Mark Noonan Almost Has A Rational Thought
When the dog bites, when the bee stings, when I’m feeling sad; I simply go over to Blogs For Bush, and then I don’t feel so bad.
A Response to the Conservative Atheist
By Mark Noonan at 03:29 AMHeather MacDonald – whom I think I’ve heard of before, but I’m not entirely sure about that – has apparently caused a bit of a stir by coming out as a conservative atheist. I’ve known a couple such, and I’ve found them to actually be far more libertarian than conservative, and generally “stuck” as conservatives because anything other than overt leftism is rejected by everything non-conservative. In short, a lot of libertarians are conservatives because no one else will have them.
[…]
I wanted to offer some resistance to the assumption of conservative religious unanimity. I tried to point out that conservatism has no necessary relation to religious belief, and that rational thought, not revelation, is all that is required to arrive at the fundamental conservative principles of personal responsibility and the rule of law.
The problem here is that while personal responsibility and the rule of law are very important, they are not the fundamental conservative principles.
That’s the problem! That’s what we’ve been saying! As everyone knows who has even a nodding-hello-at-the-train-station relationship with reality — who even sees reality down at the dog park sometimes and is like, ‘Hey, what’s up? And how did Rusty do at the vet?’ — the fundamental principles of contemporary American conservatism are roughly as listed:
- The unrestricted exercise of wealth
- The diminishment of Constitutional liberties
- Attempts toward a de facto one-party state headed by an unaccountable sovereign
- The maintenance and/or concoction of a series of existential ‘threats to civilization’ — e.g. the late Cold War, ‘the liberals,’ the International
JewishMuslim Conspiracy
- Irrationalism — i.e. a politics of instrumental ‘stances’ that freely contradict one another, which is unaccountable to universal moral claims
- Sucking
- Being a bunch of incredible chumpwads who suck
- Anti-intellectualism — i.e. hostility to science, culture, jurisprudence, diplomacy, modern philosophy, the social sciences, and all other modes of human attainment save technology, rhetoric, and warfare
In other words, the fundamental principles of contemporary American conservatism are not only viciously stupid, but anti-conservative.
But is Mark about to pour a bucket of icy asparagus pee all over this fragile moment of accord? Why, yes. Yes he is:
Allow Burke to explain:
…when they have once thrown off the fear of God, which was in all ages too often the case, and the fear of man, which is now the case, and when in that state they come to understand one another, and to act in corps, a more dreadful calamity cannot arise out of hell to scourge mankind. Nothing can be conceived more hard than the heart of a thoroughbred metaphysician. It comes nearer to the cold malignity of a wicked spirit than to the frailty and passion of a man. It is like that of the principle of evil himself, incorporeal, pure, unmixed, dephlegmated, defecated evil.
The bedrock of conservatism is the Christian religion…
Mark reaches back to an 18th-Century Royalist when sources are much nearer to hand. (Without checking, I believe this is Burke’s famous essay against the French Revolution, and in support of the divine right of Louis XVI.) Here’s Barry Goldwater, the father of the modern conservative movement:
“I don’t have any respect for the Religious Right. There is no place in this country for practicing religion in politics. That goes for Falwell, Robertson and all the rest of these political preachers. They are a detriment to the country.”
“By maintaining the separation of church and state, the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars . . . Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Can anyone look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in Northem Ireland, or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of state?
“The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others, unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. . . We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn’t stop now. To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic.”
You know you’re living in zany times when even Barry Goldwater starts to seem like a beacon of moderation and clear thinking.
Update: Don’t miss Noonan’s entire post. It’ll make you gasp in wonderment again and again.
Here.
It’s a useful summary of thousands of years worth of hand-wringing and fear-mongering over what will happen if we allow the rabble to ask too many impertinent questions about things to which they should just shut up and submit.
Every single time an advance was made in religious liberty, it was supposedly going to cause widespread anarchy, nihilism, raping, robbing, and pillaging. Every single time, those fears were shown to be unfounded. Why, if you didn’t know better, you’d think the authoritarian types were more interested in telling people what to do, what to think, and exactly how those things should be done rather than actually looking out for society’s best interest as they claimed.
Damn that liberal Barry Goldwater!
OMG! My Constitutional liberties have been diminished! I’m not sure exactly how, but maybe Gavin will shed light on it. I’ve heard that, while I can still talk to my terrorist friends, there is a chance it might be recorded. The HORROR! Constitutional rights down the toilet! Freedom disappearing! I can’t go on!!
Grow up Gavin. You haven’t lost a single right that you had in 1990, or 1980, or… should I go on? Quit acting like a girl. That was in no way an attempt to offend girls. It’s just that Gavin was acting like one of you. Girls rock. Gavin, not so much.
So it doesn’t bother you that the government is now opening people’s mail and accessing people’s bank accounts without warrants?
I guess you believe the government when it says it’ll only use this power for good.
[I]n fact, if you have really thrown off God – which must mean that you deny His power over you – then you’d be a fool for not grabbing as much as you think you can get away with.
Thus speaks someone with the ethical framework of a two-year-old. I expect Noonan’s literally afraid of atheism–without belief in God, he’d entirely lose his moral compass. This essay pretty much lays out the reasons that conservatives tend to be authoritarians.
Mater si, magistra no. Mr. FBuckley said right there in his conservative flagship the National Review that conservative economic principles are in conflict with the teachings of the church.
It is like that of the principle of evil himself, incorporeal, pure, unmixed, dephlegmated, defecated evil.
That reminds me of someone…
While widespread, this is just about the dumbest argument in history. Down through the millenia, there have been many different mythologies, creation myths, gods, goddesses and godlets. Each imposed their own rules and taboos, from what you could eat, who you could marry down to where your shadow was permitted to fall. But throughout all this mythology and dogma, people have formed tribes, communities and societies, where their basic morality, ethics and humanity defined the rule set that allowed them to live together, engage in trade and prosper.
If basic human morality is dependent upon christian biblical doctrine, then there must have been no working, functional society before jesus. Or actually, before the bible, which I understand dates from a few hundred years ano domini.
I myself have been a complete unhesitating atheist since I was eleven years old. I always hated stories with superheroes. I knew from observation and experience that there was no such thing, anybody could be brought down with a gun or a stick or a straight right hand to the throat. And yet, I have never had any dificulty identifying right from wrong. In fact, it’s been my experience that the most committed, outspoken christians tend to be incarcerated. Odd, the word of god didn’t seem to help them orient their moral compass…
mikey
If you lose habeas corpus, you don’t have any rights.
Sadly, So!, this is too complicated for wingnuts to understand.
I always hated stories with superheroes.
I love stories about superheroes. Of course, unlike Noonan’s conservative, I can tell that they’re fiction.
Bear down, Chicago Bears! Put up a fight with a might so fearlessly!
We’ll never forget the way you thrilled the nation with your T formation!
My favorite Goldwater quote:
“The bedrock of conservatism is the [poor comprehension of] Christian religion…”
There. Fixed it.
OMG! My Constitutional liberties have been diminished! I’m not sure exactly how, but maybe Gavin will shed light on it. I’ve heard that, while I can still talk to my terrorist friends, there is a chance it might be recorded. The HORROR! Constitutional rights down the toilet! Freedom disappearing! I can’t go on!!
The problem is, Kevin, that once Constitutional rights have been denied to any single American citizen, we are all equally at risk. I’m going to say this very slowly: there is no legal distinction between you and me and Jose Padilla. We share the same legal status: we have not been arrested, charged with any crime, pled a case before a judge, or convicted in a court of law. Whether or not he is actually guilty of anything is completely irrelevant: legally, the government has exactly as much right to detain him as they do you and me and Gavin and my cat. None. What. So. Ever.
I don’t care if they toss him in prison and throw away the key after his trial. He hasn’t had one. The government isn’t planning to give him one: they are now arguing that he is incompetant to stand trial, so even if they were planning to give him a trial, they can’t now. Oh, well, them’s the breaks. Too bad, so sad.
And if they get away with this, there is nothing and no one that can prevent the same thing happening to you. Or a member of your family. Or one of your friends.
So’s here’s the new Miranda warning; get used to it:
You had the right to remain silent. Now, you can be tortured until you confess, and anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law–that is, assuming you actually ever get to see the inside of a courtroom or even military tribunal chamber.
You had the right to an attorney, but since we no longer allow you to notify anyone that you have been detained and keep the fact that you’re in custody a national secret, we’d like to see you try to contact one. And we won’t let you talk to your attorney anyway, so there.
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you by the court–at least, until we get the boycott of attorneys who represent detainees pro bono under way and drive those Constitution-hugging traitors out of business. Besides, when we’re done with you, you won’t be sane enough to stand trail anyway, so boo fucking hoo.
Quit acting like a girl. That was in no way an attempt to offend girls. It’s just that Gavin was acting like one of you. Girls rock. Gavin, not so much.
Please define “acting like a girl”. I’m dying to see what behavior patterns you characterize as “rocking” when performed by “a girl” and yet offensive when done by Gavin.
“Giving a damn about one’s fellow Americans,” maybe?
Or “valuing the rule of law that is the foundation of our country”?
Or how about “realizing that something doesn’t have to affect one personally in order to be bad”?
Maybe just “not being a self-centered asshole”?
Dorothy, I think by “rocking”, he means that “they have boobies”.
And that’s all he cares about. Boobies, and his personal enemies being locked into kennel boxes and poked with a stick. And if they ever bring back Hee Haw! to TV, Heaven will be indistinguishable from Earth as far as Kevin is concerned.
Quite a number of those troops you claim to support in Iraq, Kevin, are “girls”. I guess that means ‘acting like a girl’ is having more balls than you’ll ever have.
You rock, Dorothy!
You can’t make a case for “doing the right thing” without reference to God – without some unassailable third party who establishes ideal conduct, there is nothing for us to refer to when we say “you should do that” or “you shouldn’t do that”.
He’s right. When human beings decide to agree on a system of rules that all will abide by for a shared purpose and a common good that just isn’t enough. For example, were it not for belief in God, there would be no “holding penalty,” “unsportsmanlike conduct” or even “goal posts” and “yard lines.” Instead, we would have anarchic slaughter in stadiums throughout the land every Sunday, and Satan would call it the XFL. Because, as history shows time and again, without God, people would kill each other.
The bedrock of conservatism is the Christian religion……at least in the Judeo-Christian west.
And any day now, Mark’s gonna look up that word “Judeo.”
It’s apparent from this and especially his last part about aborted babies and R-rated movies of our depraved and declining culture that Markie is a certified, and very loud, D’Souzaphone. Maybe he could get Tom Delay to write ‘Neshies jacket blurb.
In short, a lot of libertarians are conservatives because no one else will have them.
That is one hell of an admission.
I am honestly quite surprised that Edmund Burke didn’t rise from the grave, shamble across the Atlantic Ocean, and beat Mark Noonan into the ground with righteous zombie fury over that one.
Burke was a friend to the principles of the American revolution. And a highly educated man. I cannot imagine him looking on Nooners with anything other than contempt.
The things I learn reading this blog! I had no idea Goldwater was such a big liberal.
Conservatives – stalwart, unwavering defenders of eternal truths that change every few years.
Oh, and Thunder….the best line I ever heard about the whole destruction of habeas corpus was that worrying about it was engaging in “pre-1215 thinking”.
Wish I could remember who to give props to for that – think it was Shakes’ Sis.
Ooooo, Kevin just got his ass kicked by a girl!
http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2004/12/i-miss-republicans.html
It’s sad, really.
Quit acting like a girl. That was in no way an attempt to offend girls. It’s just that Gavin was acting like one of you. Girls rock. Gavin, not so much.
Quit acting like a Kevin. That was no way an attempt to offend Kevins. It’s just that blah blah blahbeddyblah… Kevins rock.
Make sense? This is the mind of the typical George Bush supporter.
For what it’s worth, Burke’s views on religion are, well, complicated. Burke goes after two groups of people in the Reflections on the Revolution in France: atheist “metaphysicians” inspired by French philosophes (e.g., your Godwins and Wollstonecrafts, and later Tom Paines), and religious dissenters. The latter group usually doesn’t get much attention even though the whole impetus for the Reflections was a sermon that Richard Price, a dissenting minister, delivered in favor of the Revolution.
Here’s a passage taken almost at random:
“Into them [the French Revolution] inspired no other sentiments than those of exultation and rapture. They saw nothing in what has been done in France, but a firm and temperate exertion of freedom; so consistent, on the whole, with morals and with piety, as to make it deserving not only of the secular applause of dashing Machiavelian politicians, but to render it a fit theme for all the devout effusions of sacred eloquence.”
Note especially that last clause, and Burke’s use of religious vocabulary — “exultation,” “rapture,” “devout effusions of sacred eloquence.” Religion is fine with Burke, so long as it’s the watered-down, state-controlled Anglicanism. He doesn’t like the fire and brimstone stuff, because it tends to want to overthrow the status quo.
The political valences from Burke’s time don’t exaclty line up with our own, so I’m always dubious when people (Noonan, whoever) use him. Late 18th century religious dissenters could hardly be described as conservative in today’s use of the word, but then again I doubt that Burke himself would be conservative in the “support Bush above all else” sense — and Jeffrey Hart, who knows a thing or two about Burke, agrees with me here, I think.
Ooooo, Kevin just got his ass kicked by a girl!
