Why are Christians so often politically conservative?

drich0150

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2008
6,407
437
Florida
✟44,834.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I've often wondered about this. Could someone explain it to me? I'm politically conservative myself and I'm seeking to be a Christian, but I want to know why the two are so often connected.

Because the "Conservative right" aligns itself with a very basic/broad brush christian doctrine.
 
Upvote 0

GrayAngel

Senior Member
Sep 11, 2006
5,370
114
USA
✟21,292.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I've often wondered about this. Could someone explain it to me? I'm politically conservative myself and I'm seeking to be a Christian, but I want to know why the two are so often connected.

Protestants are generally Conservative, but Catholics can swing either way. Because the values of the Republican party are more closely aligned to Biblical moral values, Protestants prefer the Right of the political spectrum over the Left. That, and because Democrats, being a party directing its energies toward the minorities of America, often find themselves outright opposed to Christianity.

Catholics, however, don't consider the Bible to be perfect, so they're less liable to choose a party based on its friendliness toward Biblical values. They're also very oriented toward helping the poor, which the Left is supposedly better at. The Libertarian party would probably be a better fit for them, but no third parties ever thrive in America, so Catholics can be torn between the Republican and Democratic parties.
 
Upvote 0

food4thought

Loving truth
Supporter
Jul 9, 2002
2,929
725
50
Watervliet, MI
✟383,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Honestly, both parties have aspects that reject Christian values, but many (not all by any stretch of the imagination) in the Republican party have done a better job of making a vocal stand on those issues that have biblical foundation (anti-abortion, protection of religious speach in schools/public, individual responsibility, sanctity of marriage, etc).

The Democrats are laudable for their recent efforts to keep us out of foriegn wars as well as their championing the poor and outcast in society; but they have deliberately distanced themselves from defending Biblical morality on gay marriage, seeking to limit Christian speach in public and schools, supporting abortion, and somewhat denying individual responsibility by supporting the idea that government will solve our problems (as opposed to responsible citizens).

This is just a broad characterization, but I think it covers the major issues that attract Christians to the right.
 
Upvote 0

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,978
9,399
✟378,031.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I happen to come from a family that is both doctrinally conservative and politically conservative, so much of the time, that's how it happens. Now, I myself separate what it means to be a conservative Christian from what it means to be politically conservative in the context of American politics. I'm both, but one doesn't require the other. I personally find the conservative perceptions on issues like justice, liberty, individual rights, and personal responsibility to be more in line with the Bible than the liberal counterparts. I see capitalism as simply a way to put money and resources in the hands of good people, rather than this horrible evil that liberals make it out to be - you avoid its traps by making good choices that you're free to make. I recognize there are Christians who agree with me on Biblical issues, but disagree with me on political issues, and that's OK so long as we all recognize that Jesus wasn't a proponent of whatever pet political philosophy one might have. His teaching dealt with morals, not politics.
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
RoseOfJesus said:
I've often wondered about this. Could someone explain it to me? I'm politically conservative myself and I'm seeking to be a Christian, but I want to know why the two are so often connected.

That seems to be a N American phenomena. It's not globally true.
 
Upvote 0

leftrightleftrightleft

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2009
2,644
363
Canada
✟22,986.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
I see capitalism as simply a way to put money and resources in the hands of good people

...and how has the worked out through history?

I think its a laudable ideal and, if it could be made true, then government could keep their bureaucracy, inefficiency and red-tape out of it.

However, its not how the world works. People are greedy and they hoard their wealth. People are materialistic and buy needless material goods rather than re-distributing it to those who are starving. People use money as an idol rather than a tool.

Also, the massive flaw in the capitalistic, meritocratic system is inheritance. Because bad kids can come from good parents and so even if those good parents worked hard and managed to get lots of money and resources and do plenty of good with it, when they die, they're bratty kids might end up with it. Unless you're suggesting that parents should give any money, possessions or property they have to charity when they die.

To the OP: I think there's some aspects of both left and right that are quite un-Christian. The right's "survival of the fittest" philosophy doesn't go along well with Jesus' "turn the other cheek" morality. The left's social stances on things like marriage, plurality etc often run in the face of the Paul's discussions on marriage as well as Jesus' "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life."

I'm kind of a social justice-type and I when I see people starving, going homeless, living on the streets due to mental disability, etc while a rich person buys another BMW and an unnecessarily large suburban house along with a membership to a prestigious golf club, I tend to view that as WAY worse than concerning myself with what two men do on their spare time.

