There is a wide diversity of opinion among conservative atheists. We all reject the belief in a Deity and have a basic political philosophy of conservatism but beyond that you can find much difference. You'll find Conservative Atheists on both sides of the abortion debate, the gay marriage debate, the flag burning amendment and many others. Having said that, most conservative atheists are strong proponents of the separation of church and state, support lower taxes and less regulation. With that in mind here are my positions on the major issues (for the positions of another conservative atheist check out conservativeatheist.com )-
1. Abortion: Pro-life, Roe V Wade needs to be overturned. There is no constitutional right to have an abortion, unfortunately there is no constitutional protection for the unborn either so once over turned abortion law will be decided by the states. I would support a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, however, provisions need to be included to protect the life and the long term health of the mother.
2. Affirmative Action: No, it was needed once but it's time has long passed. No rational person can say America is still not an integrated society, affirmative action must end, and no discrimination should be tolerated.
3. Aid to Africa: Yes, America and other developed nations should do what the can to help Africa. We need to fight AIDS in Africa as well as help build infrastructure that will help poor African nations feed themselves, have clean water, and encourage businesses there to provide jobs. A prosperous Africa is good for America too.
4. Animal Rights: No, animals have no rights. People who abuse animals should be punished under animal cruelty laws but animals are not sentient. Animals provide us with food, clothing, and other essentials for life, and that should continue. Animals kill each other for food because it's in their nature, just like it's in our nature to do so.
4. Animal Rights: No, animals have no rights. People who abuse animals should be punished under animal cruelty laws but animals are not sentient. Animals provide us with food, clothing, and other essentials for life, and that should continue. Animals kill each other for food because it's in their nature, just like it's in our nature to do so.
5. Big Government: No, we need less government not more. There are legitimate things that should be regulated, like food safety and medicine, and product safety in general but we need to make sure that companies aren't overburdened with unnecessary and cumbersome regulations, all government regulations should be subject to periodic reviews every few years with congressional over site and regulations deemed unnecessary should be wiped off the books. The same should be the case for government agencies, they need to be lean and efficient not bureaucratic nightmares.
9 comments:
Agreed on all points except Abortion and Africa. The government has no right to apply its laws to a woman's body. Banning abortion would also lead to a population boom that in the long term would be unsustainable.
Africa is hopeless. History proves it.
Thanks for your input.
I respectfully disagree with you on abortion, although I think you do have a point about the potential for over population. I think the answer to that would be making contraceptives more available, to prevent conception in the first place.
On Africa, although we can't(and shouldn't) solve all their problems for them, helping with stemming the tide on hunger and AIDS, and helping them set up some infrastructure has benefits that help us too.
Its very refreshing to see someone who thinks much like myself. And to the commenter about abortion i would like to add that the government has no right to make folks pay for anything a woman wants to do to her body , its a double edged sword either they stay completly away (healthcare) included or they regulate it should not be a pick and chose government for the women. the biggest problem in this country on all issues are people not taking responsability and dealing with the consequences of their own actions.
Thanks for the link to my conservativeatheist.com site. Check out my conservative-atheist.blogspot.com for more timely posts. Thanks again.
I identify myself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. It seems to me that your web-site also reflects socially conservative values, which I cannot agree with. When it comes to abortion, I believe it's a woman's right to make such decisions, it's not the government's responsibility. You also seem to oppose gay marriage. Sorry, but it's not the governments duty to regulate relationships between individuals in a free society. Aid to Africa is complete nonsense. No such aid is possible when the U.S. government has an enormous budget deficit. Besides, we don't any moral obligation to assist anybody. As for smaller government, I am all for it: there is no need to have an omnipotent government. Government must stay away from bedrooms and boardrooms.
You are correct on my position on abortion, but you misread my position on gay marriage.
I fully support same-sex marriage. I just don't think courts should be legalizing it from the bench. But I do support its legalization by popular vote or legislation.
I also support the legalization of prostitution, assisted suicide, and marijuana at the state level.
I'm interested particularly in two of your issues - abortion and animal rights.
