11 February 2008
Where to Hold the Line: Values vs Dogma
Posted by Roy Bischoff under: Constitution in Peril; General; Judaeo-Christian Values Under Attack .
Just a few words on differentiating between values and dogmas. True values should never be compromised since they are the principles that govern our behavior. An example of values would be the principles that we learn from the ten commandments. It is wrong to kill, steal, covet, etc. We can also derive a set of values from our Constitution. For example freedom of religion from our Bill of Rights. Hopefully we all embrace the idea that people should be allowed to practice their religions as they see fit without interference from the government except in extreme situations (called a compelling government interest in legalese).
A dogma is a belief or set of beliefs that a group holds to be true. An example of a Democratic dogma is that we need more government. An example of a Republican dogma is that we need to lower taxes. Both of these positions can lead to excess.
Let’s try to think rationally about taxes as an example. The thing about taxes is that there has to be some point at which the tax rate will provide adequate funding for essential government functions without being overly detrimental to the economy. (I am assuming that some or all of government funding must come from taxes.) Unfortunately no one knows exactly where that balancing point is but the Democrats generally say taxes need to go up while Republicans claim they need to go down. The point is that there is a level where taxes are too low and there is a level at which taxes are too high. Our value should be that we want our government to have the funding it needs to perform its essential functions without being overly burdensome on the economy. So when we look at a tax proposal whether up or down we need to evaluate it to see how it fits into our value before we support or attack it.
We hope to point out and contrast values and dogmas from time to time. We hope people can have an open mind and see if they are clinging to a dogma or standing fast to a value or principle.
Some definitions from the Encarta online dictionary:
Values=the accepted principles (a standard of moral or ethical decision-making) or standards (principles or values that govern a person’s behavior) of a person or a group
Dogma=a belief or set of beliefs that a political, philosophical, or moral group holds to be true
Mail this post
18 Comments so far...
Matt Says:
11 February 2008 at 9:22 am.
I’m not sure what your point is. I thought dogma was bad but the dogma of lower taxes is good. Your title says values vs dogma but we need both in the republican party right?
Jesse Says:
11 February 2008 at 2:05 pm.
I think what Roy was saying here is that we need to rally around values as a party. We have dogmas and that is okay but they shouldn’t be requisite to be a Republican. If we demand everyone in the party believe the same on evey point then we won’t be unified on what is important.
Chuck C Says:
11 February 2008 at 2:19 pm.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…
Many of my values are addressed in the Declaration of Independence. Others who share these same values may differ with me as to how these rights are to be secured. That is where the dogma comes in.
As a conservative, I believe that less government and individual initiative is better than big government and entitlements. Liberals believe differently.
Our values dictate the need for schools, roads, courts, etc. Our dogma may direct the way we desire to obtain these things, but the dogma can be compromised without compromising our basic values.
Give a starving man a fish or a fishing pole? If given a fish he will soon be hungry again. How about ONE fish AND a fishing pole? (a stimulus package).
E.E. Says:
11 February 2008 at 2:36 pm.
Wow Chuck, I think you cleared up any confusion anyone had. Putting that together with what Roy wrote makes a sharp picture. I wish every conservative could read the two together. Maybe that would help us not be so narrow and rigid that we can’t work together.
Pickles Says:
11 February 2008 at 3:06 pm.
“Our dogma may direct the way we desire to obtain these things, but the dogma can be compromised without compromising our basic values”. I had to copy that down Chuck. It is so sweet. It is now so freaking easy to see where the whole problem is with both parties. If people do not get this then there will still be infighting and it will get worse. Love this place. It makes me sound smart when I talk to my friends cause they are smarter than me and now I can fool them 
Peter Says:
11 February 2008 at 4:43 pm.
Now this is something I CAN get on board with. If Republicans can learn not to shove pet peeves down people’s throats who aren’t hungry for it, then we can finally identify important areas of agreement so we can forge a new image and work to save the principles of the Constitution we love.
Stumpy Says:
11 February 2008 at 4:46 pm.
Peter take two aspirin and call me in the a.m. Yer getting sick buddy.
Jeezer Says:
11 February 2008 at 7:09 pm.
It was a comfort to come and read this. I was out on a job today listening to the radio. Mark Levine was talking to a guy who was supporting Ron Paul. I was pleased because the man sounded so reasonable and intelligent, not a kook like some are. So many people think we are all kooks and treat us like dirt. Mark yelled and him and told him to get off the line. I don’t think there is any other place like this. I am so glad I am accepted her. I love this idea of principles and values versus dogma. We have the important things in common. I hope we can continue to be patient with differences here and keep working to find common ground. Thanks for the wisdom.
