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?
Most but not all....
Conservative is a political term, NOT a religious one.
In my family, there just as many religious liberals (my Catholic side but not all of them are like that) and religious conservatives (mainly my wife's family, they are mostly pentecostal)
Very close to the mark that Ostrich Boy missed by a universe, I think. :-)
Acts 4:32, as Ostrich boy seems to interpret it, would render several of the Ten Commandments rather unnecessary. There is no need to steal, because you're merely taking what is already yours. There's no need to take a wife, you merely share company with your neighbor's wife, since she's obviously yours to enjoy. No need to covet anything at all, for it is, according to Ostrich Boy, yours to enjoy as a member of the Christian community.
But all that ignores Jesus' words with respect to the law: "Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commandments will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-19)
If one is a Christian how does he not "legislate without injecting his religion". ?
All US citizens, officials & legislators are bound by oath to support the US Constitution, our supreme law. -- One of which says legislators shall make no laws respecting religious establishments.
Can a Christian serve two masters?
If he can't swear an oath to support & defend the Constitution, I'd guess not.
I'll relate something the US tried to do some time ago. Before the Iraqis wrote their constitution, George Bush send US sent envoys to Iraq to convince the people who were creating eh constitution to leave out their RELIGION.
We urged them to write a document that was moral, fair and just but to leave out religious things like burkas for instance.
As I understand it, you could never be one of George Bush's envoys because you cannot understand the oremise of leaving out religion.
Oops, proofreading.
I'll relate something the US tried to do some time ago. Before the Iraqis wrote their constitution, George Bush sent US envoys to Iraq to convince the people who were creating their constitution to leave out their RELIGION.
We urged them to write a document that was moral, fair and just but to leave out religious things like burkas for instance.
As I understand it, you could never be one of George Bush's envoys because you cannot understand the premise of leaving out religion.
You expect that a Christian would be able to ignore the morals taught by Christ that he should obey and use another standard by which to measure. What standard might that be ? Would a Christian still be a Christian if he did not measure his descions by Christ's teaching?
I am still waiting for an answer to my original question which was "If one is a Christian how does he not "legislate without injecting his religion". or "How do you propose a Christian can separate his moral understanding from his Christian identity?"
Answering either one would be okay.
As to your question which changed the subject, there is a distinct difference between removing religion from a document and removing it from a man. The latter cannot remove it without denying himself. In the case of a Christian who believes that Christ is within him you believe that he can somehow remove Christ from his decisions. Again, please explain how that can be done?
I answered it at the beginning of 354.
I don't want blue laws, I don't want laws forbidding me to eat meat on Fridays.
You can legislate without injecting religion.
At one time I was an atheist, and I was still a conservative. Finding God, or his finding me, changed very little, politically speaking. If anything, I became more compassionate, so depending upon who you ask, more liberal.
354 contradicts itself and you still refuse to answer. I take it you cannot.
You don't want blue laws. By what standard do you want legislation to be measured by ? And why would you require a Christian to drop his moral standards for yours if your's are opposed to Christ's?
So you do empathise with the Islamists!
If one is a Christian how does he not "legislate without injecting his religion". ?
All US citizens, officials & legislators are bound by oath to support the US Constitution, our supreme law. -- One of which says legislators shall make no laws respecting religious establishments.
- Therefore a Christian would legislate according to our Constitution, -- without injecting his religion into laws. -- Just as many do.
You expect that a Christian would be able to ignore the morals taught by Christ
Not at all. But your religious morals & the legislation of laws could not infringe on the rights of your peers.
that he should obey and use another standard by which to measure. What standard might that be ?
Our US Constitutions 'standard'.
Would a Christian still be a Christian if he did not measure his descions by Christ's teaching?
Measure as you like, - but legislate by our supreme law..
Did I answer your question?
Most religions preach the importance of humility as a virtue. What sort of humility are you demonstrating by presuming to welcome others into a movement they may well have helped form long before you came on the scene? How dare you stand in judgment of how "good" a conservative someone else is?
Religion would be a lot more palatable if more religious people took the notion of humility and their own human fallibility more seriously
No, they're STATISTS, like most "social" conservatives are, deep down."
Social conservatives who do not understand economics, free enterprise, the Constitution...indeed the entire concept of liberty, are often, statists. You are right.
I reiterate only what Reagan often said. Conservatism is not about fiscal or social. It is one movement. It is by its very nature anti-authoritarian. It is not precisely libertarian, either. Nor is it just virulent anti-communism and aggressive foreign policy (most of those guys have evolved into statists also).
Conservatism is the preservation of our historic liberties, through the time-proven institutions such as constitutional government, the family, civil society, and yes, churches. We oppose most expansions of government power, but we also oppose government re-defining the institutions that make civilization possible (such as marriage).
(And just for good measure, conservatism damn sure isn't big government Republicanism!!!)
I take it you have no answer to the question which means your posisition is not realistic
I take that you do agree with the Islamists.
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.