Yes.
Depends on what secularization is. If it means allowing politicians and voters and judges to allow their religious beliefs to influence how they run the country, yes. If it means empowering a particular church or religious sect, no
When something in society is blatantly wrong, slavery for example, I have no trouble with rapid and massive change. But when the least bit of change can threaten societal cohesion to the point that society’s survival is threatened, I don’t support change at all no matter how evolutionary it is.
As long as the law is just and serves a purpose that is beneficial to society’s preservation. Otherwise unjust laws must always be resisted- with the understanding that we don’t all always agree that a law is just.
Yes.
See above.
Yes and no. Life, (civil) liberty and property are legitimate human rights. Licentiousness is not. Living on welfare is not.
Yes, but only to the extent that one person’s individual initiative cannot be used to gain them undue power.
A duty yes; an absolute duty in all situations, no.
I support welfare programs. I don’t support the welfare state. Welfare programs are OK as long as they don’t disrupt the family or make people dependent on the largesse of others.
Yes, but I would be willing to argue specifics.
This is a non-issue since neither a totally capitalistic economy, nor a totally planned economy can survive in the real world for very long.
Individual initiative (and the welfare state) make class struggle inevitable. But I reject the concept of caste where mobility between socio-economic classes is not allowed for socio-economic reasons.
Obviously not since I can give a simple yes or no answer to only 3 of your questions at most.
So why are you insisting that only yes/no answers are possible? The differences between Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. and Democrats and Republicans within their own parties (I am neither one) is a matter of scale.
Like I said, I have never researched Christian Democrats so all I know about them is what I am being told here. But I suspect that reality is far more complicated than what I am being told here.
I may not be remembering what I have read, but weren’t the Christian Democrats a major component of Germany’s politics during the decades leading up to World War I? So what influence did the Christian Democrats have in creating Germany’s pre-war welfare system and subsequent Weimar Republic- that gave social welfare guarantees to Germans that the Weimar Republic could not afford to pay for?
Define welfare state.
It has in America. We have women who were raised on welfare that now have grandchildren who are being raised on welfare.
How is this not a sign of dependency?
Again a sign of dependency.
