Posted by
voice_of_reason on Tuesday, May 29, 2007 12:01:52 AM
The topic of illegal immigration is a glaring example of the logical inconsistency of Religious Conservatives.
Clarification: I make a distinction between Religious Conservatives - those whose political positions are driven by their Religious beliefs - and Conservatives who may be religious in their personal lives.
Notice how Religious Conservatives have to 'dance on the head of a pin' to defend their position because of their religious bias towards charity, sacrifice, altruism etc.
The anti-illegal-immigration points of Religious Conservatives can be summarized into:
* enforced charity (bad) is not the same as voluntary charity (good)
* its against the law - and laws are derived from and supported by Religious scripture
* despite the good intentions, it impoverishes regular Americans
Compare the above subjective statements with the following objective arguments put forward by Secular Conservatives, who do not have to reconcile their position with religious convictions:
* abolish the welfare state because it is immoral in principle AND in its implementation
* enforce our borders, to further our self-interest
Isn't it curious that Religious Conservatives fall back upon the Secular Conservative position while debating - but are forced to stretch greatly to justify the religious basis for those positions?
Similar problems of consistency exist with respect to the Religious Conservative positions on:
* Public Education
* Universal Health Care
* Minumum wage
Since the above entitlements affect regular Americans and not those foreigners (illegal aliens), Religious Conservatives will find it harder to refute those on moral grounds.
So, they are forced to a weaker pragmatic defense -- i.e. Universal Health Care doesn't work, so it is bad.
Religious people claim to have an altruistic philosophy - and they do - but their hypocrisy is exposed when they are forced to make subjective statements such as "sure, we would't mind supporting them with charity, but not inside our country"!
Or, "they broke the law" and laws (and govts) are acceptable because there are scriptures that support them! Those laws are definitely man-made, as are the borders between countries.
I happen to agree with most Religious Conservatives on the subject of illegal immigration; no amnesty, enforce the law, etc. However, I approach politics from a secular viewpoint - keeping any religious sentiments private.
I weigh in on this debate only to show that the lack of consistency of people who try to support the conservative position while simultaneously advocating a religious basis for political thought. I also maintain that it is this dichotomy that causes many religious people to break ranks with conservatives, especially in their younger years.