You don't see Jesus breaking into people's houses to make sure two men aren't sleeping together. Rather, you see him clothing to naked, healing the sick, and constantly commanding people to give up their material wealth.

I also find the Biblical argument for pro-life to be sparse at best.
 
Upvote 0

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,978
9,399
✟378,031.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
...and how has the worked out through history?
Better than anything else, actually. It is the most effective earthly means of raising everyday people's standard of living in history. Compare East and West Germany before unification. Compare North and South Korea. Compare Hong Kong, before the Chinese government regained control, to the rest of China even though it had no resources. Look at Taiwan's economic miracle.

However, its not how the world works. People are greedy and they hoard their wealth. People are materialistic and buy needless material goods rather than re-distributing it to those who are starving. People use money as an idol rather than a tool.
We are free to use it as either. A Christian obviously should use it as a tool rather than an idol. But even the people who are very greedy don't just hoard money. They spend it to buy more stuff, whether they need it, or whether they simply want it. Having 3 or 4 homes may sound bad to some people. However it's very good for those that work in construction, home furnishings, or interior design since some of that wealth is transferred to those people, enabling them to make their livings. Capitalism is a system which does not rely on an idealistic notion that people will be good. Rather, it banks on human selfishness, and converts it into a positive force which puts more money in the hands of more people across the social spectrum than anything else humanity has tried. When that happens, good people including Christians get more resources with which they can choose to do good.

Also, the massive flaw in the capitalistic, meritocratic system is inheritance. Because bad kids can come from good parents and so even if those good parents worked hard and managed to get lots of money and resources and do plenty of good with it, when they die, they're bratty kids might end up with it. Unless you're suggesting that parents should give any money, possessions or property they have to charity when they die.
So in other words, you have a problem with parents giving their private property which they have earned, to whoever they wish?
 
Upvote 0

GrayAngel

Senior Member
Sep 11, 2006
5,370
114
USA
✟21,292.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
...and how has the worked out through history?

Very nicely, actually. If you want to try the alternative, you can move to China where pretty much everyone is equally poor.

I actually thought the notion that Democrats were against capitalism was a false stereotype...

I think its a laudable ideal and, if it could be made true, then government could keep their bureaucracy, inefficiency and red-tape out of it.

However, its not how the world works. People are greedy and they hoard their wealth. People are materialistic and buy needless material goods rather than re-distributing it to those who are starving. People use money as an idol rather than a tool.

The problem is with people, not with capitalism. This will be true in any society where people exist.

But this is how capitalism works. People work to get wealthy. They do so by hiring people. Creating jobs distributes the wealth, without government aid, to those who earn it. Experienced employees can then shop around for employers who are willing to hire them, and they can take the job with the most benefits and the highest pay.

This is how you distribute the wealth. Not by handing it over to people who do little to nothing to earn it. Governmental "aid" actually serves to trap people into poverty, because trying harder would mean less federal aid. It had even caused some husbands to move out because the family would get more money if there were no work-able male in the home.

Also, the massive flaw in the capitalistic, meritocratic system is inheritance. Because bad kids can come from good parents and so even if those good parents worked hard and managed to get lots of money and resources and do plenty of good with it, when they die, they're bratty kids might end up with it. Unless you're suggesting that parents should give any money, possessions or property they have to charity when they die.

Inheritance accounts for a very miniscule number of the wealthy. Most who have that status have worked their way up, like Bill Gates. The Kardashians are of the minority, and they will eventually deplete their wealth unless they do something to get more.

To the OP: I think there's some aspects of both left and right that are quite un-Christian. The right's "survival of the fittest" philosophy doesn't go along well with Jesus' "turn the other cheek" morality.

The Bible promotes personal responsibility, not survival of the fittest. Charity provides for people's needs, not the government.

I'm kind of a social justice-type and I when I see people starving, going homeless, living on the streets due to mental disability, etc while a rich person buys another BMW and an unnecessarily large suburban house along with a membership to a prestigious golf club, I tend to view that as WAY worse than concerning myself with what two men do on their spare time.

Conservatives are not concerned with what two mean do in private. They're concerned with the dignity of marriage, not to be redefined to include same-sex union.

You don't see Jesus breaking into people's houses to make sure two men aren't sleeping together. Rather, you see him clothing to naked, healing the sick, and constantly commanding people to give up their material wealth.

The people who are commanded to give are the believers. They give to the church, who uses it to fill the needs of the whole, as well as the needs of unbelievers. It has nothing to do with government.

I also find the Biblical argument for pro-life to be sparse at best.

The non-Biblical argument that life does not begin until it comes out of the womb is invisible. There is no reason at all to believe so. It doesn't take long at all for the child to develop a thinking brain, and it is capable of struggling for its life long before the imaginary line drawn by the pro-choice camp for when life officially begins to them.

The Bible says that if a woman is struck while she is pregnant and the child comes out dead, that is equal to murder. The Bible's stance on the issue is very clear.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,785
Pacific Northwest
✟728,215.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I've often wondered about this. Could someone explain it to me? I'm politically conservative myself and I'm seeking to be a Christian, but I want to know why the two are so often connected.

The political marriage has been a slow process, but really came to fruition several decades ago. The advent of Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority, for example, represented and contributed greatly to the convergence of American conservative politics and Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism.

This was something which Evangelical leaders, such as Billy Graham, warned about.

"I don't want to see religious bigotry in any form. It would disturb me if there was a wedding between the religious fundamentalists and the political right. The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it."
— Rev. Billy Graham, Parade, 1981

Of course, if we go back to the 19th century, we find that Christianity, in particular proto-Evangelicalism, was often on the other side, championing what was then considered progressive and liberal political agendas such as Woman's Suffrage, the Abolition of Slavery, decrying child labor abuses and being extremely active in urban environs championing the rights of laborers. The evangelist Charles Finney, a rogue Presbyterian clergyman who is credited with inventing the now familiar "Altar Call" at his revivals also founded the first university in America that accepted women as students. The author of the American Pledge of Allegiance was written by Baptist minister, Francis Bellamy, who was also a Christian Socialist who advocated the rights of the working poor and the bettering of working conditions in the American industry.

The current state of things, with a very powerful Christian Right acting as a stable of right-wing political machinations is a unique aspect of contemporary American culture, though definitely exported around the world as well. It is, also, far more a political situation than it is particularly religious or Christian.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

mandyangel

Regular Member
Aug 27, 2010
2,018
256
✟18,392.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
My dad told me that he used to watch Pat Robertson on The 700 Club and they had this discussion almost everyday. How does a Christian choose a party? Is it important for us to participate in the democracy? Well, it all boils down to "voting your heart." My dad is so political that is always a huge topic in our house and I basically know everything from him. There was a time in my life when I said that the ONLY issue that matters to be is abortion that I would never, ever vote for anybody that supported baby killing. I'm evolved into a kind of "values voter" now, and keeping marriage between a man and a woman is very important to me even though society is running wild with it.

But its beyond that now..... because of the economy and terrorism, Obama is driving us into a ditch. He had his Hollywood buddies puff up a new movie for him called "The Road We Traveled," ya what OFF A CLIFF??? Its insane. The canidates like Rick Perry and Sarah Palin, my 2 favorites connect with me on an emotional level. Even though I am young and they are wise, I trust them and where they are coming from. They are kind of like me, think like me, and even talk like my dad. The issues matter but so do the people.

If democrats would change 2 things: abortion and gay rights, I bet lots of Christians would flock to them. But they don't, they remain tied to the ACLU and the kos kids. Its just all a part of the plan to turn America into a 1960's wasteland.

JMHO
 
Upvote 0

leftrightleftrightleft

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2009
2,644
363
Canada
✟22,986.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Better than anything else, actually. It is the most effective earthly means of raising everyday people's standard of living in history. Compare East and West Germany before unification. Compare North and South Korea. Compare Hong Kong, before the Chinese government regained control, to the rest of China even though it had no resources. Look at Taiwan's economic miracle.

I never said communism was the answer. Nor do I think the communist systems in East Germany worked very well. Nor do I think that an authoritarian, power-hungry regime bent on making its populace helpless is the best form of government either (as seen in North Korea).

It's the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones

How is a system that promotes and sustains the degree of inequality in the above link said to be a good system? I think that there could be a better system; I don't think everyone should be equal, I just think there should be mechanisms in place that keep inequality lower than it is now.


