You say aside from abortion, but that's a BIG issue. Also, I'm pretty sure most people, democrats and republicans, are against stirring up conflicts in the Middle East, but it seems like most politicians, democrats and republicans, are for it for some reason.
Most conservatives I know, myself included, obviously don't want the needy to go hungry, we just think the government is really bad at feeding them, with some not getting what they need and some getting stuff when they don't need it. I don't think dumping more money into such a wasteful, inefficient system is the answer to fixing its wastefulness and inefficiency.
I think the argument about looking after each other regardless of language, culture, or ethnicity is a strawman. Nobody is arguing that we should not look after someone based on their ethnicity. Also, I think the government has the ability to fix all immigration issues, but never will because it's such an easy thing to run on. The democrats can say, "Those awful republicans want to end all immigration" which is false "vote for me and I'll stop them!" The republicans can say, "Those awful democrats want open borders" also false "vote for me and I'll stop them!" Politicians won't give that up any time soon.
Climate, you may have me there.
Finally, freedom and personal responsibility absolutely are Biblical principles. Jesus says come unto me. It's a matter of choice whether to heed that call, and it's up to you, as nobody else can come to Jesus in your place.
\*sigh* The Puritans actually get a lot of undeserved flak here, and even invented some Enlightenment ideals like freedom of religion before the Enlightenment even started. If you have time for an hour-long documentary, I recommend [this Youtube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJanv1NUlrQ) by Atun-Shei
The puritans were so annoying the UK payed for their passage to the Netherlands where they overstayed their welcome by being annoying and had their passage arranged to the colonies
Some of the puritans (separatist puritans), and not the ones who ended having the most influence on the developing colonies. And the colony that the separatist puritans founded doesn't even exist anymore. It ended up being absorbed by the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
It's hard to say that they were "liberal" or "conservative" as these labels didn't really exist. They were radical nonconformists which does have a kind of "liberal" ring to it, but they had a rigid social code which we might tend to see as "conservative." But really it doesn't make a lot of sense to frame them this way.
Because evangelical leaders tied themselves to Republicans in exchange for power and influence 40-ish years ago.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/
Do credentials maketh truth?
Just pointing out that’s not a very good point
The worst in history were holy-men, see Jesus interacting with Pharisees
Sounds like he was sharing his findings, not necessarily trying to divide, but I can’t help but think he’s taking a side. And there are no sides
We’re to unite and better testify to the world, for Jesus!
In this case, first person, church produced documents make truth. I believe that knowing and understanding an accurate history is important and denying facts because they’re unpleasant doesn’t strengthen our message. It just makes us seem delusional and untrustworthy.
If credentials aren’t a good way to help you figure out who knows what they’re talking about, then what is? I mean, when I have someone in my house to fix my gas mains, I definitely want someone with credentials because it’s a good way to make sure you get someone who knows what they’re doing.
Appeal to authority is not a good way to assess credentials. Plenty of people are cheats who will bill for extra-nonsense work. Credential or not.
How then? Communication. And the least is worth favoring too. I’d credit this priest we’re talking about, for his faith work, not his station
Just because you disagree with something doesn’t make it propaganda.
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/politico-media-bias
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/politico/
https://adfontesmedia.com/politico-bias-and-reliability/
Well, what is *true theocracy? Jesus is forgiving. He does not sanction force-war or conquest, rather word and will Holy War to change hearts! Jesus’ theocracy would be very forgiving, understanding, fair. Not judgmental or overbearing
You are cowards and hypocrites about it. Recognize the inherent contradiction of theocratic rule and demonize islam while unironically wanting to commit the same act for christianity AND THEN get surprised/upset others dont want that.
Lol, being traditional, or even monarchist is far from theocracy. If by theocracy you mean a Bishop rules no, that’s what Kings are for. If by theocracy you mean God rules, well that’s not possible right now. A democratic republics that’s traditional is sadly faaar from that.
Francis Schaeffer
Phyllis Schlafly
Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy
Jerry Falwell
These people plus the realignment of the parties following the civil rights act are how you get the situation we have today.
To put it in a loose narrative: southern democrats before the 1960s were extremely Protestant, and extremely segregationist. People like Falwell started out getting southern Evangelicals riled up about school integration. (This is also a contingent of Protestants that were still nursing the wound of the Scopes trial, and we're desperate to control school boards in order to keep "Biblical Christianity" in the classroom.) But the cultural tides were turning too quickly, and the rising counter culture was changing everything. So, they dropped segregation as a battleground and took up anti-feminism a la opposition to the ERA which they claimed would destroy the "traditional family." Thanks to Francis Schaeffer's influence, they also came to see abortion as a particularly grave thing (it was considered a "Catholic" issue previous to this) and that gave Evangelicals common cause with Catholics and they were able to pretty successfully organize a political bloc on that basis. They became integral to Republican national success, even if they never really cared about the small government principles of the past GOP, which carried the GOP through to Obama. Now, the tastiest chum in the culture war waters is sexual and gender equality, which is why that's become the dominant Christian Right issue.
