Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Alright, so we've established the principle that human rights Trump Christian morality and can be used to compel Christians and inhibit their freedom to express themselves religiously. Now secular human rights are not derived from God because they are not Christian. Why do you prefer them over Christian morality?We find that to be the case in our most sensitive and controversial issues.
To start with, as Christians we all do not even agree on what Christian moral standards are or how to practically apply them to our contemporary daily lives. In a pluralist society where most people no longer identify as Christian, what else are we to do?
I don't . Why do you draw that conclusion. Living in a pluralistic society is not about the morality I prefer.Alright, so we've established the principle that human rights Trump Christian morality and can be used to compel Christians and inhibit their freedom to express themselves religiously. Now secular human rights are not derived from God because they are not Christian. Why do you prefer them over Christian morality?
You do, by your actions, in that you prefer to live in a society which mandates pluralism of religions rather than any particular religious system. It's also a question of whether or not the current model best allows for religions to publicly express themselves since you also believe that human rights trump any religious liberty question. This means that Christians cannot act fully as Christians in the public space so as to equalize everyone.I don't . Why do you draw that conclusion. Living in a pluralistic society is not about the morality I prefer.
It is about a morality that society must determine for itself.
What society do you live in that you do not have to accommodate public morality standards?You do, by your actions, in that you prefer to live in a society which mandates pluralism of religions rather than any particular religious system. It's also a question of whether or not the current model best allows for religions to publicly express themselves since you also believe that human rights trump any religious liberty question. This means that Christians cannot act fully as Christians in the public space so as to equalize everyone.
All societies have public standards of morality. The question is why do you prefer a secular liberal morality as opposed to a Christian moral framework for society?What society do you live in that you do not have to accommodate public morality standards?
Again, why do you come to that conclusion about what I "prefer"? I merely state that reality of our current society. Even Christians do not agree on exactly what a "Christian moral framework" is and how to live it out in concrete situations.All societies have public standards of morality. The question is why do you prefer a secular liberal morality as opposed to a Christian moral framework for society?
Interestingly, resisting change and tolerating inequality are very different things. When equality is already assumed or established, changing the status quo means moving towards inequality. This is how something like DEI isn't only opposed by racists, for instance, but by people who previously took for granted that all races were equal and therefore resist the idea of giving certain races special treatment over others.In politics, researchers usually define “conservativism” as a general tendency to resist change and tolerate social inequality. “Liberalism” means a tendency to embrace change and reject inequality.
Psychologists have long suspected that a few fundamental differences in worldviews might underlie the conservative-liberal rift. Forty years of research has shown that, on average, conservatives see the world as a more dangerous place than liberals do. This one belief seemed to help explain many American conservative stances in policy disagreements, such as support of gun ownership, border enforcement, and increased spending on police and the military—all of which, one can argue, are meant to protect people from a threatening world.
But new research by psychologist Nick Kerry and me at the University of Pennsylvania contradicts that long-standing theory. We find instead that the main difference between the left and the right is whether people believe the world is inherently hierarchical. Conservatives, our work shows, tend to believe more strongly than liberals in a hierarchical world, which is essentially the view that the universe is a place where the lines between categories or concepts matter. A clearer understanding of that difference could help society better bridge political divides.
Many Differences between Liberals and Conservatives May Boil Down to One Belief
Conservatives tend to believe that strict divisions are an inherent part of life. Liberals do notwww.scientificamerican.com
Right . It is too easy to label as one or the other and make huge assumptions. But as we see political adds we also see candidates boasting of their conservative views. Sso they wish to label themselves and attract votes for that label. And it seems to me they are usually holding a gun.In US politics, people often conflate conservative with Republican and liberal with Democrat. In Christianity, people often conflate conservative with orthodox and liberal with unorthodox. Viewing the terms "liberal" and "conservative" through these lenses can be confusing and misleading without knowing the details.
Conservatives generally prefer to keep things as they are or pine for the way things used to be (which is why MAGA has traction with US conservatives). This is relative however, as the way things used to be in one location isn't necessarily the way things used to be in a different location. As such, a US conservative may have radically different political values than a Russian conservative even if their religious values are similar.
A US Republican might love Patrick Henry's quote "Give me liberty or give me death!", for instance. This sentiment has a long tradition in our country. However, it is a very liberal thing to say. What is being conserved by our US Republican here is a liberal ideal. A Russian conservative, on the other hand, might simply agree with whatever Putin says because they like Russia the way it is and don't want to risk standing out. Preferring to go along to get along.
Interestingly, resisting change and tolerating inequality are very different things. When equality is already assumed or established, changing the status quo means moving towards inequality. This is how something like DEI isn't only opposed by racists, for instance, but by people who previously took for granted that all races were equal and therefore resist the idea of giving certain races special treatment over others.
