Occasionally we get emails like this:
Up until now I thought I was the rarest of all ducks. A conservative atheist. I read Heather MacDonald’s piece in the Wall Street Journal today and was pleased to find I am not alone. I would love to know more about the organization.
Yours truly,
[name omitted]
One of the reasons that I participate in Secular Right is to simply explicitly demonstrate that Leftism or even libertarianism is not a necessary consequence of irreligiosity. Many people’s views emerge out of socialization and their peer groups, not through a consistent set of inferences from axioms.
When Secular Right first started some emails from individuals active in atheist organizations trickled in, the main question being how to make these organizations more politically inclusive. My main advice was simply not to assume that those who lack religion are uniform in their political views. As a matter of practicality most of the irreligious in Western nations have Leftish politics, and so self-consciously secular organizations or movements will reflect that. That is realistic. A secular conservative is conditioned to being in a minority. There’s no need for special treatment, simply an acknowledgement of existence and validity of the viewpoint. On the one hand we have to deal with religious conservatives who assert that by definition conservatism is connected with religion, while on the other hand there are secular liberals who simply can not understand how those without god might adhere to a conservative position. One might refute our existence through logic, but the empirical realities of the world tend to produce people who lay outside of the clean systems produced by theoreticians. That fact is one of the primary reasons that I am on the Right and not the Left, though I will admit to being troubled by a trend toward a lack of realism in politics in general of late.
Good point. Try being a college professor/novelist/non-fiction book and article writer/secular conservative if you want to be in a REAL minority. I’d love to host a cocktail party for people like me. For all the space I’d need, I could probably hold it in my front hall coat closet.
One of the reasons I have never joined any groups is because my ideologies are so apparently opposed.
As a small c conservative, I find many so-called secular humanists are Marxists. Sorry folks, but exchanging one sacred text (bible) for another (das kapital) is not an improvement. And I hate to say it, but the efforts of secular communism have far outstripped the meager efforts of big magic daddy in the sky religion.
That said, I am also leary of religious types, which seem to dominate the ‘right’, whatever that seems to mean. Again, collectivism for big daddy in the sky and ;conformity for Christ’ is no better than the we all are one touchy-feely hippie crap.
The way it works is this: all human interaction is economics and science studies reality (which is the stuff that keeps existing even when you stop believing in it)
Razib,
“On the one hand we have to deal with religious conservatives who assert that by definition conservatism is connected with religion”
One problem is that people are very unclear about what they mean about ‘right’ and ‘conservative.’ For example, ‘conservative’ can mean something very case specific — ie conserving European traditions. Or it can mean something very general — promoting a slow rate of change from that past. Likewise, ‘right’ can mean something very specific — ie defending the interests of the French Nobility. Or it can mean something very general — promoting and defending groups/societal interests.
I imagine one prominent case-neutral reason for the secular conservative connection is that both secular and religious conservatives have a rather grounded (or astrally fixed) theory of human nature. Accordingly, both have a sense of what is natural, where natural for one translates as empirical and and for the other as metaphysical. Both see progressives and leftism floating amiss in the clouds, like Aristophanes’ Socrates.
Personally, I focus on the case specific ones. In my view, it’s the rather illiberal Christian European norms, the bottom up social controls, which allow for democratic and capitalistic liberties; and the deconstruction of them for the sake of liberal liberties, just necessitates less efficient top down controls. So I have a stake in defending them. That and
unapologetically protective of my ethnos.
Regardless, maybe you could describe why you are on the right and why you are a conservative –or why you don’t support leftism and/or progressiveness.
It was all very simple and logical, to me. I started by dedicating myself to seeking Truth, as best I could, and wherever it led. So my first resting place was realism/pessimism ( thanks mainly to Spinoza, Schopenhauer, and Darwin ). Seeing that the ‘perfection of Man’ was a fool’s errand, my political views became necessarily conservative, rather than liberal.
And of course there is no evidence whatsoever of a deity, hence atheism seems in order.
So in pursuit of Truth, I became a pessimistic conservative atheist. And (yet), I am a very content, happy, compassionate person. So go figure.
Agreed, I really think that the far-left lean that a lot of atheists and atheist organizations have is the reason I am so against the need for atheist organizations. The idea that you have to be on the loony left fringes if you reject religion is absurd to the highest degree, yet it’s something that we see far too often, both in portrayals from the religious right and from some of the outspoken kook leftist atheists out there. They act like the only people who hold conservative values must be the religious fundamentalists and anyone who can lay claim to non-belief must, by definition, be far left of center.
