Why is the Religious Right on the Right?

This is something I have always wondered about. Why is it that the USA's Christians tend to be right-wing and support the Republican Party?

It seems to me that this is somewhat in conflict with their religious principles. Surely they should support the adoption of a more left-wing, or at least welfare state system. Obviously I wouldn't expect them to be communists with the religion as the 'opium of the people' issue, but it seems to me they are suiting themselves rather than actually sharing their wealth.

It also seems that many of America's religious folk live in nice big houses, towards the upper end of the middle-class from what I tend to see. So I can't help but wonder why they elect the likes of Bush who are happy to leave the poor to rot. And what excuses do they make? Maybe its the Republican support for family values (always an excuse for capitalists)? Maybe the Democrats are too liberal in terms of homosexuals etc. I understand their opposition to this, but then it seems too many Republicans end up doing a Richard Quest then bluff their way out the closet anyway. Or maybe its their views on issues such as abortion and stem cell research? The latter seems more acceptable, but IMO it looks more like an excuse than anything else.

Can someone enlighten me?

Abortion and homosexuality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Left

In other words they're reactionary little sods, and hence find their home with the Republicans. (Although I've also heard the Republican wing of the politics was deliberately "colonised" by the religious conservatives decades back as a means of getting their say in decision-making...)

I've read that there also exist a comparatively progressive (socially at least) "Religious Left", which would basically be one of the major support groups behind Obama.

EDIT: Curses ! Foiled by a Martian lunatic !

Well, if I remember my US History correctly, that was what happened up till the middle of the 20th century when conservatism rose in influence and basically the Democrats and Republicans did a huge switch

Republicans freed the slaves. Religious activism and human rights found a voice in the G.O.P.
Conservationism was a central tenant.

The democrats are a party of uber-elites (as opposed to elites of the G.O.P.)

Many religious people are Republicans largely because of the abortion issue and the fact that the G.O.P. doesn't go out of its way to insult them. Many are torn between the democrats and the republicans; the dems might seem like they are better for the poor or that they will give everyone new "human rights", republicans might seem like they are more likely to protect the innocent and maintain the "human rights" that have been established for centuries.

both parties often fail at their agenda's and cause crises in the faithful.

One of the reasons that GWB did so well in the last 2 elections was because of his "compassionate conservatism". He finally won catholics over and a disproportionate amount of evangelicals. He has done a few things for the pro-life movement and increased aid to Africa - among many other things. Many people are again torn over the war in Iraq, however.

I think that McCain is shooting blanks in this election so far. He doesn't seem to have religious conviction - for the first time in recent history the democrat seems more religious. McCain does seem to stand for the human rights of immigrants, but I think Obama seems that way too.

I would put all of my money on Obama this time around for religious voters.

I'm sorry - i wrote such a preschool few sentences. I think that i'm coming down with something.

I didn't realise that unions and blacks were an uber-elite.

Union officials can certainly be elitist and so can anyone of any pigmentation.

Both the Democrats and Republicans are 80% the same. And as for the candidates they are more like 90%.

The candidates are generally rich lawyers from Ivy colleges whose family has a history of being in politics. They might not have one or two of those attributes but in general they have a majority of them.

Quote:

---

Can someone enlighten me?

---

Maybe because some of us think that government handouts aren't the best way to improve people's lives. :idea2:
Pretending that conservatism is incompatible with charity or a desire to help others shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the ideology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Both the Democrats and Republicans are 80% the same. And as for the candidates they are more like 90%.

The candidates are generally rich lawyers from Ivy colleges whose family has a history of being in politics. They might not have one or two of those attributes but in general they have a majority of them.

---

I think that is only a recent impression.

Let's take those chracteristics and see whether they fit onto some Presidents (as pars for all candidates, I can't be bothered to look at them all).

G.W. Bush - rich - business degree - Ivy - political family
W.J. Clinton - rich - law degree - Ivy - non-political family
G.H.W. Bush - rich - business degree - Ivy - political family
R.W. Reagan - rich - no degree - n.a. - non-political family
J.E. Carter - rich - science degree - non-Ivy - non-political family
R.M. Nixon - rich - law degree - non-Ivy - non-political family

They were all rich by the time they were candidates, but Clinton, Reagan and Nixon came from very modest beginnings.

If you go further back among post-war Presidents you will see fewer and fewer signs of elite background. Lyndon Baines Johnson was born between gasoline barrels in a garage somewhere in Texas, Harry Truman's first job was door-to-door salesman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

[...] Christians tend to be right-wing [...]

It seems to me that this is somewhat in conflict with their religious principles. Surely they should support the adoption of a more left-wing, or at least welfare state system.

