NYTs Item On Atheist Conservatives Is Nonsense

This article is a lot of hogwash and it causes me to wonder if these specific views of Heather Mac Donald and Razib Khan aren't driven more by a reactionary response to organized religion, or a God concept, than by a clear understanding of conservatism.

As a child, Razib Khan spent several weeks studying in a Bangladeshi madrasa. Heather Mac Donald once studied literary deconstructionism and clerked for a left-wing judge. In neither case did the education take. They are atheist conservatives — Mr. Khan an apostate to his family’s Islamic faith, Ms. Mac Donald to her left-wing education.

“A lot of religious conservatives say, ‘You can’t be conservative because you don’t believe in God,’ ” said Mr. Khan, 34, who was raised in New York and Oregon but whose grandfather was an imam in Bangladesh. “They say I am logically impossible, and I say, ‘Well I am possible because I am.’ “They assert your nonexistence, and you have to assert your existence.”

Saying one has to be a social conservative to be conservative is not the same thing as saying one must believe in God. Social conservatism is an appreciation of what will happen to the civil society in the face of a collapse of traditional institutions and values. Invariably, the society declines. We see it in single-mothers, otherwise broken families, crime and individuals unwilling to take responsibility for themselves and elsewhere.

What that does is foster government growth because something has to fill the gap given the collapse in said institutions. We need more police, we need government day care, we need, we need - more government to fill the void. Nature, not simply God, abhors a vacuum and government always shows itself as all too willing to rush in and expand its influence.

I'd liken it somewhat to the Alcoholics Anonymous experience. One doesn't have to believe in God, per se, one simply has to believe that there is something beyond the individual. In terms of politics, I see that as critical to placing one's rights above man. I don't care if you place them in something you call God, or a little being living on Venus.

By investing one's rights in something above man, one declares that no man, nor government of man, is entitled to usurp them. Why the hell do people think communists declare war on religion? They do it because they want man's rights invested in the state, not some other institution, church, or being. The NYT's columnist uses the God concept as a red herring because the Left has been so successful in making the word seem trite, or even unappealing.

No surprise there, it's the same thing communists have done all over the world. The American Left simply does it more subtlety. Social conservatism does not demand a belief in God, but in societal institutions that maintain a civil society - period. Many include organized religion in that set, but not all. However, it's impossible to argue that the Judeo-Christian ethic didn't birth most of our traditional institutions - marriage, the family, charitable efforts, etc. And, yes, they are called "traditional" because they happened to have worked very well for hundreds of years. Duh!

Comments

[Joan of Argghh!]

.
"They are atheist conservatives — Mr. Khan an apostate to his family’s Islamic faith, Ms. Mac Donald to her left-wing education."

Do I detect a tacit understanding that Leftism/Liberalism is a de facto religion? Ha!

Meanwhile: Dan, this was a very succinct and worthy pursuit of your writing skills. Well said!

.

[Susie Q]

And, again, it's something I've been saying for years. Some people that hitch their wagon to the Conservative brand don't know jack about what it is.

[barfo]

"Social conservatism is an appreciation of what will happen to the civil society in the face of a collapse of traditional institutions and values. Invariably, the society declines. We see it in single-mothers, otherwise broken families, crime and individuals unwilling to take responsibility for themselves and elsewhere."

Oddly, the states that have the highest rates of divorce, alcoholism, teen pregnancy etc. tend to be the "conservative" Red States:

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/lif_div_rat-lifestyle-divorce-rate

[mark l.]

trust me...
you can be an atheist and a social conservative.

religion is just one means to get there.

[Richard]

I would go further than you, Mr Riehl, and say that in fact atheism and economic and fiscal conservatism follow the same logic. However I would also assert the corollary, that religious views fit logically with socialism.

Socialism insists that there must be a central authority. Religious belief relies on an assumption that a central authority is necessary for the world as we perceive it to exist. Conversely atheism makes no assumption of central authority, and allows that the inconceivably complicated world is the emergent phenomenon resulting from unimaginably vast numbers of simple interactions between individual agents. Free-market economics sees an economy as the pattern to emerge from huge numbers of simple interactions of free agents.

Socialists and the religious see and interventionist central authority as necessary. Free-marketeers (broadly) and atheists (strictly) see central authority influence as disruptive and unnecessary.

