Conservative Christian an oxymoron???
I put this as a side note in a reply to another topic, but to avoid hijacking that topic Im posting it here as a new topic..
Im interested to see others thoughts and arguments this.
The term Conservative Christian has always bothered me as being an oxymoron. The reason I say that is that Jesus taught us to care for the poor, sick, elderly, downtrodden etc. and raise people up, even to give away our worldly possessions. Conservatives typically want less government programs especially social programs and caring for the poor instead believing fully in the free market and few regulations. The problem there is the free market is entirely in the hands of humans (sinners) and greed drives a lot of it leading to things like the Great Recession in 2008 The greed also leads to the extreme income inequality we have now. Whats Christian about that? I also see Democrats pushing policies that generally are working to allow people to have opportunities and help them live the way they want following their beliefs, cultures, dreams, etc. The Republican view at least at this time is to deregulate, remove government programs etc with the concept that it gets government out of the way while in reality it is removing support for the poor, elderly, etc and supporting the rich. Again, not very Christian. Relating to this site, Conservative Christians are also the ones typically horrified by nudity and want to shut it down while liberals tend to be more you do you as long as it doesnt affect me. You find examples in large cities ( ble areas) where top-free is legal (New York but not the Midwest - red area), nudity is more accepted (San Francisco, Seattle, etc but not in places like Arkansas ) So to me at this time the conservatives are pushing freedom, but only if it looks like their own views of living free.
I know there are a lot of arguments to this, these are my thoughts and I am interested to hear other views.
I put this as a side note in a reply to another topic, but to avoid hijacking that topic Im posting it here as a new topic..Im interested to see others thoughts and arguments this.The term Conservative Christian has always bothered me as being an oxymoron. The reason I say that is that Jesus taught us to care for the poor, sick, elderly, downtrodden etc. and raise people up, even to give away our worldly possessions. Conservatives typically want less government programs especially social programs and caring for the poor instead believing fully in the free market and few regulations. The problem there is the free market is entirely in the hands of humans (sinners) and greed drives a lot of it leading to things like the Great Recession in 2008 The greed also leads to the extreme income inequality we have now. Whats Christian about that? I also see Democrats pushing policies that generally are working to allow people to have opportunities and help them live the way they want following their beliefs, cultures, dreams, etc. The Republican view at least at this time is to deregulate, remove government programs etc with the concept that it gets government out of the way while in reality it is removing support for the poor, elderly, etc and supporting the rich. Again, not very Christian. Relating to this site, Conservative Christians are also the ones typically horrified by nudity and want to shut it down while liberals tend to be more you do you as long as it doesnt affect me. You find examples in large cities ( ble areas) where top-free is legal (New York but not the Midwest - red area), nudity is more accepted (San Francisco, Seattle, etc but not in places like Arkansas ) So to me at this time the conservatives are pushing freedom, but only if it looks like their own views of living free.I know there are a lot of arguments to this, these are my thoughts and I am interested to hear other views.
Christians are called to help those in need, There is no implication that the government needs to be part of this process. Private charities, especially religious ones tend to be more efficient in helping those in need than government programs. I contribute a substantial share of my income to these organizations and if my taxes were lower, I would contribute more and probably those in need would be helped more than by the wasteful, innefficient government programs our tax dollars support.
One clothing related issue, While I know it is legal for men to be shirtless in most places, it is not always accepted. The most shirtless friendly place in NJ in my opinion is Ocean Grove, a community dominated by conservative Christians. It is not unusual to see shirtless men in the outdoor areas of upscale restaurants on the main street, several blocks from the beach. I was attending an indoor concert of a mix of traditional religious and secular men and some of the men in the audience were shirtless.
I notice republicans and liberals. Not democrats. The community did, and does, a much better service at taking Care of the poor a d sick than the government does. Before social security (fdr?) And welfare there were fewer who needed help.
Now it's freebies with no requirements go back.e better. In fact there are penalties if some monies are Not used to create more served. And the cost to manage.
Christians are called to help those in need, There is no implication that the government needs to be part of this process. Private charities, especially religious ones tend to be more efficient in helping those in need than government programs. I contribute a substantial share of my income to these organizations and if my taxes were lower, I would contribute more and probably those in need would be helped more than by the wasteful, innefficient government programs our tax dollars support.
Very good point, that is what Jesus taught, to love thy neighbor, feed the poor etc. I have seen and met many hypocritical Conservative Christians though push their agenda but dont follow it themselves. Note the quotes, as you point out, Christians are called, while these people call themselves Christians they are not following the teachings of Jesus. I think thats part of whats lead to my thinking, including those TV ministers that rake in massive amounts of money for huge houses, jets For themselves. I feel like many so called Conservative Christians are really just conservatives in it for themselves. The other thought is it seems the conservative part of the term is somewhat ambiguous as some like you point out are liberal in giving to charities etc while others look at it more as a conservative way of life such as modesty vs being a nudist.
I notice republicans and liberals. Not democrats. The community did, and does, a much better service at taking Care of the poor a d sick than the government does. Before social security (fdr?) And welfare there were fewer who needed help.Now it's freebies with no requirements go back.e better. In fact there are penalties if some monies are Not used to create more served. And the cost to manage.
When my parents talked about the depression and pre-FDR they would disagree with your statement about there being fewer that needed help. They grew up in Iowa and talked often about the number of desperate people when they were growing up.
