Conservative and Liberal Views on religion.
 

Tecoyah's thread got me thinking into what makes someone religious and how they precieve themselves.

I think most peoples knee jerk reaction is to think conservatives are more religious than liberals. This is somewhat stressed in the press (recall them erroneously blaming Bush's win in 2004 on 'moral' issues) and fits with the pro-life pro-choice debate as its often Church groups who are speaking out on the pro-life side.

Now perhaps this generalization is wrong. I'm not sure its all wrong, and my feeling would be a nation wide poll would give conservatives an edge on 'religiousness' but it would be far less than some one both sides would think.

I have come to think that the difference though, is perhaps more fundamental. Its not so much a question of asking 'are you religious' but how many on each 'side' view religion as a whole.

I think to the conservative mind, religion is a tradition. It links you to your past, your family, your future, and this tradition is one thing in life which does not change. Your family may have been French farmers, who moved to America, and then opened a restaurant that later became a world wide change, but all of those links in the chain were Catholic (or insert whatever religion fits). They went to church, they sang their songs, they all end up in the same place as equals. There may well be rules in your religion you don't care for, but they are part of this tradition and are to remain unchanged. When any aspect changes it must be done at the HIGHEST levels only, and only with much thought and perhaps divine wisdom.

To the liberal mind, religion is what you make it to be. Perhaps you think 80% of it is good, but you also think abortion is ok or other issues, and you won't let it bother you that the concept is contrary to your religion. You think religion should 'fit the times' and as long as you can make an argument for something, its ok to change it. Each person can have their own personal religion, with their own interpretations of what is taught, and their own outlook. There is no higher authority then ones own personal feelings/ethics of whatever matter is at hand.

When I was thinking of this I thought of some of the Jewish men I know, and fiddler on the roof. In fiddler on the roof when a daughter wanted to marry for love it was ok, but when another wanted to marry a non-Jew her father finally decided that tradition was more important. (Its been a LONG time since I've read it so my interpretation may be wrong). Of the Jewish men I know, those where are politically conservative all were concerned about marrying another Jew, how their families would react, etc. Of those that were politically liberal, almost all of their children married non-Jews and that was fine with them.

I'm not sure if, when it comes to religion, if either approach is right or good. Being inflexible means anything bad stays bad. Being flexible means whats good may go bad, and you have no unifying thoughts, each man is his own island.

I'd be interested in others thoughts on this.

What you have described it the difference between Liberals and Conservatives. You could argue they take the same approach (tradition vs. flexibility) to nearly any subject.

Some of the least flexible people I know are liberals and conservatives. :p

I think there is also a growing variance in what people consider conservative and liberal. Forgetting what those folks in the congress and administration like to claim, environmentalism is a big issue right now for two surprising groups: non-religious conservatives and religious liberals. Isn’t that strange? Religious conservatives still look askance at environmentalism and in some cases claim it’s an evil movement, despite strict instruction on ecology in the bible. Non-religious conservatives are joining the cause.

As a mainstream religious (UMC) left of center (not quite liberal) person, I’ve found that my fellow church goers are mostly left of center and especially liberal on social policies. As for the 80% rule, or the “religion to fit the times” theory, I don’t think that quite fits me. I think my religion is what it is, and it’s up to me to follow it. That being said, the big buzzword among mainstream religions is ecumenical – promoting unity. I believe in it wholeheartedly, much more than the previous buzzword, evangelical. I think the biggest difference between what I believe religion is and what the religiouis right seem to think religion is, is that I see it as something to make me better, peaceful, helpful, and understanding. The religious right seem to see it more as an organizing force and a lifestyle that should be preached to the world.

I don't think so. Some of the most dogmatic people I know are liberal, there is nothing about being liberal which means you are flexible in your thinking as a whole. This is just how religion (and conflicts between religious teaching and self desires) is viewed by those that have different political mind sets.

Perhaps I am having trouble with the definition of liberal.