Then there is the philosophy of life. Socialism and religion are fundamentally coercive and collectivist. Atheism and laissez-faire capitalism are libertarian and allow the individual to decide and take responsibility for himself or herself, both actions towards others and for each person's own happiness and comfort.

I find it difficult to imagine being a socialist, hard to remember being religious (I was a child, and my market philosophy was not then developed). However more than that I find it hard to even understand being religious and right-wing or atheist and socialist, yet these are the most common combinations in the US (and probably here in the UK too).

[astonerii]

Anyone can act good when forced to do so in public view when they already have excellent role models like the christians of this nation to mimic even if they have no personal moral character. Some can even act as such for a very long time with only the people with true moral character able to see through their facade.

mark l. Maybe you can, but that is because atheism then becomes the religion. You can be an atheist and be good, by being good you mean follow all the exact same tenets as people of that religion, except claim that there is no greater power, and it then becomes your personal will to prove that right that keeps you on the right track. You got all the morals from the church, you just refuse to admit that it required a higher power to bring it all about.

[RogerCfromSD]

Faith is an integral component of Conservatism. Trying to separate faith from Conservatism is to try to redefine it. There are no 31 Flavor of Conservatism and some would like to claim. You're either a Conservative, or you're something else.

[Ragspierre]

MacDonald is a serious mind, with really great things to say, backed by excellent scholarship.

I've learned a lot from her, and I appreciate that.

There are a lot of perversions of religion that are warped to support socialism (see Wallis, Jim)

http://hindenblog1.blogspot.com/2010/05/burn-how-christian-is-lying-jim-wallis.html

One of our mistakes is using the term "socialism" far too broadly. When we use it most often, we mean "state socialism", which is coercive by nature, and evil, IMNHO.

But we socialize the impact of life via voluntary means, too. That is what charity is. That is what market responses like insurance are. Those are efforts by people to spread out the vagaries of life across the broader society in a civil setting. Those seem to me to have come, inevitably, from somewhere besides human utility; hence, God.

I remain a deeply confused Christian...unchurched...but profoundly respectful of devout people.

[Amy Alkon]

"You got all the morals from the church, you just refuse to admit that it required a higher power to bring it all about."

Humans evolved morality way before there was ever a church: cooperation, reciprocal altruism, punishment of those who try to cheat others, etc.

-Amy Alkon, fiscally conservative, socially liberatarian, "personal responsibilitarian," atheist

[Dale]

Well, RogerC, I am something else.

I am a fiscal conservative which, I might add, is not a trait one finds among every social conservative. I don't want my taxdollars promoting a leftist version of morality any more than I want my taxdollars promoting a SoCon version of morality. "Both groups believe people are too stupid to make their own decisions absent government coercion.

[astonerii]

Humans evolved morality way before there was ever a church: cooperation, reciprocal altruism, punishment of those who try to cheat others, etc.

Did it also get passed on down through your genes as an evolved trait? Call me a skeptic, but I think not. I for one am certain that before the church, it was pretty much each man for himself, he with the biggest stick and least to lose wins. Religion is what brought each individual virtue you talk about together to allow communities larger than the family. With out it as arbiter, society would never have had the opportunity to "evolve" from one generation to the next, as the morals would be lost in time.

fiscally conservative (it is easy to be fiscally conservative when you are the one picking up the tab, its another thing to be fiscally conservative when your giving up your entitlements.)
socially liberatarian (what pray tell is the difference from social liberal progressive? All the same goals with a different reason.)
"personal responsibilitarian," ah yes, people are responsible for their actions, but only when a direct harm may be proven. Did you corrupt a child with your actions? No one can prove you did or did not. Thus, you are free to practice your deviance whenever where ever. I know all about the libertarian version of personal responsibility. The responsibility rests on everybody's shoulders except yourselves. Hence the reason why the paultards are the rudest and most obnoxious group in any civil gathering they happen to be allowed to attend.
atheist, (nuff said.)

education does an argument good.

[astonerii]

"I am a fiscal conservative which, I might add, is not a trait one finds among every social conservative. I don't want my taxdollars promoting a leftist version of morality any more than I want my taxdollars promoting a SoCon version of morality. "Both groups believe people are too stupid to make their own decisions absent government coercion."

What tax dollars are you talking about that go towards SoCon morality issues? I can think of none.

[mark l.]