We are free to use it as either. A Christian obviously should use it as a tool rather than an idol. But even the people who are very greedy don't just hoard money. They spend it to buy more stuff, whether they need it, or whether they simply want it. Having 3 or 4 homes may sound bad to some people. However it's very good for those that work in construction, home furnishings, or interior design since some of that wealth is transferred to those people, enabling them to make their livings. Capitalism is a system which does not rely on an idealistic notion that people will be good. Rather, it banks on human selfishness, and converts it into a positive force which puts more money in the hands of more people across the social spectrum than anything else humanity has tried. When that happens, good people including Christians get more resources with which they can choose to do good.

The above link indicates that trickle down economics is a failure.

However, while I did say capitalism is bad at re-distributing wealth, I never said that it isn't a very functional system. It works very well because it hinges on a human vice: greed. But just because a system works doesn't mean it is good. The inappropriate contentography industry hinges on human lust and it works wonderfully, does that make it good?

I think there can be, should be and must be a better system that can be devised that does not so woefully depend on human greed. Why would a Christian in one breath say that Acts 2 is the best way to live and then continue supporting a system that advocates the opposite of Acts 2?

So in other words, you have a problem with parents giving their private property which they have earned, to whoever they wish?

That's the way the system works, but that doesn't mean its good. I'm fine with people doing it because thats the way the capitalist system works, but then you can't claim that we live in a meritocracy where everyone has equal opportunity. Everyone has opportunity and can work to get to the top, but it ain't equal.

For example, my dad was an engineer who worked at an oil company. Before I was even born he had set up some sort of trust fund for me. He pays for my university education. He pays my rent. He already has money set aside for my first downpayment on my first house. My best friend's dad works some blue collar job. My best friend has to pay for his own school, his own rent and will leave university with debt rather than a downpayment on a house. I went to a better school than him, I had greater opportunities in sports and leisure growing up, I lived in a better neighbourhood, went to a nicer high school with better teachers. We have both worked two different jobs the past two summers and I have made double than him at both jobs. Why? Because my dad knows people in white-collar industries while his dad doesn't. My dad knows the manager who can get me the high paying desk job. I will probably get out of school and earn perhaps double, if not triple, what my best friend earns and I won't have debt. What have I done to earn this? And what has he done to deserve his lot? I will be richer than my friend likely for years to come purely because I have my dad's blood and he doesn't. Its unfair and its not a meritocracy. And my friend did not have the "equal opportunity" that I did.

But its just how the system works. Right wingers have such a problem with government hand-outs, but people get hand-outs all the time. I got a lot of handouts. And it feels unfair that I get hand-outs while others don't.

I don't have solutions, I don't think communism is correct and I'm not even sure that government hand-outs make things better. But I think we should be collectively working towards a more just, equitable and fair society and I feel like government is the best vehicle we have for that at the moment. Why would I vote for a system that, at its heart, seems to be founded on un-Christian principles of greed, material wealth and inequality?

If the world could be run by voluntary donation, I'd be down. I've got into this debate with right wingers before and we basically agree that there are two evils: greed and forced taxation. The right winger thought that forced taxation outweighed greed but I think the evil of greed outweighs the evil of forced taxation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

leftrightleftrightleft

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2009
2,644
363
Canada
✟22,986.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Very nicely, actually. If you want to try the alternative, you can move to China where pretty much everyone is equally poor.

This really frustrates me. There's this idea out there that if you're not right wing then your communist or socialist. There's no more moderate, there's no more mixed economy, there's no more centrist and there's no more Third Way.

I never advocated communism or the Chinese system of authoritarian capitalism. (China is not longer economically socialist by the way, they are full-fledged capitalist for all intents and purposes. Link.)

The problem is with people, not with capitalism. This will be true in any society where people exist.

This is a good point. So why not put some of the wealth (notice I say "some" and not "all") in the hands of a collective group of people that can more objectively manage it while still being held accountable to the populace?

But this is how capitalism works. People work to get wealthy. They do so by hiring people. Creating jobs distributes the wealth, without government aid, to those who earn it. Experienced employees can then shop around for employers who are willing to hire them, and they can take the job with the most benefits and the highest pay.

This is how you distribute the wealth. Not by handing it over to people who do little to nothing to earn it. Governmental "aid" actually serves to trap people into poverty, because trying harder would mean less federal aid. It had even caused some husbands to move out because the family would get more money if there were no work-able male in the home.

I think this is a false stereotype you have of how government aid can, should or could work. I think lots of people view government aid just as unemployment cheques or something. I have lots of problems with the unemployment cheques because of how its been mishandled and there are too many loop holes.

