Conservatives and Religion
What usually is left out when talking about the difference between conservatives and liberals is religion and it's collateral effects.Conservatives say that they are for the Constitution's "original intent", in other words, strict construction. Actually the Constitution was was constructed to protect individual liberty. But then, they favor anti abortion laws, prayer in schools, and seek to impose religious morality by force of law. They do favor, however, reduced government intervention in the economy.The liberals favor a "loose construction when interpreting the Constitution.It means they can "update it and change it from its original intent to ruling by whim. The question is, is there a moral justification for capitalism? Miss Rand in her various writings makes this very clear, and is way too long to go into here.As to religion? I needn't say more. than she attributes all heavenly folks as ghosts. In all discussions relative to liberal v conservative the deep underpinnings of of both sides are never realized. Instead, we get extreme liberal lack of laws and restraints with conservatives touting adherence to laws and a basic interpretation of the Constitution.
On the other hand, I have seen a number of Atheist groups sue municipalities over their preferential treatment of Christian organizations. I've seen governments sue Christians over the practice of their beliefs, even when nobody is physically or financially harmed by those beliefs. Why is it, then, that so many continue to blast Christians, yet let non-Christians off with a free pass?
If I had treated my Christian wife that way...our nearly 40 years of happy married life would've ended decades ago. I don't need any more proof than that to allow a person to practice his or her own belief, so long as I'm not personally harmed by it.
Except for the children.
Most religions contain some reasonable elements, but for the wrong reasons, and aren’t susceptible to change based on reason
This makes religion a bad thing in principle
Not that objectivism could ever be a religion per se, but what if there was a religion which had no “god” but incorporated a lot of objectivist ideas derived from and in accordance with reality
Might be better than what we have now?
Let people basically have a portal to pick a religion they think is perfect for them. Let the best religion win !!!! Free market
Hey, Max, where did you get the money to pay for your palatial manor?
#7 Is it true that your palatial Manse is paid for, no mortgage needed? #1. Are you accompanied by armed guards?
https://www.zmescience.com/science/ps...
Most conservatives believe in the Judeo-Christian ethic denoted by respect for ones neighbors, strict laws based on moral principles, and much emphasis placed on the hereafter. Most liberals believe in the accumulation of power and wealth, of tiers of people based on perceived class status, and emphasis placed on the here-and-now.
To conservatives, the Constitution protects the individual and upholds the notion of respect and respect alike while providing for the maximum tolerance of religious practice both in public and private while still allowing for differences between sectarian belief sets. A conservative favors reduced government intervention both because he (or she) believes in maximum allowances for individuals to live - and do business - according to their beliefs and because people given too much power over their fellow men tend towards tyranny. Conservatives hold very closely to the original statement in the Declaration of Independence (which the Constitution was created to protect) that "all men are created equal" - not in class structures or castes.
To liberals (ie progressives), the Constitution is anathema because it obstructs the power-hungry through barriers in the form of voting, limited powers, accountability, checks and balances, and so forth. Progressives at every turn seek to create social classes based on some status or identity so as to fragment society and reduce effective opposition to their policies. What is more, progressives want to promote the notion of social classes as an excuse to apply the laws differently based on social status. This furthers their aims of acquiring power and money by allowing them to prosecute their opponents for the very same acts they themselves are absolved of. Hypocrisy is the progressive's daily staple.
Conservatives are universalists, believing in a single set of laws that apply equally and unequivocably to all - laws which are immutable and eternal. Liberals/progressives believe quite simply in "might makes right" - that laws and their application are determined and adjudicated by those in power.
Painting people with the most extreme views as representative of all is unjust. Conservatives have a variety of concepts. There are those who fit the picture of rabid moralists, to whom the idea of compromise is obscene. Then there are the fiscal conservatives, who favor a free market and light government hand, sharing Rand's view that capitalism can be the most moral agent in society. Then there are the constitutionalists, some of whom treat the Constitution as holy scripture, while others recognize there is a small degree of interpretation to be allowed.
New-fashioned liberals likewise have a spectrum of views. Conservative Democrats (an admittedly hard animal to find these days) are essentially Federalists who believe a strong central government is the best keeper of liberty. They are usually strong supporters of the use of military force, in keeping with the Federal government's prime duty of protecting the republic. Moderate Democrats (also hard to find) view a strong Federal hand in social concerns as at least as important as its security duties, but are concerned and recognize the harm in too much regulation or welfare state activities. Democratic Socialist see nothing wrong in a smothering nanny state, and are repelled by any military action except when the life of the republic is truly endangered. Socialists are the liberal fringe element, eager to scrap the Constitution in favor of a supposedly benign totalitarian government controlled by a morally worthy elite.
On one end of the spectrum of political thought is a recognition that humans are imperfect beings that benefit from a moral code and just rule of law, and are capable of great achievements given the freedom to act. At the other end is the belief that only a gifted few are truly capable of great achievements, and the rest of humanity benefits when those few make the rules and enforce righteous behavior.
I wonder just how many women actually get to the point of wanting to terminate pregnancy anyway. Is this a real problem in the first place?
To answer your last question, abortions in the U.S. peaked at nearly 1.5 million annually in 1990, but have steadily decreased since then. By 2014 the number had dropped to just over 600,000. Most of this is more effective preventive measures, and a smaller part is a younger population that places less stigma on unmarried births. U.S. birth rate has fallen dramatically during that period, which is reported to lifestyle changes that induce women to wait to have children, which of course results in smaller families.
Thank you for the info on abortions. I am not really in the market for an abortion, and frankly I dont care really what the government does on it as it doesnt affect me at all.
But, as I said, I think its a woman's right to do what she wants with whats in her body until its born.
Are we speaking as Objectivists or as defenders of religion? The very name "objectivist" presupposes a non religious component.7 billion can believe in religion which still makes it irrational. From the concept of a guy in the sky with a flowing white beard to the bible stories, there is no rationality there.
It may have done the job of keeping people in line 3,000 years ago, but it is no longer a valid idea. If one chooses to rely on religion, that is OK with me so long as I'm not forced to comply with any of whichever's religion's tenets you or anyone else wants to compel me to espouse.
Moral atheists have done a pretty good job of pointing out religious practices with secular benefit, as well as those that are outdated or irrational. There was a practical element to some directives, like the avoidance of eating pork, since trichinosis occurred frequently in that era. The directives against homosexuality and masturbation had their roots in the need to grow the tribe and a higher infant mortality rate. Those all could be declared outdated.
An amoral society can't exist for long, which is why the rule of law and recognition of natural rights are absolutely vital. Whether you base the idea of natural rights to speech, self defense, etc. on being endowed by a creator, or follow Cicero's non-religious logic is immaterial, as they are the basis for recognized individual liberty.
“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
World peace here we come
When wandering through the student center one day, I encountered a group arguing over the type of nonsense, I love to be part of. One fellow with an outrageous southern accent was arguing with a increasingly angry city boy that opossums fornicate through their noses.In order to keep things from escalating into something physical, I suggested that we come back tomorrow with proof to our particular claims. I went to a professor who was a zoologist who was, after hearing my story, was kind enough to be amused and took the time to explain that it was not possible, for opossums to have sex with their noses.he signed his name, including all his degrees which were numerous. The next day we met back at the student center. Confidently, I showed him my letter from the prof.and it even showed that because they copulated face to face it didn't mean that the nose was in any way involved. With a Hah! He said, "I got you beat" and he produced a letter stating his belief and signed by 25 or 30 of his friends, and the argument started all over again.
Anyone for a nocturnal outing to the zoo with an infra-red camera? Naw, too time consuming. Maybe fund a poll of area possums?
;^)
(Hopefully that professor isn't now teaching how global warming is destroying animal habitats and it's all the fault of white men.)
Religion(s) have some good things, moral principles that satisfied people 2 or 3 hundred years ago, and certainly a couple of thousand years ago. But most of it is pure nonsense and one doesn't have to be a scientist to recognize it.For people living in the 21st century to fashion their lives around religious stories and rituals is irrational. There is no other way to say it. Running your life by witch-doctor rituals and the repeating
of pleadings to the "king of the universe" throws all knowledge and scientific achievement away. and shows that the worshiper has no concept of what the universe really is.
Liberals and conservatives both tout adherence to laws but say legal institutions conspire against them.
It's irrational to do something simply because it's old or new. The word doesn't mean conservatives and liberals are totally irrational but rather they have an irrational bias: all things being equal they lean toward the old and new respectively.
All my life the words seem to be losing their meaning. They were confusing when I first learned them because conservative can also mean cautious (e.g. a conservative investment approach) and liberal can mean classical liberalism.
I see them becoming even more meaningless, just epithets for people who like to be mean but don't have any real things to be mean about. It's not like one word represents gov't being less expensive and intrusive while the other represents the idea that well-managed gov't can solve many problems. It's just an excuse for people to act like idiots.
BTW, I think I understand you're saying: Using the old definitions, conservatives support free capitalism except they support trade barriers and immigration restrictions because that's the way it was historically. Liberals are distrustful of capitalism for the same reason. Ayn Rand says who cares what people did in the past. There's a rational basis for capitalism unrelated to appeal to antiquity.
I completely agree if this is what you're saying. It's sad that by the new definitions conservatives act like angry children who need food and sleep and liberals act the exact same way. I'm with Melania Trump: "I don't care [about the angry tantrums]. Do you?"
I started writing a reply whe I realized that I was pretty much duplicating what you had already posted. I gotta start taking Prevagen.