NationStates Jolt Archive

I know, I know, someone's probably posted this before, but I'm just curious: it seems that the ideology of conservatism falls apart without a religious base or a belief in good and evil (for now, they're equivalent): for example, the objections to abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, gun control, the death penalty, etc. However, I'm just wondering if there are any non-religious conservatives, and how they justify their arguments. Likewise, how do religious liberals justify their arguments? Discuss.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

How about non-religious neither? I don't fit the bill of a liberal or a conservative.

35 or so percent of atheists voted Bush in '04... some of my non-believing colleagues get upset when I mention that, primarily because they seem to believe a liberal surge will occur once we all abandon religious faith. ;)

I'm a religious liberal (in the american sense).

Seems to me like you dont need religion to justify any argument on either side (although some arguments do become a bit more shaky without it).

How about non-religious neither? I don't fit the bill of a liberal or a conservative.Then why are you here? This is just for liberals and conservatives, not centrists. (By 'liberals' and 'conservatives' I mean both authoritarian and libertarian liberals or conservatives.)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Then why are you here? This is just for liberals and conservatives, not centrists. (By 'liberals' and 'conservatives' I mean both authoritarian and libertarian liberals or conservatives.)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe
Awww...:( But what about the religious ideology of the "centrists"? Wouldn't it be neat to see if all the people who are political "rebels" (rejecting established parties) are also the people who "rebel" against organized religion?

No?

Really?

Oh.

Well, then I shall go slink back under my libertarian agnostic rock, and take up my plotting for world domination instead...

Awww...:( But what about the religious ideology of the "centrists"? Wouldn't it be neat to see if all the people who are political "rebels" (rejecting established parties) are also the people who "rebel" against organized religion?
Well, that's a topic for another thread. I'm just looking for members of the two political parties (the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, or their American equivalents the ...er.... nonexistent party and the Democratic/Republican Party?)


~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

I know, I know, someone's probably posted this before, but I'm just curious: it seems that the ideology of conservatism falls apart without a religious base or a belief in good and evil (for now, they're equivalent): for example, the objections to abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, gun control, the death penalty, etc. However, I'm just wondering if there are any non-religious conservatives, and how they justify their arguments. Likewise, how do religious liberals justify their arguments? Discuss.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe
Religous liberals isn't all that strange. A part of the religious message is about acceptance, brotherhood and peace. It just has to be stretched outside the barriers of white, heterosexual, middle class southerners.
I guess hinduism would be rather religious liberal with all the non-violence love everybody concept.

But sometimes it seems as if religous groups have branded the concept of good and evil. If you raise that question in normal life people directly take you for a sunday school teacher, but then on the other hand most of us non-religous are to busy shopping.

Figure a politician/journalist publicly asking the question: "is it good or evil to let the people in Darfur hunger to death?" Might stir the debate.

As for non-religous conservatives:
Conservatism is all about concentrating resurces to a few, but you just can't win elections on that as the few are never the majority. So you need a few more votes and then you throw in the "high-morality" issues which will attract a lot of nutcases. So if you carefully calculate the number of few you need to bribe with resources and the number of nutcases in the country you just might reach 51% while maximising your profit.

Maybe it is because people are geting better and better at calculating that we are getting more and more 50-something to 40-something votes.

This poll is absolutely broken. Gun control, death penalty, abortion, etc. nuke the unborn gay baby whales for Jesus, are absolutely irrelevant points, oddities of USA. These issues have been settled in just about all other nations. In these ideas, I absolutely disagree with the Republicans.

"Liberalism" in USA is really green, authoritarian socialism, and that cannot be supported by a rather liberal right-winger. I doubt that there is liberalism in the USA at all.

The "right wing" or "conservative" in USA is some kind of mild fascist, which, again, is against a liberal right-wingers political standing. By "fascist", I refer to militarism, backwards-looking social conservatism, impudent use of religion and patriotism in justifying policy for the people, authoritarianism, an elaborate system of corruption between large corporations and the government, a hate of free science but military research promoted, etc. I would never vote for Bush, /because/ I'm a right-winger.

The valuable "do it yourself" spirit is integral to the right-wing ideology, and neither choice really supports it.

So, I'm a non-religious liberal, but without the socialist bullshit, or a non-religious conservative, but without the "patriarchist" bullshit, pick your choice.

I know, I know, someone's probably posted this before, but I'm just curious: it seems that the ideology of conservatism falls apart without a religious base or a belief in good and evil (for now, they're equivalent): for example, the objections to abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, gun control, the death penalty, etc. However, I'm just wondering if there are any non-religious conservatives, and how they justify their arguments. Likewise, how do religious liberals justify their arguments? Discuss.
I am a non-religious liberal, but I believe that there are good things and evil things. Contrary to popular belief, many liberals are not moral relativists.

I guess hinduism would be rather religious liberal with all the non-violence love everybody concept.
That's Buddhism you're thinking of. Hinduism is traditionally very racist and classist.

35 or so percent of atheists voted Bush in '04... some of my non-believing colleagues get upset when I mention that, primarily because they seem to believe a liberal surge will occur once we all abandon religious faith.
If these are the kind of wierdos you hang around with, I now understand why you have misconceptions about liberals!

Then why are you here? This is just for liberals and conservatives, not centrists. (By 'liberals' and 'conservatives' I mean both authoritarian and libertarian liberals or conservatives.)
Aren't "authoritarian liberal" and "libertarian conservative" oxymorons?

I'm neither a liberal nor a conversative, I'm a bit of both - which is different to being a centrist. So my category would be a "religious libcon" or something like it.

Let me explain. I'm a Roman Catholic, and some beliefs in Christianity are inherently "liberal" (forgiveness of sinners, sharing of wealth etc), and some, especially in Catholicism, are inherently conservative (abortion and suchlike) … so you could say I'm an economic liberal and a moral conservative - NOT in the American way, though!

That's Buddhism you're thinking of. Hinduism is traditionally very racist and classist.


True but I was thinking of the ahimsa and Gandhi. Guess most religions have many faces, some liberal some conservative.

Aren't "authoritarian liberal" and "libertarian conservative" oxymorons?No, they're not. For example, an "authoritarian liberal" would believe in allowing people to do whatever they want, except get richer than anyone else or challenge the governmet. "Libertarian conservatives" believe in allowing people to do whatever they want, provided they follow certain morals, etc. etc. "Libertarian liberals", similar to Classic Liberals, basically allow for maximum freedom; "Authoritarian conservatives", for minimum freedom.

"Liberalism" in USA is really green, authoritarian socialism, and that cannot be supported by a rather liberal right-winger. I doubt that there is liberalism in the USA at all.
There isn't. The Democratic Party is moderate capitalist authoritarian, and quite conservative according to most standards. "Liberalism" in its true form is practiced by no major party but lots of people (me for instance).

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

I'm neither a liberal nor a conversative, I'm a bit of both - which is different to being a centrist. So my category would be a "religious libcon" or something like it.

Let me explain. I'm a Roman Catholic, and some beliefs in Christianity are inherently "liberal" (forgiveness of sinners, sharing of wealth etc), and some, especially in Catholicism, are inherently conservative (abortion and suchlike) … so you could say I'm an economic liberal and a moral conservative - NOT in the American way, though!I understand perfectly. According to the political compass (http://www.moral-politics.com/), that puts you as a social authoritarian, economic liberal; or, an authoritarian. (Of course, you could take the test for a more precise match.)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

I know, I know, someone's probably posted this before, but I'm just curious: it seems that the ideology of conservatism falls apart without a religious base or a belief in good and evil (for now, they're equivalent): for example, the objections to abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, gun control, the death penalty, etc. However, I'm just wondering if there are any non-religious conservatives, and how they justify their arguments.

Okay, I'm a non-religious conservative, assuming agnosticism counts.

