Religion and conservatism?

If religions are uniformly “conservative” at heart, it is only because they are traditions and because people who uphold traditions are slow to change them. This is not inherently a bad thing, of course, especially for people coming from the perspective that their religion conveys some sort of important truth to its adherents. A religious leader has every reason to be wary of changing a doctrine or a practice simply because it is trendy in the surrounding culture, just as anyone else who strongly believes something (be it religious, philosophical, scientific, etc.) has reason to be wary of giving up that belief merely because other people find it disagreeable.

I wonder, though, how you are using the word “conservative.” If it’s just a matter of holding fast to tradition and being slow to change, as I have used the term above, then this is probably not contradictory to the founding of the world’s religions. Many of these “founders,” where there are any, were merely codifying traditions that already existed. Indeed, it is often stressed in sacred documents that the major figures of a religion were traditionalists (regardless of whatever might be said to the contrary).

If you are using the word “conservative” to refer to some set of social or political beliefs that contemporary conservatives hold, however, it is less clear to me that we can call the world’s various religions “conservative” in any meaningful way. Since not all contemporary conservatives agree on a set of beliefs—or even a meaning for the term “conservative”—using the term this way in reference to ancient cultures becomes all the more difficult. Moreover, I’m not convinced that all of the world’s religions—or even all of the major ones—would be conservative in this sense.

Religion is usually conservative (especially the abrahamic ones) because they are based on dogma which they claim to be of divine origin and thus never changing.
And unlike political conservatism, religions do not have to make things up in order to pretend that their ways actually work, so they do not have to change them. They just have to point to their dogma.

Christian socialists aren’t considered conservative, are they?

Christian Socialists, that’s a conundrum? Mixed up maybe!

“Religions all around the world seem to be conservative at heart.”

Well, that’s the word they give to it. But it’s just used as a spin for repressiveness. They call their views conservative, but there is nothing conservative about elaborate mosques and ornate temples and over indulgent churches. So much money is spent on programs and political posturing and even that big white cadillac the preacher drives with his gucci suit.

What they call conservative, is really repressiveness against people living their own lives how they want to live them, or coming to know God as an individual rather than as a judgmental bearded White Man in the sky. They use it as justification to judge others. It’s a sales pitch worse than selling water or oxygen. They sell salvation and forgiveness for not being like them. Yet we often find they don’t even follow their own guidelines of “conservatism”. Religion is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Religions are typically conservative because they commonly present dogma for humans on how to live “the proper way”, and are moralistic and didactic in nature. That’s why they appear conservative.

Christianity, at least, works from a moral and ethical standard that emphasizes the spiritual over the temporal; if adhered to, the standard will provide a better spiritual life. Conservatism in this case is about staying on the standard, whereas deviation means a poorer quality of life, possibly even a second fall from grace, depending on whether or not you think that one can lose his salvation.
While shockingly different in many respects, Christianity actually picks up where Judaism leaves off. It was radical for its day, a time when excessive legalism had pervaded the priesthood, but mostly in that it moved towards the root of the faith. It was the next phase in God’s Plan To Save The World.

By definition, Conservatism abhors radical change.
Religion also opposes radical change as The Word of [God/Allah/Joe Pesci] is immutable.

Basically, saying the major religions are Conservative is like saying cats are furry. Not all cats are furry (ever see a Sphynx?) but enough are that the statement can be considered generally true.

Of course, there are other religions that are not. Some revel in Chaos and change , while others are merely flexible enough to realize that the world has changed in the last few centuries and have adapted with the times.

@Nullo I think a convincing case could be made that the creation/rise of other religions is the phase after that.

I agree with @SavoirFaire, we need to know how the word conservative is being used/defined for the question.

@brengunn I don’t find it odd that Christians might be socialists. Aren’t Christians supposed to help thy neighbor? Wasn’t greed and making profit from money against the religion, if not in the bible (I don’t know the bible well enough) then in practice for many years? One of the seven deadly sins is greed if I remember correctly. Since Capitalism is typically associated with greed, there is an argument for Christian socialism I would think.

Religion is conservative in all senses of the word. It represents an outdated pre-scientific view of the world. It posits an unchanging world (“There is nothing new under the Sun”) with no chance for social upheaval. So called religious revolutions only represent the overthrow of one set of religions by another.

Jesus was a radical reformer challenging conservative views.
Talmudic Judaism was about reform and challenging conservative views.
Protestant Christianity was about protest and reform and challenging conservative views.
Higher criticism was about enlightenment and reform and challenging conservative views.
Moses Mendelssohn was a reformer challenging conservative views.
Latin was replaced by native languages in Catholic churches.

The list goes on.

There are always two forces at play. Conservatives ones and forces demanding change.

Societies evolve.
Religions evolve.

What about liberation theology and Catholics? What about politically liberal Christians like those who are part of the Sojourners movement? What about all of the liberal causes that Jewish individuals and organizations have supported that could be seen as in alignment with the tradition of tikkun olam (or “repairing the world). These examples are just the tip of the iceberg. I would imagine that almost every religion has adherents who have supported progressive (or what they deemed as progressive) social change.

@mattbrowne Societies evolve far faster.

There are certain dynamics that tend to move religions in the direction of conservatism in the course of their development. Religions typically coalesce around a very charismatic figure. It’s that charisma that gives this figure the power to persuade, inspire and mobilize. People who lack the confidence of their own convictions can be energized enough by such a charismatic person to leave previous traditions behind and strike out on a different course, with this bold and inspiring figure in the lead.

But with the demise of the charismatic founder, there may or may not be a successor with equivalent charisma. Without that charisma, the religion becomes more reliant on formality and ceremony, and the doctrine formerly expounded by the founder is taken as an absolute measuring stick for the legitimacy of what his successors say. The successors derive their authority, in effect, by riding on the coat tails of the successor. They’re seen as surrogates for the founder. But this means that they have little leeway for departing from the original doctrines and practices, because their authority depends upon them.

The end game of the process is often something that resembles a bureaucracy. Individual persons become less important than the institution of the religion. It is the office rather than the person that has authority. At this level, there is very little impetus for change. The system just perpetuates itself, as institutions tend to do, but with little room or tolerance for shaking things up.

@thorninmud…hence the Galileo affair.

I think we should be wary of equating “religion” with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. There are religions that take a very different approach to their scriptural canon than these three, there are religions that do not have ornate buildings, and there are religions that do not stand in the way of science. Yet they still may be conservative in the “holding fast to tradition” sense of the word.

We should also keep in mind that the mere fact that an institution changes over time or that it has had successful radicals in its history does not mean it is not conservative in general or overall. Change might be inevitable, but there are other factors to take into account. Conservatism is relative, after all.

@jerv – Most of the time, yes. But sometimes evolving too fast leaves some people behind in a society. Take globalization and the transformation into a knowledge economy for example.

@mattbrowne So we either leave some behind or hold many back, eh?

Conservatism prefers stability at the expense of all else, even when such stability perpetuates inequality and causes the more adaptable and quick-witted amongst us to chafe at the yoke.

Of course, the alternatives may cause problems of equal severity if done improperly, but often those who suffer the most are those incapable of adapting. Some may argue that it’s “survival of the fittest” that causes people to be left behind.

The trick is to find a rate of advancement that will get us out of the ages of tolerated intolerance and vacuum tubes to the age of Star Trek without either leaving people behind the way supply-side economics does or frightening the old people who think it’s still 1624. I think if goes without saying that there are at least a few million different opinions on what pace that is.

@jerv – I am in favor of slowing down a bit. Give more people time to catch up.

@mattbrowne I oppose weighing runners down with a sack of bricks because some of us limp. I guess we just disagree on this one.

It’s not a runners race @jerv. It’s a human race.

The body of humanity is likened to the individual body. Genes don’t leave other genes without resources. The genes that make the eyeball would die quickly if they stole unneeded resources from the genes that make the kidneys.

The genes that steal resources and use them for selfish purposes are described as cancerous.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Agreed to an extent, but I think we need to move at the average speed, not the slowest. It seems to me that most are doing just fine with the way society as a whole is moving; the only problems they’re having keeping up are economic ones.

There will always be opposition to gay marriage, interracial marriage, letting women vote, etcetera. To my mind, if we had it your way, we would still be in medieval times, thinking the Sun revolves around the flat Earth, literacy would be limited to the elite,etcetera. I mean, some people can’t keep up with advancing too fast, and many took issue with how fast we’ve advanced thus far, so the only logical solution is to not advance at all.

So, stagnate or leave some behind? Your choice.

What’s the rush? Certainly you don’t think there’s a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow… do you? A little more development in the art of contemplation would suit the world well. I for one am growing weary of the get it now mentality of society. It’s too easy for deception to rule the day. I find life a little tastier upon letting it marinate. Let the river do the rowing.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I don’t think we are there; I think some people just want us frozen in time.

What you mention is another type of impatience that has nothing to do with the rate of change.

Slowing down the pace is not stagnation. It’s still progress. Let’s call it smart progress. Human beings depend on communities. Disrupting communities and the lives of many individuals can get very expensive in addition to being unethical.

@mattbrowne I am all for smart progress, but what you consider a judicious pace might be seen as stagnation by many while still being too fast for others.

Not to mention that maintaining such a slow pace will have dire and unethical consequences for those that try to improve on the past ahead of schedule. Look at what happened between the Catholics and Protestants.

I won’t disagree that there is a smart way and many dumb ways to move forward, only on what the smartest way is.

@jerv – The people who see a judicious pace as stagnation usually have the intellect and life experience to reconsider, quite unlike the people who experience change as being too fast.

Conservatism is a very comfortable political and social position because every law and every thought had been accomplished and there is no need for novel ideas or change.

All a conservative had to do is follow the rules that are clearly laid out by their leaders. The bible is the only book they need to read and the preacher is the only authority they must abide.

In the conservative universe the Amish are a radical cult while Glenn Beck speaks for the people.