Towards a genuinely loving conservatism

To solve world problems

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
SpiritQuickens
Apprentice
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: Lakeland, Florida

Towards a genuinely loving conservatism

Post #1

Post by SpiritQuickens »

I am a conservative Christian who nonetheless has serious problems with conservatism in America. I believe a lot of liberal criticisms of hypocrisy among Christian conservatives are spot-on and have sketched the broad philosophical and theological outlines of what would constitute an authentically Christian society here:

http://www.examiner.com/article/towards ... itarianism

I'd like to hear your thoughts whether you're conservative or liberal, Christian or not. Christians should be much less worried about national security and much more worried about racism, injustice, poverty, orphans, etc.

User avatar
Fides et Veritas
Student
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:39 pm
Location: OHIO

Re: Towards a genuinely loving conservatism

Post #2

Post by Fides et Veritas »

SpiritQuickens wrote: I am a conservative Christian who nonetheless has serious problems with conservatism in America. I believe a lot of liberal criticisms of hypocrisy among Christian conservatives are spot-on and have sketched the broad philosophical and theological outlines of what would constitute an authentically Christian society here:

http://www.examiner.com/article/towards ... itarianism

I'd like to hear your thoughts whether you're conservative or liberal, Christian or not. Christians should be much less worried about national security and much more worried about racism, injustice, poverty, orphans, etc.
I guess my opinion on this weighty topic is one that is truly shaped by my ideals, life experiences, beliefs and political outlook.

I am a conservative Christian and a conservative Independent.

While I do fully and unarguably agree that a Christians perspective should be one of service and charity as per the topics of the New Testament, I do disagree on one point of assumption.

It appears to me that under your topic is suggested (implied) that one should be politically inclined more toward charity than defense as a Christian; if this is so than I disagree. For I contend that it is indeed the responsibility of us as servants of a religious ideology (or humans if you are non-Religious), to assist our fellow humans and not the role of an out of control Government that wastes more money than it applies to the problems you listed of racism (I would change this to bigotry to be inclusive of more issues we face than just that of race v. race), injustice, poverty, orphans, etc. The political figures that have proven inept at understanding how to apply and use money are horribly inexpert on fiscal accountability. I assert that we the people (Sorry, couldn’t resist) are much more competent and capable of helping those around us through nonprofits and religious institutions that the Federal bunglers of America’s money.

Therefore, if we assumed control that should have never been given to Washington and applied our Christian/ Muslim/ Jewish/ Humanist/ Pagan/ etc. compassion to solving your list then the government could afford better rifles and better planes and more compensation for those who pay the ultimate price for us to argue over thoughts and beliefs on this forum.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." — C.S. Lewis

SpiritQuickens
Apprentice
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: Lakeland, Florida

Re: Towards a genuinely loving conservatism

Post #3

Post by SpiritQuickens »

Fides et Veritas wrote:
SpiritQuickens wrote: I am a conservative Christian who nonetheless has serious problems with conservatism in America. I believe a lot of liberal criticisms of hypocrisy among Christian conservatives are spot-on and have sketched the broad philosophical and theological outlines of what would constitute an authentically Christian society here:

http://www.examiner.com/article/towards ... itarianism

I'd like to hear your thoughts whether you're conservative or liberal, Christian or not. Christians should be much less worried about national security and much more worried about racism, injustice, poverty, orphans, etc.
I guess my opinion on this weighty topic is one that is truly shaped by my ideals, life experiences, beliefs and political outlook.

I am a conservative Christian and a conservative Independent.

While I do fully and unarguably agree that a Christians perspective should be one of service and charity as per the topics of the New Testament, I do disagree on one point of assumption.

It appears to me that under your topic is suggested (implied) that one should be politically inclined more toward charity than defense as a Christian; if this is so than I disagree. For I contend that it is indeed the responsibility of us as servants of a religious ideology (or humans if you are non-Religious), to assist our fellow humans and not the role of an out of control Government that wastes more money than it applies to the problems you listed of racism (I would change this to bigotry to be inclusive of more issues we face than just that of race v. race), injustice, poverty, orphans, etc. The political figures that have proven inept at understanding how to apply and use money are horribly inexpert on fiscal accountability. I assert that we the people (Sorry, couldn’t resist) are much more competent and capable of helping those around us through nonprofits and religious institutions that the Federal bunglers of America’s money.

Therefore, if we assumed control that should have never been given to Washington and applied our Christian/ Muslim/ Jewish/ Humanist/ Pagan/ etc. compassion to solving your list then the government could afford better rifles and better planes and more compensation for those who pay the ultimate price for us to argue over thoughts and beliefs on this forum.
I'll respond more to this later but I argue continually throughout my writings that the civil magistrate is incompetent when it comes to distributing wealth to those who need it and that this isbetter left to private charity.

Wissing
Apprentice
Posts: 233
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 6:57 pm

Post #4

Post by Wissing »

Spot on!

Yeah, I have experience managing a private charity. We were ridiculously efficient... it was downright silly. We could install a roof over somebody's house for literally a tenth of the cost it would take to have it done professionally.

Until one day we got grant funding. Suddenly, we were urged to hurry up and spend the money on whatever random projects we could pull out of our bum, just to use it up before it ran out!

