Posted on 12/29/2011 6:28:38 AM PST by The Ignorant Fisherman
The Two-Edged Sword of Conservatism
As a sword has two edges, so does the Conservative ideology. One edge of the blade is the fiscal (monetary) side, while the other edge is the social side, (i.e., the part which deals with moral absolutes). The TRUE CONSERVATIVE adheres to and uses both sides of this blade. Sadly though, many so-called Conservatives actually just use the fiscal edge of the blade and keep a dull, liberal (immoral) social ideology on the other edge. The majority of Independents fit this position to a tee. Many ill-informed and shallow-rooted Conservatives also practice this Independent/ Moderate philosophy and are quite deceived when it comes to who they are truly voting for. These individuals have an intellectual rationale based on their emotions and feelings without any firm adherence to concrete facts and foundational moral absolutes and truth. These moral absolutes were instilled into Almighty God’s creation when God created the heavens and the earth and are crucial for this fallen world to maintain a matter of harmony (Gen. 1:1-31, Psalm 104:24, Prov. 3:19).
These moral absolutes were instilled into Almighty God’s creation when God created the heavens and the earth. These Divine Natural Laws transcend cultural barriers and social boundaries erected by fallen man.
These Divine ordained Natural Laws transcend cultural barriers and social boundaries erected by fallen man (Rom. 5:12-19). These instilled Natural Laws are absolute and crucial for a healthy society and social harmony in a lost and fallen world dominated by the unbridled passions of men (Eph. 2:1-2). Our Founding Fathers knew this all too well and sought to establish this nation on the bedrock of the Bible, its Judeo-Christian values, a strict adherence to natural moral laws, and a firm reliance on Divine Providence, i.e., Almighty God. The book, The 5000 Year Leap, goes into great detail of the vision of our Founders and the tremendous brilliance and insight they exercised in building and founding this nation. It is a “must read” for every American.
The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!
DJP I.F.
And likewise, many so-called Conservatives actually just use the social edge of the blade and keep a dull, liberal (immoral) fiscal ideology on the other edge.
IMHO there is a third side:
Size and power of government.
There’s overlap between all three.
All three are important. Some of us see liberty as the most important. Some see faith as most important.
Some see financial responsibility as the key.
No need for lockstep.
I disagree my friend. If you have the personal accountability and moral side sharp then you really never need to use the fiscal side because the moral side will always be fiscal and sound.
The conflict comes when the idea of “moral absolutes” leads people to start finding enumerated powers in their Bible.
Exactly. Whoever wrote this article must have slept through the Bush presidency. Bush was great on social issues but was a complete disaster on fiscal issues. And the “Republican” Congress went along with it. The real problem is that way too many Social Conservatives are in love with Big Government as long as it is used for conservative ends. Nanny Huckabee types who are pro-Life, anti-gay marriage, anti-gun control, for prayer in school, but spend like there’s no tomorrow.
:-)
How about illegal drugs? Banning drugs has utterly, miserably failed. The war on drugs has only increased their cost and made crime vastly worse. So do we legalize them? If legal, the cost would plummet, the black market would vanish, and the thefts drug users commit would diminish, but the lowered cost would certainly increase drug use. Legalization is also risky since we don't know the effects for certain. Frankly, while I'm socially conservative and morally opposed to drugs, there isn't a clear solution.
The "social blade" has the problem that even if you get two people to agree on a desired outcome (no drug usage), their approaches to the solution may be radically different. And then there is the fact that generally the approach entails some loss of liberty.
I'll agree that social problems are enormously important, more important than economic problems. I think we can even get a lot of agreement on goals, such as reducing abortions, lowering drug use, keeping families together, and so on. However, when we talk government polices, we have problems. Whenever possible, society needs to solve society's problems. Right now we have a moral breakdown, and I don't see politicians fixing that.
FTW.
Then why are there so many liberal Christians? Almost every black church and a huge percentage of Catholics are on the other side. The morals they espouse are more New Testament than Old, about forgiveness and helping the poor, but they are indeed Christians. And they are Democrats.
Definitely a quotable quote! :)
The problem is that the most important part of a sword is the point, which in this case represents the size and scope of government. Far too many so-called social conservatives have no problem with a nanny state, provided that the nanny shares their views. A sword without a point is worthless.
Because, many Christians confuse the obligation of charity, which is a PERSONAL obligation with the so called charity of the nanny state. They are too shallow to comprehend the internal change which begins with repentence and manifests itself in the way in which you live your life and charity is only one of those manifestations.
Social conservatives too often confuse the moral absolutes which are the obligations of a person who has surrendered to Christ with the law. It has been proven time and time again that it is difficult, if not impossible, to legislate morality.
Change comes from within.
Remember, Jesus was not American. He didn’t have any notion whatsoever that government should not provide charity. There is nothing inherently unchristian in the nanny state.
Compassionate, but false. The state can take your the fruits of your labor by force. This is not charity, it is robbery under state authority.
Correct. The Founding Fathers (Aristotle, Machiavelli—all informed, intellegent people) knew that Virtue was necessary in all FREE governments. That without Virtue—there could be NO free economy—no decent civil society==no safety for private property or raising children.
It is such an easy concept to understand—that TRUST (necessary in economies) can only exist with virtuous people. Otherwise, you get Nigeria—where bribes are the only way to get things done. Mafia type countries. Moral Relativism NEVER works well for societies.....never has and never will.
Moral Absolutes does.
Of course he did! He and his fellow Jews held to the idea that charity is usually a short term response to an emergency, and/or mostly for widows and orphans who could not otherwise provide for themselves. I think they would have been horrified at the idea of able-bodied people living off of the confiscated resources of other people.
And, secondly, charity is at least as much for the giver as it is for the receiver. Charity given freely by an individual is important to the soul of the giver.
And, thirdly, Christ and Christianity emphasize individual salvation - something that is antithetical to an enormous, confiscatory, governmental “charity” machine, which establishes a great distance between the giver and the receiver and the receiver from the giver. It removes the possibility of thankfulness and gratitude and creates instead a cycle of dependence and ingratitude.
Well, it was introduced, didn’t work, and was quickly replaced by proto-Capitalism.
Jesus had no such thought. He was NOT a communist. Government is always force—which is evil. (Necessary evil which has to be limited.).
Jesus believed in subsidiarity and charity—yes. But Charity can NEVER be defined as forcing one person to give his stuff to another. That force makes it NOT charity. “Governments” are incapable of practicing charity.
Jesus was for individual dignity and worth-—never “the End justifies the Mean” of Karl Marx. You can never kill of a few people for the good of the State. EVERYTHING about the NANNY state is not only unchristian—it is unconstitutional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.