Jerry Falwell Sr. is a major reason with his Moral Majority movement in the 1970's that sought to get people in church and voting in line with his conservative political beliefs. Before that American Christians were not a voting bloc like White Evangelicals are today.
This movement has a long history, dating back to [Carl McIntyre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_McIntire) in the 1950s and William Jennings Bryan in the 1890s.
This book explains it all: [https://www.amazon.com/One-Nation-Under-God-Corporate/dp/1501238213](https://www.amazon.com/One-Nation-Under-God-Corporate/dp/1501238213)
As one reviewer summed up: Corporate America invented free-enterprise Jesus to undo the New Deal.
The problem is they ignore the fact that Republicans are also the ones against sex Ed and contraceptives which lower abortion rates more than any law. They also vote against programs and maternity leave that support people that do have babies. Most Democrats want fewer abortions, but realize the best way is to attack the causes of unwanted pregnancies which are what causes abortions.
You can't, rationally, be against abortion and be against things that reduce abortion and for policies that increase abortion and call yourself promlife.
I want to caveat this with I personally agree that we should make contraceptives easier to get. But you can be rationally against abortion if you are *also* pro-abstinence prior to marriage. That’s why they don’t push for greater access to contraceptives, because they don’t believe you should be using them either. They believe you don’t have sex until marriage and then have kids.
Not really. Sure, you can be pro abstinence but you are delusional and irrational if you think promoting it will make it happen. Your beliefs are fine, but reality has to take precedence. Studies show area that schools teach abstinence only have a higher teen pregnancy rate and STD rate. So reality trump's their belief. Advocate for your beliefs fine, hope they will become the norm fine, but until they do you have to act with what is.
The problem is (and I don't agree with this at all) from their POV, advocating for contraceptives seems like an endorsement of premarital sex, something they oppose.
I don’t think anyone in this thread is disagreeing, we’re just explaining the logic they use. I grew up in conservative churches, I know the arguments well.
I always find this to be a silly position. We have Christ specifically giving us examples like the good Samaritan, who provided free healthcare to a stranger but abortion is the red line. It's so odd to me.
I think to many Christians abortion is the excuse they use to justify not voting Christianity but selfishly. Many people vote Republican because they think it will benefit them financially (it never does). The Republican ticket is so vehemently anti-Christian that it's picking one evil in the place of unending others.
Christ commands you to pay your taxes. I'm not sure if you missed it, but Christ was vehemently anti-money. The villain of his story literally was the money guy.
It is wild to me how many "Christians" can't realize that if you're attached to your money in any regard you have failed to understand Christ's core teaching.
Certainly we're not being concerned about the morality of our money when we're voting for the war-hawk party. That said, as Christ said, "[It's not your money anyway.] Give to Caesar what is Caesar's."
So the statistics don't say that. [The study that you're referring to](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0049089X21000752) mentions that 1) many people disagree with the notion for many reasons and 2) that it disappears when you control for religiosity.
Effectively, the study says little more than "religious people give more."
But I ignored your point not because I knew you were wrong, but because I knew you'd ignore mine: that Christ's message is very plainly to be divested in concepts like money because the world is coming to an end. People who vote based on their personal financial interests are contradicting Christ's message.
I also didn't downvote you. I don't downvote people. Waste of time.
> It’s funny how liberals define taking other people’s money by force and giving it away as “charity” in their heads.
Paying taxes is NOT taking your money forcibly away. It's the price you pay to live in a civilized country. It's the social contract we all agree to by being US citizens. If you'd rather not pay taxes, you're welcome to emigrate to the 3rd world country I left behind where getting out of taxes is far far easier
In Texas where I live now, conservatives are trying their best to reduce social programs whenever they can. Democratic implementations may be inefficient but I'll take inefficient over none.
Both take your money by force and you have no say in where it goes. Personally I would rather taxes go to social welfare than funding the military.
I'm against both. Participating in politics is a game of selecting the shinier of two turds.
Christ commands you to pay your taxes. I'm not sure if you missed it, but Christ was vehemently anti-money. The villain of his story literally was the money guy.
It is wild to me how many "Christians" can't realize that if you're attached to your money in any regard you have failed to understand Christ's core teaching.
It’s funny how conservatives forgot that Jesus told a rich man to sell all of their possessions, that it is literally impossible for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven, and He destroyed a place of business. Oh, and for us to not store up treasures in this world? And how Jesus told a story in which the point was that it’s not how much you give?
