Not all religious people are conservatives; and not all conservatives are religious people. Christianity prescribes no especial form of politics. There have been famous radicals who were devout Christians—though most radicals have been nothing of the sort. All the same, there could be no conservatism without a religious foundation, and it is conservative people, by and large, who defend religion in our time.
Lord Hailsham, a talented English conservative of this century, in his little book The Case for Conservatism, remarks, “There is nothing I despise more than a politician who seeks to sell his politics by preaching religion, unless it be a preacher who tries to sell his sermons by talking politics.” Yet he goes on to say that conservatism and religion cannot be kept in separate compartments, and that the true conservative at heart is a religious man. The social influence of Christianity has been nobly conservative, and a similarly conservative influence has been exerted by Buddhism, Mohammedanism, Judaism, and the other higher religions.
It depends on how you really define conservatism, and what branch of that you're referring to. I don't think a blanket statement really works.
Political beliefs are generally comprised of two primary categories:
- Social
- Fiscal/Governmental
The social category for conservatism is usually made up primarily of anti-drug, anti-secularistic morality and anti-equality arguments. They tend to believe that the state should enforce their morality, which more often than not is a highly religious one. The social category of conservatism would have a very hard time surviving without religious backing. It's just too hard for free-thinking individuals to convince themselves that their fellow human beings should be locked in cages for non-violent behavior.
The fiscal/governmental side of conservatism however absolutely can exist and thrive without religion. (not that the modern GOP is even remotely financially responsible) If anything, a small and decentralized power structure is very incompatible with most religious mentalities.
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."
Well, his central statement - "We deal charitably and justly by our fellow men and women only because we believe that a divine will commands us to do so, and to love one another" - is obviously and grotesquely false.
Well, his central statement - "We deal charitably and justly by our fellow men and women only because we believe that a divine will commands us to do so, and to love one another" - is obviously and grotesquely false.
Also, when he says "The religious conservative is convinced that we have duties toward society" - that is not something that his presumed antagonists - those Communists and Nazis - would ever dispute.
Communism perverts the charity and love of Christianity into a fierce leveling doctrine that men must be made equal upon earth; at the same time, it denounces real equality, which is equality in the ultimate judgment of God
And when Christians preach charity, they mean the voluntary giving of those who have to those who have not; they do not mean compulsion by the state to take away from some in order to benefit others. “Statists that labor to contrive a commonwealth without poverty,” old Sir Thomas Browne says, “take away the object of our charity; not understanding only the commonwealth of a Christian, but forgetting the prophecy of Christ.” The Christian religion does indeed enjoin us to do unto others as we would have others do unto us; it does not enjoin us to employ political power to compel others to surrender their property.
Funny how he attacks the red and brown "collectivism" - sort of like if Ronald McDonald would make passionate speeches against clowns (the uncharitable ones, of course).
I see no reason that politics and religion should be in any way connected.
I think you are conflating "politics and religion" with "the state and religion." Religion, insofar as it inform's ones values and belief system, will ALWAYS have a role to play and politics...and it is not necessarily a bad thing.
I think you are conflating "politics and religion" with "the state and religion." Religion, insofar as it inform's ones values and belief system, will ALWAYS have a role to play and politics...and it is not necessarily a bad thing.
There are. Neo-conservatism, paleoconservatism, cultural conservatism, social conservatism, fiscal conservatism....Well, I don't really know if there are branches of conservatism per se
Meaning what, there is only One True Conservatism? Who gets to decide what ideas qualify as "true" conservatism? Him? You?so much as there are ideologies which are compatible with conservatism in some specific respect and through their similarities fall under its shadow.
What's wrong with that? Why should someone be required to sign onto a series of ideas that they don't agree with, in order to be "awarded" with a label?Another way of looking at it and probably closer in tune to the reality for most people is that they are cafeteria conservatives. They want to adhere to certain parts, disagree on others, and decide then to compartmentalize and isolate the different aspects of conservatism.
...that you could pull them apart with a string.Conservatism, in my opinion, and I believe the article shows this as well, can't be compartmentalized. It is a complete system. The social, fiscal, and governmental aspects are tightly woven....
Right. So the way to make a coalition stronger, in a nation driven by electoral politics, is to throw as many people out of the coalition as possible by declaring them "impure." :mrgreen:In saying that my argument would be that the non-correcting sots we have and whom I sit in judgement against, aren't conservatives at all but merely have been manifestations of a perverted quasi-conservatism.
Are you saying the statement itself is false or as it applies to conservatism?
We're all collectivists in our own way.
far more liberating than the laissez faire economic libertarianism you'll put on that Hayekian pedestal of yours.
Because true conservatism tethers personal choice to self restraint and communal responsibility. It ties the individual to his community. It places the individual in his community. He's not just an isolated creature who shares living space.
It is false in any application. To suggest that we, humans, inherently lack both empathy and judgment unless exposed to the vaguely defined "divine will" - well, doesn't such attitude render any further discussion pointless?
True. Just like we all sweat, and begin to stink if we forget to shower. So... let's not forget.
The Hayekian pedestal is hardly designed to fit the vulgar "economism" you are referring to....
That is all very sweet. But how do you define the boundaries of this precious "community"? When the natural desire to give preferential treatment to your family, your neighbors, your fellow [fill in your favorite group affiliation] does mutate into the collectivist monstrosities of racism or class hatred?
"The community" - where does it begin, where does it end? Should I buy blueberries from a farm in my own King County, but not from a farm in the Snohomish County? OK, maybe those Snohomishians (and I actually do not have any friends or relatives up there) do qualify somehow as "the community". By virtue of proximity, or because they speak English (well, most of them), or just because I say so. But surely, I should prefer the King/Snohomish berries to the Chilean ones - even if the Chilean imports are cheaper, bluer and berrier?
Unless, of course, my wife is from Chile?
Double "unless", if a whole bunch of my relatives and friends actually work on some blueberry farm near Valparaíso?
What is "the community", exactly?
If it is the sum total of actual affiliations and connections between real people - then there's no difference between your "conservatism" and the Hayekian liberalism/libertarianism.
If, on the other hand, it is another abstraction forced upon us by whoever has the power to force...well, you know what it is, in that case....
1) Read up on mirror neurons.Why would you assume empathy is inherent?
1) It can be beneficial, to the society as a whole (and therefore partly to you) to help others.Why if I am inherently empathetic should I care? I'm free to choose, am I not? What do I care if you are hungry? Why would I give of my bountiful harvest to you, racked with pain?
It isn't.Further, how at odds is that empathy to our natural instinct of survival, of self preservation?
It's likely that humans have a biological (inherent) capacity to rapidly calculate group identities, while also being able to rapidly change the criteria applied.A community starts with your family, your neighbors, friends, people in your town...
1) .At any rate, the key point is that you don't need to rely on religion to provide a basis for empathy, altruism or social cohesion.
I already stated the proof. Again, and slightly expanded:and yet there is no proof...
So, yeah. There's a pretty decent amount of proof for my claims, whether you acknowledge it or not.
"Now a conservative is a person who sees human society as an immortal contract between God and man, and between the generations that are dead, and the generation that is living now, and the generations which are yet to be born. It is possible to conceive of such a contract, and to feel a debt toward our ancestors and obligations toward our posterity, only if we are filled with a sense of eternal wisdom and power."
This screams theocracy to me. Which even though I am a Christian, I find very scary.
There is hard scientific evidence for the existence of mirror neurons, and that they are active in infants before 12 months. And it's pretty solid that if your "empathy circuit" isn't working, you will manifest a psychological disorder.That's what you have. Claims, opinionated conjecture.
I'm not saying that religion played or plays no role at all in the structure of societies.Religion has been our civilizing force no matter how much you may wish it weren't so.
What nonsense is this? There are tons of contingencies to human history.The world we have has turned out the only way it could be.
No, actually, they aren't.Your beliefs and morals formulated because of religious beliefs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?