Triggered: ‘Republican Atheists’ President Loses Cool After My Name Mentioned

Lauren Ell, the president of the fledgling organization Republican Atheists (an oxymoron in most people’s minds) and admin of its Facebook page, posted a photo over the weekend accompanied by a resentful rant about Ana Kasparian receiving the Humanist Media Award at AHACon. After being challenged by one of the page’s followers, things spiraled a bit, culminating in a profanity-laced caps-lock response from Ell — surely unbecoming of anyone in political leadership… well, until American politics imploded two years ago that is.

If you recall, Ell and I have had a few run-ins over the past year. Our fantastic relationship began last November when she commented on the SecularVoices Facebook page, criticizing an article I wrote about TX kids attaching Christian flags to their pickup trucks, then inviting me to check out her organization (because that seems like a logical sequence of events). When I refused, she attempted to doxx me as the Exec Director of Young Skeptics (despite it being so public it’s on Wikipedia), and then posting in various FB groups how Young Skeptics is somehow indoctrinating children to be leftists (despite admitting she didn’t look at its publicly available curriculum). Months later, she embarrassed herself again by getting busted trying to report secular groups for violating the Johnson Amendment.

On to Lauren Ell’s most recent debacle. Here’s what she posted yesterday. Please excuse the profanity…

She followed up with this comment:

A little while later, one of the page’s followers (who apparently happens to be a SecularVoices reader) responded to Ell which let to a bit of a heated exchange:

And now, the moment you’ve been waiting for. #triggered

To be fair, it’s unclear whether Ell’s trigger was the mention of me being right, or the criticism about Ell being unfit to lead, or the reference to Ell’s repeated narcissism (I was told by Sarah in a private message that Ell often posts about herself under RA’s title, shares her personal blog posts on the RA page, and blogs about herself in the third person on RA’s website). Nonetheless, the leader of this republican organization seems to be bitter that no one is giving her a trophy, and certainly doesn’t respond well to confrontation, as evidenced by her final post as well as the interactions I’ve had with her. It’s very likely that she’ll even repost this article on RA’s page with some insane reference to “all publicity is good publicity,” like she has every other time she’s been mentioned by SecularVoices.

Good stuff, Lauren. Keep up the good work!

(h/t to Sarah for the link and entertainment)

 

Kevin Davis

Kevin Davis is the head writer and editor for SecularVoices, co-founder of Young Skeptics, and author of Understanding an Atheist. He is known for local and national secular activism and has spoken at conferences and events such as Reason Rally 2016 and the Ark Encounter Protest and Rally.

View all posts by Kevin Davis →

22 thoughts on “Triggered: ‘Republican Atheists’ President Loses Cool After My Name Mentioned

  1. The GOP party platform contains numerous references to God, talks about asking for “divine help”, and says people need to depend upon this God.

    This is literally antithema to the Humanist definition that Lauren Ell herself links to. Nothing vague about it.

    1. It’s a real problem in U.S politics. Libertarians, Authoritarians, right-wingers and other fascist leaning bigots don’t have any other choice than align with the GOP. But because it has been taken over by christian dominionists, the ones who don’t believe in any gods are stuck in the middle of nowhere. They don’t want to go with democrats because they think it’s the Left (! play a horror movie theme in your head).

      1. I would say it is a more general issue with the two-party system. Socialists, social democrats, and other assorted leftwingers are also stuck with, at best, a centrist party which is liberal on social issues, and centre-right on economics.

        1. You’re right, I just note that in in other countries, one can be an authoritarian atheist and be fine with extrem right parties.

          1. Oh sure, although most of them do tend to have a whole “christian heritage” thing going on.

          2. Yes, they tried to put that on an official thing, but they are really open to all obnoxious racists.

  2. Although it is possible for atheists to be republicans (since being an atheist does not automatically make you some kind of a good person that’s interested in the well being of others), this seems like a terrible attempt of the trump administration to connect with non-believers to gain political support/momentum.

  3. Kevin, you said “Lauren Ell, the president of the fledgling organization Republican Atheists (an oxymoron in most people’s minds) and admin of its Facebook page, posted a photo over the weekend accompanied by a resentful rant about Ana Kasparian receiving the Humanist Media Award at AHACon.”

