Can you morally call yourself a Christian if you vote conservative.

[pakicetus]

90-95% of blacks in the US will vote for the democrat in presidential elections, but the white vote is fairly equal amongst whites in the same regard. Why do you think that is?

1. Being black makes a lot of Republican rhetoric hard to believe. Republicans usually think America has equal opportunity, or something close to it -- which, in a country where blacks with college degrees are poorer than white high school dropouts, makes the right sound shockingly out of touch with reality. And it's not just a racial issue: Once you realize that racial equality is a delusion, it can open your eyes to the fact that disabled people, short people, people with poor social skills, stupid people, ugly people, people with mental illnesses, transgendered people, and people who were born into poverty have worse opportunities too. The more unequal you perceive opportunities to be, the harder it is to believe the poor are lazy and undeserving.

2. Republican rhetoric sounds a lot like racist rhetoric. I'm not saying most Republicans are racists, just that there's a logical pathway from their arguments to racism. If blacks have equal opportunities, they must be inherently lazy. If they don't have equal opportunities, then either they deserve to have a raw deal, or the usual Republican response that they should "just overcome their obstacles" and "stop being victims" is a double standard.

3. I don't think arguments from tradition make a lot of sense to most black people. They've been used to justify racism for hundreds of years, and still are! And why not? A lot of our traditions have been racist.

 

[bhsmte]

1. Being black makes a lot of Republican rhetoric hard to believe. Republicans usually think America has equal opportunity, or something close to it -- which, in a country where blacks with college degrees are poorer than white high school dropouts, makes the right sound shockingly out of touch with reality. And it's not just a racial issue: Once you realize that racial equality is a delusion, it can open your eyes to the fact that disabled people, short people, people with poor social skills, stupid people, ugly people, people with mental illnesses, transgendered people, and people who were born into poverty have worse opportunities too. The more unequal you perceive opportunities to be, the harder it is to believe the poor are lazy and undeserving.

2. Republican rhetoric sounds a lot like racist rhetoric. I'm not saying most Republicans are racists, just that there's a logical pathway from their arguments to racism. If blacks have equal opportunities, they must be inherently lazy. If they don't have equal opportunities, then either they deserve to have a raw deal, or we should make up for by redistributing income (and hopefully ending discrimination).

3. I don't think arguments from tradition make a lot of sense to most black people. They've been used to justify racism for hundreds of years, and still are! And why not? A lot of our traditions have been racist.

What do you think is the different between the 95% of blacks who always vote for the democrat, vs the 5% of vote republican?

 

[pakicetus]

What do you think is the different between the 95% of blacks who always vote for the democrat, vs the 5% of vote republican?

I'm guessing those 5% would be super-mega-crazy Republicans if they were white. Like being black doesn't automatically make you liberal, it just tends to make you more liberal than you otherwise would be, so people who would otherwise be moderate conservatives are moderate liberals and people who would be very conservative are centrists, and people who would be extremist conservatives (I'm not even sure what that entails!) are moderate conservatives.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm guessing those 5% would be super-mega-crazy Republicans if they were white. Like being black doesn't automatically make you liberal, it just tends to make you more liberal than you otherwise would be, so people who would otherwise be moderate conservatives are moderate liberals and people who would be very conservative are centrists, and people who would be extremist conservatives (I'm not even sure what that entails!) are moderate conservatives.

I think you are making too many assumptions.

 

[Archivist]

I can count the number of black republicans with my fingers.

Had you been around in the 1950s you couldn't have done that because most blacks were Republican. Again, you really need to learn your history.

 

[pakicetus]

I think you are making too many assumptions.

Not assumptions, speculations. I'm happy to admit my speculations could be way off and are, at best, greatly oversimplifying reality.

 

[RDKirk]

I think you are making too many assumptions.

That's what you asked for.

 

[RDKirk]

Had you been around in the 1950s you couldn't have done that because most blacks were Republican. Again, you really need to learn your history.

You need to learn your history.

In the 1950s, the Democrat Party was still split between racist southern Democrats and progressive northern Democrats. The progressives in the north were the heirs of the progressives that had been the Republican party at the turn of the century. Their conflicts with industrialists in the Republican party caused the progressives to leave and form the Progressive ("Bull Moose") party. When the Progressive party folded, they joined the Democrat party, even though they were politically opposed to the southern Democrats.

Blacks in the south fully understood who was who between national and local elections. We knew that the local southern Democrats were our political enemies and that the national northern Democrats were our friends. Thus, we voted split tickets (when we could manage to vote at all prior to the Voting Rights Act of 1965).

 

[RDKirk]

What is a fiscal darwinist?

You can Google for that.

 

[bhsmte]

That's what you asked for.

My bad, I did ask for his opinion.

 

[Archivist]

You need to learn your history.

I need to learn MY history???????

At what point have I said anything that is incorrect, or that in any way disagrees with your mist recent post?

until the 1950's the majority of blacks were registered GOP. That is a fact.

 

[bhsmte]

I need to learn MY history???????

At what point have I said anything that is incorrect, or that in any way disagrees with your mist recent post?

until the 1950's the majority of blacks were registered GOP. That is a fact.

Why aren't they GOP today?

 

[Moral Orel]

A political view is not something which needs a standardization. The democratic party today ultimately traces back to slavery, it is just that simple.

No it isn't that simple. It's even simpler. Like you said in another post, slavery is as old as mankind. Christopher Columbus made slaves of the Native Americans when he showed up. There is no tracing slavery back to a political party. It was here from the time we showed up on the shores of the Americas and didn't go anywhere for a long, long time.

 

[Archivist]

Why aren't they GOP today?

This NPR story might explain that to you:

 

[Archivist]

And , again, I remain convinced that Jesus was neighter a liberal nor a conservative. Those terms simply did not exist in His lifetime.

 

[TheBarrd]

I'm not much into politics...perhaps I ought to pay more attention.
However, I have to wonder...has anyone actually thought, if Jesus were physically here, in the flesh, how would He vote?
How would He feel about abortion, for instance...Jesus, Who loved the children, and Who said that anyone who would harm a child deserves to have a millstone tied round his neck and be drowned in the sea? Striking words from the Prince of Peace.
Or what would He think of the recent ruling on gay marriage? Do you think He would condone sin? Didn't He warn, again and again, of dire consequences for those who rebelled against God?
On the other hand, didn't He say that we are to feed the hungry? When we see someone in need and do not reach out to them, isn't it as if we had not done it for Jesus, Himself?

Render unto Ceasar, then, what belongs to Ceasar...but don't get pulled into Ceasar's world. Friendship with the world, as every Christians knows, is enmity with God.

Render unto God what belongs to God.
What belongs to God? If you are a Christian, you know the answer to that question.
What belongs to God? You do.

 

[bhsmte]

And , again, I remain convinced that Jesus was neighter a liberal nor a conservative. Those terms simply did not exist in His lifetime.

The behaviors that related to each did exist though.

 

[Archivist]

The behaviors that related to each did exist though.

Lets see, liberalism started in opposition to absolute monarchy. Was anyone opposing absolute monarchy at that time? Did jesus ever address the subject? Even those who opposed the Roman Empire were not oppoosed to monarchy.

Locke, the father of liberalism, wrote that each man had a right to life, liberty and property. Was anyone making such claims in Roman times? Did Jesus ever address the concept?

Liberalism opposed state religion. The Roman Empire had a state religion, but did allow compromise and the granting of special exemptions to various regions. Was anyone arguing against this in Roman times?

Remember that liberalism did not just spring up overnight in ts current form. It developed and evolved and changed over time.

 

[paulm50]

Who/what is the alternative though?
Here in Canada the rest are all liberal/left-leaning parties that are all pro-choice and don't care one bit about Christianity.
I'm personally tired of all the political parties here however, as in one way or another, they are all identical.

There's more to being Liberal than being pro choice. It's about protecting the weak, helping fellow man, doing unto others, etc.

Given the US Republican parties ethic of grabbing what you can for yourself. I would say No.

Balancing that is the UK Conservative Party who are trying to ensure the private sector can make enough money to pay for the Welfare State. Which is there in America, except a lot of Americans don't think they should pay taxes.

 

[paulm50]

Jesus wouldn't qualify as a liberal since the backbone of liberal philosophy past and present has always been the idea that the human intellect is supreme and can solve nearly any problem.

He never said anything about nationalization of industries, and didn't seem interested in those sorts of issues, so the jury is still out on whether he could be called a socialist.

There were no industries to nationalise. He was all about helping your fellow man, forgiving, sharing, not judging others.

Would he agree with the Roman occupation of his or anyone's Homeland for the purpose of profit? That was the form of Nationalisation in his time.