Why are most Christians politically right wing?

ArmenianJohn said:

The only thing I have been able to reason is that most who claim to be Christian are only culturally and nominally "Christians" so they don't truly adhere to actual Christian tenets. I'm pretty sure I'm right about that.

Click to expand...

Especially if weighed against say the Salvation army, the original Red Cross, or Mother Teresa all of which do as Jesus commanded and put the will of God before our own and love all as self.

iluvatar5150 said:

This association between Christians and the far right is highly correlated to geography.

Click to expand...

... and Amw*y

JackRT said:

Socialism doesn't mean taking wealth from those who work hard and giving to those who don't ---- you're thinking of capitalism.

Click to expand...

I left it open for people to chose which was which But you have a good point. The pyramid is upside down on it's point at the moment, and very wobbly i might add. Flip it back over and give it a good shake and all the jobs, small industry and business, small towns and farms, money sift back down to a more stable base as it once was. That is good economic sense. It just isn't capitalism.

JackRT said:

It is my sincere hope that the USA will some day have a universal medicare system comparable to what we enjoy in Canada.

Click to expand...

And a fiery little Baptist minister who cares about the people.

Socialism and the left is entirely based on envy and covetousness.

Deut5v21You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house or field, or his manservant or maidservant, or his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

Or today we might say, "You shalt not covet your neighbour's house car salary holidays etc."
Yet that is exactly what the equal distribution of wealth of socialism means, "Vote for me and I will take your neighbour's money and give it to you!"
Socialism panders to the ungodly covetousness and greed in society.

Rubiks said:

Unfortunately millions of Christians now believe God wants us to cut Medicare, Social Security, etc. because the far right diffuses into the religious right.

Click to expand...

It is odd. The elite want us to serve them, but God who you would think was the ultimate elite, wants us to serve each other. Amazing how some Christian supporters of the elite often get that wrong.

Rubiks said:

Perhaps vague Boogeymen terms like "socialist" should be retired.

Click to expand...

They can't say communist any more.

Francis Drake said:

Socialism and the left is entirely based on envy and covetousness.

Deut5v21You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house or field, or his manservant or maidservant, or his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

Or today we might say, "You shalt not covet your neighbour's house car salary holidays etc."
Yet that is exactly what the equal distribution of wealth of socialism means, "Vote for me and I will take your neighbour's money and give it to you!"
Socialism panders to the ungodly covetousness and greed in society.

Click to expand...

So you're against taxation. Got it.

FireDragon76 said:

It's ironic because that time period wasn't dominated by what we today recognize as "evangelicals".

Click to expand...

Actually it was the beginnings of the empire building military-industrial complex that dominated the scene at the heyday.. right down to the haircuts, barracks styled communities, and do as you are told without question attitude. The sixties saw through that charade but didn't overcome it. Still rules today but has taken a less obvious position and instead has let the fallen morals and values of a destabilizing nation take the forefront, so it through it's minions can represent itself as the saviour once again while it also destabilizes the rest of the world in the name of profit. Hardly representative of God's Kingdom but eerily similar to the Roman Empire.

timothyu said:

They can't say communist any more.

Click to expand...

Shame, because that's the answer to the question in the title of the thread. Not merely an extremely inefficient economic system, but a political system of institutionalized mass murder.

Speedwell said:

In this case the Christian Right has tied itself so inextricably to Trump that if he fails their political power will be broken for good.

Click to expand...

Actually they had a few bad years culminating with a black President no less, so they are glad to support anybody that puts them back on top. But once again few question how that relates to the teachings of God.

iluvatar5150 said:

But in the US, there was a deliberate movement starting in the late 70s to associate evangelicalism with Republican politics.

Click to expand...

Exactly and it was money driven. The beginnings of the prosperity gospel.

Francis Drake said:

Socialism panders to the ungodly covetousness and greed in society.

Click to expand...

Capitalism plays on greed saying envy and work enough and you too can be a good little consumer and have all the toys while we amass the wealth. But capitalists need to draw attention away from that fact, so they take a word and redefine it to create an enemy because they can't use communism any more.

Such is the self serving world of man that since the Garden redefines what is good and bad to suit their own deeds. Talk about ungodly covetousness and greed in defending the ways contrary to God.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

Not merely an extremely inefficient economic system, but a political system of institutionalized mass murder.

Click to expand...

Actually the system was the same as capitalism where the money all flowed to the top but the pay was even less than minimum wage and the envy of the greedy union bashing capitalists everywhere. As for mass murder, communism practised it within while capitalism spreads it around the world.

He who controls the money controls the world and will make as many systems as is convenient to achieve that. We just mindlessly take sides and bow to their bidding. And Christians worry about the mark of the beast? Perhaps if they remove the logs from their political eyes they will see it right in front of them.

morse86 said:

It's funny. Republicans are for big wars and both sides are for big big gov spending.

Click to expand...

WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, none of those were particularly Republican. Obama tried to steer us into Syria. Afghanistan and Iraq were very bipartisan.

chevyontheriver said:

WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, none of those were particularly Republican. Obama tried to steer us into Syria. Afghanistan and Iraq were very bipartisan.

Click to expand...

You must remember that wars are not party motivated. They only react to the demands of the military-industrial complex and finance. As for the Middle east that destabilization was mapped out in the early 90's (a gut reaction to 9/11 is not bipartisan) and Afghanistan was connected as shown in congressional minutes to an appeal to a failed pipeline contract application where congress told the offended parties the only way they could change anything would be if there was a friendly government installed in Afghanistan. Wonder of wonders, everything worked out in the end on all fronts, especially for oil interests. Who says there isn't a god... of this world.

timothyu said:

And a fiery little Baptist minister who cares about the people.

Click to expand...

Over 50 years ago I was looking at the menu in the graduate students restaurant on McMaster University campus when I saw a man walk in and take a seat nearby. After getting over my astonishment I walked over and introduced myself and said "Sir, you were my Member of the Legislative Assembly, my Member of Parliament and you spoke at my High School graduation, would you have lunch with me?" We had a good lunch and a most interesting conversation. This is a memory I cherish.

JackRT said:

This is a memory I cherish.

Click to expand...

His spirit still hangs over Weyburn.

timothyu said:

You must remember that wars are not party motivated. They only react to the demands of the military-industrial complex and finance. As for the Middle east that destabilization was mapped out in the early 90's (a gut reaction to 9/11 is not bipartisan) and Afghanistan was connected as shown in congressional minutes to an appeal to a failed pipeline contract application where congress told the offended parties the only way they could change anything would be if there was a friendly government installed in Afghanistan. Wonder of wonders, everything worked out in the end on all fronts, especially for oil interests. Who says there isn't a god... of this world.

Click to expand...

Why Tyrants Rule Arabs

For 60 years, the West has propped up Arab despots, creating poverty and illiteracy where education once thrived

By Gwynne Dyer (Toronto Star --- 20 July 2004)

It was just a random statistic, but a telling one: Only 300 books were translated into Arabic last year. That is about one foreign title per million Arabs. For comparison's sake, Greece translated 1,500 foreign-language books, or about 150 titles per million Greeks. Why is the Arab world so far behind, not only in this but in practically all the arts and sciences? The first-order answer is poverty and lack of education: Almost half of Arabic-speaking women are illiterate.

But the Arab world used to be the most literate part of the planet; what went wrong? Tyranny and economic failure, obviously. But why is tyranny such a problem in the Arab world? That brings us to the nub of the matter. In a speech in November, 2003, President George W. Bush revisited his familiar refrain about how the West has to remake the Arab world in its own image in order to stop the terrorism: "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe ... because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty" - as if the Arab world had willfully chosen to be ruled by these corrupt and incompetent tyrannies.

But the West didn't just "excuse and accommodate" these regimes. It created them, in order to protect its own interests - and it spent the latter half of the 20th century keeping them in power for the same reason. It was Britain that carved the kingdom of Jordan out of the old Ottoman province of Syria after World War I and put the Hashemite ruling family on the throne that it still occupies. France similarly carved Lebanon out of Syria in order to create a loyal Christian-majority state that controlled most of the Syrian coastline - and when time and a higher Muslim birth rate eventually led to a revolt against the Maronite Christian stranglehold on power in Lebanon in 1958, U.S. troops were sent in to restore it. The Lebanese civil war of 1975-'90, tangled though it was, was basically a continuation of that struggle. Britain also imposed a Hashemite monarchy on Iraq after 1918, and deliberately perpetuated the political monopoly of the Sunni minority that it had inherited from Turkish rule.

When the Iraqi monarchy was finally overthrown in 1958 and the Baath party won the struggle that followed, the CIA gave the Iraqi Baathists the names of all the senior members of the Iraqi Communist party (then the main political vehicle of the Shias) so they could be liquidated.

It was Britain that turned the traditional sheikhdoms in the Gulf into separate little sovereign states and absolute monarchies, carving Kuwait out of Iraq in the process. Saudi Arabia, however, was a joint Anglo-U.S. project.

The British Foreign Office welcomed the Egyptian generals' overthrow of King Farouk and the destruction of the country's old nationalist political parties, failing to foresee that Gamal Abdul Nasser would eventually take over the Suez Canal. When he did, the foreign office conspired with France and Israel to attack Egypt in a failed attempt to overthrow him. Once Nasser died and was succeeded by generals more willing to play along with the West - Anwar Sadat, and now Hosni Mubarak - Egypt became Washington's favourite Arab state. To help these thinly disguised dictators to hang on to power, Egypt has ranked among the top three recipients of U.S. foreign aid almost every year for the past quarter-century. And so it goes.

Britain welcomed the coup by Col. Mohammar Gadhafi in Libya in 1969, mistakenly seeing him as a malleable young man who could serve the West's purposes. The United States and France both supported the old dictator Habib Bourguiba in Tunisia, and still back his successor Ben Ali today. They always backed the Moroccan monarchy no matter how repressive it became, and they both gave unquestioning support to the Algerian generals who cancelled the elections of 1991. They did not ever waver in their support through the savage insurgency unleashed by the suppression of the elections that killed an estimated 120,000 Algerians over the next 10 years.

"Excuse and accommodate"? The West created the modern Middle East, from its rotten regimes down to its ridiculous borders, and it did so with contemptuous disregard for the wishes of the local people. It is indeed a problem that most Arab governments are corrupt autocracies that breed hatred and despair in their own people, which then fuels terrorism against the West, but it was the West that created the problem - and invading Iraq won't solve it.

If the U.S. really wants to foster Arab democracy, it might try making all that aid to Egypt conditional on prompt democratic reforms. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

timothyu said:

His spirit still hangs over Weyburn.

Click to expand...

Who Has Seen the Wind?