which makes you rare in U.S. politics and even rarer in the Republican party. Do you ever worry about surveys that show many Americans wont vote for atheists because of negative stigma attached to non-belief (they think were immoral even compared to rapists)? Some polls, like this one, give us hope but still paint a bleak picture. <\/p>\n
Petersen: For the record, I am agnostic I claim neither faith nor disbelief in God. When it comes to Gods existence, I dont know. But to answer your question, yes, the surveys worry me. That said, I refuse to lie to people just to get them to like, or hopefully vote for, me. It seems unfair to ask someone to put me into a position of public trust by betraying that trust. Whats more, even though I make no claim to know about the existence of God, I share a great deal in common with people of faith. I wholeheartedly believe in freedom of religion, and will support peoples right to practice the faith of their choosing without interference. I also share a belief that life begins with conception and ends with natural death, that life trumps choice and that all lives at all stages have a right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. <\/p>\n
McAfee: Interesting. You have repeatedly identified as an atheist (that means you dont actively believe not that you KNOW there is no god). Are you saying that label no longer applies? <\/p>\n
Petersen: Its a good question. Ive often conflated the two terms in the past, so Im happy to clarify now. Im an agnostic. I dont actively believe in God, but Im open to the possibility that he may exist. Ultimately, I dont think you can really know either way. What I do know, however, is that its the duty of the government and the duty of its leaders to protect the right of an individual to believe and practice as he or she sees fit. <\/p>\n
McAfee: Do you think a lot of fundamentally religious people will vote for you, despite your public atheism, or that youll have to capture more of the less devout voters? Im sure you are aware of the stereotypes about atheists, including that we are actually Satanists, so feel free to address those. <\/p>\n
Petersen: I think theyll vote for me. First, because they have before and second, because theyre telling me they will again. The fact is, much of my support base comes from conservative Christians. They generally say they support me because they prefer an honest agnostic to a dishonest believer. Also, the election of Donald Trump indicates that people are less interested in electing a man of the cloth than they are a man of the people. <\/p>\n
There are atheists and agnostics that dont care for me much because my beliefs conflict with their own. Thats okay. Ultimately, I will defend the rights of everyone, regardless of whether they have faith or not. Conservative Christians know this because I have demonstrated it publicly and laid my reputation on the line by defending their religious liberty in public debates and forums. <\/p>\n
McAfee: Like you, Im an agnostic atheist. In other words, I dont claim to know if any gods exist and I dont actively believe in any. Do you think its a closed-minded position for anyone, believers and atheists alike, to proclaim they know with certainty? <\/p>\n
Petersen: Just to be clear, I dont claim to know if God exists and I dont actively believe in Him but I dont actively disbelieve in Him either I just dont know. Thats the honest truth of it. We all could claim closed-mindedness toward those that dont think like we do. But ultimately, like Thomas Jefferson said, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. What does pick my pocket? Government. <\/p>\n
McAfee: You say you are an atheist who is pro-life, and thats great, but you have also said women have a choice as to whether or not they get pregnant. Do you legitimately believe that pregnancy is always a choice? <\/p>\n
Petersen: One hundred percent of the time? No. But that is such an infinitesimally small amount of the overall abortions that its frequently used to then justify all other abortions. Even pro-choice Governor Gary Johnson signed a bill that banned partial-birth abortions in New Mexico, so at some point we must admit we are dehumanizing the unborn. It is a human. Do all humans deserve the same rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Absolutely. If we found a cluster of cells on Mars, scientists would say thats evidence of life. So then why is the unborn cluster of human cells not? <\/p>\n
McAfee: On that same subject: Youve said you would be an elected official who would fight for pro-life issues, and you defined abortion as murder in the same sentence. That mentality could set the U.S. back to the 1950s in terms of health care, and could be seen as an overreach of governmental authority. As a former libertarian and current republican, how can you justify that government interference? <\/p>\n
Petersen: Current libertarian, current Republican. If government is to exist, it must be limited to securing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Without life, there is no liberty. How can humanity become a galactic civilization, reaching to the stars to expand and grow, if we do not respect the evolutionary processes of the continuation of our species? If we are not pro-life as a culture and a people, then what is the opposite? If there is no afterlife, then this life is the most precious thing we have. How can we deny to others the lives that we now live? How can we not grant the gift of life to those millions of potential humans who could become scientists, doctors and lawyers? <\/p>\n
McAfee: Religious freedom laws have been very controversial, and I loved your question to Gary Johnson on whether a Jewish baker should be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi. To follow on that, can you clarify your beliefs here? Do you, for instance, believe a white baker should be able to reject the business of a black man because of his racial differences? <\/p>\n
