Why are so many evangelicals conservative politically?

[Danmark]

"White evangelical Protestants are roughly five times more likely to agree with the Tea Party movement than to disagree with it...."
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/2 ... filiation/
http://www.pewforum.org/2011/02/23/tea- ... -religion/

Why?
Why should a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ be so conservative politically and economically? Why should the 'soldiers of Christ' be so pro big business and be lackey's for the 1% of Americans that own 40 or 50% of the Country's wealth? Why are they so hostile to social programs designed to help the poor and provide basic health coverage?

[10CC]

[Replying to post 86 by Darias]

Because what you in effect said was the government can use your money to support multi billion dollar businesses and they can do what ever they like with your dime, including and especially discriminate against anybody including you.

I'm not sure how you could possibly infer that from what I said. Businesses are not owed taxpayer dollars. The very concept of "too big to fail" is abhorrent to anyone who supports a free market. Subsidies, bailouts, and corporate partnership with the state are appalling, and in my opinion if your business benefits from taxpayer dollars then you have effectively voided your right to discriminate. This is one reason why the the Boy Scouts of America's exclusion of gays and atheists is unacceptable; look at how much they benefit from government spending, aka us.

And no I don't believe the state should be able to do whatever it wants with your dime; I don't even think the state has any right to your dime in the first place.

You will need to explain carefully from whence you plucked the highlighted. The government subsidizes many, many business not just the most recent bailouts, a tax break is a subsidy. I mean it's not rocket science. All of these wonderful companies have your blessing to use your money to discriminate against you or anybody else.

[Danmark]

Most of what I've read from conservatives seems to fall into one or two categories, if not both.

1st is the politics of selfishness disguised as 'freedom.' This selfishness makes an exception for welfare and subsidies for giant agra-business and major corporations, but begrudges the poor and defenseless their pittance.

The 2d is born of a profound ignorance of what the world would be like [and once was] without government: chaos. We would be preyed upon by roving bands of marauders that would likely evolve into war lords and primitive feudalism.

Right, 'the government has no right to tax us and to govern.' If this kind of nincompoopery had its way we would all be the poorer for it. However imperfect our government, it is vital to our standard of living. I would rather be taxed at a rate of 50% on an income of $100,000 than have zero taxation and income of zero that chaos would bring.

The real question is, what is it about Christianity as too frequently practiced today that breeds such selfishness and ignorance of history, not to mention the sad lack of ability to comprehend what society would be like and revert to without government.

[10CC]

Most of what I've read from conservatives seems to fall into one or two categories, if not both.

1st is the politics of selfishness disguised as 'freedom.' This selfishness makes an exception for welfare and subsidies for giant agra-business and major corporations, but begrudges the poor and defenseless their pittance.

The 2d is born of a profound ignorance of what the world would be like [and once was] without government: chaos. We would be preyed upon by roving bands of marauders that would likely evolve into war lords and primitive feudalism.

Right, 'the government has no right to tax us and to govern.' If this kind of nincompoopery had its way we would all be the poorer for it. However imperfect our government, it is vital to our standard of living. I would rather be taxed at a rate of 50% on an income of $100,000 than have zero taxation and income of zero that chaos would bring.

The real question is, what is it about Christianity as too frequently practiced today that breeds such selfishness and ignorance of history, not to mention the sad lack of ability to comprehend what society would be like and revert to without government.

I may be wrong Danmark but in my opinion there are several reasons for this.
1: The belief in their absolute RIGHTNESS, their unquestioned belief in "god is on our side".
2: The belief in the FACT that they are saved and will live an eternal life of reward for, not only, their piety but their insatiable strive for perfection. As their god demands.
3: Their obnoxious self flattering hateful attitude to life, especially those BENEATH them on the social ladder. IOW they are GODSNOBS.

