Are there any conservative athiests?
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): Are there any conservative athiests?
I thought I would bounce this off you gals. I am really just curious. I am not trying to start anything too serious.
What got me thinking in these terms was a conversation I had with my dad about my grandpa who is non-religious and is difficult to be around b/c he argues religion and politics. (My dad had to make it clear to him that he didn't want any of that at Thanksgiving.)
I seem to remember hearing that in the 2004 election, Kerry got more votes from non-religious voters than from religious voters. So, while conservatives may largely be religious (as they are "stereotyped" to be) is it fair to say that most liberals are non-religious? (Note, I said most, not all.)
Likewise, are there any conservative atheists?
I think a lot of atheist are conservative. The reason I think this is, people who are morally strong without God, don't see the need for God. Does that make sense?
So, while conservatives may largely be religious (as they are "stereotyped" to be) is it fair to say that most liberals are non-religious? (Note, I said most, not all.)
I certainly don't think this is the case. I have a lot of friends who are evangelical Christians who are also Democrats and get so sick of hearing about how Christian=Republican. Of course, I am teasing apart the word Christian from "religious" because you can certainly be religious without being Christian. I would also tend to think that there are "conservative" (aka Republican) atheists, though probably a minority.
I think that a larger part of liberal voters would claim to be spiritual or even Christian but would not label themselves as "religious". I am a semi-conservative Democrat voter but I balk at the organized religion label because so much of society has preconceived ideas of my beliefs, even though I do attend a mainstream Christian-Protestant church. In all honesty, I object to that label because I don't want anyone to assume that I agree with George W. Bush, Jerry Falwell, or many other "Christian" leaders.
Most of the Mennonites and Quakers I know are politically liberal, and are very religious people. As for conservative atheists - yes, my ex is certainly one.
I think people interpret the Bible and the teachings of faith differently. My particular United Methodist Church is on the cutting edge of social and political issues, on the very liberal side, and has been for 40+ years, led by the pastors. Most of the members whom I know well are far more religious than I, and I consider myself a person of faith.
Some of it, I think, is how one defines oneself - that is, whether, when asked to describe yourself, whether you put your religion first or something else. I don't, personally, make the differentiation that Tink does, partly because I will be blessed if I will let Falwell, Pat Robertson, GWB, the Pope or the Ayatollah define what being "religious" means.
Thinking about it, I rather object to the word "conservative" being used to define the present administration's politics. I think of myself as conserving the Constitutional and American values I believe in.
And, is being "conservative" only a matter of one's politics? Anyone who knows me will tell you that I am far to the left in my politics, but in every other facet of my life I am very conservative - surprisingly so, to people who haven't known me very long.
"And, is being "conservative" only a matter of one's politics? Anyone who knows me will tell you that I am far to the left in my politics, but in every other facet of my life I am very conservative - surprisingly so, to people who haven't known me very long".
Ginny, I think of myself like that too...
I think some republicans are conservatives. So there must be alot of republican atheists. People who like the republican party may not want the governement to become too powerful or socialist or be taxed too much.
Are some democrats considered conservatives too?
I listen to talk radio and I heard most democrats are more conservative than liberal. I guess there is some sort of scale.
Also I guess the abortion issue has been said to be along party lines. But I don't know if it really is... I heard republicans want to limit abortion. But I think there are plenty of democrats like Jimmy Carter who would not like abortion. (I might be wrong about that) I always think of Jimmy Carter as very religious man. Most people probably don't want abortion for no reason at past... I don't know... past a certain amount of months. I don't think anyone wants the mother to be able to have an abortion at 30 weeks for no medical reason (especially since there would be people lined up around the block to adopt the baby and make her life livable the last 10 weeks.)
This article interviews Jimmy Carter on Abortion and other issues.
This article was originally published by The American Prospect
Jimmy Carter explains how the Christian right isn't Christian at all.
