[The American Lion]

There can be conservative atheists. I have meet some, but the problem is that for major conservative movements in the US. Having a Christian belief is almost an requirement. Back during my Republican Party days. Most Republican meetings have Christian prayers and services. If you are an open atheist in the party. Chances are you will never rise in the party because conservative voters will NOT elect an atheist for their leader.

Many conservative atheists have left the GOP for the Libertarian Party for such reason.

[Eran]

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

Yet you don't see prohibition of foreign exchange or for-profit lending as one of the tenants of those seeing themselves as Christian Conservatives today...

[Roza]

I'd imagine secular may be conservative due to the diverse nature of the ideology, they may be social conservatives for their own personal reasons, such as having Burkean views on the natural inequalities within society or subscribe to economic liberalism due to a dislike of overly invasive governments in the economy, but they may feel that libertarianism goes too far. That's my guess as my social conservatism based views are founded in my religious beliefs and support for law and order within society.

[qeddeq]

I do not know what a conservative is really, as it seems that no one cares to give a precise definition. If one cannot be supplied, it means there is no such thing as a conservative. That means that the term conservative needs to be scrapped and replaced with a number of terms which can be defined precisely.
As for atheism and morality, it has been proven that religion is not the basis of morality. Religion is not necessary for morality nor is it sufficient. Many atheists have acted morally in history. If religion were a necessary condition for morality they could not do this. Nor is religion a sufficient condition of morality, as many religious people have acted immorally. If religion were sufficient for morality they couldn't act immorally if they were religious.
Man created both religion and morality. Man therefore is the basis of morality not religion, since man created religion. This explains why men are able to be atheist and moral. At any rate, it seems to be clear that atheists can and do act morally. Their ability to do that derives from their human characteristics, the same ones that allow them to think, and love. We also know for a fact that religious people can act immorally. I think the spanish inquisition is an example of that, and maybe the jihadist terrorism and other terror and war perpetrated in the name of some God or other. The evidence that religion can cause war is compelling.
If you believe in God and believe that man cannot be moral without belief in God, then you must explain the many instances of moral action by atheists since these are counterinstances contradicting your claim.

[Drlee]

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).

Not hardly. Feed the hungry, clothe the poor, visit those in prison, heal the sick......Sorry if that is inconvenient for your world view but please do not make me post the verses that express this in no uncertain terms. It is simply not a matter of debate. In fact. These values are the strongest (and hardest to accomplish) in all of Christendom.

There is only one time that Jesus told people exactly how to fry in hell and exactly how to get into heaven. Don't care for the poor and oppressed gets you fire and taking care of them gets you eternal joy. It really is as simple as that. It is denominationalism that makes it hard.

[Eran]

Feed the hungry, clothe the poor, visit those in prison, heal the sick......

These are hardly peculiar to Christianity. Virtually every world religion calls for charity.

My point was that "turn the other cheek" was the only genuinely original Christian moral principle.

[Drlee]

Nonsense. Nice dodge.

Unless you are deliberately ignoring the message Christianity was the first to claim tha this care for the poor was the ONLY way to achieve an eternal reward.

[qeddeq]

I think the antecedents of turn the other cheek can be found in Plato, in the actions of socrates. I am fairly confident that the christian notion of love thy enemies is not original. I say this with less than 100% confidence but I'll see if I can prove it, since I did read it on wiki but that's not a real source. From wiki:

"This is one of the most important verses in the entire New Testament, Luz states that the ideas expressed in this verse are "considered the Christian distinction and innovation." "Love thy enemies" is what separates Christianity from all earlier religions.[1] Nolland disagrees with this, seeing a number of historical precedents. The Babylonian text the Counsels of Wisdom contains a similar call as does the Egyptian Instruction of Amenemope. In Greek and Roman philosophy the idea of loving ones enemies had been advanced by writers such as Cicero, Seneca, and the Cynics.[2]
The author of Matthew places this verse in the final antithesis, a summary of all that been stated in the Sermon. Early church thinkers also saw this as one of Jesus' most important teachings. The exact wording does not appear in prior Jewish texts, but there are examples of previous thinkers sharing Jesus' sentiments. Other traditions do have similar views. The Greek stoics expressed similar dicta of universal love. It is theoretically possible that Jesus could have been influenced by these ideas, but unlikely. The eastern faiths of Buddhism and Taoism also share this outlook. Nietzsche rejected the command entirely, arguing that love of one's enemies is weakness and dishonesty. Mao Tse-Tung also wrote a commentary on this precept, arguing that universal love is an ultimate goal, but that it is impossible until the class system is removed.[citation needed]"

[Eran]

Unless you are deliberately ignoring the message Christianity was the first to claim that this care for the poor was the ONLY way to achieve an eternal reward.

