Somewhere from 75 to 85% of evangelicals have voted Republican during the last two election cycles. Nonetheless, there is a growing and vocal contingent of twentysomething evangelicals who consider themselves politically liberal. I go to a theologically conservative church that has a very non-traditional service format. This creates an interesting blend of persons and personalities who attend. Most of my friends there are those very twentysomething evangelicals on whom the article focused. And yes, several of them are politically liberal.
One line from that article caught my attention, and it is something I would like to flesh out a bit:
"Some religious voters are second-guessing their political commitments. In particular, twentysomething evangelicals are tuning in to issues related to social justice, fighting poverty and protecting the environment. And it's starting to affect how they think about politics."The obvious implication here is that the conservative predominance of the evangelical community could be changing. While I can make no apology for conservatives' lack of concern for the environment, I take issue with the idea that liberals alone care for the poor and downtrodden.
Here's my question: do liberals have a corner on compassion?
If it is true that more young evangelicals are paying attention to issues of poverty and social justice, must it follow that they vote Democrat? Is it possible for someone to want to help the poor, yet be conservative? Can an evangelical want to end injustice but remain firmly on the Right?
If you read my Letter to the Religious Right you know that though I am an evangelical conservative, I am no fan of what is commonly identified as the Religious Right. The negative connotations associated with that term have been well-earned by the leaders of the movement who routinely make every religious voter look like a brain-dead Bible thumber. That's why we get bumber stickers that look like this:
Sad. Christians have become identified with an ideology of stupidity, ignorance, and cold-heartedness. Don't mishear me: I do not think any of these things are true. I simply think the leaders of what is seen as the "Religious Right" have given people who hear them just cause to draw such conclusions.All this begs the question, "if you are an evangelical Christian, and you care about helping the poor and outcast, must you vote Democrat?"
Conservatives have let the Left dominate the debate about helping the poor. Christians have fallen into the same trap. As an evangelical Christian, I genuinely want to help the poor. My wife and I give money to charities. We sponsor a child in a third-world country. We've given out blankets and food to the homeless in our area. We help those in our lives who are in need. So how is it that my identity as a conservative gives people the impression that I don't want to help the poor?
Simple: I think government does a bad job of helping the poor.
Conservatives have sat idly by and let the Left define care for the poor as support for handouts provided by a big, impersonal, high taxing government. I will give out of my pocket all the days of my life to help the poor, but I will oppose attempts to force me--and every other tax paying American--to give the government so that they, in their infinite wisdom, can give it to the poor. The problem with my view is all too clear: tons of people don't want to give, and if the government didn't mandate it, they would not. But that does not change the simple fact that the government does a bad job at helping the poor.
Government, because it's assistance is both value-free and responsibility-free, does an awful job at ending poverty.
It makes no attempt create self-sufficiency. It makes no attempt to end fatherlessness. It makes no attempt to end illigitimacy. It makes no attempt to end the use of crime, drugs, or alcohol. It makes no attempt to do anything but throw money at a problem.
Throwing money at poverty is like treating a stroke victim for arm pain: it is addressing a symptom, but not the root cause. Government is too big, too irresponsive, too bureaucratic, too value-free, and too impersonal to end poverty. To truly make a dent in poverty will take people helping people. It will take initiative on the part of charties, civic groups, charties, and, most importantly, Christians themselves. It will take an attitude change that says, "yes, I want to help". What it does NOT take is a vote for more handouts, higher taxes, bigger government, or any of the other "helping the poor" programs the enlightened Left touts.
Conservatives in general, and Christians in particular, need to redefine what it means to help the poor. The way the Left has always helped the poor is not helping. We need to take the lead in giving of ourselves and supporting organizations that move people from poverty to self-sufficiency. We need to practice what we preach and reach out to those in need.
I am a Christian, I want to help the poor, and yes, I am a conservative.
6 comments:
It certainly does not help when the President-elect of the Christian Coalition resigns because he wants to help those who are in poverty, and HE IS SHUNNED!
CC - "No, that's not one of our priorities."
That sucks! Why can't a Christian Right group focus on abortion, stem cell, same sex marriage, AND poverty?
It's this kind of stupidity that makes the left attack Christianity so much...when in fact, the CC doesn't represent Christians in every aspect of their lives.
Here is the plan of the left:
We can't attack them on same sex marriage, because a majority of America supports their position. So, let's attack them on poverty. Let us "liberals" use Jesus in our criticisms, and slowly, we will distract the general public, get them see the Religious Right as uncaring, and then two things will happen:
1. We can secretly slide through our liberal agenda, now that the Christian Right has been vilified, losing its credibility.
2. We get an extra bonus point, because now Jesus and liberal can be in the same sentence in regards to poverty. And anytime liberals can convince even a single swing voter that liberals support everything Jesus said, it will be a bonus.
Thanks Religious Right...you're letting liberals win...slowly.
Did anyone see 20/20 awhile ago? To sum it up, Conservatives give more than liberals. If you are a Christian and conservative you give more than anyone. If you don't have any religion and are liberal you give practically nothing. So there is something.
(giving is based on proportion of your income)
yes, but do u want to help poor people around the world, and i dont think all republicans are money hungry big business trotting redneck whores, just most of them, and its sad. Democrates believe in letting people make thier own descisions, well, more so than what republicans do, and doing what the people think is right or wrong on key issues, as long as those issues take away other people rights. Gay marriage, why is it so opposed, and why does it bother u so much, politics shouldnt be based on religious beliefs, the constitution clearly states freedom of religion, and freedom from religion, therefore religion connot be a forfront for any political debate, and therefor there should not even be a religious right that base thier laws on the teachings of the bible. I think if the issue doesnt involve you it doesnt affect you, you shouldnt have such an oppisition, everyone entitled to thier opinion, but it shouldnt be allowed to hurt others in the process. please write me back at justin_13_1990@yahoo.com
im not done ranting, and i enjoy reading your site, especially the lawer thing.
Justin,
Thank you for reading the VoterVault and caring enough to comment. I will try to respond to your comment/questions point-by-point.
yes, but do u want to help poor people around the world,
Of course, but the question is how to do that. Where most liberals/Democrats and I disagree is on this point, not on WHETHER we should help people or not. Liberals generally argue that our government should lay taxes on our citizens, then create a system (also run by the government) wherein our people distribute the money taken from Americans to those in need in poor countries. I strongly disagree with that approach on several levels. First, what if Joe American doesn't want to help the poor in, say, Africa? Is it okay for our government to reach into his pocket and take the money he has worked for and earned so that they may do a very good thing in helping the poor? I argue that is not the place of government. In my own life I give money out of my own pocket to people in other countries. I use charity organizations and church ministries to do that. Giving to the poor in other countries is something we should all do, but not by compulsion. Not because someone else says we have to.
The second level on which I find this wrong is that THE GOVERNMENT IS ALWAYS INEFFICIENT AND IS VERY BAD AT HELPING THE POOR. Forget about other countries for one second and consider America. Since the advent of the New Deal, and the steroids injected into it through the Great Society our government has spent tens of trillions of dollars to help the poor. In 1999 our government spend $40,000 per person on welfare in the United States. Yet we obviously still have a poverty problem. Why? Because government gives away money with no strings attached. It is a value-free unit. It can't take the place of a charity or religious organization that can CARE for the person. Government can just throw money at a problem. It is a bad way to help the poor.
and i dont think all republicans are money hungry big business trotting redneck whores, just most of them, and its sad. Democrates believe in letting people make thier own descisions, well, more so than what republicans do, and doing what the people think is right or wrong on key issues, as long as those issues take away other people rights.
Obviously you have read a few posts here on the VoterVault, so you have probably concluded that even though I am a staunch conservative, I don't like to name-call. Generally, I hold the belief that even though I think the Democrats are dead wrong on most of the issues facing our country, they (some excluded) still are trying to do what is best for America, we just disagree on what that is.
Secondly, neither side believes wholly in "letting people make their own decisions". Democrats are just as likely to try to impose their views on everyone else. At the end of the day, one side wins and one side loses. The winning side gets their way, and the other loses. Don't let either side fool you into thinking they are all about letting you do what you want. Unless the government goes away tomorrow, that is an impossibility. Government, by definition, is there to affect what we do. You might like the things the Democrats will let you choose on, but they are equally as likely to tell you "you can't talk like that, you can't work like that, you can't open a business like that, you can't make that much money, you can't have the freedom to live your whole life by your faith, etc".
Gay marriage, why is it so opposed, and why does it bother u so much,
Gay marriage is something that I am quite opposed to, again on several levels. First, I have a problem with redefining a fundamental institution of society that has stood for 4000 years of written human history JUST BECAUSE ONE GROUP DOESN'T LIKE THE CURRENT DEFINITION. I actually have very little problem with "gay rights", but I have a huge problem with gay marriage because it is attempting to re-order society to fit the worldview of a minority group who doesn't like that in every society in the history of the world--even those open to homosexuality--marriage has been defined as man and woman.
Second, gay marriage represents the "de-basing" of society. What I mean by that is simply that for us to function as a society there must be a set of defined cultural norms. While all of these norms have their exceptions for certain circumstances, they form the basis (the backbone, if you will) of American culture. For example, kids live with their parents, not with strangers. Families live in their own home, not in some tribal commune. We trade dollars for goods and services. All these things are integral to our society and culture. If someone went into a store and demanded that shopkeeper accept a bag of grain as payment, it would not fly. If someone came into your house today and announced that their family was moving in with you, they would be arrested. If the police showed up at your door with a child and told you to raise it, you would be sure to resist. Of course gay marriage does not equate to any of these things, but these are important illustrations because they challenge the basis--the foundation--of our society. That is exactly what gay marriage is attempting to do--re-order society because one small (and loud) minority group doesn't like how society is currently ordered.
Third, and lastly for now, it represents the tyranny of political correctness. It is one minority group attempting to tell the rest of society (and the rest of history) that they are wrong and must change to accept them. You say that the religious shouldn't force their views on others. Is not the gay community forcing their views on the rest of society? I argue they are. (Note: in light of your next comment, notice that I did not invoke my religion in arguing against gay marriage).
politics shouldnt be based on religious beliefs, the constitution clearly states freedom of religion, and freedom from religion, therefore religion connot be a forfront for any political debate,
I would respectfully ask you to get a copy of the Constitution and read the First Amendment, because your analysis is based on a faulty understanding of the Constitution. You can go read it here, but I'll paste in the part we need to talk about: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". As much as some people want to say that that section means we can't talk about religion in the public square, that is dead wrong. The Constitution here says only two things about religion: 1) There can be no one, set national religion (like the Church of England in Great Britain, or the Catholic church in the Holy Roman Empire, or like Islam under groups like the Taliban); and 2) The government can't keep you from practicing your religion. Under no terms does it say that you have "freedom from religion", nor does it keep religion out of "any political debate". You might not like it, but please don't bring down our Constitution by claiming it says something that it does not. You might not like my religion at all, but I have every right to base my entire life around it, even making political decisions based on it. What I can NEVER do is make you follow my religion or keep you from following yours.
The larger point here is that those who are not religious (secular) are too often trying to force their secularism upon the religious, claiming the false doctrine of "separation of church and state". If my worldview includes the understanding the God exists, and that man is not the end of all things, and that we are subject to God's moral judgement, how can I be asked to walk into Congress and pretend that I am an atheist, or at least a secular person? Using your own logic, that would clearly be someone forcing their worldview upon me. If the Founders really meant for our government to be completely free of all influence of religion, why in the world would our very Declaration of Independence claim that it is the very fact that God made us that gives us our basic rights? ("We are endowed BY OUR CREATOR with certain unaliable rights..."). The Founders clearly meant that the government should not force one particular religion on people, or ban people from having their own faith. They never meant for our discussion and political decisions to be religion-free.
and therefor there should not even be a religious right that base their laws on the teachings of the bible.
See above.
I think if the issue doesnt involve you it doesnt affect you, you shouldnt have such an oppisition, everyone entitled to thier opinion, but it shouldnt be allowed to hurt others in the process.
You are right that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Everyone should hold their own, well thought out opinions and argue for them. What I think arguments such as yours are missing is the understanding that we do not live in a vacuum. What you do always affects me, albeit indirectly. If someone asked you about American society, you could pretty well tell them about the standards and customs of the average American. Everyone who lives in a society is impacted by that society. That is the whole idea that every child, without it having to be attempted, is socialized. We see the norms, values, and customs of our society, and we adapt to it and become part of it. You and I want very different societies. The society we create is the one that my children will be socialized into. Therefore I have every right to take a stand against something I oppose, such as gay marriage. You are not sitting idly by while I oppose gay marriage. Why should I sit idly by while you support it? We do not live in a vacuum--we live in an interconnected world where your decisions become part of the larger society that affects me and my children and their children. You have every right to claim that people should be able to do whatever they want, so long as they don't hurt others. While you are making that claim, I will be here, arguing that such a mindset is bad for our country, and is something that I will oppose as long as I'm on this earth.
Thank you, Justin, for taking the time to comment. I hope you found this helpful.
--k. randolph
It seems to me that lot of right wing americans are now pretty infavor of gay right....to a point, when in reality they're actually hypocrites. They claim they are in favor, but when it comes down to it, they grab at anything they can think of to dring down the thought of gay marriage. Here are some Cited arguments.
Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman.
Well, that's the most often heard argument, one even codified in a recently passed U.S. federal law. Yet it is easily the weakest. Who says what marriage is and by whom it is to be defined? The married? The marriable? Isn't that kind of like allowing a banker to decide who is going to own the money in stored in his vaults? It seems to me that justice demands that if the straight community cannot show a compelling reason to deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn't be denied. And such simple, nebulous declarations, with no real moral argument behind them, are hardly compelling reasons. They're really more like an expression of prejudice than any kind of a real argument. The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to deny them is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights.
Gay relationships are immoral.
Says who? The Bible? Somehow, I always thought that freedom of religion implied the right to freedom from religion as well. The Bible has absolutely no standing in American law, as was made clear by the intent of the First Amendment (and as was very explicitly stated by the founding fathers in their first treaty, the Treaty of Tripoli, in 1791) and because it doesn't, no one has the right to impose rules anyone else simply because of something they percieve to be a moral injunction mandated by the Bible. Not all world religions have a problem with homosexuality; many sects of Buddhism, for example, celebrate gay relationships freely and would like to have the authority to make them legal marriages. In that sense, their religious freedom is being infringed. If one believes in religious freedom, the recognition that opposition to gay marriage is based on religious arguments is reason enough to discount this argument.
Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all kinds of other horrible consequences.
A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to create fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn't that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn't they have 'slid' towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for over many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It's a classic scare tactic - making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers.
If concern over the "slippery slope" were the real motive behind this argument, the advocate of this line of reasoning would be equally vocal about the fact that today, even as you read this, convicted murderers, child molesters, known pedophiles, drug pushers, pimps, black market arms dealers, etc., are quite free to marry, and are doing so. Where's the outrage? Of course there isn't any, and that lack of outrage betrays their real motives. This is an anti-gay issue and not a pro marriage issue.
Granting gays the right to marry is a "special" right.
Since ninety percent of the population already have the right to marry the informed, consenting adult of their choice, and would even consider that right a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, since when does extending it to the remaining ten percent constitute a "special" right to that remaining ten percent? As Justice Kennedy observed in his opinion overturning Colorado's infamous Amendment 2 (Roemer vs. Evans), many gay and lesbian Americans are, under current law, denied civil rights protections that others either don't need or assume that everyone else along with themselves, already have. The problem with all that special rights talk is that it proceeds from that very assumption, that because of all the civil rights laws in this country that everyone is already equal, so therefore any rights gay people are being granted must therefore be special. That is most assuredly not the case, especially regarding marriage and all the legal protections that go along with it.
Gay marriage would force churches to marry gay couples when they have a moral objection to doing so.
This argument, usually advanced by churches that oppose gay marriage, is simply not true. There is nothing in any marriage law, existing or proposed, anywhere in the United States, that does or would have the effect of requiring any church to marry any couple they do not wish to marry. Churches already can refuse any couple they wish, and for any reason that suits them, which many often do, and that would not change. Some churches continue to refuse to marry interracial couples, others interreligious couples, and a few refuse couples with large age disparities and for numerous other reasons. Gay marriage would not change any church's right to refuse to sanctify any marriage entirely as they wish - it would simply offer churches the opportunity to legally marry gay couples if they wish, as some have expressed the desire to do - the freedom of religion would actually be expanded, not contracted.
but there is more; if you wish to view the real reasons why conservatives oppose gay marriage, go to http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm and look under that heading "The real reasons people oppose gay marriage" there are even arguments that i left out.
sincerely,
Justin
justin_13_1990@yahoo.com
Justin,
Thank you again for your comments, and for caring enough about serious issues to discuss these things.
Unfortunately, before dealing with the substance of your comments, I must point out that what you have done here is pure plagarism. You did a Google search, found a site that you thought supported your argument, and passed off their ideas as your own. In the future, please just paste in the link and say "this supports my position; please read it as it presents the arguments I support". Copying in someone else's ideas and not quoting them is intellectual dishonesty.
Additionally, the site you chose to copy was a pretty poor one, for several reasons:
1)It is full of straw man arguments (arguments that do not truly represent conservative arguments against gay marriage, just ones that are easy to oppose). This is doubly ironic, since I already laid out several of my reasons for opposing gay marriage, but your list addresses none of them. You then claim that you know "the real reasons why conservatives oppose gay marriage". How do you know the real reasons? Are you a conservative who opposes gay marriage? Are you inside my head? No. I'm sitting here giving you my reasons, but you choose to paste in responses about "real reasons" conservatives oppose gay marriage. Yet who wrote those "real reasons"? Liberals in support of gay marriage. I hope you see my point here. What if I sat here and told you that I knew all the "real reasons" liberals support gay marriage? Do I have the authority to tell you that? No. Neither do you have the authority to propose a list of "real reasons" why conservatives oppose gay marriage.
2. Many of the criticisms it presents of the so-called "conservative arguements against gay marriage" can just as easily be used against the argument for gay marriage. Here's just one example: In the first paragraph it says, "Who says what marriage is and by whom it is to be defined? The married? The marriable?" Here's an answer: Congress or the majority of Americans. And both have spoken. What this line of argument by your site tries to do is strip power to define marriage from everyone except those who support gay marriage. It is a ludicrous line of reasoning. Change the end of it around, and it could just as easily sound like this: "Who says what marriage is and by whom it is to be defined? The homosexuals? The gay rights crowd?" That is the same exact set of reasoning as presented in the site. Either way, it is not sound logic, and is a dishonest attempt to place one group in authority over everyone else, just because they like that one group's views.
3. It makes ridiculous, unintelligent comparisons, like if conservatives really were concerned about gay marriage they should want to deny the right to marry to criminals. That does not even deserve a response--any rational person can see the absurdity in that line of reasoning.
4. They, much like you in your last comment, are opperating under a faulty understanding of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
5. Rather than arguing from the position that marriage should be a right for all people, they argue from the position that marriage already is a right. They have assumed the truth of their own argument, then used that "truth" to prove that their argument is true. This is called "circular reasoning", and is not accepted as any form of logical argumentation.
6. They use arguments that, when applied to gay marriage, would actually work against it. For example, in talking about the "slippery slope" argument they say that countries that already have gay marriage they have not seen any movement down that slope, "nor has there been a clamor for it". This implies that if there is group arguing for something, it is legitimized, and if there is no one arguing for it, then it is something okay to ban. Apply that to gay marriage. For 4000 years of human history (including in countries/empires that accepted homosexuality) there was no clamor for gay marriage. The line of argument presented here implies that if no one wants something today, no one will ever want it in the future. Clearly untrue.
7. They name-call. I do not need to call you an immoral, perverted sodomist to argue against you. Why do they call everyone opposed to gay marriage "hatemongers"? I would argue they have to name-call because the force of their arguments is so weak.
If you want to tell me why you think there should be gay marriage, please tell me. But please do not just paste in some random site's poorly written and poorly reasoned ideas and pass them off as your own. This site is designed for better discussion than that.
Post a Comment