4 Votes
RE: Rather Interesting
I know this is a line and hook here but I’ll take the bait and pipe in as a religious conservative.
I personally think it is important to understand how many of the religious conservatives define conservatism. Its rather basic… to conserve or preserve the original institution/meaning/intention of the constitution. That of course is a debate in and of itself. But on one aspect of the constitution is that the power should belong to the people, not the government or at least a rather limited amount of power as a necessary evil ~ See Thomas Paine’s Common Sense
How this ties into the religious realm is simple. My personal view is that Christ as well as many other religious organizations preach how we ought to “lift up the poor and bring down/humble the rich.” This to me is not a socialist view and is why it is held so dear to religious conservatives. The fundamental difference between Christ’s teachings, which may appear socialist to some, and true socialism is that it Christs commandments are not at the cost of personal freedom/choices. That’s not to say there are not consequences to choosing not to follow Christ’s teachings, there obviously are both theologically if you believe and socially. Although religion and socialism’s goal may be to better society the fundamental difference is the mechanism in which it is accomplished. Religion focuses on changing the societies hearts/motivations such that people will of there own free will tend to the needy, while governmental socialism forces the people to tend to the needy through taxation, redistribution, leveling the playing field.
Another point is that being rich from a religious perspective is not in conflict with religious teachings. Rather if followed the rich have more opportunity/obligation/ability to help society. In other words religion is not in conflict with free market competition. One great historical example of this was Andrew Mellon who was an icon of capitalism during FDR’s era and spent his life cultivating at the time on of the worlds best collection of art only to give it away to the American public along with funding the building the best museum of its time (which was his intent all along). Although he was a rich capitalist and butted heads with FDR he was truly a believer that one has an obligation to lift, better and give back to society which he did in many ways (Carnegie Mellon was another institution to better and give back to society).
A book that kind of illustrates the idea and battle between Socialism and Capitalism and how they both try to help the poor is The Forgotten Man.
This is my ill attempt to show in my opinion how religion, specifically Christian is not in conflict or hypocritical with conservatism.
RE: Rather Interesting by ldsudduth
Well Said Travis—I especially like this part:
Religion focuses on changing the societies hearts/motivations such that people will of there own free will tend to the needy, while governmental socialism forces the people to tend to the needy through taxation, redistribution, leveling the playing field.
I agree with you.
RE: Rather Interesting by scottb
For some reason, I missed this comment when it first went up.
I personally think it is important to understand how many of the religious conservatives define conservatism. Its rather basic… to conserve or preserve the original institution/meaning/intention of the constitution. That of course is a debate in and of itself. But on one aspect of the constitution is that the power should belong to the people, not the government or at least a rather limited amount of power as a necessary evil ~ See Thomas Paine’s Common Sense
There’s part of your problem right there. Your notion of the fundamental idea defining conservatives is utterly out of sync with reality.
I’m certainly among the least conservative posters here, and I absolutely agree with the sentiment that the power should belong to the people. I agree that government is a necessary evil and limiting its power to what’s absolutely necessary is the right thing to do, yet it would be absurd to say I’m a conservative.
The real debate comes down to what’s “necessary”, and political conservatives have been demonstrably wrong on that over, and over. The latest dramatic example is the BP oil disaster, which largely resulted from poor oversight. It’s necessary for government to carefully regulate that sort of business because we all bear the costs of a disaster. BP have a strong incentive to cut corners, and only regulation and oversight can prevent it—yet the “conservatives” in government consistently oppose regulation of nearly any sort.
My personal view is that Christ as well as many other religious organizations preach how we ought to “lift up the poor and bring down/humble the rich.”
Not much evidence of that. Clearly the scriptures have him praising poverty and spurning wealth, but it’s still a bit of a leap to claim he advocated bringing down the rich. On the contrary, “Render under Caesar that which is Caesar’s,” seems to mean to leave the rich to their riches.
And, of course, the millions of Americans who subscribe to some variation on the prosperity theology taught by the likes of Oral Roberts would clearly disagree with the idea that wealth itself was somehow bad.
And, of course, it’s been conservative political policy for years to help the rich get richer and keep the poor in poverty. Government regulation that might affect profits is resisted. Social programs that might help the poor are rejected. The organization of worker unions to help poor workers negotiate better contracts with rich businessmen is anathema to conservative thinking.
The fundamental difference between Christ’s teachings, which may appear socialist to some, and true socialism is that it Christs commandments are not at the cost of personal freedom/choices.
And yet, conservatives stand at the forefront of those who would deny women the right to choose to abort a pregnancy, those who reject the right of those who choose to show their displeasure with the government by burning a flag, those who would deny people suffering from terminal disease to choose how their lives end, those who deny that people who love each other shouldn’t be married because of their gender.
In other words religion is not in conflict with free market competition.
Unless, of course, the market freely chooses to trade in that which religion dislikes, such as sex.
But, going back to “Christ’s teachings”, the scriptures pretty clearly say that, to be a good Christian you should give up your worldly goods, devoting all your time to the religion. (The passages quoted in support of prosperity theology aren’t nearly as succinct.) With no worldly goods to trade, one cannot even participate in a market.
Historically, Christians were opposed to charging interest of any kind on loans. That’s also anti-capitalist, as money is a form of capital and interest is how it’s traded.
One great historical example of this was Andrew Mellon who was an icon of capitalism during FDR’s era and spent his life cultivating at the time on of the worlds best collection of art only to give it away to the American public along with funding the building the best museum of its time (which was his intent all along). Although he was a rich capitalist and butted heads with FDR he was truly a believer that one has an obligation to lift, better and give back to society which he did in many ways (Carnegie Mellon was another institution to better and give back to society).
Where could we find a modern example of that, I wonder? Perhaps Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, who’ve arranged to donate most of their wealth to charity on their deaths, and who are actively courting other “Forbes 400” billionaires to do the same, perhaps?
That hardly makes philanthropy a conservative virtue—both men are atheists. The reality is that people on both sides of the social divide want to help the poor. Personally, I think liberals have a better track record of actually trying to do something to help the poor, rather than talking about it.
A book that kind of illustrates the idea and battle between Socialism and Capitalism and how they both try to help the poor is The Forgotten Man.
Except that it’s a propaganda piece for laissez faire capitalism, from what I can tell. The kind of capitalism it advocates is, curiously enough, used to be part of the “liberal agenda”, two hundred years ago. Many Enlightenment era philosophers, like Paine, advocated letting markets work as freely as possible. The problem is that we’ve learned better since then.
The crazier conservatives have adopted it, but it’s simply a bad idea. It’s exactly the wrong thing to do if you want to “lift up the poor and bring down/humble the rich”, as laissez faire capitalism (what the conservatives like to call “free market” capitalism, though it’s not) acts to concentrate wealth. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
This is my ill attempt to show in my opinion how religion, specifically Christian is not in conflict or hypocritical with conservatism.
Ill indeed. I don’t think you’ve shown it at all.