Is Everything Black and White?

[cher1515]

Are all issues in conservative politics always black or white- but no gray areas for debate on a issue? Where do you draw the line?

[MrJim]

Most of us draw lines in different places~you might be surprised how gray the areas would be amongst us "conservatives" HA, one person's conservative is another's liberal;)

[JPPT1974]

When things get so heated
And out of line
That is where you have to draw the line!

[Rhamiel]

I used to see the world in blck and white, and in a sense it still is, there is good and evil, but a lot of issues are very complex and there is a lot of room for debate in politics.

[~free~]

I find that sometimes the more I learn, the more grey I find.

[edb19]

definitely depends on the issue

there are absolute truths and yes, those absolutes influence my politics at times

however there are a lot of issues I'm not as clear on or am willing to compromise on

and then, of course, there are things that I'd like to see but recognize that I probably never will - so am willing to leave those things on a back burner - but if I ever find a politician who supports those things - WOW

[BAFRIEND]

You only get into shades of gray when you ignore that what you are doing wrong is out of selfish personal pleasure or gain.

The answer is always there.

[Criada]

I am not sure about that.. some situations are harder to judge.
I know God always has a 'right' answer... but sometimes humans can make such a mess that it's very hard to sort out 'black and white'.


As to the conservative issue.... I am regularly called a liberal by conservatives, and a conservative by liberals.....

[AngelusSax]

There is tension (or grey, if you will), in the world, and even in the Bible itself (the same God who commands no killing also sanctions genocide in the Old Testament, let's just call what it is what it is).

There is also black. There is also white. Much of the grey may even be a product of the Fall. If you start out with white, add a little black, then it doesn't matter how much more white you put in, all you'll get is a different shade of grey.

[Izdaari]

Are all issues in conservative politics always black or white- but no gray areas for debate on a issue? Where do you draw the line?
Alrighty, this is clearly about conservative politics, not conservative theology. And that's cool, because a lot of us here (myself included) are politically on the Right (though in my case, Libertarian-Right). When we're talking politics, I'd say there's a lot more gray than in theology, because in politics we're dealing mostly with things of man, not of God, and we can't just refer to the Bible for all our solutions. One classic definition of politics is "the art of the possible", recognizing that getting anything done in politics involves persuasion and compromise.

I'm a neolibertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolibertarianism), and these are some guidelines I use:

When given a set of policy choices,
The choice that maximizes personal liberty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty) is the best choice.
The policy choice that offers the least amount of necessary government intervention or regulation is the best choice.
The policy choice that provides rational (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational), market-based (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market)incentives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incentive) is the best choice.In foreign policy, neolibertarianism would be characterized by,
A policy of diplomacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy) that promotes consensual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensual) government and human rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights) and opposes dictatorship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship).
A policy of using US military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military) force solely at the discretion of the US, but only in circumstances where American interests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_interest) are directly affected.(Credit to Dale Franks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Franks) for thinking those up).

[Nadiine]

I think there's gray in politics - however, anyone making a decision should be aware of their internal motive when making any decision.
The source of the principle will often be right or wrong imho. (ie. is it being done for greed? etc.)

I also think that in politics, we don't have as many options due to current circumstances/situations... you may only have 2 choices and not like either of them & have to go for the lesser of the 2 evils.

I was forced into that in Calif. elections for Governor. I had a pro choice candidate (Arnold) and a very conservative one (McKlintock) - only we all knew McClintoc wouldn't get the majority vote in Cal. becuz he's FAR too conservative even tho he was the best suited for the job.
I had to vote Arnold which went against my pro choice standard - becuz my vote would have been thrown away on McKlintock, and a worse democrat with a horrible record would of gotten elected (being such a democratic state).............
what could I do? So...... there's gray for sure. It bothers me, but I think that's the nature of dealing with human problems we get ourselves into.

[MrJim]

I think there's gray in politics - however, anyone making a decision should be aware of their internal motive when making any decision.
The source of the principle will often be right or wrong imho. (ie. is it being done for greed? etc.)

I also think that in politics, we don't have as many options due to current circumstances/situations... you may only have 2 choices and not like either of them & have to go for the lesser of the 2 evils.

I was forced into that in Calif. elections for Governor. I had a pro choice candidate (Arnold) and a very conservative one (McKlintock) - only we all knew McClintoc wouldn't get the majority vote in Cal. becuz he's FAR too conservative even tho he was the best suited for the job.
I had to vote Arnold which went against my pro choice standard - becuz my vote would have been thrown away on McKlintock, and a worse democrat with a horrible record would of gotten elected (being such a democratic state).............
what could I do? So...... there's gray for sure. It bothers me, but I think that's the nature of dealing with human problems we get ourselves into.

:eek: :eek: :eek:

[MrJim]

In considering compromise~does being an American citizen trump being a Kingdom citizen? Being presented with two poor choices, is God telling to choose the lesser of two evils, or is it Americanism?

[Nadiine]

In considering compromise~does being an American citizen trump being a Kingdom citizen? Being presented with two poor choices, is God telling to choose the lesser of two evils, or is it Americanism?
neither - it's called previous 'wrongs' set up further ones with no proper solution being offered in a/by a sinful world.

[Nadiine]

.

[MrJim]

neither - it's called previous 'wrongs' set up further ones with no proper solution being offered in a/by a sinful world.

How much of our expectations are upon proper solutions from a sinful world ;)

I guess some folks have "hope" that these politicians can fix things...seems to just get worse...

[Izdaari]

How much of our expectations are upon proper solutions from a sinful world ;)

I guess some folks have "hope" that these politicians can fix things...seems to just get worse...
It ain't gonna happen. The world isn't perfect and can't be perfect, not 'til Christ returns. But we do what we can to try to make it better, and those efforts are of some use.

As with Nadine's tough choice in CA, sometimes the best we can do is to choose the lesser evil. If I had been in CA, I too would've preferred McClintock in the primary... but I would also have pulled the lever for Schwarzenegger, knowing that he could win, but McClintock couldn't.

We're going to have a similar choice this November: McCain (a centrist Republican) or either of two very liberal Democrats. I'm sure McCain isn't the first choice for most conservatives, but he's going to be a lot better than the alternative.

I live in WA, which may or may not be in play this year. Since the Electoral College is winner-take-all-by-state, if WA is a foregone conclusion, I may just vote Libertarian Party, as I've done in many previous elections -- but I'll only do that if I'm sure it won't affect the result.

I keep my ideals firmly in mind, but I choose a way to implement them that has a strong chance of success. That was Ronald Reagan's strategy, and I think he's a pretty good role model. (I'm not saying he was the perfect conservative, but he was an extraordinarily effective one.)

[Nadiine]

:eek: :eek: :eek:
You have to realize too, that in voting in that election, there are things to consider:

abortion is NOT going to be up for any change in Calif. by a liberal state!
A governor isn't going to change abortion laws for this state - or bother seeking to.

Abortion was basically a non issue in the Gov. election.
AND, the democrate who stood to win if the Repub. didn't was also pro abortion...

It wouldn't of mattered. I don't just casually vote for someone who's pro choice - I had that choice or not to vote at all which I refuse to do.

Lots is involved w/ strategy on different elections.

Lastly, I didn't know what I was doing was something Reagan used.:idea: :doh: KOOL lol
:thumbsup:

[Nadiine]

Izdarri... I'm concerned that we seem to find more agreement recently.
I'm wondering if I'm getting too liberal or if you're swinging a little bit more towards fundamental conservatism.
http://bestsmileys.com/thinking/5.gif

hahhaa :P :cool:

^_^

[Anglian]

To Caesar we render those things which are his; to God those which are His. Being sinful human beings we can't always get this distinction correct.

Would a Christian theocratic state really suit us? The Roman Empire post-Constantine? The later Eastern Roman Empire? The Papal States? The Romanov Empire? Perhaps all these examples show is that Christianity has been tried and proved to be too hard for the Princes of this world. How difficult the first have found it to be last; how hard to be the servant of the servants of God.

But for us, in the West, to be Christians in societies where the values we once took for granted as underpinning those societies now seem under threat from aggressive secular relativism (which is relative about everything that is not liberal), nostalgia for a past golden age can blind us to the shortcomings of Christian states in the past.

As so often, Izdaari (from whom I learn so much) seems to express a position where Christians can find a meeting place.

He is Risen Indeed!

Anglian
(today is Orthodox Pascha)

[Izdaari]

Izdarri... I'm concerned that we seem to find more agreement recently.
I'm wondering if I'm getting too liberal or if you're swinging a little bit more towards fundamental conservatism.
http://bestsmileys.com/thinking/5.gif

hahhaa :P :cool:

^_^
I don't think I've changed that much, so maybe it's you? :P

Politically, I've always been hard Right, though in a libertarian way.

Theologically... well, that's more complex. I have both fundamentalist and liberal tendencies, though balanced more toward the conservative side.

I believe in the Five Fundamentals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity#Doctrine) (though I would apply the first one only to the original manuscripts, and then interpret it loosely):
Inerrancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy) of the Scriptures
The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14)
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement by God's grace and through human faith (Hebrews 9)
The bodily resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 28)
The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his pre-millennial second coming)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity#cite_note-4)I'm 100% Nicene and a thorough supernaturalist. I believe angels and demons are literal beings, that the Pentecostal gifts are real and that miracles still happen often today. But OTOH:
I'm very pro-"emerging church" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_church).
I think God created by means of the Big Bang and evolution. Or maybe some form of OEC, I don't know. The only things I rule out are YEC and a-theistic evolution.
I'm very socially tolerant.
I'm not so sure about the eternal fate of non-believers. I leave that to God.
I'm eclectic about drawing from other faith traditions, primarily Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but also to some extent from Zen and Taoism.
I have no idea whose eschatology is correct. I say I'm a pan-millennialist... that is, trust in the Lord and it will all pan out. ^_^So I think there's still plenty of room for you and I to disagree. But however much we agree or disagree, you're still my adelphos and I still like you. :D

:hug:

[Izdaari]

As so often, Izdaari (from whom I learn so much) seems to express a position where Christians can find a meeting place.

He is Risen Indeed!

Anglian
(today is Orthodox Pascha)
Thank you, Anglian! What a sweet compliment!

It's mutual -- I learn much from you as well.

Happy Pascha! :clap:

:hug:

[Nadiine]

I don't think I've changed that much, so maybe it's you? :P

Politically, I've always been hard Right, though in a libertarian way.

Theologically... well, that's more complex. I have both fundamentalist and liberal tendencies, though balanced more toward the conservative side.

I believe in the Five Fundamentals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity#Doctrine) (though I would apply the first one only to the original manuscripts, and then interpret it loosely):

Inerrancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy) of the Scriptures
The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14)
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement by God's grace and through human faith (Hebrews 9)
The bodily resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 28)
The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his pre-millennial second coming)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity#cite_note-4)I'm 100% Nicene and a thorough supernaturalist. I believe angels and demons are literal beings, that the Pentecostal gifts are real and that miracles still happen often today. But OTOH:

I'm very pro-"emerging church" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_church).
I think God created by means of the Big Bang and evolution. Or maybe some form of OEC, I don't know. The only things I rule out are YEC and a-theistic evolution.
I'm very socially tolerant.
I'm not so sure about the eternal fate of non-believers. I leave that to God.
I'm eclectic about drawing from other faith traditions, primarily Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but also to some extent from Zen and Taoism.
I have no idea whose eschatology is correct. I say I'm a pan-millennialist... that is, trust in the Lord and it will all pan out. ^_^So I think there's still plenty of room for you and I to disagree. But however much we agree or disagree, you're still my adelphos and I still like you. :D

:hug:
Oh thank GOD we can find alot of disagreement as per your listings. ROFLOL^_^ (I was worried) LOL

A ps.: if you're willing to draw from Zen & Taoism, that's probly why you're PRO emergent church - they're steeped in eastern religion when you start getting deeper into it.

I actually like that you take a position of admitting you may not know something (ie. fate of non Christians) than to take an approach against condemnation of the unsaved mostly out of rebellion like so many others seem to do.

To me it's refreshing when we can admit we don't know something - I wish more of us would just be honest to admit it.

[Izdaari]

Oh thank GOD we can find alot of disagreement as per your listings. ROFLOL^_^ (I was worried) LOL
I think we disagree just the right amount -- enough to make it interesting, but not on the really important stuff. :cool:

But actually... I have noticed that you've changed. Not in your positions, no. You're as hardcore conservative as ever. But your attitude is less argumentative, more thoughtful, more loving, and that's all to the good IMHO. :thumbsup:

A ps.: if you're willing to draw from Zen & Taoism, that's probly why you're PRO emergent church - they're steeped in eastern religion when you start getting deeper into it.As you say, there is a certain amount of that, but it doesn't bother me and I may even like it... unless it's something that seems to conflict with historic Christian doctrine (i.e., what the church has believed since the beginning of the faith), in which case I'll take a much closer and much more skeptical look.

I actually like that you take a position of admitting you may not know something (ie. fate of non Christians) than to take an approach against condemnation of the unsaved mostly out of rebellion like so many others seem to do.

To me it's refreshing when we can admit we don't know something - I wish more of us would just be honest to admit it.For sure! There's SO much I don't know, and I know it. (But you should've seen me when I was 19 -- I thought I knew everything, and I was always right!) I won't rebel against anything unless I'm very sure of my position, as Martin Luther was when he nailed his 95 Theses to the cathedral door.

:groupray:

[edb19]

In considering compromise~does being an American citizen trump being a Kingdom citizen? Being presented with two poor choices, is God telling to choose the lesser of two evils, or is it Americanism?

Jesus the Christ recognized the Roman government.

As far as I'm concerned (and this is just me) I don't look to my pulpit for politics (although my pastor and I have many excellent political discussions) and I don't look to the Oval Office for my theology (although I do expect moral behavior from whoever is there - after all, I'm they're being paid by me)

Strongly agree with Izdaari - I would really like to see the Libertarian Party become more viable - I like most (not all) of their basic platform ideas - especially the small government. Personally, I'd love to see the federal government go back to being a part time job:thumbsup:

[MrJim]

Jesus the Christ recognized the Roman government.
I've no choice but to recognize the host nation's gov't, just as Jesus did. He recognized their authority and didn't seek their removal~neither did he teach disciples the same.

As far as I'm concerned (and this is just me) I don't look to my pulpit for politics (although my pastor and I have many excellent political discussions) and I don't look to the Oval Office for my theology (although I do expect moral behavior from whoever is there - after all, I'm they're being paid by me)
So it sounds like there might be some overlap afterall...
Strongly agree with Izdaari - I would really like to see the Libertarian Party become more viable - I like most (not all) of their basic platform ideas - especially the small government. Personally, I'd love to see the federal government go back to being a part time job:thumbsup:
My only prob with the libertarians is they tend to be pro-drug freedom and some are pro-choice. Understanding the true nature of man I am hesitant to recognize that individual liberty is always a good idea...libertarianism can be the most self-centered ideology around.

[edb19]

My only prob with the libertarians is they tend to be pro-drug freedom and some are pro-choice. Understanding the true nature of man I am hesitant to recognize that individual liberty is always a good idea...libertarianism can be the most self-centered ideology around.

Those are the two issues where I have a problem with them also - although they really aren't "pro-drug" so much as they are realistic about the "war on drugs" being unrealistic.

[Izdaari]

Those are the two issues where I have a problem with them also - although they really aren't "pro-drug" so much as they are realistic about the "war on drugs" being unrealistic.
That's exactly how I'd put it. I have no use for illegal drugs (or most legal ones for that matter), but I see the War on Drugs as a huge failure. As far as I can tell, the main purpose of it is to be a price support program for the drugs, so that organized crime can make incredible profits on them, and so the federal government can grab as much power as possible using the War on Drugs as an excuse. Meanwhile, violent criminals are being released early because too much prison space is taken up by drug offenders. It makes no sense.

So far as abortion, my position is the same as Harry Browne's and Ron Paul's: the federal government has no constitutional mandate to be involved at all, pro or con, and Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the matter returned to the states where it belongs. Let each state make what laws on the subject their political consensus will support... and more than that we're never going to get anyway.

[edb19]

That's exactly how I'd put it. I have no use for illegal drugs (or most legal ones for that matter), but I see the War on Drugs as a huge failure. As far as I can tell, the main purpose of it is to be a price support program for the drugs, so that organized crime can make incredible profits on them, and so the federal government can grab as much power as possible using the War on Drugs as an excuse. Meanwhile, violent criminals are being released early because too much prison space is taken up by drug offenders. It makes no sense.

