Why are most Christians politically right wing?

DM25 said:

So if you think socialism is not Christian and only atheist, how do you explain all my family members who are religious, and were always religious throughout communist Yugoslavia? I have Catholic friends from Croatia and Orthodox Christian friends from Serbia and Montenegro. They have always been religious, all throughout communist Yugoslavia...

Click to expand...

Here is an excerpt from the Encyclopeia Brittannica, referring to the situation for the churches in Yugoslavia under Communism:

"Among those particularly at risk during the purges were individuals who had connections with organizations outside the communist bloc. Protestant churches suffered heavily, as did the Roman Catholic Church when it was not too entrenched an institution to tackle. Societies such as the Boy Scouts, the Rotarians, and even the Esperantists, which had maintained contact with similar organizations in the West, were condemned and disbanded, with their leading members usually imprisoned or placed in forced-labour camps."

DM25 said:

So you deny the stats I showed you on religious background? And the fact there were only 1% who were atheists in communist Yugoslavia? America is full on capitalist and look how many more atheists there are in USA...

Click to expand...

Communism opposes religion. That is part of its modus operandi and inherent philosophy. You may say, for example, that in the Soviet Union there were still churches open under Communism, but they and their people were subject to severe repression, just as in Yugoslavia, which was mitigated somewhat--and only somewhat--if the churches and their leaders completely cooperated with the government, accepted numerous suffocating restrictions, and publicly affirmed the regime. Yes, an individual person might still be "religious", as you said, but barely more than that.

DanishLutheran said:

Funny. I don't remember reading anything in either the Scriptures or the Early Church Fathers about hordes of Christians storming the Palace of the Roman Emperor, and demand the installation of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" to be administrated by the Church, whether anyone wanted this or not.
You.....DO know that you can't just invent meanings of words that suit your narrative and expect everyone else to simply go along with those new invented meanings, right?

Click to expand...

Then you missed Acts 4 which describes how the early Church pooled their possessions and money and gave them to the Apostles who redistributed it such that nobody had any need. It's right in there, in God's Word, Acts 4.

As for the Early Church Fathers, why would a Lutheran care about them? You protested and separated from them. My Church did not but I don't see why you would care about them.

As for storming palaces and whatever other Game of Thrones scenarios you're coming up with, I don't understand the relevance to anything this thread is about. I certainly did not bring up the Roman Empire or "the proletariat" or whatever stories you're bringing up now. Where do you come up with that stuff? Truly wondering...

You.....DO know that you can't just invent stories and narratives and attribute them to people who didn't say them as you just did with me, right?

It's odd to me that you're so anti-socialist but live in one of the most socialist countries in the world in Danemark. If you hate socialism so much then leave there and come to America - you'll LOVE the health care here much more than the socialist stuff you have there!!!

Of course, the truth is that it's very telling that you choose to stay there instead of coming to America - your actions speak volumes louder than your words. You much prefer the socialist nation you live in to a capitalist nation like the USA. I think you love your entitlements and to be honest I don't blame you. I don't think you'd be able to live a life in the USA like the one you can live there with everything handed to you. The only real downside to your country is the intense white supremacist racism but that doesn't affect you anyway. Oh and the other downside is the weather - huge downside there, can't get around that.

DanishLutheran said:

Nonsense

Socialism, by the very nature of its scheme and ends, is forced. It simply will not work without it.
That is, of course, assuming that one thinks that one shouldn't simply try to redefine words to fit whatever narrative one wants.

Click to expand...

Well you can make up your own fake definition and add terms to it like that it "is forced" but that's simply your own made-up addition. Socialism is simply consolidating a certain amount of wealth to a central power that redistributes the wealth in a more equal distribution based on need. Insurance is a good example - a pool of money that is collected from the participants and then redistributed based on need.

DanishLutheran said:

Aaaand no. Again: That isn't socialism, unless you redefine socialims to mean "Literally whatever I need it to mean to suit my narrative"

Click to expand...

Ironic coming from you after you redefined socialism (note correct spelling) to mean "Literally whatever [you] need it to mean to suit [your] narrative." I'm simply going by what it actually means.

DanishLutheran said:

You.....DO know that you're making the exact opposite case to the one you think you're making, right?

You're literaly proving that the early church WAS...NOT....SOCIALIST.

Click to expand...

You......DO know that I'm making the exact case that the early church WAS.....SOCIALIST and that I even provided scripture (Acts 4, in God's Word) to prove it, right?

DanishLutheran said:

In which alternate dimension did this take place? Because all that happened here was that you decided that a passage meant exactly what you wanted it to mean, and then declared victory based on that.

Click to expand...

I simply posted the passage and let it speak for itself. In what alternate dimension did you see that I interpreted it? (You seem to be really alternate dimensions considering you brought them up....)

DanishLutheran said:

There ARE no good examples of socialism in practise.

Click to expand...

Sure there are. Danemark would be at the top of the list, in fact!!!

DanishLutheran said:

Overlooking the principle of self-reliance if at all possible, which is clearly Biblical, it is a case of
"Well, the left wants to indoctrinate my children against the tenets of my faith, AND force me to choose between making a living on one hand, OR my faith on the other. I think I'll go with the other team."

Click to expand...

See, this is exactly backwards.

People who are right-wing tend to be religious.
That’s fine, good, even.

It can be bad if they are so sure that it is only because of their steadfast faith in God, that they hold the political views that they do...”how could any ‘right-thinking’ person believe anything else!?”

Only then can the hypocrisy set in.

The problem lies in your definition of terms. Every industrialized Nation, except for ours, has Universal Health Insurance. Our loss, their citizens gain. Most have generous family leave for New parents. Here, there are jobs with no benefits at all. When you think socialism, you think we want to replace our current president with someone as mean and miserable as he is, just on the other side of the aisle. I have news for you. You wouldn't be able to find any other American politician as mean and his miserable as he is on either side of the aisle.

DanishLutheran said:

And yet, crime rates are MUCH higher in dense urban centers than in rural areas.

Click to expand...

I’ll bet that “cattle mutilations” aren’t in the cites.

Albion said:

Communism opposes religion. That is part of its modus operandi and inherent philosophy. You may say, for example, that in the Soviet Union there were still churches open under Communism, but they and their people were subject to severe repression, just as in Yugoslavia, which was mitigated somewhat--and only somewhat--if the churches and their leaders completely cooperated with the government, accepted numerous suffocating restrictions, and publicly affirmed the regime. Yes, an individual person might still be "religious", as you said, but barely more than that.

Click to expand...

How is this not rank tribalism?
“Communism would be fine if it allowed religion to exist freely.”?
But you’d say that communism “needs to be atheistic”, or some such.

Pommer said:

How is this not rank tribalism?
“Communism would be fine if it allowed religion to exist freely.”?
But you’d say that communism “needs to be atheistic”, or some such.

Click to expand...

Well, I did not say anything like that, so perhaps I am missing what you meant to say to me.

Okay I’ll take another crack at it:

Albion said:

Communism opposes religion.

Click to expand...

Classic Marxism opposes religion, yes.
But it is possible to have religion incorporated into the economic system.

That is part of its modus operandi and inherent philosophy. You may say, for example, that in the Soviet Union there were still churches open under Communism, but they and their people were subject to severe repression, just as in Yugoslavia, which was mitigated somewhat--and only somewhat--if the churches and their leaders completely cooperated with the government, accepted numerous suffocating restrictions, and publicly affirmed the regime.

Click to expand...

Just because you cannot imagine a Christian-Democratic (socialist) system does not mean that such is impossible.

You’ve hand-waved away DM25”s personal experiences with “Oh my goodness! COMMIES HATE GOD!”

ANY despot will suspect those loyal to another god, it’s not just “commies”.

Yes, an individual person might still be "religious", as you said, but barely more than that.

Click to expand...

Again, just bare assertions, totally ignoring DM25’s testimony.

Pommer said:

Okay I’ll take another crack at it:


Classic Marxism opposes religion, yes.
But it is possible to have religion incorporated into the economic system.

Click to expand...

"Incorporated into the...system?" Yes, it is POSSIBLE, but that does not mean religious freedom or co-existence, State and Church.

The nature of Communism is to be totalitarian. Your own choice of words suggests that fact. Therefore religion -- to the extent that it is tolerated -- in those countries where that might fairly be said to be the case -- must conform to every political need and demand of the state.

