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?

[East of Eden]

I consider that a ridiculous question. Why would Jesus address an obvious moral evil that was not being promoted? This is why he didn't address homosexuality to His Jewish audiences where it wasn't an issue, but St. Paul did address it to his gentile audiences where in that pagan society, as today, it was seen as 'normal'.

Amazing! You reflect the same absurd view that Iranian President Ahmadinejad voiced when he claimed, “In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don’t have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon."

I'm sure they do have people with same-sex attraction, they don't have homosexuals flaunting their behavior in the street.

Are you seriously claiming that in Jesus' time in Palestine there were no homosexuals?

Never said that. I'm sure there were some with same-sex attraction, but they followed God's commands and didn't act those feelings out. That used to be known as a moral education.

Only if there were none could there be no issue of this 'moral evil' as you put it.

I don't put it this way, God does in the Bible.

We may appear to have gone off the subtopic with this, but I think you are inadvertently helping to answer the question of why there is this strong correlation between evangelicals and the political right. Both groups have a fairly simplistic, literal view of their scriptures/political philosophy.

The Gospel was meant to mean what it says, and says 'Except you become as a little child, you won't enter the kingdom.' Some have a vested interest in making the clear unclear. I believe God exists, and is not silent but has spoken to us through His word, truly but not exhaustively.

As an aside, you are simply wrong re: your claim the Bible makes no ref. to homosexuals 'flaunting.'

Huh? I was talking about Iran, not the New Testament.

Consider 1 Corinthians 6:9 where Paul refers to the 'effeminate' and 'abusers of themselves with mankind.'

i.e., active homosexuals.

There are many Christians, as opposed to Christian fundamentalists who take a different view of homosexuality in the Bible.

Not true, I would say easily 95%+ of world Christian denominations would agree with me, although the dissenters get most of the ink. There were some who opposed orthodoxy during the gnostic heresies, so what?

Most of them do not, as you do, claim to speak for God themselves.

Actually, they do, they just have a different interpretation.

The Bible refers to sexual practices that may be called "homosexual" in today's world, but the original language texts of the Bible do not refer explicitly to homosexuality as a sexual orientation. The Bible is interpreted by officials in some denominations as condemning the practice.

It would be more truthful to say 'almost all' denominations condemn the practice. The three largest in the world, Catholic, Orthodox, and the great majority of the 70 million large Anglican communion agree with me. How many of the following list of Christian deminations condone homosexual behavior?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ch ... ominations

In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, however, the extent to which the Bible mentions the subject and whether or not it is condemned, has become the subject of debate.

Debate in itself does not infer legitimacy. Eve debated what God said also, and IMHO Satan is using the same lie today as he did then, "Did God really say......?" We ought not to put a question mark where God has put a period.

The central point is that conservative Christians, just like political conservatives see things simplistically and speak as if they 'speak for god.'

You don't think the liberal Christian left does that?

[10CC]

It would be more truthful to say 'almost all' denominations condemn the practice. The three largest in the world, Catholic, Orthodox, and the great majority of the 70 million large Anglican communion agree with me. How many of the following list of Christian deminations condone homosexual behavior?

Well I didn't think it was 70million, I thought that it was small like 1% of the population. huh.Less that 25% of the american population and 0.1% of the world population why of course you should dictate who can be discriminated against.

[Danmark]

....

The central point is that conservative Christians, just like political conservatives see things simplistically and speak as if they 'speak for god.'

You don't think the liberal Christian left does that?

Tho' some of this applies of course to all, there are dramatic differences in the way we process information. Yes, to answer your question Both 'sides' 'do this,' but conservatives are much more likely to be 'black and white' thinkers and fail to see shades of gray. Much of your redacted response demonstrates this. You owe it to yourself to study the science behind Chris Mooney's The Republican Brain.

