Posted on 02/17/2007 6:23:04 AM PST by NYer
For some, it is their God. For others it is what makes humans distinguishable from other animals. The ability to be a moral and just person is a part of the human psyche. Whether a person acts in a moral and just manner is not necessarily dependent on fear of God, but rather an instinct or belief that we as humans have an innate responsibility to our fellow man and for those to come later. Whether or not I believe in the rewards of an afterlife, I will still have a set of moral principles.
Conservatism does not require a religious foundation. Conservatism accepts religion as a means of satisfaction for the masses. But with or without it, a conservative believes in reducing but not eliminating government, strong national security, personal responsibility, respect for tradition, and personal freedom. Conservatives accept change, but reject large changes because of their respect for institutions and because they almost always result in unforeseen consequences. Liberals reject this whole thesis, so religious activism is hardly protecting the principles of conservatism.
*************
I think you are quite right.
Political prosperity demands a moral and just set of rules. It does not require religion.
1. Such a line draws cheers because it it exactly the sort of claptrap propaganda that would impress the benighted churchcommies who would go to a Jim Wallis lecture.
2. Let me edit that line for accuracy: "The dialogue between the Religious Right and the Secularists is over, and a new dialogue between the Religious Right and apostate churchcommies who suck up to the Secularists has now begun." There, fixed it.
Can you cite me a conservative pol claiming to hold absolute truth? If you can do so, can you also tell me why the policy they were advocating at that time is bad for America?
Indeed you did, as well as responding to my post 222. Nor is it surprising that in the original unamended Constitution, the only mention of religion is to preclude religious tests for public office. Why do you suppose that was? The Constitution was "written" by "We the People", not We the religious people".
But, you took the bait which is what I was primarily interested in.
And if you didn't have quotes, what would you have. Try thinking for yourself. And try for a change responding to my posts, if you are able.
Though I don't address the six year itch specifically, here's an op-ed where I discuss the reasons the GOP lost and how they can come back. If the war was going better and the GOP hadn't spent like sailors, I think we would have held the Congress by a slim margin.
Excellent post.
Though there are many examples, I'll give you just 3. First, why wasn't the State of Florida empowered to handle the Terri Schiavo fiasco? Second, why do Christians want family law issues, specifically marriage, taken out of the jurisdiction of the states which for over 200 years have been empowered by the 10th Amendment to handle? Third, Why do Christians feel that under the 14th Amendment, all Americans do not have the same rights to due process or equal protection of the laws, which means that some people can have the right to privacy, and some cannot.
The assumption of the Constitution is that NO ONE is moral or trustworthy--hence the separation of powers and even the people are represented, not directly voting for every law.
I don't get that out of the Constitution. It was given life by "We the People", therefore if it is a moral document or demands morality, it had to have gotten that from the people. That people have the capacity to be moral or just, does not mean they will act in that manner. Governments exist to ensure the rights of its citizens are protected, and to maintain the underpinnings of a social structure. The separation of powers and a representative government help ensure those goals.
The assumption of the Constitution is the nation's people are Christians, although the freedom of others is tolerated.
BS! The only mention of religion in the original Constitution is to ensure that no religious tests are permitted. Please direct me to such a conclusion as you just made.
The assumption of equality of all people comes directly from Christianity.
Then of course, you would deny that Christians owned slaves, and for a hundred years after the Civil War ended, denied large groups of citizens their basic rights to equality.
"Religious right" is a rather vague term; I prefer to use Christian because our various denominations oppose abortion and homosexuality from a religious doctrinal view point.
And that is fine, though you will find many differing views of all of those issues depending on the denomination.
I have no problem with the states handling these issues--that's what the Constitution says anyway. It's the Supreme court that took that away in Roe v. Wade, and the Massachusetts court that found the right to homosexual marriage in their 200 year old constitution.
Yes, the USSC in my opinion made an improper decision, and I've little doubt it will be re-looked at in the future. As for Massachusetts, that is an issue for the people of Massachusetts, not for those in other states. That's what the 10th Amendment is all about.
Responses you were apparently unable to counter...at least without looking up some archaic, out of context one liners. Again, try thinking for yourself.
You are correct that it was founded by men who were primarily Christian, but you are wrong that it was founded as a Christian nation. In fact, as I have previously noted, the only reference to religion in the original Constitution was to restrict it's use as a test for public office. Our founding fathers clearly wanted freedom of religion, but wanted our Nation governed in a secular manner. As I have stated before, 'We are a Nation of Christians, but we are not a Christian Nation".
I think that it is the corrosive effect of unbridled affluence.
BUMP
"...social movements often begin to emerge, usually focused on key moral issues. The best social movements always have spiritual foundations, because real change comes with the energy, commitment and hope that powerful faith and spirituality can bring."
Makes me think of the homeschool movement. Christians fleeing the increasingly hostile government schools. I don't this what he meant though.
the ancient day equivalent of the immigrants and homosexuals that modern Christians like to pick on.
Hmmm...picking on immigrants?
Here's an op-ed about the relationship between Christianity and immigrant law. Notice the title--if law-breaking by a class of people results in 86 hospitals closing in a single state, are you actually saying that it's un-Christlike to think that's a bad thing? Notice how the Left uses faux Christian concerns to stifle people who merely advocate following the law. Take a look at post 19 for an excellent rebuttal of the "Jesus would give illegals amnesty" talking point.
Lastly, and most importantly, can you cite me a Christian conservative saying that illegal aliens should be mistreated, or that they should be at a disadvantage for any reason other than the fact that they are breaking the law?
I'll deal with homosexuals further down. Let's go back to the top for the rest of this:
I always thought math, history, and the wisdom of successful people were pretty important.
Successful people like, say, Ronald Regan, a social conservative? People like our Founding Fathers? Even the most secular of them, men like Jefferson and Franklin, would be regarded as wide-eyed Religious Right extremists today.
I guess a 2000 year old book with a completely warped meaning is just as good, huh?
Ah, a biblical expert. Well then, a few questions. Read on.
I'm sorry, I'm just looking for the part of the Bible where Jesus starts a war on drugs and loathes, criminilizes, and condemns "sinners" to social alienation.
Can you name me a passage where Jesus or any of His disciples defines the role of government and the church's relation to it? (Hint: there is one, arguably two, this is not a trick question.)
All I find is that all his friends were prostitutes and tax collectors
1. Where did Jesus call for the repeal of Jewish or Roman laws against prostitution?
2. Can you cite me any writing by a Founder that advocates repealing laws against prostitution or any other sin that was outlawed at that time?
the ancient day equivalent of the immigrants and homosexuals that modern Christians like to pick on.
Ah, now let's talk about homsexuals. Have you ever wondered why the Religious Right doesn't have any groups to counter burglary or gluttony but they have groups that counter gay rights? Well, when was the last time you came across a well-funded lobbying effort on behalf of burglars? When was the last time you heard someone say that if a parent wants to teach their children why they shouldn't steal, that parent must be motivated by hatred?
If the people claiming Christianity acted like Jesus did, religion would be a fine way to rule.
1. If people, any people could act like Jesus, we wouldn't have needed Him to come down here and die on a cross.
2. Can you cite for me an example of an American politician telling people they should vote for him because he's a Christian? There actually are a few, but the ones I can think of are all libs, like Ford running those "Vote for me I go to church" ads in Tennessee last year, or Jimmy Carter's 1980 ad where he actually said people should vote for him because he prayed and read the Bible daily.
Got any GOP types who've done that? If so, do you think that you could (if you had the research time) prove that even 5% of GOP pols campaign on their relationship with Jesus? If you couldn't prove that, then why should we care that some tiny percentage of one party makes a stupid argument? Shouldn't we focus on the arguments from reason the other 95% are making?
Or Hillary saying Giuliani would have locked up Jesus, or that the House immigration bill would have locked up Jesus, etc., etc.
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.