Conservatism and Religous Fundamentalism

People confuse and interchange these two "isims" regularly. It's not just Liberals who do it either. Conservative and Religious Fundamentalists are also guilty. I've thought about this a lot, and its not completely clear just exactly how Religious Fundamentalism became so bound to Conservatism.

The basic principle underpinning Conservatism is minimal government that stays out of the way of the people to the maximum extent possible. A conservative government would only do those things that abolutely need to be done as opposed to doing things one group or another "want" the government to do.

In this regard, the government's primary role is to preserve, protect and defend the United States Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. That includes providing for the common defense. This is because the United States Constitution is the basis for everything else in the United States. It is simply not the role of the government to be our baby sitter, our Santa Claus, our mommy, our daddy, our minister or our big sister.

The basics of conservatism is that we take personal responsibility for our actions. We are responsible for putting food on our table, raising our own kids, making sure that we take care of our property and deal with others on an honest basis.

Religious Fundamentalism has at its core the idea that there is some basic religious truth which is known only to a particular group or sect and must somehow be imposed on everyone else for their own good or salvation. Religious Fundamentalism would dictate that the government needs to do certain things to further the good that comes from this ultimate truth and leads to a government that does more than actually needs to be done.

The problem happens when people who are religious fundamentalists claim to be conservatives. To bolster this claim they identify with certain conservative principles but ignore the fact that they are at odds with the basis for conservatism. That is, they want the government to do things that a government does not need nor should it be doing.

Let's take a simple example. Marriage. Now let's really be objective about it. Short of establishing some minimum age at which people can marry without parental consent to protect against child abuse, what business is it of the government regarding who can marry? Conservative principles would indicate that the United States Constituion is not placed at risk with regard to who gets married. Marriage is an issue of religion. However, since there are many Religious Fundamentalists who claim to be conservatives and also claim that it is the governments business regarding who gets married, people think this is a conservative principle. It's not. It is a misrepresentation of the conservative principle by people who have hitched their wagon to the name without really embracing the concept.

Someone who claims to be conservative but wants government to do something that government does not need to be doing is no different from a Liberal who is trying to turn the government into a glorified baby sitter for us all.

A conservative would not care who gets married as long as the United States Consitution is not being attacked, and as long as the government is not infringing upon religious freedoms.

Conservatism and Relgious Fundamentalism are two different things and its about time someone pointed it out.