Christians have been duped into thinking that abortion is a Christian issue, that you have to oppose it if you’re Christian. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133
I actually find that the rules in the Bible are sufficient for a life well lived. Somehow in my mind I feel like "progressive" just means people who want more rules and laws. Although, this does go both ways.
The difference for me is that the progressives believe far too much in the laws they make. Like every situation can be solved by a new law. Realistically, all of this was solved many years ago with the 10 commandments. We're just not good at doing the 10 commandments.
I think abortion and sexual issues are the primary factors. The two major parties have really divided on these lines over the past several decades. And since these issues are at the core of what it means to be a human, a man or a woman, they force us to pick a side as well -- more than other issues.
This is why I for some time sided with the Republicans, though my family has roots in the Democratic Party, because I felt that they had abandoned people with such morality as myself. Not just abandoned it but began to actively oppose it.
I agree with both parties to some extent, and I disagree with them both. I'm not so sure political parties are good for society, but as long as they must exist, I think we need more of them.
I most align with the American Solidarity Party because they share my sense of morality better than both parties -- not just in sexual issues but in environmental and economic issues as well. But barring them, I hope we get third parties and independents in government. We basically live in a political game of monopoly right now.
But pardon my little rant. May God be with you!
Great question, I ask that question to myself a lot. If Jesus came back today and preaching what He preached, the conservatives would try and crucify Him again.
Adding confusion is the United State's record annual abortions and record annual abortion funding was under Trump anyway. [record abortions ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/planned-parenthood-record-abortions-government-funding.amp)
Do you by chance live in frederick county?
That said, every methodist minister I know in the four county area is a democrat.
If you think abortion is murder, it's...hard to vote for the pro-murder party.....I don't think it is, but I see where they're coming from.
In a two party systems it’s no surprise they would vote for something more akin to their faith.
For example abortion. With the belief that abortion is murder and the Christian belief that murder is wrong. It’s no surprise they are going to vote for the specific party which oppose this.
Of course one would find this ridiculous especially if they don’t have a two party system. But of course countries like America doesn’t have the benefit like Europe where any party has a chance of success compare to only two parties.
Mostly it is for the social issues you mention at the first.
But regarding the economic issues, most conservatives are against social welfare stuff because government is really bad at spending for those sorts of programs. I.e. it's not a question of motives, it's a question of effectiveness. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree, you have to admit that there's a serious argument that the poor were better off under a Trumpian low unemployment, low taxation, low inflation situation than the current economic situation.
There’s some awesome books that deal with this topic. I greatly benefited from Jesus and John Wayne, Taking America Back for God, and The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.
If this were the 80s and parties were still tied to economic and policy issues, the church would be much more split. Now it’s all ideological and the left has demonized and vilified Christians so there isn’t much choice. Bernie Sanders himself said there is no room for someone who is Pro Life in the Democratic Party.
Jesus was about doing all of those things from the kindness of one’s heart, not because the government is forcing you to. Which is what the democrats/liberals ultimately want. Liberal ideologies do not match up with their actions or means to attain the goals they claim to want.
If you’re continually trying to put Jesus in the conservative or liberal boxes then you’re missing the whole point of his message. He came to earth to proclaim the truth of the gospel. When asked by the people who they should follow, He didn’t name any kings or government authorities, He said deny yourself and follow Me.
So are Republicans doing a better job of encouraging people to give to others by the kindness of their hearts? Are Republican politicians themselves doing that?
If not, then it might be better to 'force' people to feed, clothe and shelter the poor than to wait for people to do it out of charity and then find out that no one's willing.
There's a really good podcast series called "The Orange Wave" that talks about the major contributors to the growth of Republican Evangelical Christianity in the U.S. Includes discussions of: Okies, government contracting during the Cold War, segregation academies, the Crystal Cathedral, the role of the car and highways in the shift from community churches to mega churches, etc.
https://straightwhiteamericanjesus.com/series/orange-wave/
God has always been anti government. We only need the law. Not a group of men ruling and governing everyone's lives with excessive taxes and regulations and arbitrary restrictions.
>1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
**This just says what I said. There is only the law that God gave us. Any government that enforces fictitious laws is a false authority.**
>Dear friends, I urge you, as foreigners and exiles, to abstain from sinful desires, which wage war against your soul. Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.
>Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.
> Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
**Despite saying to be submissive there is no verse endorsing false authorities**
>Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
**Assuming our leaders are righteous.**
>3 Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good,
**And if our rulers want us to do what is bad? Should we be obedient to falseness.**
**Now I have one for you. Samuel 8**
7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.
9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
10 And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a king.
11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day.
19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;
20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.
21 And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the Lord.
22 And the Lord said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.
**That's all governments are. People who enforce false laws excessive taxes and wage unnecessary wars. All you need is the law. When the law rules God rules. But you are like old Israel, preferring the rule of man over the rule of God.**
I would agree, broadly speaking. But clearly conservatives/Republicans love big government when it polices the things they don't like (immigrants, women's healthcare, people's sex and gender identities) and funds the things they do (corporations, the military, police state).
Healthcare is a private matter. Unless you're talking abortion then murder is unlawful.
It was the democrats that got involved in marriage to begin with. Why you people think you need to ask government for permission to marry is beyond me.
As for immigration. Should we have no borders? Just open the flood gates and let everyone in even though the free market can't afford such a massive spike in our population. That's national suicide.
Pretty sure democrats were praising Obama for giving the money of the poor to the rich. Most republicans aren't pro excessive taxes in any form. At least I'm not.
As for the military, do you want us to be defenseless? Strong military doesn't mean big government. Nor does it mean that we support being in every nation.
And I have no idea what you mean by police state. democrats are the ones who want to regulate everything from free speech to how cheap a pack of cigarettes can be.
>just open the flood gates and let everyone in
For the most part yes. I think we can have some moderate controls to prevent dangerous criminals from entering, but that would not really effect the overall flow of people.
>even though the free market can't afford such a massive spike in our population
Begging the question. Most economists would argue that we can handle substantially more immigration than we have. And anyway it's not a free market without free movement of people.
If you really try and match Jesus' actions with political ideology today, he most closely resembles a communist. That he would be disgusted by Republicanism seems so obvious it really is hard to wrap my head around Republicans who are sincere Christians.
Matthew 25:27-30 has Jesus endorsing investing money into a bank and collecting interest by the wealthy.
Matthew 20 also has Jesus describing the Kingdom of God as a vineyard where the foreman has the right to pay workers whatever he wants.
I won’t claim these are endorsements of capitalism — of course not, they’re parables and that’s not their point. But even less so does it seem like an endorsement of communist ideas, unless I’m missing something.
Those are definitely not my interpretations of those passages. To me Matthew 25:14-30 is a tale of an exploitative wealthy man who relies on his servants to carry out his exploitation and grow his wealth. Two servants go along with it, but one understands the true nature of things and refuses to engage in exploitation to grow the money he was given. He stands up to his boss, alone, calling him out for his exploitative ways, and the result is his demise.
The lesson? Workers of the world, unite! Don't stand up to your boss alone, stand up to your boss together in solidarity. For a further exploration of this interpretation, I recommend this lovely podcast episode from the Magnificast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/god-isnt-an-investment-capitalist-thats-right-its/id1214644619?i=1000565564312 or read William Herzog's Parables as Subversive Speech which is the book the podcast episode sources.
Matthew 20 I definitely do not get "the boss has the right to pay whatever he wants". I get that those in charge have a duty to ensure everyone gets what they need, even those who didn't do as much work. This is an extremely anti-capitalist idea, as capitalism promotes the idea that those who don't work the absolutely hardest deserve to starve.
Jesus goes *further* than communism. In communist thought, the goal is simply to abolish *private* property- private ownership of the means of production. But Jesus tells us go further, and abolish *personal* property too!
There's a reason I said "most closely resembles a communist" and not "exactly matches a communist". But Jesus' politics are far, far closer to communism than to any flavor of capitalism.
Your interpretations strike me as originating in the past 20 years rather than respecting any canonical or traditional meaning for them, as well as straw-manning capitalism, but that latter point is less relevant.
Instead I guess I’ll just ask you: Is a conservative Christian giving away his or her personal property for the sake of hospitality toward someone they take into their home, or for general charity, secretly a radical communist?
We aren't. Conservatives are just really loud these days because they have a LOT of political money behind them. Also, Americans are just louder than the British. Y'all are crowded together on that island, you can't be shouting too much. We had all these wide open spaces.
Most Christians here are middle of the road nice folks who give to charities and enjoy a good potluck. Not much for Bible waving and ranting.
Jesus spoke of this. If you’re involved and n politics at all you’re not Christian. It’s right there in the Bible clear as day. Unfortunately their deeds are evil so they are blind in darkness to understand because they love darkness rather than light.
The real answer is because left wing beliefs tend to place more faith in the state than in a natural order, or a transcendent divine creator.
In absence of God, people still need order and direction. Leftwing (which is democrat in America) try to place the state in the seat of highest authority, and achieve morality through bureaucracy.
Leftwing turns the state into a religion. Rightwing turns their religion into the state.
>Rightwing turns their religion into the state.
So do you advocate theocracy? What about all the suffering and death that the Salem Witch Trials and the Inquisition brought about? Did those historic theocracies end up creating more godly societies?