Oh, brother...are you tellin' me... :rolleyes:

Ustwo, I think this is quite insightful. This is certainly the sort of religious, conservative household I grew up in. However, I think there is change in the air - it is reflected in my own family dynamics and in our national discourse.

I think we've seen a real popularization of evangelical, dogmatic religious practices. This is true of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. These movements have been on a constant upswing for about 150 years, but I believe that there has been a dramatic surge in the popularity of fundamentalist practice in the last 15 years. This is combined with a more savvy political apparatus and other methods of information coordination. As a result, I think young people like myself identify religious conservatism with the fundamentalist movement that seeks to impress itself on others rather than the more introverted "religion as tradition" that you mention. Frankly, this worries me a bit, as I wonder what the future for secular conservatism will be.

Of course you are - we all are. Conservative and liberal have become two of the most useless labels in our lexicon. It's amazing how much we throw those words around without considering that they mean completely different things to different people.

Isn't this though....in a nutshell, what we see in virtually all religion, as it plays out in the mind? it almost seems inherent in the nature of any religion that each individual understands it differently, and defines the scripture/Holy text, as it makes sense to them.

Let me give you an example. When I was a wee lad my mother, who was not a religious person but came from a family that was and felt guilty about it, tried to teach me the concept of the infallibility of the Pope. By Catholic tradition, it goes God->Pope->You. She used an awful example, but what she said was that if the Pope said the sky was green, it would therefore be green. Obviously I disagreed with that, wouldn't give in, and she gave up after some argument. Now even though the Pope is a man, the concept is really that its not for you to decide what is right or wrong but God. If God says it, it doesn't matter what you think or feel, it just is.

Now I'm sure this term will piss some people off, but its the best for the fit here. There is an arrogance in the liberal mind set of 'I know best' and its that arrogance which lets one 'change' their religion to fit their desires. Sure the Pope, the Cardinal, and the Priest all say abortion is murder but I know best, I know what God really wants, Its the way I feel that matters! The concept of being humble before god and gods law does not compute.

Now in my case I couldn't buy the conservative view, and I couldn't see what I see as the liberal view as making any sense either, so I dumped the baby out with the bathwater and gave up on religion all together.

Nice point about papal infallibility - BUT....

Are not most of the US Conservative/Christian/Right not from non-conformist/protestant churches? (By which I mean Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Baptists, Methodists, etc).

Surely the very defining principle of all churches except Catholics (and maybe Gnostics and Eastern Orthodox churches that hark back to a pre-Roman form of Christianity) is that it is based on the principle that a man CAN decide to "change" their religion?

What I feel, based on seeing the issue from across the Atlantic is that what you have in the US is the rise not especially of "Religion", but "Religiosity".

What I find interesting is that in the world I grew up in, Christians were equated with socialists.

Think about it - sharing property, supporting the poor and the weak, non-violence, the brotherhood of man.

Odd really.

Some of us view religion (within their life) as something that exists regardless of our opinions about ourselves. Meaning that it's just there.

I was an atheist for 20 years until I found myself praying to a God and realized that I do it all the time. I guess I wasn't really an atheist.

Now what I do find in a difference between Conservatives and Liberals is that no matter what their set of beliefs. That each holds a different viewpoint on how those beliefs are to be related to the rest of the world.

Conservatives want to force others to hold their same beliefs. Thus, if a conservative is a Christian -then he will go about insisting that his country is a Christian country and try to sway ALL laws to make harder for non-christians to live among Christians. If a Conservative is one of the religious minorities -then you'll find him completely lock step with his Christian Conservative buddies -but rather quiet when it comes to this particular issue.

Liberals want some middle ground where people of all religions can "get along". They can be rather unrealistic in their approach to this middle ground. Many religions actually require religious intolerance and the Liberal perspective seems rather ignorant of this fact.

I think Ustwo hit upon the crux of the distinction here. To the conservative, the liberal's statement that "I know what God really wants" is absurd, since the liberal doesn't know God.....any more than the conservative does (though they will often ignore that last part). To the liberal, the conservative's statements are all hogwash since "I know what God really wants".

I think this kind of separation is rampant in our society. However, rather than ditching the whole thing like Ustwo did, I try to take it somewhere in the middle - a religious "moderate", since we're using terms from the political realm. Hence, while I take the conservative stance that there are absolutions that cannot be ignored, I also take the liberal stance in that no one else has the right to tell me to make up my mind one way or another, or even to make up my mind at all.

I believe that anything more than this is dangerous, and I offer the myriad of religiously charged conflicts going on in our world as proof of this.

interesting premise for a thread, ustwo.
i am not sure that i see the split you are arguing for, primarily because i am not sure of the sequence you presuppose (type of religious affiliation->political views; political views->type of religious affiliation). trying to think about the op in these terms gets really fuzzed out really quickly--too may unspoken variables, and an unclear set of questions to guide thinking.

perhaps the question is more about how a given political ideology reframes one's conceptions of religion. if this more what you are asking, then i can at least see the opposition.

in general, i think the schema in the op to be far too simple.
for example: augustine wrote somewhere (i think in the confessions, but i could be wrong) that the beauty of christianity as he saw it was in its complexity, its multiple layers, which enabled believers to find different churches for themselves through the process of fashioning different types and degrees of engagement. some folk might be more inclined toward theology, others toward a more immediate kind of experience, etc.
i think this is still accurate.
i guess that would make augustine a liberal, going by the grid from the op. this makes no sense, really, in historical terms.

thinking about it more, tho: maybe another way to think about this question:
the population that is most consistently mobilized by the right these days is fundamentalist protestant--while there would be considerable variation amongst particular groups about belief (e.g. charismatic or not, etc.), what these denominations have in common is a belief in the "literal interpretation of the bible"
maybe this is a place to start: the literal interpretation school holds that the kind james version of the bible is the inspired word of god.
its meaning, then, would be immanent--that is present directly in the text, requiring no significant adjustment or interpretation.
if you wanted to correlate this to a political position, it seems to me that what would link the two is a fear of distance or a fear of representation (this is obviously not a neutral description, but i am short of time so i'll leave it)
order is present in the text, as it is in the world: this order is divinely inspired and so is immutable.
one does not make meanings, one finds them--they have always been there.
this position maps directly on to conservative politics in general in its assumption that the existing order is a variant of a natural order (a variant in that it is made by fallen human being)---in cases where these folk (generic term) woudl find themselves in political opposition, this logic would be reversed: the existing order has fallen away and needs to be restored it a prior, more divinely sanctioned arrangement.
this would link to a particular conception of tradition--i think ustwo outlines some important features of it above--but i would add that the function of tradition in this context is twofold: it keeps history from moving around too much, and functions as a source for accumulated huamn insight into the divinely inspired order of the world.

other positions to the "left" would see meanings as more human creations, embedded in arguments about the nature of the world. the relation of texts like the bble to the world would be much more variable--some folk might see biblical texts are normative rather than descriptive--others might see the relation as more distant and/or complex still.

argh..i have to go: i'll leave this half finished for the moment and maybe get back to it later.

After reading these reponses, I think the premise is becoming somewhat muddied. Neither conservatives or liberals can honestly claim to know what God wants or how a modern situation would be interpreted by God. If you want to talk about what Americans consider a religious people - dress up on Sunday, go to Church, have an early dinner - then that would likley skew heavily conservative. I think the real consideration ought to be that people at both ends of the spectrum likley have equal amounts of faith, but use that faith in different ways.

For instance, I believe in the Holy trinity, but I don't believe my church membership grants me a ticket to heaven. I am a member because it helps me understand my faith and celebrate it in a contemplative setting. I don't see it as a superior faith, something I need to push on people. Everything I've learned in church (and at my Methodist affiliated university) leads me to believe that faith is more important than which religion you follow. I don't think my personal politics relieves me from tenets set forth by my particular faith, but I don't think I get to enforce those tenets on my neighbor through legislation.

