Conservatives and Religion

Posted by Herb7734 6 years, 10 months ago to Philosophy
65 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

What usually is left out when talking about the difference between conservatives and liberals is religion and it's collateral effects.Conservatives say that they are for the Constitution's "original intent", in other words, strict construction. Actually the Constitution was was constructed to protect individual liberty. But then, they favor anti abortion laws, prayer in schools, and seek to impose religious morality by force of law. They do favor, however, reduced government intervention in the economy.The liberals favor a "loose construction when interpreting the Constitution.It means they can "update it and change it from its original intent to ruling by whim. The question is, is there a moral justification for capitalism? Miss Rand in her various writings makes this very clear, and is way too long to go into here.As to religion? I needn't say more. than she attributes all heavenly folks as ghosts. In all discussions relative to liberal v conservative the deep underpinnings of of both sides are never realized. Instead, we get extreme liberal lack of laws and restraints with conservatives touting adherence to laws and a basic interpretation of the Constitution.

All Comments

  • Posted by Herb7734 6 years, 6 months ago
    Currently the problem that most religious conservatives is atheistic evil intent. Most outspoken atheists couple their atheism with a degree of nihilismand people have a hard time believing in life without redemption. Crime and punishment is so ingrained in the human psyche that religious persons find life at the end without punishment of evil or reward for virtue to be pointless. Objectivisim posits a philosophy that, if followed, would create heaven during life.If, because we don't truly understand the nature of consciousness, there is the possibility of an "afterlife" then it's a new ballgame.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 6 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Those are not valid links. They are the ends of a sentence without a space placed before the next sentence.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 6 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    True, but in modern terms the religious part is mostly incosiquential , except to use as a guilt inducing talking point.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 6 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    But apparently, he wasn't doing Noah's job. On the other hand It did send the animals to the ark except for sea creatures.That must have been one heluva big ark.It gives new meaning to "poop deck."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by IndianaGary 6 years, 10 months ago
    I beg to differ a bit and would alter your last sentence: "... with conservatives touting adherence to laws and a religious interpretation of the Constitution."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 6 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think that eschewing of greater responsibility may enter into it. Without any statistic to back me up, I suspect that the responsibility of raising a child is too daunting even with one's partner in tow. I think that this was much less considered 30 years ago and further back.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 6 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Can’t forget this commanment,
    “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

    World peace here we come
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 6 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    As a way of civilizing humans, religion was a good tool., no doubt. Dire consequences for evil as part of the morality was needed so that a primitive people could be kept in line through fear.Apparently, most people are still weak minded enough to still be ruled by religion(s) over the past few thousand years. They manage to learn science and the nature of the universe and still cling to the tenets of religion.Sort of a mental security blanket. As an aside, I just witnessed on Netflix a fellow whose name I can't remember, but bills his show as "Miracle." He announces that he is an atheist and after doing a number of very clever magician illusions, he brings people on stage and cures their ills using the same techniques as preachers of the evangelical type.They faint, and awaken "cured." Most amazing. There is still much to learn of the universe and the human mind.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 6 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I remember when the FDA took over regulating medical devices in 1976. Their excuse was literally about 6 deaths that were attributed to failed medical devices. That excuse resulted in a huge bureaucracy, with associated costs and delays in the marketing of new medical devices. Also, resulted in me leaving the industry after a few years of real stupidity on the part of the regulators.

    Thank you for the info on abortions. I am not really in the market for an abortion, and frankly I dont care really what the government does on it as it doesnt affect me at all.

    But, as I said, I think its a woman's right to do what she wants with whats in her body until its born.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 6 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Part of the argument for the Roe vs Wade decision was a made up declaration that over 10,000 women were dying each year from failed self abortions. The actual numbers were more like a dozen such deaths annually, but the justices failed to ask for evidence to back the number, which even Justice Ginsberg points out as part of what she considers a bad SCOTUS decision.

    To answer your last question, abortions in the U.S. peaked at nearly 1.5 million annually in 1990, but have steadily decreased since then. By 2014 the number had dropped to just over 600,000. Most of this is more effective preventive measures, and a smaller part is a younger population that places less stigma on unmarried births. U.S. birth rate has fallen dramatically during that period, which is reported to lifestyle changes that induce women to wait to have children, which of course results in smaller families.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 6 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    How about some of the ten commandments, which are reflected in secular law? Like "Thou shalt not murder." Of course that directive is also in Hammurabi's laws, which were also considered religious directives, since the king was considered a demigod.

    Moral atheists have done a pretty good job of pointing out religious practices with secular benefit, as well as those that are outdated or irrational. There was a practical element to some directives, like the avoidance of eating pork, since trichinosis occurred frequently in that era. The directives against homosexuality and masturbation had their roots in the need to grow the tribe and a higher infant mortality rate. Those all could be declared outdated.

    An amoral society can't exist for long, which is why the rule of law and recognition of natural rights are absolutely vital. Whether you base the idea of natural rights to speech, self defense, etc. on being endowed by a creator, or follow Cicero's non-religious logic is immaterial, as they are the basis for recognized individual liberty.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 6 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If I was a woman, I dont think I would be into terminating my pregnancy unless there was a really good reason to do it. But , as I said, I dont think its someone else's business to make that decision for me. There are enough ways to prevent pregnancy in the first place, along with the morning after pill to deal with really accidental impregnations, that it should come up quite seldom anyway.

    I wonder just how many women actually get to the point of wanting to terminate pregnancy anyway. Is this a real problem in the first place?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 6 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    OK
    Are we speaking as Objectivists or as defenders of religion? The very name "objectivist" presupposes a non religious component.7 billion can believe in religion which still makes it irrational. From the concept of a guy in the sky with a flowing white beard to the bible stories, there is no rationality there.
    It may have done the job of keeping people in line 3,000 years ago, but it is no longer a valid idea. If one chooses to rely on religion, that is OK with me so long as I'm not forced to comply with any of whichever's religion's tenets you or anyone else wants to compel me to espouse.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 6 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It is the concept of free will that supposedly takes care of the differences that religion sets up.That's about as useful as wondering how Noah got all those insects aboard the ark.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 6 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    In today's post, I excerpted a Reagan phrase which seems appropriate to this. "It's not because they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 6 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You're certainly entitled to your opinion, as are others. I cited the beliefs of others, which don't favor your position. In fact most Americans polled would rather see some attention paid to the fact that the developing being should not be indifferently discarded. I'm a little more liberal, as I think the "morning after" pill is an acceptable solution, since at that point there is no developed fetus, just a few cells with no heartbeat.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo