The Coming Fall of the Religious Right?

[SonOfTheWest]

Religion’s Retreat from Politics and Other Good News « Ockham's Beard

Putnam’s argument – also espoused in his new book, American Grace – was that the close relationship between religiosity and Republican partisanship that we see today only started in the early 1990s, and began as a wedge strategy intended to galvanise a conservative base against encroaching liberalism by appealing to the pervasive religiousness of most Americans, tapping in to socially conservative issues such as abortion as the hot buttons.

And it worked. Putnam showed evidence that around the early 1970s there was no correlation between religious attendance (as a proxy for religiosity) and partisan preference. In fact, in the late 1960s, if you were more highly devout, you were more likely to vote Democrat. But that had all changed by the 1980s, and particularly into the 1990s.

Makes sense. Old school Republicanism used to be represented by the north-eastern industrialists – hardly a religious bunch. Too distracted by money and cigars. Conversely, there were the ‘southern Democrats’ who, until the quakes of the civil rights movement rocked their foundations, were deeply religious but were working class and voted for labour and community issues.

But in the 1990s that changed. And it’s already beginning to backfire.
​

I, grimly, can see it going either way. Currently it seems to me that far more "out there" Christian fringe groups are getting far more clout than they perhaps deserve in the U.S. Most recently under the auspices of Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann. Combined with thing like the increased media exposure of stuff like The Family(and it's part in influencing Ungandan policy) the average American has perhaps gotten a deeper glimpse into religous influence in American politicans than it has previously. Though maybe I'm giving the average American far too much benefit of the doubt. So on one hand I could see this continuing and the Religious Right not diminishing but in some ways gaining and simply changing what that means.

On the other, I could see such fringe groups causing the Religious Right to weaken considerably if there is a backlash. I fear however that this is wishful thinking.

 

[DeathMagus]

I didn't say that, but I always allow people any misconception they wish to make

I've noticed that you haven't said much of anything this thread. Your inability to answer questions in a straightforward manner betrays a deeper inability (unwillingness?) to communicate effectively.

 

[MacFall]

Cool. So all taxes are covetous. Good luck advancing that opinion.

Considering that taxation is the taking of other people's property under the threat of force, I would find that position difficult to argue against.

 

[DeathMagus]

Considering that taxation is the taking of other people's property under the threat of force, I would find that position difficult to argue against.

Given that you're an Agorist, I'm not surprised that you would find it difficult to argue against. Most people are not Agorists, however, and would find no difficulty in arguing against such a position.

 

[mpok1519]

The covetousness to which I refer is the desire to take money from a person who earned it to give to a person who didn't earn it. Hope that clarifies it for you.

what about enviornmental protection?

We have a desire to take money from a person who earned it and giving it to one who doesnt (the enviornment) ? The enviornment is covetous? Or, wait, no, PEOPLE, are covetous of other peoples' wealth, and THATS why they give the resources to programs that make sure you have clean drinking water....wait, no....the enviornment is to blame. The enviornment didn't earn that money; why should we give it to him?

 

[mpok1519]

Considering that taxation is the taking of other people's property under the threat of force, I would find that position difficult to argue against.

our whole country was founded upon taking others' property under the threat of force.

You somehow have no problem with taking property away from natives, but, for some reason, find it hard to tax the super-wealthy.

Weird.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

People in Mach's position I think are simply being disengenous. For political figures it makes some sense. Putting aside the whole "Lower taxes means jobs creators are free to create jobs." mentality that has infected the Republican party in the U.S. you still have politicians able to play at populism. It's an easy sell to average citizens when any real expectation of details on tax reform is thrown out and the whole message reduced to less money being taken out of someone's checks. The only ones I would even consider being somewhat honest are those that understand that taxes do serve an important function for countries and that the issues lie far more with how tax money is being used than that taxes exist at all.

 

[BondiHarry]

Given that you're an Agorist, I'm not surprised that you would find it difficult to argue against. Most people are not Agorists, however, and would find no difficulty in arguing against such a position.

And then there is God's call for us to be holy, to not put our trust in princes (ie government), to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all those things (that we need) will be added to us, telling us directly not to covet or steal which runs counter to what 'most people' think (they may agree with their lips but for many their hearts are far from what God commands).

 

[SonOfTheWest]

our whole country was founded upon taking others' property under the threat of force.

You somehow have no problem with taking property away from natives, but, for some reason, find it hard to tax the super-wealthy.

Weird.

It goes beyond weird. Whoever convinced relatively poor citizens that not taxing the ultraweathly while more and more citizens find themselves reduced to the working poor is a good thing for them for little reason beyond.."It's socialism and it's bad!" deserves some sort of evil mind control award.

The story that supporters in my experience trot out to gloss this all over is the attempt to simply reduce the narrative to something along the lines of people are simply being greedy and want to effectively steal money from successfull people. While dismissing reams of data on income disparity, the ever widening gap between wages and cost of living over the decades and the effect that deregulation and essentially letting powerful people get away with illegal activities has contributed to wealthy disparity.

 

[Non sequitur]

And then there is God's call for us to be holy, to not put our trust in princes (ie government), to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all those things (that we need) will be added to us, telling us directly not to covet or steal which runs counter to what 'most people' think (they may agree with their lips but for many their hearts are far from what God commands).

So while we are not trusting the government, what should we be doing with our money?

Put it in a big pile and burn it, as some offering?

 

[MacFall]

Given that you're an Agorist, I'm not surprised that you would find it difficult to argue against. Most people are not Agorists, however, and would find no difficulty in arguing against such a position.

How can the willingness to take something you want it from its owner by force possibly exist without covetousness?

Show me one instance of taxation where the expropriators didn't keep a single cent of the value of the property confiscated, and though I'd still argue against the act of taxation, I might consider ascribing a different motivation to it besides covetousness.

our whole country was founded upon taking others' property under the threat of force.

Much of it was, yes. Much of it was also peacefully acquired. Some of it had no clear owner in the first place. But wherever violence or the threat of violence was used to take the property of a previous owner, whether that of native or settler, I condemn it.

You somehow have no problem with taking property away from natives, but, for some reason, find it hard to tax the super-wealthy.

Weird.

You somehow tried to read my mind, but for some reason came to a completely false conclusion about what I believe.

Predictable.

Generally, I don't give a crap about the super wealthy, because generally, they got their wealth through controlling the political apparatus. I don't shed any tears when the relationship between the state and its beneficiaries becomes more expensive for the latter. However, I do not believe in violence as a means of solving social problems, even those which involved violence in the first place, as the creation of political privilege certainly does.

 

[DeathMagus]

How can the willingness to take something you want it from its owner by force possibly exist without covetousness?

Show me one instance of taxation where the expropriators didn't keep a single cent of the value of the property confiscated, and though I'd still argue against the act of taxation, I might consider ascribing a different motivation to it besides covetousness.

You know as well as I that government requires overhead. I'm not going to try to convince an Agorist that governments in general are good things. Why would I waste my time in such a manner?

 

[BondiHarry]

It goes beyond weird. Whoever convinced relatively poor citizens that not taxing the ultraweathly while more and more citizens find themselves reduced to the working poor is a good thing for them for little reason beyond.."It's socialism and it's bad!" deserves some sort of evil mind control award.

The economic argument against socialism has been made by many people from from Bastiat, Jefferson and Adams to Friedman, Ron Paul and Ayn Rand and demonstrated to be true in real life. Socialism is bad because it is based on an immoral premise (I hold God's word to be the standard of morality and stealing is immoral even when done in the name of 'good'), it makes an un-Godly idol of government and it leads to poverty.

There is also the failure to distinguish between those who have high incomes (and in some cities like San Francisco or New York even an income of $250,000 doesn't go all that far) and those who are already wealthy. Heavily taxing income does little to touch the already rich and only punishes those who are creating wealth and trying to become rich (and one has to ask just what is 'rich' when you factor in the cost of housing, the education of children through college and saving for medical needs and retirement?). The already rich have largely protected their existing wealth from being taxed as income so when you raise income taxes you're not really touching the Kennedys or Bushs or Rockefellers all that much. The smarter thing to do would be get rid of the income tax altogether and replace it with a flat consumption tax so the creation of wealth is encouraged and the already rich start paying 15 or 18% for the toys they buy than just a sales tax in single figures.

The story that supporters in my experience trot out to gloss this all over is the attempt to simply reduce the narrative to something along the lines of people are simply being greedy and want to effectively steal money from successfull people. While dismissing reams of data on income disparity, the ever widening gap between wages and cost of living over the decades and the effect that deregulation and essentially letting powerful people get away with illegal activities has contributed to wealthy disparity.

All you're doing is exposing the failures of the mixed economy we have, ignoring the reality that the economic 'pie' has grown significanty over the last several decades (thanks to the tax cuts of Kennedy, Reagan and GW Bush) and ignoring how the growth of government power and regulation kills business opportunities and wastes wealth all the while it punishes the productive and forces more and more people into dependency upon the government.

The left has created this false narrative that capitalism is a system of exploitation where the rich become so at the expense of the poor, that it is a system based on greed (there are greedy capitalists but we find greedy men in every political/economic system with one huge difference, in capitalism the greedy man does not have the coercive power of government to facilitate his greed and must compete in the free market which does much to minimize 'greed') and that it leads to exploitation of workers, the pollution of the environment etc. What the left tends to gloss over is that these things do not result FROM free markets but from the corrupt nature of man. It is actually the free market (along with the tenets of Christianity from which free markets spring) which has been the driving force to eliminate the grinding poverty and oppression that has been the norm for mankind throughout history. Yet it is free markets and God himself which the left attacks in the name of 'progress'.

 

[Grizzly]

Can someone explain to me why taxes for roads, electric lines, military, police, fire, sewers, garbage collection, etc...are ok but taxes that feed the poor or take care of the sick are "coveting" my neighbors property? Or are they all forms of coveting that God frowns upon?

 

[MachZer0]

Can someone explain to me why taxes for roads, electric lines, military, police, fire, sewers, garbage collection, etc...are ok but taxes that feed the poor or take care of the sick are "coveting" my neighbors property? Or are they all forms of coveting that God frowns upon?

Taxes for the military, for example, pay for a service. Taxes for the poor merely take from one person who earned it and give to another person who didn't earn it

 

[Grizzly]

Taxes for the military, for example, pay for a service. Taxes for the poor merely take from one person who earned it and give to another person who didn't earn it

But taxes for services may pay for services I don't use. Should I be forced to pay for services I don't use? For roads I don't drive on?

But more importantly, does a willingness to want taxes for these "services" mean that one is guilty of coveting?

 

[BondiHarry]

Can someone explain to me why taxes for roads, electric lines, military, police, fire, sewers, garbage collection, etc...are ok but taxes that feed the poor or take care of the sick are "coveting" my neighbors property? Or are they all forms of coveting that God frowns upon?

Ayn Rand does a good job explaining that from a (God denying) rationalists point of view (as does the Bible but Godly government tends to be a sore subject here). We need government to protect us from the predatory man; when government becomes an accomplice to the predatory man the productive man is better off living on an island where the predatory man does not live than living in a land where the predatory man not only lives but is given the moral protection and confiscatory power of government. We don't really need government for anything beyond the police, military and courts ... there is nothing about building infrastructure that requires government involvement any more than building houses, cars, making shoes, growing food or drilling for oil requires government involvement. Ayn Rand used the example of shoes in one of her books and I find she was right. If government was the provider of shoes anyone suggesting the government get out of it and let the free market take care of ensuring the people had shoes they would be met with "what, do you want everyone to go shoeless?".

 

[MachZer0]

But taxes for services may pay for services I don't use. Should I be forced to pay for services I don't use? For roads I don't drive on?

That's an issue that should be btween you and your state officials.

But more importantly, does a willingness to want taxes for these "services" mean that one is guilty of coveting?

As I said, it differs because it isn't taking money from one person and giving it to another. It's taking money and using it for services

 

[FaithLikeARock]

The "social justice" Christians of the 1950s and 1960s fought hard so all Americans could have an equal chance to get the same jobs as white males, so they could work for a better future for themselves and their families.

The same Christians, in their older age, now simply want people actually to get those jobs and do the work.

Except that, it said they were more likely to vote Democrat, and as you Republicans LOVE to point out "It was the Republicans who led the civil rights movement".

You can't have the best of both worlds. Either the atheist Republicans of the time led it, and you have heart in sharing the name (though not the ideals) of Republican, or a Christian Democrat did it, and you can continue to try to overshadow the flaws with Christianity by going "LOOK AT ALL THE GOOD THINGS CHRISTIANS HAVE DONE".

 

[Grizzly]

As I said, it differs because it isn't taking money from one person and giving it to another. It's taking money and using it for services

But is it coveting? Am I coveting another person's wealth because I want services that I can't afford on my own?