Are Conservative Values Inconsistent With Being a Christian?

Christian values range from passive benevolence to muderous righteous wrath. Christain values can be tolerant and loving or intolerant and hateful.

Conservative values differ at least that much as well.

I'm gonna see how this plays out and put my $.02 in later.

Problem here as I see it, Max, apart from your childish rudeness to Frank, is that Christianity and its doctrines seem able to be bent to support just about anything, or condemn it.

When you have people claiming god is with them in wars, for instance - well....

Perhaps it might help a bit if you defined "conservative values".

Hmmmm - unless you and Frank have agreed that this is a fun name for him, in which case I withdraw my comment.

dlowan:

methinks you type faster than you read.

Methinks she has a point, you and Frank have been calling each other playground names for a while.

I think you will find that neither Max nor I will call the other any playgroud names in this thread -- although we have have both done more than our share of that thing in others. We have reached an accomodation on the issue via PMs off-line -- and through the good intersession of D'Artangnan. I think this thread is evidence of all that because of the fact that Max accomodated me by initating this thread at my instigation.

HOWEVER, my name is Frank Apisa -- not Fran Kapisa or Frank A. Pisa -- both of which have been used in the past. I will assume Max thought his version of my name was correct -- or that his healthy sense of humor accidentally took control of his mind as he was typing that comment.

I agree with Craven that both Christianity and American conservatism have a fairly wide and divergent track record. But I do see much in the way of incompatibility -- and I am hoping that Max will be able to explain away the seeming inconsistencies -- or that he will come to the realization that those of us who feel as I do on the issue are correct.

Perhaps Max -- or any of the others participating -- will direct their attention to the question that was being discussed in the earlier thread -- in which I see a large difference between Christian and conservative thinking.

In the other thread, we were discussing the condition of our America's health care problems -- especially the fact that so many of our people are without adequate medical insurance coverage.

Max had indicated what I consider a usual conservative position -- that he would not be prepared to give more in the way of taxes in order to provide such coverage.

I hope Max comments on exactly what his position is on this issue -- and that we beging our considerations of whether this particular conservative position is in conflict with Christian priciples.

OVER to my good friend, Max.

The only so-called conservative view I believe is incompatible with Christianity is Capital Punishment.

Of course, some liberals are pro-CP, so you really can't assign an ideology to a policy anymore.

As far as social programs go-- I feel the Dem and Conservative approaches could be boiled down to these simple analogies:
1) The Dems programs try to supply fish.
2) The GOP wants to help people learn to fish.

If either motive is not based on one's true belief of what is best for people who need help, then it is unChristian.

What programs has the GOP developed to help people learn to fish? This is a serious question. I'm not from the U.S. and have not heard any coverage of any funding of training programs or things of that sort. Are there any new programs out there from within the past 18 months?

The conservatives seem to me to want all the fish. Liberals want everybody to have a few. There has to be accomodation in between.

I was going to cite a few examples off the cuff, but went out looking for better stuff and found the following-- which I thought was funny and may give us fodder for further developed conversation.

ehBeth-- My statement is quoted in the article. It is widely accepted as a way to define the two parties' modus operanda re: social programs.

I will warn you-- the writer is obviously biased-- and I don't agree with more than a few of his statements-- but I do agree with many.

THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LIBERALS VS. CONSERVATIVES - DEMOCRATS VS. REPUBLICANS


...There are, however, fundamental differences, and people who "join" either side should be intellectually honest enough to know and accept those differences. Let's talk about some of the major differences - note that we will use the terms Liberal and Democrat interchangeably, just as we will Republican and Conservative. These are our "short-form" views of the two major political parties:

· Military issues - Democrats value safety and freedom as much as the next guy, but they tend to not want to invest in it as much as Republicans do. They wish to put their tax revenues into domestic programs. The Dems also love to pit military spending against domestic spending. In some ways that's a good thing, but only when done honestly and genuinely. Liberals want to wait until the threat is undeniable, while Conservatives believe more in the power of deterrence by strength. Republicans also tend to believe that the Federal Government's primary role is to protect its citizens, while Democrats feel it is their duty to provide for citizens.

· Moral issues - Liberals, because of their individual rights stance, tend to fight what they perceive as invasive rulings regarding morality, while Conservatives place more value on societal morality, family values and traditional values than on individual rights. Again, Dems know that special interest groups and the selfish bone in many Americans respond positively to ideas that serve them, regardless of the effects on society as a whole.

· Economic issues - Democrats think nothing of spending more and more money of domestic issues - they see themselves as "providers" of the common good. Republicans generally oppose more programs, large government and the concept of being "providers." See the joke, below. Its cute, and stresses this philosophic difference between the two sides. Republicans believe in the adage, "Give a man a fish, and he has but one meal; teach him to fish, and he will eat forever." Dems want to hand-feed people, making them slaves to the government's dole. Dems love to pit one American against the other on issues of taxes, social security, health issues, diversity and crime. Democrats have played the class warfare card once too often, and we believe that most Americans are wising up to that divisive game.

· Civil Rights (Race, Sex, Religion, etc.) issues - Democrats tend to represent individual rights over traditional rights. They also claim to be the voice and defender of the common man. It is in that role that they have driven a mighty wedge between the people and Republicans through a continuous barrage of "class warfare." The Democrats have courted the black and Hispanic vote, blue collar vote and labor union vote, pitting them against America's vital business and industry community. Republicans have only recently begun to take them head-on, attempting to dismantle the Democrat's house of cards. It's a hard sale, as many people respond to the Democrat message, thinking that it will "pull" them out of their troubles. It never has, and we doubt that it ever will.

· Crime & Courts issues - Hand-in-hand with the ACLU, liberals tend to side with the individual being "prosecuted." They honestly wish to guard the accused's rights, and that's a good thing, when done with common sense. Republicans tend to look to the victim's rights, and to the good of the whole (society) over that of the individual. Liberals want to make everything right through the courts, using liberal federal judges to accomplish their agenda. We laud the Democrats for some of the social reforms they have garnered, but we also condemn them for the many harms they have done to society as a whole.

· Foreign Aid issues - Let's begin by accepting reality - every administration has doled out money to foreign nations in reckless, self-serving, poorly controlled and questionable ways. What adds to the problem is that foreign regimes evolve, some for the worse, and times change. What made sense in 1995 may make no sense in 1996. Heads of State that served our needs one decade may evolve into nasty problems for us down the road, as with Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, etc. Our alliances and our foreign aid are tied to what serves us best at the time. Democrats know that, as do Republicans, though both parties ignore that truth when they think they can malign the other party successfully. The United States of America defeated world communism and fascism, not always with the cleanest of hands, but the end did justify the means. The Cold War is over, thanks largely to President Ronald Reagan and his "bankrupt the Soviets" policies.

· Taxation issues - Conservatives believe that tax dollars are our individual dollars, not theirs, while Democrats feel that tax dollars are everyone's, and should be used, as needed, to provide for everyone. "Take from the rich and give to the poor," is often applied to them in unflattering ways. The Democrats are willing to steal from wealthier Americans, not because they believe it to be fair, but because they come across as Robin Hoods, and further their class warfare campaign. They also know that they are alienating a smaller percentage of Americans (higher wage earners), while satisfying the self serving instincts and natural jealousies of the larger lower income group.

· Liberty and Rights issues - Democrats tend to support individual rights regardless of their impact on society's rights. Conservatives tend to vote in favor of protecting the majority interests over individual interests, especially when the individual interest seems petty, biased, an assault of basic values, or a threat to American values. It often seems that Liberals support intellectual arguments, while Conservatives apply more common sense. Burning of the American flag was supported by Liberals as a free speech issue, but opposed vehemently by Conservatives on a common sense, traditional and patriotic basis.

A LITTLE HUMOR FROM THE RIGHT:


A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they
came to a homeless person. The Republican gave the homeless person his
business card and told him to come to his business for a job. He then
took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another
homeless person, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless
person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached
into the Republican's pocket and got out twenty dollars. He kept $15
for administrative fees and gave the homeless person $5.

