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.
Yep, abandoning social conservative principles creates a void that can only be filled with Big Government. Case in point, the breakup of the traditional family.
Well because its a definition that has been unchanging since before the printing press. You attempted but failed a boot strap/circular logical fallacy. I.e tried to use a Secular modern definition of Morality to define Morality as secular. Problem is Morals have a historical definition long preceding the false concept of secular morals (sic) (oxymoronic term).
How do you define morality?
What other type of philosophy is reality based?
And some people seem to get angry when moral frameworks are discussed outside of religion or God. They tend to assume their personal moral system is the same that is shared by everyone and is totally self evident and better than the moral basis of religion or God.
George Will is not a God believer
Does Praeger know this?
Praeger was raised religious but does he practice Judaism
He’s virulently anti Trump which is why he wrote this
Funny
We were Godly till Trump came along
Coulda fooled me
And both Kraut and Will....Jew and Christian born are not practicing today
What a thin screed
Yes
I know
I should have read further
Slap me
Objectivism is an atheistic philosophy that is reality based.
And some people seem to get angry when moral frameworks are discussed outside of religion or God.
I am not angry. I'm just trying to have a rational conversation about morality.
CapitalistCrusader asked:
“How do you define morality?”
The Bible teaches moral absolutism in spirit, if not in specifics. We are to look to God’s Word, not our own judgment, to know what right and wrong behavior looks like. Because God’s creation reflects His character, it’s inevitable that men seeking wisdom would occasionally stumble upon His truths.
God has placed in our hearts a standard of right and wrong that, if followed, would result in our being blessed (Romans 2:14–15). But our fallen nature and bent to sin cloud our conscience. Therefore, the Bible admonishes us to ask God for wisdom (James 1:5). Psalm 119:59 says, “I considered my ways and turned my feet to Your testimonies.” Consideration of human nature shows us our inability and our need for God: “If Your law had not been my delight, then I would have perished in my affliction” (Psalm 119:92).
God has set in place certain standards, and it is sin to break those standards. Psalm 24:1 testifies to God’s authority: “The earth is the LORD’s, and all it contains; the world, and those who dwell in it.” He set the absolutes of our morality in His Word: “You shall therefore obey the LORD your God, and do His commandments and His statutes which I command you today” (Deuteronomy 27:10). The divine command theory of moral absolutism comes the closest to what the Bible teaches.
Discussing the philosophy of ethics from a secular, humanistic viewpoint is an interesting intellectual exercise, but the simple fact is that fallen man cannot discover truth and goodness without God. As in Abraham’s case, there is only one way that we can be moral: “Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness” (Genesis 15:6).
“Morality does not require belief in God.”
Then what would be the point of being moral? Without the authority of God, morals do not exist.
At this point I think we are at an impasse. How can we proceed?
I admit that they claim to follow the same God, but see my comment about religion.
This assumes the conclusion.
The point of morality is for people to live a full and just life.
When one is trying to sell subjective morality there is no path forward. I have stated the answer to your question. Its Clear. You may not like it but its a truth that will not change.
Paul Gottfried, Pat Buchanan, Clyde Wilson. A lot of the good writers are no longer with us. Mel Bradford. Robert Nisbet. James Burnham. Sam Francis. Basically people before the invasion of the neocon bodysnatchers.
I'm not trying sell anything. And the morality to which I'm referring is objective not subjective. It is based on two simple, self-evident truths. That the universe exists and I exist within it. What is subjective about that?
Simple Definition of secular
: not spiritual : of or relating to the physical world and not the spiritual world
: not religious
: of, relating to, or controlled by the government rather than by the church
“Morality does not require belief in God.”
But objective morality (which I assume you are talking about since you capitalized “Morality”) strongly presupposes an objective moral law-giver.
That is unless you reason that life on Earth, through random natural selection, coincidentally evolved into a sentient creature who can also coincidentally come to know this objective moral reality.
It’s almost like saying that Gravity does not require a belief in Matter. It may not require it in a strict logical sense, but it certainly makes the explanation of it more reasonable.
“So the Muslim morality, which is based on belief in the same god as Judeo-Christian morality, is justified?”
Well not to be harsh but I can see that you know precious little about the subject. Islam isn’t based on the Judeo-Christian God or its morality. Islam borrows names from the Bible but that’s all.
Why does morality presuppose a law-giver?
I beg to differ. Islam is based on the same “God of Abraham” as Judaism and Christianity.
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.