Religion and Conservatism
·
January 30, 2012 at 1:29am
Is it possible to be hostile toward religious faith and be a Conservative?
Reading William F. Buckley Jr.’s thoughts about Max Eastman leaving National Review (prompted by Eastman’s answering the previous question in the negative), I wondered if this conflict has endured. For instance, Bill Maher, who used to claim Libertarian political leanings, is a contemporary avatar of leftism and militant atheism. On the other hand, I can think of several conservatives who claim no religious affiliation: David Horowitz, John Derbyshire, Anthony Daniels but none who are hypercritical of religion.
I believe this obstacle persists.
- Comment (143)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
Jan '11
Re: Religion and Conservatism
Edmund Burke - founder of conservative thought, scourge of the French Revolution and loyal imperial subject - was for, instance, very sympathetic to the American rebels.
Dec '11
Re: Religion and Conservatism
[Reference to earlier comment by another Member that was deleted.]
No, actually, I'm simply looking at the logical extension of a national ban on abortion.
Since the Federal government has taken it upon itself to forbid citizens to, say, take more than $10,000 in cash abroad without proving the provenance of said cash or to, say, hold men who travel to Thailand or Cambodia in suspicion of being predatory sex tourists, why would it not, under a total ban upon abortion, hold American women suspect under an abortion ban when they go abroad?
As for the level of vitriol, I have three times this week heard pro-life types characterize people who exercise choice as "murderers".
Edited on January 30, 2012 at 5:18amJan '11
Re: Religion and Conservatism
If you accept the biological fact that life begins at conception and that abortion therefore is the termination of a human life then, providing you understand that these same people believe that innocent human life is sacrosanct, it should be no surprise that some people get very upset thinking of the number of abortions that occur.
It might not be constructive but it's understandable.
Dec '11
Re: Religion and Conservatism
If you accept the biological fact that life begins at conception and that abortion therefore is the termination of a human life then, providing you understand that these same people believe that innocent human life is sacrosanct, it should be no surprise that some people get very upset thinking of the number of abortions that occur.
Actually, I do not accept that human life begins at conception. I accept that cell multiplication begins at conception.
I define human life as a sentient organism which is biologically capable of existing outside of the womb, which brings us to the question of how many weeks of gestation we're talking about.
However many weeks that may be - 22, 24, 26 - I leave it to the woman to make her own choice. It's her choice, not yours.
Dec '11
Re: Religion and Conservatism
On this whole 18th century conservatism debate, I have to side with Leveret (and quite a few people at NRO as well).
First, Paine was not a conservative. He supported both the American and French revolutions for the same reason: they hurt Britain. In the same way some on the Left have an irrational hatred of America, Paine had an irrational hatred of Britain, and so worked to tear it down. As such, he was very much un-conservative. As for Jefferson, that is a little grayer. Jefferson supported a lot of conservative causes, but also had some un-conservative leanings.
Second, the American revolution was very conservative in that it merely tried to improve upon a system. The Founding Fathers for the most part supported the British system, and the federal and state governments of the US, especially the state, were not much changed. The French revolution, on the other hand, was very un-conservative, wiping the slate clean to create a perfect system that made perfect people.
Jan '11
Re: Religion and Conservatism
I'm with Hitchens on this: I reject the dogma, but am grateful for the music it has inspired.
Jan '11
Re: Religion and Conservatism
Guy Incognito: On this whole 18th century conservatism debate...
... · 1 minute ago
The discussion is in any event illuminating.
It is not the equivalent, for instance, of calling the Optimates conservatives and the Populares liberals. Those labels just won't fit, I agree.
The late 18th century was the era when Anglo-American conservatism was born - as a dynamic reaction against abstract ideologies.
Edited on January 30, 2012 at 5:02amJan '11
Re: Religion and Conservatism
Nobody's Perfect: If you accept the biological fact that life begins at conception and that abortion therefore is the termination of a human life then, providing you understand that these same people believe that innocent human life is sacrosanct, it should be no surprise that some people get very upset thinking of the number of abortions that occur.
Actually, I do not accept that human life begins at conception. I accept that cell multiplication begins at conception.
I define human life as a sentient organism which is biologically capable of existing outside of the womb, which brings us to the question of how many weeks of gestation we're talking about.
However many weeks that may be - 22, 24, 26 - I leave it to the woman to make her own choice. It's her choice, not yours. · 9 minutes ago
Fine. But you can see that other people, with good reason, believe otherwise. Granting that - and given the natural revulsion humans have towards homicide - don't you think you should cut people a little slack?
Aug '11
Re: Religion and Conservatism
"And, no, iWc, "conservative" and "classical liberal" are not the same things. I think we call ourselves conservatives out of convenience [or laziness, perhaps] simply so that we can identify being on the same team -- the team that opposes progressive [another confusing ideological brand name that doesn't jive with traditional definition]."
"conservative" is not a synonym for "classical liberal." In the 20th century, however, many classical liberals in America began to self-identify as "conservatives" in part because the word "liberalism" had been stolen and corrupted by the left. Hayek still preferred the term "liberalism" in this older sense.
Conservatives like Kirk (conservative in the older sense and not classical liberals) are generally religious. Classical liberals may not be religious but they respect religion because the recognize that their core notion of individual liberty and equality is religious in origin.
Aug '11
Re: Religion and Conservatism
Brian Watt is correct Jefferson was a scientist and a deist. But he did see God as necessary to the fundamental principle of the Declaration. He is a strange kind of deist.
"can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest. (Jefferson Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 18)
When he writes as an empirical "scientist" in query 18, he is simply racist.