Just as a natural follow on from this, I wonder how many of these self righteous christians suggest ways to solve the problems of the world when or if they actually pray (talk?:) ) to their god. IMHO many!
[humour] Yeah god thanks for that new Dodge and the new secretary, hubba hubba, oops sorry. But can't you do something about that communist nigerian......I have some ides..[/humour] :2gun:

[nursebenjamin]

No one is entitled to own a business.

Anyone should be free to own a business provided they work for it, create it, or are given one. Laws banning private ownership on the basis of people's views is inherently discriminatory, an institutionalized discrimination everyone must pay for.

I don’t disagree with anything that you’ve said here. People do have the right to own/operate a business, provided they follow the laws and statues of the state/local government. You do not have a right to own and operate a factory if it releases to much airborne contaminants and violates the Clean Air Act.

What I meant to say was that a person’s sense of entitlement should not result in the abandonment of laws that are working well for society.

However, people are entitled to basic human rights and freedoms and to dignity and worth as a human person.

People should possess an innumerable number of liberties (negative rights), provided they do not cause harm to person or property. Unfortunately the state restricts liberties, most often in cases where the activity does not cause harm, ….

And what to do if the rights of one group of people harms the rights of another group of people? What if the harmful group has more power and money than the other group?

<<<“Unfortunately the state restricts liberties, most often in cases where the activity does not cause harm…�>>>
Then work to elect better politicians.

This means that people have the right to participate in their culture and participate in the public sphere.

Yes. On public property and in public institutions paid for by everyone, freedom should be demanded because such places are publicly financed.

But someone's house or store are bought and paid for by the individual, and you are not owed anything from that property. You can't set up a gay pride club in my house without my permission. Without my permission, any would-be trespassers, thieves or home invaders forfeit their "right" to life and health. If you're a Mormon missionary, you are not entitled to a warm seat and a coffee; if I wasn't a nice person, I'd be well within my "right" to slam the door in your face. Private property isn't open to the whim of the public, period. It is well within my natural right to be as inclusive or or exclusive as I want if I own a church, a house, or a business. If you have rotten teeth, you are not owed my toothbrush. Your dental entitlements can best be served elsewhere by people willing to help you resolve your tarter-related issues.

<<<“It is well within my natural right to be as inclusive or exclusive as I want if I own a church, a house, or a business.�>>>
This is where we disagree. Everything else you’ve said is simply a straw man of my argument.


What if your right to exclude people results in the excluded not being secure in their right to life, liberty, and ability to have gainful employment, food and shelter?

Disregard for basic human rights in the past have resulted in the enslavement of groups of humans, genocide, and other barbarous acts.

I believe you will find, without much effort, that states are largely, if not solely responsible for such brutality. It all starts with the children right? Who monopolizes education, and forces support and mandatory access to that indoctrination via extortion? Markets, or the state?

Again, I don’t really disagree with what you are saying, except for the fact that the government currently protects us from these egregious acts of brutality of the past. If there was no government or laws, what would prevent a bunch of strongmen from grabbing you and forcing you into enslavement or forcing your children into sexual slavery?

Each state prohibits discrimination on the bases of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, or disabilities. Some states, in addition, prohibit the discrimination on the bases of sexual orientation and perceived sexual orientation.

Well, that's relatively new. States are usually in the "business" of discrimination, and while hypothetical company A might have the ability to discriminate on its own property, the state has the power to force all to discriminate, whether you're in the public or private sector (see Jim Crow). ...

Governments should not be studied by themselves; but should be studied along with anthropology, history, science, and sociology. Our notion of which sets of discrimination should be allowed and prohibited have changed over time. Women used to be considered property -- to be bought and sold by fathers and husbands. Races of people were enslaved; others groups of people were exterminated. The issue is not the organization of people into a governing body, but the attitudes of people through the ages.

If you feel that your business can not accommodate black people, or the disabled, or a Jew, then don’t have a business. Do something else. If you live in a state that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and you feel that you can not accommodate gay people, then don’t own a business in that state.

