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?

[nursebenjamin]

Same-sex attraction ... is not ["immutable"].

Please source this unsubstantiated claim with a link to a reliable scientific source.

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

The KKK and the Nazi Party are not protected classes of people in any state. I don't see how your post is remotely relevant to this thread.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 106:

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

Why does it matter?

What of folks who wanna be black? Is it then okay to discriminate against them? They didn't just get born black, but sure wanna do them some being black first chance they get.

I propose this notion is an effort to dismiss discrimination against one group, while damning it when done against another.

Should a black photographer be forced to photograph a KKK event?

I'm just not hearing of a KKK group getting all upset they didn't get their picture took by some black dude, who, god forbid, mighta been gay when he did it.

How about a Jewish photographer being forced to serve a Nazi event?

We start to see where analogy fails.

In the case of homosexuals, I contend that to discriminate against them is not equal to expecting a group of Jews to take pictures of the very folks out to kill them.


Unless, of course, East of Eden now proposes gays wanna kill all the Christians.



Of course in all this we must remember how spiteful me and my fellow humans can be. Force folks to take these pictures, and you can bet there'll be cropped heads and all manner of goofy pictures to follow (among some - we expect some would just do it and be done with it).

[bluethread]

The KKK and the Nazi Party are not protected classes of people in any state. I don't see how your post is remotely relevant to this thread.

If yours is one of these United States, yes they are The KKK and the Nazi Party are creedal organizations. According to the argument posited, their members can be arrested if they engage in an unlawful act, but one can not preemptively withhold services. ie torches and rope. One can also report suspicious purchases. It is then up to the governmental authorities to decide. Isn't a command and control economy fun?

[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?

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.

I prefer the term Bible-believer, Jesus was one of those. To quote GK Chesterton, "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacious because they become fashionable."

Let God be true and every man a liar.

[When did YOU 'decide' to be heterosexual?]

You don't decide orientation, you do decide activities. Do you not think a sexual act is decided on? Does one born with tendencies to alchoholism not decide to take a drink? Pedophiles?

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

Dodge noted.

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.

And I disagree with that law. Is everything everywhere that is legal moral?

[East of Eden]

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.

You'd have quite a story if you could find that grave. Where is it?

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.

You're conveniently ignoring half the Gospel. Sin is why Jesus died on the cross. He talked more about hell by way of warning than He talked about heaven. He would say to a repentant homosexual, "Go, and sin no more."

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

Religiously conservative people give more to charities than liberals, including non-religious charities, and even give blood more. Why don't you PM me and we'll compare who gives more, shall we?

[Danmark]

The KKK and the Nazi Party are not protected classes of people in any state. I don't see how your post is remotely relevant to this thread.

If yours is one of these United States, yes they are The KKK and the Nazi Party are creedal organizations. According to the argument posited, their members can be arrested if they engage in an unlawful act, but one can not preemptively withhold services. ie torches and rope. One can also report suspicious purchases. It is then up to the governmental authorities to decide. Isn't a command and control economy fun?

WRONG. A protected class is a term of art. Specifically a 'protected class' is a class of individuals to whom Congress or a state legislature has given legal protection against discrimination or retaliation.

Neither the Nazi Party, nor the KKK are protected classes in the United States, by definition.

In United States anti-discrimination law, a protected class is a characteristic of a person which cannot be targeted for discrimination.[1] The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes":
Race – Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Color – Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion – Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin – Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) – Federal: Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex – Federal: Equal Pay Act of 1963 & Civil Rights Act of 1964
Pregnancy – Federal: Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Citizenship – Federal: Immigration Reform and Control Act
Familial status - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII (Housing, cannot discriminate for having children, exception for senior housing)
Disability status – Federal: Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 & Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status – Federal Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974; Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
Genetic information – Federal: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
_ Wikipedia

A Nazi could certainly be the victim of a crime of hatred, but that does not make them members of a 'protected class' unless Congress passes a law to that effect.

This discussion in another forum touches upon the issue of hate crime victims:

The Toronto Police definition of hate/bias crime is a “criminal offence committed against a person or property, where there is evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on the victim’s race, nationality or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age mental of physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor.�

“How does Nazi fit into that,� questioned Bernie Farber, of the Canadian Jewish Congress, when the category was pointed out by the Town Crier.

“A Nazi can never be a victim but only a victimizer,� he said.
http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuari ... 92945.html

The portion I highlighted is similar in character to the nature of the 'protected class' list developed in the U.S.

[nursebenjamin]

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

The KKK and the Nazi Party are not protected classes of people in any state. I don't see how your post is remotely relevant to this thread.

If yours is one of these United States, yes they are The KKK and the Nazi Party are creedal organizations. According to the argument posited, their members can be arrested if they engage in an unlawful act, but one can not preemptively withhold services. ie torches and rope. One can also report suspicious purchases. It is then up to the governmental authorities to decide. Isn't a command and control economy fun?

