Are conservatives really for family values?

[enlightenment]

No, I'm serious. It seems to me that conservatives like to drink beer, smoke, do drugs, and have sex just as much, or more than, liberals. Whenever I turn in to those country music stations I hear songs about divorce, break-ups, drinking, sex, going to the bar, and other slime. So, why do people say that conservatives are for family values when they listen to that kind of music and do those kinds of things? I often work with these kinds of people. One woman always votes Republican and conservative and she has been through a divorce and listens to the music I mentioned above.

And here are some conservative ads (on the right side of the page) that are not-so-family. http://sayanythingblog.com/2005/04/26/ed-schultz-the-ratings-harlot/

 

[Gaston]

That's the irony. The reddest states have the highest immorality* rates.

*Immorality according to their definition

 

[Redneck]

Big & Rich is not country music.

Merle Haggard is.

 

[UberLutheran]

Big & Rich is not country music.

Merle Haggard is.

For which I am eternally grateful!

 

[enlightenment]

What are family values anyway? How does one vote for "family values?" Sounds like frivolous nonsense.

 

[Grizzly]

No, I'm serious. It seems to me that conservatives like to drink beer, smoke, do drugs, and have sex just as much, or more than, liberals. Whenever I turn in to those country music stations I hear songs about divorce, break-ups, drinking, sex, going to the bar, and other slime. So, why do people say that conservatives are for family values when they listen to that kind of music and do those kinds of things? I often work with these kinds of people. One woman always votes Republican and conservative and she has been through a divorce and listens to the music I mentioned above.

And here are some conservative ads (on the right side of the page) that are not-so-family. http://sayanythingblog.com/2005/04/26/ed-schultz-the-ratings-harlot/

Well, we do know that people who identify themselves as born again christians have a higher divorce rate (27%) than atheists (21%).

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

But with correlational data, it's hard to figure out what causes what. For example, its also true that the South has a higher rate (27%) than the Northeast (19%). However, its possible that more people who live in the South are economically struggling, which can lead to more stress and higher rates of divorce.

But one thing is known. Christians are no more moral or immoral than others. At least when it comes to divorce. And don't even mention the rate of Christians in prison versus atheists. It's not pretty.

But back to the original question. Are Christians for family values? I guess it's a matter of definition. If by family values you mean making sure that gay people don't get a marriage licence or that unwed people never have sex, they are all for it. But if by family values you mean are they in favor of health care for all children and financial support for struggling families, not so much.

 

[Vylo]

Traditional, or nuclear family values. Neat family, outdated with our current economic and social situation.

 

[kranich]

If conservatives were into family values they would not be so eager to hose the average American family in favor of big business the way they do.

"Family Values" is another name for "force multipliers", that is, a way to rile up the loud minority of evangelical sheeple.

 

[Scholar in training]

No, I'm serious.

Are you sure? Because the statement directly after this one appears to show some bias:

It seems to me that conservatives like to drink beer, smoke, do drugs, and have sex just as much, or more than, liberals.

 

[gnine]

Simple really... its easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. All of us are like that to varying degrees, I'm afraid.

This is the reverse of Christ's teachings, which insist on getting your own house in order before telling someone else how to live their life.

 

[Doctrine1st]

Simple really... its easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. All of us are like that to varying degrees, I'm afraid.

This is the reverse of Christ's teachings, which insist on getting your own house in order before telling someone else how to live their life.

Simple but yet profound.

Not to sure about your second statement though in regards to telling someone how to live their lives.

 

[Sycophant]

Are you sure? Because the statement directly after this one appears to show some bias:

Uh, well, not really it was simply stating his position. And even if it was bias, that doesn't mean he wasn't serious...

Anyway...

More important, I think, is determining exactly what "Family Values" means, and I doubt we'll ever get a clear or concise answer on that one.

I'm pretty sure that no matter what your yardstick, the incidence of it is probably fairly equal on both sides of the US political hedge. After all, despite your political differences, most Americans are probably more similar in most things than they are different.

As for the marriage and divorce thing, this is an aside, but something I believe to measure into it somewhat, even from only anecdotal evidence... Many of the 'more religious' areas seem to suffer higher divorce rates* - I personally believe that can at least partially be attributed to the no-sex-before-marriage ethos, where I believe people are getting married when their hormones tell them the time is right, not their heart. And I think for a not-insignificant portion of those people, it turns out that their marriage was not all they might have hoped.

* Divorce Rates: They are very difficult to accurately calculate, because divorce statistics are measured against population, not against marriages. But they are still generally accepted to be fairly representative of the number of marriages that end in divorce.

 

[Spawn]

This thread is funny.


The group who has enshrined the "right" of a mother to kill her own children in the womb, the same group that has pushed to make divorce more acceptable and easier to get, the same group that wants drugs legalized is going to say that Conservatives are wrong for buying into their message???

I happen to agree that too many conservatives look too lightly on drug abuse and divorce, and all the other anti-family values of the left.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

This thread is funny.


The group who has enshrined the "right" of a mother to kill her own children in the womb, the same group that has pushed to make divorce more acceptable and easier to get, the same group that wants drugs legalized is going to say that Conservatives are wrong for buying into their message???

I happen to agree that too many conservatives look too lightly on drug abuse and divorce, and all the other anti-family values of the left.

First off you obviously have no idea what the thread is talking about. We aren't saying conservatives are buying into their messages. We're calling them hypocrites.

Second, its a slanderous lie to say liberals value drug abuse or divorce and are anti-family. It isn't anti-family to push for better health insurance. It isn't anti-family to fight for better wages and working conditions. It isn't pro-family to speak against certain things then go do them anyway.

 

[Grizzly]

First off you obviously have no idea what the thread is talking about. We aren't saying conservatives are buying into their messages. We're calling them hypocrites.

Second, its a slanderous lie to say liberals value drug abuse or divorce and are anti-family. It isn't anti-family to push for better health insurance. It isn't anti-family to fight for better wages and working conditions. It isn't pro-family to speak against certain things then go do them anyway.

Bullseye!

You hit it on the head. The thread is about hypocrisy. If the Republichristians want to rail against the immoral acts of society, perhaps they could be a little more moral themselves first. Jesus mentioned something about motes and planks in peoples eye. I believe it applies here.

 

[Spawn]

First off you obviously have no idea what the thread is talking about. We aren't saying conservatives are buying into their messages. We're calling them hypocrites.

And I'm saying that if you support these things you are calling conservatives hypocrites for buying into - then theres plenty of hypocracy to go around.

Second, its a slanderous lie to say liberals value drug abuse or divorce and are anti-family. It isn't anti-family to push for better health insurance. It isn't anti-family to fight for better wages and working conditions.

Liberals are all over making drug use legal - are responsible for making divorce easier to obtain and continuously endorse programs and policies which have proven destructive to the family. Get yourself a copy of Do-Gooders by Mona Cheran.

It isn't pro-family to speak against certain things then go do them anyway.

I agree. But - no body’s perfect and people fail and fall. When people fail - they should be called on the carpet and made responsible for what they have done. Failing does not make one a hypocrite - it makes one human.

 

[Spawn]

Bullseye!

You hit it on the head. The thread is about hypocrisy. If the Republichristians want to rail against the immoral acts of society, perhaps they could be a little more moral themselves first. Jesus mentioned something about motes and planks in peoples eye. I believe it applies here.

when you are a Christian you can speak of the appropriate application of scriptures to situations. Don’t you think it’s a bit out of line for a heathen to try and tell a believer what is proper for that believer to believe?

 

[gnine]

when you are a Christian you can speak of the appropriate application of scriptures to situations. Don’t you think it’s a bit out of line for a heathen to try and tell a believer what is proper for that believer to believe?

Ok then... as a Christian, I think he happens to be right. The only quibble I would have is that the application is to a person, and not a government, but thats something that bypasses most American Christians as well.

Do you think that he's wrong?

 

[Grizzly]

when you are a Christian you can speak of the appropriate application of scriptures to situations. Don’t you think it’s a bit out of line for a heathen to try and tell a believer what is proper for that believer to believe?

It's not a particularly hard piece of scripture to understand. I was a Christian for over 20 years, and attended a religious school for 12 years.

But, you know what, that doesn't even matter. Do you find truth in what I say? Do you believe Jesus encouraged his followers to look at their own faults first before looking into the faults of others? If so, what does it matter that I was the one who pointed it out?

Truth is truth no matter who says it.

 

[Spawn]

Ok then... as a Christian, I think he happens to be right. The only quibble I would have is that the application is to a person, and not a government, but thats something that bypasses most American Christians as well.

Do you think that he's wrong?

The problem with the application of Mat 7 is that people mistakenly feel that it is a prohibition against calling a spade a spade. It's not a proclamation that judgement is evil - it is a warning against judging when you yourself are currently guilty of worse. If I were to condemn a person who forgets to pay for a pack of gum at the store while I am currently involved in embezzling millions - that’s what the passage speaks of. Perspective.

To equate falling and failing with a blatant denial that something is reprehensible and wrong is erroneous and a mistake.