Objection to Abortion: I object to anything after the second trimester, because at that point the baby meets the requirements for being alive, and therefore you are technically killing it, and killing a human (unless in self-defense( is murder in most states. I don't mind abortions in the first two trimesters because the baby is not technically alive or a baby, and therefore you're not technically killing it.

Objection to Gay Marriage: Basically, marriage is just a word, and I don't see a point in changing the definition of a word that old just because an infinitesimal minority got uppity about it. I am in full support of allowing for civil unions, or some other word to describe it, with exactly the same rights and benefits. If Gay Marriage were legalized I really wouldn't care all that much, I just think it would be better for the country and better for the English language if they adopted a new name for gay marriage, seeing as it's a new thing.

Euthanasia: I support it, given the person being euthanized approved it as opposed to a family member of the person being euthanized.

Gun Control: I wasn't aware there was a religious argument against this at all. I think the generic argument is the Constitution, but I could be wrong. That said, I support the requirement that all guns be registered, but that's it. Definately not banning guns - yes, I know that's not what you meant by gun control. The way I figure, if guns were outlawed, only outlaws would own guns, and if they have them, I want them, too.

Death Penalty: 1.) This serves as a deterrent to crime, and 2.) it makes me feel better. 1.) Don't even post a link to a chart of murder in death penalty states versus non death penalty states, those charts are complete and utter bullshit. There are many things that factor into the number of killings in various cities and states other than whether the Death Penalty is used there:
gang prevalence, population density, police strength, community type, et cetera, et cetera. Not to mention the fact that many murderers wouldn't even be able to tell you if their state had abolished the death penalty or not. 2.) Look the fuck up Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Gary Ridgway, Richard Ramirez... the list goes on and on. That's why the Death Penalty should be allowed in certain situations.

All anyone seems to care about here is social issues.

Personally, I voted Republican primarily because I support lower taxation.

No, they're not. For example, an "authoritarian liberal" would believe in allowing people to do whatever they want, except get richer than anyone else or challenge the governmet. "Libertarian conservatives" believe in allowing people to do whatever they want, provided they follow certain morals, etc. etc.
Ya got it backwards... "authoritarian" and "libertarian" refer to your support of social freedoms, whereas "liberal" and "conservative" refer to economic freedoms, assuming you're talking about political ratings in online tests. Switch your definitions and you got it.

so you could say I'm an economic liberal and a moral conservative - NOT in the American way, though!
Economic liberal = no regulation and no taxes

I understand perfectly. According to the political compass (http://www.moral-politics.com/), that puts you as a social authoritarian, economic liberal; or, an authoritarian. (Of course, you could take the test for a more precise match.)
Have you even read the political compass site? It puts him as a social authoritarian, economic leftist corner.

Economic liberalism = no regulation and no taxes

Ya got it backwards... "authoritarian" and "libertarian" refer to your support of social freedoms, whereas "liberal" and "conservative" refer to economic freedoms, assuming you're talking about political ratings in online tests. Switch your definitions and you got it.
Americans are so wrong. How are left-wing economics "liberal"? They impose regulations and taxes.

Economic liberal = no regulation and no taxes

Eh.. maybe where you're from..

All anyone seems to care about here is social issues.

Personally, I voted Republican primarily because I support lower taxation.I support lower taxation, and I vote Liberal. Mainly because the idea of liberalism includes an absence of government control, including taxation.

Oh, but I'm talking about Classic Liberalism here...

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

I understand perfectly. According to the political compass (http://www.moral-politics.com/), that puts you as a social authoritarian, economic liberal; or, an authoritarian. (Of course, you could take the test for a more precise match.)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe I took it a while ago. I'm about halfway to the left economically, maybe a bit less, and centrist when it comes to authority.

One of the really odd things about the word "liberal" is that often it actually means tighter controls on trade and industry. In many ways, modern conservatism is more "liberal" or more accurately "libertarian" than Liberalism. Historically (in Britain at least) the Liberal Party were more pro-free-trade.

Eh.. maybe where you're from..
That is, everywhere except America.

