Are Conservative Values Inconsistent With Being a Christian?

Well, here I go.

I think that the words of Jesus more support the notion of giving (in the example that sort of began our little journey, health care, I would say that taxes are the means of giving) to the poor than being rich and keeping it all to yourself.

I am therefore of the opinion that Christianity as we seem to be defining it here would favour taxing the richer people in order to give good health care to all - and especially to the poor who cannot afford it.

Jesus also appears to acknowledge that poverty (the poor we have always with us) is a difficult thing to eradicate, and thus, by extension, may not be the poor themselves' total responsibility, and implies that we have a duty to help.

I would imagine that, while assisting the poor to learn to fish would be seen by all, (except the fish), as a worthy endeavour, that Jesus has not commented clearly in a way that implies that it is a either give fish/teach to fish dichotomy.

I would posit that he might consider giving them fish, so that they might be alive, and healthy enough to LEARN to fish, would be a good thing - as would the teaching to fish.

I suspect Jesus believed that even with the best teaching in the world some poor would remain fishless, and that they ought to be helped. He also seemed to believe that this would entail the rich giving something away.

I therefore, in the health care instance, if the conservative position is that no tax money should be given to provide affordable health care to the poor, believe that conservative values in this case are incompatible with christian values.

I agree with dlowan, but I do live in Canada, and our health care system is in some ways better than what the USA has. Our issue is availibility of service....conservatives here are proposing a two-tiered system, where the rich could pay for private service, while the not-so-rich will have to wait for underfunded and under-supplied hospitals. I am not quite sure where I stand on this I certainly think this would indeed collide with 'Christian' values....

A brief summary in reply to Sophia's earlier comparative narrative:

There are two political philosophies driving the American system, the liberal and the conservative. The liberal, most often the Democrat but not always, sees the American Republic as a powerful means to make life better for the vast majority of it's citizens. As a means to this end Democrats have passed/created Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Compensation, Workmen's Compensation (for injuries sustained while on the job), anti-trust laws, Fairness in Lending and Housing Laws, Right to Unionize Laws and the related right to strike and arbitration laws, laws that protect a workers right to health insurance in case of layoff. In addition, Democrats have led the way historically in passing purity in Medications regulations, and Health care and cleanliness acts for restaurants and food stores. Democrats began the efforts that led Richard Nixon into signing the act that created the EPA, Environmental Protection Act, and the original Occupation and Safety Hazard Acts. It was the liberal philosophy that was the driving force behind the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960's and the Voting Rights Acts of the same period. It has been liberal Democrats who have supported this nation's efforts in science, math, and general education. Whether through the creation of NASA or the Department of Education, it has been liberal Democrats who have tried to make this a more literate and forward thinking nation.

Liberals believe that by protecting the rights of the powerless we make this Republic, as a whole, more powerful. Liberals like the Constitution but they love the Bill of Rights because the Articles address the machine of the Republic and how it shall work, but the Bill of Rights talks directly of the freedoms that all the citizens of this nation shall enjoy. Oh, and yes, Democrats passed tax laws to raise the revenues to pay for all these programs, SS taxes, Unemployment Taxes, Incomes Taxes, Tariffs, Fees and other methods of funding this gigantic experiment in Democracy.

As to the canard that liberals believe the government does this by taking money from those who earn it and using it to better the lives of those who did not. I've heard this before, and I've always wondered if Conservatives make their money differently than the rest of us. Do they earn it a vacuum without using any of the benefits of this free society? Do they not use it's highways, it's utilities, it's communications systems, it's educational systems and other parts of the vast resources we have in order to earn that money? If they do use those things that this republic offers them, do they not owe the republic something in return for that use?
It seems to me, that what is being described, the taking money part, is a recognized business practice, that you take some of the profits gained and reinvest them back in your business. That is what liberals do. We take money, no doubt hard earned, and reinvest it in the Republic's resources: it's environment and it's most important commodity: it's people.
And guess what: those people become producers and earners and taxpayers, that's how the cycle is supposed to work. Earn, re-invest, earn more. Conservatives, one would think, would applaud this, but they fear anyone else having economic power
Conservatives believe that government ought to do as little as possible to involve itself into it's citizen's daily life, with some exceptions. There is a phrase, popular at one time, that the Federal Government ought to run the Army, deliver the mail and leave us alone. It's a very fine phrase, most often spoken by people with plenty of power over their own lives and not much regard for anyone without such power.
Conservatives make exceptions when they are passing Farm, Tobacco and Sugar Subsidies and other forms of welfare to business like when they insure loans to Corporations while cutting educational funding, while cutting taxes on everything in sight without regard to the size of the deficits those cuts create. (Note: Up until R. Reagan's terms, the Conservative view on deficit spending was to be furiously opposed to it, once Ronald Reagan's deficits soared to record heights they became acceptable and when Clinton had a surplus year, they were deemed unimportant.) Conservatives like big military budgets, small social program budgets and no budget at all in support of the Arts or Sciences.
They believe in the goodness of men, God bless them, that if we just leave business to mind it's own business that everything will be hunky-dory. (Do not refer here to Enron, Global Crossing, the recent fines for Wall Street et al.) Conservatives believe that there ought not to be any of the liberal programs listed above and they would also disband the SEC. They ignore racism, think that poverty, healthcare, and the general welfare are beyond the powers of any government to control. They love the Second Amendment but are not much inclined to cheer the First or the Sixth. They don't believe there is a right to privacy unless it concerns the ownership of a corporation or who was at the meetings with Dick Cheney's Energy Commission. They believe that protecting the powerful enables the powerful to share their power with the citizens as a whole, whether this actually happens or not is not within their power to control. Conservatives believe that you ought to be able to live your own life freely unless you are gay, have an unwanted pregnancy or are named Clinton.