So you are saying that the KKK and the Nazi Party are religious "creedal" organizations? I think that most people would argue that the Nazi party is a political party and that the KKK is the largest and oldest domestic terrorist group. These groups openly engage in hate speech and intimidation. Hate speech and terror are not protected by anti-discrimination laws even if their supposed “religious� activities are.

[Darias]

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.'

What actually takes place in the real world is the politics of extortion, which via the power of propaganda and doublespeak, is re-branded as "duty," "charity," and "kindness" -- terms typically reserved for describing voluntary, uncoerced behavior. People who point out this reality are not surprisingly labeled as "selfish" by the entitled and the indoctrinated, who believe the freedom to exercise sovereignty over one's own finances should be a crime. In their worldview, people will not freely give of their own volition without a gun to their heads -- which is what eventually happens to anyone who fails to comply with the state's demands. Of course, I am not advocating that anyone do things that would strip them of their freedom; and I don't want to be held liable for someone else's actions. All I am asking is for people to recognize the reality.

Do you feel more comfortable saying no to Apple, or do you feel more comfortable tearing up a letter that you get from the IRS? Do you feel more comfortable not returning a phone-call from a telemarketer, or do you feel more comfortable not returning a phone-call from your local government?

If you answered those questions honestly, you have already acknowledged the coercive nature of taxation.

[center][/center]

This selfishness makes an exception for welfare and subsidies for giant agra-business and major corporations,

So selfishness has taken on personhood now? And it is not clear whether you view this "exception" good or not. Usually progressives support the state monopolizing care for the elderly and the sick. Usually progressives are in favor state interference in the marketplace, in the form of bailouts for corporations "too big to fail." The typical exception to this are companies progressives don't like. Any failure of consistency on behalf of conservatives can only be attributed to the success of progressive propaganda.

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.

Thank you for the propaganda; Goebbels would have been proud:

Peoples do never govern themselves. That lunacy was concocted by liberalism. Behind its "people's sovereignty" the slyest cheaters are hiding, who don't want to be recognized.

To make those claims as you have, you now must accept the burden of proof:

Defending the continued existence of the state, despite having absolute certainty of a corresponding continuation of its intrinsic engagement in extortion, robbery, willful destruction of wealth, assault, kidnapping, murder, and countless other crimes, requires that one imagine nonstate chaos, disorder, and death on a scale that nonstate actors seem incapable of causing.

You are fully aware of the wars and the slavery and the genocides caused by states; I tend to think the world would have been better off without the slaughter of 6 million Jews thanks to national socialism, or the mountain of bodies made by communism. I don't think your love of state warrants their deaths and the prevention of countless generations that never had the chance to exist.

But in case you still believe that states prevent chaos, I will go ahead and do the work for you. When Somalia's government collapsed, a place that is by no means anywhere near ideal -- lacking existing market alternatives that could provide essential services, it was nevertheless far less violent than it had been when it had a government, and far less violent than its neighboring countries. I can't really say the same for Uganda, where being a homosexual is a crime punishable by death or life imprisonment.

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.

It's hard to imagine how having more money to spend as you please (for charity, wants, needs, or insurance) makes you poorer. The state robbing you of half of your income does guarantee that you will be 50% poorer.

Statelessness does not mean chaos. When the government is not in charge of raising and distributing grain, it does not mean famine (as an aside, collectivization of farms in the USSR produced massive famine and 10 million deaths). The market can provide any service or good you can possibly imagine, including police, security, roads, food, water, etc -- it already does this. The state doesn't guarantee protection. Police are not legally required to protect you. Private police on the other hand are obligated to keep you safe because your payments to them are not a guaranteed form of income like taxation is. Private police companies would not be able to have an LAPD style internal investigation if they mess up. Carelessness and brutality in a free market means the end of a business. Carelessness and crime in a statist society is just business as usual, now pay up; it's your duty.

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 can't speak for Christians, but I know exactly what makes society profoundly ignorant of history, economics, and the nature of the state. Hint: it's not the market.

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]



-

[bluethread]

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

The KKK and the Nazi Party are not protected classes of people in any state. I don't see how your post is remotely relevant to this thread.

If yours is one of these United States, yes they are The KKK and the Nazi Party are creedal organizations. According to the argument posited, their members can be arrested if they engage in an unlawful act, but one can not preemptively withhold services. ie torches and rope. One can also report suspicious purchases. It is then up to the governmental authorities to decide. Isn't a command and control economy fun?

So you are saying that the KKK and the Nazi Party are religious "creedal" organizations? I think that most people would argue that the Nazi party is a political party and that the KKK is the largest and oldest domestic terrorist group. These groups openly engage in hate speech and intimidation. Hate speech and terror are not protected by anti-discrimination laws even if their supposed “religious� activities are.

I light of Danmarks post, I would have to agree with him. "Protected class" is a very subjective designation, subject to the whim of the state and has nothing to do with truly equal protection. In practice, it has more to do with government sanctioned discrimination to counter possible private discrimination.

