Why are most Christians politically right wing?

[rjs330]

Yes, you should be forced to give up a kidney if a woman is forced to carry (under government compulsion), a fetus to term.

Yes, it’s “off topic” but you blundered into the mine field on your own.

Huh? Not being allowed to kill your child is the same thing as being forced to give up a kidney? I don't know what to say to someone who doesn't see the difference between a child and a kidney or killing and forced surgery to give up a kidney.

 

[Pommer]

People are always more important than profit.

I think I’ve spotted your “problem”.

 

[Pommer]

Huh? Not being allowed to kill your child is the same thing as being forced to give up a kidney? I don't know what to say to someone who doesn't see the difference between a child and a kidney or killing and forced surgery to give up a kidney.

You are unable to see how the state, in both instances imposes it’s “will”, on an individual to have medical “services” that the person does not desire?
Huh.

 

[rjs330]

I see the point, but I don't see your point. You're speaking in circles and contradicting yourself.


Why would I provide scriptures that don't exist to back a claim I never made? Here is where you are conjuring up ideas and wrongly attributing them to me. You're trying to put words in my mouth so that you can argue against those words. I think the problem you're having is that you're not listening to what I actually say but rather just making up a narrative to have your own argument with your own thoughts.


Right. Our communities as private groups or as towns or cities or states or even as a nation can make those decisions as communities. Let me give you some examples where various communities make a decision that everyone will pay into a central authority who will then redistribute the value as money, product, or service: garbage hauling, roads, social security, medicare, regulation of water quality, law enforcement, public schools, public libraries.... I could go on but hopefully you are starting to understand.


And the type of government we have means that we as a community can do these things on our own as well. What part of democracy don't you understand?

And I never said it is a "command". You're putting that word in my mouth. It was not a command. However, it was something that is "a good thing" as you say. If it's a good thing at the church community level then it can follow that it is a good thing at a societal level above the church community. For example, it's a good thing if a Church has a food pantry to help the less fortunate in the community. It's not a command, it's not a must-do, but it's a good thing. It's a good thing because it follows the commands we are given to love one another and serve others and help those in need who are vulnerable. And it's a good thing for the Church but ALSO a good thing for any non-Church community who chooses to do it as well, which is why you see non-church organizations and governments doing the same thing.

Same thing regarding "socialism". It's not a command, but it's a good thing and has a Biblical precedent in the example set by the early Church community. It's a good thing because it supports the following of actual commands to serve one another and help those in need who are vulnerable. And it's a good thing for the Church but ALSO a good thing for any non-Church community who chooses to do it as well, which is why you see non-church organizations and governments doing the same thing.

I don't know why you're so against having a society on any level that helps those in need since that is our Christian duty.


It's not voluntary giving for those who participate. It's mandatory for those who participate. They are actually forced by choosing to remain in that community.

The government also has authority from God to tax people and to use that tax money how they see fit to govern. So on top of our government being a democracy where "we the people" have a say, our government has a God-given authority to collect our taxes and redistribute the wealth however they see fit to govern, and this is also Biblical.

I can't understand how so many who profess to be Christians are so against helping people in need and at the same time against governmental authority when the Word of God commands us to both help those in need AND to obey earthly governmental authority.

Feel free to provide scripture that justifies avoiding to help the needy and attempting to remove governmental authority which is from God Himself.

Thank you for admitting that it is forced giving. Which cannot be supported by scripture.

You also throw out a strawman argument that some Christians don't want to give because we don't believe in socialism which is forced giving. Conservatives give more than liberals that believe is socialism. So talk to me when liberals give more of their own money rather than demanding to us other people's money.

You admit that socialism is forced giving and then continue to try and equate that with the early church which was NOT forced giving. It's not the same thing.

Now if at a societal level a community says they want socialism and pass laws.as.such, then we will abide by the law. That's what the Bible tells us to do. But stop equating a political position and a form of governance with a Biblical position that doesn't actually support it.

If you want to say we should give voluntarily and then quote scriptures to support that, then I would be all.on board. But to quote scriptures and claim they support forced giving, well that's something I will fight against. And you admit now that socialism is forced giving.

If you want to force people to give, fine. That's your perogative to believe that. But just because you want that, doesn't mean it's biblical. It's a political position.

 

[DM25]

Thank you for admitting that it is forced giving. Which cannot be supported by scripture.

You also throw out a strawman argument that some Christians don't want to give because we don't believe in socialism which is forced giving. Conservatives give more than liberals that believe is socialism. So talk to me when liberals give more of their own money rather than demanding to us other people's money.

You admit that socialism is forced giving and then continue to try and equate that with the early church which was NOT forced giving. It's not the same thing.

Now if at a societal level a community says they want socialism and pass laws.as.such, then we will abide by the law. That's what the Bible tells us to do. But stop equating a political position and a form of governance with a Biblical position that doesn't actually support it.

If you want to say we should give voluntarily and then quote scriptures to support that, then I would be all.on board. But to quote scriptures and claim they support forced giving, well that's something I will fight against. And you admit now that socialism is forced giving.

If you want to force people to give, fine. That's your prerogative to believe that. But just because you want that, doesn't mean it's biblical. It's a political position.

Giving is still biblical and that's what the system is mainly based out of regardless whether it's forced or not. Many people won't give if there was zero wealth distribution, and then the poor would have nothing. Sure Godly people would give, but it would still not be enough to solve the poverty issue. That has been proven as it's shown the US has a way bigger gap between the rich and the poor compared to other countries.

 

[rjs330]

I think a lot of the reasons most Christians are right wing is because they support the sanctity of life, freedom of religion and not being told that what they believe as part of their faith makes them bigots, backwards, and ignorant.

 

[DM25]

I think a lot of the reasons most Christians are right wing is because they support the sanctity of life, freedom of religion and not being told that what they believe as part of their faith makes them bigots, backwards, and ignorant.

And that's fair but it seems like in the US right and left mean different things than everywhere else. Freedom of religion here in Canada is actually an idea supported by our left wing parties. Many right wingers I know of hate religion. It seems like people say liberalism vs conservatism is the same as left vs right but that's not true.

 

[Pommer]

Conservatives give more than liberals that believe is socialism.

Canard, sorry.
When church giving is factored out “godless liberals” are nearly 2:1 more likely to give.


Edit:
Seems that I may be an anal ventriloquist! (No, not the kind that like to have his manakins in their “proper places”).

When tithes are taken out the giving is just about equal.

 

[RDKirk]

And that's fair but it seems like in the US right and left mean different things than everywhere else. Freedom of religion here in Canada is actually an idea supported by our left wing parties. Many right wingers I know of hate religion. It seems like people say liberalism vs conservatism is the same as left vs right but that's not true.

LOL. Like right after the USSR fell...were the Communist hardliners the left wing or the right wing? Were they conservatives or liberals? Were the anti-Communists the left wing or right wing? Were they the conservatives or the liberas?

 

[Pommer]

LOL. Like right after the USSR fell...were the Communist hardliners the left wing or the right wing? Were they conservatives or liberals? Were the anti-Communists the left wing or right wing? Were they the conservatives or the liberas?

The “left wing” were (in their system, at that time) anti-communists. Liberals=capitalists, conservatives=communist.

 

[rjs330]

Giving is still biblical and that's what the system is mainly based out of regardless whether it's forced or not. Many people won't give if there was zero wealth distribution, and then the poor would have nothing. Sure Godly people would give, but it would still not be enough to solve the poverty issue. That has been proven as it's shown the US has a way bigger gap between the rich and the poor compared to other countries.

Yes giving is still biblical. Are you trying to say that I said it wasn't? Forced giving by the government has nothing to do with what the Bible says about giving.

Now we can have a discussion about whether or not socialism is good. But leave the Bible out of it as it doesn't apply to forced giving.

 

[thecolorsblend]

When tithes are taken out the giving is just about equal.

Ah, so when we remove charitable giving from the religious right, the giving is just comparable to the general left.

Glad we got that straightened out.

 

[RDKirk]

The “left wing” were (in their system, at that time) anti-communists. Liberals=capitalists, conservatives=communist.

Yeah, we figured that out--we had to for our briefings to the brass while it was all happening.

 

[rjs330]

You are unable to see how the state, in both instances imposes it’s “will”, on an individual to have medical “services” that the person does not desire?
Huh.

The state imposes it's will on all of us when it says it's wrong to murder. Are you saying it shouldn't do that? I doubt you are. Unless you're an anarchist. So my statement stands. If you can't see the difference between a child and a kidney and not allowing someone to kill a child being different than forcing someone onto an operating table to be cut open and an organ removed then I don't know what to say.

 

[rjs330]

Giving is still biblical and that's what the system is mainly based out of regardless whether it's forced or not. Many people won't give if there was zero wealth distribution, and then the poor would have nothing. Sure Godly people would give, but it would still not be enough to solve the poverty issue. That has been proven as it's shown the US has a way bigger gap between the rich and the poor compared to other countries.

And you have to ask the honest question as to why. And you have to be able to have an honest conversation about why. Most people struggle with having that conversation.

And we do give a lot to the poor. We really don't need socialism to help them.

 

[rjs330]

Canard, sorry.
When church giving is factored out “godless liberals” are nearly 2:1 more likely to give.


Edit:
Seems that I may be an anal ventriloquist! (No, not the kind that like to have his manakins in their “proper places”).

When tithes are taken out the giving is just about equal.

Irrelevant. Giving is giving. The churches help a lot of people. When you start saying "that kind of giving doesn't count" or "only certain kinds of giving counts" you are placing your own ideology ahead of giving. I could do the same. When you take away liberals giving to one place conservatives give more than liberals. See how that works. I could say I don't think giving to that group should count.

 

[Albion]

It is not just irrelevant. It is incorrect. The idea that Conservatives give more only if we include contributions to churches and that these don't count as charity comes from a newspaper editorial that speculated on a number of supposed factors, including the idea that Conservatives must be richer (which is factually untrue), so it follows that they must give more.

Reputable sources, however, have verified that, overall, more conservative people do give more to charity than more liberal ones do.

 

[rambot]

Thank you for admitting that it is forced giving. Which cannot be supported by scripture.

You also throw out a strawman argument that some Christians don't want to give because we don't believe in socialism which is forced giving. Conservatives give more than liberals that believe is socialism. So talk to me when liberals give more of their own money rather than demanding to us other people's money.

Ahhh this one:
1) If you take away church tithing, those numbers change dramatically. Therefore, it's pretty clear that faith/religion/church attendance is a GREATER corralary to increased charity OVER politics.

2) The study that this belief came from several years ago, also pointed out that nonreligious conservatives were the LEAST charitable (by a decent measure too).

Between that data and the oft demonstrated "Conservative who is reticent to pay for social programs for the suffering", it seems hard to think that Conservatives care about people. Yes, they care about their church and what their church does (and sometimes that includes helping the less fortunate; and sometimes not), but they don't care about anything past that. Sure you hide it under the guise of "taking our money". But really, if you saw, understood, and accepted the reality of what others suffer through I think it would be easier to support those programs.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Thank you for admitting that it is forced giving. Which cannot be supported by scripture.

There are two things at play here:
1. Whether socialism is Biblical or not (it is)
2. Whether a government can impose (i.e. FORCE people to pay) taxes to generate revenue to then spend as it sees fit or not (they can, and this is also Biblical)

It's quite simple. In our democracy we can choose to vote to support legislators and laws who will implement socialist programs in the government who in turn has the God-given right to impose taxes and fund those programs with the tax revenue. As a Christian I (and other Christians) will use our role in our democracy to support the implementation of socialist programs that deliver what God's Word has shown to be good. It's really just that simple.

You also throw out a strawman argument that some Christians don't want to give because we don't believe in socialism which is forced giving. Conservatives give more than liberals that believe is socialism. So talk to me when liberals give more of their own money rather than demanding to us other people's money.

The strawman is your bringing up your own idea that socialism has to be government and that it has to be "forced". I've already proven that's not the case. It can be a community, it can be voluntary, or it can be "forced" by a government.

As for conservatives giving more money to charity, that's based on an old study that measures how much money people give to charity organizations. That's not the entirety of what's given and to what/whom it's given. It doesn't account for time and services given by volunteers. It doesn't include all that's given through churches like mine where members give their time, services, products, goods, as well as money to help those in need. So it's pretty worthless to look at that 8 year old study.

You admit that socialism is forced giving and then continue to try and equate that with the early church which was NOT forced giving. It's not the same thing.

It's forced for those who participate. Participation itself can be forced or not forced. That's why I fully admit that it can be forced when it's through the government. So what? If our government is going to force us to do things then I will support government forcing us to do those things that are Biblical, such as socialist programs that help people in the way the Bible teaches us to help people.

Now if at a societal level a community says they want socialism and pass laws.as.such, then we will abide by the law. That's what the Bible tells us to do. But stop equating a political position and a form of governance with a Biblical position that doesn't actually support it.

Two Biblical positions support it. First, the example set by the early Church that they believed a socialist system for their community was the best, and second the teaching in God's Word that a government is authorized by God to implement policies that would emulate the Biblical model of socialism.

If you want to say we should give voluntarily and then quote scriptures to support that, then I would be all.on board. But to quote scriptures and claim they support forced giving, well that's something I will fight against. And you admit now that socialism is forced giving.

We should be doing it voluntarily also, of course.

But socialism for certain programs makes the most sense. I'm on the giving end of things here. I would bet the house that money flows from me to you and not the other way around. But for the greater good I am fine with that. If you need the help and I don't then I am fine with helping you out because it makes our country better and I benefit from that.

If you want to force people to give, fine. That's your perogative to believe that. But just because you want that, doesn't mean it's biblical. It's a political position.

Well it is Biblical and I've provided the Scriptures for it. If you reject the Scripture then that's fine but don't pretend your opposition to the Scriptures I provided isn't exactly that.

 

[timothyu]

Why are most Christians politically right wing?

Simply because like the church they are afraid of change and losing their hold over the people.