    Your claim here is that “Republican Atheists” is “an oxymoron in most people’s minds.”

    I am very skeptical of your claim. Please define “Republican Atheists” and “oxymoron.” Then show how the first fits the definition of the second. Then present some survey data to support your claim.

    I know several atheists who happen to be Republican. Although I am a Democrat, I appreciate them and work with them towards whatever common goals we have.

    I think you and Lauren are missing the boat. It might be helpful for the two of you to select an independent mediator to help you patch up your hard feelings.

    1. The answer is “no” to every one of your requests. I’m not here to google for you. I don’t have that kind of time. And she’s an irrational narcissist. I have no interest in aligning with, working with, or “patching up hard feelings” with her.

      Sorry if that comes across as a harsh response. But your request would require a decent amount of time — more than I can afford to spend. Also, you worded it like a high school exam question. Hard pass.

      1. KD1: The answer is “no” to every one of your requests. I’m not here to google for you. I don’t have that kind of time.

        GW1: Now I am even more skeptical of your claim. You made a strong claim, and when challenged it is your responsibility to back it up. You haven’t. So that’s a mark against your credibility.

        KD1: And she’s an irrational narcissist.

        GW1: That is an ad hominem attack. I can’t believe you would stoop that low. Now, I request that you provide much evidence to support this new claim.

        KD1: I have no interest in aligning with, working with, or “patching up hard feelings” with her.

        GW1: That’s a real shame.

        KD1: Sorry if that comes across as a harsh response. But your request would require a decent amount of time — more than I can afford to spend.

        GW1: Yes, that comes across as a harsh response. If you can’t support a claim when challenged, then don’t make it. If you can afford the time to write one or two essays on a topic, then you should be prepared to spend time in defending the claims you make in the essays.

        KD1: Also, you worded it like a high school exam question. Hard pass.

        GW1: So what? The request is still reasonable, regardless of what school level it is worded on.

        1. 1. You are in no position to tell me what my responsibility is. Get over yourself.
          2. It’s not ad hom, it’s my opinion of her after multiple dealings.
          3. No it isn’t. It’s a decision I made based on our history. Some people aren’t worth my time or energy. She’s insignificant to me.
          4. Again, you’re in no position to tell me what I should or should not be prepared to do. Go into any secular FB (or in-person) group and ask if people think it’s an oxymoron.
          5. I’m not in school and you’re not my teacher.

          You seem to think you have some authority over me. You don’t. If you don’t like my work, go elsewhere. You’re free to do that.

          1. 1. I am in a perfect position to urge you to do the right thing. Get over yourself.
            2. It is your opinion and ad hominem. Try to stick with the real issues rather than focusing on personalities of your opponents.
            3. I think your decision is mistaken.
            4. Again, I am in a perfect position to urge you to do the right thing. Do your duty and defend your claim that it is an oxymoron. Here you are trying to shift your burden onto others.
            5. You have the roles reversed. By analogy, you are the teacher and we (your readers) are your students. I am one student trying to hold you accountable, and you don’t like it.

            When you write an essay and present it to the public, as you have done here, you have certain responsibilities to the public. So far, you have shirked some of them, in my opinion. Because of that, I am skeptical of some of your claims. The more you continue to poorly respond to my inquiries and challenges, the more skeptical I become. If you want people to believe you and support you, then you’ve got to do better.

          2. Here’s what you don’t seem to be able to comprehend. I don’t give a single shit about your skepticism or your opinion. I wrote an article and presented it. THE END. There is no “responsibility to the public” attached to it. That’s not in my contract. Do you write letters to your local newspaper reporters or opinion columnists, telling them it’s their responsibility to write follow-up after follow-up until all of your personal requirements are satisfied? I doubt it. You’re having a hard time dealing with rejection, so I urge you to reflect and seek help for that. We’re done. I will not be replying further, and your subsequent replies will not be published. Have a great day making ridiculous requests of others.

          3. I see I am not the only person who Gary feels he has the right to pass judgment on and then demand the other person should subject themselves to his interrogation

  4. Funny thing is, and while I am atheist, I am not Republican.. it does appear Lauren Ell is far more correct than she is wrong. And, when someone is really opposed to ignorance, like she appears to be, then she does have a good reason to be upset over that stupidity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *