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:
Dec '11
Re: Religion and Conservatism
@ Leveret: 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?
Leveret, I am curious - as I'm sure others here might be - whether there is controversy surrounding abortion in New Zealand.
As for cutting pro-lifers a little slack, I'd be happy to, if they would stop referring to women who exercise their legal rights as "murderers" and likening pro-choice proponents to the perpetrators of the Holocaust.
Apr '11
Re: Religion and Conservatism
I started my politically aware life as an athiest libertarian, largely because I bought into the whole "fiscal conservative, but socially liberal" thing. I grew up in the northeast as a middle class secular Jew, so I held the expected snarky view of the "religious right." However, it became difficult to maintain that hostility once Christian conservatives were my intellectual allies on so many issues. Especially given the absurd caricatures in the press.
Now, even though I'm not religious in the traditional sense, after years of defending Christians from outlandish charges of bigotry I had great admiration for religion.
So, to answer the question, I think it would be difficult to be a conservative in the context of modern American politics and be outright hostile to religion.
Also, I believe Charles Krauthammer is another example of an athiest/agnostic conservative.
Full disclosure, I've not yet read all 100+ comments, but since it's a personal question I figured I'd get my input out there.
Edited on January 30, 2012 at 6:12amJan '11
Re: Religion and Conservatism
Dave Carter
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? · 1 minute ago
Quite right, if you set aside the tortured interpretation of Roe &c.
Re: Religion and Conservatism
Leveret
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". · 5 minutes ago
Well, the Court has held lots of lamentable things. Robert Bork addressed the right to privacy pretty effectively in his book.
Dec '11
Re: Religion and Conservatism
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?
I would agree that there is, within natural law, within English common law and within Supreme Court decisions prior to Roe, a right to privacy, which I would maintain includes the right of a woman to sovereignty over her person.
That being said, I've always opposed Roe precisely because I believe that, the Constitution being mute with regard to abortion, it is a matter to be left to the States and to the people.
What bothers me about the pro-life movement is that they will not be content to return the issue to the states; they want an exact mirror image of Roe: a scheme under which abortion is illegal in all the States.
Sep '10
Re: Religion and Conservatism
@Dave Carter,
Constitutional scholar, natural law theorist Hadley Arkes has had an exchange with Ricochet's own Richard Epstein in the latest issue of First Things and you may find something Hadley wrote about Roe v Wade, natural law, the US Constitutional framework and the Tenth Amendment quite interesting when you have a spare moment.
The article was written in August 2011 responding to statements by both Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann on Roe v Wade.
The Snare of the Tenth Amendment
ps I'm lobbying my local microphone shaped Ricochet member of the legislature to see if we can get Mr. Arkes and Mr. Epstein in some type of discussion.
Jan '11
Re: Religion and Conservatism
Nobody's Perfect:
I would agree that there is, within natural law, within English common law and within Supreme Court decisions prior to Roe, a right to privacy, which I would maintain includes the right of a woman to sovereignty over her person.
Curious, then, that the same common law mostly outlawed abortion. Remember, Roe overturned abortion law.
You've grounded your argument in the "authority" of common law, but then ignored that same authority when you interpreted its implications differently. Which means that, at best, you'd have to argue that the people who established common law didn't understand it as well as you do.
Dec '11
Re: Religion and Conservatism
Constitutional scholar, natural law theorist Hadley Arkes has had an exchange with Ricochet's own Richard Epstein in the latest issue of First Things and you may find something Hadley wrote about Roe v Wade, natural law, the US Constitutional framework and the Tenth Amendment quite interesting when you have a spare moment.
I just read it. His case, such as it is, is that we should not return the question of abortion to the States, because that still leaves open the question of what might happen in military hospitals, diplomatic outposts and Washington, D.C.
Very, very weak beer.
Dec '11
Re: Religion and Conservatism
Curious, then, that the same common law mostly outlawed abortion. Remember, Roe overturned abortion law.
Prior to Roe, abortion was legal in 20 states and the District of Columbia.
Few people recall that the plaintiff in Roe sued on the basis that the abortion ban in her state - Texas - violated her rights by compelling her to travel to another state where the procedure was legal.
Sep '10
Re: Religion and Conservatism
Pseudodionysius: @Dave Carter,
Constitutional scholar, natural law theorist Hadley Arkes has had an exchange with Ricochet's own Richard Epstein in the latest issue of First Things and you may find something Hadley wrote about Roe v Wade, natural law, the US Constitutional framework and the Tenth Amendment quite interesting when you have a spare moment.
The article was written in August 2011 responding to statements by both Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann on Roe v Wade.
The Snare of the Tenth Amendment
ps I'm lobbying my local microphone shaped Ricochet member of the legislature to see if we can get Mr. Arkes and Mr. Epstein in some type of discussion. · 19 minutes ago
Should have probably mentioned Hadley's work here to give you a book length treatment you might enjoy some day.
Jan '11
Re: Religion and Conservatism
...
