[Lagrange]

I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but in America conservatives are very hostile to non-believers. The idea that you can only be a moral person if you are religious is so antiquated and the constant association between "faith" and conservatism is off-putting.

[emmitt]

I know what you mean. Religious faiths can be a bit annoying but pseudo-religious/quasi-religious faiths are even worse (read Eric Voegelin's book "The political religions").
If you put it all into perspective, you'll notice that most (pseudo-)religions are truly troubling and infuriating.

Btw, things aren't that bad here. Sure, there are some folks who try to Americanize German conservatism by stressing Christianity but I'm pretty sure that they only try to emphasize the differences between the Western world and Islam. All the awful traits of the religious right are absent for the most part. Religion is mostly gone except for the typical religious traditions immigrants have brought here and some new religious movements. Religion's only instrumentalized for political purposes. It's merely a means to an end. If there were useful alternatives, there'd be even fewer religious people. That's the current state of affairs. But things can change. That should be fairly obvious.

Mainstream conservatives are boring anyway. Unfortunately, mainstream conservatism has become more or less identical with social democracy.

[Lagrange]

Unfortunately, mainstream conservatism has become more or less identical with social democracy.

If you're in Germany, the CDU is definitely center-left by American standards. Thankfully, our GOP is very conservative.

[emmitt]

If you're in Germany, the CDU is definitely center-left by American standards. Thankfully, our GOP is very conservative.

Yeah, it sure is. But just imagine how "liberal"/"progressive" the political alternatives are.
That's exactly the reason why actual conservatives have resorted to calling themselves "right-conservative" (rechtskonservativ) or "reactionary"/"counter-revolutionary".

I'd prefer it if the GOP became (much more) paleoconservative though. I'm not sure if a strong neoconservative party's such a good thing.

[nucklepunche]

It depends I guess. There are not many atheists in the USA relatively speaking. Really it all depends. The USA is a big country and there are different "flavors" of conservatism. In the USA it's become religiously dominated in the South and certain pockets of the Midwest, but not so much in others. It is not as explicitly religious in the West, and more of a libertarian oriented conservatism. Finally within states themselves there is a split. Here in MI there are a few very liberal cities anchoring the state (Lansing, Ann Arbor, Detroit) which skews us blue, but in the state legislature there is definitely a split between West Michigan Republicans and Republicans from the Detroit suburbs. West Michigan Republicans are like Southern Republicans, super religious in their focus, but elsewhere Michigan Republicans are more about balanced budgets and being pro-business.

The point is you will find different levels of tolerance in each circle. There are some people in the USA whose conservatism comes through a religious prism and they will be intolerant of atheists for sure, but there are also business conservatives who don't take issue with it.

[ronimacarroni]

Because religions contribute to charitable causes.
If you're conservative who believes in small government and an atheist you're basically saying that you're a selfish person who wants to give nothing back to society.

[mikema63]

Or maybe they believe government is inefficient and corrupt?

[Lagrange]

Because religions contribute to charitable causes.
If you're conservative who believes in small government and an atheist you're basically saying that you're a selfish person who wants to give nothing back to society.

So if I'm an atheist that means I don't donate to charity?

[Roderic the Great]

I'm going to have to say that I disagree tremendously with this thread. First of all, I don't agree that conservatism can stem from any other premise but a religious one (whether the proponent of conservatism is aware of it or not). The very society and moral order which we seek to conserve is built in the Judeo-Christian light (assuming we are talking about Western society). Whether you are a believer of God or not, you are still trying to preserve the society which we built according to His word -- or at least, His alleged word. I'm sure that you've heard that argument before and I'm sure it wasn't terribly convincing that time but I think it bares repeating. When you did hear it, you probably said something along the lines of "whether it started as a Christian tradition or not is immaterial. What really matters is that it is the basis on which a good society functions." To that, I would respond with the argument that it is only how a good society functions insofar as we understand goodness which is a value deeply engrained in us because of our Judeo-Christian heritage. Sure, it's the same argument, but I think it lends well to several layers. Ultimately, whether one believes in God and the Trinity and the Holy Bible or not, one cannot deny that the very pillars upon which society was built are deeply rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

The second issue I take with the OP, one which was lightly touched upon further on in the discussion, is the question of whether one can truly be moral without being religious. I wager that one cannot: while one may do good things, if one does not do good things in service to the Heavenly Father, then one does good things in the name of vanity and ego. This kind of elevation of man (read: humans) to an almost God-like status is just creating a false religion in the absence of a divine one. For me, and you can feel free to disagree which you surely will, that is not a truly moral course of action but one informed by ego and material desire.

