Why are most Christians politically right wing?

[rjs330]

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

Please provide scripture that says the apostles support forced giving. I've already provided scripture that says the opposite. All you've provided are scriptures that support voluntary giving. Your position is political not scriptural.

And I fully agree that in our system we could vote for a socialist government. And if that happens then we would follow the laws just as we do now. But we also could fight against it. That is also our right in this country.
And if we vote for socialism it doesn't change the fact that it is forced giving, because not a 100 % of the people would be for it. So they would all be forced to give.

When you support something like forced giving you are acting contrary to the teaching of scripture because scripture explicitly states giving is voluntary and the example of the early church proves that.

You say you support forced giving because it supports the giving principle of scripture. The Bible also says we should pray and study scripture. Do you support laws that would force people to pray and study scripture?

 

[Pommer]

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.

Terminating a pregnancy isn’t (currently) “murder” in the United States,

 

[rjs330]

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.

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.

Oh pulease. I grew up poor. My dad worked two jobs to try and make ends meet for a time. Then he got a job that moved us up to a higher poverty level. That's when we finally got to go to McDonald's once a year. I didn't know what pizza tasted like until I was 12. We couldn't afford it.

When I was on my own I was poor then too. Until I finally worked my way into a job that paid 1100 a month. Wow I was making money then! I didn't know what to do with all money!

My wife was so poor they couldn't afford toilet paper and hygene products.

So don't tell me about being poor. I also work with the poor. And until we can have an honest conversation about why most of the poor are poor then we can't really have a conversation.

 

[rjs330]

Terminating a pregnancy isn’t (currently) “murder” in the United States,

Now you are getting it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I never understood this because what the right stands for is not even biblical. Two of the things that are absolutely biblical and correct from the right/conservatism are : 1. Anti-LGBT and 2. Pro-Life. And I agree with this, along with general traditional family values and biblical morality. But everything else in the right wing you can argue is completely against Christianity and what Jesus taught. Everything in the right seems to be based on political identity and culture, not Jesus Christ. So I don't understand why right wing politics caters to Christian evangelicals so much.

How is being against homosexual persons Christian, biblical, or right? I don't seem to recall an asterisk next to "Love your neighbor" and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[rambot]

Oh pulease. I grew up poor. My dad worked two jobs to try and make ends meet for a time. Then he got a job that moved us up to a higher poverty level. That's when we finally got to go to McDonald's once a year. I didn't know what pizza tasted like until I was 12. We couldn't afford it.

When I was on my own I was poor then too. Until I finally worked my way into a job that paid 1100 a month. Wow I was making money then! I didn't know what to do with all money!

My wife was so poor they couldn't afford toilet paper and hygene products.

So don't tell me about being poor. I also work with the poor. And until we can have an honest conversation about why most of the poor are poor then we can't really have a conversation.

Great. So you experienced poverty. Glad you have grown through that and learned things about yourself, that your family persevered and made the best out of it. You're pretty lucky. But don't htink that just because you were poor, you understand the struggles of every other poor family.

I have also worked with the poor. I have read studies on the poor. I have taken COPIOUS amounts of training on how poverty impacts people. I continue to work with low income bracket families as a teacher. For two brief period of my life I experienced destitution but they were both very short lived.


I am happy to have a conversation on why most poor people are being poor and it has everything to do with the fact that your dad HAD TO WORK TWO JOBS to make ends meet.

Unless of course, your family was totally unlike every other poor person's experience. YOUR version of being poor was a PURE tragedy and success came ONLY due to hard work and perseverance; other people's poverty is their own terrible choices, their own exposure to vices and their own inability to just man up.

See, too often, that ends up being my experience when I start having conversations with people who grew up poor but now have some money. I don't mean to imply that you are about to go down that direction; just that 90% of conversations that I have on this topic go that way.

EDIT: All of this belies the point that you are responding to only that last (and kind of off topic) sentence of that post that addresses the false belief that Conservatives are more charitable.

 

[rambot]

Sometimes these abortion discussions are a bit frustrating as I watch people argue two different points:

1) Fetus is a live human.
2) A woman has dominion over their own body and anything in side it.

It is telling that a woman should not have dominion over her own body. And honestly, the thought that a man could not have dominion over his own body is so utterly laughable I couldn't even put a comparison up here that people would say is comparable.

Why is that so easy to dismiss out of hand?

 

[rjs330]

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

That's funny! Either that or bigoted.

 

[rjs330]

Great. So you experienced poverty. Glad you have grown through that and learned things about yourself, that your family persevered and made the best out of it. You're pretty lucky. But don't htink that just because you were poor, you understand the struggles of every other poor family.

I have also worked with the poor. I have read studies on the poor. I have taken COPIOUS amounts of training on how poverty impacts people. I continue to work with low income bracket families as a teacher. For two brief period of my life I experienced destitution but they were both very short lived.


I am happy to have a conversation on why most poor people are being poor and it has everything to do with the fact that your dad HAD TO WORK TWO JOBS to make ends meet.

Unless of course, your family was totally unlike every other poor person's experience. YOUR version of being poor was a PURE tragedy and success came ONLY due to hard work and perseverance; other people's poverty is their own terrible choices, their own exposure to vices and their own inability to just man up.

See, too often, that ends up being my experience when I start having conversations with people who grew up poor but now have some money. I don't mean to imply that you are about to go down that direction; just that 90% of conversations that I have on this topic go that way.

EDIT: All of this belies the point that you are responding to only that last (and kind of off topic) sentence of that post that addresses the false belief that Conservatives are more charitable.

Hmm... Conservatives are more charitable. You may want to discount certain places where they give, but two can play that game. We can start discounting places where liberals give too. If we did that then Conservatives would come out on top again.

My extensive experience with the poor and with others who work with the poor provides insights you don't normally get by reading things on how poverty impacts people. In fact we ALL know how poverty impacts people. Poverty stinks.

But it appears that you aren't willing to have an honest conversation.

 

[DM25]

How is being against homosexual persons Christian, biblical, or right? I don't seem to recall an asterisk next to "Love your neighbor" and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

-CryptoLutheran

It is Christian to be against homosexuality and gay marriage, the bible says so. Quit associating the sin with the person. I never said it was Christian to hate a person who sins... But you are not to tolerate and accept the sin. I said you should be against homosexuality because God is against it, not the people who practice it who you should love... I never said that or to hate people so I'm not sure where you got that from. Making gay marriage illegal is not hating on people, it is loving them by not encouraging sin.

 

[rambot]

Hmm... Conservatives are more charitable. You may want to discount certain places where they give, but two can play that game. We can start discounting places where liberals give too. If we did that then Conservatives would come out on top again.

The crux of my argument is that religion plays a bigger impact than politics. But once religion is removed from the equation it is the political right wing that become the skinflints

My extensive experience with the poor and with others who work with the poor provides insights you don't normally get by reading things on how poverty impacts people. In fact we ALL know how poverty impacts people. Poverty stinks.

But it appears that you aren't willing to have an honest conversation.

I worked with the poor as well. I'm not sure why you're trying to downplay my experience or knowledge. I have my guesses but they do not reflect well on either of us do I'll keep them to myself.

I'm not sure why you're not willing to engage in a discussion with someone with differing views and instead insinuate some ridiculous moral failing on their part.

 

[rjs330]

The crux of my argument is that religion plays a bigger impact than politics. But once religion is removed from the equation it is the political right wing that become the skinflints
I worked with the poor as well. I'm not sure why you're trying to downplay my experience or knowledge. I have my guesses but they do not reflect well on either of us do I'll keep them to myself.

I'm not sure why you're not willing to engage in a discussion with someone with differing views and instead insinuate some ridiculous moral failing on their part.

Are you trying to claim that all those churches don't do a darn thing with the money they get? Those churches you want to discount do a a LOT for the poor, sick, elderly and those in need. They wouldn't do any of that without the people's money. My church paid for a sick woman's rent until she passed away. They hosted a free 4th of July lunch and entertainment for the community where a lot of poor people live. That's just a couple of things.