By Ayelish McGarvey
Web Exclusive: 04.05.04
Former President Jimmy Carter, America's first evangelical Christian president, still teaches Sunday school at his Baptist church in Plains, Georgia, and he and his wife, Rosalynn, continue their human-rights work in developing nations through the Carter Center at Emory University. In recent months, the Carters toured Togo, Ghana, and Mali to raise awareness of the public-health needs of those nations. In February, Carter spoke about the role of evangelical Christianity in democratic politics with Prospect writing fellow Ayelish McGarvey.
Republicans have been extremely successful at connecting religion and values to issues like the fight against terrorism, abortion, and gay rights. Democrats have been far less adept at infusing our issues -- compassion, help for the poor, social justice -- with any sense of religious commitment or moral imperative. Why do you think that is?
When I was younger, almost all Baptists were strongly committed on a theological basis to the separation of church and state. It was only 25 years ago when there began to be a melding of the Republican Party with fundamentalist Christianity, particularly with the Southern Baptist Convention. This is a fairly new development, and I think it was brought about by the abandonment of some of the basic principles of Christianity.
First of all, we worship the prince of peace, not war. And those of us who have advocated for the resolution of international conflict in a peaceful fashion are looked upon as being unpatriotic, branded that way by right-wing religious groups, the Bush administration, and other Republicans.
Secondly, Christ was committed to compassion for the most destitute, poor, needy, and forgotten people in our society. Today there is a stark difference [between conservative ideology and Christian teaching] because most of the people most strongly committed to the Republican philosophy have adopted the proposition that help for the rich is the best way to help even poor people (by letting some of the financial benefits drip down to those most deeply in need). I would say there has been a schism drawn -- on theology and practical politics and economics between the two groups.
What has attracted conservative Christians to a party that protects corporate interests and promotes an aggressive foreign-policy agenda? How do those square?
There is an element of fundamentalism involved, which involves the belief on the part of a human being that [his or her] own concept of God is the proper one. And since [he or she has] the proper concept of God, [he or she is] particularly blessed and singled out for special consideration above and beyond those who disagree with [him or her].
Secondly, anyone who does disagree with [him or her], since [he or she is] harnessed to God in a unique way, then, by definition, must be wrong. And the second step is if you are in disagreement with [his or her] concept of the way to worship, even among the Christian community, is that you are inferior to [him or her]. And then the ultimate progression of that is that you’re not only different and wrong and inferior but in some ways you are subhuman. So there’s a loss of concern even for the death of those who disagree. And this takes fundamentalism to the extreme. This is an element of the fundamentalist cause in this country. If you are a wealthy white man, then you are naturally inclined to think that the poor are inferior and don’t deserve your first consideration. If you are a wealthy white man, then you also take on the proposition that women are inherently inferior. This builds up a sense of prejudice and alienation that permeates the Christian right during these days.
What issues do you see galvanizing moderate evangelicals as they go to the polls in November?
I’ve been involved in national politics now for more than 25 years. But this year we will see the Democratic Party more united than ever before in my memory, and even the earlier history that I studied before my life began. I think we’re completely united with a determination to replace the Bush administration and its fundamentalist, right-wing philosophy with the more moderate qualities that have always exemplified what our nation is: a nation committed to strength in the military. I served longer in the military than any other president since the Civil War except Dwight Eisenhower. I was a submarine officer. I used the enormous and unmatched strength of America to promote peace for other people and preserve peace for ourselves.
Now it seems as though it is an attractive thing in Washington to resort to war in the very early stage of resolving an altercation; a completely unnecessary war that President Bush decided to launch against the Iraqis is an example of that. And I think that a reaction against that warlike attitude on the part of America to the exclusion of almost all other nations in the world -- and arousing fear in them -- is going to be a driving issue.
I think that the abandonment of environmental issues even endorsed by President Nixon when I was governor (as well as virtually all of the Republicans and Democrats) has been notable under the Bush administration. One of the things I learned as a young Baptist boy was to be a steward of the world that God blessed us to enjoy. And I think the abandonment of basic environmental standards by the Bush administration rallies us.
And I think the third thing is the obvious orientation of the Bush administration toward Halliburton, Enron, and other major corporations. You see this in the enormous tax reductions that have been granted to people that make more than $200,000 a year. That is another issue on which the Democrats will rally a common goal.
