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?

[JoeyKnothead]

From various comments within the thread, I propose...

It would appear that some are so far to one side of the political spectrum, that the person standing beside them is an "extreme radical", with no moderate range to consider.

"Anyone who disagrees must be as far to their side as I am to mine" is, I contend, the kind of go/no-go thinking that has this nation in knots right now.

I

[Danmark]

From various comments within the thread, I propose...

It would appear that some are so far to one side of the political spectrum, that the person standing beside them is an "extreme radical", with no moderate range to consider.

"Anyone who disagrees must be as far to their side as I am to mine" is, I contend, the kind of go/no-go thinking that has this nation in knots right now.

I

True Joey. Reminds me of the motorcyclist's adage, something to the effect of 'Anyone who rides slower than I do is a bad rider; anyone who rides faster than me is a reckless maniac.'

[dianaiad]

From various comments within the thread, I propose...

It would appear that some are so far to one side of the political spectrum, that the person standing beside them is an "extreme radical", with no moderate range to consider.

"Anyone who disagrees must be as far to their side as I am to mine" is, I contend, the kind of go/no-go thinking that has this nation in knots right now.

I

Interesting viewpoint. I'll have to remember that the next time one of you guys calls me a racist homophobe because I disagree with you on something.

[Danmark]

From various comments within the thread, I propose...

It would appear that some are so far to one side of the political spectrum, that the person standing beside them is an "extreme radical", with no moderate range to consider.

"Anyone who disagrees must be as far to their side as I am to mine" is, I contend, the kind of go/no-go thinking that has this nation in knots right now.

I

Interesting viewpoint. I'll have to remember that the next time one of you guys calls me a racist homophobe because I disagree with you on something.

Whadaya mean "you guys?"

[East of Eden]

I don't think I ever got an answer to this, do you see any differences between Asian and US black cultures? Do you think all cultures and religions are the same?

Excellent question! Except for the use of racial modifiers. I'm not being flippant. I think it is an important point for reasons I stated in my recent reply to WP.

But the question is a good one nonetheless. No, obviously cultures and their subcultures are different. All reasonably healthy people from all cultures and languages share some basic values. We are all self maximizing organisms. We share common values (whether we carry them out or not, we accept these values). We love and care for our young, and nurture them. We want to succeed in life, tho' we may define success differently. We have a sense of community.

How each separate culture carries out their basic values is where the differences arise. Language alone is an enormously significant part of each culture. And even within languages, there are important distinctions.

Let's take the example of 'liberal' and 'conservative' cultures. I assume both cultures believe in the 'greatest good for the greatest number;' that we all want equality of opportunity; that we all want to 'succeed' or be happy and fulfilled. We want to feel important. We want to create. We all agree that 'things should be fair.'

The factions may disagree on how to achieve those ends, but we have different ideas on how best to meet those goals.

The reason it's impossible to answer your question about Asian vs. black culture is that there is a wide spectrum in both.

Wikipedia lists these U.S. Asian street gangs:

Asian Boyz, Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian
Jackson Street Boys, Chinese and Vietnamese
Menace of Destruction, Hmong
Triad, Chinese
Wah Ching, Chinese
Yakuza, Japanese

I won't pretend I know any thing about them; did not even click on any of them, except:
Wah Ching (Traditional Chinese: ��, Simplified Chinese: ��, Pinyin:Huá Qīng) is a Chinese American Triad Society (secret society) and street gang also known as "Dub C" originating in San Francisco during the early 1960s. At the time, Wah Ching was organized into one enormous gang. Wah Ching controlled most of the criminal vices throughout the San Francisco and Los Angeles Asian communities.

I suspect these 'Asians' have a dramatically different subculture than does my close friend Christopher, a very successful lawyer whose parents are both Washington D.C. doctors; one a physician and the other physicist. [Does it matter whether he is 'black' or 'white?']

Are there general differences between cultures based on race? Perhaps. That seems to be the accepted mythology in some circles. I don't think it is productive to research them, but I don't see how you do so without reinforcing stereotypes.

Here's an example of why I am cautious:
[from a Harvard study]

BTW, before the quote, I did not see it in this article, but my recollection from a radio interview was that when the physicians saw the results, they were horrified at their own behavior, behavior they were not conscious of.

It has been well documented that there is a gap in the healthcare treatment African-Americans receive, especially in emergency rooms, according to the study authors.

A number of studies have shown that whites are twice as likely as blacks to receive full treatment for heart attacks in the emergency room, according to the study, available at the Web site of the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

The Harvard study and a handful of others in recent years are attempting to zero in on whether inherent racial bias on the part of the provider is a factor, and how this may play out, said Dana Carney, a postdoctoral fellow in the psychology department at Harvard.

The Harvard study examined the conscious and unconscious attitudes of 220 interns -- almost all of whom were white -- toward white and black patients.

The study found that most of the physicians, whether white, Asian or Latino, tended to harbor biases against black patients and that this resulted in the patients receiving less thorough treatment, Carney said.

Just six of the interns were black, and while they expressed less bias against black patients, in some, it was there, Carney said. The reason is broad stereotypes propagated by the media and society in general, she said.

"It's the culture's thumbprint on our mind," Carney told United Press International.
http://mirroronamerica.blogspot.com/200 ... among.html

I know you like government tables, here's one you can compare Asian and black crime rates: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... s/table-43

[otseng]

No retraction coming, you are cut from the same cloth as Danmark, almost always taking a liberal position and presenting yourself as some kind of centrist. There is no shame in coming from one end of the political spectrum, why not admit it? I do.

Moderator Warning


There is no need to make personal assessments of another poster.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 270:

From various comments within the thread, I propose...

It would appear that some are so far to one side of the political spectrum, that the person standing beside them is an "extreme radical", with no moderate range to consider.

"Anyone who disagrees must be as far to their side as I am to mine" is, I contend, the kind of go/no-go thinking that has this nation in knots right now.

Interesting viewpoint. I'll have to remember that the next time one of you guys calls me a racist homophobe because I disagree with you on something.

I respect that my past comments to you may lead you to this notion, but I never thought you a racist, but only maybe you were'nt so proud of the gay folks there (that ain't me being smarmy, just trying to hold to the truth best I can tell it, as I hope we all will see...)

My intent was to show that such a condition occurs among the extremes of the political spectrum, and not just from "the right", or "the left".

I respect that such a condition as I propose might have me right there in among either one of 'em.



I retract, with shame, and sincerity, those comments I've previously made that are nothing but insults, unfounded charges, or are otherwise an affront to common decency and respect. I will contend that denying others the right to have government recognition of their marriages is not something we oughta be proud about.

I've come to accept that you, Miss dianaiad, disagree with me here and there. I've come to... to understand that your religious beliefs are sincere, and that you don't wish to use your own sincerity as some sort of club against folks you may, or may not, be comfortable with their doings, or thinkings, or some such as that. I will contend, at your pleasure, that maybe your notions in such a regard might be goofy. I don't use "goofy" there to discredit you as a sincere human, but as a useful term to describe my incredulity regarding it all.

Gay folks are gay. Why should we care? Unless we think about that time, there I was, I was my first month there in Germany, and I'm a naive eighteen-year-old, and to top it off, an idiot, and I went down to Frankfurt there, 'cause there I was, an international, sofisticated guy, and someone there across the way, well they did the eye-batting thing there, and here I am, I'm my first month there, and I can't say so much as there wasn't no dress, only I saw me some eye-batting, make-up wearing deal there, so I went a-running, and did I mention I'm an idiot, only I get there, and I swear to god, whoever that was there, well they had them a deeper voice'n I do, and I weren't gon' dare try to discern if he was a she, or she was a he, or it was an it, or it was a what, but I knowed I wasn't gonna go to buying no drinks, or go to kissin', much less an attempt to steal first, and I did me the best skeedadling I ever did, and I mean right up to this time.

But I don't hope that whoever, whomever, however, whatever, or what politically correct term folks is proud about, that that human was there, that human couldn't get married to the one that done bought it a ring. I don't use "it" to disparage, but only I could tell there was a human there, only I wasn't gonna spend no effort in finding out which kind.

[Danmark]

No retraction coming, you are cut from the same cloth as Danmark, ....

This confuses me since I don't know whether to thank you for the compliment, or whether Micatala should thank me.

Let me make one more attempt to explain my point of view. It would help if you read this little essay from George Lakoff, an academic.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/467716.html

I'm going to cherry pick some quotes, so I urge you to read the entire article, since I don't believe it is partisan and you might find some things you like.

