good Christian+true conservative=impossible?

[roosterjuicer]

Are there any actual Christian teachings that are like this,

Not that I know of in the new testament, but plenty in the old testament

[roosterjuicer]

BTW, I never expected to have such a conversation in a car forum. Glad to see that there are thinking people here

glad to see people not ripping eachothers heads off over it too

[pimento]

I'm assuming most current "fundamentalist christians" would still be voting republican or some other form of conservatism. how would they reconcile this for themselves considering they would arguably be voting against the ideals of jesus as set forth in the gospels? or is it even possible?

I'm imagining that most people who are staunchly republican could be described as fundamentalist republicans, in that they will be republican no matter what because that's just how they is con sarn it. They'll find a way to reconcile any differences between that and their (probably fundamentalist christian) religeous beliefs because it's easier to do that than to question their beliefs.

[lightweight]

What i am saying is that political and religious philosophies grew up side by side, and that there is no way they can be definitively separated from a purely philosophical stand point.

Perfectly clear point! All I am saying is that they should, and all that you are saying is that they won't! But of course theory and practice differ, right?

while you are correct, that is not really the point at hand. what the question that rj brought up, was how can one resolve the differences between Republican ideology and Christian ideology, since they are seemingly so disparate.

The conflict between Republican and Christian ideology begins over morality issues. In fact the conflict between political and religious authority in general begins over morality issues.

Let me state an example here. The official Catholic Church and specifically the Pope said that it is a sin for people to use condoms in Africa (and all over the world, for that matter) in order to prevent the spread of AIDS and reduce overpopulation.

From the one hand you have the religious authority saying no to condoms and on the other hand people are dying as a result.

I think that mankind is capable of solving moral issues without religion. In fact religion does not help in many cases as seen above.

[Ferrer]

The conflict between Republican and Christian ideology begins over morality issues. In fact the conflict between political and religious authority in general begins over morality issues.

Let me state an example here. The official Catholic Church and specifically the Pope said that it is a sin for people to use condoms in Africa (and all over the world, for that matter) in order to prevent the spread of AIDS and reduce overpopulation.

From the one hand you have the religious authority saying no to condoms and on the other hand people are dying as a result.

I think that mankind is capable of solving moral issues without religion. In fact religion does not help in many cases as seen above.

I think we could even make a further distinction to complicate the matter even further.

Is being religious or believe in god, the same as believing in the catholic church (or insert any other religious institution here)? I think not, I personally believe in God and I was raised in a Catholic culture, yet I have no belief in the institution itself.

Also I agree with cmcpokey, whenever you make a decision, and voting is a decision, all aspects of your life affect it, and religion is an aspect of your life. I doubt any human is completely capable of separating all aspects of his life in order to make completely objective decisions. I certainly can't.

[lightweight]

I guess some people want to mix unmixable magisteria, although it would make their life a lot easier not to.

Now that this is clear, and since the previous discussion is exhausted, let's see some answers to roosterjuicer's thread question. I certainly said what I think

[cmcpokey]

Perfectly clear point! All I am saying is that they should, and all that you are saying is that they won't! But of course theory and practice differ, right?

i agree. i think religion is a terrible thing, and should be held at arms length for anything other than private worship. but, i am in the minority and understand that the two will be intertwined as long as they are allowed to exist in the same space.

The USSR tried to get around it by banning all religion, and for the most part it was effective in controlling the population. but like all cults, the religious existed covertly and regained stature following the collapse.

The conflict between Republican and Christian ideology begins over morality issues. In fact the conflict between political and religious authority in general begins over morality issues.

Let me state an example here. The official Catholic Church and specifically the Pope said that it is a sin for people to use condoms in Africa (and all over the world, for that matter) in order to prevent the spread of AIDS and reduce overpopulation.

From the one hand you have the religious authority saying no to condoms and on the other hand people are dying as a result.

I think that mankind is capable of solving moral issues without religion. In fact religion does not help in many cases as seen above.

you have done a good job at identifying the problems with organized and prescriptive religion, and thats the crux of the matter.

i think it is much better to form a consistent moral belief pattern when you dont have any outside entities giving you a path to follow. whether that be religion or a political entity. the problem is those that believe multiple sources blindly and don't realize (or choose to ignore) that they are counter to one another. as rj posted in the first post, how can you simultaneously believe that you should practice charity and provide for the sick and the poor, but be firmly against universal health care, and decrease tax rates for the rich while increasing them for the poor.

i myself am a liberal atheist, so mostly i am playing devil's advocate with you lightweight. but as someone who studies poli sci, and have a vested interest in US national politics, i look at things in a different way than you probably do.