Finally, I have to raise the point that you've made about the idea that to be a moral person, one must also be a religious is antiquated and, somehow, therefore, not a legitimate argument. Surely, as a conservative, you can see the sheer ridiculousness of that argument as you're faced with it regularly by those who claim a more liberal approach to politics! Indeed, many of the things you would likely support as a conservative are antiquated as you say and yet that does not make them any less valid or any less true. Truth is truth, and truth is timeless. If a thing is true, then it is true forever and always otherwise, it is not true but only momentarily convenient.

[emmitt]

1) Prescriptive morality: Morality is highly subjective. There's no standard of morality which happens to be intersubjectively ascertainable. It doesn't matter if you're trying to use utilitarianism or deontology as the basis of your moral system. At the end of the day, you're unable to explain satisfactorily why your philosophy should be the foundation on which societal morality is based. This doesn't necessarily imply that you're left without any objective rules for social interactions. You might as well use subjective well-being or life satisfaction (happiness) as a guide to improve society. But don't confuse happiness with morality. It's not obvious that they're the same and I honestly doubt you could make a persuasive argument in favor of equating happiness/subjective well-being with morality.

Descriptive morality: Yes, there are certain moral "taste buds" that human beings seem to have. Jonathan Haidt distinguishes a couple of them like fairness, liberty and care (I haven't actually read this specific article but I know his work and this was the first thing I could find within a couple of seconds ). But don't make the mistake of thinking that these moral taste buds should be the foundation of morality. They vary from person to person which is the reason why we have (political) disagreements.

2) You don't have a monopoly on the definition of conservatism. If there are atheists out there who think they're conservatives, it might be advisable to tolerate them as long as they agree with you on what is to be done. Atheists might still be willing to accept religion as a "necessary evil". They don't need to be militant antitheists.

[Roderic the Great]

1) Prescriptive morality: Morality is highly subjective. There's no standard of morality which happens to be intersubjectively ascertainable. It doesn't matter if you're trying to use utilitarianism or deontology as the basis of your moral system. At the end of the day, you're unable to explain satisfactorily why your philosophy should be the foundation on which societal morality is based. This doesn't necessarily imply that you're left without any objective rules for social interactions. You might as well use subjective well-being or life satisfaction (happiness) as a guide to improve society. But don't confuse happiness with morality. It's not obvious that they're the same and I honestly doubt you could make a persuasive argument in favor of equating happiness/subjective well-being with morality.

Descriptive morality: Yes, there are certain moral "taste buds" that human beings seem to have. Jonathan Haidt distinguishes a couple of them like fairness, liberty and care (I haven't actually read this specific article but I know his work and this was the first thing I could find within a couple of seconds ). But don't make the mistake of thinking that these moral taste buds should be the foundation of morality. They vary from person to person which is the reason why we have (political) disagreements.

2) You don't have a monopoly on the definition of conservatism. If there are atheists out there who think they're conservatives, it might be advisable to tolerate them as long as they agree with you on what is to be done. Atheists might still be willing to accept religion as a "necessary evil". They don't need to be militant antitheists.

I appreciate your taking the time (couple seconds though it may have been ) to answer me. I would say that you've clearly done more reading into the theories on morality than I have. I am speaking largely from personal experience, intuition and trying to build up from there with reason. I would say, however, that your distinction between prescriptive and descriptive morality don't fully address my arguments on the foundations of modern society being distinctly Judeo-Christian. That is to say, those who were responsible for the foundation of modern society relied themselves on Judeo-Christian thought. Of course, I would never say that all that glitters is gold -- hence, just because it looks Judeo-Christian does not make it so -- but I would say that when the very founders of our modern society (that is, the society which we seek to conserve) evoked images of God and, specifically, the Abrahamic understanding of Him, then I find sufficient reason to claim that it is the foundation. Whether it is the spring from which one's individual morality has sprung is completely separate to the point (although I do tend to believe that there is a great deal of nurturing the morality of people going on and that it is the Judeo-Christian society that nurtures it to full health).