Jan W. Says:
11 February 2008 at 7:42 pm.
Jeezer
We are happy to have everyone here. My brother is convinced that some faction in our government worked with the terrorists to cause 9/11 and because of that he can’t support the war. I still think it would be good to win either way so we maintain a strong image. From what I have seen the extremists look for any weakness to attack. But anyway, if you believe the same as my brother I can understand why you feel how you do. Maybe I just can’t let myself even seriously look at any facts or science or whatever. I just do not want to believe that could be possible and I am happier believing the way I do.
Roy Bischoff Says:
11 February 2008 at 10:30 pm.
Thanks Chuck for helping me out. This is what blogs are all about; people helping other people to understand important concepts.
Cavetrollhead Says:
11 February 2008 at 11:29 pm.
One value that I have is that we are not to judge one – another. (I need help living this myself) That includes not condemning the poor for their situation. We usually don’t know why they are in that situation.
An example is my brother. He has been very ill most of his adult life. He actually went blind for a while while serving a mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. But after his mission, outward symptoms were gone. He only had symptoms that were private, and undetectable by the world. He was unable to work steadily. He was judged very harshly from people like the parents of girls he dated, people at church, and EVEN FAMILY MEMBERS who would say it is all in his head and he is just lazy or afraid of commitment or had no work ethic. Immediate family members have helped him some but even we couldn’t appreciate how desperate he was. Well, finally he began having Grand Mal seizures that were so severe that he would have amnesia for an hour afterward. He had two in a day some days. If he didn’t rest every time he felt tired, he would have a seizure. He was finally diagnosed with Cardio-Vascular Syncope, a disease of his body’s control of blood pressure. This drop in blood pressure now will result in a seizure. The doctors say that his seizure condition stems from years of poor health, and CV Syncope and probably started with mononucleosis in his adolescence.
By the time of his diagnosis he was entering his forties and had no hope for a career, family etc. and had been socially rejected from about every imaginable convention of society. To this day, his feels judged by people who don’t know anything about him except that he lives with his parents. He doesn’t go to church, or participate in social activities because of the humiliation he feels from his situation. He lives a reclusive and lonely, and sometimes bitter life.
My point is that one tenant of liberalism is that government is to take from some and redistribute to others. When we conservatives judge the poor, it fortifies this argument for liberals, who think conservatives are cold and judgmental and that people need to be forced to share, and uplift one another. I am sorry to say, that many conservatives are cold and judgmental and wouldn’t share unless forced. So you can of course see that liberals also have values that stem from good will and a reasonable perspective of history
A value of conservatism IS NOT that our money is our own and we are not obligated to share. This is just selfishness, and Jesus spoke very harshly of those with this attitude. Some also think that a person begging for financial help is an unworthy weakling. Remember in the bible, the parable of when the rich man would not give to the poor man, Lazarus begging at his table but would give to his dogs. (Luke 16:19-31) That rich man ended up in hell and the poor, in the bosom of God. How could Jesus have taught more clearly? Yet to hear many conservatives talk, you would think selfishness is a conservative value.
The conservative value that pertains to sharing our wealth is that we should be free to share our money according the the dictates of our own conscience. We are nonetheless morally obligated to do so. When we conservatives are selfish, or use rhetoric that denigrates the poor and the beggars, we not only offend God, but we strengthen the political left, by reinforcing the “austere conservative” stereotype.
We conservatives believe that the government should be minimally involved in welfare or any redistribution of wealth. We believe that there are many good reasons for this. One of those reasons IS NOT that those who would ask for help of us don’t deserve help.
End of sermon. Go in peace and sin no more.
Chuck C Says:
11 February 2008 at 11:53 pm.
Cavetrollhead, you have touched (and very well) upon this subject. I realize that this is not an LDS site, but a scripture from the Book of Mormon comes to mind…
Mosiah 4: 16-25
16 And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.
17 Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—
18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.
19 For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?
20 And behold, even at this time, ye have been calling on his name, and begging for a remission of your sins. And has he suffered that ye have begged in vain? Nay; he has poured out his Spirit upon you, and has caused that your hearts should be filled with joy, and has caused that your mouths should be stopped that ye could not find utterance, so exceedingly great was your joy.