Do you think that Democrats will be able to attract Bible-believing Christians in a year that gay marriage will be used as a smokescreen to distract attention from those issues?
I think so. There isn’t a major candidate who has endorsed gay marriage; they are in favor of equal protection through a civil-union arrangement. I personally, in my Sunday-school lessons, don’t favor the religious endorsement of a gay marriage. But I do favor equal treatment under the law for people who differ from me in sexual orientation.
What about abortion? How would you speak to moderate evangelicals who withhold support for Democratic candidates on that single issue?
This was an issue that I had to face when I was campaigning 25 years ago. I have always been against abortion; it’s not possible for me in my own concept of Christ to believe that Jesus would favor abortion. But at the same time, I have supported the Supreme Court ruling of our country as the law of the land. And the present arrangement, whereby a woman is authorized to have an abortion in the first trimester of the pregnancy, or when the pregnancy is caused by rape or incest -- these are the things that moderates who have beliefs like mine can accept as the present circumstances in our country. The liberality of abortion is anointed by the laws of our country, including the ultimate ruling of the Supreme Court.
How do you think the fundamentalist Christian right has misrepresented Christianity, as well as the democratic process?
Well, what do Christians stand for, based exclusively on the words and actions of Jesus Christ? We worship him as a prince of peace. And I think almost all Christians would conclude that whenever there is an inevitable altercation -- say, between a husband and a wife, or a father and a child, or within a given community, or between two nations (including our own) -- we should make every effort to resolve those differences which arise in life through peaceful means. Therein, we should not resort to war as a way to exalt the president as the commander in chief. A commitment to peace is certainly a Christian principle that even ultraconservatives would endorse, at least by worshipping the prince of peace.
And Christ reached out almost exclusively to the poor, suffering, abandoned, deprived -- the scorned, the condemned people -- including Samaritans and those who were diseased. The alleviation of suffering was a philosophy that was enhanced and emphasized by the life of Christ. Today the ultra-right wing, in both religion and politics, has abandoned that principle of Jesus Christ’s ministry.
Those are the two principal things in the practical sense that starkly separate the ultra-right Christian community from the rest of the Christian world: Do we endorse and support peace and support the alleviation of suffering among the poor and the outcast?
You spent so much of your career working toward a reasonable, peaceful solution to violence and strife in Israel and Palestine. Increasing attention has been paid to traditionalist evangelicals’ strong support for Israel, based on the New Testament prophecy that the reconstruction of the ancient kingdom of David will usher in the “end times” and the Second Coming of Christ. As a believer and a peacemaker, how do you respond to this?
That’s a completely foolish and erroneous interpretation of the Scriptures. And it has resulted in these last few years with a terrible, very costly, and bloody deterioration in the relationship between Israel and its neighbors. Every president except for George W. Bush has taken a relatively balanced position between the Israelis and their enemies, always strongly supporting Israel but recognizing that you have to negotiate and work between Israel and her neighbors in order to bring about a peaceful resolution.
It’s nearly the 25th anniversary of my consummation of a treaty between Israel and Egypt -- not a word of which has ever been violated. But this administration, maybe strongly influenced by ill-advised theologians of the extreme religious right, has pretty well abandoned any real effort that could lead to a resolution of the problems between Israel and the Palestinians. And no one can challenge me on my commitment to Israel and its right to live in peace with all its neighbors. But at the same time, there has to be a negotiated settlement; you can’t just ordain the destruction of the Palestinian people, and their community and their political entity, in favor of the Israelis.
And that’s what some of the extreme fundamentalist Christians have done, both to the detriment of the Israelis and the Palestinians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayelish McGarvey, who writes a biweekly online column about religion, is a Prospect writing fellow.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Think all evangelicals are right-wingers? Just as many are politically moderate. Read more about them in Ayelish McGarvey's piece, "Reaching the Choir", from the print edition.
Copyright © 2004 by The American Prospect, Inc. Preferred Citation: Ayelish McGarvey, "Carter's Crusade", The American Prospect Online, Apr 5, 2004.