I can't say I know exactly what religious conservatives get from church, but I would suspect it's the same thing high schools get from pep rallies where they burn the opposing team's mascot in effigy. I could be wrong. They may hear sermons and wonder how they can help starving homeless folks.

I believe political affiliation and religious preference are mutually exclusive ideals, so I fail to see the premise of the OP.

If there are non-religious and religious Liberals, and non-religious and religious Conservatives, how is there any link (correlative or causative) between religious or political views? In order for the idea that "conservatives view religion as a tradition, whereas liberals do not" to be valid, you have to accept that link. I would think any relation you could draw between the two groups would be based on how YOU interpret religion, not how others do.

Futhermore, as many have said and will likely continue to say, I find the labels conservative and liberal to be absolutely worthless beyond their dictionay meaning; that of "resistant to change" and "seeking to change current conditions." Unless there's some sort of Pact that clearly aligns conservatives with believing in X, and liberals believing in Y, there is so much cross-blending and mixed beliefs in both sides to make the label irrelevant. The only task it makes easier is objectifying and stereotyping -- such as "liberals don't believe in religion as a tradition." You cannot make that assumption without stereotyping, because they are NOT a unified group.

I prefer to change the current condition, because I seek social progress rather than social equilibrium. That makes me liberal, but it tells you nothing about my feelings on abortion, religion, or any other facet of politics for that matter.

I really don't mean to say "this argument has no premise" rather than addressing your positions, but I can't even see the premise being valid.

You'd be correct in saying that Conservatives would be more likely to value traditional religion (since they prefer not to change) and Liberals are more likely to value dynamic religion (since they value the ability to change) -- but isn't that inherent in the definitions of the two terms?

My take on the subject is that conservatives venerate the past, and hold their ancestors up in the highest regards (Jesus, Lincoln, Newton etc.) while the liberals are those who discard the old ideas in order to create their own new ones (Jesus, Lincoln, Newton etc.) so while one group stagnate in the wisdom of their forefathers, the other group tries to emulate the dynamic spirit of those same forefathers, and are unafraid of making some of the same mistakes that their ancestors may have done on their way to success.

I think it's ironic that most of the heroes of conservative thought (whether it's religious, or political) were normally the most progressive and liberal people in their own time.

in contemporary discussion, the difference between conservatives and liberals lies in their conceptions of truth.

conservatives generally consider truth to be an external constant... existing apart from a specific time/event/circumstance. given this assumption, it is reasonable to look to the past - the truth our ancestors wrestled to uncover must surely be the same that we deal with today.

liberals tend to view truth a more relative to the time and place of their circumstance. the ways of the past have less value because, in the liberal view, it has little relevance to the issues of the day. truth is embodied in the individual's perception rather than a universal constant.

i think nezmot, in the above post, has missed the mark. the examples given (jesus, lincoln, and newton) are certainly instances in which someone has smashed orthodoxy... but has done so from a markedly conservative approach.

- jesus himself said that he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17-18). his explicit message was one of restoral, not change. his restoral/fulfillment of mosaic law did shake-up the status quo, but it was done in recognition of the law's supremacy over the corrupted sensibilities of the current authority.
- lincoln's words are heavily salted with appeals to a certain innate dignity of all mankind. his arguments against slavery were rooted in its affront to a morality not subject to a specific time and place. it wasn't change made because slavery had become wrong, it was that slavery was always wrong in all history.
- newton's discoveries were of a scientific rather than a philosophical nature... but again, his ideas were of constants that existed outside of individual conception.

I don't think there is an association, but an association is nevertheless generally percieved. I think the reason for the perception is that the Republican party derives some of its support from a very vocal but small group of ultr-right wing Christian fundamentalists. People tend to equate repbulican with conservative, and democrat with liberal, so by proxy those with strong religious affiliations would be assumed to be conservative.

But it is an interesting thread.