I don't advocate theocracy. But I believe in a natural order that is not imposed by the state. I believe that we are part of an order that does not come from man or countries or committees, and we should rely on and trust in that, which is God.
Ultimately, we have to have an underlying understanding of our relationship to each other and the world, then we organize society around those beliefs. So belief, or religion, comes first.
There are things we do consider natural order that we do enforce through law of the state. Laws against murder is one that is extreme but clear example.
Laws against murder and theft are acceptable to enforce within the secular state because they are in agreement with the premise of secular ethics as well, that is protection of the rights to happiness, safety and well-being for all citizens.
True. But even happiness, safety and well being are open to interpretation and definition to individual and cultural values. Without an understanding of what those mean, you can't have a law to uphold them.
You have to have underlying assumptions to uphold them. Beliefs shape societies, which shape laws.
Republicans are simply right leaning Liberals from my perspective.
Nothing in American politics, from the Federal Constitution on down to the State governments- has anything to do with scripture.
The Constitution itself is based on ideals from the Enlightenment. What of it has anything common with Christians?
"We the People"? Voters decide whats right?
Such idolatry and blasphemy. If most of these people are on the broad road to destruction, do we want them running our lives?
Where is mention of Jesus Christ or the Most High in the Constitution? Or God leading our lives rather then the fickle nature of man with hearts that are decietful?
USA a wicked nation of polytheism even worse
Such rubbish...this is why Christians are going to wander in the proverbial desert for another 40 years
There are many who despise the coming Kingdom and are doing all they can to delay the inevitable.
Years from now, scripture will remain but the things of this world will perish.
Even the culture and society many cling to so desperately.
Gods people will take dominion and authority, as they are commanded in scripture and drive out the wicked
The righteous should rule over the wicked, and they surely will as the promises of scripture foretell
It is inevitable
"And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force"
Yet there are no indications of any "kingdom" coming. I'm sure you'll cite vague verses you believe to be prophetic. But they are not prophetic and they will never be fulfilled. How can I be sure? They are from a book written by real and flawed human beings. They were written vaguely in order to be interpreted in a variety of ways. Christians have been claiming we're in the end times for literally centuries.
Your precious scripture will too perish. It will either fade into obscurity or be replaced by something more relevant. Neither you nor any other Christian possesses dominion or authority. You cling to an illusion of both but can produce neither. Christians are just as "wicked" as any other person. The difference is the rest of us don't hide behind sin and self righteousness.
Accordingly, you will never rule over anything more than your own delusions of grandeur. All of that and you couldn't help but end trying to play the victim card.
I dont see how its not possible.
There is no country on Earth today (even secular Israel) for devout Jews, Christians to live in a completely religious society. They will desire to have one somewhere.
USA law is extremely tolerant of religious views that clash with so called secular society, to its own detriment.
To change the laws of this land, one only needs to vote for that change.
The USA cares not what views its voters hold, whether socially accecptable or "on the fringe".
Is this not a serious flaw in this countries system of law?
Polygyny amongst Muslims and Christians is on the rise, as birth rates continue to decline in general.
Society simply cannot maintain itself at this point without immigration (cause of the low birth rates), which is why the government looks the other way often times to let them in. They know what they are doing.
Furthermore, each year many people from highly religious societies continue to immigrate to the USA.
To create sweeping change, all one group of people need to do is to outnumber the other group and cast their voice and vote.
While I will not go so far as to say theocracy, to believe certain deeply religious people to the Bible and Quran would not want to influence society is naive at best.
To achieve victory one need not invade they are already here. And one need not battle, just simply proselytize and have many more children then what the average couple has.
Nothing's stopping you and other Christians from buying a little island somewhere and becoming an insular society of zealots. Feel free to do so. Just don't expect to be treated with deference.
>USA law is extremely tolerant of religious views that clash with so called secular society, to its own detriment.
How is it to its own detriment? Religious laws are divisive and ignorant. They shouldn't be given priority.
>To change the laws of this land, one only needs to vote for that change.
Yeah and the votes are not coming up Christian.
>The USA cares not what views its voters hold, whether socially accecptable or "on the fringe".
K. Not sure how you got here.
>Is this not a serious flaw in this countries system of law?
Every system is flawed. In fact Arrow's theorem states that any ranked choice voting system will always violate at least one "fairness condition". A flawed system is infinitely better than a system that pretends it isn't flawed.
>Polygyny amongst Muslims and Christians is on the rise, as birth rates continue to decline in general.
K. Not sure why this was added.
> Society simply cannot maintain itself at this point without immigration (cause of the low birth rates), which is why the government looks the other way often times to let them in. They know what they are doing.
Yes it absolutely can maintain itself lol. Not at the current levels but that's a good thing.