Atheism, in and of itself, says nothing whatsoever about political beliefs. You can hold any position and still be an atheist and it’s time those of us who don’t hold to the leftist standard stood up and demanded to be heard.
I’d go a step further and say that I am actually surprised that more if not most atheists aren’t also conservative. As I said above, the same pursuit of “truth no matter where it goes” seems to lead one to both places. At least it did, me. I see a conservative as someone who is unwilling to change the status quo, unless there is good evidence that it should change. Evidence, that is, against the status quo and for an alternative. And since we are all born into a certain place and time, it’s not unreasonable to take provisionally that the status quo we find then was also put there by the same standards we would require in order to change it. In any case, we can/should re-verify it and then continue on, ‘evidence’ being the guide.
If that is indeed close to a working idea of what a conservative is, then taking religion, we can re-verify status quo, look for evidence, and finding none, declare for atheism.
A liberal can only remain so by ignoring the evidence of liberal policy failure. You have to believe in the IDEA of your policies, despite lack of evidence of their success. This is precisely the same attitude that continued religious belief requires.
Looked at that way, liberalism and belief in god seem more a pair than liberalism and atheism.
It should be obvious that we (on the right) are going to run into a problem in this country. I would refer you to Lakeoff’s progressive leftism: http://lesacred.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized/page/2/ Whether or not he is correct about Obama, he is correct about the possibility: ‘Conservatism’ can turn into a defense of insane Liberal ideas.
A system will always be conservative and right, that’s what keeps it a system. It’s like a person. A person will have a sense of self and be egocentered. Nonetheless, that identity can be inverted. The person can become schizophrenic (Multicultural) and have psychotic (Open Society) — (obviously they can go the opposite way, too); they can be profoundly confused and have boundary issues. And they can be very defensive (conservative) about this. This happened in the USSR, Post Stalin. And I suggest that we might get something like this, if in a much more mild way.
This is why it is important to characterize the right not just as opposing ‘change’ and ‘progress.’ At very least for me, the right means seeing society as an organism, and as masculine. Think about it.
In my high school psychology class–or was it sociology(?), I can’t remember–our teacher asked two of my fellow students why one was a liberal and the other was a conservative. They both answered that they were liberal and socialist-leaning or conservative precisely because they were Christians. It seems to me that a conservatism built upon something that can lead to such radically different ends is not much of a foundation for any system of coherent thought.
If conservatism is to have real muscle as a system of thought, from which policy and solutions to the problems we encounter flow, it must have a solid foundation. If that foundation is Christianity, my observation tells me that it’s feet are firmly planted in the clouds and its head firmly planted up its arse.
One big difference is that the atheist/agnostic left is willing to accommodate the religious left (Commies for Christ, as we call them), whereas the religious right is not only unwilling to accommodate the secular right, but considers them liberals. Elitist liberals.
One big difference is that the atheist/agnostic left is willing to accommodate the religious left (Commies for Christ, as we call them), whereas the religious right is not only unwilling to accommodate the secular right, but considers them liberals. Elitist liberals.
i think this is because of numbers.
@David Hume
Thanks for the citation. Unless I’m misreading the charts, though, it seems as if the number of Protestants affiliating with the Republican party has dropped since 1990, and the religious right seems to be made up predominantly of fundamentalist Protestants. So perhaps they’re smaller in number, but much more vocal now? Or they’ve affiliated with the Constitution Party, or whatever nascent third party they hope Sarah Palin will lead?
To many readers here conservativism means almost nothing more than free-market capitalism. That being the case, being “conservative” is the most rational policy preference for the capitalistically-capable atheist.
What IS unique is a conservative viewpoint that appreciates religion, traditional family values, patriotism and local social organizations dedicated to improving the lot of the less fortunate – such as is run and has always been run by churches, mosques and synagogues. This form of conservativism when coupled with agnosticism or atheism is interesting – and I believe it’s one that Razib, Heather, Derb and I share (in its generalities if not in every detail). The “conservativism” of laissez faire economics (what Americans strangely call Libertariansim or Anarchism much to the confusion of foreigners and historians) however is almost ALWAYS driven by atheism, even if some of those atheists and agnostics cynically claim to be weeping and wailing Bible thumping servants of the Lord.
mnuez
and the religious right seems to be made up predominantly of fundamentalist Protestants. So perhaps they’re smaller in number, but much more vocal now?
yes. i think this is fair. the % of republicans who are fundamentalist has been increasing. though modestly.