Yeah, well just wait and see if Kevin is going to write anything favorable about Dorothy’s bond rating. That’ll show her!
I am soooooooo waiting for the war between the genuine conservatives and the Bush conservatives to really spill out into the open. This month’s American Scholar has another salvo from the paleocons in it.
The sexy thing about it for me is that the paleocons, whatever their failings might be, are not total fucking dumbasses, whereas your average Bush supporter is just frighteningly stupid. (There are some non-dummies working for Bush – Condoleezza comes to mind; the only explanation I have for them is that they are simply personified evil).
Watching the Bill Buckleys of the world bitchslap the Nooners of the world around is enough to make me wish I had some more popcorn around the house.
Constitutional rights down the toilet! Freedom disappearing!
Come on Kevin, stop teasing the Liberals.
What an excellent post. And it provoked some right-wing deep-thinker into telling us how we haven’t lost any rights. If it weren’t so funny it would make a person cry.
Every now and then I forget how far up their own rectums their heads are. It’s useful to be reminded. (Personally, I can’t stomach reading them in the raw. Nice to have places where one can get them second-hand.)
This will all end in tears. Soon Kevin will be back to check on the response to his no-rights-lost post, and to gloat about S,N being an echo-chamber of left-wing sloganeering. Then, with any luck, Patterico will pop up with a dismissive remark about the gutter discourse that he always encounters in the S,N snake pit. And I will be thinking “Is it an echo chamber or a snake pit? Make your minds up!”
True, there is no reason why it can’t be both, but this requires the snakes to have special acoustic properties.
What Leslie said. Two little things to add:
1) The Dissenters, like Burke’s Rev. Price, were what we could (with a lot of reservations) consider “social” conservatives. The fundies in the US are their direct and stupider descendants. Politically they were radicals, particularly tumultuous radicals, I might add. To get some idea of just how tumultuous they were look at the works of John Milton — don’t read them cover to cover, just look at the backs of the books on a shelf. The poetry fills up one slim volume while the volumes of his political and religious controversial writings, inflammatory pamphlets etc., takes up a whole shelf. After the Restoration, they teamed up with the Whig (liberal) party, which was a truly strange political alliance.
2) There were very few people in the 18th century who were able to imagine ethics of any kind without a religious component. Just because Burke could not conceive of morality without God, it doesn’t follow that ethics without morality is inconceivable. But putting forward that statement of Burke is disingenous anyway.
3) Burke’s was hardly what you’d call a royalist either. For most of his political career he was working to reduce the power of the king. How serious was he about this? Read his writings on the American Revolution. From his letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol on the suspension of habeas corpus against terrorists (i.e., rebellious American colonists):
These goobers who quote Burke as some sort of Godfather of Wingnuts don’t ever seem to get that they are trying to use him in support of everything that he opposed throughout his whole career. Dumbasses.
These goobers who quote Burke as some sort of Godfather of Wingnuts don’t ever seem to get that they are trying to use him in support of everything that he opposed throughout his whole career. Dumbasses.
They do the same with Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.
Hmm, on the one hand, as a person with Asperger’s who often has difficulties grasping things that others see as obvious, I feel that we should always assume there are no stupid questions; what might be obvious to you might be hard to understand for somebody with a different viewpoint, and we shouldn’t assume somebody is beyond hope just because they say something that seems, to us, stupid.
On the other hand, the statement,
“The bedrock of conservatism is the Christian religion…”
Is SO problematic that you could probably spend pages going over everything wrong with it.
It almost doesn’t seem worth it.
I do want to point out, though, that if we decide paganism is unAmerican we’ve decided that any indiginous American religions are (somehow) unAmerican, as well as putting us on the road to seeing manifest destiny as one of America’s best ideas.
Which would seem to prevent a large number of native Americans from being conservative, even (especially) if they oppose social changes to native areas.
But like I said, that’s only ONE problem with that statement.
“HORROR! Constitutional rights down the toilet! Freedom disappearing!”
Neocons say stuff like this and how all liberals should be jailed for treason, and all this apparently motivated by their love of their country. My question is what do they consider their country to be? To me, saying, on the one hand, I love my country but on the other, the constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper, is completely contradictory. The constitution IS our country. It’s like having matter and antimatter in the same sentence and thus my head explodes. They have some imaginary country in their heads. I don’t live there. If conservatism puts religion above the rule of law, isn’t THAT treason? Isn’t treason violating the law and the constitution?