21 And now, if God, who has created you, on whom you are dependent for your lives and for all that ye have and are, doth grant unto you whatsoever ye ask that is right, in faith, believing that ye shall receive, O then, how ye ought to impart of the substance that ye have one to another.
——————-
I am a conservative and a Republican, but I do believe that – on a local level – many democrats are more charitable in their approach to the less fortunate. We do need charitable hearts and not blame the poor, but we don’t need to be foolish in our approach to a solution (dogma).
When I was a senior in high school in Oregon I had the chance to be a page at the Oregon State Capitol. While talking to Governor Tom McCall (D) he told me that Federal Funding was like feeding oats to your horses to feed your chickens. That was great insight for a democrat. (For you city folks, horses don’t chew their oats very well and when they pass, there are lots of whole kernels in the horse droppings. So the chickens scratch in those droppings and get a little of what the horse didn’t digest) What he was trying to say is that the states could certainly do a lot more without the monstrous federal government eating the lion share of the income before it gets to the needy, or the roads, or the schools… And that was in 1970!
There is so much good to be done if we just had the will and the power, or if you will, the willpower.
End of sermon two. Time for bed.
Terrie Soberg Says:
11 February 2008 at 11:54 pm.
Excellent explanation, Chuck. Another thing Glenn Beck talked about today is how we are guaranteed the right to Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. There is no guarantee of happiness itself. We reap what we sow, and we all have to take advantage of the opportunities that present themselves to us. For those less fortunate, we are commanded to help them help themselves as much as possible. Living on “the Dole” is not an answer. Yet, we must also be careful how we judge, lest we are judged with the same judgment we have meted out. Thankfully, the Lord prompts us to action many times when it would be easier to just sit still and let someone else do it.
Chuck C Says:
12 February 2008 at 12:00 am.
Terrie, I wish those in charge of our nation’s welfare understood what you just explained so well.
Cavetrollhead Says:
12 February 2008 at 12:22 am.
Thank you Chuck, that was a great post. I remembered those passages from the Book of Mormon too but chose the bible instead for a more broad appeal. I had forgotten have beautiful those verses you quoted are.
I appreciate your input and how you got the Value/Vs dogma lesson from my post right on.
One big problem with federal subsidies is that they are so wasteful because of the many levels of bureaucracy.
Another thing, federal programs are SO easy for the dishonest to exploit.
On the other hand, in the example of my brother, he could be “on the dole” very easily but he is intensely ashamed by the application process. He was denied SS disability the first time and the shame of the application was almost unbearable for him. He spends almost all of his time in complete seclusion. He can’t face most of his old friends or relatives for his embarrassment of what he thinks they must think of him.
Some might say, “he just needs to get over his pride.” But isn’t that pride taught to us from the time we are young? He is 46 and that pride is as good as hardwired by now. People like my brother could benefit from those who follow the admonition of William Shakespeare in The Merchant of Venice:
The quality of mercy is not strain’d,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
I am afraid we sometimes try to shame people into taking care of their own needs and only help begrudgingly. In other words, the quality of our ‘mercy’ is indeed strained. Because of the intensity of their shame, they then turn to the government for help. If they are too ashamed to do that, they end up homeless, or at the very least never lead full lives.
It is easy to see why people of compassion drift to the left. They have the gift of empathy, and can’t see it in the austerity of the right.
Chuck C Says:
12 February 2008 at 12:30 am.
I feel for your brother. My wife is married to a man who suffers from vasal/vagal syncope (passing out and heart stopping from nerve damage in the neck), but not as severe as your brother. Flat-lining is no fun. It would be easier if he had a leg in a cast, or some other very obvious malady.
Chuck C Says:
12 February 2008 at 12:35 am.
Sorry I rambled on so much. I never entered a blog chat-room until last week. I’m not up on the protocols. Is there a tutorial about not being too… well too… I can’t think of the right word for being too wordy. That works– too wordy!
Cavetrollhead Says:
12 February 2008 at 12:38 am.
Oh yea, Chuck, I called is Cardio something or other. It is called Vasal/vegal. The vegal is from the ‘vegas’ nerve I believe and its interaction from the vascular (vaso) system or something like that 
. So you have the same condition. What a co-ink-a-dink!
Anyway, yes an outward sign like a cast inhibits judgment, but the hidden sicknesses invites judgment.
Anyway, good night and thanks for the conversation.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
