Debate: Religiosity correlates positively with conservatism

[evangelicalhumanist]

Let me open by saying “thank you” to Kurt for undertaking the more difficult role in this debate – that of arguing for a viewpoint that he might not necessarily, or knowingly, share. It is a brave man who does so, and I admit at the outset that in being permitted to argue for my own strongly-held belief, I am at an advantage. Perhaps it is not a “winning” advantage, but at least it’s one likely to reduce my workload.

What a curious topic, and it leads so many interesting places, one hardly knows where to go. Almost from the outset, thinking about the resolution, I found myself confronted with the question of causation. Does being religious make you conservative? Does being conservative make you religious? How would we determine that?

Yet, of course, correlation does not necessarily imply causation, and it is entirely possible for two things to be positively correlated because the first causes the second, the second causes the first, or both share something in common with some other – perhaps unrecognized or unacknowledged – condition.

During this debate, my intention will be to show that the correlation exists – that the greater the propensity for religious observance, the greater the likelihood of conservative views.

Let me begin by providing some definitions:

Religiosity – Merriam-Webster gives: “The quality of being religious; religious feeling or sentiment; religiousness.” However, it goes on to refine that as “especially: excessively, obtrusively, or sentimentally religious.” It is in this second sense that I use the term. I recognize that most people have some religious feeling, which plays a part – often minor and temporary – in their lives. Frequently enough, that part will be merely attending weekly services and offering fairly ritual prayers, such as grace before meals. This is, in my mind, general religious feeling and observance, but not strong enough to merit being called “religiosity.”

Conservatism – This could take a year to fully define, but instead, I shall try to boil it down to its very essence (granting that there are many sorts of conservatisms in practice, and that often social conservatives are not fiscal conservatives, and vice-versa). I shall be working with a definition of conservatism as a political and social disposition to preserve that which is already established, based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change. For purposes of the debate, I intend to ignore some of the more specific expressions of conservatism, such as a focus on lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, and a strong national defence. I will, however, likely consider my perception that conservatism has a focus on individual financial responsibility for personal needs, such as retirement income, health-care coverage and welfare, and in particular an insistence that government not be involved in providing for the welfare of the temporarily or permanently “embarrassed.”

Correlates Positively – very simply, I mean this in the standard statistical analytical sense, which is to say that I think it can be shown that, over statistically meaningful populations, where religiosity, as defined above, increases, there is an concomitant increase in conservatism, also as defined above.

(In an effort to be complete, I should probably include my own understanding, in this context, of liberalism. I think of it, for myself, as a belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties. Particularly, a philosophy that considers government a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities such as those involving race, gender, or class.)

For the record, though I stated above that correlation does not imply cause, I will argue that it is, in fact, the conservative ideology that is the driver. That is, it seems to me that religion does not cause conservative values as much as conservative views are likely to lead to increased religiosity. While not an essential part of the debate, it might provide some interest, and may help to provide insight into my views. It might also, of course, provide my opponent with an opportunity I’d rather he didn’t have, but I think that’s a risk I’m willing to take.

Now, before turning the floor over to my honourable opponent, let me lay out the basics of my case. I have observed, over the course of my life, that many people have strong feelings on any number of topics. And yet, there are, in my view, two extraordinarily interesting things to observe:

• Those who agitate for the restriction of various kinds of voluntary self-expression (for example marriage to a same-sex partner, a woman’s right to choose abortion, physician-assisted suicide, alternate modes of social, sexual and other expression) tend to be affiliated with, aided by, or even led by religious organizations. In many cases, organizations are created with a strong religious contribution. Such organizations might include Focus on the Family, various “Right to Life” foundations, and the like. Further, I assert that such religious support is far more often from those religious communities that I would define as “especially: excessively, obtrusively, or sentimentally religious.”
  
• Those who agitate for the removal of those very restrictions seldom have the backing, either explicit or implicit, of any religious organization, or if they do, those organizations are close to secular in their rejection of what I earlier defined as “religiosity.” And even then, their participation is often enough sub rosa, or at least somewhat understated.

Now, given my earlier definition of conservatism (see above), it seems to me that it accords well with the first point, and badly with the second. And since I assert (at this time without providing citations) that religion is more attracted to and supportive of the first, less of the second, I also assert that religiosity is positively correlated with conservatism.