Anyway, I agree with your standpoint, SpiritQuickens. It's like this: yes, national security is very important, but no, you and I really have no understanding of it, or control over it. So let's focus on our *neighbor* because it's actually possible to have an impact there. So many of us get caught up in politics, but guys! You only have one vote, and it only comes around once every few years. We end up spending so much energy worrying about the news (a biased source) that we neglect our own eyes and ears (a less biased source), which tell us of the needs around us.

Darias
Guru
Posts: 2017
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:14 pm

Post #5

Post by Darias »

Wissing wrote:It's like this: yes, national security is very important
While I don't deny that security is a very important industry that individuals and societies need, "National Security" is a euphemism. It's doublespeak really. It's like calling foreign policy "national defense" when the country itself has established bases all over the planet and so regularly engages in offensive wars that it makes more sense to have names for the periods of peace in between the conflicts than to name the wars themselves.

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]


Wissing wrote:,but no, you and I really have no understanding of it,

Even though there is a lot of secrecy involved, it is possible to understand the nature of foreign policy and its effects. I studied international studies in college, but you don't really have to go to university to get a fairly accurate understanding of what drives states to do what they do (hint, the motives are not humanitarian or altruistic in nature).


Wissing wrote:. . . or control over it.
This much is true. None of us have a say in the policies that outline immediate state interests. The people who most wanted to change the direction of foreign policy in 2008 put all their trust into a man who made many promises. What ended up happening was an expansion of Bush policies, more or less. I hope this lesson brings the point home for everyone. The subject is totally and completely powerless to do anything about it other than be somewhat informed; knowledge is freedom in a sense. The least that can be done is to not praise or make excuses for horrible and unnecessary violence.

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]


Wissing wrote:So let's focus on our *neighbor* because it's actually possible to have an impact there.
The first thing that must be done before anything else can be done for others is to focus on ourselves. That is to say, not in an indulgent selfish sort of way, but we need to work on self knowledge. "Hurt people hurt people," and unless you do everything within your ability to work on yourself, you won't be able to help others. You can't really love others unless you have self respect. You can't really offer sound advise if you yourself don't practice it.

But getting back to your point, yes, people can have a big impact on their relationships. People still have some freedom of association left. They can devote time into the friendships that are rewarding and avoid people who are more or less abusive. People can donate to charity or start a business or raise money and save it for something. People can make a big difference in their immediate interactions with others or on a larger scale. It's not as if one's fate is sealed in a fortune cookie somewhere. There are so many ways one can contribute to society without using compulsion on others or being forced to do something.


Wissing wrote:So many of us get caught up in politics, but guys! You only have one vote, and it only comes around once every few years.
Politics is just the means by which groups try to control the lives of others. It is fundamentally immoral in that respect.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.

Marvin Simkin, misattributed to Franklin wrote:Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch.


And yes, your vote and my vote are statistically irrelevant. There's a much greater chance either one of us could be killed in an accident on the way to the polls. At the end of the day the people you and I may vote for do not know us, nor are they accountable to us. In reality, their legislative actions are determined by special interests who finance their campaigns. It's called bribery. Money cannot be divorced from politics in this way because it follows self interest. Self interest is not inherently evil, nor is it a problem; it's the perverse incentives that lead to monstrous, but logically self-interested policies. This is why NSA's PRISM was extended by Congress and this is why the state involves itself in so many wars around the world.

It is not your "civic duty" to vote, it is your duty as a human being to do the right thing. Participating in the farce gives it a false legitimacy it doesn't deserve. But people do it because it makes them feel good. They're lying to themselves. It's like drinking a herbal remedy and expecting the cancer to cure itself. Problems cannot be solved through force. Force begets force.


Wissing wrote:We end up spending so much energy worrying about the news (a biased source)
A lot of mainstream media is a terrible source of information. Although I believe it is possible to become informed on any number of topics. The reason why most voters are uninformed is because it's rational for them not to be; they have busy lives and finding out information about the candidates is often time consuming and difficult. The minority who are "informed" are outnumbered by the majority who are not. And you simply cannot have a "good government" because of it.
Mark Twain wrote:If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed.

Wissing wrote:that we neglect our own eyes and ears (a less biased source), which tell us of the needs around us.
‣ Argument from personal experience

Unfortunately you can't trust your gut either. Personal anecdotes are a dime a dozen and are no way to really discover the truth. Our only allies are reason and evidence. Of course by reason I do not mean sophistry, but something consistent and fallacy free as possible. This is not an impossible task as it only takes a few moments of one's time to have a look at basic logical fallacies.

As for evidence... where new evidence comes to light, only then is one justified to change their mind about something. One has no basis for entertaining anything without a rational, evidenced-based foundation. Even though empathy can re-enforce rational behavior, emotion, like intuition, is not our friend. (e.g. The world feels flat. 100 years seem like a long time.)



-

Wissing
Apprentice
Posts: 233
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 6:57 pm

Post #6

Post by Wissing »

Ok, so I'll take what I can get. Darius, let's agree to disagree on the whole "personal experience" vs "evidence" thing for now, cause it's fraught with semantics (we could disagree all day on what actually counts as evidence) and way off topic.

I'm interested to see what other people say to the OP.

Post Reply