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]

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.

You sound a bit paranoid. I’m proud to pay taxes and make an investment in my community.

Here are some things that my taxes provide:
Paved streets and highways,
911 call centers,
Social security,
Medicare,
Subsidizes medical research and development,
Public schools and Universities,
Fire Department,
National Parks,
Air Traffic Controllers,
Sewers and sewage treatment plants,
Clean Air and Clean Water regulations,
FEC regulations,
Meat, produce inspected by the USDA,
Food Stamps should I become destitute,
Standardized units of measurements,
National Weather Service’s National Hurricane Center,
Public Libraries, Public Museams,
Traffic Signals, Highway signs,
Money printed by the National Treasury,
My Marriage License,
Public Transportation,
Copyright protections,
Workplace safety standards, labor laws, or minimum wage.
Convicted criminals off the streets and in prison,
Restaurants inspected for safe food preparation, and
The US Post Office.[1]

[Danmark]

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".

Tho' hate crimes and 'protected class' may be related concepts, they are separate and distinct.

Anyone can be found guilty of 'hate speech' or a 'hate crime.' The elements and rationale for such crimes are defined by statute. You can read, for example, Washington State's 'hate crime definitions at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.078 and at 9A.36.080.

A summary:
A person is guilty of malicious harassment if he or she: maliciously and intentionally commits one of
the following acts because of his or her perception of the victim’s race, color, religion, ancestry,
national origin, gender, sexual orientation or mental, physical or sensory handicap:
• Causes physical injury to the victim or another person; or
• Causes physical damage to or destruction of the property of the victim or another person; or
• Threatens a specific person or group of people and places that person or members of the specific
group of persons in reasonable fear of harm to person or property
http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us/Documents ... tatute.pdf

Members of a protected class can as easily be charged and convicted of a hate crime as anyone else. It's a matter of whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the elements of the crime.

Perhaps more importantly the related crime of harassment can be committed against anyone, whether the victim is in a protected class or not. There are both misdemeanor and felony versions of harassment.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.46.020

[micatala]

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?

This is an irrelevant point unless you are willing to allow discrimination for non-immutable characteristics and only outlaw discrimination for immutable characteristics.

Is it OK to discriminate against people who are poor, single, divorced, fat, not bald, etc. yes or no? If you say no to any of these, or any other non-immutable characteristic, then your point represents nothing more than blatant inconsistency and indicates a bias against gays.

[Darias]

I am having trouble how you managed to intelligently miss the entire point of what I wrote.

1. You claimed that protesting taxation is selfish by implying that taxation is like unto a charitable, generous act, or at the very least a binding duty that results in a public good, which ultimately justifies the process.

It should be clear by now, however, that one does not become charitable as a result of government extortion anymore than one becomes an organ donor after waking in a ice-filled tub without a kidney. The fact that people with a masochistic mindset may want to pay more taxes or have their extra organs taken from them does not make their compliance consensual due to the fact that they cannot voluntarily refuse; an offer you can't refuse is not a choice. Moreover, the fact that other people may very well benefit from the stolen organs or stolen money does not change the nature of said theft. Even consequentialist reasoning will leave one hard pressed to justify these means, given their inefficiency in light of non-violent, more productive alternatives.


2. You also claimed that the state must necessarily exist, lest their be chaos -- as to ignore the wholesale destruction, bloodshed, and property theft perpetuated by the state. As I have shown, to assume that a stateless environment is necessarily chaotic and lawless to a point that exceeds the handiwork of the state is a wholly baseless belief that ignores the historic reality.

Further, the evidence I provided proves that state chaos and violence can be far worse than a stateless existence, even one lacking preexisting market alternatives.

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.

If the dead could speak, they would beg to differ. [1], [2], [3]

I'm sorry but irrational, baseless fears do not justify the continent of carnage left in the wake of these United States. To ignore the evidence, in an effort to maintain false beliefs that justify the deaths of countless persons, is the epitome of selfishness.

We owe our livelihood to the order that government imposes.

You are confusing the parasitical nature of the state with the illusion of its necessity. A hostage may come to believe that their captor is their friend, and it may be true that compliance is currently their only means of self preservation, e.g. getting fed. This is not to say that if they were free they would not be able to obtain food on their own. However, to the sufferer of Stockholm syndrome, that fact may not be so obvious; and more often than not, their irrational fear of freedom, coupled with their artificial dependence on their captor keeps them from wanting to see their situation for what it is, much less attempt an escape -- this is especially true for children abducted by predators, who subject their victims to brainwashing. Public "education" functions much the same way, and it is largely responsible for the widespread public support of imperial wars, fascistic spying programs, and the leaders who support them.

Frankly, I am surprised we still have the relative individual freedoms we have.

The reason the state tolerates limited freedoms for its subjects is because free-range tax chattel are much more productive; brutal, freedom-restrictive human management is much more costly and does not result in increased revenue for the state.

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.

[Citation needed]

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.

Social contract theory has been thoroughly debunked by Lysander Spooner and others.

The constitution does not legitimize the state's authority, nor does it imply consent on behalf of the public:

And yet we have what purports, or professes, or is claimed, to be a contract—the Constitution—made eighty years ago, by men who are now all dead, and who never had any power to bind us, but which (it is claimed) has nevertheless bound three generations of men, consisting of many millions, and which (it is claimed) will be binding upon all the millions that are to come; but which nobody ever signed, sealed, delivered, witnessed, or acknowledged; and which few persons, compared with the whole number that are claimed to be bound by it, have ever read, or even seen, or ever will read, or see.

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.

Being born within the territorial borders of a state does not mean that person consents to rulership anymore than being born in a Christian home binds the child to a lifetime of Christian belief.