[Kurt]

To argue against my opponent's primary thesis, I think my job is to show that there are a substantial number of times and places where religiosity does not correlate positively with conservatism. To make any headway whatsoever in that direction, I have to address "conservatism" as a particular attitude towards change. I cannot dispute my opponent's assertion that "Those who agitate for the restriction of various kinds of voluntary self-expression...tend to be affiliated with, aided by, or even led by religious organizations". I can only argue that this does not necessarily make those people "conservatives".

Various levels of abortion rights have been a fact (the status quo) in much of the industrialized world for around a half-century. Assisted suicides, whether legally sanctioned or not, have taken place throughout recorded human history; Roman slaves helping their masters fall on their swords, Socrates drinking hemlock, people in desperate straits helping one another with poison, guns, asps, etc are all examples. Likewise even while same-sex marriage gains increasing legality in many lands, same-sex partners have been living a "married" life-style in various times and places for a very long time.

So, even while accepting my opponent's definition of "conservatism" as "a political and social disposition to preserve that which is already established...etc", it's clear that many people who consider themselves conservative are anything but the sort. Tune in to Fox News or CNN or any other "news" outlet and you will hear self-identified "conservatives" railing and ranting against the status quo. Above all, they do not want things to continue being exactly as they are. They do not accept past traditions and practises as automatically valid. They want change. Some of them want change to go backward in time to an imaginary epoch where everyone was happy to share the exact same values about everything. Others want to move forward to a time when everyone will be happy to share the exact same values about everything. But, above all else, what they don't want is what's happening right now, so they are not, by any definition, "conservative".

I know I finessed that a bit by leaving out the second part of your definition of conservatism, i.e. "based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change". I had to do that because I couldn't figure out how to deal with both parts at the same time. So, on I go to the second part.

This part of the definition of "conservatism" has an inbuilt self-contradiction. "Tradition" and "social stability" have been mutually exclusive on a regular basis throughout human history. The Easter Island example is just the most glaring and exotic example available to us (cutting down the very last tree to continue the institutionally established tradition of building immense religious idols and thereby making the local biosphere incapable of supporting human society of any kind). But war works pretty well as an object lesson, too. While highly ritualized traditional war with few casualties has in some tribes and peoples acted to maintain a certain equilibrium both within the tribe and between competing tribes, the modern tradition (and well-established institution) of mechanized war has absolutely devastated other societies, traditions and established institutions.

Finally, "Preferring gradual development to abrupt change" may be part of the bona fide dictionary definition of conservatism, but in practise it just as aptly describes much of American liberalism over the last sixty years. I recognize, of course, that "gradual" and "abrupt" are very relative and subjective terms, to the point where the same event could be seen as both gradual and abrupt depending on the viewers' perspective. Many people involved in voter registration drives thought of that activity as just one step in the gradual full integration of black people into the political and economic life of America. Many southerners, both white and black, saw it as an abrupt change to their traditions and social institutions. Which view was correct? I think both fit the facts as we know them, particularly in retrospect. Voter registration was, indeed, just one step in a long, gradual process of empowerment for blacks in America, and it was also an immediate and jarring change to how things functioned in the South.

Now, on to "religiosity":
Accepting my opponent's definition of religiosity as "excessively, obtrusively, or sentimentally religious", there have been many times in history when the most excessive, obtrusive and sentimental religionists have been those who work to overthrow traditions, established institutions, and social stability. In examples from the Maccabees to Jesus to Mohammed to Martin Luther and other proponents of Protestant Reformation, to Henry the Eighth, to early evangelicals in the New World (both protestant and catholic), to Shakers and Quakers and to Gandhi, and to the Taliban, etc, religiosity has been a direct and emphatic challenge to at least some elements of the religious status quo. The fact that they all sought to establish a different status quo does not negate the fact that they have wanted radical change above all else, not just for themselves, but for everyone. The fact that many of these actors BELIEVED that they were merely trying to return the status quo to what it had been or should have been all along, does not make them conservative; even if they were right, it would only make them reactionaries, rather than conservatives.

In conclusion, at this point, I would merely reword my opponent's thesis to state that, "religiosity is often positively correlated with people who mistakenly think of themselves as conservative, when they are actually most interested in changing others to make them more like they imagine themselves to be."