[LeonOfTheDead]

I always considered, even when I used to believe, that there is some connections between democrats (or left wing parties over here) and the Catholic doctrine.

Over here, being a strong and politically involved christian you aren't from a left or right wing party as a given fact, as the main christian party jumps from left to right and backwards every time it can gain something from the other party.
Yes, generally old and pretty conservative christians vote towards right, so republicans, but that's not the case with new generations.

Ive had three nuns in the family, so I know how it works from their point of view. Actually there are two points of view.
You can believe in God, whichever God you want, and live to help the poor, feed the hungry and try to keep the world on the right path. Or you can live following what the Pope, or the Church tells you to do.

Two of the three nuns were (one is dead since a year or so) of the second group.
The other is is a now retired missionary, which passed more than 40 years in the middle of the Brazilian jungle not trying to convert the Indios to our religion, but trying to help them staying alive in a world that's changing while they are not.
Surely not all the nuns (correct word?) which were there were also like my aunt, but you got the point.

The point is, while for the other two everything which was right for the Church was also right for them, for the third one what was right applying the principles learned trough what JC said, was also right for her.
So instead of blindingly applying what's wrote here and there or what the Pope and his friends just said, she uses to think about that and basically ask herself "what would JC do?".
Quite often the answer is different from what the present Pope thinks, which is why I like her. Not because she is not sympathizing with this pope, but because she thinks!

So the final answer? Would JC be against gay marriage, abortion and so on?
Who knows, that's impossible to know, but as far as you know him, you should get your specific interpretation of his thoughts.

I for one would say he would be pro, as he never forced someone to think like he did, or to live in a uncomfortable situation, once a good acknowledge of the situation was done.
You're dead rich, are you happy? No, well, then join me!
You're dead poor, are you happy? No, well, react! (and perhaps join me as well, we can hang out).

You're 14 yo and pregnant, are you strong and smart enough to raise and teach a child?
Maybe, and maybe not. Is abortion the only solution? No, generally, but while having the possibility to do it doesn't mean you will, imposing it's illegal to do it means you're trowing away the right from a person to have a better life, and perhaps a betetr life even for her baby.

I went off-topic, end of the rant.

[digitalcraft]

I think you're trying to compare two terms that nobody will ever agree on the definition of. You may be trying to compare a box of happy to a bag of warm. :P

[henk4]

Rooster, I'll stay out of the debate
My signature explains why.

[csl177]

Rooster, I'll stay out of the debate
My signature explains why.

I'm done too, thought my posts explained as much as required to address the original query. If it works for you, great. But political machinations driven by religious belief have brought the human race nothing but grief.

Read Bertrand Russell or Pat Condell. Think for yourself.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

The American system of politics has always concerned me. There is such an idealogical imbalance between the two sides that bipartisan politics (that is, in the best interests of every person) just isn't possible.

having said that I think those who claim to be driven by their religious beliefs (on both sides) should be watched very wearily. We complain when those of other faiths are so virilant with their rhetoric (particularly the islamic faith - granted some of those people might be genuinely crazy...but what makes those who claim god told them to do something any different if it's a different god?)

I believe it's possible to be a good person of sound moral judgement without the need for organised religion. Having said that many people find their moral compass in faith and the way in which many political groups use religion for their own purposes (and the reverse situation) just reminds me why the US's official religion is no religion at all.

[roosterjuicer]

The American system of politics has always concerned me. There is such an idealogical imbalance between the two sides that bipartisan politics (that is, in the best interests of every person) just isn't possible.

I agree with that. I absolutely hate our two party system. I consider myself to be a pretty staunch libertarian (small government, live and let live) and while the republicans are closer to my beliefs than the dems are they are still faaar from it for the most part but its difficult to vote libertarian because thats essentially throwing my vote away and because to do so takes votes away from the republican party which to me personally is the lesser of two evils.

but then its quite the catch 22 because if nobody ever votes for anything other than the two parties out of fear of "throwing our votes away" then we will never really get away from the two party system.