No Conservatism Without a Religious Foundation

Not all religious people are conservatives; and not all conservatives are religious people. Christianity prescribes no especial form of politics. There have been famous radicals who were devout Christians—though most radicals have been nothing of the sort. All the same, there could be no conservatism without a religious foundation, and it is conservative people, by and large, who defend religion in our time.

Lord Hailsham, a talented English conservative of this century, in his little book The Case for Conservatism, remarks, “There is nothing I despise more than a politician who seeks to sell his politics by preaching religion, unless it be a preacher who tries to sell his sermons by talking politics.” Yet he goes on to say that conservatism and religion cannot be kept in separate compartments, and that the true conservative at heart is a religious man. The social influence of Christianity has been nobly conservative, and a similarly conservative influence has been exerted by Buddhism, Mohammedanism, Judaism, and the other higher religions.

In America, a sense of religious consecration has been joined to our political institutions from the beginning. Almost all the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were religious men. Solemn presidential proclamations, since the beginning of the Republic, have invoked the might and mercy of God. Most of our leading conservative statesmen and writers were men profoundly religious —George Washington, an Episcopalian; John Adams, a Unitarian; James Madison, an Episcopalian; John Randolph, an Episcopalian; John C. Calhoun, a Unitarian; Orestes Brownson, a Catholic; Nathaniel Hawthorne, a Congregationalist; Abraham Lincoln, a devout though independent theist; and many more. “We know and we feel inwardly that religion is the basis of civil society, and the source of all good and all comfort,” Edmund Burke wrote.

Now a conservative is a person who sees human society as an immortal contract between God and man, and between the generations that are dead, and the generation that is living now, and the generations which are yet to be born. It is possible to conceive of such a contract, and to feel a debt toward our ancestors and obligations toward our posterity, only if we are filled with a sense of eternal wisdom and power. We deal charitably and justly by our fellow men and women only because we believe that a divine will commands us to do so, and to love one another. The religious conservative is convinced that we have duties toward society, and that a just government is ruled by moral law, since we participate in our humble way in the divine nature and the divine love. The conservative believes that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

The conservative desires to conserve human nature—that is, to keep men and women truly human, in God’s image. The dread radical ideologies of our century, Communism and Nazism and their allies, endeavor to stamp out religion root and branch because they know that religion is always a barrier to collectivism and tyranny. A religious person has strength and faith; and radical collectivism detests private strength and faith. Throughout Europe and Asia, the real resistance to collectivism has come from men and women who believe that there is a greater authority than the collectivistic state, and that authority is God.

A society which denies religious truth lacks faith, charity, justice and any sanction for its acts. Today, more perhaps than ever before, Americans understand the close connection between religious conviction and just government, so that they have amended their oath of allegiance to read, “one nation, under God.” There is a divine power higher than any political power. When a nation ignores the divine authority, it soon commits the excesses of fanatic nationalism, intoxicated with its own unchecked power, which have made the twentieth century terrible.

Any religion is always in danger of corruption; and in our time, various people have endeavored to persuade us that the Christian religion endorses some sort of sentimental collectivism, a “religion of humanity,” in which the Christian idea of equality in God’s sight is converted into a dreary social and economic equality enforced by the state. But an examination of the Christian creeds and the Christian tradition will not sustain such an interpretation of Christian teaching. What Christianity offers is personal redemption, not some system of economic revolution. The human person is the great concern of Christian faith—as a person, not as part of a vague “People,” or “The Masses,” or “The Underprivileged.” And when Christians preach charity, they mean the voluntary giving of those who have to those who have not; they do not mean compulsion by the state to take away from some in order to benefit others. “Statists that labor to contrive a commonwealth without poverty,” old Sir Thomas Browne says, “take away the object of our charity; not understanding only the commonwealth of a Christian, but forgetting the prophecy of Christ.” The Christian religion does indeed enjoin us to do unto others as we would have others do unto us; it does not enjoin us to employ political power to compel others to surrender their property.