Secondly, I certainly do not have a monopoly on what it is to be conservative but I like to think that we're all pretty much on the same page when we use the term. That said, I would argue that the ends are not a justification for the means and that if good work is not done in service to God then it is not truly good work.

[ronimacarroni]

I'm going to have to say that I disagree tremendously with this thread. First of all, I don't agree that conservatism can stem from any other premise but a religious one (whether the proponent of conservatism is aware of it or not). The very society and moral order which we seek to conserve is built in the Judeo-Christian light (assuming we are talking about Western society). Whether you are a believer of God or not, you are still trying to preserve the society which we built according to His word -- or at least, His alleged word. I'm sure that you've heard that argument before and I'm sure it wasn't terribly convincing that time but I think it bares repeating. When you did hear it, you probably said something along the lines of "whether it started as a Christian tradition or not is immaterial. What really matters is that it is the basis on which a good society functions." To that, I would respond with the argument that it is only how a good society functions insofar as we understand goodness which is a value deeply engrained in us because of our Judeo-Christian heritage. Sure, it's the same argument, but I think it lends well to several layers. Ultimately, whether one believes in God and the Trinity and the Holy Bible or not, one cannot deny that the very pillars upon which society was built are deeply rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

The second issue I take with the OP, one which was lightly touched upon further on in the discussion, is the question of whether one can truly be moral without being religious. I wager that one cannot: while one may do good things, if one does not do good things in service to the Heavenly Father, then one does good things in the name of vanity and ego. This kind of elevation of man (read: humans) to an almost God-like status is just creating a false religion in the absence of a divine one. For me, and you can feel free to disagree which you surely will, that is not a truly moral course of action but one informed by ego and material desire.

Finally, I have to raise the point that you've made about the idea that to be a moral person, one must also be a religious is antiquated and, somehow, therefore, not a legitimate argument. Surely, as a conservative, you can see the sheer ridiculousness of that argument as you're faced with it regularly by those who claim a more liberal approach to politics! Indeed, many of the things you would likely support as a conservative are antiquated as you say and yet that does not make them any less valid or any less true. Truth is truth, and truth is timeless. If a thing is true, then it is true forever and always otherwise, it is not true but only momentarily convenient.

Well there are many things Jesus would disagree about conservatives vision of society I think.
He complained about the money changers in the temple for profiting from religion. Christian institutions tend to show opulence.
He was also against materialism. Conservative's vision of society revolves around materialism at the expense of the poor.
His miracle of the bread and fish also seems like socialism to me.

[Paradigm]

Well there are many things Jesus would disagree about conservatives vision of society I think.
He complained about the money changers in the temple for profiting from religion. Christian institutions tend to show opulence.
He was also against materialism. Conservative's vision of society revolves around materialism at the expense of the poor.
His miracle of the bread and fish also seems like socialism to me.

Yes, I would agree that Jesus would be far too left-wing for today's conservatives. But I think Roderic the Great is making a more subtle point than that. Conservatives are trying to preserve their culture's traditional way of life. Despite the poor job our culture has done of living up to the ideals preached by Jesus, it has still been ideologically influenced by many aspects of the Judeo-Christian tradition, as well as the Greco-Roman heritage(Athens and Jerusalem, as the saying goes). The Judeo-Christian tradition includes more than just the way Christianity was practiced in the first century A.D.(which wouldn't make sense today, because conditions have changed). It means the way that it is lived in a given culture. Of course, this brings up the question of whether or not we can talk about "the" Judeo-Christian tradition. What we really mean is the European Judeo-Christian tradition, which is different from the African or Middle Eastern Judeo-Christian tradition.

