Is it possible to support the Conservative party while at the same time be a Christian?

"Jesus said:
...
Do not build churches"

But in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says

"You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church"

A church is a communion of Christians who share a common interpreation of Christ's preaching and a common set of rituals. If you don't belong to any church, then you are essentially on your own in your interpreation etc, which is fine, but you won't benefit from wisdom built up by many people over centuries and at the end of the day, Christian funeral ceremonies etc are usually conducted by established churches.

The most committed Christians are usually the regular churchgoers and on the whole they tend to be Conservative voters because of their traditional outlook with respect to morality, conscience, individual liberty above control from the state and family values.

Jesus said:

Give up everything and follow me

Help the poor

Do not build churches

Do as you would be done by etc

Turn the other cheek

Anyone not doing the above is not technically a Christian no matter how they vote.

Agree Goodforsolong. Another rant about Labour's record and the bedroom tax and quotes from the Daily Mail on Labour's cuts and benefits policies which have nothing whatsoever to do with the question about Christians and whether they support Conservatives or why it is possible that they do.

Yet again Isitmebut wades in ignoring the actual OP, and can only spout any old crap they find on the Labour party.

The OP asks if conservative views conflict with Christian beliefs. Not, if Labour, libdem, Ukip, SNP, Green, claidcymiu, Whig etc etc..... Conflict with Christian beliefs.

The more committed church goers tend in general to vote for Conservatives rather than Labour/Democrats both here and in the States. As religion has declined, this jhas necome a less important factor, but things do tend to go in cycles, so religion may one day make a comeback. There is a huge upsurge in church going among black Londoners in London where churches are springing up everywhere and hold three services a day with 5000 people turning up per service. It is amazing.

"Yes, Mr. Obama won the overall Catholic vote in 2012, but Mr. Romney beat the president handily among Catholics who attended church at least weekly - 57% to 42%. In fact, those figures matched exactly the margins Mr. Romney had over Mr. Obama with Protestant Christians.

But among more casual Catholics, those who attend church less than once a week, Mr. Obama defeated Mr. Romney with similar ease - 56% to 42%. (There are similar differences among protestant voters, though Mr. Romney won both regular church attendees and less-frequent churchgoers."

www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/bigger-political-predictor-religion-how-often-you-go-church-n335306

The majority of church going Christians tend to vote Conservative rather than Labour - both here, in the States and across the planet.

The reason for that is that they are traditionalists who believe in traditional values - family, morality, duty etc etc

However, our new modernised Conseravtive party no longer follows many of those traditional Tory values and are in many aspects indistinguishable from the progressive Labour modernisers, so it remains to be seen where traditional church-going Christiansd will turn if the trend to modernisation among our political class continues.

"Church of England still 'Tory Party at prayer'

Church of England worshippers are more likely to vote for the Conservative Party, according to new research.

The data also suggests Catholics tend to support the Labour Party."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25889828

However, there is an element of socio-economic factors that affect voter choice. But the evangelical Christians and born-again Christians in the States in general are more Republican leaning than Democrat leaning, not because of moeny, but because of family values etc.

There would not be an emergency measures 'Spare Room' tax if Labour in 2009 had not left 1.7 million families (5 million citizens) queuing for social homes, sitting back with over 800,000 social bedrooms being left empty - so what WERE Labour's solid, funded plans in 2010 to provide bedrooms for those arguably in need/worse off, than those with SPARE bedrooms?

It is totally disingenuous to blame Conservatives for needing to cut back a welfare/benefits/tax credit state that ballooned under Labour, paid for by the proceeds of a financial bubble economy that burst - when the Labour Party would have done the same.

March 2010; ”Alistair Darling:we will cut deeper than Margaret Thatcher”
www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-darling-cut-deeper-margaret-thatcher

October 2013; “Labour will be tougher than Tories on benefits, promises new welfare chief”
www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/12/labour-benefits-tories-labour-rachel-reeves-welfare

“Rachel Reeves vows to cut welfare bill and force long-term jobless to take up work offers or lose state support”

August 2013; “Labour to substantially cut benefits bill if it wins power in 2015”
www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/21/labour-to-cut-benefits-bill-2015

”Labour will cut the benefits bill "quite substantially" and more effectively than the Tories if it wins power in 2015, the shadow work and pensions secretary said on Tuesday”

”Liam Byrne, a Labour frontbencher, said the coalition's welfare reforms were failing to cut costs enough, and called for cross-party talks to "save" some of the government's key schemes.”

Maybe they would have done it differently, but because they only TALKED about attempting to solve a problem of their own making, we will never know.

I don't think it's possible. If you believe Christianity to be about the teachings of Christ, then surely what you believe must be the polar opposite of Conservative policy. If Christ existed today he would be a socialist.

