Displaying the flag is a cultural practice. In my neighborhood, for instance, most of the houses display an American flag. Republicans and Democrats alike.
But if you do the statistics across the whole country, then Republicans display flag more often than Democrats.
It doesn't tell you who is more patriotic. I'd argue that a better measure of patriotism is participation in our political system. Civic engagement, voting, trying to make this country a better place, defending the country etc.
No, because people on the left would be doing it too, not just people on the right. If anything, both far left and far right are being more politically active than people in the center.
When I say patriotic what I mean is supporting the greatness of the US. And thats not always the same as wanting to better people's lifes: people in the left argue that in order to better people's lifes they need to get rid of the idea of the greatness of their country.
If anything, the founding fathers were liberal. Personal liberty was valued from the Mayflower Compact to the Declaration of Independence.,
In today's political language, supporting liberty would be Libertarian, not Liberal. As far as Liberal vs Conservative, each side supports liberty in something and opposes liberty in something else, but Libertarians support liberty across the board. For example, as far as liberty to do abortion, then yes Liberals are more supportive of that particular liberty. But as far as liberty to own guns, there the Conservatives are more supportive of that liberty. Yet Libertarians are supportive of liberty all across the board.
Its true though that the word Liberal originated from the word liberty, just by looking at its linguistic structure. But I guess over time it evolved into something other than what it was first invented for. Just like in the other posts you mentioned how Christian views have evolved from simply being anti-abortion/anti-gay to a lot of other things, in the same way liberal views might have evolved, and thats why the new word Libertarian needed to be invented.
So it goes back to what I was asking in this thread: why do logically unrelated views go together? If everything were to be logical, then we would have two major parties: Libertarians who are pro-liberty all across the board and Statists who are anti-liberty all across the board. But, instead, our two major parties are Republicans and Democrats, each supports liberty in some thing and opposes it in the other thing. So what is the logical explanation why supporting liberty in birth control correlates with opposing liberty with guns and vice versa?
But in any case, I don't see why would Founding Fathers be Libertairan either. Because, as mentioned, Libertarians also support liberty in homosexuality/abortion just like liberals do ( they just disagree with liberals in terms of liberty to own guns). So, as Christians, I don't see how Founding Fathers would be Libertarian. This means that they would have to be Conservative, because supporting liberties that don't conflict with the Bible, while opposing liberties that do, would check both boxes.
So then what one might try to argue is that the conflict between Founding Fathers and the countries they ran away from was that Founding Fathers were Conservatives while all the other countries were Statist. Statists and Conservatives agree about the lack of liberty on homosexuality/abortion but disagree about liberties on other things (where statists oppose those "other" liberties while conservatives "support" them).
But, in terms of today's political spectrum, this wouldn't work either because monarchs DID support liberties to own guns (think of duals and stuff). So then one would say that, in order to map them to today's political spectrum, then everyone would have to be conservative, all across the board. They are just of different shades of conservative. Although, wait, you can't really say that either, because, outside of guns, there are other liberties that monarchs didn't grant people that conservatives would. So perhaps monarchs were some of a mix of conservative and statist while founding fathers were more conservative-proper.
Maybe THAT would be the logical explanation of this whole liberal vs conservative. The word "conservative" comes from the word "conserve" so they just want to "conserve" everything founding fathers were standing for. Even if those topics are not logically related, the founding fathers had opinions on all of them and so conservatives take whatever opinions they were. Liberals, on the other hand, represent a newer developed parallel cultures. In anything they agree with conservatives (such as it is a bad idea to kill each other) we won't notice, but we notice the stuff they disagree on.
But in any case, back to the question raised in OP: what does it have to do with the Bible? In Conservative vs Liberal, yes, Bible would make us side with Conservative (over abortion and homosexuality). But in Conservative vs Statist, the Bible is pretty much silent, since both sides would agree as far as abortion and homosexuality is concerned. In other words, yes, Founding Fathers opposed abortion and homosexuality, but so did all the monarchs, so Founding Fathers can't be credited with that.
Could it be that the logic behind this is "not" that someone "first" became a Christian and "then" started to support Founding Fathers because they were Christian, but rather the other way around: someone "first" supported Founding Fathers (out of historical pride) and "then" became Christian because Founding Fathers were Christian? I realize that people can say that they are Christian first and Patriot second. But could it be that, in time sequence, they first became patriot but then they realize "hey, our founding fathers were putting Christianity before their patriotism, let us do the same" and thats how they were "led" to become Christian first, patriot second?
And this would explain other countries too including Russia. Whether you take Russia or the US, Christianity is viewed as a part of the culture. So could it be that people didn't become Christian because Jesus called them but, instead, they became Christian because they liked the culture of their country and that culture included Christianity; but then, later, they said "hey, the Christianity that I learned from my country actually asks me to put God first and my country second, let me do the same".
Yes, it did evolve into what we see today. My theory is that once this hot-button issue took over the party, there was less recourse for liberal and moderate Republicans.
This theory still begs the question. Because what you are assuming is that liberal and moderate Republicans might be pro-gay and pro-abortion, while truly conservative Republicans (the ones who oppose homosexuality and abortion) would agree with the currently-republican stances on other issues as well. So you are assuming that this correlation existed in the past too: it just wasn't across the party lines. But the question is: why did that correlation exist on the first place?
Fear of standing too close to open windows in tall buildings. Russia has a long and bloody history regarding people who oppose its ever changing systems of government. To support Navalny, one had to be brave.
Yeah, but some people did support Navalny. So why is it, statistically, people that supported Navalny were less likely to be Christian than people that supported Putin?