Wow. I am pleasantly surprised to find such a variety of answers!
As I am reading the interview with Pres. Carter, I feel the need to respond to some points.
First of all, we worship the prince of peace, not war.
Tell that to the radical Islamic fundamental terrorists.
Christ was committed to compassion for the most destitute, poor, needy, and forgotten people in our society.
True. But Christ also taught that we need to teach others how to provide for themselves. "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day, give a man a fishing pole and teach him how to use it, and he eats for a lifetime." (Granted Christ Himself did not say that. It was Jewish Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon.) Democrat-sponsored anti-poverty programs simply give fish to the poor and thus have perpetuated the problem of poverty in this nation, and have failed in that respect. I believe that it was the Republican congress that wrote the welfare reform bill that Pres. Clinton signed.
Furthermore, Republicans believe that the government is simply not the best source of aid to the poor and unfortunate. The individuals and businesses who have been successful in achieving their goals are best equipped to promote prosperity and contribute to charity in their communities as well as outside of their communities. To demonstrate this, the majority of the outpouring of support for national and international emergencies this past year came from private citizens and corporations, not from the government.
As for Mr. Carter's view of Christian fundamentalists, I wholeheartedly disagree. There may be some right-wing Christians who look down their noses on others less fortunate than themselves or on those who disagree with their beliefs, but there are also elitist left-wing Christians who do the same. The Christians I know are very willing to welcome anyone from outside their churches with open arms and are willing to allow anyone in the door who wishes to join them in worship. I really don't pay much attention to Falwell or Robertson. If they are in fact turning people off to Christianity, that is unfortunate.
And as for women being inherently inferior, explain why there are so many female evangelists and ministers. hmmm?
I will not address parts of the interview at the risk of getting into a debate on the war on terror in Iraq, which would be off-topic and old news, since the interview was published before the last election.
Q ...traditionalist evangelicals strong support for Israel, based on the New Testament prophecy that the reconstruction of the ancient kingdom of David will usher in the end times and the Second Coming of Christ. As a believer and a peacemaker, how do you respond to this?
A That's a completely foolish and erroneous interpretation of the Scriptures.
Let's see- he mentioned something about religious fundamentalism? Oh yes, here it is.
Secondly, anyone who does disagrees with [him or her], since [he or she is] harnessed to God in a unique way, then, by definition, must be wrong.
So, based on that response, he is just as intolerant and closed-minded about a different interpretation of the Scripture as he accuses the extreme-ultra-religious-ultra-conservative-right of being. Can we say "hypocritical?"
First of all, we worship the prince of peace, not war.
Tell that to the radical Islamic fundamental terrorists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This says two things to me...
Our actions are defined by our enemies actions.
Their war is more powerful then our peace.
Personally, I don't think either is true.
As for his remarks on scripture, hypocritical maybe but that doesn't mean they're wrong. He expressed a personal opinion but I've found the idea that if you don't believe in a fundamentalist interpretation of scripture then you're wrong or even not truly Christian, to be a real part of the fundamentalist movement as a whole. Not every fundamentalist thinks that way, I've known some that don't, but the leadership, what those of us outside of it see, seems almost obsessed with scriptural literalism and the exclusion of those who don't accept that.
Personally, though I don't accept a literal interpretation of the Bible I've learned some really interesting things and had some very neat moments with people who were willing to discuss their literal ideas.
Just wondering what you found in the interview that provoked some thought and gave you some new ideas to wonder about?
Thanks for your reply and for sharing your thoughts!
No, Mr. Carter's interview didn't really provoke any introspective thought on my part. I am pretty confident in my faith and what my church (Church of Christ) believes.
The only thing he makes me wonder about is him. That last comment about the end times shows his true colors. How can he possibly preach tolerance for differing religious views and then bash them on the same page?
In any conflict, it is generally a given that the aggressor is in control and sets the rules in the beginning. It is up to the victim to take control back away from the aggressor and achieve justice and peace. We see this in society today where women are sick of being victimized by men (rape, abuse, etc.) and hence the group "Take Back the Night." This is also why we have Neighborhood Watch groups, which are especially necessary to maintain security in urban areas so that crime and drugs do not control the environment. War is no different. The War on Terror is a concerted effort to take back control of the civilized world wherever the aggressors are in control or are seeking control. When we achieve that goal, we will have a strong peace.