By the 18th century the morality of the Enlightenment was, I believe, in fundamental contradiction with the secular science of the Enlightenment.
Jan '11
Re: Religion and Conservatism
Another difference between 'conservatives' and 'classical liberals' is that the latter have a more theoretical bent.
Where classical liberals might be tolerant of the 'old ways' on the grounds of individual freedom, conservatives see wisdom and virtue in adhering to them.
The people, of course, are deeply conservative. They don't have time for theories and have an innate respect for established traditions and institutions like the Church.
Dec '11
Re: Religion and Conservatism
cbc: "And, no ... "conservative" is not a synonym for "classical liberal." In the 20th century, however, many classical liberals in America began to self-identify as "conservatives" in part because the word "liberalism" had been stolen and corrupted by the left. Hayek still preferred the term "liberalism" in this older sense.
Conservatives like Kirk (conservative in the older sense and not classical liberals) are generally religious. Classical liberals may not be religious but they respect religion because the recognize that their core notion of individual liberty and equality is religious in origin. · 4 minutes ago
I share similar insights. The way I see it, what we call conservatism is a rather abstract term, which can be better understood as merely the modern interpretation of the ancient belief in the importance of tradition and all that entails. So, while classic liberalism, federalism, libertarianism, and other more specific views have beliefs based around modern concepts, conservatism basically boils down to the age-old war between the old goat and the young hot head.
Jan '11
Re: Religion and Conservatism
Guy Incognito
cbc: "And, no ... "conservative" is not a synonym for "classical liberal." In the 20th century, however, many classical liberals in America began to self-identify as "conservatives" in part because the word "liberalism" had been stolen and corrupted by the left. Hayek still preferred the term "liberalism" in this older sense.
Conservatives like Kirk (conservative in the older sense and not classical liberals) are generally religious. Classical liberals may not be religious but they respect religion because the recognize that their core notion of individual liberty and equality is religious in origin. · 4 minutes ago
I share similar insights. The way I see it, what we call conservatism is a rather abstract term, which can be better understood as merely the modern interpretation of the ancient belief in the importance of tradition and all that entails. So, while classic liberalism, federalism, libertarianism, and other more specific views have beliefs based around modern concepts, conservatism basically boils down to the age-old war between the old goat and the young hot head. · 0 minutes ago
I think that hits really close. Would you agree it all boils down to Sowell's 'tragic vision' - the imperfectability of human nature?
May '10
Re: Religion and Conservatism
Leveret: If you accept the biological fact that life begins at conception and that abortion therefore is the termination of a human life then, providing you understand that these same people believe that innocent human life is sacrosanct, it should be no surprise that some people get very upset thinking of the number of abortions that occur.
It might not be constructive but it's understandable.
As a "pro-choicer", I do not find it difficult to concede that oft-made claim "Life begins at conception". What the pro-life crowd implies however is that legal rights should be granted a conception. The pro-choicers with whom I agree distinguish a fetus, at least an early fetus, from an independent human being. Walter Block espouses an interesting position on this called evictionism.
Dec '11
Re: Religion and Conservatism
Leveret
Guy Incognito
cbc:
I think that hits really close. Would you agree it all boils down to Sowell's 'tragic vision' - the imperfectability of human nature? · 1 minute ago
Effectively, yeah. Since tradition is used to supplement the limitations of people, it reflects an acknowledgment of their imperfectability. Those who disregard tradition do not share that acknowledgment.
Jan '11
Re: Religion and Conservatism
That's fine Michael, but those who believe that the deliberate taking of innocent human life is the greatest evil are hardly likely to be persuaded or assuaged by analogy to the unborn as an unwanted parasite.
Re: Religion and Conservatism
Nobody's Perfect: ...
Well, since you agree that the Constitution is mute with regard to the unborn, then it's a matter of just changing the Constitution, right? ... · 6 hours ago
I'm late to the conversation here,...but I do have a quick question. If the Constitution is mute regarding the unborn, then it's also mute regarding a Constitutional right to abort the unborn, yes? Kind of tough to have it both ways on this one.
Jan '11
Re: Religion and Conservatism
Dave Carter
Nobody's Perfect: ...
Well, since you agree that the Constitution is mute with regard to the unborn, then it's a matter of just changing the Constitution, right? ... · 6 hours ago
I'm late to the conversation here,...but I do have a quick question. If the Constitution is mute regarding the unborn, then it's also mute regarding a Constitutional right to abort the unborn, yes? Kind of tough to have it both ways on this one. · 2 minutes ago
Well, I guess the counter to that is that the constitution has been held by the Supreme Court to not be silent on the matter via the so-called right to privacy.
AND, if I were arguing for the other side I would also rely on the common law principle "everything which is not forbidden is allowed".
Dec '11
Re: Religion and Conservatism
I'm late to the conversation here,...but I do have a quick question. If the Constitution is mute regarding the unborn, then it's also mute regarding a Constitutional right to abort the unborn, yes? Kind of tough to have it both ways on this one.
10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Glad we cleared that up.
Re: Religion and Conservatism
Nobody's Perfect: I'm late to the conversation here,...but I do have a quick question. If the Constitution is mute regarding the unborn, then it's also mute regarding a Constitutional right to abort the unborn, yes? Kind of tough to have it both ways on this one.
10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Glad we cleared that up. · 0 minutes ago
I agree with you there,....the problem being of course that in Roe, the Court took the power from the states on the basis of a Constitutional right that didn't exist, and nationalized the issue. You wouldn't argue that Roe was a sound ruling, would you?