Now you understand the difference between Republicans and Democrats


As of 01/26/03 (Ew, tried to edit to save that space, but couldn't do it.)

Sofia is trying to say that Cons don't believe in handouts, and libs do.

Had nothing to do with seafood.

Book mark

the use of the label "christian"
the use of the label "conservative"
and then requesting a correlation verges on idiocy not unlike use of the term "american" with the term "vegatarian." any correlation is spurious on a good day, asinine on a bad day. the term "values" is vague to the extreme of having no intrinsic meaning for reference.

Almost, snood.
I agree with the current conservative thought and policies that everyone may need a leg up at certain times. It's the policy of giving a hand-out indefinitely and not enforcing assists to enable the one in need to become self-sufficient in the future that I disagree with.
__________________

Moynihan still wrong! One of the very minor reasons to lament the premature passing of Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan is that we missed watching him eat the incredible amount of crow he'd have had to eat over his wildly non-prescient stance on welfare reform. Basically, the black anti-marriage trend he thought couldn't be stopped appears to have been reversed by the welfare reform he vehemently opposed. The latest confirming report appeared at the bottom of page A-13 of yesterday's NYT, though the Times did run a front-pager two years ago when the first hints of the turnaround became evident. Saturday's story says:

The portion of black families headed by single women continued to decline. It was 43 percent last year, one percentage point lower than 2000 and four points lower than in 1996. [Emphasis added.]

That was the year welfare was reformed, of course.. .. There has also been a less dramatic, but steady, increase in the percent of black families headed by married couples. "The six-year increase equals about 520,000 families," says the AP. ... The plodding, unconvincing liberal party line--advanced by the people with hyphenated last names who work at liberal think tanks and get quoted in AP stories--is that reversal doesn't have much to do with welfare reform. Rather, the economy did it! True, blacks did make huge economic strides in the booming job market of the late 1990s, and it's hard to believe that wasn't a factor. But the economy has boomed and busted before--and before the mid-1990s the family trends for blacks moved relentlessly downhill for decades ... I doubt that honest liberals such as Wendell Primus (and careful government analysts like Richard Bavier) think that welfare reform wasn't also a major part of the cause. The smart liberal party line, I'd argue, is that we now know that welfare reform and a healthy economy will boost marriage and reduce illegitimacy--so why, exactly, do we need the Bush administration's vague and oversold "marriage initiative"? We're winning without it. ...

P.S.: Moynihan isn't alive to eat crow, but maybe those Washington pundits he conned into pessimism about welfare reform--e.g., George Will and Al Hunt--will eat it for him.
FromSlate.
Though it takes a slam at Bush, it underlines the fallacy that the welfare program, long criticised by the conservatives for it's detrimental effects on those recieving it, did long term damage. Most conservatives believe that all never-ending 'assists' from an outside source with no built-in bridges to self-sufficiency are inherently damaging to the recipients.

the use of the label "christian"
the use of the label "conservative"
and then requesting a correlation verges on idiocy not unlike use of the term "american" with the term "vegatarian." any correlation is spurious on a good day, asinine on a bad day. the term "values" is vague to the extreme of having no intrinsic meaning for reference.
--------------------------
Yep. I would have stopped short of the designation 'idiocy', but 'conservative' doesn't allow for specific policies. The two parties are too enmeshed to draw conclusions-- Look at abortion and CP. I consider myself conservative, but don't hold the stereotypical conservative view of either.
edit-- PS--
Clinton didn't behave in stereotypical liberal fashion, when he signed the change of Welfare Reform into law. All the stereotypes are falling. And, I think it is a good thing.

Bill Bennett displays --or is discovered displaying--some inconsistency:




The Bookie of Virtue

I think the boundary that Bennett set, is that he can afford his gambling habit.

The Conservative ideology doesn't have a personal perfection plank.

Nobody could show up at the meetings....

ROTFL

Yep, that's makes it alright; as long as you can afford to lose millions gambling, you don't have a problem.

That's called denial, Sofe, and you're enabling Righteous Bill.

Perhaps you should just let him make his own excuses...