[metropolis4]

I'm not trying to start a fight here, but this is something I've honestly been wondering lately and I would love to hear your thoughts.

Why are conservatives - Christian conservatives in particular - so fiercely set against a government solution for things like health care and education, but constantly seeking government solutions to social issues such as abortion and gay marriage?

[OiBoyz]

I'm not sure that you're characterizing the conservative point of view correctly.

[Ethan.Bassist.]

Originally Posted by OiBoyz

I'm not sure that you're characterizing the conservative point of view correctly.

You're right, the conservative viewpoint is far more complex than abortion and gay marriage, but I think it boils down to how much role should the gov't play in our personal lives. And I've been wondering about this lately as well because I come from the side of the fence that says less gov't = good, more gov't = bad. Don't get me wrong, I think a gov't is very necessary to society, but I think it is necessary in small amounts, not as large as it is now, nor how large it seems to be getting. The gov't in my mind generally ruins things it gets its hands on. Hence why I'm against gov't run universal health care. But for some reason, I (like you said) want them to make laws against other issues (abortion, etc.)
So I don't know. Maybe its just that we want to choose which areas of our lives the gov't should meddle in based on what we believe? And for the church as a whole (generalizing a little here) gay marriage and abortion for one reason or another are HUGE issues to it, which is where I can see you classifying Christian Conservatives that way.
But my beef with the gov't doesn't stem from my Christian views. It stems from thinking that it screws crap up all the time and that in this case, less is more.
But on the other hand, I may be no help to you at all!

[Epaphras]

Originally Posted by metropolis4

Why are conservatives - Christian conservatives in particular - so fiercely set against a government solution for things like health care and education, but constantly seeking government solutions to social issues such as abortion and gay marriage?

I think, in general terms, political conservatives (regardless of religious preference) are for government protecting and preserving rights, not providing them.

In other words (according to conservatives), government exists to protect the right to life, including the unborn. It exists to preserve the sanctity of heterosexual marriage as the cornerstone of society. It does not exist to provide for every need of society, mostly because there are already highly-effective (and highly-efficient) mechanisms for the provision of human needs (namely, business as providers of employment and standard-of-living issues, and not-for-profits (including churches) for other human services).

Basically, the difference is that conservatives and libertarians see the government's role as preserver, while liberals take it one step further and make the government not only a preserver, but an advocate and an "advancer" of new rights and privileges.

[metropolis4]

I think, in general terms, political conservatives (regardless of religious preference) are for government protecting and preserving rights, not providing them

But isn't seeking a government solution to abortion and gay marriage seeking to take rights away and not preserve them? Or at least, couldn't it be seen that way?

What about protecting and preserving the rights of the pregnant teen, or the homosexual couple?

Sorry I just picked those two issues arbitrarily. I know they aren't the only two important issues, they were just examples that came readily to mind.

I'm not sure that you're characterizing the conservative point of view correctly.

When I'm talking about conservatives, I mean the traditional sense of the parties:

-Conservatives being for increased government control of social issues and decreased government control of economic issues.

-Liberals being for increased government control of economic issues and decreased government control of social issues.

-Libertarians being for decreased government control of both social and economic issues.

-Unitarians being for increased government control of both social and economic issues.

But on the other hand, I may be no help to you at all!

No, you are! Thanks for the input, I appreciate it. I wonder though, since you say you don't want the government controlling things in our lives, why seek an answer from the government for those social issues such as gay marriage? Can't those be handled in the private sector as well?

How would things be different if the church stepped up and really addressed social issues rather than relying on the government?
And by church, I don't mean organized religion, I mean God's people everywhere. Wouldn't it be more effective if we Christians started focusing on people; building relationships and lovingly begining to influencing social attitudes and morals on a person by person basis rather than seeking the government to do it for us by taking someone elses rights away? Wouldn't we have more impact on those people if we met them where they are and helped them through their struggles rather than indirectly trying to have their rights taken away from them?
With abortion for example, how many women now fear and hate the church and turn their backs on it forever because of what they've been shown when contemplating abortion? Even if we outlaw it and she is not able to have an abortion, what good is it to save the baby's life but lose the mothers soul in the process? How would things be different for that woman if Christians showed her love and compassion and came to her directly to help her through such a difficult time in her life? How would her view of the church change?

Sorry I started ranting and got off topic, I hope I'm not being too harsh or argumentative here. That's really not my intent, I have just been wondering about these things. I really appreciate your comments so far.

[OiBoyz]

Conservatism, and Christian faith aren't the same thing, no matter what Pat Robertson or James Dobson tells you.

And I've been wondering about this lately as well because I come from the side of the fence that says less gov't = good, more gov't = bad.

That's over generalizing. Which you know, Ethan, since you went on to clarify. If that was all there was to conservatism, we'd (and I am a conservative) all be anarchists.

I can't speak for all conservatives, of course, but for myself... I think government has a role. But it's a very specific role, and it doesn't include taking care of everyone's every little whim. (And yes, I'm aware that is a mischaracterization of the liberal point of view. Just using a little hyperbole for effect.)

Government exists to protect it's citizens (laws to prosecute crimes, wage war, etc.) And I suppose, in a modern world, to provide an infrastructure to build society on (building roads, dams, etc.)

I would say that we don't want the government involved in legislating our private lives. If I own my property, what business is it of yours, if I build a fence, or a shed on it? Why do I need a permit? For safety issues, ok. If I build a shed that is unsafe, that could spill over and effect my neighbor's property.

Liberals being for increased government control of economic issues and decreased government control of social issues.

I would argue with your second point. The left (which may or may not be the same as liberal) want to increase government control of social issues. Not only do they want abortion to be legal, but they want me to pay for it. And if I don't want to, they will - by force of law - take my taxes and pay for it anyway.

As far as Gay Marriage: they want me to approve and embrace it. And if I don't - by force of law - they will make laws to make it legal. And if I dare speak against it? In Canada, people are in jail for speaking against it. I never yet heard a conservative suggest enacting "hate crime" or "thought crime" laws. On the left? Happens all the time.

I have an issue with government being involved in marriage at all. So perhaps my leanings are a little more libertarian in this respect. Why does the government license marriage? To control it. That's why there are tax codes that favor the married. But why should they? If government got out of it all together, this would be a non-issue.

How would things be different if the church stepped up and really addressed social issues rather than relying on the government?
And by church, I don't mean organized religion, I mean God's people everywhere. Wouldn't it be more effective if we Christians started focusing on people; building relationships and lovingly begining to influencing social attitudes and morals on a person by person basis rather than seeking the government to do it for us by taking someone elses rights away?

I agree. And for centuries that's how it was done. But just try to do it now. With all the legalities involved, it's tough.

[metropolis4]

Originally Posted by OiBoyz

Conservatism, and Christian faith aren't the same thing, no matter what Pat Robertson or James Dobson tells you.

I know. I certainly hope I didn't give that impression, because I couldn't agree with you more. I'm a Christian who lives by faith and I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum politically. I think our political views and our faith are entirely separate things. Sure, one may influence the other, but they are still separate. if you ever have a chance to listen to the speech Obama gave about religion and government a few years ago I highly suggest it. It was an amazing speech and a really great view of this topic.

Originally Posted by OiBoyz

I would say that we don't want the government involved in legislating our private lives.

A Liberal would say the same thing.

In keeping with the limited examples I've been using, isn't outlawing gay marriage legislating the private lives of homosexuals? Isn't outlawing abortion legislating the private lives of women and families?

Originally Posted by OiBoyz

I would argue with your second point. The left (which may or may not be the same as liberal) want to increase government control of social issues.

I'm talking about the actual definitions of Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian and Unitarian. The Actual definition of being a Liberal is believing in more government control of economic issues and less government control of social issues. In other words, giving the government more control over our money and less control over how we live our lives.

Now, as to whether either political party really fits with the Liberal or Conservsative definition is an entirely different topic. I don't believe the Democrats have fit the definition of Liberal any more than the Republicans have fit the definition of Conservative.

Originally Posted by OiBoyz

I have an issue with government being involved in marriage at all. So perhaps my leanings are a little more libertarian in this respect. Why does the government license marriage? To control it. That's why there are tax codes that favor the married. But why should they? If government got out of it all together, this would be a non-issue.

I don't mean to go off on a tangent, but actually the reason the Government encourages marriage is because of social stability, not to control it. History and sociology have shown that there is a negative correlation between the number of single men and the stability of a society. An increase in the population of single men always shows an increase in crime and instability in the community.

I guess my question for you in this view is, if you have an issue with the government being involved in marriage at all, then why would you want them to control who can and can't be married?

Originally Posted by OiBoyz

I agree. And for centuries that's how it was done. But just try to do it now. With all the legalities involved, it's tough.

Last I checked there weren't any legalities involved in loving our neighbors, supporting each other and building relationships and community together

In fact, I did just try to do it now. i had a nice conversation with my neighbor and invited him over for coffee someday. I didn't run into any legal complications either

[OiBoyz]

Originally Posted by metropolis4

I guess my question for you in this view is, if you have an issue with the government being involved in marriage at all, then why would you want them to control who can and can't be married?

With all due respect, I don't think I stated my opinion on that question.

I have no problem answering the question as to what it is that I do think about the situation, but it's a busy day for me, so it will have to wait for me to be able to sit down and put my thoughts to pixels.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by metropolis4

Why are conservatives - Christian conservatives in particular - so fiercely set against a government solution for things like health care and education, but constantly seeking government solutions to social issues such as abortion and gay marriage?

Broadly speaking, conservatism supports tradition. There are many different branches of conservatism which may, at times, be at odds with each other. Cultural conservatives see abortion and gay marriage as a destabilizing influence on a culture they believe is worth preserving. Small government conservatives may see this as an unnecessary restriction on liberty and therefore undesirable. Then you have the so-called neoconservatives who want to preserve an a priori form of American exceptionalism--unilateralism, exemption from international law, etc.--and you can see the resultant interventionist policies both home and abroad (Patriot Act, Iraq War, etc.).

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by metropolis4

I'm not trying to start a fight here, but this is something I've honestly been wondering lately and I would love to hear your thoughts.

Why are conservatives - Christian conservatives in particular - so fiercely set against a government solution for things like health care and education, but constantly seeking government solutions to social issues such as abortion and gay marriage?

Epaphras pretty much hit the nail on the head.

I would only add that it is a biblical world view generally speaking that motivates Conservatives. You would be surprised to find that conservatives are actually for trying ot find a way to insure the uninsured (if they are that way way through no fault of their own).

Also in our unique American experience-- the federal government was supposed to be limited and restricted. It has grown so monstrous and unruly that more and more people are finally speaking out and wanting a return to less.

[metropolis4]

Originally Posted by OiBoyz

With all due respect, I don't think I stated my opinion on that question.

I have no problem answering the question as to what it is that I do think about the situation, but it's a busy day for me, so it will have to wait for me to be able to sit down and put my thoughts to pixels.

I hope you don't feel that I was trying to put words in your mouth, that wasn't my intent. In asking this question I was responding to your statement that you "have an issue with government being involved in marriage at all". I would very much like to hear your thoughts when you have time

Broadly speaking, conservatism supports tradition. There are many different branches of conservatism which may, at times, be at odds with each other. Cultural conservatives see abortion and gay marriage as a destabilizing influence on a culture they believe is worth preserving. Small government conservatives may see this as an unnecessary restriction on liberty and therefore undesirable. Then you have the so-called neoconservatives who want to preserve an a priori form of American exceptionalism--unilateralism, exemption from international law, etc.--and you can see the resultant interventionist policies both home and abroad (Patriot Act, Iraq War, etc.).

Thanks for that information. I must admit I am quite uninformed when it comes to the different branches and sects of the conservatives. Beyond social conservatives and fiscal conservatives I'm a bit clueless...

I would only add that it is a biblical world view generally speaking that motivates Conservatives.

But I don't really see how that pertains to my original question. I hold a biblical world view that motivates me in everything I do, yet I sit on the opposite end of the political spectrum as you. I also have a very different view of how these sort of issues should be addressed.

You would be surprised to find that conservatives are actually for trying ot find a way to insure the uninsured (if they are that way way through no fault of their own).

Why would I be surprised to find that? I certainly don't think conservatives are bad people, or that they don't care and don't want to help others. I think conservatives are great people who honestly want what they think is best for our country, and for their neighbors. I think the same of liberals. We don't necessarily disagree on agenda or focus, we only disagree on what the best way of achieving those ideals is.
I know conservatives are filled with compassion for their fellow man, just the same as liberals.

[metropolis4]

Just a quick note. I realized in my post up there, I meant to say Authoritarian, not Unitarian. Sorry if that caused any confusion

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Epaphras pretty much hit the nail on the head.

I would only add that it is a biblical world view generally speaking that motivates Conservatives. You would be surprised to find that conservatives are actually for trying ot find a way to insure the uninsured (if they are that way way through no fault of their own).

You never cease to amaze me. You do realize that conservatives support the deregulation of business. Allowing corporations to take greater advantage of consumers and the populace at large. You do realize that the conservatives want to restrict immigration keeping people from coming to a country where even the poorest of the poor are better off than the vast majority of third world countries. It is conservatives who generally stand against regulation and laws that would allow people to have a bi-lingual education and be able to live happier and healthier lives. There are many aspects of a conservative philosophy that are in direct opposition to a biblical worldview. This is also true of liberals, they do the same thing. No one side of the political spectrum has a worldview that is completely biblical.

Also in our unique American experience-- the federal government was supposed to be limited and restricted. It has grown so monstrous and unruly that more and more people are finally speaking out and wanting a return to less.

also in our unique American experience - slavery was supposed to be legal and women weren't supposed to be seen as equals. Our nation had a good foundation, but it certainly had major holes in it. Just because the founders intended it to be a certain way doesn't mean that it is right.

I honestly don't give a damn what the founders wanted or intended. They are irrelevant in every way. What we should be asking is how can we change our society for today and make it so that everybody is able to live their lives as they see fit and live long healthy lives. Government's job is to facilitate my liberty and step in where my expression of liberty hinders your liberty.

Originally Posted by Epaphras

I think, in general terms, political conservatives (regardless of religious preference) are for government protecting and preserving rights, not providing them.

but isn't the government providing health care to all protecting the right to life of those who can't afford it on their own?

Originally Posted by Oiboyz

Government exists to protect it's citizens (laws to prosecute crimes, wage war, etc.) And I suppose, in a modern world, to provide an infrastructure to build society on (building roads, dams, etc.)

but by making sure everybody has access to quality healthcare, they are keeping the workforce healthier and we are able to be more productive and create a better society.

I would argue with your second point. The left (which may or may not be the same as liberal) want to increase government control of social issues. Not only do they want abortion to be legal, but they want me to pay for it. And if I don't want to, they will - by force of law - take my taxes and pay for it anyway.

Allowing abortion to be legal is not greater control, in fact it is less control. Now if they were to require abortions, then yes, that would be more control. But nobody that has any relevance is actually recommending that.

As far as Gay Marriage: they want me to approve and embrace it. And if I don't - by force of law - they will make laws to make it legal. And if I dare speak against it? In Canada, people are in jail for speaking against it. I never yet heard a conservative suggest enacting "hate crime" or "thought crime" laws. On the left? Happens all the time.

The government has never asked you to approve or embrace gay marriage. I have never seen anybody from the left tell people they should condone it or embrace it or anything of the sorts. Asking you to allow it is not the same as asking you to approve it or embrace it. What the homosexual community is asking for is that you let them exercise their liberty so that they can marry who they want to marry and get the same benefits of marriage that the heterosexual communities receive. And this is not Canada. The US, more than any other country, values freedom of speech. In fact, our constitution is unique in that it is the listed among the first rights protected. Other democracies don't have near the regard for free speech and thought that the US has historically had and has been supported in court ruling after court ruling.

Which side of the political spectrum would allow me to live my life the way I want to the most? It is the left, or liberal side. Which side of the spectrum seeks to control people's lives the most? The right.

[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by Bryan

Which side of the political spectrum would allow me to live my life the way I want to the most? It is the left, or liberal side. Which side of the spectrum seeks to control people's lives the most? The right.

Logic and the current trend in this country tell me the opposite. Liberals see government as the solution to all issues facing its citizens. The way government does this is by creating laws and more laws. The end result is the power will become centralized in the hands of the politicians rather than the citizens. On the other hand, folks on the right want limited government intrusion in their lives. That should mean more freedom.

[OiBoyz]

I thought this topic was asking conservatives to answer the OP question. Not for non-conservatives to get up on their holier-than-thou soapboxes?

If that's where we're going, I choose not to participate. I can get that nonsense just by turning on my television or reading any newspaper.