It's not all Christians, only American ones!

[WiredSpirit]

To be fair, I always knew it wasn't all Christians, but only a small minority in the world and a sizable minority in the states, but this article is dead-on.

The Wild Hypocrisy of America's Conservative Christians | Tea Party and the Right | AlterNet

 

[rossignol]

This article seems to bash Americans and lift up England.

I'm in Canada and we have a similar volunteer, taking care of one another and immigration acceptance attitude even though this country doesn't have Christianity as it's national religion anymore.

 

[hedrick]

There may be a connection. The US has a more broad-based Christianity. Our country was design for there to be more control by the people. Education and religion are thus not controlled as much by the leadership. I think that translates both into a wider conservative influence, but also a higher percentage of Christians. A more populist Christianity is going to have both more participants and a theology that's less dominated by the more educated and liberal national leadership.

 

[meliagaunt]

Speaking as a Brit, I found the article interesting, but not very convincing in what it had to say about the UK. The Church of England used to be referred to dismissively as 'the Conservative Party at prayer' and while that image has changed, there are still plenty of people around who see it that way, as part of a Conservative establishment that goes with having a Prime Minister educated at Eton College. However, there is a strong tradition of Christian Socialism, going back to the nineteenth century and particularly associated with the high church, Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church of England.

The Catholic Church in England is more defined by having been at odds with the state since Henry VIII's time than it would be in many countries. There have been quite a lot of politically radical Catholics, sometimes associated with the Dominicans, but equally there are historically quite a lot of aristocratic Catholic families many of whom are more conservative.

Among the numerous Protestant churches, there is huge variety; as URC and Baptist churches tend to be locally run with much less centralised leadership, they can range from quite radical to highly conservative. There has been a noticeable increase in the influence of American style fundamentalism in many churches, with a few even espousing Creationism, though thankfully far fewer than I would guess there are stateside.

All in all I think the picture is much more varied than the article suggests; it may be statistically true that on average UK Christians are more politically radical than American ones, but statistical averages can be misleading.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Having read the article, I was astonished at the illogical leaps. :o

I am a Christian and a libertarian. I support free market economics, but I am not a social darwinist, and I resent the assumption the author makes in tying them together. I support free markets for the same reason I support freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and all other aspects of individual liberty: Because it is right that people that people should be free to do whatever they want, so long as they aren't aggressing against others. Yes, even if that includes buying and selling goods and services.

And my study of economics convinces me that the free market is the system that, at least in the long run, brings the most prosperity to the most people, and allows social mobility.

You can have that along with a social 'safety net', and I don't really have a problem with that, but in doing so, you have to be very careful not to "kill the goose that lays the golden eggs"'; i.e., you can't pile on so many taxes, regulations and national debt that the economy struggles under an enormous burden.

Or you can, and you'll have a miserable situation like we have now in the US, with rising prices for goods but stagnant wages because it's a buyer's market for labor, persistent high unemployment and high underemployment, and an economy that seems to be stuck in quicksand, that just can't seem to climb out of the recession.

 

[julian the apostate]

"And my study of economics convinces me that the free market is the system that, at least in the long run, brings the most prosperity to the most people, and allows social mobility. "


I am sympathetic to a lot of what you say, but did you notice any of the articles in the NY Times and elsewhere last month to the effect that there is far less social mobility in the US than Canada or most of Western Europe, and it is a trend that has been going on for decades.

For some reason, it is perfectly ok for libertarians and tea party types and wanna be Ayn Rand disciples to lament the high cost of unions and pensions and the dreaded minimum wage, but it is perfectly ok for CEOs and other corporate managers to loot at will from their publicly held government bailed out companies, and if anyone complains the are a danger to America.

A CEO making 20 million a year much of it untaxed in the form of stock options not yet realized is an example of the free market, but union members trying to stake out a living wage with a little health care thrown in is socialism.

Underneath it all the tea party and libertarian movements are deeply anti worker.

 

[julian the apostate]

At least five large studies in recent years have found the United States to be less mobile than comparable nations. A project led by Markus Jantti, an economist at a Swedish university, found that 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults. That shows a level of persistent disadvantage much higher than in Denmark (25 percent) and Britain (30 percent) — a country famous for its class constraints.

Meanwhile, just 8 percent of American men at the bottom rose to the top fifth. That compares with 12 percent of the British and 14 percent of the Danes.

Despite frequent references to the United States as a classless society, about 62 percent of Americans (male and female) raised in the top fifth of incomes stay in the top two-fifths, according to research by the Economic Mobility Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts. Similarly, 65 percent born in the bottom fifth stay in the bottom two-fifths.

Sorry, forgot link here it is

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

julian,

I'm not going to dispute any of those studies or statistics, because I don't consider the US a very good example of a free market system, but rather a different type of mixed economy, and one that in some ways is doing it wrong. There was a time when the US had great social mobility, but those days are long gone. When I say "free market economy", I do NOT mean big government corporate-state crony capitalism.

 

[julian the apostate]

The times of great upward mobility were under the Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson administrations

the radical free market types, Coolidge, Hoover, Harding, Wilson and so on werent so hot at upward mobility

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

The times of great upward mobility were under the Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson administrations

the radical free market types, Coolidge, Hoover, Harding, Wilson and so on werent so hot at upward mobility

You might be right. Maybe we took the good things Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson did, and went too far with them? Or went wrong in some other way? As compared with our present situation, I would certainly be much happier to have the size of government, lower debt and better economy we had then.

 

[julian the apostate]

Tax rates were far far higher on upper incomes, labor union membership was far higher than today and debt is good when the economy is bad
see world war 2
everything changed with Reagan- government has become much smaller regulations other than environmental laws and allowing people of color to buy homes and work have backed off - see 2008 and the savings and loan crisis, both brought about by repealing new deal regulations on banking and we run deficits to finance tax cuts on upper incomes
see Clinton for the difference that makes on our national debt

 

[Im_A]

Having read the article, I was astonished at the illogical leaps. :o

I am a Christian and a libertarian. I support free market economics, but I am not a social darwinist, and I resent the assumption the author makes in tying them together. I support free markets for the same reason I support freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and all other aspects of individual liberty: Because it is right that people that people should be free to do whatever they want, so long as they aren't aggressing against others. Yes, even if that includes buying and selling goods and services.

And my study of economics convinces me that the free market is the system that, at least in the long run, brings the most prosperity to the most people, and allows social mobility.

You can have that along with a social 'safety net', and I don't really have a problem with that, but in doing so, you have to be very careful not to "kill the goose that lays the golden eggs"'; i.e., you can't pile on so many taxes, regulations and national debt that the economy struggles under an enormous burden.

Or you can, and you'll have a miserable situation like we have now in the US, with rising prices for goods but stagnant wages because it's a buyer's market for labor, persistent high unemployment and high underemployment, and an economy that seems to be stuck in quicksand, that just can't seem to climb out of the recession.

You kind of prove the point of the article but anyways...

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

You kind of prove the point of the article but anyways...

Well, if the point is that Americans who are Christians and libertarians exist, I suppose I do.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Tax rates were far far higher on upper incomes, labor union membership was far higher than today and debt is good when the economy is bad
see world war 2
everything changed with Reagan- government has become much smaller regulations other than environmental laws and allowing people of color to buy homes and work have backed off - see 2008 and the savings and loan crisis, both brought about by repealing new deal regulations on banking and we run deficits to finance tax cuts on upper incomes
see Clinton for the difference that makes on our national debt

Why no, government is not smaller now. I only wish that were true. I would love to have the size of government we had in 1965, measured as a percentage of GDP. And the chart is a little mislabeled: it isn't just federal spending, but spending at ALL levels of government. I haven't compared, but I'd guess our current spending levels, are a percentage of GDP, might possibly be higher than some of the European 'socialist' countries. If so, we're spending more and getting less for it.

 

[Catherineanne]

To be fair, I always knew it wasn't all Christians, but only a small minority in the world and a sizable minority in the states, but this article is dead-on.

The Wild Hypocrisy of America's Conservative Christians | Tea Party and the Right | AlterNet

It is certainly difficult from a UK perspective to reconcile extreme right wing views with the Sermon on the Mount, or so understand how free market economics of the survival of the fittest can correlate with loving our neighbours as ourselves.

Perhaps we have longer memories here, and we know the impact of the 'free market' on people without work or money; people sleeping in the streets and children sweeping road crossings for a living; the Poor Law and the workhouse. Those days are not that long ago, and we have moved a long way from them into a national health service and into a welfare state. In spite of the potential for abuse, both of these have represented a step away from people starving to death in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Make no mistake, this is where the free market will lead, if left to itself.

However, whatever our politics, it is heartening to see that having a faith in the UK is not just about belief, but has an impact on how Christians here behave towards their country and those around them.

 

[julian the apostate]

Since 1965 the only times that rate has dropped were under Carter and Clinton

Then current numbers are a bit skewered due to the economy left behind by the last administration.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Since 1965 the only times that rate has dropped were under Carter and Clinton

Yeah, I noticed that.

Then current numbers are a bit skewered due to the economy left behind by the last administration.

Also true.

 

[Im_A]

Well, if the point is that Americans who are Christians and libertarians exist, I suppose I do.

The point is that right wing(yes including Libertarians because Libertarians are not pseudo liberals they are more right wing than conservatives) American Christians typically care more about things like size of the government, fiscal debt, GDP percentages, private healthcare, Austrian economics, the list could go on, then they care about a literal read of the Gospels. If they didn't, they wouldn't make nonsensical arguments that separate spiritual teachings from political ideals.

 

[julian the apostate]

the Ludwig von Mises crowd aside

I would vote for Ron Paul over Obama if given the chance. Ending American military adventures and empire wish on behalf of our betters has to end before anything will change

 

[Im_A]

the Ludwig von Mises crowd aside

I would vote for Ron Paul over Obama if given the chance. Ending American military adventures and empire wish on behalf of our betters has to end before anything will change

Bernie Sanders is a much better vote if you want that. He may be my write-in vote for 2012. Noam Chomsky is another better vote than Ron Paul for something like that and the write in is the unused great thing about popular suffrage.

I won't vote for him even if he was the only one on the ballot. Why would I vote for Ron Paul, even though he is against the funding of the military empire that the US so aims for, when he is vehemently against the rights of homosexuals for civil equality for he takes the coward view of citing Ninth and Tenth Amendments in response to the issue and there was another time not so long ago that politicians were like this with another civil rights issue, vehemently against Roe vs. Wade and would intend to negate it, opposes affirmative action and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, believes Global Warming is a hoax...should I continue? Everybody can make a point that anyone from both sides can agree with, heck, Sanders and Paul have had joint relations with their view with the issue legalization of marijuana...that doesn't mean Ron Paul is worthy of my vote as far as I am concerned. I have better people to be investigating the large amounts of free time I have on figuring out who to vote for.