Why are conservatives especially religious?

[Eran of Arcadia]

On the fiscal side, strong faith in an invisible hand. On the social side, slow change, because that's the way its always been done in our God-fearing neck of the woods.

Except that isn't always an accurate description of what conservatism is.

 

[C~G]

That doesn't make sense to me. Stamp collecting is amoral. It is neither good nor evil and yet it is not a paradox that people can be religious stamp collectors.

What doesn't make sense?

That capitalism system is always amoral while religious system quite certainly always has moral code based into objective view of morals?

I don't understand how you could disagree, please explain.

Not necessarily. I only need to point to christian fundamentalism, which is by definition protestant and is not even remotely materialistic.

Not necessarily but in certain countries example in lutheritarian countries like Finland it is.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

That depends on whether you mean "amoral" in the sense that moral issues don't enter into it, or "immoral" in the sense that it violates moral principles.

 

[C~G]

That depends on whether you mean "amoral" in the sense that moral issues don't enter into it, or "immoral" in the sense that it violates moral principles.

Amorality is the quality of believing that moral right and wrong (or good and evil) do not exist in objective reality

That is kind of different thing compared to religiousness especially christianity isn't it?

My point is that they rely into amoral principles of capitalism to make nation run while holding into it as moral position. I think that is rather strange. I guess that is the trust to the invisible hand then.

 

[Phlegmak]

Why are conservatives especially religious?

Partly as a political ploy.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

What doesn't make sense?

That capitalism system is always amoral while religious system quite certainly always has moral code based into objective view of morals?

You claim that a religious person must follow a moral code and therefore can't take amoral positions and therefore can't support capitalism. I don't think this makes sense because many acts and decisions are neither moral or immoral and therefore are not covered by a code of ethics. For example, stamp collecting and capitalism are not moral. However they are not immoral either and therefore a moral religious person can be a capitalist stamp collector.

 

[Bill3000]

Not necessarily but in certain countries example in lutheritarian countries like Finland it is.

Well, I assumed you meant Americans, really. If you want a serious counterexample to religious economic conservatives, I can point to the Christian democrat movement, which is for the most part Catholic, and cares enough for keeping a welfare state and other leftist things, while at the same time being socially conservative. The pope himself is in the second quadrant.

 

[C~G]

You claim that a religious person must follow a moral code and therefore can't take amoral positions and therefore can't support capitalism. I don't think this makes sense because many acts and decisions are neither moral or immoral and therefore are not covered by a code of ethics. For example, stamp collecting and capitalism are not moral. However they are not immoral either and therefore a moral religious person can be a capitalist stamp collector.

Are you trying to compare supporting stamp collecting to supporting capitalism?

I think the effects and causes let alone the scale of these things are bit different my friend...

 

[Bill3000]

You claim that a religious person must follow a moral code and therefore can't take amoral positions and therefore can't support capitalism.

No, but a Christian can't say "I won't give to the poor because they are lazy and thus deserve their fate", or more generally, believe in social darwinism. That's incompatible.

 

[JollyRoger]

Except that isn't always an accurate description of what conservatism is.

I agree. Not all conservatives are religious and not all religious folks are conservative. Even in the conservative movement, there is a split between the fiscal and social conservatives over what conservatism really is, so anything to answer this thread is going to overgeneralize quite a bit. Probably the better answer is that many people of all stripes take their politics on faith rather than logic and it is not just reserved to conservatives or the religious. However, when religious faith is involved, conservatism, moreso than the other viewpoints, has some appeal that, in my opinion, can more likely allow for a strong buy in before non-faith aspects are brought into the equation.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Are you trying to compare supporting stamp collecting to supporting capitalism?

I think the effects and causes let alone the scale of these things are bit different my friend...

As I understand it, you said that a religious person can't be capitalistic because capitalism is amoral. Stamp collecting is amoral. Can you explain to me why a religious person can collect stamps and not be a capitalist?

 

[C~G]

No, but a Christian can't say "I won't give to the poor because they are lazy and thus deserve their fate", or more generally, believe in social darwinism. That's incompatible.

Yeah, exactly.

As I understand it, you said that a religious person can't be capitalistic because capitalism is amoral. Stamp collecting is amoral. Can you explain to me why a religious person can collect stamps and not be a capitalist?

Did I say that?

I think the stamp collecting is completely whacko comparision. Stamp collecting isn't system where you compete with others for position of material good unless you consider stamp of being such good and I have hard time imagining that could be possible. Stamp collecting doesn't negatively affect other people unless it's about to cause the lack of stamps.

IMO it would make much more sense if religious person would thrive towards socialism rather than capitalism where people take care of themselves and is based into competition of individuals that could lead to social darwinism. My point wasn't imply that religious person cannot be capitalistic, it is just that they see the system very differently apparently.

In your comparision you forget that even though both of them can be considered to be amoral activities, capitalism can have immoral effects towards the other individuals working on the society as it drive towards selfish individualism rather than sharing and caring about your neighbour.

I think the problem rises that people think that capitalism is more moral position than socialism as it some kind of embraces "free choice" while not necessarily thinking what the net effect might be towards the society as a whole.

 

[CurtSibling]

More so than liberals, libertarians, socialists, etc.

Fairly obvious. The answer lies in the name.
However - 'Conservative' is a very wide term, and covers a lot of ground.

Conservatives (but not all) seek to link to a romantic past when people clung to traditions and ideals.

The clerical class had more power in the past, and many Conservatives seek a return to that.

Presumably.

...

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

@C~G: I think the real problem is that you didn't define "amoral".

 

[warpus]

More so than liberals, libertarians, socialists, etc.

Thoughts? Theories?

Because conservative = sticking to traditional values, and traditional values usually involve religion.

They are also less open to change, and do not question authority as much, by definition.

 

[Bill3000]

Because conservative = sticking to traditional values, and traditional values usually involve religion.

They are also less open to change, and do not question authority as much, by definition.

And to add on that, since the tradition in America is a liberal one, economic liberalism is considered conservative.

 

[MobBoss]

No, but a Christian can't say "I won't give to the poor because they are lazy and thus deserve their fate", or more generally, believe in social darwinism. That's incompatible.

How so? Do you not think christians capable of recognizing the difference between someone that is truly needy and someone that merely doesnt wish to work?

As a christian, I fully support giving to the needy, while not enabling someone in their sin....i.e. subsidizing their laziness, alcoholism or drug use.

 

[CurtSibling]

As a christian, I fully support giving to the needy, while not enabling someone in their sin....i.e. subsidizing their laziness, alcoholism or drug use.

As a non-believer I too take this stance - Agree 100%.

...

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Um, April's not for a few more months . . .

 

[downtown]

How so? Do you not think christians capable of recognizing the difference between someone that is truly needy and someone that merely doesnt wish to work?

As a christian, I fully support giving to the needy, while not enabling someone in their sin....i.e. subsidizing their laziness, alcoholism or drug use.

Sounds like supply side Jesus to me.
"Master, these men have leperacy. Shouldn't you heal them"

"Now Paul, if I healed them, and people found out about it, there would be no incentive to avoid leperacy!"

We all are beggers unto the Lord, totally Dependant on him. If we are to follow the master's example, we shouldn't try to rationalize who is really "deserving" of help. None of us "deserve" the help of Christ, but it is given to us. The Christian thing to, is to help all.

That doesn't mean its always the best policy, but in my mind, it pretty clear theologically. We are not commanded to help only those who are without addictions, or sins, or who will pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.