In a comedic saga of an Iowa town hall, former presidential hopeful Vivick Ramaswami
faces a cosmic challenge how to charm atheists even if you're hungry, be cautious
when trying to digest this word salad, where Christian nationalism gets a downplay,
wokeism takes center stage, and secular values do the cha cha. The theatrics
hit a high note when a question about school bibles spots lights Ramaswami's dance with
inconsistency. Protagonist Justin Scott, seeking enlightenment, gets an unexpected eviction, turning
the town hall into a political vaudeville, and this hilarious Heartland circus, the
Quest for Genuine Answers unveils the struggle with reality that atheist voters face. This
story is from The Friendly Atheist by Hemmett Metta on January sixth, twenty twenty
four. Vivic to be generous is quite an amazing campaign, and the attempt
to run against someone that you refuse to run against it is absolutely mind boggling
that you can do that. But his answer to this quest question does show
that same inability or unwillingness to be pinned down. You know, he would
prefer to ooze his way out of some uncomfortable situation into what a pre recorded
track of comfort, because that's really what he did in this particular word salad,
and I think that is a very valid of particular putrid word salad.
He was asked about the dangers of that Christian nationalism posed, and he completely
dismissed that and went right back to us Christian nationalist right wing talking points.
I don't feel that's a major threat now. And when the person Scott mentioned
January sixth, he's like, I feel like wokeism and transgenderism is did I
miss where a herd of woke assist came storming out of there, you know,
in the churches and temples forcing reassignment surgery to people at random. You
know, I don't know what this guy's talking about. He's just running the
same old, tired refrain that we hear over and over again, and we've
heard it the last few election cycles. Fortunately, as we've discussed before,
I do think that it is wearing thin. If they bring the same old
routine to the party. I do think that it's going to be a long
road for people like that because he's just playing to his bass, you know,
which is really odd to me because you know, understanding this base does
happen to be white and evangelical. That's the song you play. But a
Hindu carrying water for the white Christian nationalists? How nice phoebe? You think
it sounds like what's his name? The Prime Minister of the UK, Rishi
Suda. A Hindu carrying the water for the you know, the Christian country
that's run by the Anglican Church in the UK, would be weird. It's
not just a bit weird when we see that we have previously talked about,
you know, a Hindu Prime Minister of the UK in what is a country
with established to the Church, and it's just very weird when you do see
Hindus and Muslims propping up Christian establishment. It's just just go, I don't
get it. I don't get it. But reading this article, I found
one thing to be very telling of society at large, particularly every politician on
the face of this earth written large, and every person that's a talking head
written large, including the four of us, is that we don't actually recite
things the way that they were actually undertaken. And I think it's an indictment,
particularly on the political class of the world, when it's embellished to the
point that it's no longer a reflection of what actually happened. Because at the
first town hall, when the question was asked, it was answered in a
certain way. At the second town hall it was anecdotalized for the crowd in
a way there had no bearing on what had actually occurred. I mean,
everyone's guilty of it, every talking head under the sun, the four of
us this week, the four of us next week, and the four of
us in the future. We'll all be guilty of it to some degree.
But it's when we are called out on it how we react to that.
How has it reacted to here? Off your dropped. I'm going to pick
you up, buy your shirt, collars, and buy your lapels and you
know, drag you out like a British bobby that's had a bit too much
to see around here, and it's gone, I don't like what you're doing,
and them the law has felt your collar and gone up wait and wiked
you out. What it's a bit over the top, I mean, just
go look, Okay, maybe I embellish a little bit because you know,
otherwise it's a boring story. Not to go oy clearly your collar. Now
I'm hiking you out like you know, just bonkers. But that's the world
we live in. Don't tell me I'm wrong, even if I know I'm
wrong, and you're the person that I'm talking about. What one of the
good things we can say about this story is that it's pretty much moot in
the respects, in many respects because Ramaswami did drop out of the race last
week, but it is indicative of a problem that we face as atheists in
today's United States, because his answer is not just indicative of his own feelings,
but how many people on the political right feel right. So while we
don't have to worry about what Vivek thinks anymore, we still have to worry
about the people that support the far right movements, the very people that Ramaswami
was trying to attract. Right. So when you hear him speak the words
he did in this town hall, and you're hearing you are literally hearing the
words of a lot of Republican voters. And I'm not smart enough to know
who's right or wrong when it comes to politics. I can't tell you what
side you should be on politically, But if you are an atheist, there
are candidates out there that do share some of the same values as you do.
And I think it's important for us as atheists, if we want to
vote for the ideals that we believe in, for us to be very attentative
to what these politicians are saying, especially in an important election year like this.
So do it. Get out there, look at these people and hear
what they're saying. I'm not like, again, I'm not going to tell
you who you should vote for, but you really really should educate yourself to
what the people who are running stand for. Jimmy, you have something you'd
like to add to that. Yeah, On that note, I think that
people will tell you who they are and you should listen to them. Right
for somebody to say that a coup attempt on the United States is less of
a threat or not a threat, Where someone who questions the gender that they
were assigned at birth is a threat, well, that person's letting you know
exactly who they are and exactly who they're really here to serve. But on
another level, getting back to the article, vivik Ramaswami himself lost me at
so here is what I believe there may be points in our history where that
would be applicable. Talking about the checkered past of Christianity or of religion in
general and the atrocities that have come from it, Well, that is a
disingenuous approach and an attempt to kind of water down the abusive and destructive history
of religion. So I have to kind of look at that and say,
well, this guy's full of it. You know, anything that comes out
of his mouth is untrustworthy at best. And that's a problem for me because
I can't believe the promise he is thus like pretending to make when he says
that we all have the right to live freely without anyone standing in their way.
How does he say something like that and then goes on to say that
Thomas Jefferson, of all people, is his favorite president. I mean,
this is a guy who was instrumental in writing the Constitution and talked about equal
rights, but then had slaves and forced them into sexual situations. Thomas Jefferson
had thirteen illegitimate children with his slaves. Who knows how many times he abused
them. This is the worst person to talk about being the vanguard of equal
rights. So I don't know what Vivic is even talking about. And this
just goes to show you somebody that is not only denying history, but really
has no idea what they're talking about. And I want to allude to a
quote that I heard a long time ago, and I was in a lecture
and there was a presenter who, forgive me, I don't remember his name,
but I never forgot the quote. He was presenting a lecture on how
Arabic, the Arabic math system influenced Western mathematics and the number system. And
he said, when we deny history, we open the door to abuses of
our liberty. And I think that is exactly what happens when you ignore the
fact that somebody is standing in the way of your equal rights, but you
support them anyway, or you don't listen to them when they tell you exactly
who they are. So in the end, I heard nothing but buzzwords liberty,
freedom, constitution, Thomas Jefferson. But it's all just a moot point.
He is appealing to a base that, you know, is it really
supporting him back. So yeah, that's what I got on that, Infidel.
I think you're exactly right on he's trying to pander to a base that
didn't really support him. But once again, that goes back to exactly having
the lack of intestinal fortitude to actually run against the guy you're running against.
At least you know, he never even made that step. But the truth
is is that history has no bearing whatsoever on almost anything that comes out of
someone like his mouth, because history is not where they base their decisions.
The truth is, I think that people like this are more in line with
running against history, not understanding what is history, because in the long run,
history is going to judge all of us. You know, we look
at different people, and you mentioned Thomas Jefferson. You know, Thomas Jefferson
held in a certain esteem in certain areas at certain times. But it's a
little difficult regardless of where you stand in the political spectrum when you go,
yeah, but he right to slaves. So when it comes down to making
decisions and what history makes those decisions, I have a sneaking suspicion that people
like this are going to be looked rather unkindly in the long run because to
them, people are political pawns. They're just things to shift around to make
their lives or their gain or their want, their desires something of importance.
Therefore support me. It has nothing to do with reality, It has nothing
to do with the betterment of the people around them. And that alludes right
back into what Kelly's saying. Pay attention to who the people around you and
what they're saying, because just because it sounds good and tickles your ears doesn't
make it right. That's just as true for his supporters as it is for
people like us, because sometimes, just like Phoebe said, when you're called
out on it, that's when people learn who you are. Because when you're
wrong, what is your reaction? Do you go, Damn, I was
wrong, I jumped to a conclusion, or do you jump and see up
out with them, get them out the door. We don't want to hear
any more of that. Enough cut the mic. That's really what it boils
down to. This raises a wider question. Is it possible in today's society
where everything is, you know, boiled down to a fifteen second sound bite,
or some disingenuous talking head running out of candidate with a camera and then
making up a narrative about things, or some other lunatic that's hanging out at
some State Capitol building, changing their shirts twenty four times, and filming a
whole day's worth of footage making out there there every day of the month,
to actually have a genuine discussion with somebody and a genuine debate with someone where
it challenges to positions exist where people are allowed to go, Hey, I
listened to the arguments and I changed my mind or went hey, I came
in here without a position, and I made my mind up based on what
was presented to me. Is that something that we can do in today's society?
