Why do Christians tend to be conservatives?

[ViaCrucis]

During the late 1970's and 1980's, popular Christian media personalities (Falwell, et al) got in bed with Republican politicians to help each other gain and retain power. Republicans started paying lip service to social positions held by many Christians, while the Christian leadership preached a message intertwining religious doctrine and conservative economics policy, delivering a large voting-block to Republicans. It's been so effective that many conservative Christians can't distinguish between doctrine and policy. There's even a church near me that includes comments about taxes in their statement of faith.

Also, these were the new Republicans. Republicans for much of the party's history was the socially progressive party--the party of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower. As the Democrats became more socially progressive in the 20th century the hard line conservatives in the Democratic party jumped ship, and became the new Republicans as the Republican party ceased to be the socially progressive party and became the party of the status quo.

I merely add this because it really deserves mentioning.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[SinnerInTheHands]

Is this why liberal Christians like Martin Luther King Jr were so apathetic to the social evils of segregation, racism, war, and poverty?

*Registered Republicans like Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

[ViaCrucis]

*Registered Republicans like Martin Luther King, Jr., who spoke on the evils of communism and socialism.

I fail to see how MLK being a Republican changes what I said. I presume it's because I described MLK as a liberal Christian, and your assumption is that MLK must have been a conservative because he was a registered Republican--that's simply not the case. As I noted in another post in this thread there were shifts in both the Republican and Democratic parties in the last century, the historically progressive Republicans became the party of the status quo; the historically status quo Democrats became the party of social progress.

If you think MLK would be a Republican (or a Democrat for that matter) in the 21st century I'd highly recommend actually reading the words of the man in question; by the standards of modern American politics MLK would be regarded an extreme left-wing socialist.

"I want to say to you as I move to my conclusion, as we talk about "Where do we go from here?" that we must honestly face the fact that the movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society. (Yes) There are forty million poor people here, and one day we must ask the question, "Why are there forty million poor people in America?" And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising a question about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. (Yes) And I'm simply saying that more and more, we've got to begin to ask questions about the whole society. We are called upon to help the discouraged beggars in life's marketplace. (Yes) But one day we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. (All right) It means that questions must be raised. And you see, my friends, when you deal with this you begin to ask the question, "Who owns the oil?" (Yes) You begin to ask the question, "Who owns the iron ore?" (Yes) You begin to ask the question, "Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that's two-thirds water?" (All right) These are words that must be said. (All right)

Now, don't think you have me in a bind today. I'm not talking about communism. What I'm talking about is far beyond communism. (Yeah) My inspiration didn't come from Karl Marx (Speak); my inspiration didn't come from Engels; my inspiration didn't come from Trotsky; my inspiration didn't come from Lenin. Yes, I read Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital a long time ago (Well), and I saw that maybe Marx didn't follow Hegel enough. (All right) He took his dialectics, but he left out his idealism and his spiritualism. And he went over to a German philosopher by the name of Feuerbach, and took his materialism and made it into a system that he called "dialectical materialism." (Speak) I have to reject that.

What I'm saying to you this morning is communism forgets that life is individual. (Yes) Capitalism forgets that life is social. (Yes, Go ahead) And the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism, but in a higher synthesis. (Speak) [applause] It is found in a higher synthesis (Come on) that combines the truths of both. (Yes) Now, when I say questioning the whole society, it means ultimately coming to see that the problem of racism, the problem of economic exploitation, and the problem of war are all tied together. (All right) These are the triple evils that are interrelated." - Where Do We Go From Here?, August 16, 1967

-CryptoLutheran

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

If you think MLK would be a Republican (or a Democrat for that matter) in the 21st century I'd highly recommend actually reading the words of the man in question; by the standards of modern American politics MLK would be regarded an extreme left-wing socialist.

He was regarded as such in his time as well. In the last year of his life even some liberals began to distance themselves from him. Yet in the face of any actual criticism of MLK, you seem to just be beside yourself. His modern counterparts like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, you must be used to negative comments about them, King himself, despite the highly contraversial views of his you just cited, you expect would be universally lauded?

 

[buzuxi02]

Why do San Francisco homosexuals and traditional muslims in favor of sharia from NY and Detroit overwhelmingly vote democratic?

Silly OP.

 

[ViaCrucis]

He was regarded as such in his time as well. In the last year of his life even some liberals began to distance themselves from him. Yet in the face of any actual criticism of MLK, you seem to just be beside yourself. His modern counterparts like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, you must be used to negative comments about them, King himself, despite the highly contraversial views of his you just cited, you expect would be universally lauded?

It might be helpful to follow along:

1) It was asserted in this thread: "This is why liberal Christianity is at best 'meh'. It shifts with the world."

2) To which I responded thus: "Is this why liberal Christians like Martin Luther King Jr were so apathetic to the social evils of segregation, racism, war, and poverty?"

3) In turn another poster responded: "*Registered Republicans like Martin Luther King, Jr., who spoke on the evils of communism and socialism."

4) Which then gets us to the post of mine that you quote.

As for King being universally lauded, no I don't expect everyone would universally laud him. I expect the same sort of people to despise King today that despised him then.

I just find it somewhat shocking that people would be so openly opposed to King and so openly praising of George Wallace; it's rare to find such brazenness on websites such as this. I'd expect it on a site like, say, Stormfront. Just not here. I assumed a higher level of moral integrity of people who frequent Christian Forums--such is my own naivete.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AceHero]

During the late 1970's and 1980's, popular Christian media personalities (Falwell, et al) got in bed with Republican politicians to help each other gain and retain power. Republicans started paying lip service to social positions held by many Christians, while the Christian leadership preached a message intertwining religious doctrine and conservative economics policy, delivering a large voting-block to Republicans. It's been so effective that many conservative Christians can't distinguish between doctrine and policy. There's even a church near me that includes comments about taxes in their statement of faith.

Interestingly enough, the rise of the religious right started not with abortion or gay rights, but with opposition to desegregating private Christian colleges under threat of losing their tax exemption:

One of the most durable myths in recent history is that the religious right, the coalition of conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists, emerged as a political movement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion. The tale goes something like this: Evangelicals, who had been politically quiescent for decades, were so morally outraged by Roe that they resolved to organize in order to overturn it.

...

But the abortion myth quickly collapses under historical scrutiny. In fact, it wasn’t until 1979—a full six years after Roe—that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools. So much for the new abolitionism.

...

The Green v. Connally ruling provided a necessary first step: It captured the attention of evangelical leaders , especially as the IRS began sending questionnaires to church-related “segregation academies,” including Falwell’s own Lynchburg Christian School, inquiring about their racial policies. Falwell was furious. “In some states,” he famously complained, “It’s easier to open a massage parlor than a Christian school.”

One such school, Bob Jones University—a fundamentalist college in Greenville, South Carolina—was especially obdurate. The IRS had sent its first letter to Bob Jones University in November 1970 to ascertain whether or not it discriminated on the basis of race. The school responded defiantly: It did not admit African Americans.

...

Although abortion had emerged as a rallying cry by 1980, the real roots of the religious right lie not the defense of a fetus but in the defense of racial segregation.

The Real Origins of the Religious Right

 

[Black Dog]

The free market aspect is mainly based off of the history of the Protestant Work Ethic, which was extremely prevalent among Christians of Reformed background. It shaped modern capitalism, and is worth a google search.

As for the social conservative aspects - that's simply the Biblical position.

I didn't know Jesus was against helping the poor.

 

[SinnerInTheHands]

I didn't know Jesus was against helping the poor.

Jesus isn't. On the other hand, He never commands that the method for helping the poor is governmental rather than charity-based work. As for free-market capitalism, it's more influenced by the Protestant Work Ethic than anything else.

 

[buzuxi02]

Never met anyone that believes helping the poor is bad, granted never met anyone who wants to invite the poor to live for free in their finished basements or to take up a spare bedroom in their homes neither.

 

[Black Dog]

Jesus isn't. On the other hand, He never commands that the method for helping the poor is governmental rather than charity-based work. As for free-market capitalism, it's more influenced by the Protestant Work Ethic than anything else.

Saying the method isn't specified is a poor excuse.

And I would say these days free market capitalism is influenced by Ayn Rand as much as anything else.

 

[SinnerInTheHands]

Saying the method isn't specified is a poor excuse.

