(Vanity) Can An Atheist Be a Genuine Conservative?

Comtedemaistre

[rhombus]

Legislatures are not empowered to legislate in areas that the Constitution(s) do not enumerate. That they do restrict people's rights doesn't mean they are being Constitutional doing so.

Agreed they restrict people's rights and they do this with power's granted them under the Constition (or should be - that's why we have a Judicial branch - to make sure legislatures and exuctives follow the rules as laid out in constitutions)

Most of them are rights. The point is, if the Constitution doesn't specify a power to legislate in an area, where does the legislature get the power to do so?

The federal or state constitution which is an agreement between the people and the government.

Instead of looking for individual rights, we should be looking for enumerated government powers, and legislating only within those powers.

I agree in general, however I do think the 13th amendment was necessary to make sure that rights weren't denied based on race because so many insisted slavery was a natural right because it wasn't specifically prohibited or granted.

[Buzwardo]

Does it count if I gave religion up for Lent?

[Katya]

I've found that many so-called religious republicans, want the government involved in controlling just as many things as the democrats...they're just different things.

To answer your question, I can't see why atheism, agnosticism or any type of belief system outside of left wing socialism would be incompatible with republican ideology.

[Racehorse]

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.

Cool.

This might come as a surprise to others, as it did to me:

The U.S. Congress officially recognized the Noahide Laws in legislation which was passed by both houses. Congress and the President of the United States, George Bush, indicated in Public Law 102-14, 102nd Congress, that the United States of America was founded upon the Seven Universal Laws of Noah, and that these Laws have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization. They also acknowledged that the Seven Laws of Noah are the foundation upon which civilization stands and that recent weakening of these principles threaten the fabric of civilized society, and that justified preoccupation in educating the Citizens of the United States of America and future generations is needed. For this purpose, this Public Law designated March 26, 1991 as Education Day, U.S.A.

Comments Concerning the Noachide Law, the Mosaic Law, Judaism and Christianity

And indeed, Congress did:

Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;

Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws . . .

Public Law 102-14

So much to learn (or remember).  So little time.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Agreed they restrict people's rights and they do this with power's granted them under the Constition (or should be - that's why we have a Judicial branch - to make sure legislatures and exuctives follow the rules as laid out in constitutions)"

As long as these powers are enumerated, I have no problem. I do understand that sometimes rights conflict, or that powers are not always clear.

'The point is, if the Constitution doesn't specify a power to legislate in an area, where does the legislature get the power to do so?' (me)

---

"The federal or state constitution which is an agreement between the people and the government." (you)

But I was saying if the federal or state constitutions don't specify a government power, where does the legislature get the power?

"I agree in general, however I do think the 13th amendment was necessary to make sure that rights weren't denied based on race because so many insisted slavery was a natural right because it wasn't specifically prohibited or granted."

I agree, reluctantly, that certain rights are necessarily enumerated. We have become far too ready to only see our rights though as being what the Constitution says, and letting the Government assume powers that the Constitution does not grant.

[BunnySlippers]

If you have no solution then is the only solution to eliminate religious folks from leadership roles?

I'm not surprised you have so much wrong. First off, I am a Roman Catholic. I still practise my faith.

No one suggested (and definately not me) that we should "eliminate religious folks from leadership roles". I believe government based on morality and values ... not one religion over another.

But perhaps you're one of the Freepers that doesn't like Catholics.

[rhombus]

I agree, reluctantly, that certain rights are necessarily enumerated. We have become far too ready to only see our rights though as being what the Constitution says, and letting the Government assume powers that the Constitution does not grant.

Well I think the founders saw Government "of the people". Therefore a republic containing of a constitutionally defined and elected legislature would represent and exercise the rights reserved to the people. And the power of this branch (which is the closest to the people) would be checked by a Constitution that reserved specific rights about which Congress could "make no laws". Unfortunately Government has drawn very distant from "the people" as we now have professional full-time legislators who are distinctly different from the people. Were we to have the people voting on everything and reserving all rights to themselves alone, we wouldn't have a republic.

[Raycpa]

As a catholic I ask again

How do you propose a Christian can separate his moral understanding from his Christian identity?

[don asmussen]

All other rights are reserved to the States are they not?

No.. -- All other rights are reserved to the people.

I don't see a disagreement here, sorry.

You claimed; - "All other rights are reserved to the States are they not?"..
-- I disagreed and told you why.
No need to be sorry for your honesty.

[Clemenza]

If being a conservative means defending the constitution and/or protecting traditionalists from having alien values shoved down their throats, then I would say yes, us non-religious could be and should be welcomed into the movement.

However, if you believe that being a conservative means drinking the Jesus juice and believing in "intelligent design" then folks like myself are without a movement.

[samtheman]

The early church practised communal property. Augustine and Turtullian preached self-abnegation, self-denial, and self-renunciation in terms that were later mimicked by secular socialists in the modern age.

In the Middle Ages, the church ruled a society in which commerce, trade, prices were all highly regulated, in a system that could be described as draconian control of economic activity. It was a church-enforced socialist system, with barons and feudal lords taking the exact same role as commissars later took under non-Christian versions of the same sorts of practices. The medieval guilds were the strictest form of unionism and control of labor practises.

During this time lending money was evil, interest rates were evil, and the Christian Ethic was deeply tied to all sorts of rules and regulations of what is good economics and what is bad. The German Kings routinely used these rules to cheat the Jews --- who because they couldn't own land ended up lending money, and thus became the villains of the age, all according to Christian doctrine.

Feudalism was an institutionalized form of crude socialism, where the bosses preached that your lot in life was God's will and the Christian ethic was one of bare subsistence living and servitude to the greater good.

The Medieval Fairs, which were a liberalization of economics, ran counter to church doctrine.

[mlc9852]

Oh, I was thinking about what the Bible teaches.

[samtheman]

Remember, I'm not trying to argue against Christianity. I basically support Christianity. I want to see the 10 commandments in court houses and nativity scenes in the public square. I'm just turning the thread question around and saying that it's just as valid to ask it the other way.

[BunnySlippers]

No one is asking that you separate your moral understanding from your Christian identity.

I suspect that we may not be as far apart as our exchanges would suggest. I find the Jerry Falwells and the Pat Robertsons (and others) to be offensive in the extreme. You may not ... but when one hears a protracted discussion about how one cannot legislate without injecting their RELGION (notice I did not say their morals) into the equation, then I can understand why some would be afraid that the Republican party would give too much credence to the so-called religious right.

You can be moral and have good values without being apart of organized religion.

[Raycpa]

You say this

No one is asking that you separate your moral understanding from your Christian identity.

Then you contradict with this

but when one hears a protracted discussion about how one cannot legislate without injecting their RELGION

I am confused about your statements. If one is a Christian how does he not "legislate without injecting his religion". ?

Can a Christian serve two masters?

[Oztrich Boy]

On what basis do you see Christianity as being socialistic?

Acts 4:32

[bert]

in politics, being a Christian is irrelevant. It just plain doesn't matter.

[mlc9852]

I don't believe they meant the government took it from them and there is no indication they sold their property against their will.

Christians, I would assume, are free to sell their property to help others if they so desire.

Further, the Bible says that if a man won't work, than neither shall he eat.

[hosepipe]

Are big government republicans conservatives?..
If so, what is it that they want to conserve?..