Posted on 02/26/2014 3:05:25 PM PST by Notary Sojac
Yesterday, in response to one of the many brouhahas that CPAC seems always to invite, Brent Bozell issued the following statement:
The invitation extended by the ACU, Al Cardenas and CPAC to American Atheists to have a booth is more than an attack on conservative principles. It is an attack on God Himself. American Atheists is an organization devoted to the hatred of God. How on earth could CPAC, or the ACU and its board of directors, and Al Cardenas condone such an atrocity?
The particular merits of the American Atheists group to one side, this is a rather astounding thing for Bozell to have said. In just 63 words, he confuses disbelief in God for “hatred” for God — a mistake that not only begs the question but is inherently absurd (one cannot very well hate what one does not believe is there); he condemns an entire conference on the basis of one participant — not a good look for a struggling movement, I’m afraid; and, most alarmingly perhaps, he insinuates that one cannot simultaneously be a conservative and an atheist. I reject this idea — and with force.
If atheism and conservatism are incompatible, then I am not a conservative. And nor, I am given to understand, are George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Anthony Daniels, Walter Olson, Heather Mac Donald, James Taranto, Allahpundit, or S. E. Cupp. There is no getting around this — no splitting the difference: I don’t believe there is a God. It’s not that I’m “not sure” or that I haven’t ever bothered to think about it; it’s that I actively think there isn’t a God — much as I think there are no fairies or unicorns or elves. The degree to which I’m confident in this view works on a scale, certainly: I’m much surer, for example, that the claims of particular religions are untrue and that there is no power intervening in the affairs of man than I am that there was no prime mover of any sort. But, when it comes down to it, I don’t believe in any of those propositions. Am I to be excommunicated from the Right?
One of the problems we have when thinking about atheism in the modern era is that the word has been hijacked and turned into a political position when it is no such thing. The Oxford English Dictionary defines an “atheist” as someone who exhibits “disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.” That’s me right there — and that really is the extent of it. No, I don’t dislike anyone who does believe that there is a God; no, with a few obvious exceptions, I am not angry at the religious; and no, I do not believe the devout to be in any way worse or less intelligent than myself. Insofar as the question inspires irritation in me at all it is largely reserved for the sneering, smarmy, and incomprehensibly self-satisfied New Atheist movement, which has turned the worthwhile writings of some extremely smart people into an organized means by which a cabal of semi-educated twentysomethings might berate the vast majority of the human population and then congratulate one another as to how clever they are. (For some startling examples of this, see Reddit.)
Which is to say that, philosophically speaking, I couldn’t really care less (my friend Andrew Kirell suggests this makes me an “Apatheist”) and practically speaking I am actually pretty warm toward religion — at least as it is practiced in America. True or false, American religion plays a vital and welcome role in civil society, has provided a number of indispensable insights into the human condition, acts as a remarkably effective and necessary check on the ambitions of government and central social-planners, is worthy of respect and measured inquiry on the Burkean grounds that it has endured for this long and been adopted by so many, and has been instrumental in making the United States what it is today. “To regret religion,” my fellow Brit, conservative, and atheist, Anthony Daniels, writes correctly, “is to regret our civilization and its monuments, its achievements, and its legacy.” I do not regret our civilization, its monuments, its achievements, and its legacy. And I do not regret religion either.
Constitutionally and legally, America is a secular state, and the principle that the government should be strictly prohibited from making distinctions between myself (an atheist) and my fiancée (a Catholic) is one for which I would fight to the death. (David Barton and his brazen historical revisionism can go hang: This is a republic, dammit.) But nations are not made by laws alone. Suppose we were to run two simulations. In one, America develops full of mostly Protestant Christians; in the other, it develops full of atheists or Communists or devotees of Spinoza. Are we honestly to believe that the country would have come out the same in each case? Of course not. For all the mistakes that are made in religion’s name, I am familiar enough with the various attempts to run societies on allegedly “modern” grounds to worry that the latter options would have been much less pretty indeed.
None of this, however, excuses the manner in which conservatives often treat atheists such as myself. George H. W. Bush, who was more usually reticent on such topics, is reported to have said that he didn’t “know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic.” “This,” Bush allegedly told Robert I. Sherman, “is one nation under God.” Whether Bush ever uttered these words or not, this sentiment has been expressed by others elsewhere. It is a significant mistake. What “this nation” is, in fact, is one nation under the Constitution — a document that precedes the “under God” reference in the Gettysburg Address by more than seven decades and the inclusion of the phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance by 165 years. (“In God We Trust,” too, was a modern addition, replacing “E Pluribus Unum” as the national motto in 1956 after 174 years.)