Voting does not create consent:

In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot -- which is a mere substitute for a bullet -- because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency, into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.

And lastly, paying taxes does not mean the people consent to be ruled:

No middle ground is possible on this subject. Either "taxation without consent is robbery," or it is not.

[....]

If it is not, then any number of men, who choose, may at any time associate; call themselves a government; assume absolute authority over all weaker than themselves; plunder them at will; and kill them if they resist. If, on the other hand, taxation without consent is robbery, it necessarily follows that every man who has not consented to be taxed, has the same natural right to defend his property against a taxgatherer, that he has to defend it against a highwayman.

[....]

The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a "protector," and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to "protect" those infatuated travelers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful "sovereign," on account of the "protection" he affords you. He does not keep "protecting" you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.

As taxation is made compulsory on all, whether they vote or not, a large proportion of those who vote, no doubt do so to prevent their own money being used against themselves; when, in fact, they would have gladly abstained from voting, if they could thereby have saved themselves from taxation alone, to say nothing of being saved from all the other usurpations and tyrannies of the government. To take a man's property without his consent, and then to infer his consent because he attempts, by voting, to prevent that property from being used to his injury, is a very insufficient proof of his consent to support the Constitution. It is, in fact, no proof at all. And as we can have no legal knowledge as to who the particular individuals are, if there are any, who are willing to be taxed for the sake of voting, we can have no legal knowledge that any particular individual consents to be taxed for the sake of voting; or, consequently, consents to support the Constitution.

My insistence on calling a spade a spade may have no effect at all on the existence of that spade, but at least I am free from delusion. Death and taxes may be constants, but at least I know that taxation is theft and that heaven doesn't await me when I die.

Edit:

I just found an awesome meme that's indirectly related to this discussion:

[center][/center]

-

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 123 by Darias]

It is abundantly clear that this particular issue is one where you simply have an extremist position that you are wedded to. You are welcome to your anarchist views, as hopeless as they are. I have never met an anarchist who is susceptible to accommodation or even the slightest alteration or influence on his views, so I won't bother further, except to say there are good reasons such views never gain traction with any but a tiny fraction of 1 percent social philosophers.

[Darias]

[Replying to post 123 by Darias]

You are welcome to your anarchist views,

Thank you, but my views do not exist by your permission.

. . . as hopeless as they are.

"Hopeless" optimists often confuse a realist outlook on life as inherently pessimistic. I would contend that I am not a nihilist simply because the solutions I favor for society's ills are not your own.

It is abundantly clear that this particular issue is one where you simply have an extremist position that you are wedded to.

[ . . . . ]

I have never met an anarchist who is susceptible to accommodation or even the slightest alteration or influence on his views, so I won't bother further. . .

My views are not an ideology to which I owe my allegiance. My views change where and whenever evidence and reason demand such a shift. Citing others who I don't know as an excuse not to offer a well-reasoned rebuttal is either an admission that you do not have one, or an insult to my intelligence and capacity to reason. In making my case, I extended to you the courtesy of assuming that you are capable of allowing reason and evidence to change your views. Is it too much for me to expect the same of my opponent?

except to say there are good reasons such views never gain traction with any but a tiny fraction of 1 percent social philosophers.

If you know of any reasons to challenge my case, then do so. In light of the time and effort I have put into making my case, your attempt to offer nothing but an argumentum ad populum in order to justify the widespread acceptance of your beliefs is insulting.

Defend your claims, or concede until you have something to offer.

[10CC]

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?

So are you still struggling with same sex attractions, or have you got them fairly well under control and they only raise their ugly head occasionally?

[otseng]

So are you still struggling with same sex attractions, or have you got them fairly well under control and they only raise their ugly head occasionally?

Moderator Warning


This would be considered to be an indirect attack and would be against the rules.

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.

[10CC]

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

Are you claiming that same sex attraction is natural but that you can suppress that attraction? Or are you claiming that sane sex attraction needs to be instigated by the participant? Or are you claiming that you have same sex attractions that you have managed to suppress?
What is it that you are claiming is immutable and non-immutable? You don't even believe that genes control who and what we are.
[center]What is immutable?[/center]
I have been challenged by a mod in regard to these questions so I would appreciate as much honesty as a theist can muster.
Thanks.
BTW your stance makes heterosexuality immutable, now that is a huge fail.

[East of Eden]

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,

Conservative here against subsidies for agra-business and big corporations. The Democrats and Obama are some of the biggest promoters of such welfare, even giving exemptions to Obamacare to his donor cronies.

but begrudges the poor and defenseless their pittance.

Not true, we are against multiple generations on the dole, and the safety net being turned into a hammock. Obama seems determined to overthrow the good done by welfare reform. Can you not even agree it is better to have a real job than be on the dole? St. Paul speaking to believers said those who won't work shouldn't eat, so it is hardly an unChristian position to want to get the able bodied off the dole.

The Founders were also against this. Thomas Jefferson said, "To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

The free enterprise system says you are rewarded when you serve other people, in other words if I mow your lawn I get $10. Socialism says you don't have to serve others to be rewarded, we will take from someone who has served other people and give it to those who have not. What is moral about that? Again, I am not speaking about the truly disabled here.

Everyone talks about income inequality, what about the work inequality?

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.

Nonsense, we want the scale of government to go back to what our Founders put in place. Was it 'chaos' in 1800 in America, a time of limited government and no income tax? It WAS a lot tougher for lazy people. Hong Kong was a very prosperous and free place up until 1997 and they had very limited government with low taxes and regulation. Was it 'chaos' there?

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.

Your opinion is noted, mine is the ignorance of history is on those who come up with ever bigger spending schemes at a time when we are $17,000,000,000,000 in debt, passing this bill on to our grandchildren. How moral is that?