Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Why are most Christians politically right wing?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DanishLutheran" data-source="post: 73979886" data-attributes="member: 415675"><p>I think most realize this, but also realize that the Republican party is the party that doesn't want to destroy them out of spite, and the party that isn't going to make them choose between their faith and their livelihoods, for one.</p><p>And thus hold their noses and live with the rest. Quite sensible too.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And none of that was socialism, because there was no attempt to dethrone the Roman Emperor, and establish an empire-wide "dictatorship of the proletariat", thence to be spread to the whole world in a "world revolution". </p><p>Also note that surrender of property was entirely VOLUNTARY (which is exactly the opposite of what socialism is).</p><p>It's an older meme, but it does not check out.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again: Social democracy IS NOT SOCIALISM.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Actually, it's because we've traditionally been highly homogenous, monocultural societies with a high degree of mutual trust, which multicultural societies are simply incapable of. And now that this is changing (thanks to the left and its desire to import people to vote for it), that trust is declining, and support for those programs - while still MUCH higher than in, say, the US - is on the decline as well.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>One is not "more socialist" or "less socialist". Just as one is not "slightly pregnant".</p><p>No socialist country has healthy populations and thriving economies. China - the exception that some socialists liked to use as their go-to-example - is only swinging back towards full socialism under the current leader, and the jury is still out on the long-term consequences of that.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Thank you <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> You managed the rare feat of making the correct point, while thinking you made the wrong one.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Do note that the early church was NOT socialist, because sharing of property and value was voluntary - because people WANTED to share, not compelled.</p><p></p><p>No one is against sharing willingly. Most sensible people is against socialism. That's not contradictory - quite the contrary.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Not arguing that, because it's not relevant to the point made.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>None of our countries are socialist, nor fit the actual description of socialism.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>(bolding mine)</p><p></p><p>I agree with all of this, and especially the bolded part is a very good point.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. Goebbels was wrong.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Because reality has shown it to be superior to socialism.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. Goebbels was wrong.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>(bolding mine)</p><p></p><p>AAAAAND there we have it folks! <img src="https://www.christianforums.com/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/kawaii.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p>That is exactly what socialism is, and everywhere socialism has reared its demonic head, that's what has happened.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><img src="https://www.christianforums.com/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/kawaii.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p>No. It's not a seperate topic. It's the same topic. And yes, it IS socialism, despite your desperate desire to change the meaning of the word to fit your narrative.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><img src="https://www.christianforums.com/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/kawaii.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p>No. And:</p><p>Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. Goebbels was wrong.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Take your own advice, please. This does not mean "some random blogger on thinkprogress, vice, etc", but "the actual works of actual historical socialist leaders, as well as learning from the actual examples of socialism in practise"</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That is exactly what they aren't.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><img src="https://www.christianforums.com/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/kawaii.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p>No. </p><p>Anachronism isn't cool, mkay?</p><p></p><p>Again: You don't get to simply redefine the meaning of words because that new meaning suits your narrative.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No.</p><p>Your equating of "anything government funded = socialism" is the biggest deflection ever.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Socialism doesn't benefit everyone. It benefits the Party leadership, and its loyal followers, while the rest of the population - those that aren't imprisoned in KZ-camps - live on bare minimum.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DanishLutheran, post: 73979886, member: 415675"] I think most realize this, but also realize that the Republican party is the party that doesn't want to destroy them out of spite, and the party that isn't going to make them choose between their faith and their livelihoods, for one. And thus hold their noses and live with the rest. Quite sensible too. And none of that was socialism, because there was no attempt to dethrone the Roman Emperor, and establish an empire-wide "dictatorship of the proletariat", thence to be spread to the whole world in a "world revolution". Also note that surrender of property was entirely VOLUNTARY (which is exactly the opposite of what socialism is). It's an older meme, but it does not check out. Again: Social democracy IS NOT SOCIALISM. Actually, it's because we've traditionally been highly homogenous, monocultural societies with a high degree of mutual trust, which multicultural societies are simply incapable of. And now that this is changing (thanks to the left and its desire to import people to vote for it), that trust is declining, and support for those programs - while still MUCH higher than in, say, the US - is on the decline as well. One is not "more socialist" or "less socialist". Just as one is not "slightly pregnant". No socialist country has healthy populations and thriving economies. China - the exception that some socialists liked to use as their go-to-example - is only swinging back towards full socialism under the current leader, and the jury is still out on the long-term consequences of that. Thank you ;) You managed the rare feat of making the correct point, while thinking you made the wrong one. Do note that the early church was NOT socialist, because sharing of property and value was voluntary - because people WANTED to share, not compelled. No one is against sharing willingly. Most sensible people is against socialism. That's not contradictory - quite the contrary. Not arguing that, because it's not relevant to the point made. None of our countries are socialist, nor fit the actual description of socialism. (bolding mine) I agree with all of this, and especially the bolded part is a very good point. Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. Goebbels was wrong. Because reality has shown it to be superior to socialism. Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. Goebbels was wrong. (bolding mine) AAAAAND there we have it folks! [IMG]https://www.christianforums.com/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/kawaii.gif[/IMG] That is exactly what socialism is, and everywhere socialism has reared its demonic head, that's what has happened. [IMG]https://www.christianforums.com/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/kawaii.gif[/IMG] No. It's not a seperate topic. It's the same topic. And yes, it IS socialism, despite your desperate desire to change the meaning of the word to fit your narrative. [IMG]https://www.christianforums.com/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/kawaii.gif[/IMG] No. And: Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. Goebbels was wrong. Take your own advice, please. This does not mean "some random blogger on thinkprogress, vice, etc", but "the actual works of actual historical socialist leaders, as well as learning from the actual examples of socialism in practise" That is exactly what they aren't. [IMG]https://www.christianforums.com/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/kawaii.gif[/IMG] No. Anachronism isn't cool, mkay? Again: You don't get to simply redefine the meaning of words because that new meaning suits your narrative. No. Your equating of "anything government funded = socialism" is the biggest deflection ever. Socialism doesn't benefit everyone. It benefits the Party leadership, and its loyal followers, while the rest of the population - those that aren't imprisoned in KZ-camps - live on bare minimum. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Why are most Christians politically right wing?
Top
Bottom