Petersen: I believe any person should be able to refuse to hand over their private property to anyone for any reason. That being said, Im not interested in going back and overturning the Civil Rights Act. I think the best way forward is to find a way to respect the religious beliefs of our fellow citizens. Religious freedom acts have been passed on the state and federal levels, and I support them. <\/p>\n
McAfee: Do you think atheists and other freethinker groups should be less confrontational when it comes to minor violations of separation of church and state? For instance, how would you react to a statute depicting the Ten Commandments placed on government property? <\/p>\n
Petersen: Yes, I absolutely do. I roll my eyes at people who think we are somehow having some sort of victory because we removed In God We Trust from money when there are so many other substantive issues that actually affect peoples lives. However, if youre putting up any new religious monuments on public property, all religions or non-religions ought to have equal access to display theirs as well. <\/p>\n
McAfee: I am not as concerned about who bakes cakes for whom as I am about religious freedom laws that actually kill children. If you dont know what I mean, Im talking about the handful of states with extreme religious freedom laws allowing parents to literally get away with murder when they use faith healing instead of medicine to treat their terminally ill children. One particularly notable case comes out of Idaho, where more children die due to faith-based neglect than anywhere else. What is your position on these laws, which give special treatment to religious people in a way we wouldnt tolerate if it were another country? <\/p>\n
Petersen: The law of the land is the Constitution, and we are all governed by it. No other law is higher. Not Sharia, not the Old Testament, not the Tao Te Ching. No one has the right to harm anyone in the name of religion or in the name of non-religion, as the Communists did in the Soviet Union. I wouldnt be consistently pro-life if I didnt believe that the government had the right to intervene and protect children from being neglected. <\/p>\n
McAfee: Personally, I see secularization as beneficial for religions (who dont want the government involved in their worship) as well as for people who dont want religious influences to run their state. Do you value separation of church and state, and recognize that our founders intended to keep these two entities apart for good reasons? <\/p>\n
Petersen: Constitutionally, there is no technical separation of church and state. Rather, there is freedom from the establishment of a state religion. Originally, some founders thought this meant that the federal government could not establish a religion, but the states might. Since the Reconstruction Era amendments, however, this has shifted and now the states may not do so. And many state constitutions already have a clause similar to the federal governments. <\/p>\n
I agree with James Madison, who wrote, We are teaching the world the great truth that governments do better without kings and nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of government. <\/p>\n
And my greatest inspiration on the issue, which I would have liked to have seen written word-for-word into the Constitution if it had been expedient, comes from Thomas Jeffersons Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom: Be it enactedthat no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion <\/p>\n
McAfee: Separation of church and state is important to me, and many of my readers, but science issues are perhaps even more crucial. Do you accept the scientific consensus on things like the helpfulness of vaccines, evolution, and climate change influenced in part by humans? <\/p>\n
Petersen: I certainly accept it on vaccines and evolution. I am agnostic on the issue of climate change, because climate science relies on predictions. Since predictions have generally the same accuracy rate as astrologers and psychics, I think we ought to get along with our business and avoid centralizing economic planning into the hands of a few self-interested bureaucrats in Washington D.C. If climate change is real, and it very well could be, then progress via industrial capitalism will be the solution. The cause is also the cure. <\/p>\n
McAfee: You seem like a rational person. How much of a role do you give to science in your decision-making? Do you check peer-reviewed papers or rely on your instinct? <\/p>\n
Petersen: I do check peer-reviewed papers. Im fully willing to change my mind when evidence conflicts with my worldview. Yes, I do have my ideas, but I try to avoid confirming my biases if at all possible. Im open-minded. I like being proven wrong, because even though your ego takes a blow, you learn something, and I love to keep learning and growing intellectually. <\/p>\n
McAfee: I couldnt agree more on being proven wrong. Is there anything else youd like to add to this? <\/p>\n
Petersen: Theres a reason that the First Amendment comes first. Being able to choose your own religion or choose to not have any religion at all! is a vital part of our inherent liberties as rational human beings. Im committed to preserving liberty above all else, and that includes protecting the freedom of an individuals conscience and intelligence on matters of belief. If elected, I will certainly do this and not only for people I agree with, but also (and especially) for those whose views differ from my own. <\/p>\n
Overall, Petersen is an interesting candidate. I dont blame him for avoiding the word atheist, although its worth noting he has repeatedly called himself an atheist and has even called Christianity as the violent cousin of Islam and as the Cult of Christ. So, what do you all think? Would you vote for him? <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
See the rest here: <\/p>\n
Meet the Atheist Libertarian Running for Senate as a Republican - Patheos (blog)<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" You may have heard the name Austin Petersen before, but if you havent youre probably going to soon. Continue reading