re: Why can’t we separate Conservative values from religion?

quote:

---

Probably should've let you know I was posting Charlie's response as an agreement with your post

---

I was still in bed with a sleeping husband and didn’t watch the clip- that’s on me… I will go watch it now.

quote:

---

morality is somewhat innate in human beings with or without religion…

---

Or because of religion. Scripture says that God wrote this on the hearts of men.

quote:

---

I was still in bed with a sleeping husband and didn’t watch the clip- that’s on me… I will go watch it now.

---

Posted the video from a different account to hopefully reduce any confusion

Anyone who truly has a biblical world view shouldn't be voting for false idols anyway.

Plenty of faux Christians here.

Conservatives have done a great job of separating Christianity from their values. Cutting food benefits to needy families to slashing healthcare. Mistreatment of people born outside our borders and spending nearly a Trillion on our war machine while veterans remain homeless and without. Plus, the war on the environment.

You are confusing Christian moral obligations with one particular political solution to them.

Christianity absolutely commands us to care for the poor, the sick, the stranger, and the vulnerable. But "care for the poor" does not automatically mean "support whatever level of federal welfare spending I prefer." A conservative can believe those responsibilities are better met through families, churches, charities, communities, and more limited government without rejecting the Christian obligation itself.

The same distinction applies to immigration. Scripture requires humane treatment of the stranger. It does not say nations cannot have borders or enforce their laws. You can argue that a particular policy or enforcement practice is unjust, but simply enforcing a border is not inherently "mistreatment."

Government also has responsibilities that individuals do not. Romans 13 explicitly recognizes legitimate civil authority, including the authority to punish wrongdoing and "bear the sword." Christianity does not teach that national defense or the use of force is inherently immoral. Whether a particular war or level of military spending is wise or justified is a separate question.

The same goes for the environment. Christians have a duty of stewardship, but Scripture does not prescribe a particular EPA regulation, carbon tax, energy policy, or spending level.

The mistake is treating agreement on the moral objective as though it requires agreement on the political mechanism.

"Feed the hungry" is a Christian obligation.

"Therefore the federal government must fund the programs I favor at the levels I favor" is a political argument, not Scripture.

quote:

---

This saying a whole lot of nothing…

---

Actually it's saying a lot. It's claiming that morality is either grounded in objective realities or it is not. If it is not, then it is arbitrary, and therefore, irrational at its core. That's saying a lot.

quote:

---

morality is somewhat innate in human beings with or without religion… children sneak in do stuff not because they fear God but because they fear consequences…

---

I'm stating that the "innate" quality has to have some sort of grounding in an objective reality, or else it is arbitrary. If [negative] consequences are what one cares about, then morality is whatever is right in your own mind that you can act upon without receiving negative consequences. If you can get away with murder, then murder is moral. If you can get away with rape, then rape is moral.

My contention is that morality is innate because, as humans, we've been made in the image of God with morality written on our hearts. We may twist that innate knowledge or suppress it, but it's there. And, since God is our creator and our moral judge, we are all accountable to obedience to His moral standard whether we think we can get away with it or not in this life.

Morality has to be grounded in something other than consequences, because even in society, the consequences flow from an existing belief of an action being moral or immoral. We choose to punish certain behaviors because we already believe they are bad. You can't say they are bad because of the consequences.

quote:

---

ones moral standards doesn’t determine rather an action is good or evil… society determines if the action is right or wrong

---

That's not helping the problem of moral subjectivity. Either "society" is one or a few tyrants imposing their subjective morality on others, or "society" is governed by a representative shared but still subjective morality. A majority of people preferring vanilla ice cream to strawberry ice cream doesn't mean vanilla is objectively better, after all.

All you're saying is that whatever the majority says, goes, in terms of morality. Therefore, in the German society during WWII, it was "moral" to round up, torture, and execute millions of Jews, because that society had determined so.

It's also true that slavery was "moral" in our western context 150+ years ago because our society accepted it, or that slavery is still "moral" in other nations today because those societies tolerate or even promote it.

This is what I was getting at before: if morality is not grounded in an objective standard, then it's arbitrary at its core, and therefore, irrational.

quote:

---

I have no problem with the Ten Commandments being in classes because it's not promoting religion.

---

The first four are pretty much doing just that.

Good lord. That was dumb.