And if not, where does this leaders to where society is going with
entrenchment and what is in effect ignorance. The one thing that really made me
think the most about this story was it illustrates how important it is for us
to build community and normalize atheism. If atheists were as normal as Christians in
the USA, do you think we would get these half asked answers like we
got. Of course not. Modern politicians in the USA, on both sides,
are often quick to run away from atheists and their questions because they're afraid
their voters will drop them if they don't hold these strong Abrahamic values. They
need to be shown that we are a political for to be reckoned with.
There are more atheists now in the USA than there are Jews, and many
many politicians catered to the Jewish vote. We need to show them that listening
to atheists and recognizing that our issues is not a losing proposition. If there
is anything I could ever get atheists to do better, it would be to
go out in public and let everyone know that we are here, We're not
going anywhere, we all vote, and we're just normal people, just like
everyone else. I think that is so important, And I again, like
I say, I thought this story really illustrated how important that was for us
to do that. Jimmy, you want to you have some other words you'd
like to say, Well, yeah, I think that your point speaks volumes
to the fact that this man was or not vivic, but the person questioning
him, and forgive me, I forget the name Justin Scott was removed from
answer asking these questions. You know. I think that goes to show that
these politicians don't want to be challenged by thinking. Uh, you know skeptics,
you know, people who take the time to put in the work and
really think about not only the cosmic questions about our universe or or history,
but the rules that govern our everyday lives. You know, we don't just
stand there and take what's given to us. We investigate, we pick it
apart, and we try to make it better. And somebody that it comes
equipped with buzzwords and kind of you know, these religious these religious fallback points
really isn't equipped and so instead of facing the music, will sick their security
on the atheists to kind of remove them. And that is a microcosm of
what we as atheists deal with on a daily basis and over the course of
our lives, because people would rather just toss us to the side that kind
of hear what we have to say, we're automatically the bad ones, when
in reality, I think that people have a lot to gain by listening to
somebody who thinks critically about well everything. I was a little excited for a
moment when Kelly was talking about we need atheists to go out openly in public,
and I say, okay, talking about me, talking about me,
and then he got to the normal part and I was like, okay,
so to make a little bit of normal people, damn it, Infidel like
you, Kelly. I thought that Ty was saying a bit more out would
you know outnusts Now, I will say that I agree that it's important that
candidates of all persuasion understand that whether it's atheists, are just people who are
outside of religion in general. The nuns, even the ones that have a
lot of WU, aren't going to be so easily swayed by the talking points
of either side. And that's where it gets so important for them to understand
that no, you you going to talking points and there're certain and I'm old,
but the gen Zers and some of the younger ones, they quit listening
at some point when you start running some of those talking points. There's a
huge portion of them that just tune you out. So I'm hopeful that we
see a point where you can't just string along thirty sentences together and make a
fifteen minute speech just repeating the same old refrains over and over. With that
in mind, I guess we'll see because there's no shortage of politicians out there
more than willing to try, and as long as they keep trying, I
think that's one more reason that is so important. Like Kelly mentioned, that
we go out there and say, you know what, that really doesn't add
up. And that's not even about being an atheist, but that's just about
encouraging critical thinking in people. For encouraging people because you know what, you
can go to church, you can do all those things. That's finding good.
But if I can get you to think about, well, maybe I
don't have a good reason for thinking what I do. Okay, sit in
that church pew, I'm glad I'm not there, but you do that.
But if I can get you to think, hey, maybe this isn't the
way I should be treating or viewing other people, that's a win all around.
And I think that's really what we're all trying to achieve here. And
with that in mind, I think I've already said too much already. So
around the hole, yes or no? Is genuine debate dead, Kelly,
genuine debate dead? No, I don't know that. I don't know that
genuine debate ever got us anywhere anyway. It's good to share ideas, but
I think debate turns into somebody trying to win or some or defeat the other
person. And I don't think that's the reason why we needed to have a
debate. We need to have the debate to share the ideas, and we've
kind of lost the idea of what a debate is good for, I think
at modern times. So Jimmy, yes, in the political arena, know
everywhere else ifid I think that, I'm not sure how valuable debate can be,
because at the end of the day, only you can change your mind.
I think it's more important that we have conversations, and that we have
conversations in a way that allows people to think, and that I think is
far more effective than two, three, or a dozen people yelling at each
other formally or informally in a debate or any other setting. Talking to people.
Well, I say, debate is all you've got. Debate is just conversation plus