With abortion, my question is, "When do you think life begins?" I would say it is as late as the 26th week, when brain activity is detectable. Much earlier than that, and there is no moral issue at all - unless you believe there is some sort of soul that is in the embryo at conception - in which case, you would have a religious basis.
As far as animal rights goes, when you say "animals are not sentient", what exactly do you mean? Do you mean they are like clockwork machines, with no consciousness whatsoever, as Descartes believed? Because that would be an appallingly unscientific view.
The reason I believe there is a moral issue here is that the animals do feel pain - which is what I would mean by sentience, and which is the relevant moral issue. To deny that much is absurd - the very animal cruelty laws you support already admit it. The only reason they exist is because we know that animals do feel pain.
Since we are rational creatures, capable of modifying our behavior, we could indeed choose to not eat animals or wear their clothing. Many people already do, and claiming that it will never happen on the whole of the species is no reason to say it shouldn't happen.
To say it is justified to kill animals based on the way we are due to nature (with the ability and tendency to kill and eat them), is no more sound than saying that rape is justified because it is a "natural behavior" (after all, all behaviors are technically "natural", in that they have a natural origin).
To me, it is a very simple matter. Animals can feel pain. I don't like being responsible for inflicting pain (by using my money to buy meat or clothes made from animals). I can have a healthy diet without eating animals.
I already accept that it is wrong to inflict pain without a good reason, and I understand that I don't have a good reason. So I don't inflict the additional pain to the animals by funding their suffering.
As far as the issue of Africa goes, I can't see how that's a conservative or liberal issue.
With abortion I believe life begins at conception. Even though they have no brain activity until later in the pregnancy they will, if allowed to naturally develop, become a person. I am aware that many pregnancies naturally fail on their own this early, but I think we need to protect the unborn.
That being said, I am all for contraceptives to prevent pregnancy in the first place. This has no basis in religion, I don't believe they have a 'soul.'
With animal rights, inflicting pain for no reason is unethical, but billions of people rely on animals for food and other products that require we kill them. It's just how it is. Not to mention pests such as rats carry disease and need to be controlled.
Thank you for your post and your criticsms, I've started a conservative atheist social network if you want to join it's at:
http://conservative-atheist.ning.com/
You don't have to be a conservative or an atheist to join.
On abortion, I am pro-life except if it would be necessary to save a woman's life which is almost never necessary. I have no intent as a male to tell a woman what to do with her body, but what these pro-abortion advocates ( especially militant feminists ) don't understand is that if a man impregnates a woman and they both planned to have a baby, the father of that unborn child is simply saying-- " there is another body inside your body that is a separate entity or human life from your body ) and as the father of that unborn child , I have a right to have a say toward the fate of that unborn child )". I'm so sick and tired of hearing this -- "its my body" crap. If a woman wants to put tattoos all over her body or body piercings or tint her hair orange, then GO FOR IT !!!! It's your body and I don't care. That unborn child is comprised of 50 percent of the genetic makeup of the mother and 50 percent of the genetic makeup of the father, so its just as much the father's child as it is the mother's child . The mother's womb only serves as an organic or biological incubator for its development. If the mother doesn't want to take responsibility of raising the child or sees it as a burden, she can simply waltz into an abortion clinic and have the unborn child killed via abortion. The father has no such option to opt-out from being held captive and forced to take care of an unwanted child. If she doesn't want the child she can murder it in the womb, but if he doesn't want the child--its TOO BAD and the father will be forced (by the government)to make child support payments for at least the next 18 or 21 years against his will. SHE has choices but HE has only obligations. So much for equality. Women say that when men can give birth then they can make the choice as well. Thats a very pompous attitude. The reciprocal of that statement states that when women become asexual and can get pregnant without the sperm of men, then they can count men out of the equation, so therefore the unborn child is as much his as it is hers. If women want to do away with being impregnated by men, then they can invent artificial sperm and men can invent artificial eggs and wombs( to show how ridiculous this can get ).Typical anti-male man-hating feminist BS. Its well known how feminists hate motherhood but will shove lesbian rights down our throats ad nauseum and then engage in name-calling when people don't agree with their hate mogering propagandist rhetoric. Men are finally waking up and speaking out at last.
Post a Comment