Saying that because Christ commanded one give to the poor [even when he didn't tell us to do it by government spending] one can't hold to fiscal conservatism because it's un-Christian is a poorer excuse.

And I would say these days free market capitalism is influenced by Ayn Rand as much as anything else.

You heavily underestimate the influence of the Protestant Work Ethic. Google it.

 

[Black Dog]

Saying that because Christ commanded one give to the poor [even when he didn't tell us to do it by government spending] one can't hold to fiscal conservatism because it's un-Christian is a poorer excuse.


You heavily underestimate the influence of the Protestant Work Ethic. Google it.

I would say you heavily underestimate the desperation of politicians, and greed of those who buy them. Paul Ryan comes to mind. So do the Koch brothers. Google it.

 

[SinnerInTheHands]

I would say you heavily underestimate the desperation of politicians, and greed of those who buy them. Paul Ryan comes to mind. So do the Koch brothers. Google it.

I would say you have little knowledge whatsoever of how the American political system works, or of the history of laissez-faire economics and free market capitalism.

Adam Smith ring any bells?

 

[Black Dog]

I would say you have little knowledge whatsoever of how the American political system works, or of the history of laissez-faire economics and free market capitalism.

Adam Smith ring any bells?

Go back and read my post, I said "these days".

If you do google Paul Ryan, and the Koch brothers, very staunch conservatives and two of the biggest advocates of a free market. They are not alone amongst Conservative politicians, or the Conservative billionaires that buy them.

 

[SinnerInTheHands]

Go back and read my post, I said "these days".

If you do google Paul Ryan, and the Koch brothers, very staunch conservatives and two of the biggest advocates of a free market. They are not alone amongst Conservative politicians, or the Conservative billionaires that buy them.

These days are the same as those days. You also forget those Liberal billionaires who spend their money buying politicians.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I would say you have little knowledge whatsoever of how the American political system works, or of the history of laissez-faire economics and free market capitalism.

Adam Smith ring any bells?

You mean the raving Marxist Adam Smith who wrote the following?

"The answer seems at first sight abundantly plain. Servants, labourers, and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged." - Wealth of Nations, G.ed p.97

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." ibid, G.ed p.842

It would seem that what Smith understands of Capitalism and what many modern people think Capitalism is are quite different; fundamentally, what many advocate as "free market" really isn't Capitalism in the way the father of Capitalism envisioned but is, in fact, an oligarchal neo-feudalism wherein what is desired is for the rich corporate lords to retain all economic and political power, eradicate the middle class, and convert the impoverished into modern day serfs.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[SinnerInTheHands]

You mean the raving Marxist Adam Smith who wrote the following?

"The answer seems at first sight abundantly plain. Servants, labourers, and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged." - Wealth of Nations, G.ed p.97

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." ibid, G.ed p.842

Ah yes, the old "he was for taxes, he must be liberal" excuse.

http://www.libertarianism.org/publi...-smith-teach-us-about-tax-policy#.2w9zc2:vdhl

 

[ViaCrucis]

Ah yes, the old "he was for taxes, he must be liberal" excuse.

http://www.libertarianism.org/publi...-smith-teach-us-about-tax-policy#.2w9zc2:vdhl

I didn't say Smith was a liberal.

I pointed out that Adam Smith's understanding of Capitalism is quite different than the modern proponents of laissez-faire capitalism; that for Smith the economic structures ought to be beneficial for the poor, and that includes a heavier tax burden for the wealthy.

The very things that get people accused of Socialism today in the 21st century.

I'm saying that by modern neo-liberal conservative standards Adam Smith would be classified as a raving Marxist and an enemy of the free market.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Eryk]

We could spend all day on these historical ironies. King was a Republican. The labor theory of value goes back to Smith and Ricardo. Social Democracy was invented by a conservative (Bismarck) to preempt socialism. And we're trying to pigeon-hole Jesus' politics?? He's way farther out there than the distinction between two American political parties. He's a utopian religious actualist who does not care about your mortgage. He will never run for election because he's not going to ask for permission to rule. He's a monarchist, and he's God. We all have certain assumptions about legitimate government as born-and-bred citizens of a participatory democracy. But surely no one has ever seen a government like his.