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?
I am curious about what makes one start a vanity thread and not respond to any comments?
And of course the Western Empire didn't go down the tubes till AFTER it became Christian (Gibbon asserts it was in part BECAUSE it went Christian, but Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is one of those books everyone has heard of but few have actually read).
Always cracks me up when Social Cons bring up the decline of Rome when they're riding a hobby horse about some moral issue, unaware that it was when Rome was pagan and decadent it was growing in power, and the collapse was after Christianity.
Gibbon also debunks a lot of exaggeration of the persecution of Christians under pagan Rome as well, and notes most Christians were killed by other Christians during that time.
"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."
The Reagan revolution unquestionably included a commitment to cultural conservatism. He was the first President to publish a book in office, and his book was about life. He started the Mexico City policy. He routinely spoke to the NARB and other religious organizations. In fact, I would argue that without religious and cultural conservatives, Reagan would not have been elected.
Of course you could say that about several groups that made up his efforts: Wall Street, small business, Reagan democrats, post-Wallace populists, anti-communists, and evangelicals helped put this great man into office. Each piece is crucial. No candidate since him has been able to hold the entire coalition together. Which is why he was a revolutionary GOP leader. As he often said, there is not a fiscally conservative party and a morall conservative one, but, rather, one movement and that is a conservative one, through and through.
Now...all that said...let me quickly add that the embrace of the GOP and this President in particular of unlimited government disgusts me beyond belief. And the idea that this President can still have evangelical support by giving us lip service on key issues and a little piety sickens me. The end product of that way of thinking was the Harriett Miers nomination, which was profoundly un-conservative.
What we need is a new generation of conservative leaders, committed to the principles of Reagan through and through, not selectively. Only then will the GOP once again be the truly conservative party...and I believe a continually victorious party.
Incidentally, I remember reading either an article or a book full of essays on this topic a few years back. William F Buckley wrote one of them, and his conclusion was that obviously an atheist can "be a conservative," but someone antagonistic to the great, civilizing religions of the west or generally to the Judeo-Christian tradition cannot claim to be a conservative. I would add that you can't hate Christianity and be a conservative any more than you can hate capitalism, or high culture, or literacy, or morality itself and be a conservative.
"Well, if I don't believe in atheists, I can't really say if they can be genuine conservatives or not. And I really don't believe there is such thing as an atheist. I believe humans are all born with a spiritual component that causes us to seek God. Of course we can deny that we believe in God or some higher power, but I believe every human has a spiritual nature."
OK. It's all right not to believe in atheists. You're mistaken, but that's your right. I am an atheist. I exist, and I disbelieve in all supernatural entities. You may be mistaking the human ability to think about things beyond their experience for a "spiritual nature." I can easily think about things beyone my experience, since my experience, like that of all humans, is limited.
It's just that, instead of supernatural entities, I see the universe and all that it contains to be a natural phenomenon. That does not prevent my mind from exploring that universe...even those parts of it I cannot experience directly.
Deities aren't part of that, except as an interesting human belief. That I can think about, since human thinking is a matter of considerable interest to me.
There are, indeed, atheists. Their existence does not depend in any way on your belief in their existence. Your belief in my atheism is a matter of unconcern.
I haven't read all 183 previous responses to this thread so this idea may have already been stated:
Christianity has strong elements of socialism in it. The big question in my atheist mind is:
Can a true Christian be a true conservative?
For the record, I believe the answer is yes and I am on record all over FR as being against the anti-Christian jihad run by the left in the US today. I also believe that Christianity led to the development of science and democracy and that Christianity is a strong force for good in America.
I also believe that the greatest evils in history have been perpetrated by avowed atheists (Stalin, Hitler, Mao).
But in answer to the thread question, I feel obligated to turn the question around, because of what I see as inherent socialism in Christian doctrine.
For the most part, they don't even appear to practice it - they practice a socially restrictive form of Communitarianism.
Why is the fall of Rome a bad thing? Big Government, High taxation socialist government based on an economy of commune farms worked by slave labor.
I don't see that the thread limited the discussion to the Republican platform. Conservatives aren't exclusively Republican. Why shouldn't homosexuals and short middle aged blonde women have special rights? Why is one person's opinion more valuable than anothers?
Why is stealing immoral? You said It just requires the ability to use reason and logic.. If a thief believes that if he want something he ought to be able to have it. His "logic" is the justification for what he does. Why is another person's opinion more valuable or correct than that of the thief?
Logic is different things to different people. There have been several murderers who killed because it was sexually gratifying for them. That was their logic. Who are we to tell them it's wrong?Again, what makes one person's opinion more valuable than anothers?
I won't find out tomorrow that there is no God. I just talked with Him this morning and He isn't planning on going anywhere.
Only a false and self-righteous Christian would even think of denying entrance to anyone else...go back read the teachings of your savior.
The liberals try to "be good" by encouraging the government to spend someone else's money on "good" things. Plus, they are inveterate liars.
It's people like you that keep good people away from Conservatism. I'm ashamed this post is still up and running.
David Praeger gave the best explanation of that I ever heard: he pointed out that if people aren't religious, they don't believe in nothing; the human spirit needs something bigger than itself to believe in. The largest, most authoritive entity that "atheists" can believe in is government.
Liberals end up putting so much stock in government, it becomes an infallible, all-important "God" to them.
Persons who are religious believe in something greater than governments. Thus, it's easier to for them to step away from government, find it fallible and distrust it.
At first, David's observation seems like hyperbole but the more I've thought about it, the more dead-on it seems to me.
He WAS socially conservative, but that wasn't his main focus. Same with me. I am a social conservative, libertarian on some issues. I'm more like Reagan than anyone else.
I have a modest proposal for vanity threads. If the original poster doesn't participate in the discussion - pull the thread.
Years ago, I might have said no.
But Freeper MineralMan is proof the answer is yes.
For one, I don't think homosexuals should be discrimated against. They do NOT deserve special laws or special status however.
I did begin my post with "IF"...
my post 189 might be of interest. I don't have time for any further posting right now.
tata
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.