Christian ethics and political liberalism

I moved the posts that follow from a thread in the History forum, as they were a digression following this comment from LightSpectra:

LightSpectra said:

It's almost entirely demonstrable that urbanization often results in political liberalisation, which results in an altered worldview that is incompatible with Christianity, even though mainline Protestantism (e.g. classical Lutheranism) has tried to make it so.

Click to expand...

To say that political liberalisation is incompatible with Christianity is clearly false, although certainly it is incompatible with some forms of Christianity. Perhaps you think Christians shouldn't be political liberals, but it's evidently the case that a great many are - perhaps the majority, at least in the western world outside the US, and perhaps even within the US until recent years, as I mentioned above. There are really two questions to ask about American religion: first, why is religion so important in the US in a way in which it isn't in other countries? And second, why has religion in the US become so closely associated with right-wing politics? Americans sometimes ask the first but tend to overlook the second, because they've become so used to religion being linked to right-wing politics. It's become so pervasive that even non-Americans (non-religious ones) often assume the same thing; I've known people be astonished to learn that the Vatican opposed the Gulf War, for example, since they assumed that the church is just right-wing straight down the line. But as I said, the association is a recent one and by no means monolithic even in the US today.

I suspect that the answers to both questions are linked, but the mechanics are very hard to identify.

Plotinus said:

To say that political liberalisation is incompatible with Christianity is clearly false, although certainly it is incompatible with some forms of Christianity. Perhaps you think Christians shouldn't be political liberals, but it's evidently the case that a great many are - perhaps the majority, at least in the western world outside the US, and perhaps even within the US until recent years, as I mentioned above.

Click to expand...

Apologies, I don't think I was clear. I don't just mean politically liberal views but the liberal worldview in general, which emphasizes above all popular sovereignty in the state and personal liberties elsewhere. A person that represents the struggle between the Christian worldview and the liberal worldview is John F. Kennedy, who while he presented himself to be a devout Catholic, told the American public that if his Catholic values contradicted the good of America (such a thing is a paradox, since if he's Catholic, he ought to think that Catholic values are the good of America), he would choose the latter and ignore the former: "Whatever one's religion in his private life may be, for the officeholder, nothing takes precedence over his oath to uphold the Constitution and all its parts -- including the First Amendment and the strict separation of church and state." (Interview, Look, 3/3/1959)

Which was the correct thing to say, both as a politician and as a Catholic. Because only through the separation of church and state are people truly free to pursue the religion that they believe is the right one.

That's not the matter of contention, it's that loyalty lies to liberal ideals before to his religion. If the Constitution were to unequivocally say that abortion or euthanasia were to be legal, then no faithful Catholic could swear to uphold (or even tolerate it) in good conscience; though Kennedy is stating that he has to put his private beliefs aside (as if that were desirable or possible) in favor of his duty as an office-holder. His duty is to the good of the people. The only reason he's making a dichotomy is because the two worldviews are in conflict with each other.

It's not exactly liberal ideas though. It is the law. The man is taking an oath to uphold the law. If a man cannot do that because of his religious beliefs, he has no business putting himself in a position that requires that oath. He should, instead, work from the outside to change the law, or just stand aside. But to take an oath with the intention of knowingly violating it cannot in any sense be considered consistent with Christian principles.

Christian principles, by the way, that are the fundamental thing that separation of church and state was created to protect.

To say that, Kennedy just as an example, cannot work to further Catholic principles as he understands them without violating both the law and his oath of office is, I think, naive.

What Cutlass said. I don't see how liberal ideals or worldview are more incompatible with Christianity than any other political worldview, at least on your argument. The incompatibility you speak of comes from the fact that Kennedy placed loyalty to the law above loyalty to his religion, but anyone of any political persuasion (or religion) could do that. It's not the liberalism that causes the problem but his priorities, and they are quite distinct.

Sounds like this topic is worth its own thread!

Cutlass said:

It's not exactly liberal ideas though. It is the law. The man is taking an oath to uphold the law. If a man cannot do that because of his religious beliefs, he has no business putting himself in a position that requires that oath.

Click to expand...

Western law is built from liberal starting grounds. The conflict isn't law versus religion, it's the values these laws are built upon versus values espoused by religion, and whether the two can be mostly reconciled.

To say that, Kennedy just as an example, cannot work to further Catholic principles as he understands them without violating both the law and his oath of office is, I think, naive.

