Why is the Religious Right on the Right?

[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?

[seireikhaan]

Abortion and homosexuality.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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

[Watchman]

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 !

[TevashSzat]

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

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[Furious Mental]

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

[Goofball]

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...

[Viking]

Abortion and homosexuality.

That got nothing to do with economy.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That got nothing to do with economy.

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.

[Viking]

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.

[Ironside]

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).

[Sigurd]

[...] 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?

[Adrian II]

What do we call this today?

A legend.

[Redleg]

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?

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.

[Redleg]

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.

[Vladimir]

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

[Furious Mental]

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.

[PanzerJaeger]

So I can't help but wonder why they elect the likes of Bush who are happy to leave the poor to rot.

Not true.