So far as abortion, my position is the same as Harry Browne's and Ron Paul's: the federal government has no constitutional mandate to be involved at all, pro or con, and Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the matter returned to the states where it belongs. Let each state make what laws on the subject their political consensus will support... and more than that we're never going to get anyway.


exactly

[Anglian]

What a really interesting and helpful discussion.:)

I am with Izdaari's five fundamentals; it would be interesting to know whether there are any who would call themselves 'Conservative Christians' who are not? If there are, it would be interesting to know and to have some discussion on that.

On the other points, which of course are less fundamental, it would be interesting to see what variety of positions emerge. Mine would be:
- emerging Churches: I don't know anything about this; but I'm always in favour of proclaiming the Gospel!
- the Creation: God didn't consult me (how wise!) and however He did it, I'm sure I wouldn't understand. I am just happy He has provided us with the means of becoming one with Him.
- being socially tolerant: Christ told us that it would be our love each for the other that we would be known as His children; however much I hate the sin, my fellow-sinners are also children of God and I try to love 'em as much as I can.
- fate of non-believers: God is the only Just Judge; as I have received His mercy so I hope others will; He will decide - and again, without consulting me! (Again, a good thing!)
- other Faith traditions: well, Christianity is an Eastern Religion - it is THE Eastern religion. The traditions of my own Church give me access to the mysticism of the Copts and the Syriac Churches, and beyond that, well I learn much from Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, and here, from Izdaari and her Church. How wonderful that I can draw on so many sources - I thank God for His great mercy here.
- Eschatology - He'll decided, again, without asking me - and again, that's just fine by me (and tough if it wasn't).


I'd not thought of myself as a libertarian, but what Izdaari and others here write about drugs is surely correct? That gives me real pause for thought, and I'm not sure I see my way through to an answer. The effect of drugs is something we all loathe - but Government action seems to keep the price high. I guess I just don't know here any more.

So, maybe I am a libertarian on the quiet! Can one be a Copt and a libertarian?

Thank you for taking the discussion in this very interesting direction; it is certainly making me rethink some stuff I had just taken for granted.

Peace,

Anglian

[Izdaari]

So, maybe I am a libertarian on the quiet! Can one be a Copt and a libertarian?
I don't see why not. :D

:crosseo: :hug:

[Anglian]

Dear Izdaari,
I don't see why not. :D
Indeed!

I do like your five 'fundamentals'. From my own point of view it would be difficult to conceive of a Christianity that denied them. But, as I say, your other points are also very good ones in helping define the boundaries of what we might term 'conservative'.

I hope it will tempt others here to say something about how they see these things.

In appreciation,

Anglian

[MrJim]

That's exactly how I'd put it. I have no use for illegal drugs (or most legal ones for that matter), but I see the War on Drugs as a huge failure. As far as I can tell, the main purpose of it is to be a price support program for the drugs, so that organized crime can make incredible profits on them, and so the federal government can grab as much power as possible using the War on Drugs as an excuse. Meanwhile, violent criminals are being released early because too much prison space is taken up by drug offenders. It makes no sense.

Then build more prisons...

So far as abortion, my position is the same as Harry Browne's and Ron Paul's: the federal government has no constitutional mandate to be involved at all, pro or con, and Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the matter returned to the states where it belongs. Let each state make what laws on the subject their political consensus will support... and more than that we're never going to get anyway.

I agree with this very much:thumbsup:

[Izdaari]

Dear Izdaari,

Indeed!

I do like your five 'fundamentals'. From my own point of view it would be difficult to conceive of a Christianity that denied them. But, as I say, your other points are also very good ones in helping define the boundaries of what we might term 'conservative'.

I hope it will tempt others here to say something about how they see these things.

In appreciation,

Anglian
Well, they aren't exactly mine. They're the founding principles of American Fundamentalist Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism), laid down at the beginning of the 20th Century. But today's Fundamentalist Christians seem to take it a good deal further. For example, I don't come even remotely close to qualifying as a member of CF's Fundamentalist Christian forum.

[Nadiine]

Then build more prisons...

I have to agree on that one, if we just threw our hands up & said "well, we aren't winning the war on ________, so lets just make it legal", I don't see how that's a solution - all's it does is SHIFT the problem to something else to have to deal with later in time when it develops into a different problem/epidemic.

(kicking the can down the road so to speak).