We all know what it means to be on the Left of the political spectrum. If you don’t, spend five minutes listening to any noozie, any feminist, any teachers’ union hack, and you’ll know all about it.
But what does it mean to be on the Right? What with assorted bow-tie “conservatives” kicking out of their movement anyone who supports President Donald Trump, while liberals denounce as “fascist” anyone who isn’t them, it’s gotten kind of confusing. Especially since I can’t see what those “conservatives” are supposed to be conserving, if anything.
I think I know where I stand, and maybe it might be helpful if I said where that is. So let me state what I believe, and let the “right” and “left” chips fall where they may.
*Jesus Christ is the Son of God and King of Kings by right. Someday He will return to exercise that right on earth. His is the only world government I will ever support.
*Governments exist to carry out certain basic functions, defined in Romans 13 and elsewhere throughout the Bible, and summarized in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Those functions do not include redefining basic human institutions or Saving The Planet, etc.
*America is a much better country than most others, and we have a right to try to keep it that way. We have a right to our borders.
*Christianity is the only true religion and no government has a right to suppress it. It goes without saying that Christians have a duty to treat others, including non-Christians, as they would be treated themselves. Humanists recognize no such obligation.
*There are only two “genders.” Period. Male and female created He them.
*Government has a natural tendency to try to devour everything it can cram down its gullet. Citizens of a republic have a duty to keep the government reined in.
*”Science” is a useful tool for finding out more about God’s created order. It is not an absolute arbiter of what is or is not.
*Capitalism creates wealth, from which everyone, sooner or later, benefits. But socialism creates poverty. Ask anyone in Venezuela.
I could go on, but those are the basics of my politics. If they’re enough to get me booted out of the conservative movement, I don’t care. I don’t think I even own a bow tie, anyhow.
I’ve certainly have my issues with Trump. At one point I was in the NeverTrump camp, but my positions have softened a bit and I have reluctantly supported him. I still think he’s deeply flawed, but we have to play the cards we have been dealt. Those conservatives that are NeverTrump do have valid criticisms, although they sometimes take it to the extremes. This sort of division is not good for our side. What I have seen is political divisions on all sides, left and right. There is far too much balkanization and tribalism in general, and it’s tearing our country apart.
The definitions of Right and Left, Conservative and Liberal have been somewhat clouded. I’ve always said that it is of no use to have the right answer unless you asked the right question. Misinformation and propaganda rely upon framing the questions in such a way as to evoke the desired answer. For example, abortion is frequently framed as a question of a woman’s rights over her own body, but avoids the rights of the fetus.
It used to be that there were liberal and conservatives in both parties, but that changed into a polarized situation where each party purportedly represented only one viewpoint. But what do the terms even mean anymore?
I see plenty of Republicans that seem willing to abandon traditionally conservative values in exchange for a few votes. I see plenty of Democratics that seem willing to abandon freedom (which sounds like a liberal concept to me) in order to impose their agenda(s).
Thomas Jefferson, IMHO, was an actual liberal. He wanted freedom and saw this as a God-given thing, not something politicians can dole out as they see fit. In his day, Jefferson was a radical, from the standpoint of the British government. Abraham Lincoln saw freedom as crucial and fought to end the abomination of slavery. From the standpoint of the slaveholders, Lincoln was a radical. Reagan once stated that a good conservative is a libertarian, which I understand to mean an advocate of limited government. From the standpoint of those whom seek to impose greater degrees of government upon the masses, Reagan was a radical.
I find myself less and less impressed with the terms “liberal”, “conservative”, “right”, “left”, “democrat” or “republican”. My axis of measurement reduces to one thing, and one thing only: the viewpoint of the origin of authority.
If I believe that all authority stems from our Creator, then I have to respect the rights of others and not seek to impose my views on anyone through regulation, etc. But it goes deeper than that. If I believe that all authority stems from our Creator, then I have to respect the property rights of others. This means that I can’t steal from you, damage your property or write a piece of malicious software designed to harm you or steal information. One step beyond that, I have to respect the property rights of ALL, even persons with whom I disagree.
In the eyes of some, I have just declared myself a member of the Religious Right, but they would be mistaken, I am non-denominational and a member of no religion. I feel that there are many, many examples of religions claiming to represent Christianity that have sought to impose THEIR authority, their authority as a religious body, upon others, which violates my initial observation that all authority stems from our Creator. If a church seeks to teach their beliefs I have no problem with that, but if it seeks to impose its beliefs upon others or interfere in the lives of adherents, then I don’t want anything to do with such activity.
When I look at your list, Lee, I see several examples with reduce to God’s authority being respected. One example is that of gender, which is defined in scripture, literally on the first page of most bible translations. It seemed redundant to read that 45 years ago, but seems prescient these days.
Likewise, your comments regarding science reduce to God’s authority being paramount. Whatever science claims to know is trivial compared to the authority of our Creator. I certainly find a global flood followed by uplift of mountainous regions and depression of sea beds to make a lot more sense than believing that the Grand Canyon was cut by the Colorado river.
Capitalism is a derivative of free markets and, IMHO, free markets are the greatest creator of prosperity. Remove crippling taxation and regulations which doom many endeavors to failure and a truly free market becomes a fountain of opportunity. If the practitioners of free market trade do so with respect for the rights of others and do not fall to greed it becomes possible for individuals to prosper without victimizing others in the process. Profit motive is not, in itself greed, but seeking to crush others, whether customers, workers or competitors does stem from greed.
The bottom line, as I see it, is that mankind needs one standard, the commandments of the One True God, and that if we all live by those commandments we can function as a civilization much more effectively than we could if we were all following different sets of standards. As I see the political Right moving towards disarray, I see this as a simple matter of authority. If they do not acknowledge the Source at all authority, then they will simply become yet another flavor of human authority and soon end up indistinguishable from the political Left.
Well said–the source of Authority is the paramount consideration here.
That’s what makes “secular conservatives” so impotent. They’re just liberals with bow ties.
Exactly. Most people of Godly devotion tend to gravitate towards conservative thought, but I think that the real attraction is freedom. I seek freedom to worship as I see fit and to be governed by a bible-trained conscience. That’s no different than the desires of the persons whom formed the Plymouth Colony.
Since then there have been Whigs, Tories, Democratics, Republicans and any number of smaller parties, but those are are schools of human thought. If we believe the Bible to be God’s word, then we take its moral guidance to be of Divine origin. These guidelines are sometimes claimed as the property of various political parties, but unfortunately people frequently claim to hold to Divine standards but then try to mold these to fit their human philosophies.
On True God, one Source of guidance. The first of the Ten Commandments is that the LORD (Yahweh) brought the sons of Israel out of Egypt and they were to have no other gods before Him. I would not want any human political philosophy to become a false god.
“Jesus Christ is the Son of God and King of Kings by right. Someday He will return to exercise that right on earth. His is the only world government I will ever support.”
I’m not sure that there’s some kind of threat of a world order/government anytime soon.. or even within our lifetime or those of our children. I am guessing you are assuming a world government, should it ever occur, would be more than a political entity but rather an Orwellian entity that dictates our humanity? Otherwise, a world government could still be just a government.. with religion separate. Is there a reason to draw this line?
“Governments exist to carry out certain basic functions, defined in Romans 13 and elsewhere throughout the Bible, and summarized in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Those functions do not include redefining basic human institutions or Saving The Planet, etc.”
I can tell by a couple of your “mantras” here that you have issues with science as it relates to global warming. Why? Science has gotten humanity to where it is.. good or bad. That’s the nature of Man.. as declared by the Almighty. He, after all created all of us. Why be pissed at science because it doesn’t somehow fit your morality? Rather Medieval, don’t you think?
“America is a much better country than most others, and we have a right to try to keep it that way. We have a right to our borders.
We have a sovereign right to our borders as does any country on this planet. I’m not sure that has anything to do with America being a “much better country”.. which by the way, is a relative opinion depending what country you are from. Correct?”
“Christianity is the only true religion and no government has a right to suppress it. It goes without saying that Christians have a duty to treat others, including non-Christians, as they would be treated themselves. Humanists recognize no such obligation.”
You confuse me here. On one hand you seem to be favoring Christianity as the ONLY religion, suggesting that imposing that among non-believers would be a universal goal. Then you impose the Golden Rule to include a tolerance toward non-Christians. I am a humanist of sorts and I certainly believe in the Golden Rule.
“There are only two “genders.” Period. Male and female created He them.
Would you add… “There are only two genders, but one humanity?”
*Government has a natural tendency to try to devour everything it can cram down its gullet. Citizens of a republic have a duty to keep the government reined in.”
While you are trying to make a protest statement regarding taxation or some idea that government exists to control our lives and dictate morality… a democratic form of government exists at the will of the people. Your argument seems to be with people who don’t think like you in how you want government to perform… not government itself.
“Science” is a useful tool for finding out more about God’s created order. It is not an absolute arbiter of what is or is not.”
Again.. this “useful tool” has brought us to where we are today. It’s not the objective of science to fit neatly into some moral conformity. It’s up to government, reflective of the people, to establish social parameters in the use of scientific discovery.
“Capitalism creates wealth, from which everyone, sooner or later, benefits. But socialism creates poverty. Ask anyone in Venezuela.”
What about Britain or the Scandinavian countries? Have you ever thought of asking about the poor and homeless in THIS country to see what their opinion is about how capitalism serves them and makes them happy? Seems to me it depends where you are on the economic chain. The people in those countries that have socialism seem to be ok with it.. if it’s representative of the people.
I made these remarks to stimulate dialog… and actually I have respect for you placing your defined thought processes out for understanding. You are certainly entitled to your own opinions, as are we all. But having the courage to present it full frontal like this does encourage outside comment.
I can see you’re trying to be civil, but to describe what I say as “mantras” is not what I call respectful.
I don’t have a lot of time to engage in a dialogue; but as for the Western European countries prospering under socialism: a) Having the USA to pay the lion’s share of defending your country really helps; b) they really aren’t doing anywhere near as well as they would have the world believe; and c) they are in serious danger of collapse under the weight of uncontrolled Muslim immigration–bearing in mind that there is very little assimilation here.
And world government is John Kerry or someone else like that telling you that you can’t have air conditioning… but he can.
I understand now. Your belief elements you listed (not sure how “mantra” would have been interpreted as a negative; definition doesn’t suggest that) pertain more toward your opinion on current events than life in general. Sorry.. I misunderstood… and forgive my imposition that you might want to dialog. I’ll know better for next time that what you post is your way or the highway.
When I say I don’t have a lot of time, it means I don’t have a lot of time. And yes, “mantra” is an insulting term.