@David Hume
Do you think they have enough clout or numbers to control the conservative/Republican future? These are people who, though they claim to be fiscal and foreign policy conservatives, appear to be far more concerned with ending abortion and gay marriage.
@Susan
well, they’re control is increasing. but the main issue seems to be that business conservatives are still determinative at the elite levels.
Yes, but…if the religious right makes good on its threat not to vote, or not to vote unless the candidate is Palin or a Palin clone, that could throw the election to the Democrats.
An interesting illustration is the current Coakley-Brown senate race in Massachusetts. Some of the religious right won’t support him because he isn’t anti-abortion. Brown probably won’t win, but he could use all the help he can get. And some of that help is being withheld because of hs laissez-faire stance on abortion.
If you look at any human organization or institution, you will find that there lies a core group of select individuals that derive greater benefit from that organization than all others. Furthermore, you will note that this observation is true for ALL and ANY human organization or institution that currently exists or has existed in the past. In other words, human organizations exist to benefit the core group that comprise the organization over all other intents and purposes. This is sometimes referred to as Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy.
I have come to the conclusion that all religion, philosophy, and ideology are nothing more than sophistry that is created by the core group of any human organization simply to justify the continued benefit of that core group. There is no underlying reality to these worldviews at all. Everything is just a power game. It is quite silly to pretend or to believe otherwise.
@kurt9
“I have come to the conclusion that all religion, philosophy, and ideology are nothing more than sophistry that is created by the core group of any human organization simply to justify the continued benefit of that core group. It is quite silly to pretend or to believe otherwise.”
No it isn’t. It’s more like: ‘religion, philosophy, and ideology’ comprise systems of values/ideas which help organize individuals into systems. In virtually every system, there will be “select individuals that derive greater benefit from that organization than all others.” This is the price of having organizations. Additionally, arguments based on the authority of ‘religion, philosophy, and ideology’ can also be used as a means to retain/ accumulate unwarranted power.
It’s the difference between saying Auto shops just exist to rip people off and saying most mechanics will rip people off if they can. It’s an important difference: When people think the first, they feel one should shut down/boycott auto shops — when they think the second, they become wary of shifty mechanics and are motivated to self-educate.
OMGosh! I decide to check in and read more about the secular right and find at the top of the page the, “rarest of all ducks” email I sent a few days ago .
I am flattered to be quoted and gratified to have sparked a lively discussion of secular conservatism. I feel I should make an introduction with a bit of background. I live in Wyoming and have spent the past 26 years in law enforcement, most of it working the street as a student of human behavior, and I read, a lot.
I too believe it is unfortunate the conservative movement in this country is dominated by the “religious right”. Much of what is good about conservatism gets lost in the fog of religion. At the same time I think it is important to realize if we strip religon of its dieties and mysticism what we find are moral codes. These moral codes have evolved over the millenia and serve as the source code for the survival of a social species. They are written into our genes and our behavior. It should be of little surpirse that in order for religion to become ubiquitous it would first have to co-opt a fundamental aspect of human nature. So, as conservative I find I have much in common with the religious right. I just have no need for dieties and those who claim to represent them and channel their thoughts.
@Gavin
If you “have no need for deities,” the religious right will tell you you have nothing in common with them, because the whole point, to them, is that you can’t be a conservative without being a God-fearing Christian.
@Susan
You know it occurs to me that although the natural and necessary fit of Christianity/Judaism/Islam (kind of a failure there for Norquist) with conservatism is a religious conservative trope, I don’t recall ever seeing an explicit argument that a specific atheist conservative is not a conservative because of his atheism. An atheist conservative may be deluged with abusive email from offended God-botherers, but isn’t that likely just the response they’d give any atheist? That is, how likely is a religious conservative actually to reject a specific atheist conservative as a political ally? Just anecdotally, the religious conservatives I’ve introduced to Dalrymple have been a little bemused by his atheism but still liked his writing quite a bit.