But first let me give you additional background, how I voted or would have in Presidential elections:

1956 Ike
1960 Nixon [I lost $1 on a bet on this one at age 12]
1964 Goldwater
1968 Nixon, I was in college and just missed being old enough to vote, age was 21 then.
1972 McGovern [Watergate]
1976 Ford
1980 Reagan
1984 Reagan
1988 Bush
1992 Clinton, Bush was beginning to wear on me, and of course their was Dan Quayle, the poster boy for conservatives.
1996 Clinton or Dole; can't really remember
2000 Now this one really hurts. I hate to admit it. But yes, I voted for the worst President in the 20th and 21st Centuries, maybe of all time. What can I say? I couldn't stand Gore. I basically voted against Gore, not for 'W.'
2004 Who cares? I just voted against Baby Bush. Did I mention that he is the worst president in the history of the universe?

Essentially 8 years of the Bush administration and the increasing intransigence of the Republican Christian Party and the total abdication of true conservative principles of fiscal responsibility pretty much finished me with the GOP for the time being. Now they want to take away my Social Security I never wanted to pay into, but was compelled to.

It's not that I am pro liberal, I just see the 'conservatives' of today as incompetent lackeys to extremist anti intellectuals like Rush Limbaugh. And I don't consider myself centrist either. But I'm not going to vote for or support any party that does not fully support the Bill of Rights and has a preference for establishing a National Religion.

I'm no fan of the DEMS, and certainly not of so called 'liberals.' It's just that these days the latter are less offensive and resonate with me as more honest and more interested in academic, objective problem solving instead of ideological nonsense that does not pass the logic test. Many conservatives are just too easy to make fun of and too sloppy with facts and factual analysis for me to want to have anything to do with them. That people actually follow someone as unfair, shallow, and undereducated as Bill O'Reilly baffles me in the extreme. I can't describe this type of thinking better without resorting to 'inflammatory' rhetoric.

Now, back to George Lakoff. Here's an example of something that should drive every thinking person crazy, or at least everyone who wants to keep his taxes low and get the most bang for his buck:

A liberal supporter of California's 1994 single-payer initiative was speaking to a conservative audience and decided to appeal to their financial self-interest. He pointed out that the savings in administrative costs would get them the same health benefits for less money while also paying for health care for the indigent. A woman responded, "It just sounds wrong to me. I would be paying for somebody else." Why did his appeal to her economic self-interest fail?

This is exactly the problem I'm talking about. Too many conservatives vote against their own self interest, against the country's interest, against all logic and common sense because . . . "It just sounds wrong to them." They put their ideology ahead of logic and even their own self interest.

As I've mentioned before, I'd seriously explore the feasibility of demanding temporary sterilization of any person of child procreating age as a condition precedent to receiving public assistance. How liberal does that sound?
Why should people be paid to bear or father more children when they can't support the ones they have? A 'liberal' idea? Of course not. Is there major leader of the GOP who has ever suggested such a thing? And 'liberals' would prob'ly be screaming, calling me a racist or worse. =o)

I see no reason to pay people public funds and allowing them to sit at home and watch TV all day, or otherwise do nothing. Organize them into work crews, day cares, something, if for no other reason than for their own self respect. Right now we pay them to be idle. There are many marginally employable people, or unemployable, who could do SOMEthing, if we had a little creativity in government, instead of arguing about liberal vs. conservative ideology.

Sound 'liberal' to you?

[East of Eden]

From various comments within the thread, I propose...

It would appear that some are so far to one side of the political spectrum, that the person standing beside them is an "extreme radical", with no moderate range to consider.

"Anyone who disagrees must be as far to their side as I am to mine" is, I contend, the kind of go/no-go thinking that has this nation in knots right now.

I

Someone who has consistently taken liberal or conservative positions on a public forum can fairly be called liberal or conservative. The counter argument that because in times past positions have been taken that go against that characterization, one can't be called a liberal or conservative, is illogical. Congress is full of people commonly described as liberal or conservative, despite not having a 100% liberal or conservative voting record by people who track such things.

[East of Eden]

No retraction coming, you are cut from the same cloth as Danmark, ....

This confuses me since I don't know whether to thank you for the compliment, or whether Micatala should thank me.

Let me make one more attempt to explain my point of view. It would help if you read this little essay from George Lakoff, an academic.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/467716.html

I'm going to cherry pick some quotes, so I urge you to read the entire article, since I don't believe it is partisan and you might find some things you like.

