Conservatives and Double Standards?

[SallyNow]

Why does it so often seem that, especially in the USA, conservatives want to put laws into effect that outlaw gay marriage, and cite the Bible for doing so, yet do not want to put into effect government programs that care for the outcasts, the meek, the sick, the children?

The Bible has so much on the latter, on how we must help. So why are so many conservatives against welfare, universal healthcare, and even sometimes universal education?

Why do conservatives want to outlaw one thing, using the OT, yet are often so against creating mandatory programs that care for those who cannot care for themselves or for those in pain or great hardship? The latter is asked in the NT so often.

 

[joebudda]

Collectivism is why it appears that way, it is really an illusion, really everyone has their very own world view, many might seem very close, but that is true across the spectrum.

 

[scraparcs]

Asked in the NT, not mandated. That is the crux of it.

 

[Harpuia]

Collectivism is why it appears that way, it is really an illusion, really everyone has their very own world view, many might seem quite very close, but that is true across the spectrum.

Strangely enough... collectivism doesn't seem to be limited to just the conservatives anymore...

First off, dunno about how outlawing gay marriage = providing better things for children. Were this about outlawing abortion I'd understand. But I will explain my views about each, and you can take them as you wish.

For the short term, welfare is okay as a "temporary" fix. The government should do something to help people especially since it's clear that less and less people are either willing or able to help themselves. However, the downfall to welfare is that people wind up living off that for the rest of their lives. If you have physical disabilities and in rare cases mental disabilities okay, but it sends a bad message if everyone thinks that they can just live off welfare checks and never have a job. Eventually, the incentives for just working are worse, no one works, nothing gets produced, and the economy would just fall apart.

Universal healthcare is good for situations where only prescription is needed, but I've noticed in other countries, when it comes to major surgeries, if the demand is too great and there aren't enough surgeons available, you could wait a much longer time than even in the U.S.

 

[SallyNow]

Asked in the NT, not mandated. That is the crux of it.

Let me, for a second, presume that being homosexual is a sin.

Nowhere in the NT does it say that homosexual unions should be outlawed by the State. But, in the OT, it does say, where is it now...

24 But when the crop comes in, give a fifth of it to Pharaoh. The other four-fifths you may keep as seed for the fields and as food for yourselves and your households and your children."

Or if one wants to use laws from Leviticus to outlaw homosexual unions, why is this not kept to:

9 " 'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.

So why is the law to give a fifth to the Pharaoh no longer applicable, but it is still applicable to outlaw, not just disagree with, not just not participate in, but out-and-out ban anyone from, gay marriage?

Do not forget what was said about Ceasar:

17Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."
And they were amazed at him.

I'm really trying to understand the very conservative view.

 

[Ringo84]

Here's another double standard: the same people who argue so vociferously for small government are the same ones who argue against the Separation of Church and State. Without such separation that protects religion from the government and government from religion, religious beliefs could be combined with government - effectively creating big government.

In other words, the same conservatives who argue for small government switch sides when it comes to church/state issues.
Ringo

 

[Verv]

"Conservative" is such a big word. Of course, there are some conservatives that are entirely inconsistent and some that are right on. Just as liberals are often the same.

I support the legalization of gay marriage on all fronts but I would never vote for Obama. Of course, I am a younger conservative with some libertarian leanings, but I think that there are more of us than you think.

And often times those who oppose it do so more out of traditionalist views than Biblical views. Views that would be supported by Muslims, Jews, Sikhs and atheist Chinese and Koreans.

The most violently anti-homosexual societies are not even always religious.

Atheist Cuba's policies towards gays drove many to flee to America.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

Because in conservatism, helping people amounts to evil handouts. The only way the government should work to change society is to punish people who act in a way the conservatives don't like.

 

[Philodox]

I always seem to be the only person, not suprised by the fact, that Conservative Christians vote by their morals and not suprisingly their moral compass is the Bible.

A common mistake, many libreal posters on this site make, is that when they see a Conservative oppose a Libreal policy, it most likely has to do with the policy itself, not with the fact that they hate helping people.

Here is a hint, find a policy that would help enable the less fortunate, that more conforms to their poltical philosophy. I bet they'd be willing to meet you half way.


But then again, it's much easier to call someone evil, stupid or illogical isn't it? And for fun too, I guess.

 

[perplexed]

I

A common mistake, many libreal posters on this site make, is that when they see a Conservative oppose a Libreal policy, it most likely has to do with the policy itself, not with the fact that they hate helping people.

No
most of the conservatives here are scum and they have drivent decent conservatives away. They just want to make nasty attacks to make themselves feel good.

 

[Philodox]

No
most of the conservatives here are scum and they have drivent decent conservatives away. They just want to make nasty attacks to make themselves feel good.

A lucid and well reasoned response.

Anyone else?

 

[SallyNow]

I always seem to be the only person, not suprised by the fact, that Conservative Christians vote by their morals and not suprisingly their moral compass is the Bible.

A common mistake, many libreal posters on this site make, is that when they see a Conservative oppose a Libreal policy, it most likely has to do with the policy itself, not with the fact that they hate helping people.

Here is a hint, find a policy that would help enable the less fortunate, that more conforms to their poltical philosophy. I bet they'd be willing to meet you half way.


But then again, it's much easier to call someone evil, stupid or illogical isn't it? And for fun too, I guess.

Um, could you maybe, I don't know, actually answer my question that I posted in post #5, which elaborates on my question in the OP? Anyone? Pretty please?

I haven't called anyone any nasty names, I just really want to understand the position, because to me it appears to be a double standard, but to some it obviously does not. I'd really like to understand that.

I'm not trying to make conservatives out to be bad people. But I'm really confused about how many American conservatives seem to be a slightly different breed from many other conservatives around the world.

"Conservative" is such a big word. Of course, there are some conservatives that are entirely inconsistent and some that are right on. Just as liberals are often the same.

Well, you're right, I am focusing more on the conservatives in America, and specifically, the religious right who want to legislate morality when it prevents people from doing things, but do not want to legislate morality when it comes to allowing people access to lifesaving resources they otherwise may not be able to afford.

The conservatives in many other nations do indeed support welfare programs UHC, education, etc. So, while they use tradition as a reason to ban homosexual unions they also use kindness and fairness as reasons for welfare, UHC, and education.

I support the legalization of gay marriage on all fronts but I would never vote for Obama. Of course, I am a younger conservative with some libertarian leanings, but I think that there are more of us than you think.

Oh, I don't doubt you guys exist, but you're not as vocal and, in the USA, do not have the lobbying power as more Reagan and Bush-era conservatives.

I just really want to know how the justifications are made.

And often times those who oppose it do so more out of traditionalist views than Biblical views. Views that would be supported by Muslims, Jews, Sikhs and atheist Chinese and Koreans.

While that's true, I am addressing the conservatives who specifically use the Bible as a reason to ban gay marriage, but then somehow justify ignoring or interpreting Biblical passages on charity and taxes.

 

[Ryal Kane]

Not to mention the fact that those opposed to taxes to pay for things like health care are fine with paying billions for a war on the other side of the world.

But it's wrong to lump people together. Yes there are some ultra right wing conservatives on this board but politics are a spectrum, and a multidimensional one at that. Different people vote for different parties for different reasons. And everyone tends to hold double standards on some issues.

 

[perplexed]

A lucid and well reasoned response.

Anyone else?

Do you doubt it?

 

[Verv]

I think there are perhaps less Christians that care about the homosexuality issue along specifically Biblical lines than you think. Substantial amounts I am sure see it different.

Not to mention the fact that those opposed to taxes to pay for things like health care are fine with paying billions for a war on the other side of the world.

Well, it is a war on the other side of the world that is trying to stop the slaughter of ethnic and religious minorities. That could sound pretty righteous. Pretty good.

 

[perplexed]

No I can't agree with calling the whole party republiscum, My experence with republicans on other message boards is that are they are not like Bill OReilly and are actually quite reasonable and they convinced me that they were right. If I was caught up in a natural disaster I would hope for someone like Rumsfeld to get me out of it.

 

[Zlex]

Personally, I think the OP poses the typical, 'these' are Conservative views as I define them, and therefore has built up her own house of cards in order to burn it down. Nevertheless.

Some majority religion folks are confused about this, but shouldn't be.

1] 'Marriage' is a religious concept, 'civil union' is not. The blurring of religious status with legal status has brought on this conflict. But 'marriage' as a legal/religious status is not the unique domain of any single religion in America.

2] Religions are free to define marriage anyway that religions wish(...except for the odd union between a 34 year old and a 12 year old.) However, apparently the government has something to say about 'polygamy', which is now yet a glaring contradiction in the arena of what goes on between consenting adults.

3] The government doesn't seem to me to have any power to favor one religious definition of marriage over any other, and if there is a religion that declares same sex marriages as marriages, then Welcome to America and all the rights and privileges afforded therein.

4] This isn't government getting involved with religious issues and picking favorites; this is the government not getting involved with religious matters and picking favorites. The reaction to this, I think, is 'not in my favorite religion.' Well, I don't see any problem with that; there is no requirement(nor can there constitutionally be)for any particular religion to accept same sex unions as marriage in the context of that religion, but neither is there a power for any religion to define same for all other religions, or to declare that their religion is the only religious context in America.

There is always nonsense like this with legislation formed around conceptual singularities.

As a side note, Big Government is a very un-Reagan like sentiment--Regan does not fall into the same pile as Bush.

 

[Mr. Timothy]

I am a proud Fundamental Bible Believing Baptist Conservative Christian and I don't think I am unreasonable or harsh in my words. I don't look for a emotion "high" when I say things like "CCM is wrong" or "Don't Drink Whiskey!!!!"

Fact is - I just believe that Jesus died for my sins and how he wants me to love my neighbor and love my God and become Holy for him. Not because I can brag, but because it shows respect and love to the death of Jesus on the cross for my sins and the worlds.

I think that if more people would just put God first in the home, school, and politics we wouldn't have the mess we are in right now.

The topic of homosexuality isn't a matter of one verse says it is wrong, but a matter of a message from Genesis to Revelation that doesn't support or show much respect to anyone living that lifestyle, or any sinful lifestyle. The Bible also doesn't support sex outside of marriage, and we allow that in the modern day America and in the Church. Fact is, America and it's people are loosing touch with God and we are loosing touch with the truth of following God and all we can do is open our mouths and make fools of ourselves.

Like I said, I am proud to be a Fundamental Bible Believing Baptist Conservative Christian, not because I am a "high and mighty" Christian, but because for the most part we knock aside all the sweet Church politics and boldly proclaim basic Biblical truth.

It's a shame many don't get this and don't live it.

 

[blueapplepaste]

While that's true, I am addressing the conservatives who specifically use the Bible as a reason to ban gay marriage, but then somehow justify ignoring or interpreting Biblical passages on charity and taxes.

Because they fit the Bible to their beliefs, instead of doing it the other way around. They love to cherry pick the Bible to suit their needs; if you bring of something from the Bible that is contradictory to what they believe they ignore it or spew some vile attacks your way and attack the messenger.

The ironic thing is that the right winged people who claim to the the most religious are often the ones who do more that is out of line with the Bible than anyone els.e

 

[WannaWitness]

I say there are double standards in politics in general. Doesn't matter what party.