Ohhhh...much to say, but at work. Will jump back in later. 
But women aren't attacking men. "Take Back The Night' protests are peaceful. Neighbourhood Watch does not involve violence. They are pretty much the exact opposite of war in terms of a response to violence.
Polictically, I can see a case for a violent response to attack and I think that's what you're arguing. But from a Christian point of view, I can't begin to make the case.
As for him showing his true colours, there was a whole interview full of stuff that didn't make you wonder about him. To take one comment you perceived as hypocritical and let that guide you to make a judgement about his 'true colours' is unfortunate. He has an interesting point about how the 'foolish' interpretation of scripture is having a real effect on mideast politics:
"That’s a completely foolish and erroneous interpretation of the Scriptures. And it has resulted in these last few years with a terrible, very costly, and bloody deterioration in the relationship between Israel and its neighbors."
Put aside being upset about his first sentence...Doesn't he maybe have a point? There are Christians who support Isreal at all costs precisely because of that interpretation. No Christian thought to the people, Jewish or Arab that are suffering through the conflicts, just an eagerness for the second coming. Peace in the mideast means compromise in terms of land and most likely no rebuilding of the kingdom of David in the near future. How much of that kind of thinking is guiding Bush's support in the Christian Right?
His wording was unfortunate and charged but his points were good ones to consider.
I understand that President Carter is making the point that he feels that the ultra-religious right may be having an undue influence on the Bush administration and President Bush's decisions. However, it was Mr. Bush's religious conviction that was partly responsible for getting him re-elected in 2004.
I would like to postpone the debate on President Carter's interview to tell you about an interesting poll I just found out about that was released in May of this year regarding the political divide in the US. It is very long and comprehensive, and I haven't had much time to read through it, but here are the links just in case anyone is interested enough to check it out, along with an article about it.
I am still curious to find out how many conservative atheists there may be in our country, I guess as a way to research the "stereotypes" of the the Left and the Right.
The Elite Divide by Maggie Gallagher
Principal Findings, Part 1
Political Typology, Part 2
Thanks for the links, Lisa.
Jimmy Carter is probably one of the most faithful, believing, caring and kind Christians who ever served in government. Describing him as close-minded is, at best, a misunderstanding or gross misinterpretation of what he was saying.
I do agree with him that religious fundamentalists, of whatever faith, generally hold that if you don't follow their line entirely, you are not a "true believer". They are generally unwilling to allow that there is more than one path to God and to faith. I don't think it is close-minded or intolerant to say this - it is pretty much documented, especially by the preachings of religious fundamentalists. Pat Robertson is, of course, a fairly extreme example, but anyone who would tell an entire community that God will ignore them because they voted in new school board members is, to my thinking, fairly intolerant and narrow-minded, not to say close-minded.
The early roots of Christianity were based on turning away from the general Judaic (i.e., Old Testament) teachings, and acting on the preachings and teachings of Jesus. This meant, among other things, that where the teachings of Judaism were "an eye for an eye", Jesus said that was no longer a valid or faithful way to operate.
The early roots of the Protestant church(es) derives from the belief that each person has the right, not to say duty, to read scripture and interpret it for him/herself. The basic tenets of the early Protestant movement (note, it derives from "protest") included the strong position that we don't need mediators (priests and saints) between us and God - that we can speak directly to God and God speaks directly to us. Given the diversity of humanity, it is not a bit surprising that persons of faith hear many different voices of God. Personally, I believe that God doesn't care about the little stuff - what church you belong to, wine or grape juice, or the details of doctrine. Such concern for minutae would not accord with my belief in an all-encompassing, all-loving God.
Part of what distresses me about Christian fundamentalism is what I perceive as a strong tendency to use some of the more punitive parts of the Old Testament, and what Jimmy Carter described as:
"There is an element of fundamentalism involved, which involves the belief on the part of a human being that [his or her] own concept of God is the proper one. And since [he or she has] the proper concept of God, [he or she is] particularly blessed and singled out for special consideration above and beyond those who disagree with [him or her].
Secondly, anyone who does disagree with [him or her], since [he or she is] harnessed to God in a unique way, then, by definition, must be wrong. And the second step is if you are in disagreement with [his or her] concept of the way to worship, even among the Christian community, is that you are inferior to [him or her]. And then the ultimate progression of that is that you’re not only different and wrong and inferior but in some ways you are subhuman."
I think Mr. Carter's description of religious fundamentalism (of every faith) is entirely accurate.
I think that Pres. Carter's defintion has some validity, but I also think it has to be more inclusive of all religions. Unfortuantly although the actual doctrine of most religions does not state the above, it seems like a high percentage of people feel like that. In general I read his quote to say" if people are different than you, think different, worship different, we have a hard time seeing their side and quite honestly think it is wrong". And I have to say that yes, there is part of me in that statement. Where i think we have to be careful is treating others "sub human". But from personal experience, my Jewish mother in law doesn't understand why i would be such a fool to be Christian, my buddist friend doesn't understand how I can eat meat, and quite honestly I think there is so much scientific proof in Christianity I don't get why they don't see my side.
Anyway my point is, all relgions teach tolerance and peace (okay most do), but there are always a few bad seeds that are very outspoken.
There's another debate...I always find the trend that somehow Christianity needs scientific proof or that some people seemed obsessed with seeking it out troubling.
Darn you Lisa, you planted a big seed for all kinds of discussion when you started this thread.
To the original question, I think there are tons of athiest conservatives. That the Republican party should somehow be representative of the religious right is fairly new.
You're right, Dawn, although my perspective is that the voting power of the religious right and its ability to mobilize at the drop of a catch-phrase has in some ways kidnapped the Republican party. I really do resent the idea that because one speaks publicly of God and faith, that somehow makes that candidate a more religious and therefore more honorable and truthful person. I keep thinking of the instruction to not be like the Pharisees, but rather go into one's closet to pray privately to God.
I am politically and morally conservative.I do not belong to a religion and I do have faith in many things, God being one of them.
Ginny I agree with your last line above 100%. I rarely discuss/debate religious topics because I firmly believe that you Talk to God about people not to people about God.
Kym and Ginny,
I understand what you are saying. Debate about the validity of different religions or of other people is probably not what God wanted us do.
I do however believe that God wanted us to talk to others about the gift of Salvation in Christ.
"Go forth and be fishers of men."
I agree, the commands in the Gospels to go out and preach are multitudinous. And I agree, preaching or teaching the "good news" is very different from arguing or debating about who is saved and who isn't, whether Roman Catholics or Mormons or Quakers are "really" Christians (some of the groups that have suffered significant prejudice from the predominant Protestant Christianity in this nation). Especially when the preacher/teacher has the courtesy to stop the moment the listener makes it clear that s/he doesn't want to be evangelized.
I have no problem with people teaching/preaching. Or discussing. What I have a problem with is criticizing or putting down another person's faith or belief structure, and we don't see a whole lot of that here. When we do, it is usually someone who steps slightly over the line without intending to, and is usually corrected by that person soon after it is brought to (usually) her attention. We have a very nice bunch of people here. We have all seen other sites where that is not the case.
And I get really annoyed with politicians who put themselves out as holier than the other candidate because the holy candidate uses religious language in speeches, or espouses positions that the candidate knows will resonate with the more fundamentalist believer, whether the politician actually believes that way or not. I get especially annoyed with those who hold themselves out as particularly holy when they pick and choose which commandments or parts of scripture they will follow and which they won't - selective holiness.
What a great discussion. I never really understand the point of people arguing about religion. I just feel bad for them because they've obviously missed the big picture. Love others love yourself. If you do this, you don't need all the stuff to argue about. And hey I don't care if someone wants to worship the Cocoa Pebbels God if that makes that person feel more stable and a better person to themselves and others.
Groove
|
Members
