Dear Mr. Peach,

I think I know what the meaning of "Republican" in political thought is, but I am not sure about the religious or philosophical part. I like to understand others’ points of view, but I find it helps to understand them first.

Best,
(Name deleted)

I have difficulty giving simple answers. This is over 800 words, and I’ve left out the more controversial issues.

Recently, I’ve been reading George Lakoff’s Whose Freedom, in which he metaphorically describes America as a family. The father is austere, disciplinary, and not quite authoritarian, but rigid. The mother is nurturing, compassionate, and, to a great extent, permissive. I had a grandmother and grandfather who were excellent examples of contrasting disciplinary influence. His was a continual verbal repetition of critical restraint; hers was an unspoken approval or disapproval that you could read in her eyes.

Fundamentalists tend to see religion as a body of laws. Liberal Christians tend to see Christianity as an attitude. Conservative Christians view civil law and ecclesiastical law as interdependent. Liberal Christians separate doctrine and ritual from ethical and moral behavior.

Liberal Democratic Christians see Conservative Republican Christians much as the Pharisees were depicted in the New Testament. Conservative Republican Christians see Liberal Democratic Christians as sinners, secularists, and morally permissive or inconsistent.

Philosophically, ethical theories usually are explained in four types: Deontological, Teleological, Aretaic (virtue based), Divine Command (religious).. Roughly those are--duty to humanity, results based behavior, rule of conscience, and ecclesiastical obedience. All, in theory, should enhance human flourishing and diminish human suffering.

Something to observe and consider: A coach wins the AFC Championship. In his interview he attributes the victory to God. More than likely he is a Conservative Republican Christian. Another coach wins a championship and in the interview he does not mention God. More than likely he is a Liberal Democratic Christian who sees football as a secular entity, the outcome of which is determined by number of points scored. Either or both coaches probably accept defeat as a valiant effort against a better team, with or without bad calls and funny bounces, with no inference to Divine intervention, or a partisan God.

I may be over-simplistic. There are deviations. LDC’s usually see abortion as a woman’s civil right and a difficult choice of painful options. LDC’s accept the wording and intent of the Second Amendment, but see guns as instruments of violence and danger to children, and find no pleasure in owning one. Neither can explain the religious or philosophical implication of the dogmatic acceptance or denial of Global Warming or climate change.

LDC’s see the Ten Commandments as part of God’s Testament with Israel and non-binding, except those commands validated within the New Testament. LDC’s oppose all government funding of religious display on or in government property. CRC’s initiated and support the addition of religious wording on currency and in patriotic recitations. LDC’s see this as degrading to Christianity, as religious ostentation, and compelled sectarian speech in schools. Liberals tend to broadly define the establishment of religion; Conservatives tend to institutionalize free expression of religion.

Something that I have found to be interesting is on Facebook. If you look at the profiles there you’ll find that persons who are more specific and emphatic about religion are more likely Conservative. Liberals are usually less inclined to define their religion in simple terms.

Almost without exceptions, CRC’s favor the death penalty and Guantanamo, LDC’s oppose the death penalty and find some judicial logic in civil trials over military tribunals. Conservatives support enhanced interrogation methods; both Conservatives and Liberals oppose torture. There are no clear lines between pacifism and "just war" advocates among Liberals. Among Conservatives these are rejected or assumed in deference to homeland security and nationalism.

I once referred to our polarity as September 11 Americans and July 4 Americans. Conservatives see no dichotomy or disharmony in this; Liberals see a clearly delineated difference.

I could go on, but the interaction of politics, religion, and philosophy may be more perceptual than logical and verifiable.

I was baptized just before my twelfth birthday and began teaching Sunday school the following Sunday in the Church of Christ, and taught for many years. I still consider myself a member of the Church of Christ. Last year, while I was writing my most recent book, I visited 32 churches and heard 39 speakers. Twice in the book I made the statement that the one or two hours in a church on Sunday morning is the lowest spiritual moment of my week, and yet I feel closer to God and Christianity than I ever have. This is difficult to explain, but it is a factor in our polarity. There is an emotional praise and worship that may or may not affect ethics and morals. There is a counter-movement toward secular ethics and morals, with a growing distaste for something they, rightly or wrongly, call "pop-culture religion." Within that is a perceived difference between being religious and in being spiritual. Some embrace faith and discourage philosophical inquiry; others pursue reason and find faith in incomprehensible wonder.