[evangelicalhumanist]

My opponent has made a valiant effort to defeat my argument with a full-frontal attack on one of its underpinnings – my definition of the term “conservatism.” In particular, he mentions “a political and social disposition to preserve that which is already established,” going on to point out that many things are “established” which conservatives most definitely do not seek preserve, but rather to eliminate. These include, as he suggests, abortion, assisted suicides, and the effectively “married life-style” of many same-sex partners (and in Canada and other nations, the actual married status of those couples). This might have been effective, but unfortunately he neglects to notice that what is “established” is a matter of acceptance, and very often in political and social intercourse, the fact that somebody is doing something, and may even perhaps be doing it legally, does not make it acceptable. Nations do this all the time by not “recognizing” some of the claims of other nations, while doing, effectively, nothing about it. And thus, I contend, conservatives are not seeking to preserve those things he mentions for the simple reason that they do not recognize them as legitimate, and therefore “established.”

Let me provide an example. In Canada, abortion is effectively legal simply because it is not illegal. (The Supreme Court struck down Parliament’s abortion laws as being contrary to section 7 of the Charter of Rights & Freedoms – and no Parliament since has had the courage to attempt to draft another law.) That is not, however, the “status quo” to conservatives, who see it as a failure of Parliament to take the appropriate action. They see it – perhaps rightly – as a missing provision in law, easily corrected. I must also point out that half-century is only 50 years – no time at all. I’m older than that, as are great numbers of other people (including, I suspect, my opponent). That’s hardly “status quo” to those who worship traditions and traditional values. As a matter of fact, it’s very easy to show any number of “status quo” arrangements that have persisted for centuries which are still not accepted by “conservatives.” It’s difficult to find, for example, a dyed-in-the-wool Republican who accepts that the U.S. was not created as a Christian nation (even though it wasn’t).

One major difference between conservatism and liberalism consists, therefore, in the fact that, for the conservative, the value of individual liberty is not absolute, but stands subject to another and higher value, the authority of established government. ... what satisfies people politically ... is not freedom, but congenital government. Government is the primary need of every man subject to the discipline of social intercourse, and freedom the name of at least one of his anxieties.

It is through an ideal of authority that the conservative experiences the political world. His liberal opponent, whose view is likely to be anhistorical, will usually fail to understand that notion.

The Meaning of Conservatism (1980), Roger Scruton, Chapter 1 –The Conservative Mind

Conservatism arises from the sense of belonging to a continuing, pre-existing order, and is thus much more of an “institutional stance,” a feeling of engagement in the continuity of the social world. The conservative instinct is, finally, based on continuity of the existing society, and its institutions and rules.

I would argue, I’m afraid, that all of the examples he gives of assisted suicide fail to means quite what we mean when we discuss it in the public square these days. The way we generally mean it for political purposes today is for a medical practitioner, with the presumed means to cause death relatively painlessly, to take that action. (With the permission of the individual, of course, without which it would be murder.) In all the cases my opponent mentions, the suicide was still a deliberate act of the individual. Holding a sword while Antony falls on it is quite a different matter from having a doctor administer a controlled substance – or of stabbing Antony in the gut.

I am delighted that my opponent brings up the question of Easter Island, and whether or not we might consider their continued building of the Moai (and cutting of trees to transport them) as either conservative or religious. My own view is, in fact, that this is a classic example of my thesis – it was both. The impulse to preserve the status quo (the Moai culture) was stronger than even the impulse to prevent catastrophe (which the intelligent islanders could easily foresee) by the simple expedient of changing the culture. Similar examples abound in history.

I’d like to return to the Scruton quote above – and in particular the remark that “for the conservative, the value of individual liberty is not absolute, but stands subject to another and higher value, the authority of established government.” It is a very liberal idea, actually, that government, rather than being “established,” can be changed at will if it is not satisfying the social needs of the governed. For the conservative, the very notion of “throwing the bums out” is a kind of anathema (well, unless the bums are liberals, of course – but even that is a wrench). This idea of authority, and in particular of “the authority of established government,” comes directly from the idea of “higher power,” and is thus, in my view, a very religious idea.

Now, my opponent has presciently provided examples that contradict what I have just written, when he describes religious efforts to overthrow governments and established institutions. And yet, when I think about it further, it is here that I think my thesis is at its very strongest, because of course, it depends utterly on how a group sees itself aligned. Osama bin Laden clearly sees himself aligned, not with Saudi Arabia, and certainly not with any of the rest of the world, but with the Prophet Mohammed. The religion that he believes he inherited from the Prophet is the only “established government” that he recognizes, and he clearly sees all currently established governments as having strayed from the correct order – the order that he wishes (with religious fervour) to conserve.

[Kurt]

Let me first say that finding chinks in the armour of my opponent's logic and information is nearly debilitating. That process may, in fact, have had something to do with my susceptibity to the flu. I hope he feels guilty about that and will be hamstrung by that guilt in his future arguments. Nonetheless...

Some of the issues my opponent brought up beg for further exploration. He has offered the notion that what is "established" for the conservative is not necessarily what is legal or being currently practised, but rather what is "acceptable" and "legitimate" to the conservative himself. As one example, he offers an assessment of Osama Bin Laden's stance: "The religion that he believes he inherited from the Prophet is the only 'established government' that he recognizes, and he clearly sees all currently established governments as having strayed from the correct order - the order that he wishes (with religious fervor) to conserve." I agree with that admittedly speculative assessment of Osama Bin Laden's attitude, but...

Clearly, in Bin Laden's case, conservatism means personally choosing who and what constitutes "higher authority" for himself and for everyone else. In this sense, his conservatism is essentially and ultimately self-referential; it all hinges on his own personal evaluation of the legitimacy of the Prophet and the Koran. This fact seems to run directly against Roger Scruton's statement (quoted in opponent's last post) that "...for the conservative, the value of individual liberty is not absolute..." Without asserting the absolute individual liberty to choose the Prophet and the Koran as his higher authority, Bin Laden would be doomed to let others decide what constituted that higher authority and he has clearly rejected that fate. He does not accept any version of Islam that does not accord with his own, no matter how long or popularly it has been accepted by others.

No doubt, Bin Laden might argue that he is not choosing his brand of Islam, but rather simply submitting to the will of Allah. This, too, is an entirely self-referential stance. Since he knows that others see the will of Allah differently from him, he must believe that he personally is better equipped to recognize the will of Allah than they are because he is willing to enforce his view on others. In other words, in his conservatism, he, not Allah, is the ultimate judge on earth.

So, if Bin Laden is conservative, his conservatism is NOT at all about the "...continuity of the existing society, and its institutions and rules..." (quote from opponent's previous post). Indeed, his brand of religiosity is all about disrupting a continuity (in the sense of a progression) that is running contrary to his desires and beliefs so that a different continuity can replace it.

Obviously, I'm having problems getting past the inherent difficulties and many variant meanings of "conservatism" as it is practised. Many who call themselves conservative simply want others to stop having the brazenness to presume to think for themselves. This is the conservatism of religious evangelicals, capitalist corporate cultures and authoritarian governments where conformity of thought is deemed important to the over-arching goal of the survival and success of the organization, regardless of the effects on individuals. It is not, however, the conservatism of someone who wants to simply be left alone to practise their long-lived private religious beliefs and traditions without being interfered with, or interfering with others. It's not the conservatism of those who believe that the now-traditional institution of limited terms for elected government office (the INSTITUTION of "throwing the bums out") should be conserved as sacrosanct.

One of the few things that seems clear about all conservatives is that they are all very selective about what they want to conserve and what they want to jettison. Conservatives may see themselves as a coherent, like-minded group or demographic or movement, but they have no universally agreed-upon standard for how long it takes a practise or an institution or any other societal feature to warrant the title "accepted" or "legitimate" or "traditional". They don't even have a set of specific attributes that qualify a societal or religious feature as "legitimate", or "traditional" or "accepted". For example, all the monotheistic religions both have similarities with, and are sharp breaks from, formerly "established" and "accepted" traditions and institutions. Yet many monotheists see their faiths as more "traditional" or "established" than the predecessors they borrowed from, even while there are still practising pagans and polytheists and animists.

During the writing of the US constitution, some of the most ardent defenders of separation of Church and State were evangelical Southern Baptists. Their well-founded fear was that without specific prohibition of State/Church connection, the more numerous and influential members of the Established Anglican Church would simply continue their tradition of dominating, if not outright outlawing, dissident sects. Now, of course, many Southern Baptists hoot and holler about how the US was always meant to be, is, and will always be a "Christian Nation". Although they claim to be the upholders of conservative values, this revisionist approach to history (even the history of their own sect) makes them the exact opposite of conservative.

In light of all these confusing and contradictory facets of conservatism, I think the closest we can come to my opponent's thesis is to state that "Religiosity correlates positively with some narrowly-defined brands of conservatism in certain places and in certain times, while most of the time, religiosity is merely the attempt to drape personal desires, ambitions, perceptions, and preferences in the most flattering and authoritative garb available."

[evangelicalhumanist]

I think perhaps I will begin by pointing out that my opponent has, probably unintentionally, misstated one of my points. He claims that I suggest that what is “established” for the conservative is not necessarily what is legal or currently being practices, but rather what is “acceptable” and “legitimate” to the conservative himself. That’s not quite the sense in which I spoke. Rather, what I was suggesting is that the conservative is more apt to be non-accepting of the “new-fangled” in terms of social structures and traditions. And that “new-fangled” might not always be so new, depending on how long the conservative community’s memory of what is “traditional” is.

And yet, it is certainly true, as my opponent has pointed out, that all humans, not just conservatives, seek to find means to make their own predilections somehow fit the established order. We can think of Tevye and His Daughters (by Sholem Aleichem, also known as Fiddler on the Roof). Tevye, like his whole community, is a conservative man. The song “Tradition” reinforces that notion. Certainly he is less conservative than many of his fellows in the village of Anatevka (and in some ways, downright liberal). Tevye is perfectly capable of rationalizing tradition away when two of his daughters find love outside of the usual pattern. It is when the third, Chavah, finds love outside the faith that Tevye finds no means of reconciliation, but he could not permit that much personal liberty for Chavah.

Do you notice how I managed to make Tevye both conservative and liberal? That’s the way we humans are, I’m afraid – at the end of the day, it all comes down to the self. I think the essential, core difference between liberals and conservatives is the degree to which the individual is considered free to buck the traditional mores of the group, and yet still be considered a member of the group. (Remember, Tevye in effect disowns Chavah.)

And it is around that last point that I think my opponent is stumbling. He seems to be moving back and forth from the general to the specific (which is, of course, what we all do when we’re seeking to make the unpalatable a little more palatable – to self and community). I think we need to tighten it up a bit by going back to the definitions. I think we can show that – by the definitions –

• Liberalism (whatever the religious belief of the liberal) tends towards an overall secular view, for the simple reason that it values the liberty of individual choice over the demands of the group
• Conservatism (whatever the religious belief of the conservative) tends towards a more collective view, which requires that members of the collective subdue some elements of individual liberty in order to conform

Now, when we look at that, we can see that liberalism and conservatism can each have religious or non-religious world-views. There are many very religious liberals in the world, and there are similarly many (although possible a smaller percentage) of atheist conservatives. “Conservative atheists and agnostics support traditional American values. They believe in personal responsibility, self-reliance, and deferred gratification as the bedrock virtues of a prosperous society. They view marriage between a man and a woman as the surest way to raise stable, law-abiding children. They deplore the encroachments of the welfare state on matters best left to private effort. Conservative Atheists by Heather Mac Donald

Notice what the writer of the above is saying: “deferred gratification” is often no gratification at all (as she suggests in the next sentence). People should not be allowed the freedom to do something (marry a same-sex partner) because it is not “the surest way.” There’s less allowance for choices that, while best for the individual are not best for the group. People should be self-reliant, pretty much always, with government keeping out of the way. The liberal view is that government can have a role in helping to keep individuals free (“at liberty” with the added sense of potentially able) to make such choices as are good for them. For example, through removing needless laws preventing individual choices in matters that – while not optimal – do no societal damage, and which wouldn’t change the situation anyway (the gay couple will remain a gay couple, whether allowed to marry or not).

But if we return to the subject of this debate, it is not about whether conservatives or liberals are more or less religious, it is about religiosity. As I said in my preliminary definitions, there is general religious feeling and faith, which many liberals and conservatives share. But religiosity goes further and is, as I defined it, “especially: excessively, obtrusively, or sentimentally religious.”

And it is here that I think my thesis stands. The conservative side of any debate over a social good is much more apt to invoke a strongly religious sentimentality in support of its argument, for the very simple reason that strong religious adherence (religiosity) is essentially a social mode of expression. The liberal is less able to invoke religion, for the simple reason that any religious interpretation allowing for individual liberty of expression would be an individual interpretation – unsupported by the central reference material for the religion itself (generally scripture). The conservative can point to scripture after scripture supporting his view restricting individual liberty. The liberal perform a considerable feat of eisegesis in many instances.

However, let me end by referring back to my citation by Roger Scruton in my second round. When Scruton says: “…for the conservative, the value of individual liberty is not absolute, but stands subject to another and higher value…” even though that “higher value” may be construed as “the law,” the very notion of “higher value” correlates beautifully with the religious idea of “higher power,” and I think to the conservative mind these are often the same thing. And that is a religious viewpoint.

Now, just one last thing. My opponent says that someone like Osama bin Laden “must believe that he personally is better equipped to recognize the will of Allay than [others]…”. In my view, that thinking is at the very heart of religiosity.

[Kurt]

I must confess that, even with my opponent's informative and patient clarifications, I'm still finding the term "conservatism" very slippery. And my problem lies exactly where my opponent suggests; in my inability to find a definition of conservatism that is specific enough to have any general meaning for me in reference to this debate.

My opponent writes that, "I think the essential core difference between liberals and conservatives is the degree to which the individual is considered free to buck the traditional mores of the group, and yet still be considered a member of the group."
He further amplifies this idea by saying that, "Conservatism (whatever the religious belief of the conservative) tends towards a more collective view, which requires that members of the collective subdue some elements of individual liberty in order to conform".

By these characterizations, communism would probably qualify as one of the most conservative movements of the 20th century. Meanwhile, the claim that conservatism values self-reliance is demonstrably untrue in the case of millions of self-labelled conservatives. Those among them, and there are many, who want to see an end to labour unions, simply want people who have no capital to RELY ENTIRELY on the wages and working conditions set by those who do possess capital. Furthermore, they have no problem with "investors" or inheritors of investments RELYING ENTIRELY on the labour of others for their livelihood. These conservatives do not value collectivity or self-reliance itself, but rather their own very narrow, self-serving brand of it.

But, I really needn't go on about the central delusions of what passes for conservatism, need I? If my opponent can agree that the relative conservatism or liberalism of any individual can best be expressed by a line plotted on an x,y graph (where points on the x axis relate to cherished tenets of conservatism and points on the y axis represent specific aspects of liberalism), then maybe I can let go of this frustration.

In the interim, I still have no problem with the definition of "religiosity" as something that is "excessively, obtrusively, or sentimentally religious". Indeed, I think what pushes conservatives and liberals into the sphere of radicalism is the failure to constantly re-examine their beliefs (religious or otherwise) in the light of reason, logic, new information, and new experience. Without that process, excessiveness, obtrusiveness, and sentimentality seem to be the default setting for justifying belief.

[evangelicalhumanist]

My dear Kurt, I have truly enjoyed the thrust and parry of our debate. But alas, according to agreed rules, this is my last opportunity, and so I must sadly administer the coup de grâce.

You are correct – all such terms as “liberal” and “conservative” are slippery. It’s both the joy (for poets) and tragedy (for philosophers) of language.

You said “[b]y [my] characterizations, communism would probably qualify as one of the most conservative movements of the 20th century.” Well, surprisingly, I agree. Socialism is liberal. Democracy is liberal. Communism is conservative. Let’s try another definition, just in fun:
“Liberals are people who are under the only partially mistaken impression that altering the structure of government is the best way to influence people and resources. Conservatives are people who are under the only partially mistaken impression that altering the people in power is the best way to influence other people and their culture.”

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing. Socialism is liberal, giving (hopefully) more people some say in how the economy works. (Democracy is also liberal, giving (hopefully) more people some say in how government works. Communism is conservative, with central, undemocratic control over both economy and government.

Okay, that was fun, but let’s return to the essential ideas here, a little less tongue-in-cheek. I will grant you something – both conservatives and liberals in the west emphasize the importance of “the law,” and I think that’s a good thing, too.

But laws, like everything else, come from somewhere, and human law comes from humans. Many will claim “inspiration” for this or that biblical or Qur’anic or other scriptural text, but it’s only the blindly religious fundamentalist that ever claims that the U.S. Constitution, the Magna Carta, Canada’s Constitution Act, or any other legal charter, document or piece of legislation is anything other than a human construct. That is not to say that they do not suppose that there is some basis, some fundamental principle(s) upon which all those laws rest. And therein lies the essential difference.

I spoke earlier in this debate that the statement “conservatism is correlated with religiosity” does not provide any insight into whether one is the cause of the other, or if they are simply independently correlated – perhaps through some other, unidentified predilection. Here I will make a claim – that the conservatism is more likely to drive the religiosity, rather than the other way round. And it is for this reason:

We all require of our laws that they support the things we need, and the things we want. Failure of our laws to do that are the basis of eventual revolution. If your need is for order, continuity, tradition and a sure roadmap for every choice, then you are likely to require laws that provide those things. Such laws, by the very nature of the needs they serve, cannot change too radically or often. If your need is to see that the individual has the freedom to act in such a way as to further his own agenda – as it may change from time to time – then you are likely to require laws that provide those things. Such laws must be pliable, since this is a most unpleasantly un-static world.

But all law assumes some authority – usually a “higher authority” – upon which our merely human laws rest. What can this be, for the conservative or the liberal? Before answering that question, let me state what should be obvious – for the religious person, that “higher authority” cannot be other than God. It is less obvious, but for me it is never-the-less true, that for liberals (at least this liberal) that “higher authority” is the sovereign right of every human to live his own life as he sees fit, consistent with not deliberately and/or unnecessarily impeding the same right for every other human.

For that reason, the liberal (whatever his religious belief) places the inherent right of each individual to decide the course of his life as the highest priority. And the conservative (again, whatever his religious belief) places the rights of the established social and order first and foremost, up to and including the need to insist that some people must be, no doubt tragically, unfulfilled for the benefit of the community.

The liberal can, therefore, refer to a demonstrable human need, a demonstrable inequity, and use that as his authority for changing a law to serve that need or remove the inequity. The conservative, on the other hand, must find a means of insisting that such changes in law be curtailed, and the “authority” for that cannot (obviously) come from any merely human requirement, since that would result (as it does for liberals) in justifying the change, rather than preventing it. And therefore, a “higher authority” (than the merely human) is frequently needed. And the only “higher authority” available seems to be God – Who is consequently regularly invoked in order to prevent those changes for which reasonable human arguments can be presented. For example, same-sex marriage, which can be shown to be beneficial for those who would suddenly be allowed to marry, and harmless to the rest, can really only be successfully refuted on the basis of personal taste (which ain’t good enough), or reference to an authority more important than what can be demonstrated good.
And therefore, my friend, I will stand by my original claim: “religiosity is positively correlated with conservatism.” But now, I will explain my rather cryptic statement in my opening post: “For the record, though I stated above that correlation does not imply cause, I will argue that it is, in fact, the conservative ideology that is the driver.” And that explanation is that the conservative ideology has much more need of God (in order to justify its demands) than God has need of conservative ideology.

But finally, let me acknowledge that my opponent has made one very important point – one that I don’t think should be ignored:

In the interim, I still have no problem with the definition of "religiosity" as something that is "excessively, obtrusively, or sentimentally religious". Indeed, I think what pushes conservatives and liberals into the sphere of radicalism is the failure to constantly re-examine their beliefs (religious or otherwise) in the light of reason, logic, new information, and new experience. Without that process, excessiveness, obtrusiveness, and sentimentality seem to be the default setting for justifying belief.

Indeed! And liberals who cannot find – using only the essential rules of liberty of the human person to pursue his own ends – just as frequently revert to a kind of “religiosity” to further their ends. Just not religiosity based on God.

[Kurt]

I believe that in this format, four entries by each side for a total of eight, I am left with the task of composing the final entry. Let me first say that if and when I am ever actually administered a "coup de grace", I dont know how I will respond. Suffice it to say that I am well satisfied with the duel. The gaunlet was dropped, retrieved, and well used.

Well, okay, maybe not. But, I did the best I could to climb a ladder whose rungs were ill-shaped to my feet or any of my other foundations. Truly, the mystery of why humans need reference to any higher authority than human consciousness at its fullest, will remain a mystery. Despite my quibbles about definitions,I cannot deny my opponent's premise that conservatism (in its broadest definition) feeds religiosity and vice-versa. It's not just correlation; it's a symbiosis that is quite toxic to non-participants. It is based on the horrible notion that tradition and established belief and institutional longevity are automatically a better guide, and have a higher value, than learning.

Look backword, look now, or look forward? I say, do all three and look for balance between them. I couldn't agree more with my opponent's statement that "conservative ideology has much more need of God (in order to justify its demands) than God needs of conservative ideology". Even an atheist like I am cannot imagine a God worth anything who would want His creations to ignore the change He built into the Universe.

I'm in danger of spiraling off into theology now, so let me end by saying that this was a trustful and trustworthy process to engage in.

You won, EH! BRAVO!!

Kurt