Theocracy Is Not Conservative

Published by Janus on March 24, 2009

I have been repeatedly accused of not being a true conservative because of my firm conviction that religious beliefs are not infallible and that basing an entire nation’s political and social policy on any one interpretation of any one belief system is a laughable notion. I could go on a rather vicious rant as to why that is, but, as Alton Brown would say, that’s another show. In short, I’ve been told that the words secular and conservative don’t go together and the people who tell me that couldn’t be more wrong.

Today, I’m here to present a rebuttal. A while back I explained what the evolving definition of what being conservative means and, in a long and winding way, I eventually boiled it down to a set of political values that are the result of a long and winding conservative movement. American conservatives believe in smaller government, devolution of government powers, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, free market capitalism, free trade, minimalist regulation, self-reliant citizens, strong foreign policy, stricter interpretation of law, skeptical (dare I say conservative?) implementation of new laws, and, yes, an imposition of biblical morals and values.

All but one of these value are in harmony with one another. All but one of these value can be put next to any other value on the list and it can be said that these two values are consistent and complementary of one another. The odd man out – the one value that clashes with each of the other conservative values, is religion.

I do, here and now, declare that theocracy is incongruent with every other conservative value. No, really, let’s look at it.

Conservatives believe in smaller government, but every law, program, and prohibition requires a government entity to oversee it. Conservatives believe in fiscal responsibility, but those entities aren’t free. We believe in lower taxes, but the only way to responsibly raise money for those programs is to raise taxes. Conservatives believe in states rights and the power of communities to make their own decisions, but we somehow think that federal bans on biblically immoral behavior aren’t just acceptable, they’re necessary. Conservatives believe in a minimalistic approach to regulation – which I guess I can give to the religious crowd because if something is banned outright it’s not really regulated, right? We believe in a strict interpretation of the law, the highest of which clearly states that congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion. And as skeptical (conservative?) as I am when it comes to new plans and new policies, blindly rejecting new policies as the times change your situation isn’t an honest objection – it’s stupid, stubborn, and dangerous.

Any intellectually honest person can look at the inherent contradictions in these values and realize that they are at best incongruent and at worst completely incompatible. We true conservatives, we free thinking people, we rational, enlightened few, need to step back and see the forest from the trees.

Someone tell me where I’m wrong on this one.

Share this ...

Filed in: Secular.
Tagged with: First Amendement, Philosophy, Religion, Secular

There Are No Words »
« Doom Sells!

5 Comments

I am a deeply religious person. At the heart of my faith is the knowledge that my faith is unique. Simply put, my beliefs are not your beliefs. I do not wish to be told what to believe in. Neither do you. My secularism comes not from an absence of religion, but rather a deep empathy with those who do not share my beliefs and do not want me to force my beliefs upon them. Something about “doing unto others” comes to mind for some reason. If Christians actually lived up to the teachings of Christ, Christianity would be a beautiful religion.

Comment by Janus on March 24, 2009 @ 12:57 pm

You have to remember that real conservatism and the brand of neo-conservatism that’s being tossed around by the Republicans, are not the same thing. If anything, neo-conservatism is more of a traditionally Democratic idea, back before civil rights, than it ever was a traditional Republican idea. In fact, it was the Southern Baptist Democrats that abandoned the Democratic party back in the 60s and 70s that largely took over the Republicans and instituted their religious ruleset.

There’s a reason Christianity doesn’t live up to the teachings of Christ, if it did, there would be no money in religion and you’d have a lot of otherwise wealthy preachers going hungry like the parasites on society that they are. Religion has nothing to do with what’s in the Bible and probably never did, it’s just a tool for control.

I certainly respect your stance on not pushing your religion on anyone else, that’s very admirable in a nation where shoving religion down the throat of every person from birth is the norm. Of course, that goes right back to the fact that religion is a business. Gotta breed ‘em faster and you gotta brainwash ‘em early, how else are they going to build their glass and steel monuments to their own greatness?

Comment by Cephus on March 24, 2009 @ 1:06 pm

Exactly. Though the notion of freedom of religion is very compatible with conservative values. As the leftist atheists are becoming more and more dogmatic and attempting to tie atheism with Marxism, there will be a distinct opening for the right wing to become the party of agnosticism. It is in fact the extremism of the leftist brand of atheism that will allow the right wing to become the party of tolerance rather than needing to align itself with radical (and illogical) biblical literalism. Actually, this opening is very possibly already here, but the current leaders of the Republican Party have not yet realized this.

Comment by Andrew Clunn on March 25, 2009 @ 9:18 am

I’m not sure I can improve on what has been written or commented. Especially the comments by Cephus, who is spot-on with his assessment.

Until the Republican party can extricate itself from the influence of the religious right it will be consigned to second-class status in Washington. This makes it difficult for the fiscally conservative policies preferred by those of us who are secular conservatives to make any headway since the Democratic party will retain the power to implement their socialist fiscal policies. I don’t see this changing anytime soon, much to the detriment of this nation.

Comment by Bad Scooter on March 25, 2009 @ 9:57 am

Not quite, Andrew. As you correctly note, there is nothing in real conservatism that disagrees with the notion of freedom of religion, you have to remember that what the Republican party currently espouses is not conservatism, but neo-conservatism, in which they firmly believe they have the freedom to push their religion on everyone else, but no one else ought to have that right. I think that the word you’re looking for, or at least ought to be, isn’t “agnosticism”, but “secularism”. The Republican party, indeed all political parties and the government itself, ought to have nothing whatsoever to say about religion at all, except to reign it in when it goes crazy. Religion ought not have any influence or impact on the political decisions made by the parties or the government, that’s how the founding fathers set up the system, that’s how the system ought to be run. Thomas Jefferson would be spinning in his grave right about now if he saw how the country is running today.

Unfortunately, what we have today is the Republican party in bed with religious extremists who have fought for decades to be in charge, in hopes of imposing their religious beliefs on not only the nation, but the world. I suggest you do some reading on the Dominionists, those are the people who are in charge of the Republican party today.

Comment by Cephus on March 25, 2009 @ 12:55 pm