Come out of your closet and take your licks. How can you back an explicitly pro-religion party that thinks women are second-class citizens, chattels of their husbands and The State, and who favors widening the gap between the rich and non-rich even more?
And the West made that pact possible by it's appeasement at Munich and the breakdown of the Anglo-French-Soviet military negotiations a few weeks before. In the words of A. J. P. Taylor "it is difficult to see what other course Soviet Russia could have followed", though the unfortunate side effect was that a West vs Germany war over the Polish question became inevitable.
I must firmly repudiate the implication in your post that "the West" was in some way responsible for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Neville Chamberlain's actions at Munich may have encouraged the Soviets to think that the pact was a good idea, but it was hardly necessary and they were hardly forced into it. The Soviets entered into that pact motivated by their greed for expansion, which is shown clearly by the "secret protocol" that essentially ceded parts of Eastern Europe to the Soviets. In other words, the Soviets knew perfectly well that the Germans intended to invade other parts of Eastern Europe. The pact wasn't just a pact with the devil; it was a pact between two devils.
I see you "greed for expansion" and raise you 'an extra 300km between Berlin and Moscow' as well as 'directing Hitler westwards'. Soviet expansionism was firmly halted by Stalin in the late 20ies after, the Trotsky and Trotskyite purges being the clearest examples, and the idea of 'socialism in one country' was officially endorsed. By the time of the M-R pact the Comintern was on it's very last legs, especially after the brutal purging of the 5th through 7th congresses.
It should also be noted that the West destroyed Czechoslovakia, which infuriated both Hitler and Stalin, the former for losing glory ("That damned Chamberlain spoiled my parade into Prague") and the second due to the strengthening of Russias enemies Poland, Germany, Slovakia, and Hungary. Most of all, Munich gave Hitler the dangerous idea that the West wouldn't stand up for Poland, just as he "had not thought it possible that Czechoslovakia would be served up to me by her friends".
I am an atheist, and I am a registered republican. I think you may have some difficulty getting other people to reply and say they are atheist republicans if you're asking in such a confrontational manner.
A lot of republicans don't view women as second class citizens. What appeals to me is the idea of limited government, increased individual freedom, and what I believe is a more sensible fiscal plan. I don't agree with every viewpoint typically held by republicans (I support marriage equality, for example), but I do prefer their ideals for running a government. Even without any religious background, I tend to favor the republican party, just as many devoutly religious people can favor the democratic party.
I think that people here need to realize that different people are going to have different beliefs and opinions, and we need to be respectful of those who have differing opinions. I would hope that a group of atheists, who often are viewed unfavorably by the general public, can understand how frustrating it is to be criticized solely for having differing or unpopular beliefs. The way republicans are being portrayed as cold hearted and uncaring of others is actually a major belief that many Christians have against atheists; many Christians believe that atheists have no sense of morality or willingness to help others. It's perfectly understandable if you want to explore how atheists tend to view politics, but it may be better to ask in a more respectful and non-confrontational manner.
I think there are a large numbers of Republicans who share your not unreasonable beliefs, the problem is they are being drowned out by the religious zealots, who are now running the party and have a very strict religious litmus test.
So, you'll take their overall neanderthal views on women and gays, their promotion of policies that are turning out to make the rich richer at the expense of the poor and middle class, their knee-jerk rejection of Obamacare in favor of a system that makes health care cheaper for some by denying it to others?
Well, foo on you! ;)
"policies they are turning out to make the rich richer at the expense of the poor"...our entitlement programs take money the wealthy earned and redistribute it to the poor. Redistribution of wealth is a Marxist/Communist idea. I am just going to start calling Democrats Communists. People that have some sense in this country should be afraid of them. Also, our welfare programs are not going to work they will bankrupt us for certain. Johnson started this ridiculous "war on poverty".
Unseen, I'm sorry if I offend you but you are terribly offensive so I think you deserve to take you licks as well.
...our entitlement programs take money the wealthy earned and redistribute it to the poor.
I wonder how much of the rich's wealth is actually "earned" in the ordinary sense of the word, meaning by the sweat of their brow, and how much is passive interest earned, often in overseas investments or while sitting in a Swiss bank. I suspect a Swiss bank creates jobs, but more likely in Europe than in the United States.
Also, what about wealth absolutely unearned, such as inherited wealth. That isn't earned in any sense of the word.
The poor spend their money at home, buying food and other goods in ways that create American jobs. Relatively few people just get 100% of their income from the government and those tend to be unemployable or else Social Security recipients at least theoretically collecting money they paid in over the years.
"I am just going to start calling Democrats Communists."
Then you'll be joining the ranks of the many morons who have tried to do this throughout the 20th century.
@Jon Patterson: If you take a good look at what the two parties stand for today--and not in the past--I think you will find that you are actually not a republican anymore. You may even be a democrat now. The republican party you agree with no longer exists.
I agree. It's not totally clear that today's Republicans would stand with Lincoln on the matter of freeing the slaves, given that they're comfortable with virtual and actual slave labor overseas. And what better friends do the members of the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about than today's GOP?
Today's GOP is built around that ass Ronald Reagan and Sarah Paylin/The Tea Party.
@Jon - RE: "What appeals to me is the idea of limited government"
I don't know where you fall on the economic scale, Jon, nor is it any of my business, but what most people fail to understand, is that within the Republican Platform, "limited government" has two separate meanings.
To the illiterate, economically disadvantaged, who are just looking for jobs and income to feed their families, "limited government" can mean, as I mentioned in a previous comment, no gun control, no abortions and freedom to teach the Christian religion in the public school system, because teaching it at home and in churches isn't working, and a captive audience is needed.
To the wealthy, well-educated Republican however, "limited government" means removing prohibitions to opening up virgin wilderness to oil exploration and logging, to make the rich, richer, using the illiterate, economically disadvantaged as virtual wage slaves, regardless of the ecological consequences, which is a problem for future generations and not those of the present. "Limited government" means relaxing environmental controls that mandate safe auto emissions and waste disposal procedures.
I could go on for a page, but I believe my point is clear. The term, "Limited government" is entirely dependent on whether you are the Screwer, or the Screwee.