The right favors the defense of tradition in the face of external forces for change. Beyond that is the idea that the individual is best served by the least intrusion into his life by government. The left generally advances alterations of those norms and favors a stronger role for government in the life of the individual. It's really a foundationally different set of assumptions for what best serves us, individually and collectively.
The first sentence can contradict the second if the traditions, the norm, have become "a stronger government role in the life the individual."
The Barnes reading is really great. He shows the figure of speech in the verse has been known in a lot of cultures and for a long time. It isn't necessarily political or religious (obviously it can be). But we recognize, like Barnes and like God, that the figure is talking about doing what is righteous, or at least honestly determining truth to try and do what is righteous. That's what wisdom does when it serves one well.
And that's what leads to absolutes.
Thus when you say...
I don't see how not. The moment you believe in God you believe in an absolute. I suspect the difference is more exegesis than foundation.
It's not a matter of believing in
an absolute. It's a matter of knowing the list of things that are righteous from God. This list will be as absolute as God is. Now, I realize "list" is not the best word to use, but it's the best one I can think of to convey the idea that God considers things good or bad and by reading the bible we can understand God's nature so well that in a way we can hear God tell us what is good and bad.
That's what it means to be on the right. Not just according to me, but according to what is inferred by Barnes and a gramatical, historical, reading of the bible. And it would include people that don't necessarily understand why the right acts like it does, but trusts them and follows what they do.
I like the Barnes reading, too.
"A wise man's sense is in its place, ready to help and protect him; but a fool's sense is missing when it is wanted, and so is useless."
So coming back to the topic at hand, people on the right, in the biblical sense, are the antithesis of Nazis.
But let's go even further at the risk of getting into a conversation I won't be able to respond to for a few days.
The statue of Lee in Charlottsville was put up in the early 20's. That's odd since the civil war generation was in their prime over 40 years earlier. And most of the leaders that supported the slave south were dead. And as it turns out, a lot more slave south hero statues were erected in the 20's besides Lee's in Charlottsville. And what's more, there were a number of them that were put up in the 60's.
Why?
For the same reason. They wanted the blacks to understand that the slave mentality, the mentality that whites were better than blacks, was alive and well in the generation of leaders that were putting up the statues. It was an intimidation tactic.
So one might think we should right this wrong and tear down the statues. But that would be a mistake. I already know your answer will be very long because this is very long so perhaps after your next response - if you feel inclined to do so - I might get into the reasons why it is a mistake. But if you could indulge me just a bit, can you predict what my reason/s is/are?