[anna]

The second issue I take with the OP, one which was lightly touched upon further on in the discussion, is the question of whether one can truly be moral without being religious. I wager that one cannot: while one may do good things, if one does not do good things in service to the Heavenly Father, then one does good things in the name of vanity and ego. This kind of elevation of man (read: humans) to an almost God-like status is just creating a false religion in the absence of a divine one. For me, and you can feel free to disagree which you surely will, that is not a truly moral course of action but one informed by ego and material desire.

I'm not an atheist, but I disagree with you that if "one does not do good things in service to the Heavenly Father, then one does good things in the name of vanity and ego." I think it's quite ordinary for an atheist to do good things compelled by a higher motive than vanity and ego. Conversely, believers who ought to be informed by a higher purpose often do good things in the name of vanity and ego.

[Jackal]

While I am not an atheist, I do consider myself a secular conservative to a degree. I typically have little issues with the more religious conservatives outside of them roadblocking good social policy such as abortion.

[nucklepunche]

The problem is conservatism wasn't historically an ideology but merely a philosophical approach favoring slow gradual change and opposing revolutionary changes in the social order, not necessarily a checklist of correct beliefs on issue A, B and C. Religious groups have taken up the mantle of conservatism starting in the 1970s in the USA. This is when conservatism turned into an ideology in the USA, one linked deeply with religion.

[Rich]

Conservatism is fundamentally about pretending. So Conservatism in Britain started off an attempt to pretend that Britain hadn't overthrown its legitimate monarch. Sarah Palin perfectly expressed the Conservative sentiment when she said the founders worked tirelessly to abolish slavery. However the Conservatives do have a point. Once you start de-constructing a societies ideology its difficult to stop. All moral systems are bull shit yet a society needs its people or at least the overwhelming majority to believe in the fantasy. Revolutionaries of course whether Jacobins, Bolsheviks or Islamists have their own fantasies, its just they're have radical differences with the established order.

So the problem for Liberals is that they want to partially de-construct Conservative myths, but not completely. The Communists never ever took over by winning majority support. Its important to understand that the Lenin-Trossky coup of late 1917 was not just against Social Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, anarchist and all the non socialist parties, but against a very large part of the Bolshevik party itself that looked to Kamanev for leadership. Anyway the point is that when society is utterly demoralised small minorities can take over. Society needs its myths. But myths they remain.

In the the first example I gave, the elite overthrew James II. In practical terms this was a no brainer. But it created huge ideological problems, because once you started overthrowing privilege where do you stop.

[Quantum]

If you're in Germany, the CDU is definitely center-left by American standards. Thankfully, our GOP is very conservative.

Yeah, so conservative that DeMint ostracised Jason Richwine and is proof that the centre-right in America are fake conservatives too.

[Eran]

The very society and moral order which we seek to conserve is built in the Judeo-Christian light.

I would like to dispute this statement.

In fact, I would like to propose that there is no such thing as Christian (not to mention Judeo-Chrisitian) morality!

To understand my point, let me start by making the (fairly uncontroversial) point that Western culture is built upon Judeo-Christian (as well as Classical) foundations.

That is evident in multiple cultural characteristics which satisfy all of the following conditions:
1. They are peculiar to the Judeo-Christian tradition
2. They have consistently been part of the Judeo-Christian tradition for centuries.

Examples include the sign of the cross, the Bible, its stories and heroes, the tradition of a weekly resting day, etc.

By contrast, I challenge anybody to come up with moral attributes within the Western tradition which also:
1. Are peculiar to the Judeo-Christian tradition, and
2. Have been consistently part of that tradition for centuries.

All the major moral principles of the West are either:
1. Common to other traditions as well (charity, prohibition against in-group theft and murder, sexual morality), or
2. Have not been part of Western tradition for long (democracy, racial equality)


The only genuinely original Christian moral principle I can think of is "turn the other cheek", the idea that the use of force is wrong even against one's enemies, as well as "love thy enemy" ("love thy neighbour" is universal).

These principles, while often spoken-of, have never been a material component on the moral values as actually practised by members of the Western tradition, and aren't even seriously advocated by modern Conservative Christians.

[ronimacarroni]

...
Jesus also expelled the money changers from the temple...