What do Christians and Liberals have in common?

[Dr.Traveler]

A religious movement has to do with the organic personality of the people as they adapt those things that they want to live by for themselves while political movements have to do with the power of the government itself so when you compare a conservative to a pre-reformation movement within religion and liberalism to protestent movement then you are saying that politics is a religion.

If you were to compare conservative with believing in monarchies and liberal with believing in democracy it would sound different but perhaps you just wanted to use them as a comparison or it might have been a fraudian slip of some kind.

Ah, I think I see the problem here.

I do not consider the Religious Right a Conservative group, nor do I really consider them a religious group. They are a political group with religious motivations, a subtly different thing.

In the same way, the pre-Reformation Papacy wasn't really a religious group. They represented the defacto leadership of Europe at the time, and acted that way. Very few things the Papacy did in that period were motivated by religion at all, though the public was sold religion as a justification.

That's why I consider the two comparible. The Religious Right is now a political, not a religious group.

I do not think it is possible to compare, or even make compatible, political ideologies like Liberalism or Conservatism with religious movements like Christianity, Islam, or Judaism. I think there are sometimes similar goals, or even similarities on world views, but political motivations and religious motivations clash, often with terrible repercussions.

I've said here and elsewhere that I believe the best thing is to keep religion out of politics, and politics out of religion. I think the Religious Right and the Papacy pre-Reofrmation are both prime examples of why. You could also talk about certain Islamic governments or historical Israel.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Christianity has never advocated slavery."


oh?

how do you explain....;

I'm going to jump in right here and point out a passage in the bible on divorce:
---------------------------------------------
Mark 10:1-12 (New International Version)
Mark 10
Divorce
1Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

2Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"

3"What did Moses command you?" he replied.

4They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."

5"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a] 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

10When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
-------------------------------------------

Jesus makes the argument here that some of the things in the Old Testament are NOT there because they are God's plan, but that they are there to accomidate Man's sinful nature.

Paul comes close to making a similar argument on the topic of slavery in the letter to Philemon:

---------------------------------------------
Philemon 15 For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that you should receive him for ever; 16 Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh, and in the Lord? 17 If you count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself. 18 If he has wronged you, or owes you ought, put that on my account; 19 I Paul have written it with my own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to you how you owe to me even your own self besides. (AKJV)
-----------------------------------------------

Paul makes arguments elsewhere that if you are a slave, you should treat your master with respect (just as Paul teaches respect for the government, Christian or not), but here Paul is clearly asking a slave owner who is a Christian to accept back his run away slave as a brother beloved.

Throughout the New Testament (and in some aspect, the Old) there's a concession made to practices that exsist in the world due to Man's sinful nature and laws laid out as to how to deal with such institutions and practices. These are not endorsements of such practices, though I concede some short sighted people have used them as such.

 

[Foxfyre]

A religious movement has to do with the organic personality of the people as they adapt those things that they want to live by for themselves while political movements have to do with the power of the government itself so when you compare a conservative to a pre-reformation movement within religion and liberalism to protestent movement then you are saying that politics is a religion.

If you were to compare conservative with believing in monarchies and liberal with believing in democracy it would sound different but perhaps you just wanted to use them as a comparison or it might have been a fraudian slip of some kind.

Ah, I think I see the problem here.

I do not consider the Religious Right a Conservative group, nor do I really consider them a religious group. They are a political group with religious motivations, a subtly different thing.

In the same way, the pre-Reformation Papacy wasn't really a religious group. They represented the defacto leadership of Europe at the time, and acted that way. Very few things the Papacy did in that period were motivated by religion at all, though the public was sold religion as a justification.

That's why I consider the two comparible. The Religious Right is now a political, not a religious group.

I do not think it is possible to compare, or even make compatible, political ideologies like Liberalism or Conservatism with religious movements like Christianity, Islam, or Judaism. I think there are sometimes similar goals, or even similarities on world views, but political motivations and religious motivations clash, often with terrible repercussions.

I've said here and elsewhere that I believe the best thing is to keep religion out of politics, and politics out of religion. I think the Religious Right and the Papacy pre-Reofrmation are both prime examples of why. You could also talk about certain Islamic governments or historical Israel.

I think we walk a precarious tightrope in that regard. At what point does 'keeping religion out of politics' translate into an infringement of the free exercise of religion or a denial of free speech or equal access under the law?

Whether they are solid mainstream Americans or absolute looney tunes, the religious are citizens too and their hopes and dreams and aspirations for their country are just as valid as yours or mind regardless of what the basis of those hopes and dreams and aspirations are.