I agree with your advice. If you're a bigoted business owner than you probably don't have a strong command for economics, and you probably won't do so well. "Do something else" is merely a suggestion, not an order. I'm not your mom, I can't make you act like a rationally self-interested, decent human being. Stupidity and hatred aren't crimes and they shouldn't be. They're an economic punishment in and of themselves, and because of that, there is a natural drift away from hateful policies towards profitable ones.

I think that you put to much trust in the free market. The assumption that the free market will alleviate harmful/hateful practices can be incorrect, or in some cases will take too long. If not for progressive policies of the federal government, blacks would likely still be enslaved in the Deep South.

Now, a business does not have to accommodate everyone. You don’t have to put up with drunks, threatening, or disruptive people. No business has to accommodate pornography, or gambling or puppies or babies or a million and one other things out there. However, there are a few protected classes of people that you cannot discriminate against. One is entitled to freedom from discriminate on the basis of race, religion, color, nationality, sex, or disability, (and in some state, sexual orientation).

Oh, so businesses are permitted to discriminate against alcoholics, drug addicts, risk takers, promiscuous persons, the age impaired, the financially challenged, and the non-sentient. I'm glad you cleared that up. So to recap, everything you want is a fundamental right and everything you hate should be banned?

Our notions of what discrimination should be allowed and prohibited have changed over time. I think that we are currently on about the right track. However, for example, if photographers start saying, “I will not take a picture of your wedding because of your shoe size,� and this becomes a problem, then we are free to add shoe size to the list of protected classes of people.





I think that you are missing the forest of the trees. Just because governments in the past have sent gays to concentration camps to die or denied their right to be married, does not mean that everything will now turn out hunky-dory for this class of people if we eliminate their right to be free from discrimination.

[10CC]

Can someone assure me that this is actually the 21st century and not the 18th? I wonder how the slaves are fairing.
THIS IS THE 21st CENTURY and we have, as we always have had, ready and willing slave owners. Some erstwhile members of humanity have never evolved very far.

[nursebenjamin]

... In fact, my presentation of this [kosher deli] analogy makes sense. Yours doesn't; they don't equate at all. ...

I think that you are still do not get my point of view. JoeyKnothead says it best – if ham sandwiches are on the menu, then this should be available to the gay and straight alike.

You are of the opinion that it is OK to harm others as long as the harm is done in the name of religion.

… I do not offer tutoring in math. Never mind why, that's my business; I simply do not offer tutoring in math (you wouldn't want it, trust me, but that's beside the point...or perhaps it's not...hmnn). If you take your argument to its logical conclusion, you are advocating that I cannot choose the services I offer, or refuse tutor anybody, for any reason. If a kid wants me to tutor him in history, even though I don't DO 'history,' your view would have me being sued for refusing. …

Wrong! What I’m saying is that if you offer tutoring services, then the reason that you decline such services to a particular kid should not be based solely on that kid’s perceived or actual sexual orientation.

You believe that it is ok to discriminate against gays and lesbians as long as the discrimination is done in the name of religion.

Cut that out. Refusal to participate in a religious event that is against one's doctrine is NOT 'discrimination against gays."

Taking pictures is not the same thing as participating in an event. Is the journalist photographing genocide in Syria actively participating in genocide?

And these cases of discrimination are not limited to photography. In various states, florists and cake decorators have discriminated against gay couples in the same ways. Tell me, does selling flowers equate to participating in a gay wedding?

And yes, a photographer that performs a service for heterosexuals but not for homosexuals is harmful because this discrimination refashions homosexuals into second class citizens.

....and if we were talking about birthday parties that the photographer would shoot for anybody else, this would be true. We are, however, not.

So, what you are saying is weddings are the only circumstance in which photographers should be allowed to discriminate against gays?

micatala asked you to comment on racist photographers and interracial marriages. You never gave a straight answer. But I think that you said that race should not be a protected class as well. Is this correct? Should photographers be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race?