Any great religion is assailed by heresies. In the year of the Communist Manifesto, Orestes Brownson declared that Communism is a heresy from Christianity; and he is echoed today by Arnold Toynbee and Eric Voegelin, Communism perverts the charity and love of Christianity into a fierce leveling doctrine that men must be made equal upon earth; at the same time, it denounces real equality, which is equality in the ultimate judgment of God. And other ideologies which would convert Christianity into an instrument for oppressing one class for the benefit of another are heresies.

Books by Dr. Kirk may be found in The Imaginative Conservative Bookstore. Essays by Dr. Kirk may be found here. This is an excerpt from The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Conservatism (1957).

I don't fault Russell Kirk for writing about Christianity as his sole exemplar of "religion," since it is not only excusable, but admirable, for a person to focus his writings on what he knows best by study as well as by deeply-contemplated long experience. For Kirk and the mid-20th-century American society he was speaking to, that would undoubtedly be Christianity. (Don-o has already mentioned that this excerpt's title, containing the word "religion," was not written or attached to the article by Kirk himself.)

Kirk makes the overall observation that religion conserves the more perennial aspects of human experience: the avoidance of evil, the cultivation of virtue, the correct filial, marital, and parental relation, the control of the passions, and so forth. Above all, religion points to a scale of values and a criterion of judgment which go beyond political control, and therefore emphasizes dimensions of life which must not be dominated by congresses, constitutions or kings.

This idea of human dimensions which are more foundational than, or more overarching than, political power, is really important. There must always be spheres of life which owe nothing to the Powers That Be. Without that, we quickly succumb to totalitarianism.

On another topic: I wouldn't want to start a wrangle between Christians and Buddhists, especially along the lines of a Squeekin FReepin Religious Fracas^TM (spare us, O Lord) but I would at least footnote that I would dispute that Buddhism is ethically superior to Christianity.

Mind you, I think Buddhism is the noblest of the man-made religious philosophies; moreover I have Buddhist friends whose honor I would not want to diminish with a facile negative judgment.

However, historically, Buddhism was very supportive of a stagnant and stratified feudalism everywhere, especially in Tibet and Nepal, as well as of militarism in Japan. I think there are central concepts within Buddhism --- Karma, Reincarnation, and the Void (Nihilism/Nirvana), as well as the lack of an external criterion or lawgiver for judgment --- which are ethically problematic.

There is a very important nuance here that should never be forgotten. This is that America respects religion but is not ruled by religion. To explain:

Most Americans that came from Europe rejected royalist regimes that claimed *legitimacy* based on the “anointment by heaven”. Thus, if you objected to a decree by the king, you were not just rebelling against the king, but against God, so deserved punishment not just in the name of the king, but in the name of the church. A reprehensible notion.

So when we wrote our constitution, we were very careful to say that “this constitution is written by men, for men, and can be changed by men.” Without any heavenly imprimatur.

What does imprimatur mean?

A 1662 act in Britain required that, according to their subject, books needed to receive the authorization, known as the imprimatur, of the Lord Chancellor, the Earl Marshall, a principal Secretary of State, the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Bishop of London. This meant that before you could publish, you had to have the permission of both the secular government, and the Church of England.

And though this act ended in 1695, it still stuck in the craw of the Americans, who were very aware that if what they had written had to be approved by the crown and the church, most of it would never be published legally.

This is why the first amendment is so carefully written, to respect the rights of the religious to practice their religion, but that the government cannot elevate a religion to the level of government. Religion cannot force itself on others.

But once this basic ground rule was established, it means in practice that while the religious may participate fully in government, and even promulgate their religious ideas in government, they cannot attribute them to their religion.

If say, a Catholic were to advance the idea of a “No fish on Friday” law, it would have to have a secular reason that was at least acceptable enough so that it would not be a “Catholic law”, enforced on non-Catholics.

"The social influence of Christianity has been nobly conservative, and a similarly conservative influence has been exerted by Buddhism, Mohammedanism, Judaism, and the other higher religions."

Great read, but a distinction must be made here. Christianity is the only religion that salvation is by God's grace; all others are by works. The Bible is far above all other religious writings; in scope and depth of truth and knowledge.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/other-religious-writings

And it is well known that the Founding Fathers of this country leaned on only one religious book of God - the Bible.

"You don't think exceedingly similar arguments could be crafted against Christianity?"

Oh, yes. Exactly. But immoral Christians can see very readily that they are violating the criteria set by Jesus Christ, both in His precepts and in His spotless example. So in that sense Christianity has criteria which serve as a permanent source of self-criticism and self-correction. Mother Teresa of Calcutta and St. Francis of Assisi are canonized saints. Pope Innocent III and Pope Urban VI are not. There's a reason for that. "Ecclesia semper reformanda."

So I am simply disputing the blanket statement that Buddhism is ethically superior to Christianity. For instance, I think the lack of external criteria is a real problem.

Islam has always been Islam. Even in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the US government had to deal with jihadists known as the Barbary pirates, who captured Americans as slaves and demanded that the US government pay jizya.

Unfortunately, some of the Founding Fathers believed in Unitarianism, a belief system that is Islam’s theological cousin (both deny the deity of Christ). I would even say that Unitarianism has more in common with Islam than with Nicene Christianity.

Be that as it may, the piece comes across as Christian advocacy -- which is fine, it just doesn't jive with the title and now we know why. Kirk makes the overall observation that religion conserves the more perennial aspects of human experience:

It's sustaining the 'social contract' through motivational devotion. Probably low hanging fruit as it's easier to convince somebody to live by the 'social contract' through intimidation and threats of 'divine justice', rather than logic and reason.

It's also easy to see how others can be influenced and convinced that gaming the 'social contract' is perfectly valid. Religion refers to these people as evil. I just think of them as being the negative aspect of humanity, and there are varying degrees.

Above all, religion points to a scale of values and a criterion of judgment which go beyond political control, and therefore emphasizes dimensions of life which must not be dominated by congresses, constitutions or kings.

We are of this earth. There is no escape from government domination. They are the facilitators, enforcers, and judges of the 'social contract'. Yes, they [the government] starts off homogeneous -- but it will suffer entropy as philosophies start diverging and the entity itself gains influence and power, even if only manifesting itself as inertia.

Survive, thrive, procreate and ascend. Along the way, make sure Caesar gets what's his. Those are the driving factors of human life.

Christianity had it's period of "Stagnant and stratified feudalism". Islam has been stagnant and stratified since the Big Mo took over. Hindi has the class system. Even today Christianity seeks to re-attain it's "stagnant and stratified" philosophies.

I see no reason why one cannot be Christian and a Buddhist. Neither preclude the disbelief in either -- so long as you're not falling into the trap of actually worshiping Buddha as an idol -- something that also happens with crucifix, rosaries and other Christian relics. God is the destination, Jesus is the key, Buddhism is a method.

"It's sustaining the 'social contract' through motivational devotion. Probably low hanging fruit as it's easier to convince somebody to live by the 'social contract' through intimidation and threats of 'divine justice', rather than logic and reason."

You seem to think that the life of a religious person like Maximilian Kolbe, Mother Teresa, Antonia Brenner, Edmund Campion, Cornelia Connolly, Saul of Tarsus (Paul), Marianne and Damien of Molokai, Isaac Jogues, Mary of Nazareth, Charles de Foucauld, Dorothy Day, etc. can be explained in terms of "social contract" and "intimidation and threats" -- and devoid of "logic and reason."

This shows, I think, little knowledge and insight into the human subjects of whom we speak, and little penetration into the broader topic of human spiritual freedom vs cultural determinism and political coercion.

"...worshiping Buddha as an idol -- something that also happens with crucifix, rosaries and other Christian relics.."

Having known Buddhists and Catholics a-plenty over the past 60+ years, I have never seen this, although I am reliably advised that it happens. Stained-glass windows, Heisman Trophies and Bibles, too.

But we don't worship statues anymore. We worship felt banners.

;op

Yes. In fact Christianity relies on it with talk of Satan, Hell, eternal punishment.

I'll address this ad hominem once because you started out so polite.

Christianity is one religious doctrine, there are others. IF you want to focus on Christianity being the sole foundation of morality then I don't want to participate. If you want to talk about religion being the foundation of morality, then we can talk.

See, I like to get to the 'Meta-concepts', and measure the building dimensions from the outside rather than the inside.

So, if you're in a bucket, talk about what's in the bucket. If you want to talk about what's outside the bucket, get out of the bucket. Then talk about what's outside the bucket.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.