My impression is that most of those people are Libertarian, which as you know is not the same thing as Conservative. They see themselves (I gather) as the "children of the Enlightenment"; many are very liberal on social issues (gay rights, abortion, infanticide, "death with dignity," etc., etc.).
And of course, a big part of the conventional Enlightenment schtick is the denigration of God and religious experience as illusionary. They prefer the model of a "clockwork universe" that has no need of God. When you suggest to these people that the federal Constitution has roots in Judeo-Christianity, they absolutely, vociferously deny it.
Still, I miss a whole lot of those people: They were great fun to argue with.
Thank you so much, Kevmo, for plugging our book! In all likelihood, it would not have been possible to write it without the "source material" that our dear departed Evo friends unstintingly provided on a daily basis when they were still here....
M: ...An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't! ...
The Argument Sketch
It’s the lack of moral base that keeps me from calling myself libertarian. Abortion and homosexuality are wrong. I don’t see that legalizing drugs and prostitution are positive things. But boy I sure would love to see the federal government go under the surgeon’s knife and get rid welfare, the Dept of education, and the IRS.