---

Well you have a point there. The early church, the one that was founded by the first apostles had no poor among them. Why?
Let me provide the following passages from the Christian canon:

Acts 2:44
And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

Acts 4:32
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

And if I am not mistaken, many of the early religious movements in the 19th century US lived as the early Christians by having all in common.

What do we call this today? :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane

What do we call this today? :smash:

---

A legend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane

Well you have a point there. The early church, the one that was founded by the first apostles had no poor among them. Why?
Let me provide the following passages from the Christian canon:

Acts 2:44
And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

Acts 4:32
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

And if I am not mistaken, many of the early religious movements in the 19th century US lived as the early Christians by having all in common.

What do we call this today? :smash:

---

In your hyperbole if you dont know the main difference between what the bible teaches and what the political message of the major form of communism that developed during the 20th century has come to mean then I can't help you.

If communists had adopted the form that the Kibutz (SP) in Israel did - many christians would probably be communist. However history shows that turn of the century communism was heavily influenced by Karl Marx. Therefor a government form that advocates the destruction of religion will not be one that religious folks normally will want to fall under.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

This is something I have always wondered about. Why is it that the USA's Christians tend to be right-wing and support the Republican Party?

It seems to me that this is somewhat in conflict with their religious principles. Surely they should support the adoption of a more left-wing, or at least welfare state system. Obviously I wouldn't expect them to be communists with the religion as the 'opium of the people' issue, but it seems to me they are suiting themselves rather than actually sharing their wealth.

It also seems that many of America's religious folk live in nice big houses, towards the upper end of the middle-class from what I tend to see. So I can't help but wonder why they elect the likes of Bush who are happy to leave the poor to rot. And what excuses do they make? Maybe its the Republican support for family values (always an excuse for capitalists)? Maybe the Democrats are too liberal in terms of homosexuals etc. I understand their opposition to this, but then it seems too many Republicans end up doing a Richard Quest then bluff their way out the closet anyway. Or maybe its their views on issues such as abortion and stem cell research? The latter seems more acceptable, but IMO it looks more like an excuse than anything else.

Can someone enlighten me?

---

Have you looked into the politics, charity, and lifestyle of how christians in the United States live outside of the national politics that is in the news.

Now most of the middle-class christians I know give a decent portion of thier time, and earned money to charities within the community. Most support local community welfare programs that benefit the local community. (Not all do of course, since as with any group of people there are the self-serving that call themselves christians).

What most christians in the United States focus on in national politics is the freedom to believe if one wants, Abortion, and what has been termed family values. Now if one looks at the Democratic party one would find little difference between the majority of the Democratic Party and the Majority of the Republic Party. The vocal minority of both parties is what draws the politic discussion and forces people to decide which party to support.

This is the main problem with our two party system - the extremes of both parties force moderates to chose between the lesser of two evils - to use a figure of speech.

Better lesser of two evils than a greater one in a multi-party system.

The neoliberal tendency of the American religious right looks like an aberration to me. If you look at Christians and Christian political parties worldwide you will generally find that they advocate things which in America would be considered either statist or left wing. This is especially the case with Catholicism, which since at least the end of the 19th century has essentially endorsed corporatism as an economic system. And of course Catholicism has its whole other anti-corporatist and ultra-left wing tendency, to whit Liberation Theology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by makaikhaan

Abortion and homosexuality.

---

That got nothing to do with economy. :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

That got nothing to do with economy. :wall:

---

Economy isn't really a Christian concern unless it alleviates hunger, disease and despair.

the old adage "give a fish" vs "teach to fish". Christians should do both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Economy isn't really a Christian concern unless it alleviates hunger, disease and despair.

the old adage "give a fish" vs "teach to fish". Christians should do both.

---

No idea where you're going with that one. Point being that ones view on human rights [theoretically] got nothing do with whether one prefer a state with much control over the economy or one with little.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

No idea where you're going with that one. Point being that ones view on human rights [theoretically] got nothing do with whether one prefer a state with much control over the economy or one with little.

---

The left-right scale contains slightly more things than that. Besides, state control becomes quite a poor meassurement when you consider that the least state controled economies are in the middle...

If you're really going for the original scale than it's conservative (right)-radical/progressive (left).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I think that McCain is shooting blanks in this election so far. He doesn't seem to have religious conviction - for the first time in recent history the democrat seems more religious. McCain does seem to stand for the human rights of immigrants, but I think Obama seems that way too.

---

Slightly OT, but I'm going to call my shot right now:

McCain will win in November.

If you had told me a year ago that I would be predicting a GOP win, after the complete and utter mess they have made of the U.S. over the past 8 years, I would have laughed myself silly, then called your mom to tell her to stop raising idiots.