BTW, you realize that the case that we are referring to so transparently was not about a 'gay wedding.' Indeed, it wasn't a wedding at all. Texas doesn't recognize gay marriage. This gay couple wanted a 'commitment ceremony,' celebrating the Texas version of a civil union.

That photographer did not advertise, nor offer, services to commitment ceremonies. Which are not weddings.

The case that I’m thinking of occurred in New Mexico, where gay marriages are not allowed, but they are not prohibited either. It’s the only state to have such ambiguity, and this should be corrected next year by ballot initiative. However, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that similar discrimination has occurred/will occur in other states and in states that do allow same sex marriages.

<<<“you realize that the case that we are referring to so transparently was not about a 'gay wedding.' Indeed, it wasn't a wedding at all. Texas doesn't recognize gay marriage. This gay couple wanted a 'commitment ceremony,�>>>
The Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) that one cannot differentiate between sexual orientation and the acts that define that orientation.

I have been discriminated against my entire life because of my religion. My fight here is to keep it from happening again. My religion is MY right and life. You. do. not. have. the. right. to. force. someone. to. violate. his/her. faith. because YOU don't believe as s/he does.

What if practicing religion requires you to murder? Exactly where do you draw the line between the right to practice one’s religion and others’ right to be free from religion being practiced upon them against their will?

[East of Eden]

It is wrong to equate race which is immutable, with same-sex attraction which is not.

Should a black photographer be forced to photograph a KKK event? How about a Jewish photographer being forced to serve a Nazi event?

[Danmark]

It is wrong to equate race which is immutable, with same-sex attraction which is not.

Should a black photographer be forced to photograph a KKK event? How about a Jewish photographer being forced to serve a Nazi event?

You're simply wrong on your facts about same-sex attraction. That gender attraction is firmly fixed somewhere along the male-female continuum very early on, if not before birth is now recognized by nearly everyone except the fundamentalist community. [When did YOU 'decide' to be heterosexual?]

Your KKK/Nazi/Jewish/African American examples are hopeless non sequiturs.

Photographers are free to accept or deny assignments; however any service provider who holds himself out as providing services to the public is simply not allowed, as a matter of law, to deny service based on race or other suspect classes.

A flower shop open to the public in my community refused to sell flowers to a gay couple for their wedding. They've been selling flowers to them for nine years, but refuse to for their wedding. http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2013/03/0 ... -away.html

One of my friends has the unfortunate task of being the judge for the lawsuit.
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2013/06/2 ... -down.html

I suppose this case will help define the law in this area, at least for Washington State.

[Danmark]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/0 ... 28195.html

Here's a portion of the applicable law:
RCW 49.60.030
Freedom from discrimination — Declaration of civil rights.

(1) The right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to:

(a) The right to obtain and hold employment without discrimination;

(b) The right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement;

(c) The right to engage in real estate transactions without discrimination, including discrimination against families with children;

(d) The right to engage in credit transactions without discrimination;
....

It seems like an easy case to decide, on the law. Ms Stuzmann is not allowed to discriminate on who she sells flowers to, even if Jesus told her so.

Jesus is very likely turning over in his grave (and has been for Centuries) over the wickedness done in his name.

This is just one more example of the problem of the union between Christians and mean spirited conservative politics. One would think that Christians who really understood Christ's message about love and understanding and tolerance would be leading the way in helping the poor, the disadvantaged, and minorities.

I suppose this poor attitude is consistent with them giving so little (3% on average) to the poor, then claiming they are such great 'charitable givers' when 97% is simply spent on themselves and their clubhouse, AKA church.
https://www.eccu.org/resources/advisory ... yreports20

Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
2 Corinthians 9:7

[Danmark]

"Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need." Acts 4:32-35.

Sounds positively as if it were written by a '_____ _____ Communist heathen.'
I guess the early Christians actually took that 'give to the poor' stuff seriously. I have a hard time picturing them today as penny pinching right wing conservatives in a tizzy about po' folk living on the 'gravy train' of $339 a month.
http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/10-05-4101.pdf