Ethan, I’m making my judgment on the basis of the rants I’ve read by some fundamentalists on the forums they infest. Admittedly, that is not a balanced sample, probably, of religious right sentiment–but it is indicative, I think, of how the more rabid fundamentalists feel. They do seem genuinely to believe that the basis of all conservative thought is the New Testament, and that true conservatism is impossible without the acceptance of Christ as one’s personal savior. (Of course the religious left will tell you, with the same degree of earnestness, that the New Testament is a socialist action plan, but that’s another issue.)
It’s more like: ‘religion, philosophy, and ideology’ comprise systems of values/ideas which help organize individuals into systems.
Obviously a believer in the sophistry. hook, line, and sinker.
You know, if religion is considered to be so important to humanity, why not start a new religion that appeals to people, but is more conducive to libertarianism, life extension, or anything else that we want but may not be supported by the existing religions? I mean, we have business entrepreneurship and its considered socially acceptable. Why not religious entrepreneurship?
I think the way to think about religion is to consider it a tool. Human organizations and the world-views (philosophy, religion, ideology) are best thought of as tools. We create the tools that help us get what we want. I think it silly to think about these issues any differently.
I see no reason to think of this stuff as anything other than as tools. If I feel that a particular organization or world-view is necessary to get what I want, I can create it myself. I see no reason to join any existing system unless I can find a way to take it over and make it do what I want. This is the problem with existing institutions and memes is that they already have a core group and, if that core group does not want the same things you want, then you have to fight them every step of the way. This is the reason why I prefer to create new memes and organizations rather than to join existing ones.
We have many religious entrepreneurs: The Bakkers and all the other hucksters who showed up on tv begging for money are proof of that. Certainly they were able to create a system that served their needs.
That is, how likely is a religious conservative actually to reject a specific atheist conservative as a political ally?
If Mitt Romney had been a Methodist instead of a Mormon, I think he would have won the GOP nomination. A lot of evangelicals were open about not voting for Romney because they didn’t want the standard bearer of the GOP to be a Mormon. An atheist would have an even tougher time. There are still a lot of people who simply won’t vote for an atheist.
why not start a new religion that appeals to people, but is more conducive to libertarianism
I’d like this, but I don’t see it happening. I tend to think one of the reasons that religion developed was to enforce community solidarity. Since some people tend to be libertarians precisely because we don’t feel much community solidarity, I don’t see a religion starting.
“Let’s everyone get together so we can discuss doing our own thing!”
My particular beef with existing religion is that many of the people involved with it are not supportive of radical life extension and other aspects of transhumanism. Since these are the thing I am interested in, of course I would never join any religion or other organization that is not supportive of my interests. I think it silly (and offensive) for anyone to suggest that I should change my interests and personal objectives in life in order to accomodate religion. I would not be true to myself if I did any such thing.
Perhaps religion is suited for the needs of those who are into it. It is not for me to judge because I am not one of these people. The things that I am interested in are suited for my needs as well. What we can all agree on is that all human association must be voluntary. Coercion is never acceptable in human relations.
@Susan
Using those charts, both the Republicans and Democrats are hemorrhaging religious support at record levels, it isn’t that one group is moving from the Republicans to the Democrats, it’s that it’s vanishing altogether. The only group that was rising in either party was the “nones”. That’s consistent with the recent Gallup poll results that show non-religious support in this country is going up quickly while people who claim to be religious are losing ground.
That’s certainly a good thing, but over the past few decades, the Republican party has catered to the ultra-right fundamentalists, I don’t see where people like us, who don’t accept religion, are really the focus of the party at all. Besides, we know that the modern Republican party is run by religious Southern Democrats who switched sides back in the 60s and 70s over such issues as civil rights and abortion. It’s no surprise that there’s not much difference between the core fiscal platforms of the Republicans and Democrats, the only real difference is where the money comes from.
@Cephus
The ultra-right fundamentalists don’t feel that they’ve been sufficiently catered to, not by a long shot. They’ve tasted power, I think, and they like it. And they aim to control the choice of candidates as well as the discourse. They do see themselves as the only true conservatives and the only true Americans.
The ultra-right fundamentalists are psychopaths who should be locked up in padded rooms.
@kurt9
I’m beginning to think there aren’t enough padded rooms.
Susan, I have above 130 IQ, am technically oriented, and am a transhumanist to boot. It is insulting to suggest that Christianity is of any value to me, whatsoever.
Religion is the opiate of the masses…
here, have a hit, soothe that pain in your brain….
it goes over better delivered in that smooth smarmy Mr. Rogers voice that ministers talk at you with if they think they have a prospect.