And despite my being a godless atheist with no morals whatsoever, the HORROR! comes because I actually give a crap about my fellow humans. You know like that guy, what was his name, love your neighbor as yourself, help me out here, I’m sure you’ve heard of him.
my apologies for the misspelling of your name, Lesley, I mean, if it is your name.
Anyone who proffers Burke’s fearful critique of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity as a source of core American foundational ideas should really be sent back to remedial history class. Subjects for first reading assignment: Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson.
Or I could have used a working link: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.
“I’m dying to see what behavior patterns you characterize as “rockingâ€? when performed by “a girlâ€? and yet offensive when done by Gavin.”
I’m guessing it involves a stage and a pole…
Aquagirl said, “The constitution IS our country.”
That is where your average wingnut disagrees. We could scrap the Constitution and institute a fascist totalitarian state, and as long as we (1) keep the Stars and Stripes as the flag, (2) keep the USofA as the name, and (3) prevent any faggot liberal states from seceding, then it WILL be the same country, and will be better positioned to BE NUMBER ONE, which is all it is really about.
And what better Leader to take the US to #1 than George “It’s just a fucking piece of paper” Bush?
“I’m dying to see what behavior patterns you characterize as “rocking� when performed by “a girl� and yet offensive when done by Gavin.�
I’m guessing it involves a stage and a pole…
OK – I’m gonna go on record here – actions involving a stage and a pole, are much more rocking when performed wy a woman as opposed to Gavin (or any man – no offense Gavin)
Nah….judging from Kevin’s tone, the behavior in question is probably administering spankings and diaper changings.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
A complete aside… got rent Idiocracy, by Mike Judge. Awesome comedy, killed by Fox to a release in 7 cities, no promotion, no trailer.
“go rent”…sigh…
Hm. Kinda unlike Kevin to wander over, poo in the punchbowl, and then not come back to fight about it. Think maybe he came back, read some comments and went [slaps forehead] “Habeas corpus! Damn, I forgot!”?
Nah. The end of his comment seems to have sent him off in another direction . . .
If conservatism puts religion above the rule of law, isn’t THAT treason? Isn’t treason violating the law and the constitution?
Oh, I do like that, Aquagirl. But, Sadly, No!
Here is how treason is defined in the Consitution:
Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Treason has to be an armed attack against the United States. McVeigh’s act was treason – Noonan is just an idiot.
Ironic, the part that the wingnuts like to hang their hat on is the second, “adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort”
They view the bar as pretty low on this one, essentially saying that if you ever say anything negative about America or any of the actions the country takes, THE ENEMIES will take that as encouragement, hence you have AIDED and COMFORTED them, in a way that somehow will cause the entire structure of America to collapse.
billy pilgrim, you just summed up Mark Noonan’s entire view on treason.
The bed-wetting conservative view of America is postulated on a country that is so rickety, a few well-placed newspaper articles in conjunction with one or two public displays of protest (espeically if they are televised) will enable two dozen scruffy lunatics with sharp knives to bring the whole thing crashing down, and all 300 million of us will immediately walk ourselves into subservience to an aged diabetic in a cave 8000 miles away….
It’s pretty damn fortunate that Hitler or the Japanese never figured out that formula, you know.
billy pilgrim, I think aid and comfort are clearly material, not speach. As in: I gave the guy who was going to attack the US a ride to the airport or: I fed and housed the guy who attacked the US.
What Noonan and the rest are really worried about is Sedition. It just sounds so much more sexy, justifiable and rabble (a)rousing to call it treason.
I agree with this:
The bed-wetting conservative view of America is postulated on a country that is so rickety, a few well-placed newspaper articles in conjunction with one or two public displays of protest (espeically if they are televised) will enable two dozen scruffy lunatics with sharp knives to bring the whole thing crashing down, and all 300 million of us will immediately walk ourselves into subservience to an aged diabetic in a cave 8000 miles away….
The gravest existential threat facing our country today are those who identify themselves are conservatives but are really authoritarians in disguise. Osama “Dead or Alive” bin Ladin did the most damage to our country by empowering the right – Noonan and those who are like minded. They have the capacity to destroy our country – not them islamonazimexifemhomofascists.
Who is this Noonan character?
I’m a conservative (Canadian, which makes me a lefty to Americans) and an atheist.
Being conservative has diddley to do with religion. It’s about fiscal responsibility, fair dealing, standing up for what’s just and taking charge of your life.
This Noonan guy should seek counselling pronto. He has some paranoid ideation going on.
“guy should seek counselling pronto. He has some paranoid ideation going on.”
Yeah.
Welcome to your modern Republican Party.
[…] Is at Sadly, No, in response to a wingnut troll: […]