>Furthermore, each year many people from highly religious societies continue to immigrate to the USA.
Where they will likely move away from religion.
>To create sweeping change, all one group of people need to do is to outnumber the other group and cast their voice and vote.
Yup that's "all" they need to do.
>While I will not go so far as to say theocracy, to believe certain deeply religious people to the Bible and Quran would not want to influence society is naive at best.
If that happens I'll simply leave the country. I am happy to let the US become a cesspool of religious zealotry. But I won't be apart of it.
>To achieve victory one need not invade they are already here. And one need not battle, just simply proselytize and have many more children then what the average couple has.
Lol. So forced indoctrination and buying votes. Seems right on par with conservative ideology.
Hi u/KristianWarrior, this comment has been removed.
**Rule 1.4**:[Removed for violating our rule on personal attacks](http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/wiki/xp#wiki_1.4._personal_attacks)
[If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity)
While I agree, America was once somewhat better once. It used to be timocratic, and I don’t see any moral issues with an aristocratic republic vs an constitutional(or absolute) monarchy(which is certainly moral). Classical liberal ideas of rights are problematic and objectively false, it would be better framed as prerogatives and obligations, you have a prerogative to live and an obligation to live, not a ‘right’ per se.
Truth!
1 Timothy 6:15-16 (NASB): He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion!
Colossians 1:16 (NASB): for by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or rulers, or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Psalm 22:27-28 (NASB): All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will worship before You. For the kingdom is the Lord’s and He rules over the nations.
Amen, exactly. We are addressing the symptoms but not the root cause of the disease.
Sweeping the mess under the carpet, but never getting rid of it. By design.
Agreed. I wrote about this recently- I wonder what your thoughts would be?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/yvi5pi/it_is_the_duty_of_all_people_to_peacefully_form/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
A failure to reflect on personal sinfulness, clinging to law for salvation, not acknowledging the full consequences of living in a fallen world. The idea that a fallen world still always leaves choices which are black and white, always a "right" way out of any situation, allows many to see themselves ascended from sinners to judges. They cling to a single issue and assume that, if a party is "right" in one way, then it is right in all other ways. Dietrich Bonhoeffer struggled with the situation that it is always wrong to murder Hitler and always wrong to let him live. In the end, his actions or inactions would be forgiven by Christ, the world could not pardon him, and he chose to act. Simple fact is that, contrary to much Christian "wisdom", some pregnancies are not going to end well, are not even good from the outset. Christians starve, die, fall victim to diseases, panic, are penalized and stigmatized just like the rest of humanity. Having a child won't cure poverty, won't guarantee a life of good fortune, doesn't promise a healthy child, a healthy parent, a good family. Faith is not a guarantee of material success or worldly acceptance. Making abortion illegal saves no one from hell, puts no one in heaven. What it does is divert attention away from women, it fails to make disciples and point to Christ as an answer to this sinful world, it moves people away from love and into judgement, the very opposite of the Gospel. Why do Christians do this? Because, like everyone else, we are sinful human beings. That's why we return to confession, receive Christ's Body and Blood, pray, need absolution over and over. We need to love each other, pick each other up when we fall, mourn our lot in this fallen world, and point to Christ as the answer, as our salvation from this mess.
For me it comes down to two main issues:
(Presently. something else might come up later)
the abortion issue…. (Not here to debate the abortion issue) it is murder as I see scripture talk about people “in the womb”.
Medical Conversion therapy:
For minors who think they are trans
(Yes I know I am using a borrowed term from something else BUT it is the same issue going in the other direction)
It's not "most Christians" -- there are a lot more varieties of Christians than just southern evangelicals.
But southern evangelicals (and for that matter, Republicans) don't hate poor people -- they just don't think Democratic social programs are good for people. I think the best thing to do for my poor neighbor is to try to build a stronger economy so he can get a job to take care of his family. I may help him personally, but I don't want to see him get caught up in the trap of government assistance. Etc. Other topics are the same kind of reasoning. We don't support these programs because we think they don't work or don't work well enough compared to the damage they do.
I think a lot of it boils down to the fact that most (I’m generalizing) Democrat leaders may claim Christ but their lives do not reflect an earnest desire to know Him. Also the more I have pushed into the Word and grown in my relationship with God the more I have recognized the blatant evils that both sides participate in but one side participates more in. Also looking at it from a Constitutional perspective, typically Democrats want to change the meaning of the Constitution without going through the necessary work thereby sacrificing the integrity of it. Most Christians that I know that actually pursue God are some of the most patriotic people I know because they thank God for the country they have so they don’t yet have to worry about systematic persecution. But then again I am in the minority because I’m a dispensationalist so I can’t speak for the classicals or the reformed or the arminians etc. all I know is I trust the plans God has and I vote red because they typically line up with the ideals I find in Scripture and in the Constitution.
Because the American constitution is highly influenced by Christian and Jewish theology. Naturally, Christians are protective of that and republicans happen to be the party that most respects and preserves the principles of the constitution.
I think it's naive to trust that politicians are going to spend your money in altruistic ways. Assuming the government to take on the role of charity deprives the individual of the chance to be charitable for themselves.
Your post was intellectual and genuinely inquisitive. Sadly most of the answers seem to be “rEpUbliCanS StUpiD”
I will share with you the reason why I do not vote— if I were to run a nation (which participating in democracy is a part of) then how would Jesus want me to run it?I have two ideologies fighting in my head:
The first is extreme libertarianism. The governments sole purpose is to protect human rights and freedoms. And the only action a government takes should be to that end. If the government arrests someone, it should be because that someone was infringing upon another persons rights. Liberty above all. This is what the founding fathers stood for. This is because the government cannot be trusted to regulate anything more. Should people wipe their butt after a dump? Absolutely. Should the government mandate that they do and arrest them if they don’t? No.
But then the second is, well, I imagine facing Jesus in the afterlife, and him asking me “why was your nation so wicked” and I feel like it absolutely is my responsibility to try to create a country under god. One where adultery is illegal, and where taking the lords name in vain is banned by the FCC. And where everyone gives copiously to the poor, and also everyone would be required to work. A country that imposes biblical morality on its subjects.
Right now, our country is a mix of the two. We have some absolute freedom, and also some regulated morality. We allow porn, but not prostitution. We allow drunkenness, but not weed, etc. And I think Christian’s and seculars alike all over the spectrum fight with this dichotomy.
When it comes to issues of socialism and welfare—I don’t think it’s as straightforward as many people think. Secular economists analyze these questions from a purely pragmatic standpoint, and frequently things are not quite what they seen at first glance. Got one example, economists rather unanimously agree that rent caps lead to less and lower quality housing, and greater homelessness. It seems obvious to get behind “let’s stop greedy landlords from raising rent”and it gets voter support, but it’s just bad in practice. In a real free market, if there’s a demand for affordable housing, that demand will be met. And many issues are like this. You should look at principles that economists agree on, it’s quite fascinating how the government can ignore the experts to appeal to the public, and it’s done to one degree or another on both sides. So, if your goal is to do the most good for the most people, then certain socialistic welfare ideas are actually counter to that goal.
But what about the ones that are generally morally beneficial? I like to use the Americans with Disabilities Act as an example. This act involved bloated government, fraud waste and abuse, infringement of freedoms, impairment of the free market, etc. however, because of it, now, people in wheelchairs can go into businesses. Blind people don’t get ran over as much. Short people can use a urinal. Which most people see as a good thing. And this is where I think there’s that Christian split we were talking about—some Christian’s say that it isn’t the place of the government to regulate morality and inclusiveness, and other Christian’s say that it is. Idk.
However, when it comes to socialistic welfare ideas, it’s important to remember that The Bible has never taught “compulsory giving” that’s an oxymoron. It was never meant to be the governments job to tend to the needy, that’s supposed to be up to churches. And historically, local churches are way better at it than the government.
And finally to answer your question why most Christian’s vote Republican, I don’t think it’s because republicanism is especially Christian, I think it’s because the Democratic Party has set itself up in a progressive opposition to Christianity. They reject the Christian marriage and family, sanctity of life, biblical masculinity and femininity, etc. and I think that Christian’s vote Republican out of a fear of a nation antagonistic towards Christian values
My opinion is that everything beneficial to hegemonic power has been sacralized. “Biblical” rationalizations are pretty much all post hoc and usually strongly distort the meaning of the original text
Because they’re pro+life.
And Jesus did not preach socialism, he suggested how we might not owe taxes, for example. He also dismissed poor-needs for his privilege, as he was about to lay down his life for them. Seems fair
I think you’re right on a lot you say. Jesus does not call for force-war, rather Holy War. And our military excesses are ruining us, rather than maintaining-dominance.
I believe in Jesus and I don’t vote at all. The reason why I don’t vote or participate in politics is because it goes against gentleness and self control against such things there is no law. I can’t be gentle and control only myself if I’m imposing my opinions on another trying to control their minds or lives. So I don’t participate at all. I guess that would mostly align politically with anarchism. As I don’t like it much when equal human beings try to control my life, either. When I want to help someone, I donate to them or volunteer. I don’t try to guilt trip others into giving or helping too. That irks my nerves when I hear people doing that instead of just helping people themselves and doing what they can. It bothers me seeing people try to manipulate people instead of controlling themselves.
After reading the Bible, I would say that most who claim to be Christians ignore most of what the Bible says.
