No Conservatism Without a Religious Foundation

The Imaginative Conservative ^ | October 18, 2013 | Russell Kirk

[James C. Bennett]

Problem is, which religion?

Catholicism, Calvinism, Lutheranism, Mormonism, Etceteraism?

Was Thomas Jefferson a conservative?

[CityCenter]

Economic conservatism results in social conservatism. What you do not fund, will not grow.

[Mrs. Don-o]

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.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

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.

[eclecticEel]

historically, Buddhism was very supportive of a stagnant and stratified feudalism everywhere, especially in Tibet and Nepal, as well as of militarism in Japan

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

[celmak]

"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.

[celmak]

The more I read the article, the more I see i have disagreements with it... be back later.

[celmak]

Amen!

[celmak]

"It is instructive to consider that this was written in 1957. Islam was different then, to state the obvious."

Do a search of Wahhabism; it's history and when it began.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"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.

[celmak]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1274502/posts

Agreed; excellent read!

[celmak]

Problem is, which religion?

Catholicism, Calvinism, Lutheranism, Mormonism, Etceteraism?

As long these denominations adhere to what the Bible states - which leaves out Mormonism; they believe you have to be part of their church in order to have salvation.

[istandwithsarah]

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.

[Usagi_yo]

I’ll be sure to mention it next time I see my 6th grade Religious studies teacher from my private Lutheran grade school days.

If that’s not good enough, then we’ll just go by gravitas. I’ll take the top 5 Deist founders, you can have the rest.

[Usagi_yo]

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.

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.

[Usagi_yo]

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.

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.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"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.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Of interest:

Antonia Brenner (FR Link)

[Mrs. Don-o]

"...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

[Usagi_yo]

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."

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

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.

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.