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.
Objectivism is actually rooted in Aristotle.
What cliches?
Oh, do go on. Let’s hear it.
Trumpeters, take note.
So you the atheist have come full circle and by your reason have bumped into God.
Congratulations.
God is and will always be. There is no beginning of God and no end of God
” In Islam Jews and Christians are referred to “people of the book” precisely because these religions are based on the same god. “
Islam simply acknowledged that Jews and Chrisitans have the Bible, unlike pagan religions of the time. Including the Moon worshippers that Islam borrows heavily from.
You think means that they worship the same God. No Imam believes that. No historian believes that. No Christian theologian. Only you, based on no knowledge of the religion itself. Just one phrase taken in isolation. That’s a cliche popular among the COEXIST crowd.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm making clear my faith in God and His Son.
I am no more assuming anything that you are in your laughable "self-evident" truths. If the universe exists and you exist within it, please let us see your proof.
And if you can't prove it, let's hear you admit to what amounts to your own article of faith.
p.s. A system of ethics? LOL! A system of ethics, all right. Based on your idea of self-interest...for a self you can't prove exists in a universe that has no interest in you.
Only if you first believe in God. You the theist have once again assumed the conclusion.
Ridicule is the last resort of an empty argument.
Is that the kind of resolution generally produced by your "system of ethics"?
No, I am suggesting He is the Designer.
Not a thing is self-evident to my eyes, my friend.
Though I do agree that, as Jefferson said, there are “truths” we choose to take as self-evident.
I take the truth of Christianity as gospel, so to speak; though I will admit I am a very poor Christian, by almost any standard.
You apparently embrace only the truth of your senses, and only the ethics that you and your friends can agree on.
I’m no fine philosopher either. But I’ll tell you this, C.C., as you probably already know, there have been many, many minds greater than yours or mine to ponder these questions; and virtually to a man (or a woman) they have been led only to greater uncertainty.
I find a welcome peace in the certainty of Christ. All the rest of it is but trying to live a worthy life.
Objectivism boils down to “an individual’s primary moral obligation is to achieve his own well-being—it is for his life and his self-interest that an individual ought to adhere to a moral code”
That kind of moral code can be twisted into anything a person wants, to meet whatever he “feels” is in his best interest at that moment.
That is not a code of morals, that is a recipe for every sin and evil action under the sun. Just because you use it to do “good” does not mean anyone else will.
I’m happy for you. I think we have reached the end of our conversation on this subject.
He says He is alone. His name is "I am". He says He exists because he exists -- "I am that I am." He says He is all that there is, "the Beginning and the End."
And He exists in another dimension to which we are not yet privy, not visible in the physical world. Have you ever tried the "barbershop mirror" thing, where you stand between two mirrors that are exactly parallell, and they form what looks like a visual funnel with your head in the center, but no matter how you turn your eyes or your head, you can never see down the center? It's like that. You simply can't see Him because of the way He has arranged parallel realities. Jesus, an earthly aspect of God sent to teach us, said that His "kingdom" is "not of this world."
Even if it were not true that the God of our known solar system and beyond (thousands of galaxies operating in patterns) is the only god, it's above our pay grade to worry about what might be bigger than an universe already huge beyond most people's conceptual framework. Such a philosophical exercise would be exponentially greater than worrying which mid-career change to make while you are still in kindergarten. There is much you would better benefit by understanding before you worry about that question.
Not true. What you're missing is that one's self interest cannot infringe on another's. i.e. what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
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.
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.