Posted on 04/05/2016 7:51:13 AM PDT by Kaslin
The most profound thinkers in America are conservative. There are, of course, bright liberal and leftist thinkers, but I can't think of one who approaches the depth and wisdom of the best conservative writers and thinkers. What liberal historian, for example, approaches the understanding of life and history that author Paul Johnson has exhibited in his many works of history? Who on the left matches psychiatrist/writer Theodore Dalrymple's insight into the underclass? What left-wing columnists understand human nature, the state of mankind, or contemporary America as do George Will, Charles Krauthammer and Thomas Sowell, or many of the leading columnists at publications such as National Review, City Journal, Commentary Magazine or the Wall Street Journal?
I write this to make it clear that my admiration for the leading conservative writers, columnists and thinkers is deep and abiding.
There is, however, a "but."
The vast majority of leading conservative writers, just like their liberal colleagues, have a secular outlook on life. With few exceptions, the conservative political and intellectual worlds are oblivious to the consequences of secularism. They are unaware of the disaster that godlessness in the West has led to.
Most leading Republicans and most of the wealthy donors to the Republican Party -- in addition to virtually all libertarian politicians and think tank scholars -- are either uninterested in the death of Judeo-Christian religions and values in America and the West, or they're OK with it. They think that America can survive the death of God and religion, that fiscal and other forms of conservatism without social conservatism can preserve America.
It shows how effective the secular indoctrination in our schools and media has been, that even the majority of conservative thinkers are not only secular themselves, but seem to have no idea how much of the American civilization rests on religious foundations.
They don't seem to understand that the only solution to many -- perhaps most -- of the social problems ailing America and the West is some expression of Judeo-Christian faith. Do the inner-city kids who study the Bible and go to church each week lead wasted lives, join gangs, bear children out of wedlock or commit murder? Other than a religious revival, what do conservatives, with all their superb critiques of disastrous left-wing policies, think will uplift inner-city youths?
And why do secular conservatives think so many affluent and well-educated Americans have adopted left-wing dogmas, such as feminism, socialism, environmentalism and egalitarianism as their religions? Because people want to -- have to -- believe in something. And if it's not God and Christianity or Judaism, it's going to be some form of Leftism. Why are evangelical Protestants, theologically conservative Catholics, Orthodox Jews and practicing Mormons almost all conservative? Because they already have a religion and therefore don't need the alternate gods of leftist faiths, and also because Judeo-Christian religions have different values than leftist religions.
When these conservatives -- people who revere the Founding Fathers and the Declaration of Independence -- read the founders' assertion that all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights," do they believe what the founders wrote? Or were they just echoing the irrational religious beliefs of their time, as people on the left believe?
When these conservatives see the components of what I call the American Trinity -- the words "liberty," "In God We Trust" and "e pluribus unum" inscribed on every American coin -- do they regard "In God We Trust" as no longer necessary?
President John Adams warned: "Because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion ... our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Do secular conservatives think he was right or wrong?
The problem is not that most leading conservative thinkers are secular; it is that they don't seem to understand that a godless and Judeo-Christian-free America means the end of America, just as a godless and Judeo-Christian-free Europe has meant the end of Europe.
If there is no God, everything is permitted.
Fyodor Dostoevsky
The fallacy in this piece is that morality requires religion.
Both of you. [drumroll] [cymbal]
Some food for thought from Dennis Prager.
I guess what he’s saying is, will we still have any semblance of conservative values/family values in our culture, if we abandon relgion?
Will conservative policies such as certain tax cuts, downsizing government, empowering parents with school choice, among others, succeed, if the people involved do not live their lives within a faith tradition?
I don’t have answers, but this article is food for thought.
Prov 9:10
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,
And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.
I’m not the most religious person by any stretch of the imagination. But I do know the consequences of abandoning our Judeo-Christian heritage. Something will move in to fill the void, and it won’t be the Secular Humanists.
Good ol’ 60’s liberal Dennis Prager.
His idea of “leading conservative writers, columnists and thinkers” is the likes of George Will, Charles Krauthammer and publications like National Review, City Journal, Commentary Magazine and the Wall Street Journal.
Which is not a surprise, because neoconservatives are liberals at heart, and Mondale’s 1984 speechwriter Charles Krauthammer is a kindred spirit.
Can I ask you to recommend a better set of modern “leading conservative writers, columnists and thinkers”?
As a corollary, one way to "cure" someone from being involved in a particular mass movement is to substitute another one, which is what Prager is suggesting as a cure for Leftism. But Hoffer also points out there is danger in simply substituting one mass movement for another. It's like fighting a fire by throwing on a different kind of gasoline.
There is another way: Eliminate the feelings of frustration that drive people to mass movements. Philosophers, economists and others have been trying to solve this puzzle for millenia. There are two kinds of solutions: 1) Empowering individuals by establishing the right conditions (e.g, liberty and capitalism) and 2) helping people improve their own minds so that their response to their conditions does not create unwarranted frustration (e.g., philosphy and unorganized religion).
The conservative pundits that Prager is curiously criticizing are persuing this other way, which could be called Enlightenment—in both the classical European and Eastern senses.
“The fallacy in this piece is that morality requires religion.”
God, not religion.
Leftism is a religion.
You are right, and the author is right. Individually, faith is certainly a personal matter, but even secular people (especially conservatives) must recognize that without religion, the state is God.
Morality does not require belief in God.
So you are anti-God?
Then what is “Morality” based on?
“Be Excellent to Each Other”, like in Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure?
I am anti-mass movements created in His name.
“Morality does not require belief in God.”
Untenable.
This is mainstream establishment dogma. But it makes no sense, is oxymoronic and self-negating.
The Nazis had their own “Morality Code.”
“I am anti-mass movements created in His name.”
What does that mean?
If there is no God, everything is permitted.
Fyodor Dostoevsky
Yep. You get it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.