A strong preference for hierarchy seems to be present on both the far Left and the far Right of the political spectrum. Whether we're talking communists or fascists, there's invariably a class of fat cats at the top of the pyramid calling the shots and potentially trampling the rights of those below them. Liberals, defined here as those who believe in liberty, are on neither the far Left nor the far Right.
Personally, I prefer to keep hierarchy to a minimum. As little as needed to get the job done, as people are inherently equal. Hierarchy at work makes sense to me, for instance, as it's tied to changing levels of experience and expertise, but I don't want hierarchy in my neighborhood. That's why, when I was house-hunting, I picked a home that wasn't in an HOA. I neither want nor need people telling me how to maintain my property. I think too much hierarchy can be worse than none at all, yet my religious views tend to be orthodox.
Whether I personally identify as a conservative or a liberal depends on the situation and what exactly we're talking about. Most of the time, I avoid self identifying as either. With that being said, I do think it's unfortunate that liberal has come to mean something along the lines of "blue haired nose ringed Marxist" and conservative has come to mean something along the lines of "racist abusive fascist". In the US and perhaps elsewhere, a liberal can refer to somebody who values life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all, and conservative can refer to somebody who wants to preserve those values.
Not this conservative.Conservatives generally prefer to keep things as they are or pine for the way things used to be (which is why MAGA has traction with US conservatives).
Good point. Taking a conservative approach, thinking new ideas through first, saves time and energy in the long run. Rather than wasting resources on something that won't scale or otherwise isn't feasible. An example of practicality trumping idealism.Not this conservative.
Conservatives are as progressive as liberals. However, their method to do so are dramatically different.
Liberals have what they genuinely believe to be a good idea. It's sounds so good to them that liberals wish to implement the untested idea at the federal/national level. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe the idea may be good and humans are fallible. So, let's test that idea at the state level to show its efficacy in achieving the intended result.
Imagine a company developing a new product. Lab tests always precede production tests to determine if the "good" idea can be manufactured with existing technology. Production tests determine the costs to produce the "good" idea. Market testing of the "good idea" at a price precedes the product announcement. Scale up continues as long as test results are positive.
Do you consider not recognizing the legitimacy of homosexual 'unions' as a Christian moral norm? Or do you support said unions?Again, why do you come to that conclusion about what I "prefer"? I merely state that reality of our current society. Even Christians do not agree on exactly what a "Christian moral framework" is and how to live it out in concrete situations.
What exactly are you arguing for? Condemnation of homosexuals? Banning abortion? Care for the poor? Civil liberties for all?
also post #26
For a while you were talking about pornography as if there were some obvious consensus about a definition. But you refused to shared it.
You seem to have your own idea of Christian moral norms and expect other to comply with your view.
This is my last response with you unless you get reasonable. It is you who " is being deliberately obtuse in refusing to acknowledge what it is for the sake of an argument." I even tried to help you by providing motion picture rating standards. But you refuse. I do not support it's legalization. i would like to see agreed upon social standards. But then how do we enforce them?Do you consider not recognizing the legitimacy of homosexual 'unions' as a Christian moral norm? Or do you support said unions?
As for pornography. What's the point of discussing with someone who is being deliberately obtuse in refusing to acknowledge what it is for the sake of an argument? You and I both know what pornography is. We both consider it evil and dehumanizing. You support it's being legal. I don't. What more is there to say? Your political principles aren't shaped by your Christianity.
This is my last response with you unless you get reasonable. It is you who " is being deliberately obtuse in refusing to acknowledge what it is for the sake of an argument." I even tried to help you by providing motion picture rating standards. But you refuse. I do not support it's legalization. i would like to see agreed upon social standards. But then how do we enforce them?
As for same sex unions. There are Christian churches that recognize them. The Methodists for one. probably Presbyterians also. I am Catholic so I do recognize it as a sacrament of the church. But if it is legal and valid, it is legitimate for civil purposes.
You can't save someone from drowning if you are drowning yourself.In our society Christian values seem to emphasize "take care of yourself".
true, but some people cannot swim. What about them?You can't save someone from drowning if you are drowning yourself.
I'm not against helping the poor, if that is what you are trying to infer.true, but some people cannot swim. What about them?
I am asking a question. We seem to have this spectrum from conservative, rugged individualism on the right to progressive, socialism on the left.I'm not against helping the poor, if that is what you are trying to infer.
Good question. I suppose somewhere in between helping people who actually need it, and creating a dependency class out of those who don't.I am asking a question. We seem to have this spectrum from conservative, rugged individualism on the right to progressive, socialism on the left.
Where is the middle ground?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?