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.
Had to look up that word. Thanks! See post 99 for my wordier explanation to our (thus far) self-contained FRiend.
If he had some philosophical sophistication we could finish him off with Gödel’s Theorems. Basically a proof that there cannot be any self-contained, self-defining systems. All must borrow from outside. But we are dealing with someone whose education appears to consist of reading Ayn Rand.
There are always opportunities to witness in love and with compassion.
Is that really true, though? Some prominent conservative talking heads are converts to Catholicism (or Eastern Orthodoxy). Some of them are mainstream Protestants or Jews. And Evangelicals get published in conservative periodicals.
Even Krauthammer, who doesn't believe in God, isn't "oblivious" about the problems of secularism. He's quoted as saying that he didn't believe in God, but he feared him. There is a "secular right" group out there, but I don't think it's accurate to say there's no concern about increasing secularism in conservative publications.
Paul adapted to his audience. Objectivism has a streak of Nietzsche in it.
“I can morally act in my self interest as long as I don’t infringe on the basic rights of life, liberty and property of others.”
What if you see your self interest as a higher moral calling such as over population of the planet or improvement of humanity’s gene pool?
Atheists are the children of Marx and the enemies of America. Our whole system of government is predicated on the idea that natural rights are granted by God, and presumes a culture of broadly Judeo-Christian ethics. Any attempt to substitute something else will cause our system of government to fail.
once again, one cannot be conservative if one is not socially conservative.
It is by definition, with no asterisk.
“Why does morality presuppose a law-giver?”
Because objective “rightness” and “wrongness” implies how some things (humans in this case) ought to act, not merely how they are acting. In other words, it implies an aesthetic design and purpose.
Traditionally, people understood morality in a teleological sense. Trying to divorce teleology from morals is a characteristic of modern moral philosophy....btw it’s the main reason that modern moral philosophy is an incoherent mess.
No. They are not both true revealed religions.
Reality is the outside arbiter. Reality cannot be faked or ignored for very long.
Belief in a deity does nothing to change anything to which you objected. People still need to agree on a code of ethics and abide by it regardless of its source.
” Basically people before the invasion of the neocon bodysnatchers. “
LOL.....National Review 2016
“” In Islam Jews and Christians are referred to “people of the book” precisely because these religions are based on the same god. “
This is the type of objectivist pretzel logic we have seen..hell.. forever!Aristotle was the antithesis of Ayn Rand/Objectivism. Islam is incompatible with Western civilization, and any place they have “invaded” PROVE it!
British Common Law is based on the 10 Commandments, as were most of our original laws in the colonies.
“Aristotle was the antithesis of Ayn Rand/Objectivism.”
Aristotle’s theism is certainly at odds with Ayn Rand’s creation.
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.