British Conservatism

[Huguenot]

I am a conservative and would not vote for the Conservative Party...why? Well because the Party is not true to conservative thought. Most who vote Conservative would hold that conservatism is a philosophy which encompasses freedom, morality, and individualism. This was championed by Thatcher who contrary to conservatism turned the party into an ideological monster. For more correct is Websters Collegiate Dictionary which defines Conservatism as "a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change."

I also believe that Christians have a great responsibility to be involved politically proclaiming conservatism. Writers that will be of interest are:

1. Edmund Burke.
2. Richard Weaver.
3. Russel Kirk.

I am a firm believer that to be a Christian is to be a conservative.

 

[Martin^^]

I understand your frustration at the way you feel that your favoured political party does not follow the philosophy on which it was founded. This is true of most political parties, though. Any party wishing to gain power has to appeal to a fairly narrow constituency of voters who hold the balance of political power. Sadly, as long as many people vote Labour and Tory according to their social background, this will not change.
This is one of the problems of tradition though - it can render society inflexible in a modern world which requires rapid change and adjustment.

... conservatism is a philosophy which encompasses freedom, morality, and individualism....

Fine values, but I think you will find that every other political philosophy would make similar claims. No political party would claim to favour repression and immorality. The problem is in defining these worthy but nebulous terms.

 

[ScottishJohn]

Christ came to change, to set free, to challenge. Christ overturned the law, the prevailing attitudes to women, the poor and foreigners. Christ was in no way shape nor form conservative with any size of C so why should his followers be?

 

[Buttermilk]

I am a firm believer that to be a Christian is to be a conservative.

I firmly disbelieve that

 

[Huguenot]

This is one of the problems of tradition though - it can render society inflexible in a modern world which requires rapid change and adjustment.

But that is just the point...rapid change is not desirable we have obligations to those who died for the freedoms we have now and obligations to those who come after us to preserve our inherited sacred rights for them. Tradition provides us with an anchor in time of great change. Why do you think the UK has been so stable politically if it were not for our traditions?

 

[Huguenot]

Christ came to change, to set free, to challenge.

Christ came to die to set us free from our sin. Notice that to those Jews who thought Christ came with a brand new message etc were comforted by his words:

Matthew 5:17-18 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Christ overturned the law, the prevailing attitudes to women, the poor and foreigners.

No he did not overturn the law and I find it strange that a Presbyterian holds that he did. Indeed he changed the views to the poor, women and foreigners but that was a correction not a new view.

 

[Huguenot]

I firmly disbelieve that

Why do we have government? This is the fundamental question and St. Augustine provided us with the sound reason: because Man is sinful. Our sin means that humans are unable to live together peacefully without a power which is out from them holding their sinful desires in check. Just think of the chaos if we had no state...it would be anarchy or as Hobbes named it...a "state of war" where life would be "nasty, brutish and short".

A skeptical view of human nature (humans are naturally bad) is the characteristic basis of conservative thought therefore it follows naturally that Christians are natural conservatives.

 

[FunkyBrother]

Left wing, right wing. Two different wings same bird.



The government does whatever the Bilderbergers tell them to do.



Thatcher did what she was told. But then she refused to sign the Maastricht Treaty. If you don’t play ball with the Bilderbergers then you’re out.



Her party turned on her and they replaced her with John Major. And the first thing he did was sign the Maastricht Treaty.



After the death of John Smith, Tony Blair became leader of the Labour Party and the Bilderbergers thought, here is someone we can do business with. The Tory party crumbled instantly from within, and the press turned on them (the press also have to play ball with Bilderbergers) exposing sleaze after sleaze, which let’s face it was nothing compared to this Labour government.



There is only an appearance of democracy. Even when you forget the strategically placed boundaries to suite Blair, what we are left with is that the media (Bilderbergers) controls who we vote for.



This country only believed there was no credible opposition because the media implanted it in people’s brains.



As for a Christian must be Conservative. I think it’s pretty clear if you look at the MP’s voting records; Labour and Liberal are pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia and are anti-Christian parties. But a lot of Christians choose to ignore this, because the media is telling them either directly or indirectly to elect Labour and/or their families have always voted that way. (Many people are set in their political ways.)



But Conservative, although certainly more Christian than the rest, they are by no means anywhere near a Christian party.



And Christ did certainly not come to overturn the law, the prevailing attitudes to women, the poor and foreigners.

 

[artybloke]

And Christ did certainly not come to overturn the law, the prevailing attitudes to women, the poor and foreigners.

Yes he did. He said so in what he did, what he said and the kinds of people he associated with. If he'd wanted to side with the rich he wouldn't have called them "whited sepulchres." He'd have let the bigots stone the adulteress, and he certainly wouldn't have spoken to no Samaritan woman.

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

Left wing, right wing. Two different wings same bird.

The government does whatever the Bilderbergers tell them to do.

Thatcher did what she was told. But then she refused to sign the Maastricht Treaty. If you don’t play ball with the Bilderbergers then you’re out.

Her party turned on her and they replaced her with John Major. And the first thing he did was sign the Maastricht Treaty.

