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?
What I don't understand is why so many liberals that I know just naively assume that everybody within earshot of them at all times is conservative. I remember after the Bush/Gore election, my manager's manager was loudly pondering to the team, "I just don't get how anyone could be stupid enough to vote for Bush."
Anyway, I kept my mouth shut while about half the team nodded and cooed in agreement. I hate suckups. And liberals. And especially liberal suckups.
So, the only reason atheists aren't in prison is because they have money? No morals or ethics, just money?
Okay.
If you say so.
Exactly!
I am a small govt conservative who while disdainful of abortion don't think it's my place to decide it for a woman who will be the one to live with her own decisions, and who will pass on her experiences, good or bad, to her fellow women.
My tagline says it all. This Govt verges on fascism/socialism and the religious HAVE NOT been the spearhead of smaller Govt, but in fact have promoted in largest part the opposite.
Hayek stated he wasn't a conservative because he thought they accepted almost all the socialist policies of the Marxist left of Govt interventionism. In too many respects, and to the chagrin of many conservatives, W has proved this out.
Islamists have the same problem. Morality and values ... but not your religion.
Implying that most religious types are poor and poorly educated. I wonder if the two are connected..?
The real question is, Can a Vanity Post Be a Genuine FR Thread?
I would disagree with that, also.
With respect to abortion, my view is that it isn't in the Constitution so there is no "right". Likewise for physician assisted suicide, gay marriage, etc. However, if people want to say something about these topics they have every right to legislate for or against it. Likewise if they want something in the Constitution to prevent legislation and reserve a "right", then there is a perscribed way to do that too. It is not up to a judge to hand out rights.
So, much of the question can be answered, "yes," but only if the atheist is also pro-God. Is that possible?
Yes, its possible because being anti-thiest is very different from not believing in a supreme being.
The golden rule applies.. - A rational disbeliever does not oppose the beliefs of others, lest those beliefs oppose him.
Is that supposed to make them feel principled?
If your theory is the case, these feeble reactionary dolts are faux conservatives to begin with, and ethical hypocrites as well.
Every person is "religious" in the sense that they advocate some metaphysical viewpoint. The beliefs that the supernatural does not exist or is irrelevant or that not making a decision on the matter is valid are metaphysical viewpoints as much as are those who hold to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.
I can think of nothing in conservative political philosophy that could prevent an atheist from identifying with that philosophy.
If you define American conservatism as adherence to the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers, along with a free market orientation from either a classical or Austrian economics viewpoint, you are correct. There have been atheists and other non-Christians who have endorsed and defended these ideals. Unfortunately, much of what is called conservatism in modern America is New Deal/Great Society liberalism without the social component that defines and dominates post-1972 liberalism or "law 'n' order" authoritarians who never met an expansion of police powers they did not like. Christian Right advocates like Haley Barbour and Rick Santorum fall into the former category; populist types like Michael Savage and Curtis Sliwa of the Guardian Angels are examples of the latter.
While it may be true that a majority of people who describe themselves as Evangelicals or fundamentalists would also identify as politically conservative, there are exceptions where these same individuals fall on the far left of the political spectrum. (See the Quakers)
Evangelicals and fundamentalists are characterized by a belief in Biblical inerrancy, core orthodox Christian doctrines like the Virgin Birth, original sin, the Substitutionary atonement, and Reformation era distinctives like the so-called solas (the Bible alone, faith alone, Christ alone, grace alone). Fundamentalists are distinguished from evangelicals by doctrines like that of secondary separation (avoidance of all things that Catholics might call near occasions of sin, such as mainstream movies, TV, etc.) and the belief that the redemption offered by Christ is only applicable to the individual, with society in general during the church age still ruled by Satan.
With regard to the Quakers, this denomination places a very strong emphasis on a person's "inner light" (conscience) as a person's ultimate guidance. This stands in clear contradiction to sola Scriptura. Fundamentalists and non-charismatic evangelicals adhere to the use of reason as the main means by which people understand the offer of salvation and other Biblical doctrines. Doctrinally speaking, most Quakers, especially in modern times, are quite heterodox, as are like groups such as the more liberal Mennonites. As for neo-evangelicals such as Tony Campolo, Rick Warren, and Ron Sider who denounce political conservatism, they have become essentially a 21st Century version of the Social Gospel advocates of the last century. They may be orthodox theologically, but they are on the same slippery slope that led the mainline Protestant churches into becoming theologically heterodox and apologists for socialism and secular humanism.
Where you are correct with regard to some evangelicals and fundamentalists not being politically conservative involves the limited government and economic freedom aspects of American conservatism. In the early years of the last century, many of them aligned with the Progressives (mostly liberal Protestants in the Northeast and Upper Midwest) in supporting Prohibition and expansive government regulation. Without the support of the mainly evangelical and fundamentalist "Solid South" for the Democratic Party, the New Deal would not have taken place. This strain still exists in the Christian Right, as evidenced by the widespread support for President Bush's faith based initiatives, tuition subsidies for parochial schools (now as evangelical as Catholic), and Federal authority to overrule states rights on issues such as homosexual marriage and assisted suicide.
I never thought of it that way, but you are right. What I see from that is two things. One is the seeker friendly leaders. The other is the age 35+ folks who have followed in the aboves footsteps, but are much more strident and even less flexible than these elders in the movement. I think you'll see more of the teens-30 somethings following the seeker folkes.
Actually the dilima is two fold. Neither of the sucessor folks are really scriptural. Oh, they've got the words, but they don't have the intent.
I don't have the luxury of knowing exactly what God wants but apparently some do. Whatever, it is, religion may or may not coincide, being man-made and all. Religion and morality are not the same thing. "Thou shalt not" and "I choose not" are not the same, but have the same results. My logic and reasoning indicate that a superior power has a hand in my daily life, but you'll not find me telling my atheist brothers what to believe or where they're going to go if they don't. That's one thing I don't think God would like for me to do. OK, theologians, do your stuff.
How do you propose a Christian can separate his moral understanding from his Christian identity?
My definition of a Conservative is someone who wants to "conserve" the original intent of the Constitution. Part of that Constitituion contains a Bill of Rights which says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". In my interpretation, that is pretty much the extent of what religion has to do with being Conservative.
As I said, Islamists face the very same problem.
Please do not fall into the liberal trap that all our rights are spelled out in the Constitution. Just because something is not enumerated therein does not mean it is not a right reserved to the individual or to the state.
You seem to have settled for less than one.
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.