Caring for the poor is not considered the only way to achieve eternal reward by any Christian denomination, let alone all or most of them.

Catholics clearly believe that the sacraments are also required to achieve reward. Many Christians denominations believe that you are saved by grace alone, i.e. without reference to your deeds in the world. Most others believe that you can be granted forgiveness before death.

If you are an atheist dedicating your life to caring for the poor - you go to hell.
If you are a wealthy man who spent his life ignoring the plight of the poor, but confess on your death-bed - you go to heaven.

[keso]

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.

I think you dont go far enough in your observation. I think that a LOT of people in America, POLITICS aside, treat atheists rather poorly.

[detroit]

I find this post particularly interesting. Sorry if I offend you. The downfall of fake Christianity (from my Atheist perspective) in the United States is it makes people have confidence in politicians. You've got to understand that if our politicians were for the people you would hear dispute about this or that politician breaking the law from lower party members. If everyone followed Jesus's example, which would be fine in my book, You'd see a lot less money and a lot less need of it. And less government. That is to be expected in the current political climate and was certainly ascertained by a philosopher aforementioned in this thread. Well, there you have it, the cusp of my political knowledge (to be expected) and hopefully you won't get on me about it too hard. I understand why people are Christian. My father is very midwest and was raised to be that way. A lot of you are probably like that. I'd like to say that in the passage of British and European culture, I'd like to take a stab that a lot more was divulged from Greek and Roman doctrines (and culture) than Judeo-Christianity. The latter was almost skipped. Despite the great morals, which I'd like to keep and possibly encourage others to believe in, I attribute the sense of "we-ness" to a time in history that I can only describe as beyond the standard of deviation. That may change if we don't become more politically informed. In other words, take a break from lol and read some of this good stuff.

[Verv]

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.

I really hate this statement that 'you can only be a moral person if you are religious,' because it is something that only the most ridiculous conservatives would say. You are straw manning the religious people right now because the actual number of people who sincerely hold that sentiment is ridiculous...

... But the number of angry atheists who walk around with this silly chip on their shoulder, insisting that they are getting discrimination or being maligned by the religious constantly, is quite large.

More often have I heard or read atheists say, "People think we can't have morals" than I have read or heard Christians say that atheists can't have morals. This is one of the many boogie men erected by the nu-atheist movement as a talking point.

For every religious person saying atheists cannot be moral there are 100 atheists shouting about how they hate this stereotype.

It is also important to note that the origins of this theory probably come from the fact that many Christians believe that only a moral act done within the context of Christianity is a truly pleasing act to God; Soren Kierkegaard type stuff of the man who is not conscious with his relationship with God and denies its existence is not really living at all, and not a conscientious participant in his own life or his own society, etc. etc.

It's all really an obscure philosophical talking point about whether or not we are capable of doing truly good without a profound spiritual realization of the truth of altruism, because this do-gooding could otherwise be construed as empty or as self-serving, e.g. I help people because it makes me feel good.

[nucklepunche]

The issue is not being atheist and conservative, it is possible. The issue is being Republican and an atheist. There are so many brands of conservatism. To be an atheist conservative in most of western Europe would not bat an eyelash. The problem is in the USA our leading party on the right has gotten wrapped up in the influence of a particular brand of evangelical protestantism (and to a lesser extent conservative Catholicism).

A lot of this all went back to the 1970s when Republicans found they could win Southern and evangelical voters by talking about socially conservative issues. For Nixon it was a purely political calculation, however it opened the doors for a lot of "true believers" to come into the GOP, many of whom had previously been conservative Democrats or simply not actively political. These people over the 80s and 90s made the GOP more and more religious, reaching its zenith during the 2004 election when "values voters" put Bush over the top in a few key swing states.

Then during Bush's second term he made a few socially conservative moves like trying to push for a marriage amendment, trying to nominate Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, and getting involved the Terri Schiavo thing. In all cases he faced pushback and immediately abandoned the socially conservative focus he promised. Other than the nomination of Sarah Palin as VP in 2008 it seems as if since 2005 the religious wing of the GOP has been receding into the background.