Indeed, given the troubled waters into which American religious liberty has of late been pushed, it strikes me that conservatives ought to be courting atheists — not shunning them. I will happily take to the barricades for religious conscience rights, not least because my own security as a heretic is bound up with that of those who differ from me, and because a truly free country seeks to leave alone as many people as possible — however eccentric I might find their views or they might find mine. In my experience at least, it is Progressivism and not conservatism that is eternally hostile to variation and to individual belief, and, while we are constantly told that the opposite is the case, it is those who pride themselves on being secular who seem more likely and more keen to abridge my liberties than those who pride themselves on being religious. That I do not share the convictions of the religious by no means implies that I wish for the state to reach into their lives. Nevertheless, religious conservatives will find themselves without many friends if they allow figures such as Mr. Bozell to shoo away the few atheists who are sympathetic to their broader cause.
As it happens, not only do I reject the claim that the two positions are antagonistic, but I’d venture that much of what informs my atheism informs my conservatism also. I am possessed of a latent skepticism of pretty much everything, a hostility toward the notion that one should believe things because they are a nice idea, a fear of holistic philosophies, a dislike of authority and of dogma, a strong belief in the Enlightenment as interpreted and experienced by the British and not the French, and a rather tenacious refusal to join groups. Occasionally, I’m asked why I “believe there is no God,” which is a reasonable question in a vacuum but which nonetheless rather seems to invert the traditional order of things. After all, that’s not typically how we make our inquiries on the right, is it? Instead, we ask what evidence there is that something is true. Think, perhaps, of how we approach new gun-control measures and inevitably bristle at the question, “Why don’t you want to do this?”
A great deal of the friction between atheists and conservatives seems to derive from a reasonable question. “If you don’t consider that human beings are entitled to ‘God given’ liberties,” I am often asked, “don’t you believe that the unalienable rights that you spend your days defending are merely the product of ancient legal accidents or of the one-time whims of transient majorities?” Well, no, not really. As far as I can see, the American settlement can thrive perfectly well within my worldview. God or no God, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence are all built upon centuries of English law, human experience, and British and European philosophy, and the natural law case for them stands nicely on its own. Thomas Jefferson, who penned the Declaration, was not a religious man in any broad sense but a Deist, and his use of the term “Nature’s God” in laying out the framework for the new country was no accident. Jefferson was by no means an “atheist” — at least not in any modern sense: He believed in the moral teachings of Jesus; his work owed a great debt to the culture of toleration that English Protestantism had fostered; and, like almost all 18th-century thinkers, he believed in a prime mover. Nevertheless, he ultimately rejected the truth claims of revealed religion (and the Divine Right of Kings that he believed such a position inevitably yielded) and he relied instead on a “Creator” who looked like the God of Deism and not of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
As David J. Voelker has convincingly argued, Jefferson
rejected revealed religion because revealed religion suggests a violation of the laws of nature. For revelation or any miracle to occur, the laws of nature would necessarily be broken. Jefferson did not accept this violation of natural laws. He attributed to God only such qualities as reason suggested.
“Of the nature of this being,” Jefferson wrote to John Adams in 1817, “we know nothing.” Neither do I. Indeed, I do not believe that there is a “being” at all. And yet one can reasonably easily take Jefferson’s example and, without having to have an answer as to what created the world, merely rely upon the same sources as he did — upon Locke and Newton and Cicero and Bacon and, ultimately, upon one’s own human reason. From this, one can argue that the properties of the universe suggest self-ownership, that this self-ownership yields certain rights that should be held to be unalienable, and that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. After all, that’s what we’re all fighting for. Right?
Just being a devils advocate, but I’ll bite -
” why fight for “gun rights” if such things are a completely artificial construct?”
Its not an artificial construct, necessarily. Take an argument from tradition. By its nature its an organic undesigned thing (see Burke). It just grew and persisted from human generation to human generation, mutating slowly. Humans create traditions like ants build nests. Humans fight for traditions - Macaulays “Ashes of their fathers”. One can go in a different direction with the other takes on the question, all different and all mostly internally consistent.