Religion is also big business. Lots of loot for parasites that spend all their time with their nose in other people’s business – and all too often something else in other people’s pants.
THIS is why the religionists are pro-life! They need unhappy people whose brains hurt real bad. How better to get them than a lot of dysfunctional and ruined families – the bipolar bitches who get knocked up every time they go manic, the wives pregnant from an affair who have a bastard and get divorced, the high school kids fucking around to figure out who they are and what kind of partner they like who end up having to get married when all they have in common is hormones.
These people are somewhat fodder for the religionists’ need for donors, but their kids, their kids are REALLY fucked in the head. LOOOOOOTS of pain they need to make STOP! Very good prospects indeed!
The business of religion is to make sure as many unwanted babies as possible come into the world, to ensure the maximum theoretically possible number of people get totally fucked in the head, so that the pastors and bishops can continue to live in luxury! And get a lot of nookie on the side, too – that’s easier to get from people whose heads are messed up. Probably one of the reasons you don’t know swingers, you’re too sane. Why would some witch crazy enough to pull a train at Club Sesso think twice about putting out for a priest? And then later when her tits droop too much for her to get whatever she wants out of guys just by fucking, her brain will fill with pain and she’ll be a loyal churchgoer!
As long as she gets knocked up along the way so she can perpetuate the cycle, it is GOOD BUSINESS for churches!
The most fucked in the head (regular) church I know is Catholic. No wonder they oppose abortion, birth control AND sex ed!
@kurt9
Really? Kind of funny to see an atheist preaching to the choir, all the more so because you’ve mistaken a bunch of episcopalians for pentacostals.
@kurt9
I didn’t.
Ethan and Susan,
I must apologize for my ranting and raving of late. I agree with you in that I have high regard for episcopalians. I consider them to be the best of the Christians. I also have fairly high regard for the Mormons as well. I consider the pentacostals as well as the RC’s to be, lets just say, quite irrational.
My expression of anger has been inappropriate. However, I feel that my anger is justified.
My angry attitude was kicked off some time ago when some Christian right person (I think I read it here in this blog) bemoaned the “lack of support” for Christianity-based philosophy on the part of modern American types such as myself. I later found out this guy came from “FirstThings”, a far right Christian blog. I replied to him there that the reason why a few of us may not be interested in his religion is because individuals of his religion have expressed hostile attitudes towards radical life extension and the development of biotechnological cure for aging, something that I am very passionate about (this is the most passionate issue in my life). Admittedly, there are not many people who share my passion (we are growing in numbers) but that it beside the point.
Instead of recognizing my complaint as legitimate and accepting that his religion may not be appropriate for someone of my passions and interests, he attacked my passion for life extension and went on and on about how radical life extension is “wrong” and why I should not be into it. I told him that such an attitude will only alienate me and make me not want to have anything to do with his religion. That unless he changed his attitude towards my chose passions in life, he can never expect any support from me for anything that he believes in. He and some of the others in the blog got all upset with me for saying this.
I recognize that my passions and world-views are different than those of most others and that many others may not identify with them at all. That is fine and I accept that. If what I want is incompatible with a particular religious belief, then the people of that religious belief need to accept the fact that their religious belief does not work for me, that we agree to disagree, and we all go our separate ways. This is the proper way for emotionally mature adults to resolve disputes.
However, when some arrogant prick insists that I am “wrong” with pursuing what I am very passionate about and that I should, instead, join their religion, I think all of you would agree that such rhetoric is offensive and is unacceptable behavior from mature adults. I have had a tendency to lash out at religious people on the net as a result of this encounter. I accept that some of my behavior may be unacceptable as well and I apologize for it if I offended anyone. However, I felt it was relevant to tell you of the justifiable basis for my anger, even if my expression of it has been inappropriate.
@kurt9
No offense taken, at least not on my part. By upbringing and temperament, I’m indifferent to religion, and disposed toward non-belief in a deity. I know intelligent people who believe in God, though happily they don’t proselytize, and that’s their business. It becomes my business when someone’s religious beliefs entail flying large planes into larger buildings, or when a fairly sizable segment of the population threatens to withhold its vote for a perfectly acceptable conservative candidate simply because he or she isn’t a Bible-thumper.
