.
.
Don't let leftist revisionists, as if there was anything else, tell you what you believe. I know many people struggle with basic terms. The problem here is that the media, academia, and even politicians who claim to be conservative, either don't actually know and just make it up or know but don't want you to figure it rightly. They try to suggest that conservativism is based on a belief in the past, for it's own sake. Roughly traditionalism, if even that is a little too close to some variation of the truth for them to be comfortable with you knowing... so they use terms such as anachronistic, neanderthal, backward, etc. They, of course, being onward, forward, progressive, free minded, etc.
The truth is, conservativism is a political theory based upon some very well defined principles and truths. And these ideas aren't even man-made. The principles upon which true conservativism are based were created by God, handed down initially through to Jews, then on to Christians. While it is true that conservatives hold to the old, the principles are not relative to a specific time or place, but to a Being, one who is timeless. There have been, and remain, various takes on these truths, to a limited degree. Certainly a Catholic, a Southern Baptist, and a Mormon would have various takes, and weights, of these things. And yet there isn't, in life practice, all that much difference. None of these would believe murder or rape would be tolerable. None of those, if practicing as they were taught, would believe even the theft of a $10 bill would be allowable. The bar isn't variable by the color of skin, the wealth someone might have attained, or any other measure. It is equal, and truly blind. This is the basis for conservativism.
Of course, this means that female politicians are not conservative. Nor are gay politicians. There is no such big tent. Is there room for sinners? Sure, just not those choosing to live a life of sin, and publicly. There isn't a conservative who isn't a sinner. But if he isn't constantly reconciling his sins, then he isn't a conservative. So, all these notions of opening the possibilities is merely an attempt to quash true conservativism. Something the Republican leadership is deadset on doing.
So, what are modern liberals, progressives, and the rest? Godless. They are no more a new thing than conservatives are. One is not newer, younger, fresher... the other being old and out-of-date. Actually, with Cain being the first progressive and Christ being the first true conservative, they are far older in their base. Uhrm, at least on earth. Conservativism existed first, but it was shattered by our willfulness. You see, it doesn't matter if you believe yourself to be right, and believe that you believe in God. If it doesn't show, if you don't adhere to what God has clearly written, and spoken, if you choose what of those things to believe in... in the end, it is not God you believe in, but yourself. You can't be openly gay, or even a female politician, and believe in the principles God put forth. You can't be for subjugating people and be Christian. You can't even support the notion of a king and be a faithful servant of God. You can't hate, especially hate God, especially pretty much as a political party, and be Godly. You are what you are. But that doesn't sell to the low information voter, so they will never admit it.
Oh, I am positive a true wordsmith, such as William Buckley, Jr. could have done a better job of it. I'm not sure if he ever went so far, however. I am not sure how far back censuring began, or how deeply it ran. In any case, this should be a start. If I were to have had someone write the thing out more fully and in a better way, he could have done it. I am sure there are others, living and dead, who probably could have and did express the thing much more eloquently. But, this isn't their blog... you get what you get.
Good day.
Methinks you are elevating "conservatism" to a position it does not deserve.
ReplyDeleteThe Kingdom of God is not, and never will be, a political movement. If a political movement happens to conform, in a certain time and place, to certain principles of the Kingdom, then so much the better for that movement.
But we make a grave error to conflate the two, ever.
Urhm, I tend to disagree. Actually, I see my faith AS my politics. I look for the principles in and from my politicians. That, actually, does at this time require me to be independent, if also exclusively non-Democrat, "illiberal", "anti-progressive".
ReplyDeleteGod very much suggested that we were to try to have our political systems be based upon His will. It has never worked well, or for long, but because as we follow His will we seem to do well. Then when we do well, we... begin setting Him aside. But He most certainly indicated that as a goal. Which means He was, is, and will be political.
So, let me get this right. You separate religion and politics? Or do you just not believe U.S. conservativism is based on faith? Or do you suggest all of the parties are equally in tune with God's will?
I separate my faith from politics. What other people do with their religion is up to them.
ReplyDelete"My kingdom is not of this world", were the words of Jesus. We are told in the New Testament to live in peace, to the degree possible, within the political framework of this world.
We have to go all the way back to the days of the prophet Samuel to get God's lowdown on human government. Essentially what he lays out might be called a libertarian theocracy. Not so much "conservatism" as it is commonly known these days.
Keep God in a box that is convenient for the secular world. Keep Him out of politics, academics, employment, social life, and even your personal life mostly if you choose to go that far. He fits nicely in an hour on Sundays, Saturdays for some, for most, at least of those who still believe and almost practice faith. That is completely your choice, of course. For my part there is nothing but God's kingdom. The rest is a fiction, a lie, in the form of my willfulness at times. But I understand, for my part, what is not of God, even in this plane existence. Death.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't the world plus God, it is God plus the world. I know it's a fine tuned notion, but the difference is huge, it is eternity.
Nice strawman you have there.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I'm a "Sunday only" Churchian all right...
I think our views are much closer than you suggest. The difference is that I see no hope of salvation through human exertions.
ReplyDeleteThe Perfectability of Man is a distinctly leftist concept, and you have to believe in it to some degree (whether conscious or not) to presume that there are real solutions outside of the return of the King and the smiting of the nations.
It was Thomas Jefferson (founding father, deist, hypocrite) who correctly noted that democracy is only suitable for a religious people who are by virtue of their faith, self-governing. Anything less requires rule by despots and tyrants. To the degree that this nation, including most people in most churches, have given up their faith for the abandoned pursuit of the passions of the flesh, we are ripe for tyranny.
The choices are leftist/socialist tyranny or rightist/corporatist/"christian" tyranny, neither of which comports with my understanding of the will of God for mankind.
The solution (if there is one) would require a nationwide revival. The political structures might then be made to fall in line and be restored, if the people themselves could first be thus restored.
The difference is that I see no hope of salvation through human exertions. If that is our only difference, then we don't have a difference.
ReplyDeleteIt was also noted that America was great because Americans were good. Yes, I do understand.
Now, I think what you are confusing is any notion of mine that might suggest there is a political party, in America, at this time, that I follow, or construe with my faith. Or that there ever was such a party. This is incorrect. My faith is my politics, my politics is not my faith. It is nuanced, in a real way, I think. A and B but only some C, some of which are B, though that isn't a requirement if it does create a certainty about some Cs... give or take.