On clothes -
Some human societies have gone naked if it seemed reasonable. Ancient Greece for instance, where (male) nudity was normal. And there are plenty of primitive or semi-primitive examples, the classic National Geographic excuse for nude pictures. My list of justifications stands - we are social animals and social norms are organic.
On the week -
This was not universal. It has become a (nearly) universal convention only because of the influence of the Western Christian and Muslim societies went global. China in ancient times had either a 5-day or a 10-day “week”, the Aztecs had a 13-day week, etc. There have been all sorts of variations, some of which still exist.
As for good and evil, you will have to look for a better man than I am to argue the other side ! Still, I don’t doubt some clever atheistic apologist could answer you lengthily if not convincingly.
“I would submit that biology is very unlikely the only force driving sentient beings capable of abstract thought.”
Well, yes, I think thats certainly true. Still, a clever atheist would find reasons to deny this. Such as, for instance, that we may be fooling ourselves as to how little we are driven by our biological natures. We are more animalistic than we think, etc.
Conservative thought and atheism are not compatible.
Godlessness leads to rejecting GOD GIVEN INALIENABLE RIGHTS.
Rights that are inherent in humanity that are given by God as the founders stated.
Atheism denies what the founders stated and believed.
Conservative thought seeks to preserve what the founders created and intended.
VERY WELL SAID!
The atheist won’t kill you for not agreeing with them.
Not for not being an atheist, but for not being a communist, or the “right kind” of communist.
No. christ to mohammed? Certainly.
Are you suggesting killing is immoral?
No, killing is sometimes necessary when somebody deprives another human of life, property or pursuit of happiness.
Are you itching for a zot too? At least notary was somewhat a decent atheist. You are embarrassing yourself. But then, you always are embarrassing.
You really don’t understand religion or conservatism.
The Christians that created America wanted small government, the less the better, the Christians would take care of the rest, the atheists and liberals, and anti-Christians want government to run everything.
Jesus spoke to us to take care of our neighbors as individuals, to reveal what is inside of us individually, not to do the opposite, and turn that over to government workers and the tax system, the government isn’t a “brother’s keeper”, that is why it is anti-God, and anti-Christian.
Capitalism is seen as the most moral of economic systems, you seem to see it as immoral, and socialism as moral, while you probably like capitalism yourself, in general, atheists are only interested in short term gain, so they vote democrat to loot what they can today, and to live as they want, for today, with no concern of the future, welfare doesn’t help the poor, it destroys them, but it serves as a power and wealth base for the left while at the same time, pushing out Christian charity.
You sound young, or as though you come from a liberal background.
>> Constitutionally and legally, America is a secular state
Judas kiss.
Knock yourself out and bite me.
You just don't like honest, reasonable folks with a command of the language.
Do you realize that proper nouns are capitalized?
5.56mm
"Humanist" would an apropos attribution. I don't think anyone would argue that it is impossible for atheists to accommodate to a society based on monotheist principles in accord with a Judeo-Christian ethic (the society we participate in and have legally defined as such). It is in their best interest to do so under penalty of law.
Wow, he is banned.
The troll didn’t like it here anyway. I wish I could find his old pro-abortion post, he had many downplaying it, but once, he laid it out there in the open.
To: Tau Food
Free Republic has self selected over the last few years to a population which represents a fringe of a fringe of a fringe of a fringe.
You are correct that Mitt Romney would not last a day once the harpies and the viking kitties got wind of his presence.
But likewise any candidate who publicly expresses only those opinions which are Received Wisdom here on FR would be lucky to get three percent of the vote in any national election.
622 posted on 6/23/2012 2:06:34 PM by Notary Sojac
Just today some young republicans leader came under fire for saying that tea partiers are senile drooling angry people.
This is actually a very complex set of arguments with a very long history.
There are a lot of historical conservatisms. US conservatism of the present day is its own unique case, differing from much of the rest of the world. Russell Kirk’s “Conservative Mind” is a good place to start. The American uniqueness is the very subject of De Toqueville’s work.
Capitalism in fact was usually considered, in most religious traditions, including most of historical Christianity, as essentially godless and morally compromised.
“Bite me.”
_________________________
Says the man with a command of the language. I hope you DON’T get zotted. Really. Clowns like you are fun to have around.
Thank you, friend.
Wrong. Communism’s atheists have killed millions for not agreeing with them.
LOL, yeah right/s
[ Just today some young republicans leader came under fire for saying that tea partiers are senile drooling angry people. ]
“senile drooling angry people” isn’t that a good description of Angry RINO John McCain?
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.