It turns out that human brains are constructed very differently than what we would like to believe. As described by Chris Mooney (2012) in The Republican Brain: The Science of Why they Deny Science—and Reality, our brains are not logical computers or non-emotional Vulcans like Dr. Spock, but organs in emotional animals who navigate the factual world to fit our beliefs and biases.
....
To see how it plays out in practice, consider a conservative Christian who has just heard about a new scientific discovery—a new hominid fossil, say, confirming our evolutionary origins—that deeply challenged something he or she believes (“human beings were created by God�; “the book of Genesis is literally true�). What happens next, explains Stony Brook University political scientist Charles Taber, is a subconcious negative (or “affective�) response to the threatening new information—and that response, in turn, guides the types of memories and associations that are called into the conscious mind based on a network of emotionally laden associations and concepts. “They retrieve thoughts that are consistent with their previous beliefs,� say Taber, “and that will lead them to construct or build an argument and challenge what they are hearing.�
We are all guilty of this to a greater or less extent, but Mooney (2012) explores some of the recent research that explains the psychological roots of these beliefs. Individual belief systems, world views, and cultural biases have been categorized in research on cultural cognition by Yale law Professor Daniel Kahan and his colleagues along two main axes....

http://www.skepticblog.org/2012/08/29/t ... n-science/

[micatala]

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.

Your bigotry is noted.

Thanks.
BTW your stance makes heterosexuality immutable, now that is a huge fail.

Immutable means unchangeable, such as race. Same sex attraction can change. Here are some people who will attest to that. The actual proves the possible.

Right, sappy testimonials versus actual science:

Did you even watch any of them? Some are as short as 5 minutes, suitable for any attention span. These people don't call themselves gay anymore, which kind of blows your whole argument.

This is a fallacious argument. There are many gays who testify that their orientation is immutable.

Why do you not believe them? Why do you offer a few testimonies on the part of those who say they did change but refuse the overwhelming majority testimony of those who say they tried, and could not?? Why the biased evaluation of the evidence?



Here are quite a number of examples to show gays generally are adament that they cannot change.


http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderso ... aight.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/us/gr ... .html?_r=0


http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/ ... l.html.csp

But the belief in "reparative therapy was one of the things that led to the downfall of this organization," Chambers said in an interview, noting that Exodus in recent years redirected its focus to helping men and women work through their sexual identity.

From a Jewish perspective.

http://forward.com/articles/151842/you- ... -gay-away/

But apart from neuroscience, LGBT people are people. There are millions of us, and we are capable of understanding and communicating our own experience. And we are reporting that sexuality is a trait, part of our souls, and something to celebrate and affirm — that it’s a gift and not a predicament. Are all of us really so deluded that our testimony cannot be taken seriously?


(Incidentally, that some people experience their sexuality as fluid, and not reducible to a simple gay/straight binary, does not change the experience of the rest of us.)

We also know that “reparative therapy� is fruitless. Exodus International, the Christian “ex-gay� organization, has never released statistics showing its success rates, obviously because the rates are abysmal. Indeed, many of the founders of Exodus itself are now leading proudly gay lives and disavowing their previous ideas.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/2 ... 40765.html

Testimony of a man who says his psychiatrist tried to 'cure' him of being gay, unsucessfully.




http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/h ... nging.html

An apology for past claims that reparative therapy works.



http://www.fresnostate.edu/studentorgs/ ... ssible.htm






Your biased evaluation of the personal testimonies of gays, listening to only one side, is all the more ironic given the high profile examples of people who at one time claimed to have been changed, but in the end, had to admit it was not so.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04 ... gay-again/




Even this example shows that the claims you make are not actually supported.

http://www.exodusglobalalliance.org/i-d ... -p1588.php



Given the great, typically religious, pressure many gays are under to try and change, it is certainly much more reasonable to be suspicious of claims of change than the reverse.




Now, I will certainly grant some few individuals may sincerely feel they have changed. But, to present those few as an excuse to deny the reality of the experience of the vast majority of those who self-identify as gay is not only unreasonable, it is insulting and unjust, especially when coupled with views that support legal discrimination against gays.












And, more to the point, we are still waiting for any reasonable defense of why immutability is even relevant to the issue of legal discrimination against gays. Are you saying we should only protect people from discriination on the basis of immutable characteristics, yes or no?

[Danmark]

One of the other striking things about this union between conservatives and Christianity, is that Christianity in particular and religion in general get their start from charismatic people who go against the current traditions. In other words, they are liberals. Eventually this liberal, revolutionary new growth gets turned in to an organized faith that desperately clings to past traditions, in other words, conservatives.

[East of Eden]

One of the other striking things about this union between conservatives and Christianity, is that Christianity in particular and religion in general get their start from charismatic people who go against the current traditions. In other words, they are liberals. Eventually this liberal, revolutionary new growth gets turned in to an organized faith that desperately clings to past traditions, in other words, conservatives.

Some of the most dogmatic, unchanging people out there are on the left. For example, try and talk about school choice to them, despite the fact that most poor people favor it. Tort reform would be another example, as would questioning in any way naturalistic evolution, as would getting back to the Founder's intentions on gun rights. Another example would be reducing corporate taxes as Canada and many European nations have done. Will a liberal even discuss that?

Jesus was liberal in his ethos and quite conservative in His theology, and I would say brought back in line Pharisiac thinking that distorted God's intentions.

[East of Eden]

....

The central point is that conservative Christians, just like political conservatives see things simplistically and speak as if they 'speak for god.'

You don't think the liberal Christian left does that?

Tho' some of this applies of course to all, there are dramatic differences in the way we process information. Yes, to answer your question Both 'sides' 'do this,' but conservatives are much more likely to be 'black and white' thinkers and fail to see shades of gray. Much of your redacted response demonstrates this. You owe it to yourself to study the science behind Chris Mooney's The Republican Brain.

It turns out that human brains are constructed very differently than what we would like to believe. As described by Chris Mooney (2012) in The Republican Brain: The Science of Why they Deny Science—and Reality, our brains are not logical computers or non-emotional Vulcans like Dr. Spock, but organs in emotional animals who navigate the factual world to fit our beliefs and biases.
....
To see how it plays out in practice, consider a conservative Christian who has just heard about a new scientific discovery—a new hominid fossil, say, confirming our evolutionary origins—that deeply challenged something he or she believes (“human beings were created by God�; “the book of Genesis is literally true�). What happens next, explains Stony Brook University political scientist Charles Taber, is a subconcious negative (or “affective�) response to the threatening new information—and that response, in turn, guides the types of memories and associations that are called into the conscious mind based on a network of emotionally laden associations and concepts. “They retrieve thoughts that are consistent with their previous beliefs,� say Taber, “and that will lead them to construct or build an argument and challenge what they are hearing.�
We are all guilty of this to a greater or less extent, but Mooney (2012) explores some of the recent research that explains the psychological roots of these beliefs. Individual belief systems, world views, and cultural biases have been categorized in research on cultural cognition by Yale law Professor Daniel Kahan and his colleagues along two main axes....

http://www.skepticblog.org/2012/08/29/t ... n-science/

Partisan nonsense, refuted here: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opi ... 54647948/1

There's quite a difference between being anti-science and anti-bad science.

[East of Eden]

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.

Your bigotry is noted.

Thanks.
BTW your stance makes heterosexuality immutable, now that is a huge fail.

Immutable means unchangeable, such as race. Same sex attraction can change. Here are some people who will attest to that. The actual proves the possible.

Right, sappy testimonials versus actual science:

Did you even watch any of them? Some are as short as 5 minutes, suitable for any attention span. These people don't call themselves gay anymore, which kind of blows your whole argument.

This is a fallacious argument.

Why is experiential testimony you disagree with fallacious?

There are many gays who testify that their orientation is immutable.

Probably, as the former president of the APA said, reparative therapy wan't always successful, no therepy is. He also said if even one person is successful in it, it means it isn't unchageable.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former ... -movement/

“It’s a difficult therapy, and it’s not huge in terms of numbers, but yes we have seen success, and this is why the stance that ‘you can never change’—Ronald Reagan said ‘never say never’—it’s absurd. All you have to do is find one exception and it knocks down the ‘never.’ But yes, I’ve experienced more than one exception,� said Cummings.

