Conservatism, Liberalism, and Ethics

[beaglelady]

So much for no politics allowed. I think that depends on who you are.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@beaglelady

So much for no politics allowed. I think that depends on who you are.

Yeah … I know this thread was sprawled across that line from the beginning; and moderators can always do as they see fit. I just don’t see any way to avoid the political terms associated with these issues and still bring it around to discussing knowledge and our culturally ingrained approaches to it, which bears heavily on public perceptions of the science / faith relationship.

[T_aquaticus]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

At least one educational institution that I know about [a conservative Christian one] has as part of its mission statement the phrase: “… to educate in truth and train in righteousness…”. I think we see embodied right there a liberal/conservative emphasis held together in the same mission statement. Liberals will be big on the first phrase and dwell less on the second (not that conservatives don’t try to claim the first phrase as well – but they will see the first as needing to be subservient to the second part in ways that liberals would be uncomfortable with.) In short, conservatives like the notion of training and selectively enlisting any truths available to plug into that righteousness mission. Whereas liberals will be more dedicated to the “let’s follow all truth wherever it leads” ideal.

Part of the divide is over what those truths are, what you mean by truth, and who gets to decide what those truths are.

One of the foundations of liberalism is freedom of religion, and in the US that is defined as a separation between church and state. This is why liberals shy away from injecting religion into politics because it goes against the very liberal ideals that the US was founded on. In addition, I am sure Christians would uncomfortable with a Muslim political party that strove “to educate in truth and in righteousness”. You don’t have to search far on the interwebs to find conservative sites warning about Muslims trying to force Sharia law into the US.

@Mervin_Bitikofer

I think those of conservative mindset are actually in the better position to successfully meld the two while those with liberal outlook will struggle with the concept of “training toward righteousness” as they cannot stomach the thought of imposed moral imperative (along typical conservative religious lines anyway.)

Liberals are just fine with non-political groups “training towards righteousness”. Where it gets problematic is that wall of separation between church and state. Also, liberals would be just fine with an imposed secular morality that is based on basic moral concepts shared by religious and non-religious people. We also have to keep in mind that secular doesn’t mean anti-religious, only that we leave religion out of our politics and use non-religious arguments to justify our laws. If the only reason for passing a law is “because the Bible says so”, then that isn’t a law that liberals are likely to support.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

Yes, we are on thin ice here. As long as the conversation is in generalities and and about how we get to positions rather than pushing a particular position, will sit back and listen, but may need to close this and move on if we wander off into advocating particular political views, be they left or right.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@T_aquaticus

We also have to keep in mind that secular doesn’t mean anti-religious, only that we leave religion out of our politics and use non-religious arguments to justify our laws.

I think the first part of your point is an important one … that “secular does not mean anti-religious”. That has been a hard-sell to conservatives – at least in our generation. I think the truth of that was more readily accepted in the early U.S.

On the last part, I would want to push back. Asking the overtly religious to check their “most important convictions” at the door before entering the public square means that only the secularists are allowed to bring their most precious foundational convictions in --only they get a free pass; and now the public square is deprived of the voices of major segments of the population … leading to unpleasant election surprises as we suddenly learn for the first time who our neighbors are.

[T_aquaticus]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

Asking the overtly religious to check their “most important convictions” at the door before entering the public square means that only the secularists are allowed to bring their most precious foundational convictions in --only they get a free pass

The religious can be secularists. They aren’t mutually exclusive. People from all religions, worldviews, and backgrounds are allowed to voice their opinions on laws, representatives, and government. No one is keeping them from doing so. It just so happens that any proposed law has to pass constitutional muster which includes separation of church and state.

[beaglelady]

@jpm

Yes, we are on thin ice here. As long as the conversation is in generalities and and about how we get to positions rather than pushing a particular position, will sit back and listen, but may need to close this and move on if we wander off into advocating particular political views, be they left or right.

You mean like this comment, earlier on this thread:

Conservatives have declared war on liberals in the US. This has resulted in Trumpism which may well destroy conservatism and the nation. We must do better.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

Yep, that would be over the top. Guess I have to read this dumpster fire and find it and squash it like a bug.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

In reviewing, I think we have about exhausted the subject, and there seems no way to edit out the politically charged comments, so I think we will just close and should there be a related but non-political issue you wish to discuss, feel free to open a new post.