The Founders understood that. Many, if not most, are on the record that the Constitution would not work for any other than a people of religious faith and virtue and some of them thought that would be Christianity. They were eager to assure that no religious group would be able to assume the power of government and dictate to others what their religion must be or could not be, but they were much more afraid of a government that would presume to exclude or impost consequences on people for what they believed and/or expressed as their opinion. They certainly had no qualms about expressing their own religious convictions and for awhile held Christian worship services in the chambers of Congress. They deemed that legal so long as attendance was voluntary. That tradition has persisted in that our elected leaders even now employ a Chaplain to begin their sessions with prayer. (It doesn't seem to be helpinging much though.)

 

[Foxfyre]

Christianity has never advocated slavery."


oh?

how do you explain....;

I'm going to jump in right here and point out a passage in the bible on divorce:
---------------------------------------------
Mark 10:1-12 (New International Version)
Mark 10
Divorce
1Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

2Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"

3"What did Moses command you?" he replied.

4They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."

5"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a] 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

10When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
-------------------------------------------

Jesus makes the argument here that some of the things in the Old Testament are NOT there because they are God's plan, but that they are there to accomidate Man's sinful nature.

Paul comes close to making a similar argument on the topic of slavery in the letter to Philemon:

---------------------------------------------
Philemon 15 For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that you should receive him for ever; 16 Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh, and in the Lord? 17 If you count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself. 18 If he has wronged you, or owes you ought, put that on my account; 19 I Paul have written it with my own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to you how you owe to me even your own self besides. (AKJV)
-----------------------------------------------

Paul makes arguments elsewhere that if you are a slave, you should treat your master with respect (just as Paul teaches respect for the government, Christian or not), but here Paul is clearly asking a slave owner who is a Christian to accept back his run away slave as a brother beloved.

Throughout the New Testament (and in some aspect, the Old) there's a concession made to practices that exsist in the world due to Man's sinful nature and laws laid out as to how to deal with such institutions and practices. These are not endorsements of such practices, though I concede some short sighted people have used them as such.

Yes, the passage on divorce is especially troubling. Unless you use my definition of sin: that which harms oneself or others. Look at the legacy of divorce that goes far beyond the difficulty that a man and woman might have with each other in the marriage relationship. Broken homes, instability in whole groups of society, children torn between two households, growing up with single parents, many thus doomed to poverty and lack of positive role models that would not otherwise be the case, increased delinquency, increased school dropouts, more children committing crimes, deteriorating neighborhoods, and general diminishment of quality of life. And setting examples that make the situation mainstream, 'normal, and that perpetuates itself.

Jesus didn't judge the individual man and woman and the decisions they made. He did not say do not divorce. He said don't get the hots for greener pastures and decide yourself to end a marriage. He recognized the harm that people did to themselves and others, and his mantra was go and sin no more. But he knew what the unhappy results of rampant divorce would be.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I think we walk a precarious tightrope in that regard. At what point does 'keeping religion out of politics' translate into an infringement of the free exercise of religion or a denial of free speech or equal access under the law?

That's a big problem, and not easy to resolve. As people, religion will make up an important part of our outlook on life. That means that our personal religious views will have an impact on our political views. From that angle, it is impossible to ever completely seperate the two.

However, I think there's a real danger when we politically orgainize along religious lines. Once that happens religion becomes a path to worldly power, and that story never turns out well for either side of the equation.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think we walk a precarious tightrope in that regard. At what point does 'keeping religion out of politics' translate into an infringement of the free exercise of religion or a denial of free speech or equal access under the law?

That's a big problem, and not easy to resolve. As people, religion will make up an important part of our outlook on life. That means that our personal religious views will have an impact on our political views. From that angle, it is impossible to ever completely seperate the two.

However, I think there's a real danger when we politically orgainize along religious lines. Once that happens religion becomes a path to worldly power, and that story never turns out well for either side of the equation.

Perhaps, but despite the Founders and first Congress being mostly devoutly religious, despite the first colonies being largely little theocracies, despite religion playing such a huge role in our laws, history, heritage, culture, and commonly shared values, and despite numerous religious groups from every imaginable spectrum forming special interest groups to promote whatever burr they had under their respective saddles, nothing even close to a theocracy has developed. The Constitution has worked. No religious group will have power to dictate policy for all, nor shall government have any power to bestow any punishment, consequence, or reward on any person as a result of his/her opinion or beliefs.

The system works. And because religion, most especially that embracing JudeoChristian values, has produced so much more good than it has harm, we have no reason to fear it. What we do need to fear are those who would presume to override or dismiss the Constitution and therefore bypass the protections written into it.