[A_perfect_lady]

Theism doesn't make much an objective source of individual sovereignty either, particularly Christianity. Jesus said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." You can be sovereign of your soul (whatever that means) and still be under the thumb of tyranny, that was never the concern of Christianity; the usual interpretation of Jesus is that he will take his followers to a New Kingdom of Heaven, and American politics won't have much to do with it.

There is really no point in trying to make the God of Israel into a lynch-pin for American politics; that mindset doesn't fit onto the American continuum anywhere on the spectrum. It was a tribal creation from a time when religion and politics were one, as in modern day Saudi Arabia.

And you can insist that any interpretation of Jesus' teachings is wrong if it doesn't coincide with yours, but I don't know if you really have the last word on such matters. The fact is, millions of Christians worldwide are not American conservatives. If you are one of those who thinks everyone is wrong except you and those who think like you, I won't bother arguing further, but it's not a very well-supported stance.

[reasonisfaith]

If you know anyone who practices injecting one’s own invented meaning into a text, let them know it’s called postmodernism and it doesn’t make sense. The postmodern method is self-refuting. (With respect, I should say this is what you did with the “render unto Caesar” reference.)

The concept of individual sovereignty goes back way more than American politics. It started with Christianity. Christianity is the only historical/philosophical source for it. Conservatism is defined by the principle of individual sovereignty.

Love is one of those things essential to human experience, and it is intimately connected with truth. I sense in your remarks a desire to conform to truth.