I suspect the religious right will always exist, but is period as a major national power really was 1980-2004. It's been slowly fading away for the past ten years and in ten more years it will not be much of an issue at all. Political coalitions come and go. Fundamentalists were active during the 1800s and early 1900s in moral reform movements like prohibition and the Comstock laws. Then from the Scopes monkey trial until Reagan ran for president fundamentalists tended to shun politics as "worldly" then new theologians like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson came along with an opposite set of views, that said they should seek to transform the world for Christ. There was a cognitive dissonance as many believed the world was going to end soon but they ignored that.

Now we are seeing another period where fundamentalism's role in politics is fading. As to whether it can resurge that is the question. It is undeniable that the millenial generation is largely secular so we are going to be in a generation where religion's influence in politics is minimal. However secular triumphalism is not a good way to go, as we have seen in Russia a resurgance of religious fundamentalism over the past 20 years after 70 years of rule under a regime that actively enforced secularism. So in some future distant generation fundamentalism may rear its head again, but for my lifetime it has pretty much run its course and the conservative movement will become much less religiously oriented.

[Mircea]

There can be conservative atheists. I have meet some, but the problem is that for major conservative movements in the US. Having a Christian belief is almost an requirement.

No, it isn't. It is only a requirement for religious conservatives.

So, logically, the smart thing to do is ostracize and disenfranchise religious conservatives.

Many conservative atheists have left the GOP for the Libertarian Party for such reason.

Well, then they are not conservatives. Libertarianism is anathema to Conservatism.

I do not know what a conservative is really,...

Well then for god's sake don't pay attention to the silly head-liner on this forum.

Conservatives have no duty to the State.

Unless you happen to be a Fascist. Fascist have a duty to the State.

As a Conservative, your first priority is your family; then you; and then your community, followed by your ethnic group if you live in a nation, or by the next higher political entity if you live in a country.

Why?

Why are you here? I don't know. Why are any of us here? Well, it doesn't really matter why you're here, but what does matter is that you engage in personal growth. In order for you to grow as a person and reach your fullest potential, it requires stability. The first level of stability is your family, followed by your community. Unity fosters stability, which promotes your personal growth. You can be an individual and still be unified in thought, or in mind or in purpose or in reason. Unity is good; uniformity is bad.

Consequently, in the Conservative view, the State is subordinate to the individual. The State -- through the very nature of Bureaucracy -- has its own agenda, which is often contrary to your personal growth, often to the point of retarding or hindering your personal growth.

Consistent with those ideas, are the Trinity:

Do no harm
Accept responsibility for your actions
Pay the consequences

Contrast that with Liberals, who don't care if other people are harmed, refuse to accept responsibility always blaming another, and who think everyone else should bear the costs of the consequences of their actions, usually based on some perceived social slight or injustice.

There is only one time that Jesus told people exactly how to fry in hell and exactly how to get into heaven.

No, there's like 8 times Jesus presents some ridiculous criteria to "enter the kingdom of heaven."

He tells one to sell everything and give the money to the poor; then another to just give everything to the poor; to be like a child; to be like the wind; to drink blood; to eat flesh; to hate your parents and family; to love your parents and family.....he was just a charlatan making it up as he goes along.

Nonsense. Nice dodge.

Unless you are deliberately ignoring the message Christianity was the first to claim tha this care for the poor was the ONLY way to achieve an eternal reward.

Actually, no, Judaism made the claim long before christians. Theology shifts over time. You can see where there was no heaven or hell --- Yahweh/Jesus has to punish you or reward you in the here and now, because once you die, you are beyond the control of Yahweh/Jesus and there's nothing he can do -- he can't punish you, nor can he reward you once you're dead. Then you see shifts from individual punishment/reward to mass punishment/reward (once the covenants appear) then back to individual punishment.

And for all the talk of keeping the covenants and the commands, where does it all end up? Read the Latter Prophets --- to gain favor with Yahweh/Jesus all you have to do is engage in social justice --- take care of widows, the infirm, the orphans, the elderly, the poor and so on.

My point was that "turn the other cheek" was the only genuinely original Christian moral principle.

No, it isn't. You got some reading to do. The phrase "turn the other cheek" is a figure of speech you can find in Sumerian texts dating back 7,000 years.

The only think Jesus is plagiarizing here is if you are insulted, do not return the insult.