After the death of John Smith, Tony Blair became leader of the Labour Party and the Bilderbergers thought, here is someone we can do business with. The Tory party crumbled instantly from within, and the press turned on them (the press also have to play ball with Bilderbergers) exposing sleaze after sleaze, which let’s face it was nothing compared to this Labour government.

There is only an appearance of democracy. Even when you forget the strategically placed boundaries to suite Blair, what we are left with is that the media (Bilderbergers) controls who we vote for.

This country only believed there was no credible opposition because the media implanted it in people’s brains.

As for a Christian must be Conservative. I think it’s pretty clear if you look at the MP’s voting records; Labour and Liberal are pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia and are anti-Christian parties. But a lot of Christians choose to ignore this, because the media is telling them either directly or indirectly to elect Labour and/or their families have always voted that way. (Many people are set in their political ways.)

But Conservative, although certainly more Christian than the rest, they are by no means anywhere near a Christian party.

And Christ did certainly not come to overturn the law, the prevailing attitudes to women, the poor and foreigners.

As far as your comments about the sleaze of this government, the unhealthy power of the media and the sickly state of our democracy, I would largely agree.

However, as to your "Labour and Liberal are pro-gay..." paragraph - I firmly believe that the Bible makes it clear that the only place for sex between a married man and women. I also firmly believe that the state has no business interfereing in people's private lives, and that God is glorified when people obey Him willingly out of love, not when they are coerced into following His will by the state. As for abortion, all major parties are basically pro-choice, (I do not think anyone is actually "pro-abortion"), but would allow their members a free vote if a private members bill were to try and ban or further restrict abortion (a thing I would be in favour of). I therefore have no qualms being a member of the Lib Dem party.

Huegunot - man is indeed sinful. We are also told that money is the root of all evil, and know that power corrupts, and hence believe in stricter controls on powerful businesses run by sinful human beings then the conservatives advocate.

 

[FunkyBrother]

Yes he did. He said so in what he did, what he said and the kinds of people he associated with. If he'd wanted to side with the rich he wouldn't have called them "whited sepulchres." He'd have let the bigots stone the adulteress, and he certainly wouldn't have spoken to no Samaritan woman.

Ragarding God's law He came to fulfill it, Not to change it.
Mat 5: 17: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."


Regarding man's law he left it exactly as it was.

 

[FunkyBrother]

As for abortion, all major parties are basically pro-choice, (I do not think anyone is actually "pro-abortion"), but would allow their members a free vote if a private members bill were to try and ban or further restrict abortion (a thing I would be in favour of). I therefore have no qualms being a member of the Lib Dem party.

The phrase "pro-choice" is nonsense as what choice does the unborn child get?

No party will admit the official party line is pro-abortion. What I meant was that if you look at individual members voting records on these issues (available on the Christian Institute website) practically all Labour and Lib-Dem MP's are pro-abortion.

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

The phrase "pro-choice" is nonsense as what choice does the unborn child get?

No party will admit the official party line is pro-abortion. What I meant was that if you look at individual members voting records on these issues (available on the Christian Institute website) practically all Labour and Lib-Dem MP's are pro-abortion.

As the mother gets a choice, it is at least relevent to some concerned, unlike pro-abortion, which is applicable to no one - I do not think that there is anyone who thinks it better than the lesser of two evils. You and I agree that it is the greater of two evils, but if others are to be convinced, which is necessary before any change could occur, then having respect for the other point of view and addressing those who hold it with the terms they wish to be known by (which are not unreasonable) is a good start to at least get people to listen.

As for who to vote for, one should therefore look at individual candidates views on this, as they will not be compelled by their party to vote one way or the other. You can also not take this issue in isolation, but consider how the candidate's positions (which, on most other issues, will largely be determined by party affiliation) affect the welfare of the born, as well as the unborn. There are a lot more of the former, and I am just as concerned about someone dying in hospital due to a government's bad health policies as I am a foetus dying due to abortions being allowed.

God bless,
YN.

 

[StormeTorque]

As for a Christian must be Conservative. I think it’s pretty clear if you look at the MP’s voting records; Labour and Liberal are pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia and are anti-Christian parties. But a lot of Christians choose to ignore this, because the media is telling them either directly or indirectly to elect Labour and/or their families have always voted that way. (Many people are set in their political ways.)

Can you explain to me why you think Labour and Lib dems are "pro-gay"? I can't think of any special rights gay people have that straight people like myself don't have.

 

[FunkyBrother]

Can you explain to me why you think Labour and Lib dems are "pro-gay"? I can't think of any special rights gay people have that straight people like myself don't have.

http://www.christian.org.uk/mpvotes.php

 

[rebel_conservative]

Can you explain to me why you think Labour and Lib dems are "pro-gay"?

how about getting rid of Section 28?
how about the subsequent distribution of vile material to young children in schools? (http://www.christianscotland.org/publications/caseforkeeping.htm)
how about gay marriage?
how about preventing Official use of traditional terminology in favour non-descript terms such as "partner"?
how about gay adoption?
how about support for legalising "cottaging"?
how about lowering the age of homosexual consent to 16?

 

[rebel_conservative]

the foremost thinker in British conservatism today is Peter Hitchens.