Regulations and taxes are authoritarian. Do you understand the meaning of the term liberal? It means letting people do what they want. Taxing and regulating them to death is the antithesis of that.

The meaning of "liberal" never changed. In the US, the word was simply hijacked by democratic socialists.

All anyone seems to care about here is social issues.

Personally, I voted Republican primarily because I support lower taxation.

I pretty much supported Bush because Kerry was so much worse, in my eyes. I support the War in Iraq, and like the $850 Bush gave my poor ass from the tax cuts, and agree that the rich are taxed way too highly as punishment for being rich; Kerry would have handled the first like shit and dropped the last, so fuck him. Kerry also supports partial birth abortion, which is pretty big for me, so fuck him in that respect, too. Kerry was also in support of a bunch of bills that hit the Senate floor trying to massively cut defense spending, and favored the CIA funding cuts in the 90's, which was moronic.

Americans are so wrong. How are left-wing economics "liberal"? They impose regulations and taxes.

They aren't - that's just how the politics tests rate it. Right-wing economics are liberal. Take the OkCupid test, that rates you more accurately, because even though being pro business makes you an economic conservative, it also gives the percentage of how permissive you are beneath it. Economic conservatives are more permissive, and thus more liberal economically.

That is, everywhere except America.

Regulations and taxes are authoritarian. Do you understand the meaning of the term liberal? It means letting people do what they want. Taxing and regulating them to death is the antithesis of that.

The meaning of "liberal" never changed. In the US, the word was simply hijacked by democratic socialists.

That's fine, if you want to use a 300-year old Adam Smith type definition. The economic Left in this century is quite the opposite, not merely in America. I guess I can use "leftist" rather than "liberal."

Ya got it backwards... "authoritarian" and "libertarian" refer to your support of social freedoms, whereas "liberal" and "conservative" refer to economic freedoms, assuming you're talking about political ratings in online tests. Switch your definitions and you got it.Okay, whatever.

As a side note, I'm a social libertarian, economic conservative, aka a socialist. I'm actually surprised.

Your Score
Your scored -4 on the Moral Order axis and 2 on the Moral Rules axis.

Matches
The following items best match your score:
System: Socialism
Variation: Moderate Socialism, Moral Socialism

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

They aren't - that's just how the politics tests rate it. Right-wing economics are liberal.
That's what I'm trying to say. I don't like the OKCupid test, because I don't like being told that I'm a Democrat. :rolleyes:

That's fine, if you want to use a 300-year old Adam Smith type definition. The economic Left in this century is quite the opposite, not merely in America. I guess I can use "leftist" rather than "liberal."
No, it's not an old definition. Do you think when that Chirac appeases the French people by raging against "ultra-liberalism", that he is attacking the Left?

I took it a while ago. I'm about halfway to the left economically, maybe a bit less, and centrist when it comes to authority.

One of the really odd things about the word "liberal" is that often it actually means tighter controls on trade and industry. In many ways, modern conservatism is more "liberal" or more accurately "libertarian" than Liberalism. Historically (in Britain at least) the Liberal Party were more pro-free-trade.Well, true. Modern conservatism is socially authoritarian, but economically and politically liberalism. However, classic conservatism = authoritarianism, and classic liberalism = libertarianism.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

No, it's not an old definition. Do you think when that Chirac appeases the French people by raging against "ultra-liberalism", that he is attacking the Left?

Probably more like the unions that hate him, and rejected the EU constitution.. But maybe the French use the old definition, it's possible.

I'm an anarchist and I would say I'm spiritual, but not really an adherent to any particular religion. My support of anarchism is based on ideas that can't really be backed by science and logic alone, though (the inherent worth of humanity, free will, etc.) and I think require some sort of faith to be believed in authentically.

I'm an anarchist and I would say I'm spiritual, but not really an adherent to any particular religion. My support of anarchism is based on ideas that can't really be backed by science and logic alone, though (the inherent worth of humanity, free will, etc.) and I think require some sort of faith to be believed in authentically.Hmmm...that puts you as a non-denominational religious liberal (classic definition).

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe