Posted on 01/19/2006 3:56:16 AM PST by ComtedeMaistre
Most conservatives are religious. But there is a small minority of non-religious individuals, who were attracted to the conservative movement because they were influenced by secular movements such as Ayn Rand's objectivism.
Should atheists be welcomed into the conservative movement? Do atheists make good conservatives?
Yep. I wonder if the original poster will come up with a goofy conspiracy theory (analogous to the "Diebold stole the election for Dubya" moonbattery) to explain why reality does not match the implied preconception behind the question.
You cannot see those things occuring here if they occurred in the past and currently occur in other countries?
"Its relevant that the most successful conservative politician of the last fifty years was not a "cultural conservative" at all."
Who would that be?
"Again, it is obvious that murder is wrong based on logic. If you found out tomorrow that there is no god, would you suddenly feel free to murder and steal? Is your faith alone all that keeps you from partaking in that behavior? If so, pray on, brother, and don't ever leave the church."
Damn well said, good on you.
Actually he not a hypocrit in the eyes of God or man unless he is professing to be a Christian. He would simply be a sinner.
2. I have a friend who is separated and doesn't live with anyone else. Hates abortion. Believes in God. Goes to church fequently. Very conservative - tends to think Bush is a little bit too liberal. He is self-employed as a handyman. But he has a drinking problem. Tends to drink to excess after a day of work to the point that his wife couldn't take it anymore and left. He is both constitutional and scriptural, but does not find living to be easy. He is not a hypocrite, but he does have a problem.
Actually he is not scriptural and would likely be considered a hypocrite with his alcohol issues if he is not seeking to adress them. See Ephesians 5:18
3. My mother is a Christian but is also a union-type democrat. She hates homosexuality - and this is scriptural and is still Constitutional. But she hates guns - she believes that they are against what God wants (I disagree with her on this), and her view is anti-Constitutional. In this regard (anti-gun), she finds it easy to live scripturally, but not constitutionally.
She may have a different interpretation of the 2nd amendment, as there is no mention of the word guns, but in the same breath, we would not want each other having dirty bombs, but the amendment says we have the right to bear arms. A dirty bomb is an arm.
My question is those who are social conseravtives (not those like your mother who btw may be a very fine woman)who walk and talk the consitutional life, but can't live the scriptural life.
I presume he is using it the same way most of us do, as a reference to the subset of fundamentalist Christians who bring discredit upon their faith by being obnoxious blowhards and/or demanding government support for their preferences.
It's like the difference between "Trekkie" (an annoying little munchkin in ill-fitting Spock ears) and "Trekker" (a normal Star Trek fan).
250 tops. And then it was mainly a few short intense periods, sort of like the later European Witch Hunts.
The core of the Reagan revolution was lower taxes, stronger defense, and opposition to Communism.
Social Con and religious issues really weren't the center of the Reagan revolution.
There are many religious liberals...if your definition of religious is someone that actually practices their faith in attending services, etc..
You statement above would make more sense (to me) if you inserted the word such as "rabidly" before religious.
As far as the original question, the Religious Right finds a home in the conservative GOP because it is the party of personal responsibility and a defender of the phrase "UNDER GOD" which was commonly used by our founding fathers. Since the LEFT wants "god" out of government, it's easy to see why the "believers" gravitate to the GOP.
Do a find in forum on him/her. This is a trend. I do not expect this person to return to the thread.
His last three threads were just like this.
Er, no. The universal moral precepts (e.g. thou shalt not murder or steal) are almost entirely matters of state law under the Constitutional system. The precepts specific to the followers of the Abrahamic faiths (e.g. thou shalt not worship other gods or make graven images) are specifically removed from civil law by the Constitution.
The idea of Christian Fundamentalism first emerged as a movement in the 19th century within various Protestant bodies, who reacted against the rising tide of evolutionary theories and modernist Biblical criticism. From a Bible conference of Conservative Protestants meeting in Niagara in 1895, a statement was issued containing what came to be known as the five points of fundamentalism: The verbal inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, a substitutionary theory of the atonement, and the physical resurrection and bodily return of Christ.¹ In the first half of the 20th century, most Protestant churches in the U.S. were divided into either Fundamentalist or Modernist groups. The term has generally been applied to all those who adhere to strict, conservative (Protestant) orthodoxy in the matter of Biblical inspiration.
http://www.victorious.org/chur21.htm
"Do a find in forum on him/her."
I did before I made my post.
However, being a genuine religious fanatic (thank you ladies and gentlemen, thank you!) I don't go by the denotation of the word but its connotation. I came out of an apocalyptic chr*stian Fundamentalist worldview that wasn't interested in "conserving western civilization" in the least (since Satan was the ruler of this evil world and it could never be made less than totally depraved) but in its overthrow by the eschatological Kingdom of G-d on earth (which "palaeos" and atheists insist is the true origin of Marxism anyway).
Now while I know longer subscribe to my original theological worldview I continue to maintain that the True G-d deserves and demands the acknowledgement of every being, regardless of "culture" or "civilization," so these things are ultimately unimportant. It is the duty of every human being to cut through whatever "culture" he was born with to connect with the One Objective Unmediated and Unincarnate G-d of Israel.
The "palaeos" and atheists can have "western civilization." Give me the Rebuilt Holy Temple!
Yes.
Do you think this is a person who is trying to cause dissension across FR?
The real question is
"if atheists were in control would they allow Christians to practice their faith?"
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.