So you can't discount who the conservatives give to. Shame on you. I could start listing some favorite liberal charities and start discounting them. Your just started to sound bigoted.

 

[rambot]

Are you trying to claim that all those churches don't do a darn thing with the money they get? Those churches you want to discount do a a LOT for the poor, sick, elderly and those in need. They wouldn't do any of that without the people's money. My church paid for a sick woman's rent until she passed away. They hosted a free 4th of July lunch and entertainment for the community where a lot of poor people live. That's just a couple of things.

So you can't discount who the conservatives give to. Shame on you. I could start listing some favorite liberal charities and start discounting them. Your just started to sound bigoted.

I honestly have no idea what you are even arguing at this point. I would never argue that certain churches are not doing a LOT to help those in need. BUT, I also know there are plenty of churches who don't really do that. The church I grew up in is FAAAAR more in the latter catagory than the church I am attending now. We do a lot for community members and their needs (both inside but primarily outside the church). Our community engagement is fantastic. While the church of my youth was fine, it was in a more affluent neighbourhood and so their contact with true need was minimal. And their outreach into those communities was a once a year endevour.
I have been told that there are churches in other denominations that do not do much at all to support their neighbourhoods or communities. I had an idea for a new philosophy on accepting donations from church members and members of my counsel, who were totally gung ho to make it happen. I wanted to have other churches be working together on this but was told clearly from my counsel that there were several other churches that consistently refuse to team up to help community or neighbourhood needs. I was shocked and sadenned to hear that. But I accept that it is a reality in some churches.

My church which contains a lot of conservatives AND liberals does a LOT for our community and I'm not about to get into a urinating match over something I'm not even arguing and you keep getting upset about.

To clarify my argument:
1) Religious people are the most charitable demographic group (when compared with nonreligious)
2) Conservatives who are religious are the most charitable group
3) Conservative nonreligious are the least charitable group.
4) Liberal religious and then liberal nonreligious fall in 2nd, and 3rd place

What I am neither arguing OR agree with:
1) Churches don't do good with their money
2) Religious conservatives are stingy and not generous
3) Money donated in a church is less important that money donated elsewhere.
Either through implication or you directly saying this, you seem to think I agree with those.

I do not.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Please provide scripture that says the apostles support forced giving. I've already provided scripture that says the opposite. All you've provided are scriptures that support voluntary giving. Your position is political not scriptural.

And I fully agree that in our system we could vote for a socialist government. And if that happens then we would follow the laws just as we do now. But we also could fight against it. That is also our right in this country.
And if we vote for socialism it doesn't change the fact that it is forced giving, because not a 100 % of the people would be for it. So they would all be forced to give.

When you support something like forced giving you are acting contrary to the teaching of scripture because scripture explicitly states giving is voluntary and the example of the early church proves that.

You say you support forced giving because it supports the giving principle of scripture. The Bible also says we should pray and study scripture. Do you support laws that would force people to pray and study scripture?

Oh I see where you're misunderstanding Scripture. Giving is not voluntary. We are commanded to give.

Matthew 6
2 When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.
3 But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing, 4 so that your almsgiving may be secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.

It's not "IF you give alms".... It's "WHEN you give alms". See the difference?

 

[DM25]

Forced giving has been a concept since civilization first began. There were always taxes for as long as humans existed, and it was always a force to pay taxes by legislation. Even in the bible it talks about the tax collectors (yes in a negative light, but it was still a fact of life). There has been both forced giving and charitable giving since the beginning of time. People are not off the hook just because of some forced giving. We should also freely give charitably to others. That's why I'm not saying everyone needs to be 100% equal in wealth because then there would be no need of giving. But some wealth distribution has always existed, in addition to giving freely to the poor as charity for those who need it. Having a little more wealth distribution doesn't turn into full blown communism where everyone is equal in wealth. Charitable giving should always be around and there will always be some people who are a little less fortunate. It's all about balance. The way the US is doing things is not working, it is not balanced at all. Poor people who get sick cannot afford to pay their hospital bills when they never asked to be sick in the first place, and that is just not right.

