This is one dumb vanity.
That is the most idiotic thing I've heard since Chocolate Nagin and Plantation Hillary.
As long as they believe that Creationism is a legitimate scientific theory that must be taught in every high school along with chemistry and physics.
After all, God gave advice to people on how to live to be prosperous, healthy, and happy, and to spread that prosperity to those less fortunate.
Marital fidelity, raising children, and honesty in all dealings, all help make for a better life.
Although those values (and more) are in alignment with a religious life, that is because the instructions God gave for living well work, regardless of the individual's beliefs.
It would be foolish in my estimation to exclude those who believe as we do in all things but religion, for those here who hold God dear do not believe exactly the same things in a religious sense, either.
an atheist can be a conservative, but a hater of Christianity cannot be a conservative...so...only atheists who are tolerant in the best sense of the word.
that said, i think this category of conservative is quite small.
From what I have seen, part of the libertarian "faith" is to hate Christians with their social marxist brothern. One can be economically conservative and socially radical leftist. That is what i see among atheist libertarians.
To me, this an ignorant combination. A morally educated and dedicated society is necessary for self governance; the governance the libertarians want. But they advocate amorality and attack anyone who asserts moral principal and this is the social condition that leads to socialism.
Yes, as long as they believe in Intelligent Design. And so long as they don't watch "Everybody Loves Raymond." A preference for Linux over MS helps, though Mac use is acceptable also.
But aside from that, there's no pedigree required over here at FR. We have a wide range of people here, and I'd say that as a group, we have a greater tendency to treat with respect people of religion than the DUers.
Hence, there's a greater tendency among religious people (primarily those who self-identify as Christians) to post arguments consistent with religious teachings, and they are generally treated with more respect than is to be expected from the left.
But when it comes right down to it, it's not about a politico-religious pedigree - we have a two-party political system here, and you vote red or blue.
I'd never ask somebody else what religion they are, it doesn't matter to me. If they agree with me on most salient points, I figure we're on the same side.
Yes, you can be an atheist and a good conservative-but you can't call yourself both religious and liberal and expect to be taken seriously.
Are you a troll just trying to be provocative?
Of course. The only relevant difference I can think of is that atheists obviously cannot regard human rights as God-given, but I presume many of them have some other philosophical rationale for respecting them.
Really?
Should atheists be welcomed into the conservative movement? Do atheists make good conservatives?
Are you frigging kidding me? You can't really be serious. If I didn't know better, I'd say this is troll speak. As the captain of my ship used to say incredulously as a new helmsman tried to run the ship ashore, "GTFOH!"
Of course, if you are an atheist what exactly endows us with inalienable rights?
I'm not religious, though I'm not an atheist, and I am staunchly conservative with libertarian tendencies. I sympathize with those who are religious, and I understand why they believe as they do even if they do not share their faith. I was built differently, built to question everything endlessly.
If you view the culture wars as being primarily big government vs small govt, then libertarians, who would include atheists, are the only real conservatives. They believe in freedom, consistent with the rule of law.
Actually, the attitudes of "religious conservatives" toward freedom are very similar to those of liberals. The differ only in their specific priorities. Both groups are autocratic when it comes to issues that are important to them. For example, liberals when it comes to gun control, forcing us to dispose of our property as they see fit or inventing phony "rights" for favored groups. Religious conservatives are more likely to ban baseball on Sundays or get into peoples bed rooms.
Both groups are all for civil liberties when the things they might compromise things are not important to them, e.g. liberals with national defense and conservatives with school busing.
Of course. Silly question.
You can't base public policy on religion and emotion.
One need not be religious to hold Judeo-Christian values and to acknowledge the importance of those values, even if they don't necessarily believe in the source of those values.