The United States of .. Consistency?

I saw you cut and pasting this article today, attempting to apply your thoughts here to a different subject. So I figured I'd ask you for a clarification first.
"If (as many conservatives do), we find the answer to the above ONLY in the word "Religion", we are deluding ourselves."
I don't define religion as the ONLY reason America is so successful, but it definitely is a VITAL reason. If there are no people of moral principle, then a republic will not work since the citizens will not elect wise people to represent them. While some may maintain morality in the absence of religion, religion is the best tool that has been found to keep the most people most moral for the longest amount of time. If we neglect the religious roots of our republic, we do it at our own risk.
"A mathematician could write that equation as:
Christianity + Feudal System = Failure"

He would also write:
Irreligion+"the 'good' laws that our Founding Fathers derived from Religion" = liberalism and demise of those good laws.
Click on my name for more of this on my blog currently, but for now I'll simply paste:

"Whatever may be conceded to the influence of the refined education on minds of peculiar structure- reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." --George Washington's farewell address to the nation.

In my write-up, I don't discount the contributions that are inspired by religion, and by religious people.

If religion is the ONLY source of morality for many people, then it should be encouraged. However, I think that we would be selling our compatriots short by making that assumption.

Also, religion (and often, the interpretation of religion) can bring inconsistencies into our political and social lives.

For example, altruism is a core tenet of Judeo-Christian principles. Altruism, when applied as the philosophical basis of political and economic policy, leads to 'feel-good' legislation such as minimum wage increases, universal health care, welfare, progressive taxation, and other unworkable premises.

Observe the helplessness of Religious Conservatives when they try to vote down such proposals - while still trying to appear to have the moral high ground. All that they can do is to whine plaintively that "it doesn't work".

Without the albatross of altruism, Conservatives should be able to say that "It is immoral to ask productive people to be victims AND it doesn't work".

The mess that results from this is that non-religious Liberals absurdly seize the moral high ground with well-intentioned but fallacious arguments. Note that the liberals' mystical beliefs merely replace "religion" with some euphemism such as "the state", or "the common good".

Voice,
I've read a couple of your posts now on various columns where you reference religion. I apologize in advance if I am reading you wrong, but you seem to be rather atheistic... Is that correct?

If it is, would you mind sharing why? I'd be interested in discussing it with you. You have some great posts, I'd like to understand how I differ from you in this respect.

Of course, politics and religion are the two things you never talk about in polite conversation. But that is the beauty of the anonymity of blogging...

Libertybob,

You're correct, these are touchy issues! And, we're told (as children) not to discuss politics & religion in polite conversation. But here goes, anyway ..

In my opinion, religion is a deeply personal matter. Also, it IS the source of many of our values and virtues. However, we also can be blinded by religion - if we accept EVERY value & virtue that is extolled by religion, into politics.

For example, all major religions extol the virtues of self-sacrifice. And that is the moral basis of socialism. Once we accept the maxim that 'self-sacrifice is a boundless virtue' into our DNA, the dice is loaded IN FAVOR OF socialism.

As a result, you find religious conservatives arguing against socialism ONLY on pragmatic grounds (e.g. it doesn't work, therfore it is evil). We no longer have a MORAL argument against socialism, and have to resort to contortions like 'compassionate conservative' against the charge that we are selfish, cold, unfeeling ...

Leftists have exploited this weakness. It is also the reason why good people begin their lives as leftists (it just SEEMS like the moral high ground), until their life experiences make the blinders come off. You've heard the saying "if you aren't a liberal at age 20, you have no heart; if you aren't a conservative at age 40, you have no brain!" - I'm paraphrasing a bit, but I'm sure you've heard this?

For this reason, I am atheistic in my political beliefs. In my personal life -- well, that's personal, and mamma told me not to .. y'know!

Ah. I think I understand a bit now. Its true that people say not to discuss religion and politics, which is a shame, because those are probably the two most interesting things to talk about.

It seems to me then that you feel religion in the political realm actually undermines liberty. I guess that is true since people do hold altruism as a supreme virtue.

Personally, I don't find altruism at the root of my religious beliefs, nor do I find it possible. If a boy scout helps an old lady across the street, is it altruistic or because afterwards he can pat himself on the back and say "what a good boy am I"? Personally, I think self-aggrandizement is a correct principle, as long as it is not at the EXPENSE of others. You are free to pursue your own self interests, as long as you help elevate others ALSO. In other words, the natural system of liberty that comes with a free market. You only get what you want if you help someone else get what they want.

I don't think altruism is a value, only loving others enough that you don't bring them harm and wish them well. There is no saying in the teachings of Christianity (which I believe) that upholds socialism. In fact, a proper reading can only be used to uphold liberty and personal responsibility.

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24)

"Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God." (Luke 6:17-26)

"Therefore, I urge you brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God - this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is - his good, pleasing and perfect will."
(Romans 12:1-2)

"Then Jesus went to work on his disciples, “Don't run from suffering; embrace it. Follow me and I'll show you how. Self-help is no help at all. Self-sacrifice is the way, my way, to finding yourself, your true self. What kind of deal is it to get everything you want but lose yourself? What could you ever trade your soul for?” (Mathew 16:24-26)

Did you post those to refute what I said about Christianity not supporting altruism?

Yes -- I'm sorry, but the 'real' world (in the form of work & family) beckoned before I could complete the thought!

My point is that there are numerous references in the Scriptures, as well as in sermons, that extol the virtues of self-sacrifice, renunciation and other 'virtues'.

In my denomination (which I do not name for reasons of blogger-anonymity that you have stated on your blog), the most stirring sermons in recent memory have occurred when the pastor gave real-world examples of self-sacrifice.

Of course, there are numerous references and parables that support hard work as well as the proper utilization of ones talents.

It is therefore natural (and maybe even right) that religious people develop a sense of morality that is based on altruism. And, I'm not here to say that it is wrong to help one's fellow-man. Just that if altruism/self-sacrifice are raised on the pedestal as universal values, then it becomes impossible to argue the IMMORALITY of well-intentioned socialist ideas.

It is also the reason that many good people are naturally drawn towards socialist ideas in their early years. After all, there are centuries of morality built into the creed of self-sacrifice as a virtue.

What I would like to see is conservatives arguing their case in economic or political terms w/out the support of altruism-inspired rhetoric. Imagine a foreign policy debate that was based on American self-interest and security, and did not begin with "we must help the poor, starving people of ____."

In most cases, we DO put a premium on American self-interest. But we always seem to seek the cloak of a self-effacing, morally liberal position that resonates with the UN-types.

Conservative (and some liberal) leaders of a few generations ago didn't seek that false mantle - it is a relatively new dichotomy in our politics. But it ties us up in knots!

So, if we need to use a moral argument to support conservative values, but the most powerful argument for helping others is used to support socialism, do you know a way to argue conservative principles from a moral standpoint? "What I would like to see is conservatives arguing their case in economic or political terms w/out the support of altruism-inspired rhetoric. " I'd like to see that, too... although I have no idea how it would be.

The most power example we have now is to show how even though intentions are good, it actually is harmful in that it is a restriction on liberty. Of course, that requires understanding cause and effect, which is sadly lacking the leftist world. Is there a way to hold up liberty as a supreme value over altruism?

As I said before, that is what I believe, and what is taught in the denomination I belong to, but then differing beliefs is one of the reasons there are so many denominations in the first place, isn't it?

.. Conservatives can trump the puffery of 'holier than thou' liberals by consistently stressing:

* self interest over altruism
* freedom over enslavement
* fairness/justice over entitlement

It isn't easy to take this road - the temptation to sound altruistic is all too real. Particularly since conservatives know that the freedom to pursue one's self-interest actually IS beneficial to society at large!

Most issues can be categorized along three axes -Economic, Nationalist or Social, with some overlapping areas.

Economic: conservatives should hold laissez faire capitalism as the economic model with a proven track record and one that is consistent with individual freedom. Encapsulated in these principles are property rights, individual freedoms and objective laws that make it impossible for any group to be enslaved for the supposed benefit of others. This would make public education, welfare, universal health care and other tax coerced institutions illegal.

Nationalist: conservatives should support an America-first policy that is based on American self interest. As in the case of domestic policy, this doesn't result in 'exploitation' - although this charge will be levelled by the usual suspects who believe that everything is a zero-sum game. Such policies will raise other nations as trading partners, encouraging them to match our accomplishments.

Social: conservatives should support an agenda that is based on individual freedom and justice, but without the dogma of any particular religion. This will be difficult for many conservatives, particularly those who have found these issues to be vote-rich. However, we can't have it both ways! Issues like abortion, gay marriage and others will be particularly thorny -there will be some issues in which we may have to reconcile our politics with our religious convictions.