Click to expand...

That's not the issue. The issue here isn't what Kennedy should have done, but whether or not he's an example of somebody who experienced the conflict between the two contradictory worldviews.

Plotinus said:

What Cutlass said. I don't see how liberal ideals or worldview are more incompatible with Christianity than any other political worldview, at least on your argument. The incompatibility you speak of comes from the fact that Kennedy placed loyalty to the law above loyalty to his religion, but anyone of any political persuasion (or religion) could do that. It's not the liberalism that causes the problem but his priorities, and they are quite distinct.

Click to expand...

My contention is that industrialization and urbanization over the past three centuries is largely what has resulted in the change in priorities, because orthodox Christianity and political liberalism can only co-exist to a mild degree.

JEELEN said:

The inventors, or creators, of liberalism were often (devout) Christians themselves, like PM Thorbecke who instigated the liberal reform of 1848 in the Netherlands and was largely responsible for the subsequent liberal constitution. I don´t really see a conflict between having a (Christian) religious belief and a liberal political view. You may be right about orthodox though, if orthodox istaken to mean personal conviction as opposed to political view, or God as opposed to state, if you will. That would constitute a conflict (and indeed has).

Click to expand...

Liberalism generally puts individualism and non-aggressive liberty above everything else. In some cases, orthodox Christianity has no conflict with this, though on matters such as homosexual unions, you have to pick one worldview, because there's no real compromise that fits with both schools.

To express this in an ethical way: the good in the liberal worldview is freedom of conscience, whereas the good in orthodox Christianity is moral perfection. Sometimes the two are the same, which is why Christians are able to exist in liberal societies. Sometimes they're not, which is why each generation is slightly more polarized on the matter of religion than the last.

LightSpectra said:

Liberalism generally puts individualism and non-aggressive liberty above everything else. In some cases, orthodox Christianity has no conflict with this, though on matters such as homosexual unions, you have to pick one worldview, because there's no real compromise that fits with both schools.

Click to expand...

Says who? I don't think any of the ecumenical councils said anything about homosexual unions, and the Bible is unclear on the matter. Or are you conflating "orthodox Christianity" with "the Catholic Church"?

LightSpectra said:

To express this in an ethical way: the good in the liberal worldview is freedom of conscience, whereas the good in orthodox Christianity is moral perfection. Sometimes the two are the same, which is why Christians are able to exist in liberal societies. Sometimes they're not, which is why each generation is slightly more polarized on the matter of religion than the last.

Click to expand...

Even if we assume that the liberal worldview and "orthodox Christianity" have those different understandings of "the good", which seems to me far from clear, there isn't necessarily a contradiction because there can be different senses of "the good". One sense is "what we ought to strive for as individuals" and another sense is "what we should provide in society". I'd say that one could easily have different answers to those two things without contradiction. It's like the hoary old Voltaire quote about not agreeing with what you say, but defending your right to say it. Voltaire distinguishes between what we ought to say (as in the right thing to say) and what we ought to be able to say. E.g. one might think that one should never make racist comments, but also think that it's right that people should be permitted to make racist comments; it is not inconsistent to hold that position. Similarly, a liberal Christian may hold that everyone should aim for moral perfection, while also thinking that it is right to allow freedom of conscience for everyone whether they are aiming for moral perfection or not.

Plotinus said:

Says who? I don't think any of the ecumenical councils said anything about homosexual unions, and the Bible is unclear on the matter. Or are you conflating "orthodox Christianity" with "the Catholic Church"?

Click to expand...

The Bible is very clear on the matter, and the Church Fathers were almost in unanimous consent as well. By "orthodox Christianity," I'm referring to Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and partially to mainstream Protestantism (such as Methodism, classical Lutheranism and High Anglicanism).

Even if we assume that the liberal worldview and "orthodox Christianity" have those different understandings of "the good", which seems to me far from clear, there isn't necessarily a contradiction because there can be different senses of "the good". One sense is "what we ought to strive for as individuals" and another sense is "what we should provide in society".

Click to expand...

No, that's not it. If that were the case then there'd be absolutely no conflict since the collective is made up of individuals. Rather, the problem is that the liberal worldview values the freedom to do anything that doesn't directly harm others above the societal good. Another example of this is prostitution, which is deeply harmful to the national conscience (and also the psychological health of the prostitute and the serviced, but that's beside the point); though since it's allegedly not directly harming anybody, it's been legalized in Las Vegas and several places of Europe.

I'd say that one could easily have different answers to those two things without contradiction. It's like the hoary old Voltaire quote about not agreeing with what you say, but defending your right to say it. Voltaire distinguishes between what we ought to say (as in the right thing to say) and what we ought to be able to say. E.g. one might think that one should never make racist comments, but also think that it's right that people should be permitted to make racist comments; it is not inconsistent to hold that position. Similarly, a liberal Christian may hold that everyone should aim for moral perfection, while also thinking that it is right to allow freedom of conscience for everyone whether they are aiming for moral perfection or not.

Click to expand...

Christians tolerate things that can be used both in moderation or in vice, such as alcohol or tobacco. But some things are inherently immoral (prostitution, homosexual unions, euthanasia, abortion) and should never be accepted by Christians in a civil society.

LightSpectra said:

The Bible is very clear on the matter, and the Church Fathers were almost in unanimous consent as well. By "orthodox Christianity," I'm referring to Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and partially to mainstream Protestantism (such as Methodism, classical Lutheranism and High Anglicanism).

Click to expand...

The Bible isn't clear at all, and I actually can't think of any pronouncement on the topic by any of the church fathers at all, with the possible exception of Clement of Alexandria (who lifted all of his pronouncements on sexual morality, including his insistence that it is immoral to have sex before dinner time, from Musonius Rufus). However if you know of any other patristic references I'd be interested.

LightSpectra said:

No, that's not it. If that were the case then there'd be absolutely no conflict since the collective is made up of individuals. Rather, the problem is that the liberal worldview values the freedom to do anything that doesn't directly harm others above the societal good. Another example of this is prostitution, which is deeply harmful to the national conscience (and also the psychological health of the prostitute and the serviced, but that's beside the point); though since it's allegedly not directly harming anybody, it's been legalized in Las Vegas and several places of Europe.

Click to expand...

Certainly if there are people who think that e.g. prostitution harms no-one and yet they also think that it harms society, then they are being inconsistent in their thinking. If, however, someone thinks that prostitution harms no-one and also does not harm society, then that person may (at least on your view) be wrong, but there's no inconsistency. The question is whether the liberal Christians you're thinking of fall into the first category or the second. It's not obvious to me that they must fall into the first. I don't see any specifically Christian inconsistency here, or any necessary inconsistency at all.

LightSpectra said:

Christians tolerate things that can be used both in moderation or in vice, such as alcohol or tobacco. But some things are inherently immoral (prostitution, homosexual unions, euthanasia, abortion) and should never be accepted by Christians in a civil society.

Click to expand...

Even if we accept that a Christian does or should hold those things to be immoral, that doesn't mean that the Christian does or should hold that people shouldn't be permitted to do them. You'd only get that if you thought that a Christian is bound, on pain of inconsistency, to suppose that all kinds of immoral behaviour should be illegal. But why must a Christian believe that? Should a Christian think that lying should be illegal?

LightSpectra said:

Christians tolerate things that can be used both in moderation or in vice, such as alcohol or tobacco. But some things are inherently immoral (prostitution, homosexual unions, euthanasia, abortion) and should never be accepted by Christians in a civil society.

Click to expand...

Not to derail the thread, but I'm curious. Why should Christian laws apply to non-christians in a society?

@Plotinus I've heard that Manicheaism's notions of morality with it's prudish views on sex and its misogynistic views of humans and human nature and the notion that evil was triumphing in the world served to influence Christianity, Islam and other religions in particular St. Augustine who was a former Manichean and whose writings established many of the more moralistic and conservative aspects of Christianity, to what degree is this true?

Furthermore did the Gospel of Eve acutually exist and did it actually contain things about sex and such?

Plotinus said:

The Bible isn't clear at all, and I actually can't think of any pronouncement on the topic by any of the church fathers at all, with the possible exception of Clement of Alexandria (who lifted all of his pronouncements on sexual morality, including his insistence that it is immoral to have sex before dinner time, from Musonius Rufus). However if you know of any other patristic references I'd be interested.

Click to expand...

1 Corinthians 6:9, all of Jude 5-7, 2 Peter 2:4-10, Romans 1:26-27 from the Bible. This website has a rather large selection of writings from the Church Fathers that condemn homosexual and otherwise extramarital acts.

Certainly if there are people who think that e.g. prostitution harms no-one and yet they also think that it harms society, then they are being inconsistent in their thinking.

Click to expand...

They would think that legalized prostitution would increase dangerous sexual activities (perhaps either or both biological and psychological), but since it's up to the individual whether or not to follow societal trends, that therefore it should be legal.

Even if we accept that a Christian does or should hold those things to be immoral, that doesn't mean that the Christian does or should hold that people shouldn't be permitted to do them.

Click to expand...

Yes, it does. There is no jurisprudential reason to tolerate them and they only cause damage to society with no benefit. There's a practical reason to tolerate them, insofar that there's little that can be done while they fight to have the laws be changed.

You'd only get that if you thought that a Christian is bound, on pain of inconsistency, to suppose that all kinds of immoral behaviour should be illegal. But why must a Christian believe that? Should a Christian think that lying should be illegal?

Click to expand...

Lying is a difficult example to use because it's unclear whether or not it's inherently immoral or whether charitable dishonesty is possible. Though in either case, there's no practical way to make it illegal anyway, which is not true of state-sanctioned homosexual unions, abortion or euthanasia.

Ajidica said:

Not to derail the thread, but I'm curious. Why should Christian laws apply to non-christians in a society?

Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by Christian laws. If you mean laws derived from Christian ethics, then it's because those can be established by reason to be superior to the alternatives.

Karalysia said:

@Plotinus I've heard that Manicheaism's notions of morality with it's prudish views on sex and its misogynistic views of humans and human nature and the notion that evil was triumphing in the world served to influence Christianity, Islam and other religions in particular St. Augustine who was a former Manichean and whose writings established many of the more moralistic and conservative aspects of Christianity, to what degree is this true?

Click to expand...

St. Augustine renounced Manicheanism. A great deal of the City of God was composed to refute his previously held beliefs. Furthermore, by the late 4th century, most of Christianity's moral side had been well-established, and Augustine was expounding on it or defending it, not innovating.

Depends on what you mean by Christian laws. If you mean laws derived from Christian ethics, then it's because those can be established by reason to be superior to the alternatives.

Click to expand...

How can they be demostrated as superior to other systems?
Would Muslims not believe their ethical system is demonstrateably superior to others? In such a situation, both parties cannot be right, so are they both wrong and neither system is superior?

Ajidica said:

How can they be demostrated as superior to other systems?
Would Muslims not believe their ethical system is demonstrateably superior to others? In such a situation, both parties cannot be right, so are they both wrong and neither system is superior?

Click to expand...

Reasonable arguments preclude divine revelation, unless the revelation in question can be proven to be objectively reliable, which is not the case for either Islam or Christianity; however, I think the ethics that are revealed and/or presupposed in Christian revelations can be demonstrated through argument to be more reasonable, and also demonstrated sociologically to be healthier for mankind.

Edit: I initially also said something about the flawed Islamic perspective of Aristotle, but I think that's too complicated a matter to discuss here.

Reasonable arguments preclude divine revelation, unless the revelation in question can be proven to be objectively reliable, which is not the case for either Islam or Christianity; however, I think the ethics that are revealed and/or presupposed in Christian revelations can be demonstrated through argument to be more reasonable, and also demonstrated sociologically to be healthier for mankind.

Click to expand...

Ethics such as being allowed to beat your wife and that you should unquestioningly follow state authorities are healthier for mankind?

Ajidica said:

Ethics such as being allowed to beat your wife and that you should unquestioningly follow state authorities are healthier for mankind?

Click to expand...

They're not, which is why it's delightful that they have nothing to do with orthodox Christian ethics.

Ajidica said:

EDIT: Lightspectra, what defines 'orthodox Christian ethics'?

Click to expand...

There's some debate about whether or not fundamental Christian ethics can be derived solely from the Church Fathers or whether it needs to be placed in the context of some metaphysical school (Thomism, Neoplatonism/Augustinianism, Neostoicism, etc.).

I'm majoring in ethics, so my opinion isn't professional, but I think it has some weight: and I incline towards thinking that orthodox Christian ethics can be entirely derived and demonstrated from reason, which the exception of the spiritual imperatives, which can only be known through revelation; but are not necessary to live according to natural law.