 

[Albion]

How is being against homosexual persons Christian, biblical, or right? I don't seem to recall an asterisk next to "Love your neighbor" and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

-CryptoLutheran

The same would apply to cheats in business or flagrant adulterers as well. So why aren't we hearing the same appeals being made that Christians should to look the other way when these people do their thing? "Love your neighbor" and all that, you know.

 

[rjs330]

I honestly have no idea what you are even arguing at this point. I would never argue that certain churches are not doing a LOT to help those in need. BUT, I also know there are plenty of churches who don't really do that. The church I grew up in is FAAAAR more in the latter catagory than the church I am attending now. We do a lot for community members and their needs (both inside but primarily outside the church). Our community engagement is fantastic. While the church of my youth was fine, it was in a more affluent neighbourhood and so their contact with true need was minimal. And their outreach into those communities was a once a year endevour.
I have been told that there are churches in other denominations that do not do much at all to support their neighbourhoods or communities. I had an idea for a new philosophy on accepting donations from church members and members of my counsel, who were totally gung ho to make it happen. I wanted to have other churches be working together on this but was told clearly from my counsel that there were several other churches that consistently refuse to team up to help community or neighbourhood needs. I was shocked and sadenned to hear that. But I accept that it is a reality in some churches.

My church which contains a lot of conservatives AND liberals does a LOT for our community and I'm not about to get into a urinating match over something I'm not even arguing and you keep getting upset about.

To clarify my argument:
1) Religious people are the most charitable demographic group (when compared with nonreligious)
2) Conservatives who are religious are the most charitable group
3) Conservative nonreligious are the least charitable group.
4) Liberal religious and then liberal nonreligious fall in 2nd, and 3rd place

What I am neither arguing OR agree with:
1) Churches don't do good with their money
2) Religious conservatives are stingy and not generous
3) Money donated in a church is less important that money donated elsewhere.
Either through implication or you directly saying this, you seem to think I agree with those.

I do not.

Well it felt you were headed down that path. I've read too many times onhow conservative es are not that genuous because they give to the chuch and it shouldn't count as being generous. It's just another attack on religion. In the liberal mind the only correct contribution would be for their approved charities.

 

[rjs330]

Oh I see where you're misunderstanding Scripture. Giving is not voluntary. We are commanded to give.

Matthew 6
2 When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.
3 But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing, 4 so that your almsgiving may be secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.

It's not "IF you give alms".... It's "WHEN you give alms". See the difference?

You see that Christ recognized that we would give. He knew we would be generous on our own. He also doesn't say how much we should give. Note he also doesn't say when you give taxes. It says almns. Nor does Jesus ever state that we should petition the government to take my neighbors money to give away.

 

[Pommer]

You see that Christ recognized that we would give. He knew we would be generous on our own. He also doesn't say how much we should give. Note he also doesn't say when you give taxes. It says almns. Nor does Jesus ever state that we should petition the government to take my neighbors money to give away.

Then, (and here we get back on topic), why have Christians in the USA been so active in politics for the last forty years, if not to get a “golden rule” government?

 

[Shiloh Raven]

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

I see an opportunity to quote my friend, @JackRT, because I think what he said about an entitlement mentality among some Christians is spot on and I don't think I could have said it better myself.

I give full credit to Jack for this very insightful response... A fairly large block of my fellow Christians have what could be called an entitlement mentality. For a great many centuries we Christians have had things our own way and have controlled society to such an extent that we have been able to impose our own agenda without challenge. However, when minority groups started demanding and receiving rights that they had previously been denied, rights that Christians held all along, these same Christians felt threatened and some even claimed that they were being persecuted. Rights and freedoms are not part of a zero-sum game. Expanding them does not thereby reduce them for some other group. For example, extending marriage rights to homosexuals has not reduced the rights of heterosexuals in the slightest way. In reality Christians have lost no rights and are not threatened in any meaningful way. In Canada and the USA Christians are certainly not being persecuted.