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?
Let me inform you that you are wrong.
Atheist are common, most just don't find it necessary to proselytize.
I often think that the more the "religious" proselytize, the weaker their faith.
It seems to me that if they were truly certain of their faith they would not be so compelled to attempt to impose it on others.
Of course religion is also an industry, a lucrative and tax exempt one.
So some of the proselytizing is just drumming up business.
What about those who are Conservative simply because the alternative is obvious lunacy?
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.
rhombus:
What they mean is "Congress shall make no laws..."
Nope. -- Congress shall make no laws regarding religion.. All other individual rights are protected from ~any~ type of government infringement.
All other rights are reserved to the States are they not?
No.. -- All other rights are reserved to the people.
- Other powers are reserved to the States, some of which are prohibited by our BoR's, as per the Tenth Amendment:
"-- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. --"
"Atheist are common, most just don't find it necessary to proselytize."
I don't know about that. I find quite a bit here on FR. What do you think would happen if every religious group in America stopped doing any type of charity work? Would the government fill in?
Anecdotal evidence is not sufficient to base claims upon. One needs to methodically survey a portion of the population and extrapolate based on statistical methods. This site pegs those who are "neither spiritual nor religious" at about 10 percent (higher than my estimate, which was based on the number of atheists in prisons, but far lower than yours).
I don't see a disagreement here, sorry.
When someone says,
"Agreed but there is no prohibition against legislating about rights not enumerated in the Constitution."
They seem to believe that rights need to be enumerated before they can be legitimate. It assumes that the government has powers not enumerated in the Constitution, with no explanation for where these powers come from. The Constitution is a document that enumerates the powers of Government; it is not a list of all the rights people have. The founders were very clear on this, if not always consistent in practice.
No they're not. Most atheists don't talk about god(s) much. You're only aware of the loudmouths, because they're the ones making the noise.
Maybe I look at this in the wrong manner, but despite an admitted revival in conservatism and even religion, it is very surface oriented. Thus, I believe before the church focuses on the secular world, it needs to seriously review it's internal structure. It's core and value system has rotted. Frankly, I believe it was from that rotted core that the rise of the late 50's through early 70's counter culture gained much of its footing. It was the beginning of cheap grace.....being polite, that brought on that counter culture and its resultant moral liberalism.
In response to the cultural decay, the Dobson's et al began to rise as a counterweight to turn back the 60's. The tactic was to impose God rather than expose God to the 60's generation. However, because of the overall decay in the traditional mainstream and evangelical churches, the undercurrent of the Jesus movement of the 70's appeared and it's offspring the seeker movement has taken over. Each have moral relativism. The seekers use come as you are and a more open form of relativism. The Dobson movement talks a moral line, likes to impose it's will on the unchurched and unsaved, but ultimately relies on cheap grace to cover it's flanks when sin enters.
I certainly am no advocating imposing a Puritan lifestyle. But I wonder if something similar without all the legalism is closer to what God has in mind for us.
So the people reserve the right to:
Abortion on demand
Homosexual marriage
Group marriage
Bestiality
Unlimited drug use
Theft
Shouting fire in a crowded theater
My point obviously is that "the people" through their elected legislators are NOT prevented by the Constitution from legislating to control, guide and restrict some of these "freedoms".
If you have no solution then is the only solution to eliminate religious folks from leadership roles?
It is thinking like yours which makes Christians nervous about atheists. We can allow your participation but some atheists cannot allow Christians participation.
Yep, atheist/scientific skull-measurers, both of them, but they have their pseudo-theocratic defenders. Many "palaeos" are mere traditionalist utilitarians rather than actual believers.
There is an inherent contradiction between believing that "the earth is not my home" and turning the local Southern Baptist, Nazarene, Bible, PCA, or Assemblies of God church into a center of political activism.
Not if your goal is not so much a heaven of disembodied spirits as a restored Eden or Kingdom of G-d on earth, which Fundamentalism had largely become for a while. However, the more political Fundamentalists have become the less important the "millenium" has become and the more similar to the Constantinian Catholic Church they have become.
Of course I'm a Noachide myself, so I'm waiting for Mashiach to transform the world into a Halakhic Theocracy, so the problems and internal contradictions of various chr*stian groups don't apply to me.
Now you are proving my point by listing restrictions.
"Now you are proving my point by listing restrictions."
Yes, restrictions on the government, not the rights of the people.
Max Eastman, a minister's son, socialist and early supporter of the Soviets, who turned against socialism and Marxism, was a long-time atheist, and resigned from the editorial board of National Review because of incompatibility.
In the early days of National Review there wasn't a problem with unbelievers, but one had to be "pro-God" and "pro-Christian" if not "pro-Catholic." Eastman agreed that the Soviets were an abomination and that socialism wouldn't work, but was too much an atheist to bow to organized religion or even to praise its utility.
Communism or socialism were they big elephants on the political scene in those days and people defined themselves politically in relation to such ideologies. So if you were anti-communist and non-socialist you were more or less acceptable to the conservative movement. Today communism versus anti-communism is a dead issue, and the big elephants are elsewhere. The political landscape has changed so much, that it's not enough for one to be against the Soviets to win acceptance as a conservative.
Any movement probably has its best days when it's in opposition and resistance struggling against a dominant ideology. All manner of people who oppose the powerful, wrong idea join together in a noble struggle against the odds. Win power and you can do things, but you become the dominating force that other people rally against. Rather than a band of romantic misfits and outsiders, you become the establishment and inherits all the advantages and unpleasantnesses that accompany majority status. The old esprit is gone.
You bet there are restrictions on Gov't and they are clearly spelled out in Constitutions. Constitutions also specify the existence of legislatures who put restrictions on people's rights (like it or not and many I do not). Otherwise why are legislatures needed at all - to pass laws? I listed a bunch of outrageous things so you'd see that anyone can claim anything is a civil right. That's how we ened up with judges "discovering" new rights in the Constitution that can't be legislated against. I agree with most of your asssertions about your rights but many do not. My only point is that there is no restriction on Government to legislate about things they aren't specifically prohibited from doing. There is a reason that the founders set up legislatures.
Now there is a loaded question on FR. A lot of folks around here can't even agree on what a Conservative or a Christian is...or course many of them claim to be the embodiment of both.
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.