No

Auntie-

Jesus taught "Love thy neighbour" and expected his followers to do this themselves.

Not to rely on the government of the day to do it.

During Jesus's time, it was often possible to know everyone in your village. We now have a world population of nearly 7 billion people.

Despite this we have a huge surplus of wealth like we never have had before in human history. We have so much wealth that no a single human being has to go without food or shelter - if we so choose.

We have already tried relying on charity and volunteering to take care of the poor and needy - it was called the Victorian era.

The welfare state was created because of the post WWII consensus, that a better world is possible, and that we can only solve societies problems by working together.

So perfectly possible to support a party that promotes Big Society, personal giving, volunteering etc and there be no conflict with Chritian faith.

Big Society is a scam and isn't even talked about anymore. The purpose of 'Big Society' was a cover for the brutal cuts which are leaving people homeless and destitute. It has failed.

There is no real support in the Bible for the idea of tax, or of centralised anything.

That's because during the time of Christ, there was no such thing as the welfare state and the population was a fraction of what it is now. All the modern facilities to help people who are in need (healthcare, shelters, foodbanks, job seeker's allowance, housing, etc) didn't exist.

But I don't think those who are in favour of centralised high-tax arrangements cannot be good Christians.

The important think, I believe, is that the needy are helped.

They aren't being helped. Cutting essential services is killing people and making people homeless.

Do you think Jesus would approve of 'the bedroom tax'? Forcing terminally-ill cancer sufferers to 'get back to work' or have their support withdrawn? Withdrawing support for disabled people to live independent lives, some of whom will die as a consequence if they don't have someone to take care of them?

Does that strike you as loving and compassionate?

Carol-

black who decides Christ's teachings except the church? You appear to have your own definition.

You do. The old fashioned way. The way Jesus's followers did and many Christians have ever since:

Read and study what Jesus said, taught, and did, and then decide for yourself what is 'Christian' or not.

Jesus taught "Love thy neighbour" and expected his followers to do this themselves.

Not to rely on the government of the day to do it.

So perfectly possible to support a party that promotes Big Society, personal giving, volunteering etc and there be no conflict with Chritian faith.

There is no real support in the Bible for the idea of tax, or of centralised anything.

But I don't think those who are in favour of centralised high-tax arrangements cannot be good Christians.

The important think, I believe, is that the needy are helped.

There are many Christians on mumsnet so if you are are correct in how you are representing their views caroldecker then they will surely come and back you up and say yes we want to kill homosexuals, Muslims and Jews. That should clear things up.

The pope was worshipping at ground zero recently inviting other faith leaders to join him including Muslims and Jews. He must have forgotten to kill them as he was preaching his message of peace and reconciliation.

BackforGood Believe me, people are gleefully and joyously offensive to Muslims on here. Arabs also get a rough ride as a google of any thread on Dubai shows.

Returning to the thread, as a Muslim, I don't recognise caroldecker's depiction of churches.

Both Christianity and Islam make a big deal of helping the needy and not hording wealth, so I think there is an incompatibility with the Conservative ideals of lower taxes and cutting/eliminating the welfare state.

No. Not possible.

Sorry - linked to catholic websites. These represent 1.2 billion people, over 50% of Christians. The African churches tend to be more extreme.
Don't know how explaining the position of over half the world's Christian's is offensive.

caroldecker - none of that is even vaguely representative of the vast majority of christians or christian churches. Your statement is wildly inaccurate and offensive.

Ignorant and offensive op

Not sure why it is on MN, that week after week, people are allowed to be as offensive as they like to Christians, whilst any other form of insult to anyone is jumped down on from a great height ?

Majestic

On homosexuality, you have Sodom and this which is one of many I could find.
jews here
muslims

The church does not love thy neighbour and there is no agreed view of christianity, else we would have only one christian church.

Of course Conservative supporters can believe in the fairy story otherwise known as Christianity if they so wish. That, of course, also applies to being a Muslim or a Zoroastrian or Buddhist or Sikh or Pagan or even a Jedi or any other fairy story.

caroldecker, can you please explain / back up your statement.

"not sure the main message of most churches is 'love thy neighbour', it appears to be 'kill the homosexual, muslim and jew'."

because it strikes me as really offensive, and I don't know where you get this idea from. I am neither Christian nor Conservative, but really, what are you on about?

No. A true Christian would not support the tories.

black who decides Christ's teachings except the church? You appear to have your own definition.

My sunday school teacher once told us, a group of 13 and 14 year olds, fhat the early Christian Church was one of the few Communist organisations to actually work.

Now that opens a whole can of worms

Plenty of Conservatives disagree with what the Government are doing so I don't see them as incompatible with Christianity: that's far too sweeping a statement.