ArmenianJohn said:

The only real downside to your country is the intense white supremacist racism but that doesn't affect you anyway.

Click to expand...

It certainly does affect him. If Denmark allowed high levels of immigration from backward countries the world over like Germany and Sweden did, it would certainly affect his quality of life. In fact, it was ethnic homogeneity that made possible the generous welfare states (which is apparently what you mean by "socialism") of the Scandinavian countries possible.

Anyway, congratulations on knowing more about Denmark than somebody who actually lives there.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

It certainly does affect him. If Denmark allowed high levels of immigration from backward countries the world over like Germany and Sweden did, it would certainly affect his quality of life. In fact, it was ethnic homogeneity that made possible the generous welfare states (which is apparently what you mean by "socialism") of the Scandinavian countries possible.

Anyway, congratulations on knowing more about Denmark than somebody who actually lives there.

Click to expand...

I don't know why you're talking about immigration, I wasn't. The white supremacist racism in Denmark wouldn't affect him because he's a white dane and wouldn't be a victim of it.

DanishLutheran said:

There ARE no good examples of socialism in practise.

Click to expand...

You may not realize it, but in American political parlance, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden are socialist.

Yeah, I know that they technically are not, but anyone who proposes instituting anything like, for instance, the Denmark Health Law, will be classified as a socialist.

RDKirk said:

You may not realize it, but in American political parlance, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden are socialist.

Yeah, I know that they technically are not, but anyone who proposes instituting anything like, for instance, the Denmark Health Law, will be classified as a socialist.

Click to expand...

In my view, that it totally incorrect. The people who would pass off Norway or Denmark as Socialist mainly fall into one of two categories: either they are people who are not very knowledgeable about political "isms" or else they are in favor of Socialism and want to pull the wool over the eyes of the first group by sanitizing Socialism through the mechanism of immediately citing one of the Scandinavian countries by, for example, implying that the Post Office or Social Security are all that Socialism is about. ("Nothing there to be worrying about. Its just that Socialism has been falsely accused, don't you know?" blah blah blah.)

Albion said:

In my view, that it totally incorrect. The people who would pass off Norway or Denmark as Socialist mainly fall into one of two categories: either they are people who are not very knowledgeable about political "isms" or else they are in favor of Socialism and want to pull the wool over the eyes of the first group by sanitizing Socialism through the mechanism of immediately citing one of the Scandinavian countries by, for example, implying that the Post Office or Social Security are all that Socialism is about. ("Nothing there to be worrying about. Its just that Socialism has been falsely accused, don't you know?" blah blah blah.)

Click to expand...

It goes the other way.

If someone suggests going to a national health care system like that of Denmark, Sweden, or Norway, that gets labeled by the right wing as socialist.

RDKirk said:

It goes the other way.

If someone suggests going to a national health care system like that of Denmark, Sweden, or Norway, that gets labeled by the right wing as socialist.

Click to expand...

I know that we agree sometimes and disagree sometimes, but in this case, we disagree. The apologists for Socialism almost ALWAYS mention one of the Scandinavian countries when trying to pass Socialism off as some tame version of Liberalism that, however, has allegedly been given a bad name by those nasty ol McCathyites (or something in that vein).

Albion said:

I know that we agree sometimes and disagree sometimes, but in this case, we disagree. The apologists for Socialism almost ALWAYS mention one of the Scandinavian countries when trying to pass Socialism off as some tame version of Liberalism that, however, has allegedly been given a bad name by those nasty ol McCathyites (or something in that vein).

Click to expand...

Are you going to claim that Medicare for All and the very concept of universal health care has not been labeled "socialist" by the right wing?

RDKirk said:

Are you going to claim that Medicare for All and the very concept of universal health care has not been labeled "socialist" by the right wing?

Click to expand...

Socialist is not exactly the issue. It is Socialism.

Fairly or not, if one policy is called Socialist, it might mean that it alone can lead in the direction of Socialism or it might be a rare exception. But when we hear Norway called a Socialist country in reply to someone warning about Socialism--and we do--that is what I am talking about. No, the apologists will never admit that Cuba or Venezuela or any other country is an example of Socialism; it is always a Scandinavian country that they offer as the perfect example of what the USA would be if we only wise up and adopt Socialism.