But government-funded services don't have to be just handouts. Governments can build hospitals which provide healing services to those that cannot afford private services. Governments can build more schools and pay teachers better to give kids a better education. Governments can build libraries and hockey arenas. Government can even help fund church-building! Government can use tax dollars to eradicate famines in other parts of the world. Governments can fund affordable housing projects to get homeless people off the streets. Tax dollars can build roads and fund public transit systems. These aren't "handouts" to the unemployed gamer living in his parents basement smoking pot. These are programs and projects that need a large amount of capital that private companies would be wary of investing in but all lead to greater social capital. And they act to enable both the poor and wealthy to access services. A new library doesn't mean only poor people getting the "handout" can go there; it means anyone can go there.

I know its idealistic. And ironically, the reason it is idealistic is because of the system you wish to propagate whereby our current governments aren't run by the people and for the people but are rather run by more and more greed. Money talks. And lobby groups from corporations work. And big corporations don't want people spending time in libraries, they want them buying their products.


Inheritance accounts for a very miniscule number of the wealthy. Most who have that status have worked their way up, like Bill Gates. The Kardashians are of the minority, and they will eventually deplete their wealth unless they do something to get more.

See my post to Sketcher as well as the link about inequality. "Inheritance" is not necessarily just the money you receive when your parents die. Its the money they are able to give you, by their own free choice, and by no merit of your own, throughout your childhood. Better schooling, better neighbourhood, better opportunities, less student debt, better employer connections etc.

Both Bill Gates and the Kardashians are extreme examples and neither represents the true situation. And what about Bill Gates' kids? Aren't they now just another Kardashian?

The Bible promotes personal responsibility, not survival of the fittest. Charity provides for people's needs, not the government.

Like I've said before, if a society could provide all the government services to everyone by donation only, I'm down. That would be wonderful and truly Christian. But the evils or greed and materialism ultimately outweigh the evil of forced taxation in my books. I think forced taxation is a restriction on your freedom but it is a necessary restriction that leads to greater overall good. And forced taxation is better than greed. Jesus talks about giving your money away and the evils of money more than any other topic during his ministry. So, as a Christian, you should be thrilled to give your money away to the government to let them do more good with it. You should be thrilled to get rid of your material possessions for the sake of the greater good. As a Christian, taxation shouldn't be perceived as "forced" at all, but rather something you want to do.

Conservatives are not concerned with what two mean do in private. They're concerned with the dignity of marriage, not to be redefined to include same-sex union.

Indeed. I'm all for marriage remaining between man and woman. But my thirst for social justice trumps that. I would love to see a more Moderate or Centrist party develop in both Canada and the US that calls for both social justice as well as social traditionalism.

The people who are commanded to give are the believers. They give to the church, who uses it to fill the needs of the whole, as well as the needs of unbelievers. It has nothing to do with government.

What happened to Give Unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto God what is God's?

Also, the church is a great mode for getting social justice accomplished. Again, if social justice could be achieved by voluntary donation, great! I think churches do much, much, much good in this department and I encourage them to continue doing more. If a church could ever reach the point where it could adequately provide or subsidize services at a school or a hospital, I would be thrilled. This is also hopelessly idealistic too because there's so much negativity towards "religion" that people would be up in arms about the fact that its church-related, regardless of what good is being done by the church.

The non-Biblical argument that life does not begin until it comes out of the womb is invisible. There is no reason at all to believe so. It doesn't take long at all for the child to develop a thinking brain, and it is capable of struggling for its life long before the imaginary line drawn by the pro-choice camp for when life officially begins to them.

The Bible says that if a woman is struck while she is pregnant and the child comes out dead, that is equal to murder. The Bible's stance on the issue is very clear.

Yea I understand where you're coming from. I've thought a lot about this too. Conception is the most clear cut definition when two non-related cells join together to form a new type of entity. I personally think that if abortion clinics do exist in a free society, then they should at least not be government funded. And I don't think they should be free and anonymous. I think there has to be some level of responsibility in the people receiving them. It sickens me that some people now use abortion as a form of birth control, they think: "oh well, if I get pregnant, I'll just get an abortion!" They walk in, its free, its anonymous and the procedure is done in a few minutes. :(
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,978
9,399
✟378,031.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
How is a system that promotes and sustains the degree of inequality in the above link said to be a good system? I think that there could be a better system; I don't think everyone should be equal, I just think there should be mechanisms in place that keep inequality lower than it is now.
Inequality of assets is not a problem. It simply isn't. What matters is whether people have the ability to obtain what they need as quickly as possible. Capitalism has done a better job of it than anything else that has been tried. It isn't perfect, no earthly solution will be. It's simply the best that we've discovered so far.