But first let me give you additional background, how I voted or would have in Presidential elections:

1956 Ike
1960 Nixon [I lost $1 on a bet on this one at age 12]
1964 Goldwater
1968 Nixon, I was in college and just missed being old enough to vote, age was 21 then.
1972 McGovern [Watergate]
1976 Ford
1980 Reagan
1984 Reagan
1988 Bush
1992 Clinton, Bush was beginning to wear on me, and of course their was Dan Quayle, the poster boy for conservatives.
1996 Clinton or Dole; can't really remember
2000 Now this one really hurts. I hate to admit it. But yes, I voted for the worst President in the 20th and 21st Centuries, maybe of all time. What can I say? I couldn't stand Gore. I basically voted against Gore, not for 'W.'
2004 Who cares? I just voted against Baby Bush. Did I mention that he is the worst president in the history of the universe?

Obama can only envy Bush's economic record. For all Bush's faults, he did far less damage to the country than Obama is doing.

Essentially 8 years of the Bush administration and the increasing intransigence of the Republican Christian Party

This is your real issue, isn't it? You have rejected the idea of God and with it the party seen as most friendly to Him, as opposed to the party that took mention of Him out of their platform.

and the total abdication of true conservative principles of fiscal responsibility pretty much finished me with the GOP for the time being.

Agreed on GOP overspending, but the answer isn't to jump to the party that overspends way more. All politicians are bad, some are clearly less bad than others.

Now they want to take away my Social Security I never wanted to pay into, but was compelled to.

Cite?

It's not that I am pro liberal, I just see the 'conservatives' of today as incompetent lackeys to extremist anti intellectuals like Rush Limbaugh.

He isn't up there with say, our VP Biden? Why do you care about a radio announcer when someone as dense as Biden is a heartbeat away from the presidency?

And I don't consider myself centrist either. But I'm not going to vote for or support any party that does not fully support the Bill of Rights and has a preference for establishing a National Religion.

LOL, who wants a national religion?

I'm no fan of the DEMS, and certainly not of so called 'liberals.' It's just that these days the latter are less offensive and resonate with me as more honest and more interested in academic, objective problem solving instead of ideological nonsense that does not pass the logic test. Many conservatives are just too easy to make fun of and too sloppy with facts and factual analysis for me to want to have anything to do with them.

OK, so why not admit that despite supporting Ike in 1956 you tend to the liberal side today? Is that so hard?

That people actually follow someone as unfair, shallow, and undereducated as Bill O'Reilly baffles me in the extreme. I can't describe this type of thinking better without resorting to 'inflammatory' rhetoric.

O'Reilly is a breath of fresh air compared to the biased MSM.

Now, back to George Lakoff. Here's an example of something that should drive every thinking person crazy, or at least everyone who wants to keep his taxes low and get the most bang for his buck:

A liberal supporter of California's 1994 single-payer initiative was speaking to a conservative audience and decided to appeal to their financial self-interest. He pointed out that the savings in administrative costs would get them the same health benefits for less money while also paying for health care for the indigent. A woman responded, "It just sounds wrong to me. I would be paying for somebody else." Why did his appeal to her economic self-interest fail?

This is exactly the problem I'm talking about. Too many conservatives vote against their own self interest, against the country's interest, against all logic and common sense because . . . "It just sounds wrong to them." They put their ideology ahead of logic and even their own self interest.

As I've mentioned before, I'd seriously explore the feasibility of demanding temporary sterilization of any person of child procreating age as a condition precedent to receiving public assistance. How liberal does that sound?
Why should people be paid to bear or father more children when they can't support the ones they have? A 'liberal' idea? Of course not. Is there major leader of the GOP who has ever suggested such a thing? And 'liberals' would prob'ly be screaming, calling me a racist or worse. =o)

I see no reason to pay people public funds and allowing them to sit at home and watch TV all day, or otherwise do nothing. Organize them into work crews, day cares, something, if for no other reason than for their own self respect. Right now we pay them to be idle. There are many marginally employable people, or unemployable, who could do SOMEthing, if we had a little creativity in government, instead of arguing about liberal vs. conservative ideology.

Sound 'liberal' to you?

Again, did I say you are 100% anything? I personally think the Ft. Hood shooter should be given life in prison instead of death which he wants in order to be a 'martyr'. That may not be a conservative position, but it doesn't mean I don't lean strongly to the right.