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

[RainbowintheMagpiesTail]

My sister (who life has been very kind to) is a fervent supporter of the Tory's and their policies regarding cuts to welfare but at the same time a devoted follower of Jesus- even goes to Mass every Sunday. In my mind, these two things are irreconcilable. Could someone explain how this is possible?

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.

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.

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?

No

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

"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.

I am not a Christian, but even I know that one of the major teachings of Christianity is to 'love thy neighbour'. How different churches interpret it is up to them - yes, some interpret it as 'love thy neighbour unless they're gay, Muslim or Jewish', but there are plenty of churches that do not discriminate, are welcoming to all and don't make a habit of telling gay people that they will burn in hellfire.

I don't think it's possible to be a member of the latter kind of church - the more accepting Christianity that really does preach acceptance and tolerance - and a Conservative. Last I checked, nowhere in the Bible does it say "Love thy neighbour unless they're disabled".

Goodforsolong .... may I suggest that you re read both the title and the text supposing that if a political party cuts welfare as the Conservatives have, they cannot be Christian.

Blacksunday then went on about the housing situation under the Conservatives, conveniently forgetting about Labour's legacy.

So the CORRECT or INFORMED answer to the OP question was 'yes, as any party finally looking to tackle the 2010 government overspend, would have had to cut back a bill that substantially rose during a boom time when in the past, those bills tend to fall'.

As the only alternative to a Conservative led administration have confirmed, although usually not at election times or when they want to get on some moral high horse.

Sorry if the truth is inconvenient.

S to be one of the most ridiculous, pathetic OP's I've read in a long time. Still, as no other party ever has done anything that could be perceived as wrong, I'm sure the OP is sitting feeling like they've been very clever

Still, supporting Blairs' murders and profiteering is fundamentally Christian, eh, OP you tit

Sorry if the truth is inconvenient
yeah ok

Blairs/Bushes war on Iraq with a made up Iraqi WMD dossier was their 'Crusade', silly, and anything goes in the name of Christ when that shit goes down. Hmmm.

the truth

claig ... three Labour ministers (one the then Chancellor) stating that they need to make substantial cuts; how many more would you have needed to believe it, sweet cheeks?

"don't build churches" as physical structures

the truth

'"don't build churches" as physical structures'

But that is where religious people meet to hold their services, just as Muslims meet in mosques and Jews meet in synagogues.

But that is what Jesus said not to do. Hold assemblies (ecclesia), don't build structures. Of course it was a lot warmer round his way.

And give away all your possessions and money to the poor. No getting round that one.

My mother is a devout Catholic. She didn't vote this time, because she is very anti abortion and couldn't work out which of the parties was least supportive of the right to choose, etc etc.

Taking it a bit far IMO.

'And give away all your possessions and money to the poor. No getting round that one.'

Yes, but there is a lot of debate about that and what he meant. Don't forget he told people to pay their taxes to Caesar. He also wanted people not to waste money as in the parable of the Talents. The consensus seems to be that he was telling the rich man that unless he subordinated the love for money for the love of God, then he would not be guaranteed eternal life. There is no problem with money as long as you do good and do not covet it above the good.