The above link indicates that trickle down economics is a failure.
Actually, no. It doesn't take upward mobility into account. Also, if the government stopped artificially inflating the currency, the lower and middle class would be much better off. The answer IMO, is a freer market, not a more restricted one.


However, while I did say capitalism is bad at re-distributing wealth, I never said that it isn't a very functional system. It works very well because it hinges on a human vice: greed. But just because a system works doesn't mean it is good. The inappropriate contentography industry hinges on human lust and it works wonderfully, does that make it good?
You can't really compare a sin industry like inappropriate contentography to any economic system as a whole. The inappropriate content industry WILL chew up and then spit out both the consumers and the producers. I don't know if you're familiar with The Pink Cross, but the testimonies of those adult industry veterans literally turned my stomach. There is simply no comparing that to a network of business transactions.

I think there can be, should be and must be a better system that can be devised that does not so woefully depend on human greed. Why would a Christian in one breath say that Acts 2 is the best way to live and then continue supporting a system that advocates the opposite of Acts 2?
For one, capitalism doesn't interfere with it. It just lets the Christian doctor and the Christian grocer and the Christian carpenter and the Christian plumber have more excess to donate. The system in Acts 2 was built on deep relational love which was built up by the Spirit in that church. When somebody had excess and there was a need, he donated out of the generosity of his heart. However, you can't really rely on that. I witnessed first hand the inefficiencies at Jesus People USA when I visited them. While it has done much better than secular communes in that it actually survived up to this point, people are still held hostage to receiving their provisions by the people who have the pooled resources. If you're fixing up an apartment and you run out of paint, you have to try and reach somebody by phone to get more paint, even if you've got another 6 good working hours left in the day. If instead these people actually had their own resources, somebody could just drive to the hardware store and pick up more paint.

That's the way the system works, but that doesn't mean its good. I'm fine with people doing it because thats the way the capitalist system works, but then you can't claim that we live in a meritocracy where everyone has equal opportunity. Everyone has opportunity and can work to get to the top, but it ain't equal.
Well, aside from every reference in the Bible I've read that has to do with an inheritance treats it as a positive thing, there is a difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. I don't know your friend, but he has choices and in spite of the connections your dad has that his dad doesn't, he can still do pretty well for himself. But if you still feel bad about receiving all those handouts from Dad (which I didn't get, either btw), you can always voluntarily give the difference between your income and your friend's to your friend.

I don't have solutions, I don't think communism is correct and I'm not even sure that government hand-outs make things better. But I think we should be collectively working towards a more just, equitable and fair society and I feel like government is the best vehicle we have for that at the moment. Why would I vote for a system that, at its heart, seems to be founded on un-Christian principles of greed, material wealth and inequality?
A few things:

Capitalism is founded upon observations of what works and what doesn't. It banks on selfishness, and turns this lemon into lemonade, but it doesn't force us into the sin of greed.

Government is necessary in its capacities, but it can easily said to be founded on robbery and murder. I'm an Adam Smith capitalist myself, so I believe government is needed for just a few things. But governments have more power over a person than private businesses do, and the people in government are no better. Since the human tendency is the tendency towards sin, the more power a government has, the greater the likelihood of abuses by that government.

Finally, free markets work while more statist systems at best limit and at worst crush people's prosperity and productivity (China is learning this ;)). This is whether the person is rich or poor. I want more crops to be produced, not less. I want people to have the money and the flexibility to go to the store and get what they want, rather than forcing them to wait in a bread line. Hence, I will vote for freer markets, not more restrictive markets. There is nothing un-Christian about that.
 
Upvote 0
Mar 8, 2012
200
34
✟4,712.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Un. Church of CA
Marital Status
Single
I find that the more I read about these things, about caveats, and alterior motive, and "the greater good", and redistribution, the more anarchy seems like a good idea.

Edit: Oh, and whats wrong with being an unemployed gamer who lives with his parent?!
 
Upvote 0

GrayAngel

Senior Member
Sep 11, 2006
5,370
114
USA
✟21,292.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
This is a good point. So why not put some of the wealth (notice I say "some" and not "all") in the hands of a collective group of people that can more objectively manage it while still being held accountable to the populace?