To your point, it is acceptable to refuse service to the republican or democrat parties, right? "Terrorist group" is also a very subjective designation. The Black Panthers regularly engage in hate speech and intimidation, yet they are not designated as a "terror group". I do agree that the KKK is not a socially acceptable organization. However, hate speech and terror are often protected by anti-discrimination laws, when they are practiced by those of a "protected class".

[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.'

What actually takes place in the real world is the politics of extortion, which via the power of propaganda and doublespeak, is re-branded as "duty," "charity," and "kindness" -- terms typically reserved for describing voluntary, uncoerced behavior. People who point out this reality are not surprisingly labeled as "selfish" by the entitled and the indoctrinated, who believe the freedom to exercise sovereignty over one's own finances should be a crime. In their worldview, people will not freely give of their own volition without a gun to their heads -- which is what eventually happens to anyone who fails to comply with the state's demands. Of course, I am not advocating that anyone do things that would strip them of their freedom; and I don't want to be held liable for someone else's actions. All I am asking is for people to recognize the reality.

Do you feel more comfortable saying no to Apple, or do you feel more comfortable tearing up a letter that you get from the IRS? Do you feel more comfortable not returning a phone-call from a telemarketer, or do you feel more comfortable not returning a phone-call from your local government?

If you answered those questions honestly, you have already acknowledged the coercive nature of taxation.

[center][/center]

This selfishness makes an exception for welfare and subsidies for giant agra-business and major corporations,

So selfishness has taken on personhood now? And it is not clear whether you view this "exception" good or not. Usually progressives support the state monopolizing care for the elderly and the sick. Usually progressives are in favor state interference in the marketplace, in the form of bailouts for corporations "too big to fail." The typical exception to this are companies progressives don't like. Any failure of consistency on behalf of conservatives can only be attributed to the success of progressive propaganda.

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.

Thank you for the propaganda; Goebbels would have been proud:

Peoples do never govern themselves. That lunacy was concocted by liberalism. Behind its "people's sovereignty" the slyest cheaters are hiding, who don't want to be recognized.

To make those claims as you have, you now must accept the burden of proof:

Defending the continued existence of the state, despite having absolute certainty of a corresponding continuation of its intrinsic engagement in extortion, robbery, willful destruction of wealth, assault, kidnapping, murder, and countless other crimes, requires that one imagine nonstate chaos, disorder, and death on a scale that nonstate actors seem incapable of causing.

You are fully aware of the wars and the slavery and the genocides caused by states; I tend to think the world would have been better off without the slaughter of 6 million Jews thanks to national socialism, or the mountain of bodies made by communism. I don't think your love of state warrants their deaths and the prevention of countless generations that never had the chance to exist.

But in case you still believe that states prevent chaos, I will go ahead and do the work for you. When Somalia's government collapsed, a place that is by no means anywhere near ideal -- lacking existing market alternatives that could provide essential services, it was nevertheless far less violent than it had been when it had a government, and far less violent than its neighboring countries. I can't really say the same for Uganda, where being a homosexual is a crime punishable by death or life imprisonment.

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.

It's hard to imagine how having more money to spend as you please (for charity, wants, needs, or insurance) makes you poorer. The state robbing you of half of your income does guarantee that you will be 50% poorer.

Statelessness does not mean chaos. When the government is not in charge of raising and distributing grain, it does not mean famine (as an aside, collectivization of farms in the USSR produced massive famine and 10 million deaths). The market can provide any service or good you can possibly imagine, including police, security, roads, food, water, etc -- it already does this. The state doesn't guarantee protection. Police are not legally required to protect you. Private police on the other hand are obligated to keep you safe because your payments to them are not a guaranteed form of income like taxation is. Private police companies would not be able to have an LAPD style internal investigation if they mess up. Carelessness and brutality in a free market means the end of a business. Carelessness and crime in a statist society is just business as usual, now pay up; it's your duty.

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 can't speak for Christians, but I know exactly what makes society profoundly ignorant of history, economics, and the nature of the state. Hint: it's not the market.

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]



-

I am having trouble how you managed to intelligently miss the entire point of what I wrote. I am NOT defending this government, this horrible system that is wrong for and by corporate America with their $ corrupting both parties. [certainly the GOP is by far their more faithful lackey, but the DEMS are hardly innocent. My argument is that government, even our faulty one, is far better than no government at all. We owe our livelihood to the order that government imposes. Frankly, I am surprised we still have the relative individual freedoms we have. Ghastly travesties such as the Citizens United decision that allows corporations and the rich to effectively have 100,000 votes or so for each that is represented by a citizen have made things worse than they have to be. But the net you make after taxes far exceeds what you might be able to eek out in the chaos that would result from your total lack of government.

We have entered a social compact. Government DOES have the right to tax us, because we have given them that right. You can rail against death and taxes all you want, but you won't get rid of either by pontificating.