As for your observations about Catholics…it’s been my observation, at least here in the northeast, that most Catholics don’t allow whatever their beliefs may be about abortion and gay marriage to prevent them from voting for the most liberal Democrat on the ticket. (Of course, they vote for tribal rather than ideological reasons.) It’s Protestant fundamentalists who won’t go to the polls for a fiscal and foreign policy conservative whom they perceive to be “squishy” on abortion or gay rights.
@Susan
Of course they don’t and they won’t until we live in a Christian theocracy that makes a lot of what goes on in the Middle East look socially advanced. The religious right would love to eliminate all religions, including most Christians who don’t follow into their particularly narrow interpretation of the bible, and force every American to bow down to their religious preferences. As far as they are concerned, this is a Christian nation and anyone who isn’t their brand of Christian shouldn’t be here at all.
@Cephus
Certainly anyone who isn’t their brand of Christian isn’t a conservative–and isn’t a “real” American, either. In a way I kind of blame Patrick Buchanan (ironically a devout Roman Catholic whom, I feel sure, doesn’t deep down like anyone who isn’t a co-religionist) for kicking this off with his whole “peasants with pitchforks” shtick. The notion that people who literate, cultivated, and have tastes that go beyond Nascar and moose-hunting are all closet liberals is very attractive to Protestant fundamentalists.
I’m also amused by the way that the fundies have retrofit the Founding Fathers as fundies.
It is well recognized by historians that the founding fathers were all deists. It is also well known that Franklin talked about the possibility of physical immortality. He was all for it.
Susan,
You are correct that the Catholics of New England vote for the liberal-left candidates such as Tip O’neill, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry.
I actually agree with Pat Buchanan on certain issues (e.g. foreign policy). Despite my well-known hostility towards religion (in these blogs), I would have no problem voting for a candidate like Mick Huckabee if he were as economically “conservative” as Ron Paul. What is not well known is that Ron Paul is actually as much of a social conservative as Mike Huckabee (yes, he is even a creationist!). Nevertheless, I was 100% behind him during the “Ron Paul Revolution” days. You see, I do get along with people I do not necessarily agree with on every particular issue. I think many libertarian types like myself would support social conservative candidates if they were economically “conservative” as well. This is something the social conservatives should keep in mind.
The rejection of Mitt Romney by the social conservatives absolutely disgusted me. Talking about family values, Mitt Romney walks the walk. He has been married to the same lady for over 40 years and has had 6 kids. As far as anyone can determine, he has never cheated on his wife and he appears to be genuinely happy with his family lifestyle (this is one of the reasons why I have a lot of respect for Mormons, many husbands and wives actually appear to be happy with each other). It is very clear that the social conservative rhetoric about family values is a smoke screen, they are really the theological party of the U.S. I call them the American version of the Taliban. Their rejection of Romney made it clear to me that they are really and truly assholes (and I really think this is the appropriate word to describe them with).
The Mormons are a functional people. Many successful entrepreneurs (such as the founder of Novell and JetBlue) are Mormons. The Mormon religion, unlike the psychopathy of RC and Pentecostals, promotes a strong education and work ethic. Mormon families that I have known personally seem to be truly happy and the kids seem to be psychologically healthy.
Salt Lake City is one of the most desirable cities to live in the U.S. I think the Mormons are a tribute to American society.
Additionally, I well bet all of you donuts to dollars that the average IQ of the Mormons is significantly higher than that of the RC’s, Pentecostals, and Baptists. I will also tell you that their mean life expectancy is around 85-90 as well. This is because they actually practice healthy living and take care of themselves. I think I have a fair bit of respect for the Mormons, considering that I am the militant atheist and transhumanist that I am.
You see, I’m not a complete prick. I do respect people who are worthy of respect even if I do not agree with them and they do not agree with me.
To me, one of the ways I differ from liberal atheists is in my lack of hostility toward religion. While I admit to my bemusement, and object to over attempts by the religious to proclaim that I *must* agree with them/support their positions based on religious appeals, ultimately, I don’t have any objection to their belief, as it affects me not.
That said, you would probably find that laissez-faire attitude toward religion from many liberal atheists– at least on paper– in practice, it’s still a power game for them. It’s not enough for the religious to exist in their own little sphere of life, they MUST be subjugated, and denied any place at the table of polite society.
Hearing Sarah Palin talk about how important God is to her doesn’t make me think she is a fool. It just means that God is important to her, and her religion informs her worldview. Everyone has a philosophy, they should be judged by their adherence to that philosophy.