I know that many Christians have turned to the GOP because of it's stance on abortion, even that is another case of keeping the powerless powerless, but hardly anything else about the Republican agenda has anything remotely related to leading a Christian life. (Where is the Charity? Where is the Hope?) If one listens to what Fundamentalist Christians have to say carefully one will note that although they appear to be of some belief, it doesn't jibe with a philosophy based on "Love thy Neighbor."
I apologize to any Conservative who might think I have mis-portrayed their philosophy. I have been puzzled my whole life as to why anyone would want to be both a Conservative and an Christian, or, for that matter, a Conservative and an American but then, I was well educated.

If any Conservative would like to tell me how the Conservative philosophy benefits more people than the liberal, I am all ears.

Joe Nation

Just as an FYI folks, we are all big people here and as such, I do not feel that is necessary to place restrictions on the direction or content of an individuals thoughts.

I put this question in the general category for a reason, and if there is a question as to my, as the threads originator, desire to keep the thread, "on topic", well, just put that thought to rest.

Joe--
One of the current administration's initiatives, in order to keep more of people's money in their own pockets, is a Health Care Credit.
Lots of Bush's healthcare initiatives here.
It's misleading for people to think Conservatives don't want the same results--better healthcare--they just feel the best way is forcing the environment to change, to make it more affordable. I feel trial lawyers are causing a jack-up of doctor fees. The pharmaceutical companies are charging ridiculous amounts for meds. And, people need to keep more of their tax dollars in the form of credits to pay for their insurance. IMO.

I think it is a waste of money to continue to pay what Americans are forced to pay for decent healthcare. Instead of charging more and more in taxes, and paying whatever price we are gouged with, I am much more satisfied addressing the institutional problems in American healthcare--at the same time, bringing innovation to the existing healthcare. Healthcare prices are out of control.

dlowen-- Your statement: I therefore, in the health care instance, if the conservative position is that no tax money should be given to provide affordable health care to the poor, believe that conservative values in this case are incompatible with christian values.
--------------------
If the conservative position is that no money should be used to help the poor get healthcare, I wouldn't be one. Bush has come up with new and innovative ways to use existing monies for healthcare, and has asked for additional money for more assistance for some people stuck in gaps that haven't been addressed before. Thank God, because I am going to benefit from one of them, and I need it. And, I believe we had better come up with innovative ways to improve healthcare, because we cannot afford to pay for the healthcare needs of the Baby Boomers, who are coming of age. It is a mathematical fact. A huge aging population is hitting Caid and Care now, and the generations, which will be bearing that burden aren't large enough to do it.

I'll bring in the fish analogy here. Families that make less than $60K are eligible for this. Say a family brings in 30K. The wife's company doesn't have employer sponsered health insurance, and the husband doesn't opt for his, because the cost is too high... He wants all of his paycheck. They can't afford it. Bush's plan would allow them to KEEP THEIR TAXES UP TO 90% OF THE COST OF THEIR INSURANCE. This is the kind of fishing I'm talking about. Some seem to think reducing taxes means the problem won't be solved. The problem WILL be solved. The people are given a tool to solve it with. The Democrats would rather the family continue to send their tax dollars into Washington, this would keep the family uninsured.

I ahve no desire to make your arguments the focus of the debate, personally I think most of them were off topic sales pitches that can be contested elsewhere.

I also did not say you were selling anything, I said I wasn't going to play salesperson.

Brainfart, I din't think I'd expressed that opinion. I stand corrected.

Butthead, no problem.

Would it be better to have those that offer compassionate ministry - to also empower and enable the recipients to work toward independence?

Legality has nothing to do with it, or you'd also be defending this paragon's rights if he had an 8 million dollar Vegas whore habit.

The point is that he has held himself out a some kind of beacon of morality. This is hypocrisy, even if you use a damn nuclear engine to spin it.

JOE NATION_Youve failed to include one of the capstones of Conservatism, that is the embracing of "family values". This bumpersticker phrase encapsulates the intrusive stance in faith and morals that the Conservative side has as an agenda. While only partially visible , its insidious mantra seeps into other areas
"God helps those who help themselves"
"we must free these poor oil rich beggars for their own good"
"we stand for right and truth and anybody that doesnt believe our way we can take down their names... and ooohhh just you wait till we have the presidency and both houses..... Oh my God theyve got it now?"

Thats why Rick Santorum said what he did and then, like the vapid deer -in the-headlight photo-ops that we in PA recognize him for, he says whaaaa? Im not a bigot?

There is a faction of Evangelist Christianity that is quite comfortable with more conservative stances. When pushed to the wall, they have no problems with a theocracy, and they are constantly creating party centered shiboleths to separate the "true believers"


AND BTW MAXDADEO_ Please dont get involved telling me or anyone how to comport. Let this take whatever route it sees fit, we dont need hall monitors.

Wow, Sophia, I ask for conservatives to tell me how their philosophy benefits more people than the liberal does,(we are talking about the basic ideas of Christianity and Conservatism here,) and you offer something that GWBush is proposing to do. Well, maybe some other member of the GOP can do better. Meanwhile, if conservatives had listened, instead of running around screaming 'the sky is falling', to the proposals that the Clinton administration offered in 1993, Mr. Bush wouldn't have to be offering a tax credit plan because a Universal Healthcare plan would have already been in place.
Please stop kidding yourself, Conservatives do not want the same result -better healthcare- as Liberals. Conservatives don't want to be involved a what they see a market and marketing problem. Drug companies are charging too much for their products as you said, but Conservatives can't, or won't, do anything about that because that would be anti-business and when it comes down to being pro-healthcare or pro-business the right picks pro-business. Not because they are bad people, they really think that by giving more power to the powerful, the powerful will then share. The drug companies will, of their own volition, drop prices to a fair level. Wow, and look out the window, boys, and watch those pigs go flying by!

As of yet the most ironic statement on the site. :-)

Teaching people to fish is fine. Unfortunately, there are not always fish at the poor end of the pond. But we know how to cast a net, so, we are on our own, if we are Republicans. Jesus said "You always have the poor among you." But he did give them fish. He never once said, "Go get your own fish."

Wow, oh wow.

Seeing all this discussion almost makes me sorry I went to that party last night and got mightily schnockered. But I'm nuts about house parties -- and last nights effort was a doozey. Nancy and I had a ball!

But back to the headache...er...discussion.

I agree with the several contributors who have noticed that the old saw "...teach 'em to fish..." seems to be more an "escape line" than an accurate depiction of what "the other side" does in the area of social problems.

Having said that, I understand the logic of preferring to help a person learn to fish rather than simply providing some fish -- and if I ever became convinced that the tactic is actually being used by the other side, I'd probably sign on.

But it is easier to talk about that kind of thing than to actually put it into practice. On the couple of occasions where people asked for examples of conservatives actually investing money in "teaching to fish" kinds of projects -- I noticed a rather deafening silence -- and I suspect I know why.

In any case, back to the issue that indirectly prompted this discussion.

Back in the other thread -- which was discussing whether people would be willing to give up more money to taxes if the money were used to provide medical coverage for people currently without such coverage -- Max answered that he would not.

There were a couple of others who responded that way -- and from my limited knowledge of what people have been talking about here and in other forums, it appeared to me the conservatives were the ones saying "no." And since I have seen Max arguing on the side of Christian teachings -- I questioned him about that seeming inconsistency. I suggest that the teachings of Jesus seem to indicate he would advocate giving up wealth in such a scenario - and the "no" answer seemed to me to be in direct opposition to what I see as his teachings.

I want to focus on that specific rather than wandering off into the general.

Max, talk to us a bit about the rationale behind your stance on that issue. I may very well be misrepresenting what you feel and wrote -- so I would appreciate some statement of how you do feel -- and maybe we can discuss that one specific instance of Christian conservative sensibilities and why you, at least, think it not to be inconsistent.

Obviously you will not be speaking for all conservative Christians -- and you may very well not even be saying it is not inconsistent. You may see it as inconsistent -- but a deviation you can justify. I know I'd love to hear your position -- and I suspect Sofia and the others would also.

GREAT THREAD, Max. Lots of participation; lots of focus; lots of respect here. Great thread.

farmerman: Please reread the post from which you took that quote again.

I believe you will find us in total agreement.

Some had asked, I answered.

Welfare Reform is 'teaching to fish', which is proven to be working to the benefit of those formerly trapped in generations of welfare dependancy.

The Republicans created it, passed it--and Clinton signed it. It is a 'fishing pole.'

Sofia:

The problem is that with a lack or provisions to allow for them to get anything that resembles and education, a lack of child care, and other things like that--many people off of welfare are NOT out of poverty.

There was a GREAT article in Mother Jones on this--if you're interesting, I'll see if I can pull it up.

NeoGuin-- You reminded me. The school voucher program is a fishing pole. Alot of blacks, specifically, are for this new, GOP opportunity. It is CHOICE.

The Dems won't get behind it, reportedly, because they get alotta dough from the Teacher's Union--

Whoo boy, this is kinda all over the place. Lots to respond to. I've already made my main points about Welfare to Work, can add to that if so desired. (Main point is the Republican version was far less practical and more punishing, and liberals/ Democrats shaped it into the still flawed but more humane measure that was signed by a Democrat.)

I am most interested in the catalyst for this, though, as I share Frank's confusion. In terms of tax cuts, the conservative position seems to be, "Don't take my money from me to use it to help others -- I will make my own decisions about helping others." But then if the decision is to not help others...?