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