I do not believe in God, but I believe in the good that has been done in the name of God (just as I abhor the evil done in his– His?– name as well). I had a Catholic upbringing that I’m ever thankful for. I love wishing people a Merry Christmas, and I still appreciate the solemnity of Easter. As a conservative, I respect the role that ritual and tradition has in strengthening a society, and I’d hate to lose those traditions even if I personally don’t believe that there’s any rational reason for their existence.
Liberal atheists, however, appear dedicate to throwing babies out with the bathwater, as if Western religions are the worst things to ever happen to humanity in 2010 (ummm, look East, my friends, look East).
Good people are good people, who am I to deny them what they feel makes them good?
Dave, What you say about the liberal atheists is certainly true. They are not only as rigidly dogmatic as any religious fundamentalist, they are as obsessed with having power over everyone else as well. It seems to me that both the liberal-left and the Christian right represent the intolerant extremes that lie at each end of the political spectrum. The live and let live types are the people are truly tolerant and just want to be left alone to mind their own business. These are the truly moral people of the world.
I will accept Christianity when it recognizes the following non-negotiable three points:
1) Individuals are moral autonomous agents. Morally is nothing more than contractual relationships between such autonomous agents.
2) Individual have the right to morphological freedom. That is, we have the right to develop whatever biotechnologies necessary to cure aging and to increase our IQs, or to modify our bodies to live in environments that are current inhospitable (i.e. underwater, outer space, other planets).
3) There is no “master plan” or “god’s plan”. Individuals have the right to live for whatever personal dreams and goals they set before themselves and choose to pursue. The notion of any kind of “master plan” is just fascist barbarism, plain and simple. Purpose and meaning are self-created by free individuals who pursue whatever dreams and goals they set before them.
Until Christianity recognizes and embraces these three points, it cannot be regarded as the defender of individual liberty and anyone who claims otherwise is full of it.
I will never, ever have anything to do with any religion, ideology, or philosophy that refuses to recognize these three points. Furthermore, I consider it highly offensive for someone to suggest that any such think, or agent thereof (e.g. “god”) has any jurisdiction, whatsoever, over my life and my right to live it.
Kurt9, I’m a fan of yours but your most recent comment here comes off as true Randian nuttery. You’ll “accept” Christianity when it supports your allowing a man to die of hunger before your eyes without you having any moral demand hovering above you to toss him a few of your excess crumbs? Well I’ll accept Christianity when it allows me to offer child sacrifices to Molech.
And this is the problem with your thinking on Romney and the Christian right to. My LORD did you go wild-eyed ranty on them in this thread. Heck, it looked like you just couldn’t stop. Well, let me help you with that.
As a social conservative (agnostic, by the way) I was very excited at the prospect of Romney’s candidacy and looked forward to possibly supporting him. But BY JESUS AND MORONI did the guy fuck up. He came across as a cruel Randian (like you) who would rather let the poor die than tax people to feed them. Why in Christ’s name would that resonate with Appalachian Christians? These guys are Republican by default. Their “free market” allegiance is an accident based on the fact that Republicans learnt to say the wordas, “And I believe in Je-Sus!” These guys have no natural hankering for free markets like you do. Why in hell then should they rally behind Guy Smiley who didn’t have a soft word to say to them? Huckabee was anidiot and he pulled his policies out of his ass but he made noises of a Semon-on-the-mount sort while Romney sounded just like you. What’s there for a Christian Rightest to support?
Mnuez,
I agree with your point about charity. But its irrelevant to my arguments. My three points in my previous post are with regards to my right to pursue my personal dreams and goals in life free from the interference of institutional authority (providing I do not cause harm to others), especially with regards to radical life extension and self-enhancement. I think you will agree this position is tangential to your argument about charity.
I have problems with Romney as well. However, he was far better qualified than any of the other candidates that the GOP put up for the ’08 election (McCain is really a democrat). The religious right did not reject Romney for the reasons that you cite. They rejected him specifically and exclusively because he is a Mormon, regardless of the fact that he talks and lives 100% the pro-family values that they proclaim to believe in. This makes the religious right utterly contemptible in my book. I think had the religious right backed him, I think Romney may well have been elected in the general election.
Kurt9, my sole point here is that while it’s certainly imaginable that fundamentalist Christians might not back Romney because he wears magical underpants and thinks that God is a dude with a dick living on the planet Kolob, you do not have any major evidence for that based on the fact that they did not come out en force for him. He was, very simply, a horrifically bad candidate for their interests. He had nothing to offer them at all.
Now, had Mitt Romney been a candidate of the sort that they normally would rally around but this time did not then you would have some evidence of their bias against him based on his Mormon beliefs. But, again, he was no such thing.
Mitt decided to run as an aristocratic member of the plutocracy whose sole concern is the interests of the wealthy. It’s sad that this is how he choose to run but it’s also a fact which is why social conservatives like myself, who were damn excited about the prospect of Mitt running came to revile him and agree with the editorial that recommended that Republicans choose “Anybody but Romney”.
Can I imagine Christian fundamentalists rejecting a candidate in their own image simply because he’s Mormon? Sure, I can imagine that. But all of your weeping, wailing, flailing of hands and gnashing of teeth here against the Christian Right for having rejected a candidate that YOU liked but they would naturally NOT take to makes no sense at all.
The Christian Right is not composed of free-market fundamentalists like you and therefore did not share the hard-on that you had for Mr. Romney and would not have liked him even had he have been a life-long member of the Southern Baptist Church and acted in the cold-blooded heartless manner that he acted.
So feel free to condemn the Religious Right for whatever you feel like condemning them for (first and foremost for not being heartless Randians I suppose) but your evidence of their wholesale sellout of their ideal candidate because he wasn’t a Protestant is wholly lacking. Romney was as desirable to the majority of these guys as Lieberman. Huckabee came across as a softee with a soul and was their natural candidate even were he a Catholic or a Jew.
Again – these guys are laissez-faire free marketers entirely by accident, not because of any deep-rooted passion for social darwinism.
“He was, very simply, a horrifically bad candidate for their interests. He had nothing to offer them at all.”
Mnuez,
How can you say such a thing? Not only has Romney supported all of the pro-family values that the social conservatives believe in, he actually has practiced them (been married to the same woman for 40 years, has 6 kids in what appears to be a perfectly functional traditional family). He also fought gay marriage in MA tooth and nail. When it was obvious the legalization of gay marriage was inevitable, he managed to come up with a creative use of a very old, obscure law to make sure that out of state gays could not get married in MA. How can this not be supportive of the social conservative position? Your comment does not make any sense at all.
Why would social conservatives be opposed to free-market economics? The republican party is a “big tent” party that consists primarily of free-market advocates (like myself) and social conservatives. As long as a free market candidate supports the social conservative position on all of the pro-family and other social issues (which Romney did), strategically speaking, there is no reason for them not to support him.
Most social conservatives are generally pro-free market because they tend to be hostile towards government regulation, something they see as a “liberal” thing. They are either cautiously pro-free market, or they simply do not think about the issue at all. I have never heard of a social conservative being in favor of all of the government regulation in the marketplace that the liberal-left is known for. As far as I can tell, it is simply not in their DNA to favor this sort of thing.
You are trying to convince me that social conservatives will reject a pro-free market candidate even if he believes in all of the pro-family social conservative values and, instead, support a candidate that is more “left” on economic issues, even if he is less supportive of the conservative position on social issues. This does not make any sense at all to me and there is no evidence this was the case with Romney. Indeed, there is no evidence that the social conservatives rejected Romney for the reasons that you cited. None what so ever. No mention of such reasons were ever cited in the legacy media, nor anywhere on the internet during the campaign. There WAS a lot of talk, both in the legacy media and on the internet, about the social conservatives rejecting Romney because of his Mormonism.
I’m afraid your arguments do not make much sense.
Since we are on the subject of the social conservatives, I read the following article about how married people tend to gain weight and get out of shape more than those who stay single.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/health/05weight.html?em
This seems relevant to the issue of social conservatives because they always like to claim that married people live healthier and longer than singles and that marriage is good for health. If married people tend to be more overweight than singles, would this not put the kabash on this particular argument for marriage?
“Romney because he wears magical underpants and thinks that God is a dude with a dick living on the planet Kolob.”
The Mormons may have irrational beliefs, but one can say the same thing about conventional Christianity as well. Say, virgins getting pregnant, humans claiming to be the son of god, other humans claiming that they created inland seas by waving their arms, or the Earth being created in 7 days 6,000 years ago. All religions are equally irrational. No one religion has the monopoly on irrational thoughts.
“Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.”
Robert A Heinlein