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?
You have an interesting posting history...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?id=102820
I just wonder why you keep trying to start debates/fights around religion...
I didn't ask that avowed atheists care what I believe but I think deep down inside everyone knows there is a spiritual component to human beings. Whether or not they admit it is up to them.
Of course it will be logical. The word you are looking for is "true". It will not be truth. Truth exists apart from logic and reason.
What is wrong with the post? I find it interesting.
Thanks, Paula.
There is no rational basis for believing in a supernatural being whether that being be called God, Allah or Zeus; having said that, politics is the public life that subsumes the private life and in society image is always important.
The notion of an atheist community is no more rational than that of organized anarchy since neither requires adherence to a written dogma or ritual practice.
The true conservative is simply unwilling to abandon what history has shown to be workable while the zealot is determined to change the entire world for his own pleasure.
At this current juncture, so much has already been compromised that I'm not sure what we have left to conserve.
Maybe I'll just let Zeus sort it out.
On what basis do you see Christianity as being socialistic?
The answer is yes and even a moderate yes from many leading traditional conservatives.
In the Politics of Prudence, the last book of essays published by Russell Kirk, where he outlines ten conservative principles, he lists the first conservative Principle as "Belief in an Enduring Moral Order", one for man and one for the state. This is a direct rewording of his often stated form of using Transcendant Moral Order and appears to be a clear acknowledgement that despite the long debate with the so-called "fusionists" in the end the positive recognition is made that those outside the circle of belief can hold morals in a manner consistant with conservatism and seperate from the rationalists of the left.
Likewise, in the same book, he makes a defence of Irving Kristol and denotes the common bond of "old Whig"ish thinking held by Hayek, Kristol and himself.
On FreeRepublic, over the years as well, common ground for common Principles have often been found. This endures outside the inter-site battles and bans and fosters a respect that debate can't erase.
>>I believe Conservatism has nothing to do with religion and exists separate and apart. That's why people like Pat Robertson are so annoying.<<
I disagree. Self-government is not possible among a group of people who do not have any moral/ethical belief system. If a group of people without a core system of values and beliefs are given freedom, anarchy and chaos will result.
To exercise the rights given under the constitution responsibly, there must be value systems that regulate behavior, in order to make a free society have order.
OR around conservative vs. liberal issues for that matter.
Yeah, it appears our friend is a sh*t-stirrer.
The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.
Religion is not the only value system. My morals and ethics probably overlap yours to a very high degree. That your system is grounded in faith and mine is not makes no difference. I am pro-life, I am anti-tax, I think cheating is wrong, I am a committed husband and father, I don't swear in front of children, etc. I don't derive these morals from a faith in god but from an application of reason.
I wouldn't either
God Bless you my friend and I am praying for you and yours
"It is my belief that although we are united in conservatism, Christians would not willing trust atheists to rule over them. Therefore they will not receive majority support from Christians in the republican party and if they did get majority support the Christians would leave the republican party."
Well, given the fact that atheists make up no more than 5% of the population (probably closer to 2%), I don't see any reason for you to fear that atheists will ever have any sort of dominant political position in this country.
{{{Pharmboy}}} :-)
Reagan was a healer, a balm for the self-inflicted wounds we made sore from licking in those embarrassing post-Vietnam years; somehow he got us off our butts and back on our feet, and for eight, short years, he made us proud to be Americans.
But we're trying to save the bridge, not all the water that has long since passed underneath.
On what basis do you see Christianity as being socialistic?Start by reading Ayn Rand. There's a lot more, but she's a place to start.
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.