But whoda thunk it? The Dems are reverting to their natural state: shooting themselves in the feet and stepping on their own johnsons. They are almost certainly going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Slightly OT, but I'm going to call my shot right now:

McCain will win in November.

If you had told me a year ago that I would be predicting a GOP win, after the complete and utter mess they have made of the U.S. over the past 8 years, I would have laughed myself silly, then called your mom to tell her to stop raising idiots.

But whoda thunk it? The Dems are reverting to their natural state: shooting themselves in the feet and stepping on their own johnsons. They are almost certainly going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...

---

I think his VP choice will be an important factor, but I agree that McCain has the edge this election. He wasn't my first choice, but if elected, I hope he proves me wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

He wasn't my first choice, but if elected, I hope he proves me wrong.

---

HAHAHA! I knew it! I knew you'd come around. I may have seemed like a gnashing dog about Mitt, but I knew that I'd come around pretty soon. 8 months of listening to the cacophony of traitors and not backing McCain was going to be tough

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

HAHAHA! I knew it!

---

:inquisitive:
Sorry if that sounded like a McCain endorsement- it wasn't intended to be one. My point is that if he wins, I hope I was wrong about him. I may vote for him, depending how the Dem ticket shapes up, but I'd rather not. As I said, his VP choice will also be a factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Slightly OT, but I'm going to call my shot right now:

McCain will win in November.

If you had told me a year ago that I would be predicting a GOP win, after the complete and utter mess they have made of the U.S. over the past 8 years, I would have laughed myself silly, then called your mom to tell her to stop raising idiots.

But whoda thunk it? The Dems are reverting to their natural state: shooting themselves in the feet and stepping on their own johnsons. They are almost certainly going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...

---

I hope that you are right. I just see this as the best time he's going to have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

The left-right scale contains slightly more things than that. Besides, state control becomes quite a poor measurement when you consider that the least state controlled economies are in the middle...

If you're really going for the original scale than it's conservative (right)-radical/progressive (left).

---

I'm not at all going for any original scale. Being pro human rights doesn't really conflict with anything but authoritarianism.

Quote:

---

state control becomes quite a poor measurement when you consider that the least state controlled economies are in the middle...

---

Please elaborate why it has to be so.

Well I wish this Christian Left would speak out more, the US and its religious right is developing a pretty unhealthy reputation over here in the UK and is letting the country slip into some sort of horrible Republican stereotype.

@TuffStuff: You support the Republicans? Oh well, after we held the front against abortion in those two threads. :no: You'll need to forgive me but I am pretty left-wing orientated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

Well I wish this Christian Left would speak out more, the US and its religious right is developing a pretty unhealthy reputation over here in the UK and is letting the country slip into some sort of horrible Republican stereotype.

@TuffStuff: You support the Republicans? Oh well, after we held the front against abortion in those two threads. :no: You'll need to forgive me but I am pretty left-wing orientated.

---

I wish the Christian left spoke out more too. If they did, then I wouldn't have as much of an issue with the democratic party. It would be nice to have a choice in the matter.

It's because the Republican party is the only one that has any values, and opposes things like the legal genocide of babies. Which is the most grievous issue there is and therefore easily must trump any other issue.

So Christians have to support the Republican party, even though as the OP states, the Republican party has it wrong on issues of things like having compassion for and helping the poor.

If there was another major party that had values and had a chance of taking power, I'm sure Christians would support that. The Republican party is simply the "least worst" of the available choices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

It's because the Republican party is the only one that has any values, and opposes things like the legal genocide of babies. Which is the most grievous issue there is and therefore easily must trump any other issue.

So Christians have to support the Republican party, even though as the OP states, the Republican party has it wrong on issues of things like having compassion for and helping the poor.

If there was another major party that had values and had a chance of taking power, I'm sure Christians would support that. The Republican party is simply the "least worst" of the available choices.

---

There were three states that just replaced Republicans with pro-life, anti-gay marriage democrats. That's what I like to see.

If we can trend this way, maybe a reasonable democratic party is making a comeback. If that is the case, I would abandon the G.O.P. to the wolves until they start picking charismatic, decent people with leadership skills - as opposed to these corrupt and disingenuous fogies.

It is better to switch sides when the trend changes - but without changing core-principles. Democrat and Republican means nothing. They are empty vessels to be filled with competing good and bad ideological concepts. Democrats have numerous good ones. Republicans have the more important ones as far as i'm concerned. As soon as the balance changes (as it seems to be doing), I will change. You won't see me defending a party full of Giulianis, Bloombergs, Schwarzeneggers, Fossellas, Craigs, Specters, etc.

I don't really need to "change", as I am a conservative, not a Republican. If progressivism didn't have that "slash and burn all tradition" angle, I'd consider myself a progressive as well.