Doesn't we already do that? America has several representatives from each who decide where to put the money, but no state ever wants to remove their incumbents. Voters can be very ignorant. They don't even know who they're voting for most of the time.

I think this is a false stereotype you have of how government aid can, should or could work. I think lots of people view government aid just as unemployment cheques or something. I have lots of problems with the unemployment cheques because of how its been mishandled and there are too many loop holes.

I don't have any confidence that we could ever elect a government full of people who will do what's right. Left and right, they're both corrupt, and they have little to no desire to fix anything.

But government-funded services don't have to be just handouts. Governments can build hospitals which provide healing services to those that cannot afford private services. Governments can build more schools and pay teachers better to give kids a better education. Governments can build libraries and hockey arenas. Government can even help fund church-building!

If a government funded a church, it would have power over that church, threatening to remove its funding if the church didn't follow its conditions. Separation of church and state was instituted to protect the church from the tyranny of a government.

Our churches are tax-exempt (for the most part), however, as long as they don't tell people who to vote for.

Government can use tax dollars to eradicate famines in other parts of the world. Governments can fund affordable housing projects to get homeless people off the streets. Tax dollars can build roads and fund public transit systems. These aren't "handouts" to the unemployed gamer living in his parents basement smoking pot. These are programs and projects that need a large amount of capital that private companies would be wary of investing in but all lead to greater social capital. And they act to enable both the poor and wealthy to access services. A new library doesn't mean only poor people getting the "handout" can go there; it means anyone can go there.

I know its idealistic. And ironically, the reason it is idealistic is because of the system you wish to propagate whereby our current governments aren't run by the people and for the people but are rather run by more and more greed. Money talks. And lobby groups from corporations work. And big corporations don't want people spending time in libraries, they want them buying their products.

If we can kill lobbying, it would fix a lot of problems. But I don't think it's possible.

See my post to Sketcher as well as the link about inequality. "Inheritance" is not necessarily just the money you receive when your parents die. Its the money they are able to give you, by their own free choice, and by no merit of your own, throughout your childhood. Better schooling, better neighbourhood, better opportunities, less student debt, better employer connections etc.

Both Bill Gates and the Kardashians are extreme examples and neither represents the true situation. And what about Bill Gates' kids? Aren't they now just another Kardashian?

I don't see how you can fix this. And I prefer to withhold my right to give my inheritance to my children.

What happened to Give Unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto God what is God's?

A government needs money to function. It's also better if you don't taunt the people who have power over you.

Yea I understand where you're coming from. I've thought a lot about this too. Conception is the most clear cut definition when two non-related cells join together to form a new type of entity. I personally think that if abortion clinics do exist in a free society, then they should at least not be government funded. And I don't think they should be free and anonymous. I think there has to be some level of responsibility in the people receiving them. It sickens me that some people now use abortion as a form of birth control, they think: "oh well, if I get pregnant, I'll just get an abortion!" They walk in, its free, its anonymous and the procedure is done in a few minutes. :(

Agreed. I find it disgusting that we can just throw away life so easily and without consequence. And many even justify it.
 
Upvote 0

leftrightleftrightleft

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2009
2,644
363
Canada
✟22,986.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
I find that the more I read about these things, about caveats, and alterior motive, and "the greater good", and redistribution, the more anarchy seems like a good idea.

Edit: Oh, and whats wrong with being an unemployed gamer who lives with his parent?!

Haha...nothing wrong with it, so long as you aren't collecting unemployment cheques despite having no motivation to go find yourself a real job and move out of your parents house so you have some real expenses to put those cheques towards. I think if you're not actively, earnestly and seriously seeking out a job and meanwhile don't have to pay for rent or food, then you shouldn't be scamming people out of their tax dollars by finding a loop hole in the system.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
I've often wondered about this. Could someone explain it to me? I'm politically conservative myself and I'm seeking to be a Christian, but I want to know why the two are so often connected.
They are not. Instead, Biblical literalism or Fundamentalism and conservative politics are connected. Catholicism is pretty liberal except in the area of birth control and abortion. The mainline Protestant denominations are typically liberal politically.

So, you want to be a Fundamentalist (which is a different faith than Christianity). There is a forum on CF called "Fundamentalisst Christians" under "Faith Groups". I'd say "good luck", but I really feel that you are about to become a lost sheep. So, "too bad"
 
Upvote 0