 

[StormeTorque]

how about getting rid of Section 28?
how about the subsequent distribution of vile material to young children in schools? (http://www.christianscotland.org/publications/caseforkeeping.htm)
how about gay marriage?
how about preventing Official use of traditional terminology in favour non-descript terms such as "partner"?
how about gay adoption?
how about support for legalising "cottaging"?
how about lowering the age of homosexual consent to 16?

Many of these changes in the laws are for equal rights, not special treatment for gay people. Tell me, why do do you think two gay 16-year olds should be prevented from having a legal sexual relationship by the state, but not a boyfriend and girlfriend of the same age? If the state allowed two 14 year old gay people to have a sexual relationship, then I would say that the government is "pro-gay". But its not about special rights, its about equality. And I am fully in favour of recognising gay relationships as being equal in every shape or form to straight ones. Yes, I accept that you believe homosexuality is wrong, but this view should not be imposed upon the general population of this country, many of whom have no desire to follow the teachings of fundamentalist Christianity.

 

[rebel_conservative]

Many of these changes in the laws are for equal rights, not special treatment for gay people.

firstly, they were all changes to the status quo that were in the sole interest of gay people, to the detriment of the rest of society.

and you are not talking about "equal rights" you are talking about privileges. gays have the same rights to habeas corpus, to live together unmolested, to double jeopardy, to consensual sexual relations, to trial by jury, etc. the state grants married couples privileges that it does not (or rather did not...) grant to other relationships. they are not rights.

Tell me, why do do you think two gay 16-year olds should be prevented from having a legal sexual relationship by the state, but not a boyfriend and girlfriend of the same age?

firstly, they actually went so far as to use the Parliament Act to get this through.

secondly, do you have any evidence that two 16 year old boys were arrested for having a sexual relationship prior to the change in the legal age of consent? the law was there to protect 16 and 17 year old boys from predatory males, significantly older than themselves. now, older men can not be prosecuted for having sex with 16 year old boys.

and I happen to believe that the age of consent should be raised to 18 for hetrosexuals as well.

If the state allowed two 14 year old gay people to have a sexual relationship, then I would say that the government is "pro-gay".

following the ridiculous abolition of the perfectly reasonable Section 28, the state is, in some parts of the country, now encouraging children to engage in underage and illegal homosexual practices. http://www.christianscotland.org/publications/caseforkeeping.htm

But its not about special rights, its about equality.

but the law was already equal, a 16 year old gay boy could legally have had sex with a 16 year old girl, just as a 16 year old hetrosexual boy could not have had sex with another 16 year old boy.

you blindly demand equality (by which you mean the Leftist definition of equality with is actually, sameness), without a regard for the wider social impact. that is very reckless.

this may shock someone who has an exceedingly irrational, but very strong, emotional attachment to the principle of "equality," treating it as a matter of faith, but I do not believe that 'equality' is sacrosanct - certainly not the definition used by mindless egalitarians. we have laws restricting the speed at which motorists are legally allowed to travel. however, these do not apply equally. they do not apply to the police, they do not apply to an ambulance, they do not apply to a doctor who rushing to an emergency, they do not apply to police officers who are testing out their new vauxhall vectra cars. does this mean that we are unequal? should we be protesting against the cruel injustice that allows some people to travel faster than others on our roads? no. because it is a stupid idea. is it wrong that people of unequal intellectual capacities are discriminated against by exams? no. some people have more money than others, this means that we are unequal, should the state take everyone's money, put it in a big pot and then distribute it equally? despite the New Labour lies and deceptions, the Monarchy are not legally entitled to a civil marriage, are they discriminated against? no. they are just different.

And I am fully in favour of recognising gay relationships as being equal in every shape or form to straight ones.

despite the fact that they are not...? they can not have children for a start.

the state involves itself in marriage because it is in the interests of society and children, marriage being the most stable relationship. marriage privileges exist to promote and sustain hetrosexual marriages. there is no reason for the state in involve itself in gay relationships. certainly not to encourage homosexuality by legitimising it and treating it as though it were equal to marriage.

out of interest, are you fully in favour of recognising polygamous or incestuous relationships as being equal in every shape or form? there is no logical argument for legal recognition of gay marriage that does not logically extend to polygamous and incestuous couples also.

Yes, I accept that you believe homosexuality is wrong, but this view should not be imposed upon the general population of this country, many of whom have no desire to follow the teachings of fundamentalist Christianity.

firstly, it is not fundamentalist Christianity. that is simply a Leftist ploy to make opponents look extreme, when they are the extremists.

secondly, why should your views be imposed on the general population of the country?

thirdly, I do not accept that a majority of the country do want the state to encourage homosexual behaviour.

 

[theFijian]

firstly, they were all changes to the status quo that were in the sole interest of gay people, to the detriment of the rest of society.

Wrong. It most definately is in my interests that the whole of society is treated fairly. Who's to say that I wont be treated unfairly next, then who will speak for me? Certainly not those who I wished to discriminate against. The 'leftist elite' must be shown that the biblical concept of equality is not just for Christians.

"Injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere" - MartinLuther King Jr.