Are Atheism and Secularism at odds with being conservative?

[Bollwerk]

I've been reading Liberty and Tyranny, but I'm only on chapter 4. However, I did take issue with some of Mark's thoughts in chapter 3 regarding faith, etc.

I'm paraphrasing from memory, so please correct me if I'm inaccurate here. Mark seems to think that being an atheist or secularist is at odds with being a conservative as well as being at odds with the Declaration.

I wonder if this is just a problem with using the term "conservative" too broadly. I tend to dislike labeling people as liberal or conservative as those labels tend to overshadow the complex mixture of beliefs and views each unique person has. When people self-describe as one or the other, I wonder if they mean based on fiscal views, social or something else.

Although I'm registered as Independent, I identify mostly as a Libertarian. (i.e. fiscally conservative, but socially liberal) As you can probably guess, I'm also an atheist.

Thoughts?

[mlf]

I've been reading Liberty and Tyranny, but I'm only on chapter 4. However, I did take issue with some of Mark's thoughts in chapter 3 regarding faith, etc.

I'm paraphrasing from memory, so please correct me if I'm inaccurate here. Mark seems to think that being an atheist or secularist is at odds with being a conservative as well as being at odds with the Declaration.

I wonder if this is just a problem with using the term "conservative" too broadly. I tend to dislike labeling people as liberal or conservative as those labels tend to overshadow the complex mixture of beliefs and views each unique person has. When people self-describe as one or the other, I wonder if they mean based on fiscal views, social or something else.

Although I'm registered as Independent, I identify mostly as a Libertarian. (i.e. fiscally conservative, but socially liberal) As you can probably guess, I'm also an atheist.

Thoughts?

Well, it would help if you went back to the book and quoted him accurately. But, if he was describing a "Reagan Conservative", then he is right. But, as you know, a Libertarian is typically a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal. You would probably disagree with Mark's political preferences with regard to religion. You should go back and re-read that section. Mark explains his thinking in detail. I think you would at least understand his thinking if you did.

[Cedarstrip]

As an atheist and conservative, I do not personally see any conflict. However, I agree with you that the first chapters of Mark's book argue against that. Its been quite a while since I read it, and it is back in the library so I can't quote any of his arguments. However, I seem to remember that they hinged on the necessity of "natural rights" being God given. Presumably that precludes an atheist from accepting the idea of natural rights.

I believe that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights" are based on values inherently shared by all of humanity. The evidence for that is the natural sense of being wronged when these values are violated. The wording in the Declaration ("granted by their Creator") bothers me not at all. I've never been able to find a better way of stating these self-evident facts.

As for the rest of conservatism; constitutional limits on government power, fiscal responsibility, etc; these are a necessary part of preserving individual liberty. Perhaps you would be interested in a paper I have posted on the web that discusses the evolution of political phlosophies in America since the founding. You can find it at http://cedarstrip.wordpress.com/

[MBethany]

I just made up for a serious omission. Finally, I read Liberty and Tyranny on my Kindle. Better late than never. Now, I hope, I can add to this discussion from a different point of view.

Cedarstrip wrote:

As an atheist and conservative, I do not personally see any conflict. However, I agree with you that the first chapters of Mark's book argue against that

.

As a believer and a conservative, I think it is possible to be a conservative and an atheist at the same time, and I don’t think Mark Levin argues against that. Your conscience is free. I believe this is one of the reasons why the Framers guarded against state religion. However, it is necessary to understand that the Constitution we, as conservatives, love and pledge our loyalty to, was conceived in the general milieu of Protestant Christianity. (I mean by this Bible-based Christianity.) It follows, if we love apples and want to harvest them year by year, we must not cut down the apple tree.

Mark Levin wrote:

An individual may benefit from the moral order and unalienable rights around which society functions while rejecting their Divine origin.

There is a great big difference between a passive non-believer and a militant atheist. Non-believing is a personal state of mind. A militant atheist, however, keenly perceives the social-political implication of the Biblical Worldview, and recognizes it as the mortal enemy of Utopianism. Therefore, it is not possible to be both a militant atheist and Conservative Constitutionalist.

There is only one reason why somebody would want to “prove” publicly that there is no God. It’s because of the social-political consequences of faith in the Creator, and the Creator’s special connection to the human race. The outcome of this belief system is reflected in the Constitution of the United States.

There is no guarantee that every “Christian” will be loyal to the spirit of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote, (with special emphasis) in a letter to Charles Thomson:

I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians…

The Platonist Christians dream of Christian socialism, which is an oxymoron. Plato’s Utopian dream was a “perfect” socialist state under total government domination, and he recognized the prevailing Pagan religion as the most useful tool to control the population. Following this vein, for many centuries, the Platonist Christians joined with the monarchic governments to prevent the formation of a free society.

After printing, the content of the Bible became common knowledge, and reading both of the Old and the New Covenants, Christians discovered the solid Hebraic root of their religion. Through Reformation the Judeo-Christian worldview emerged. The Reformation came about because the doctrines of Jesus are very different from the doctrines of Plato, as Jefferson observed. The people were truly repelled by the contradictory, Hellenistic elements that created the oppressive social conditions in the Middle Ages. Thus, the movement of the Protestants was a social revolution as well as religious reform.

In Ameritopia, Mark Levin writes about Thomas More’s Utopia. This work is s classic example of an imaginary Christian Socialist state. The same time as the Reformers, Thomas More, an ardent Platonist, was also aware of the desperate need for social changes, but his idea of improving the situation was implementing fantastically radical and all pervasive government regulations.

More government, not less. This is Plato’s major influence. We recognize this in our time. Socialist leaders believe that national “goodness” cannot be achieved except by painstaking government intervention. This is totally opposite to the mindset of the founders. They believed that limited government is possible for a moral people. By “moral” they meant, keeping the Judeo-Christian values with the help of God. (That is, rigorous work ethic, self-discipline, and self-reliance.)

[armedandsafe]

Before I even read any other posts (not necassary for my first post) I'm simply going to put in my two cents.
If I were an atheist, why would I care to write anything. It would not suit my purpose, except to show people how great I am (If one is an atheist then what else is there to live for?). Really, I'm not great. I try to be what God intended for me to be. That is the best anyone could hope for, and that is great.
I once called myself an atheist. man who was I kidding. I always knew their was an all knowing God out there. It ended when a couple of hippies from Calvary Chapel prayed with me. One was a big bruley biker with a tear in his eye when we were done.
Almost every persuit of my life now is not shallow. It's deep. how deep. You just need to get to the foundation is all. No need to go deeper than that. Christ is the foundation. You can't improve on perfect.
So if my every thought and desire is to follow Jesus and learn from Him then how can I go wrong? I can't do this, but I'll never stop trying. Jesus does not hand out brownie points. He is with me and that is enough. But back to the foundation.
It is my goal to not waste. Not waste time, effort, thought or anything. God did not create us to idly. I'll allow myself to enjoy the pleasures of Metallica, but I have no time for what they have to sing about. They are talented knuckleheads. This I do net feel interferes with the 'foundation'. What has interfered with the foundation has been that thing that most men have to deal with. Some deal with it and that's it. I wish that was the case with me. If I was an atheist then who cares. we're all just animals right? No, we are vreated in God's image. We consider things that animals don't. Like how we respect our wives. What the heck am I doing if I don't respect and love my wife, or God? That's getting to the heart of the 'foundation'. My conservatism is based on my foundation. In my mind anyones conservatism has got to be based on this foundation, or something like it. What's to stop an atheist from deciding that his decision to leave his wife and party at the Playboy mansion is morally neutral? He can be caulouse about the hurt to his wife as I am about the ant that I drove over on my way to church. And in the mind of a total lib that me very well be just as bad? I can't do that because if I do then all that I am is deaad already, to quote a line from Braveheart. And this brings up a wonderful point to end this. Suppose Mel Gibson had lived up to be the vertuouse man we saw in his role as William Wallace, or the caracter he played in the Patriot? wouldn't all the lines from those movies still mean so much to this day? Sadly he has let himself down. His foundation has been greatly compromised. I myself have coompromised my own foundation and I feel the effect. It produces a great waste of time. Mine and Gods (not that God answeres to time). Not just time but opertunity.
In conclusion I ask. What encourages the atheist to care about any of this? Why should he? What is good and evil to the atheist? This makes me wonder why they bother putting the Darwin fish on their cars. what is it to them that I believe in God? To me it is the fragrance of life, to them it is death. Are they on a crusade to keep me out of heaven. I thought they did not believe in heaven? Why does Bill Mahr care? Look at his foundation. It's pathetic.
Your foundation is you code to live by. It's what drove Jesus to die for us. Paul to share the joy of Jesus to those who would stone him. Mark lavin's foundation is personal freedom, responsability, rights given by natures God, and the persuit of happyness as granted by the U.S. constitution. Far be it from me to claim what Mark would say his foundation is, but I think I'm pretty close. Marks foundation drives him to educate liberals on what they miss by listening to Chris Mathews.
Know thyself

[MBethany]

armedandsafe wrote:

In conclusion I ask. What encourages the atheist to care about any of this? Why should he? What is good and evil to the atheist? This makes me wonder why they bother putting the Darwin fish on their cars. what is it to them that I believe in God? To me it is the fragrance of life, to them it is death. Are they on a crusade to keep me out of heaven. I thought they did not believe in heaven? Why does Bill Mahr care?

This is an interesting question. Why do atheists spend the enormous effort, the time and the money, and the painful emotional outbursts to destroy our faith? Most of them cannot reason calmly. Did you notice how angry and profane they get when they “argue” against Christ? Besides foaming at the mouth, they resort to childish displays, like the Darwin fish. As you say, it is pathetic. Many years ago I heard someone asking, “Why would anybody want to prove there is no God?” It got me thinking. What is in it for them?

At that time I decided to study history systematically from the religious point of view. Soon I noticed that it is impossible to separate religion from politics. Religion and politics are mixed together like oil and vinegar in a salad dressing. But still, the question remains, what makes a militant atheist the political enemy of God?

Here, as you may notice, I distinguish a “militant” atheist from the regular non-believer. There are many out there who are atheists, or think they are, simply because they are not convinced that it is “reasonable” to believe in God. This is not surprising, considering the fact that the schools are teaching that science has already proved that that the world exists without the benefit of the Creator. This is a lie. Darwin and his followers presented an idea that nature MAY have evolved from simple inorganic particles, but they never presented decisive proof that explains all the problems of existence. Young people, of course, believe their teachers because of the reputation of the educational system. Nevertheless, these youngsters are reclaimable, because when they come under the influence of honest Christians, their heart moves. You are the best example of this.

Militant atheists are different. They are left-wing political activists, and they compete with God for power, just as they would campaign against an opponent for political office. Bill Maher is one of them. Bill Maher and his ilk fancy themselves as humanist intellectuals (in spite of their vile temper and vulgar language). They are dedicated to stamp out the Biblical worldview, because they resent the controlling authority of God. Faithful Christians and Jews are their natural enemies.

Since atheists don’t believe in God, they believe in the total controlling power of the State. This explains their loyalty the socialist ideas. They indiscriminately worship their chosen head of the state, because they have nothing else to worship. While Christians try to withdraw from the public arena and act “non-political”; nevertheless, they are constantly in the crosshair of this new type of government, because, in reality, the Bible represents exactly the opposite social-political design to socialism.

There is much to say about this, but I hope this explains in a nutshell “what is in if for them.” God bless you, always!

[Pcolapat]

This is an interesting question. Why do atheists spend the enormous effort, the time and the money, and the painful emotional outbursts to destroy our faith?

Well if you don't believe in eternal afterlife, all you have is the here and now. They must feel that religion gets in their way and obstructs their enjoyment of the limited time they have on this planet before they die and go of into that eternal nothingness. I totally get why atheists feel the way they do. They have adopted a view that is in conflict with 99% of the rest of the world. That must be difficult and frustrating.