GOP Death Penalty Politics Republican Texas GOP Debate Reagan Debate Rick Perry Liberal 2012
Via: The Liberal Life
It seems, at least to me, that conservative positions usually stem from religious tradition or authority (see opposition to gay marriage, the anti-abortion movement, etc…) whereas atheism is the polar opposite of such conservative religiously established fundamentals. Maybe that is why the conservative movement is barely distinguishable from the religious right in the US.
That being said it seems to me that atheists will be more likely to reject conservatism overall as it tends to be more in alignment with religious tradition than thought out progressive reasoning.
It is clear that the operating word here is LIKELY. Atheism has nothing to do with politics per se. You can be conservative or progressive and be an atheist with no problem. I bet that in economic policy, for example, you will find little agreement between atheists.
Fact is that, as you know, non-believers have many different points of view, which leave us with few generalizations to be made about them (us).
Any particular ideological points that you think sets you apart as an atheist conservative? What would those be? Do you have any idea why other atheists do not embrace them?
I am all for Christians ignoring the clear biblical teachings in regards to slavery and homosexuality, for example. Still the fact remains that moderate superstition does absolutely nothing to guide us out of the problems that such a mindset causes.
While moderation in religion may seem a reasonable position to stake out, in light of all that we have (and have not) learned about the universe, it offers no bulwark against religious extremism and religious violence. The problem that religious moderation poses for all of us is that it does not permit anything very critical to be said about religious literalism. We cannot say that fundamentalists are crazy, because they are merely practicing their freedom of belief; we cannot even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivaled. All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don’t like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us. This is not a new form of faith, or even a new species of scriptural exegesis; it is simply a capitulation to a variety of all-too-human interests that have nothing, in principle, to do with God.
Moderates do not want to kill anyone in the name of God, but they want us to keep using the word “God” as though we knew what we were talking about. And they do not want anything too critical said about people who really believe in the God of their fathers, because tolerance, perhaps above all else, is sacred. To speak plainly and truthfully about the state of our world-to say, for instance, that the Bible and the Koran both contain mountains of life-destroying gibberish-is antithetical to tolerance as moderates currently conceive it. But we can no longer afford the luxury of such political correctness. We must finally recognize the price we are paying to maintain the iconography of our ignorance.
Christopher Hitchens summarized it thus:
We need to have inoculation against plague, not the spread of a more gentle version of it.
Thanks for the question.