“Admittedly we had failures. The recidivism along the way with some would be intense, but we experience the same thing with treating substance abuse and alcoholism. Falling off the wagon is part of the treatment.�

Why do you not believe them?

Why do you not believe the ones I have posted?

Why do you offer a few testimonies on the part of those who say they did change but refuse the overwhelming majority testimony of those who say they tried, and could not?? Why the biased evaluation of the evidence?

I'll ask you the same question. From a Christian perspective, those doing God's will on the 'straight and narrow' are always in the minority. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

Here are quite a number of examples to show gays generally are adament that they cannot change.


http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderso ... aight.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/us/gr ... .html?_r=0


http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/ ... l.html.csp

Possibly true for them, althought when many people say 'can't', they mean 'won't'.

But the belief in "reparative therapy was one of the things that led to the downfall of this organization," Chambers said in an interview, noting that Exodus in recent years redirected its focus to helping men and women work through their sexual identity.

Chambers was holding to bad theology long before he caved on this issue.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/201 ... ology.html

But apart from neuroscience, LGBT people are people. There are millions of us, and we are capable of understanding and communicating our own experience.

No kidding, the same could be said for anyone engaged in immoral, damaging activities.

And we are reporting that sexuality is a trait, part of our souls, and something to celebrate and affirm — that it’s a gift and not a predicament. Are all of us really so deluded that our testimony cannot be taken seriously?

In our fallen and finite state, yes.

We also know that “reparative therapy� is fruitless.

For some, like any therapy. The same could be said for therapy for pedophiles or drug abusers, so what?

Your biased evaluation of the personal testimonies of gays, listening to only one side,

Exactly what you are doing here.

is all the more ironic given the high profile examples of people who at one time claimed to have been changed, but in the end, had to admit it was not so.

Again, true of people who get therapy for any cause. Who said therapy is 100% effective? The fact is, there are some who have changed their sexual orientation, there are not black people who have become asian people.

And, more to the point, we are still waiting for any reasonable defense of why immutability is even relevant to the issue of legal discrimination against gays. Are you saying we should only protect people from discriination on the basis of immutable characteristics, yes or no?

I'm saying same sex attraction and race are a bad analogy.

[Danmark]

Of course there are other reasons religion and conservative politics go together:

Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/li ... index.html

Intelligence Study Links Low I.Q. To Prejudice, Racism, Conservatism

Are racists dumb? Do conservatives tend to be less intelligent than liberals? A provocative new study from Brock University in Ontario suggests the answer to both questions may be a qualified yes.

The study, published in Psychological Science, showed that people who score low on I.Q. tests in childhood are more likely to develop prejudiced beliefs and socially conservative politics in adulthood.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/2 ... 37796.html

A new study of almost a century’s worth of data shows that the smarter you are, the less likely you are to believe in God.
The study, conducted by Miron Zuckerman, a psychologist at the University of Rochester, examined the findings of 63 earlier studies — one dating back to the 1920s — that measured intelligence and religiosity. The majority of those studies found that more intelligent people were more likely to lack religious beliefs.

“The relation between intelligence and religion is negative,� Zuckerman said. “It was very early in the study that we realized that.�

But Zuckerman is careful to point out that his work — known as a “meta-study� because it examines a range of other studies — does not mean only dumb people believe in God.
http://www.religionnews.com/2013/08/16/ ... t-exactly/

[Danmark]

Partisan nonsense, refuted here: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opi ... 54647948/1

There's quite a difference between being anti-science and anti-bad science.

Right, science denying right wing partisan Jonah Goldberg says... Who cares what he says. He obviously doesn't understand the science and came up with the ludicrously inaccurate claim Mooney said Republicans have 'bad brains.' They may, but that's not what Mooney wrote.

I think you need to look up 'refuted.'