As to your point regarding freebies, that definitely has been and in some cases still is true but is getting less so. My wifes business deals with many people on support. In years past there was no question these people were taking the handouts so they could go home and watch TV and that still occurs but not as much. With limits and requirements on many programs people are more likely to use the help to get themselves out of a tough situation, but there are definitely still those that learn to play the system. Heres an example of where it has worked. .My wife had a client where the husband and wife had been a full blown gang members. The husband got put in jail and will be there for a long time. The wife got pregnant with a second child before he went to jail and decided she didnt want to see her children like their dad and got on CalWorks, one of Californias assistance program.s. It supported her and her children while she went back to school. She is now an RN and doing well, no longer on assistance, instead, contributing.
In many cases I agree that the community can do a better job but there are also way too many so called non-profits that have CEOs making massive salaries etc. and the only reason the organization is non-profit is because those at the top are taking most of it for themselves. There have also been many many false charities and new ones crop up in each new disaster like the California fires. Feeding into this topic of Conservative Christians is that a large portion of the population is not Christian or not practicing and having everything fall, under those ideals feels like forcing them on others with different cultures etc.
In many cases I agree that the community can do a better job but there are also way too many so called non-profits that have CEOs making massive salaries etc. and the only reason the organization is non-profit is because those at the top are taking most of it for themselves.
This is much less likely to happen in faith based charities than secular ones.
One of the key features of government - any civilized government, really, is that it holds a monopoly on the use of force. This is for collective defense and more importantly to support a society-wide justice system that avoids private vengeance. In practice, this means that government MUST operate with violence as its bottom line - if you don't pay your tickets or taxes or show up for your court dates, ultimately, they will come and get you. And if don't want to go, you are going to go anyway. We can talk about how many rules there are and how they are made and the level of restraint and discretion required, but there really is no other way.
There is absolutely no brief for the use of official compulsion in the New Testament. The one forceful thing he's on record as doing was very much within the religion - breaking up the market that had encroached into the Temple in violation of the Pharisaic understanding of Jewish law. (One still doesn't pass the offering plate in an orthodox synagogue.) Jesus was essentially a stoic with regard to government - "Give unto Caesar", "my kingdom is not of this world."
Government and religion, on this view, are inherently separate spheres. Government organizes a society. Religion positions us in the universe.
Christian Conservative is a fair description of a person who is a follower of Christ and who, in the civil realm, tends to favor fewer government rules in economic matters and more in behavioral matters, and a generally strong assertion of government authority. Under current social and political conditions, the two things tend to run together. This isn't the case for everyone, and hasn't been always been the prevalent state of affairs.
In many cases I agree that the community can do a better job but there are also way too many so called non-profits that have CEOs making massive salaries etc. and the only reason the organization is non-profit is because those at the top are taking most of it for themselves.This is much less likely to happen in faith based charities than secular ones.
I would tend to agree, however there still are some and/or charities that turn out to be frauds or in reality on pass on cents on the dollar to the actual cause. And yes great ones also exist that pass on just about everything. The problem with relying on faith based charities is that only a portion of the population generally supports them thus putting a heavier burden on the faithful while atheists still contribute to things like the Red Cross but I have to believe the burden is not shared and not all needs are met especially when the need is not supported by the faith based organizations.
In many cases I agree that the community can do a better job but there are also way too many so called non-profits that have CEOs making massive salaries etc. and the only reason the organization is non-profit is because those at the top are taking most of it for themselves.This is much less likely to happen in faith based charities than secular ones.I would tend to agree, however there still are some and/or charities that turn out to be frauds or in reality on pass on cents on the dollar to the actual cause. And yes great ones also exist that pass on just about everything. The problem with relying on faith based charities is that only a portion of the population generally supports them thus putting a heavier burden on the faithful while atheists still contribute to things like the Red Cross but I have to believe the burden is not shared and not all needs are met especially when the need is not supported by the faith based organizations.
I can't think of any needs that some faith based organization does not support.
Can you give some examples?
In many cases I agree that the community can do a better job but there are also way too many so called non-profits that have CEOs making massive salaries etc. and the only reason the organization is non-profit is because those at the top are taking most of it for themselves.This is much less likely to happen in faith based charities than secular ones.I would tend to agree, however there still are some and/or charities that turn out to be frauds or in reality on pass on cents on the dollar to the actual cause. And yes great ones also exist that pass on just about everything.
Agreed. Others have mentioned the government which is one of the worst for penny's of the dollar (collected) actually making it to the people that need it. Because of the massive bureaucracy involved, eating up most of the money.
Having done lots of consulting work for government agencies Ive discovered a major reason for the bureaucracy that makes a lot of government programs inefficient. Believe it or not, its generally the public. How so? Well the public and media for the public want complete transparency and excruciating detail, on exactly how every dollar is spent, decisions are made, and whether or not the right things are being done or need justification for any or all of whatever the department, program, project or whatever is doing. The required documentation, processes that must be followed for transparency etc make it so they practically are required to spend two dollars for every one that is needed to be spent. There were many times I would recommend something be done and the response would be we cant because of these rules or these laws for transparency and accountability. Or they would have me Work on something but then have to document, how why, when, where to the nth degree.
So essentially you cant have your cake and eat it too. If you want It to be efficient and cost effective then dont expect much transparency or detail on how and why things get done or be able to verify that the best decision on a procurement was made. But, if you want to be able to second guess things or have excruciating detail then expect inefficiency.
Manufacturers such as Boeing or others will tell you that if they were to develop something on their own to sell to the general public it would cost $x to produce. If its a government contract or they have government requirements for bidding, specifications or whatever it will cost $x+y to produce because of the documentation, inspections etc that are required to meet transparency, fair bidding requirements etc.
People blame the government when they often should be blaming themselves. Ive seen some amazing work done by government agencies but the required documentation and hoops to jump through were ridiculous compared to similar private sector projects. I will admit Ive seen some idiotic moves in government projects but not really any more than I saw in private sector projects.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!