"I would also assert the corollary, that religious views fit logically with socialism."
at first glance, yes.

but, the motivations of the individual are extremely relevant in religion, while socialism diminishes the idea of individual achievements and diminishes exceptionalism.

religion is a far better fit for mankind, as, ironically, it evolves with its society. it has withstood the test of time. it has a proven track record, versus socialism, which either has been put into practice and resulted in the genocide of over 100 million people in less than 60 years, or to escape this judgment, has never really existed.

socialism is a fad at best. it is simply a watered-down religion who advertises as being free an actual god.

obama was so worried about people clinging to 'god and guns', without acknowledging that it is a certainty that they will outlive his concept of this country.

[BR]

Quote: "Hence the reason why the paultards are the rudest and most obnoxious group in any civil gathering they happen to be allowed to attend."

Then what should we call the behavior of "evangelicals"? They don't wait for invitations, they come around arrogantly lecturing and pestering you at your own house. Haven't seen a Pauly do that yet.

Quote:"What tax dollars are you talking about that go towards SoCon morality issues? I can think of none."

An illustrative case of self induced blindness is clearly displayed here. How many millions do you think the "War On Drugs" costs every day? The tax bill is only a small fraction of that cost- the effects of subsidizing an enormous crime empire are much greater. The bluenose impulse to do things to others "for their own good" is not limited to the socialist side. Speaking of which- How far would Mr. Marx have got convincing the public of his theories, if "I am my brother's keeper" had not been already deeply indoctrinated into western civilization?

[BR]

Quote: "However, it's impossible to argue that the Judeo-Christian ethic didn't birth most of our traditional institutions - marriage, the family, ....."

What a load of balderdash. Is the claim here that marriages and families didn't exist before Judaism was invented?

[John]

I'm perfectly ready for a civil war within Conservatism. God-botherers hold no appeal to me and the social conservative line is as bad as Marxism as far as I'm concerned.

I've been voting a conservative line for over 45 years and have never felt the need of any god's grace to do so. Keep your holy book, whatever it is, out of my politics, out of my life.

I am not in the least hostile to religion, except when other people insist on inflicting their religion and its values on me.

[Not Likely]

Your commentors are smarter than you Mr. Riehl. Maybe it's time to hang it up.

[Roy Lofquist]

RogerCfromSD,

"Perhaps it would be well, most of the time, to use this word “conservative” as an adjective chiefly. For there exists no Model Conservative, and conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.".

Russell Kirk (WF Buckley's favorite conservative.

http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/

I heartily recommend Mr. Kirk' Ten Principles to all who would discuss Conservatism.

[Tennwriter]

Well said, Dan. I'm surprised you got such disagreement from your article, although that too was thoughtful. I'm a Socon, and a YEC, and a follower of the Christ.....but I do not see any problem with 'atheist conservative' as a concept. They're rare birds, but not extinct or mythological.

Roger,
Hmmmm, not sure. I'd say Conservative is like Scientist. Both are born of Christ, and w/o Him, you're standing on nothing, but being illogical is every human's privilege.

John,
Given the choice between Obamacare and blue alcohol laws in your county on Sunday, how do you vote?

Amy,
You can shout it from the rooftops w/ gov't provided megaphones, and it's still not true. We did not evolve morality in the sense of giving birth to it, although we have adapted. We were given morality as an innate part of our design, and as Revelation.

[mark l.]

it is an inherent genetic mission for man to seek perfection.
hate to go all saint anselm, but religion, or more precisely a 'god', is the only vessel that is equipped to hold perfection.

that is socialism's failure...embracing the imperfect to advance the imperfect.

******************************

"Humans evolved morality way before there was ever a church..."

"church", yes, 'religion', not a chance.
hubris, amy.

severing the link of social evolution from religion is NOT possible. The effort is futile, and it diminishes us...

[Ragspierre]

"Humans evolved morality way before there was ever a church..."

Yeah...no. There is no support for that in history, if mark's observation above is made.

I find no evidence to support the evolution of morality. I see MASSIVE evidence to show that a system of utility renders what history has delivered (worlds of human misery), and that it works every time it is tried.

[astonerii]

[quote] Quote: "Hence the reason why the paultards are the rudest and most obnoxious group in any civil gathering they happen to be allowed to attend."

Then what should we call the behavior of "evangelicals"? They don't wait for invitations, they come around arrogantly lecturing and pestering you at your own house. Haven't seen a Pauly do that yet.

Quote:"What tax dollars are you talking about that go towards SoCon morality issues? I can think of none."

An illustrative case of self induced blindness is clearly displayed here. How many millions do you think the "War On Drugs" costs every day? The tax bill is only a small fraction of that cost- the effects of subsidizing an enormous crime empire are much greater. The bluenose impulse to do things to others "for their own good" is not limited to the socialist side. Speaking of which- How far would Mr. Marx have got convincing the public of his theories, if "I am my brother's keeper" had not been already deeply indoctrinated into western civilization?

Posted by: BR | Saturday, February 19, 2011 at 04:03 AM [end quote]

Evangelicals do not go to houses who ask them not to, put a sign out that tells your neighbors you do not want to talk to them, or specific subset of them. When they come to your house, as them to leave, I do it on that RARE occasion (3 times a year maybe) when they come by.

The drug war is not a conservative social issue. As a conservative, I am appalled at the drug war. The war against drugs should be done at the family level, the work level and the community level. First, drugs should be legal, second, drug users should be discriminated against in employment, and drug users should not be given any nanny state benefits. Legal = cheap which gets rid of 80% of all the societal damage that drugs cause, discrimination in employment opportunities = low cost tomato pickers of American heritage which gets rid of another 10% of the damage that drugs cause to America and some amount of damage illegal aliens cause, and no government nanny state benefits for drug users gets rid of the remaining damage drugs cause to society. Individuals will screw up, but by simply making decisions for them is not the answer. Make it legal, then discriminate like hell, it is the right way to do it. So your argument failed, it is not a social conservative position to wage the drug war, it has always been and always will be the big government nanny state of socialism that presses forever onward on this front. Those in churches who declare that drugs should be illegal are just lazy pastors who do not have the ability to stand up and declare that a legal activity is a sin and should be abstained from.

[Barfo's Brother]

"I remain a deeply confused Christian..."

Posted by: Ragspierre | Saturday, February 19, 2011 at 01:15 AM

You're deeply confused about a lot of things, Ragspierre! But nobody else needs me to point that out.

[Ragspierre]

And, when I am, I know it and admit it.

This distinguishes me from the insane (barfo, barfo's brother, and the Collective they rode in on).

[Lou Rheeive]

Richard's post is the smartest I've seen on here.

Personally, I'd rather just chuck the words conservative and liberal out of the lexicon.

I am an atheist who doesn't need want institutions to do ANYTHING more than provide function. Government, church, unions, authors of any stripe.... Even libertarians who are doctrinaire.... PLEASE don't tell me how to think!

My familial upbringing and nurturing and my experiences and absorption of norms during the process of being socialized are good enough for me. I can make up my own mind, thank you, and I don't need anyone telling me what is "racist" or "politically incorrect" or "immoral".

Your belief systems are fine with me, just so long as you don't believe in telling me that my analysis/interpretation of the world is any less valid than yours simply because you have fallen in lockstep with a particular institution than demands conformism.

And by the way.... I've voted a straight Republican line ever since 1980, but not because I adulate the party or the nominal "conservatives". I would consider viable alternatives in a heartbeat the moment it became apparent that said alternatives were more respectful of my freedoms as an individual than the status quo.

[Tennwriter]

Lou,
My views are more valid than yours because they are based on Reality. You're free to believe pixies will help you fly if you clap your hands three times, or that Freedom is the only just concern of a society and a government, but your belief is irrelevant to Reality.

And anyone hear 'adulate the party (GOP)'? Anyone, anyone, Bueller? Bueller?

Perhaps, you did not mean to be, but you were a tad insulting with your post.

[Lou Rheeive]

Tennwriter,

Independent thought scares you, I see.

But this IS the blogosphere, where dissenting voices are rendered ridiculous not through reason, but through ridicule.

[Tennwriter]

Heh, heh.

Independent thought is useful, but we are dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants according to Russell Kirk. There is wisdom encoded in institutions that the shallow, blinkered man of the present cannot know.

Also, independent thought, like philosophy in small doses may lead you away from God, but in large doses it leads one back to God....inspired by Blaise Pascal.

You charge that I do not have but only ridicule. I have both. Name one person on this site who adulates the GOP.