I usually try to shy away from religion on She’s Right because the issues I talk about are political, not religious. There are some who mix the two, but I think that the principles of conservatism stand better on their own without a religious justification. In fact, I think it weakens them when religion is thrown into the mix.
That said, there are some on the left who think they can use Christianity to argue for liberal political views, such as government programs for the poor.
Today on Green Mountain Daily, there is a diary about the new blog God’s Politics. I have only read Odum’s GMD post, which I recommend, not the blog it refers to. I started to post a comment about it, but it got so long that I decided to post it here.
The gist of his post is that the Christian political agenda should not be about abortion and gay marriage, but about the causes of abortion, like the lack of support programs for the expectant mother, and the moral issue of fighting poverty.
I think what liberals do not seem to understand is that using the government for forced benevolence is not the only way to take care of the poor. In fact, one could argue quite well that it is the least effective and least efficient way to do so.
I oppose government programs to combat poverty, but that does not mean that I do not do my part to combat poverty. I donate money (even though I am considered “low income”) and I donate my time to help people who are in need. Our long-term financial plan includes a large amount of benevolent giving in the future when we have two incomes. And part of our homeschool objectives this year is to get involved in helping our community.
On the religious side, the liberal Christian argument never resonated with me. If God gave us free will and even He does not force us to do good, why would he want a government of man to force us to do good? It should be our choice.
It also removes the human element. Christians are supposed to let people see our good deeds, so they will praise our Father in Heaven. (Paraphrase of Matt 5:16) It doesn’t say, hide in a voting booth and let the government handle your good deeds for you.
The idea is to show others God’s love. Helping a neighbor in need because God loves them goes a lot further toward that end than voting for a liberal politician who supports government social programs.
Of course the approach that some on the “religious right” take goes a step further in the wrong direction by pushing people further away from God.
On a related note, John Stossel had a good column on Town Hall today about the federal funding of stem cell research. He says the conservatives miss the point when they use a moral, right-to-life justification for opposing federal funding.
The point is that conservatives should have the goal of limiting the government to the powers in the Constitution.
The government itself does not need to judge the moral value of issues that the public is divided on. The bottom line is that the government should not compel people to financially support things that the people might be morally opposed to. If the government left things to the private sector and stuck to the constitutionally enumerated responsibilities, this wouldn’t even be an issue.
September 20th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
T.S. Eliot once raised the point that at the core of every culture is religion. Therefore, if religion is the core of culture and Christianity is the central religion of Western Civilization and the United States is an extension of Western Civilization, wouldn’t it stand to reason that the political foundations of the United States were informed by some precepts of that Christian religion?
I would grant that not all of the Founders were traditional Christians (John Adams was deeply pious man, where others were clearly Deist in their approach to government). To say that religion and politics shouldn’t mix is rather odd considering that faith has always informed the politics of nations. Why should the secular humanist Left be allowed to push their political agenda and people of faith not?
September 20th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Eliot was almost right.
The core of every culture is its cosmology, which is usually found in its religion, but it doesn’t have to be.
Eliot was also looking backwards, that is – not into the future (our present) of hybrid cultures. Of (like it or not) diversity. American culture is now replete with cosmologies, some secular, some sacred, and some hybrids of their own. The piety (or lack thereof) of the Founding Fathers is interesting and relevant, but hardly the end of the discussion. Culture has never been a static thing, why should it start now? We have hardly reached the end of history.
Your statement “Why should the secular humanist Left be allowed to push their political agenda and people of faith not” is a clear straw man, and as you seem like an intelligent, well-read fellow, I would suggest it’s beneath you to go there. No one is arguing that anyone should not be allowed to push their agenda – obviously. Our government, as a cultural institution, will always be informed by every other cultural institution. The question is whether or not – as a matter of both practicality and morality – we should hardwire any specific dogma into our governmental institutions. The establishment clause says “no” – and that came from a body of generally pious, Christian men who were, in fact, looking to the future, as well as to the past (and their present).
Advocate away. Push to have your dogma manifest in public more than it already is. But you owe it to yourself and others with whom you debate to be clear that if you are pushing to hardwire that dogma into governmental institutions, what you are in fact saying is that the system put together by the Founding fathers does not meet with your approval, and what you are really advocating for is radical, systemic change into a fundamentally different type of republic.
September 20th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Ah, vermontpaleocon. I get this all of the time from my conservative friends, so I have thought about this a lot.
As you pointed out yourself, the founders were not all of the same religious belief system, so it isn’t that hard to imagine that they were crafting a governmental structure that allowed them to have different religious beliefs. I do not see anything in the Constitution that has a Christian basis.
Secular humanism is not something that is being pushed primarily by our government, but by our popular culture. The same can and is being done by Christians. We do not need to use the government to force people to live by a Christian moral standard. Christians should be the example that others want to follow.
How many Christians are out there living with sin in their lives that they refuse to address, yet stand up and condemn others for their own sinfulness? This does not bring people to God. This makes Christianity into a joke – a parody of itself.
I think (and this is not directed at you) that Christians who fear the sin in the world and want to legislate it away are just insecure about their own ability to effectively live out their own faith and teach the same to their children.
I am not afraid of what will happen when my kids go out and see the sin in the world. I don’t need to drive all the gays out of town or lock up the barely dressed promiscuous young girls. I have faith that it will have a more profound effect on them that they saw the difference God has made in my life. How I am mush more patient and loving when I get up and pray in the morning, and how I am a raving bitch sometimes when I don’t. How my neighbor used to be nasty to me, but since I started praying for her peace and reaching out to her with God’s love, she is really nice to me. How the Bible is not just some 2000 year old text, but a wealth of wisdom that can be applied to today’s life and help us avoid a lot of self-imposed suffering.
I want the freedom to live the way God has called me to. That is why I am so libertarian. If I want to have that freedom, I need to be willing to let other people have that same freedom, even if they choose to live in a way that I find immoral.
September 20th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
And that, Charity, is why you are the most palatable conservative blogger to us moonbat liberals…
(But, I have to ask, what does your silence on the previous thread’s comments where I provided evidence of Clinton’s inaction mean?
Tacit admission that I have made good points? Boredom with the conversation? You have some thoughts, but haven’t gotten around to writing them down?
Do tell. Or not… I won’t berate you any longer on this issue if you’ve moved on for now…)
September 20th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
Aw, shucks. You’re too kind.
It’s the third one: I have some thoughts but haven’t gotten around to writing them down. I have been letting the kids do some school-related stuff on the computer, so my time is limited. I have a list of three post ideas I want to get to. And get back to the discussion we were having, too.
I actually have to give up the computer now, so my son can look up some info on iguanas, but I will get back to you soon.