One negative aspect to his essay would have to be his bias toward conservatives and the rich. He deliberately labels out the rich in many of his examples by pointing out how they claim to be Christian but do not wish to help aid the poor. As for conservatives, he not only points out George W. Bush but refers at times to religion as “conservative religion.” This clearly shows his bias toward them and could be a way for him to associate them with the American Christianity problem. I believe McKibben has a great point on this issue. As American Christians, we always believe that if we do good deeds or help ourselves we go to heaven.
The other big contrast between these two speeches is Reagan’s reiteration the freedom and liberty are things that can only be enjoyed with the full blessings of God (Rodgers, 2011, p164). This is a religious perspective that Johnson ignored and based his theory of growth in self preservation. The other major point of departure between these two speeches is the audience. While Reagan chose to address the religious and more conservative part of the population, Johnson went for the secular and more liberal
Because of this, the modern definition of 'family planning' has lead to some controversy amongst politicians within America. For example, the Republican Party are ideologically conservative, meaning they are a political party which aims to preserve traditional cultures and fashions, for example Christianity being taught throughout all schools. Because Christianity is often seen as the countries' traditional and original religion, republicans argue that Christianity is closely associated with American identity, therefore the eradication of it being taught compulsory within schools is against traditions. For the same religious reasons, the Republicans disagree with family planning schemes such as abortion,- the Republican Party would normally disagree with abortion as it goes against the Christian teaching known as the sanctity of life. This is the traditional teaching taught by the church which explicitly states that all human life is sacred, and so is to be protected by all Christians.
Traditional anarchist and Tory corporatist cultures may find that Teleology’s precepts are very compatible with Abrahamic religious beliefs. For this reason, we find that religious adherents are much more common in Tory and Anarchist groups, for reasons of tradition rather than conscious philosophical thought. For the same reason, Fascists are also more prone to have religious foundations. In the same way, Oligarchs may find religious beliefs acceptable, yet only if it is a tradition in their group. The quality of individuality so important in western values, best expressed in classical liberals and even more so in radical liberals, can also be expressed in the religious traditions of Islam and Protestant Christianity.
The view that religion is a conservative force stems from theories from Functionalists, Marxists and Feminists. Each see religion as keeping society in its current form, despite the theories coming to the same conclusion the reasons differ. For Durkheim religion acts as a vital organ in society and keeps society alive by maintaining social solidarity. Functionalists believe that religion creates a shared value consensus and acts as a social glue helping unite individuals as well as helping them cope with stress. In comparison to this view Marxists see society as promoting the interests of the ruling class and legitimating suffering and therefore preventing social change.
“[The church] should be purified of their unregenerate members…heretical clergymen…bishops and archbishops, but they were nevertheless churches and must be embraced as churches” (Morgan 31). These non-separating Puritans made it their goal to create a superlative Christian community in the New World. In doing so they hoped to serve as an example to encourage reform within the Church of England. Morgan, author of The Puritan Dilemma, describes the non-separating Puritans overall view of the Church of England to be more positive than negative. “[The church] had bought the means of salvation to many of their members and might still do so” (Morgan 31).
PHILOSOPHER | ON HUMAN RIGHTS | LEADERSHIP | ON RELIGION | INFLUENCE | JOHN LOCKE(1632 – 1704) | • He thought all humans were equal•He thought the original state of nature was happy.• Man is naturally moral and justice exists whether or not the state exists.• Criticised the King and Elite. | • Government rests on popular consent. | • He had thoughts about Christianity and its reasons.• He was born to Puratin parents. | • He shared the thinking of America's founders.• Influenced writers like Voltaire.• America and French Revolution. | VOLTAIRE(1694 – 1778) | • Criticised the King and Elite.
Two such groups would be secular activists and progressive Christians of faiths that emphasize social activism, yet have abandoned the revelation of the Bible’s truth. Another group would be fallen away Catholics, who identify with the roots of Liberation Theology but reject the Church’s ambivalence toward the poor, the Church’s hierarchal power structure or yearn for a personal relationship with their Father. (There is currently a growing group of charismatic
A key insight into Mr. Hale’s reasoning is found during his discussion with Margaret and Higgins, when he states that “your Union in itself would be beautiful, glorious, —it would be Christianity in itself—if it were but for an end which affected the good of all, instead of that of merely one class as opposed to another” (229). This statement directly mirrors the sentiment of Unitarian theology of the 19th century as primarily defined by 18th century scientist and philosopher Joseph Priestley, who famously described the Trinity as foremost of the corruptions of Christianity.3 Elizabeth Gaskell, whose husband and father were Unitarian Ministers, would no doubt have been familiar with Priestley’s
|conservative political values |Peaceable |devout | |governed by Biblical law |socially oppressed |moderate political values | |political environment open to both sexes | |governed by the Qur’an | |socially inclusive | |fanatically religious | |socially compliant | |religious values perpetuated in politics | |moderate moral values | |religion part of government | |flexible moral values | |male-dominated political environment | | | |socially exclusionary | | | |Sexist