Leveret, I am curious - as I'm sure others here might be - whether there is controversy surrounding abortion in New Zealand.
...
· 35 minutes ago
Oh it's not that controversial because it is such a taboo subject and NZ is a mostly irreligious society.
Theoretically the law is much more restrictive than in the US, only medical abortion (including mental health) is available and only in the first 20 weeks.
Jan '11
Re: Religion and Conservatism
Oh I couldn't agree more. Coercing Virtue is also a must-read.
Dave Carter
Leveret
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". · 5 minutes ago
Well, the Court has held lots of lamentable things. Robert Bork addressed the right to privacy pretty effectively in his book. · 42 minutes ago
Dec '11
Re: Religion and Conservatism
Theoretically the law is much more restrictive than in the US, only medical abortion (including mental health) is available and only in the first 20 weeks.
Theoretically? Do I take that to mean that, as a social consensus, the law winks at doctors who document a medical claim?
Jan '11
Re: Religion and Conservatism
Nobody's Perfect: 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?
I would agree that there is, within natural law, within English common law and within Supreme Court decisions prior to Roe, a right to privacy, which I would maintain includes the right of a woman to sovereignty over her person.
That being said, I've always opposed Roe precisely because I believe that, the Constitution being mute with regard to abortion, it is a matter to be left to the States and to the people.
What bothers me about the pro-life movement is that they will not be content to return the issue to the states; they want an exact mirror image of Roe: a scheme under which abortion is illegal in all the States. · 40 minutes ago
How? Through a human life amendment? Why would it bother you that they want that? Do you feel Article V is unconstitutional?
Jan '11
Re: Religion and Conservatism
You need two independent consultants to agree that an abortion is necessary for medical reasons and those consultants are monitored by an abortion supervisory board. Applications are seldom turned down, however, because the mental health clause is interpreted so liberally.
Some groups recently sought a judicial declaration against the supervisory committee's laxness and the High Court found: "reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants".
It's not clear what the implications of the ruling will be, though.
Nobody's Perfect: Theoretically the law is much more restrictive than in the US, only medical abortion (including mental health) is available and only in the first 20 weeks.
Theoretically? Do I take that to mean that, as a social consensus, the law winks at doctors who document a medical claim? · 1 minute ago
May '10
Re: Religion and Conservatism
Cutlass:
Now, even though I'm not religious in the traditional sense, after years of defending Christians from outlandish charges of bigotry I had great admiration for religion.
If by "not religious in the traditional sense" you mean, with respect to Christianity, you don't subscribe to the view that one must accept Jesus Christ as one's Lord and Savior, then you'd be professing an admiration for a worldview that insists you will eventually be subject to the pains of eternal damnation.
Dec '11
Re: Religion and Conservatism
How? Through a human life amendment? Why would it bother you that they want that? Do you feel Article V is unconstitutional?
Aside from the broader question of whether most of the Constitutional amendments since the Bill of Rights have been an improvement or a detriment to the original document (consider the 14th and 16th Amendments), I simply believe that the 10th Amendment is the ultimate bulwark against Federal tyranny.
As for a "human life amendment", that's simply not going to happen, no matter how ardent the wishes of the 20% of Americans who oppose abortion.
I'd be quite content to see the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade. Let the people of Utah ban abortion if they wish and let the people of New York decide otherwise. But, given the court's reverence for stare decisis, that's not going to happen, either.
Dec '11
Re: Religion and Conservatism
Leveret
You need two independent consultants to agree that an abortion is necessary for medical reasons and those consultants are monitored by an abortion supervisory board. Applications are seldom turned down, however, because the mental health clause is interpreted so liberally.
Thanks for your clarification. So, as I read what you're saying, there is a social consensus to allow abortion - wink, wink - while there is a political consensus to ignore the social reality.
In other words, your legislators are saying, "We really don't want to go on record one way or the other, but the current system allows you to do as you please."
Gutless politicians are the same, worldwide.
Mar '11
Re: Religion and Conservatism
Nobody's Perfect: Curious, then, that the same common law mostly outlawed abortion. Remember, Roe overturned abortion law.
Prior to Roe, abortion was legal in 20 states and the District of Columbia.
Few people recall that the plaintiff in Roe sued on the basis that the abortion ban in her state - Texas - violated her rights by compelling her to travel to another state where the procedure was legal. · 11 minutes ago
I confess, I had forgotten that the plaintiff in Roe complained about being compelled to 'vote with her feet'. Having been reminded, my belief it was a stupid decision has been reinforced.
I do recall reading that in more recent times the plaintiff has been telling anyone who will listen she bitterly regrets the entire episode and says she was used as a pawn to serve someone else's agenda.
I'm sure you're right that pro-lifers would like a blanket ban, but most of them know overturning Roe would commit them to a state-by-state battle and are ready for it.
Jun '10
Re: Religion and Conservatism
Why should the number of stars in the universe be an argument against theism? Men have always looked up at the night sky with awe and wondered what sort of higher power could create such a spectacle. As the psalms put it: "The heavens declare the glory of God."