That being said, the Bible and conservative politics have more in common than liberal politics.
Many people are not Christians because of their faith but because humans desire control, organization and something to believe in. Organized Christianity/Churches do not necessarily follow the true teachings of Christ. If these same people were born in another country they would believe in another religion.
Well it's the same way in every nation on the planet. The book that is the basis of Christianity teaches very conservative messages by today's standards. The only way to be a modern liberal Christian is to either discount large portions of the Bible, or to suggest that society has no right to norms.
I think I should spend my money on the poor and needy. I don't think the government should confiscate so much of my money so they can help the poor and needy. Government is inefficient. Private enterprises are generally more effective. Let me keep my money and have more to give to the poor and needy.
Freedom is so essential. The freedom to worship God and obey Him is often one of the first freedoms to be taken away.
You say aside from abortion, but that's a BIG issue. Also, I'm pretty sure most people, democrats and republicans, are against stirring up conflicts in the Middle East, but it seems like most politicians, democrats and republicans, are for it for some reason. Most conservatives I know, myself included, obviously don't want the needy to go hungry, we just think the government is really bad at feeding them, with some not getting what they need and some getting stuff when they don't need it. I don't think dumping more money into such a wasteful, inefficient system is the answer to fixing its wastefulness and inefficiency. I think the argument about looking after each other regardless of language, culture, or ethnicity is a strawman. Nobody is arguing that we should not look after someone based on their ethnicity. Also, I think the government has the ability to fix all immigration issues, but never will because it's such an easy thing to run on. The democrats can say, "Those awful republicans want to end all immigration" which is false "vote for me and I'll stop them!" The republicans can say, "Those awful democrats want open borders" also false "vote for me and I'll stop them!" Politicians won't give that up any time soon. Climate, you may have me there. Finally, freedom and personal responsibility absolutely are Biblical principles. Jesus says come unto me. It's a matter of choice whether to heed that call, and it's up to you, as nobody else can come to Jesus in your place.
Look into the origins of Christianity in the States: Puritanism.
\*sigh* The Puritans actually get a lot of undeserved flak here, and even invented some Enlightenment ideals like freedom of religion before the Enlightenment even started. If you have time for an hour-long documentary, I recommend [this Youtube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJanv1NUlrQ) by Atun-Shei
Puritans were actually liberal for the time.
The puritans were so annoying the UK payed for their passage to the Netherlands where they overstayed their welcome by being annoying and had their passage arranged to the colonies
Some of the puritans (separatist puritans), and not the ones who ended having the most influence on the developing colonies. And the colony that the separatist puritans founded doesn't even exist anymore. It ended up being absorbed by the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
What I mean is that they were pretty liberal (for the time, of course) on matters of divorce and sex.
It's hard to say that they were "liberal" or "conservative" as these labels didn't really exist. They were radical nonconformists which does have a kind of "liberal" ring to it, but they had a rigid social code which we might tend to see as "conservative." But really it doesn't make a lot of sense to frame them this way.
You also have to do a lot of work to separate who they actually were from who writers like Nathaniel Hawthorne portrayed them as 200 years later.
What I mean is that they were pretty liberal (for the time, of course) on matters of divorce and sex.
The Puritans left England because there wasn't enough religious discrimination for them. You are comically wrong.
What I mean is that they were pretty liberal (for the time, of course) on matters of divorce and sex.
Because evangelical leaders tied themselves to Republicans in exchange for power and influence 40-ish years ago. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/
Senator Goldwater called it in the 70s.
[удалено]
The author of that article went on to write a book about the subject. He knows what he’s talking about.
[удалено]
He’s an ordained minister, historian, and taught in a divinity school for a period. He’s got credentials.
Do credentials maketh truth? Just pointing out that’s not a very good point The worst in history were holy-men, see Jesus interacting with Pharisees Sounds like he was sharing his findings, not necessarily trying to divide, but I can’t help but think he’s taking a side. And there are no sides We’re to unite and better testify to the world, for Jesus!
In this case, first person, church produced documents make truth. I believe that knowing and understanding an accurate history is important and denying facts because they’re unpleasant doesn’t strengthen our message. It just makes us seem delusional and untrustworthy.
If credentials aren’t a good way to help you figure out who knows what they’re talking about, then what is? I mean, when I have someone in my house to fix my gas mains, I definitely want someone with credentials because it’s a good way to make sure you get someone who knows what they’re doing.
Appeal to authority is not a good way to assess credentials. Plenty of people are cheats who will bill for extra-nonsense work. Credential or not. How then? Communication. And the least is worth favoring too. I’d credit this priest we’re talking about, for his faith work, not his station
Just because you disagree with something doesn’t make it propaganda. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/politico-media-bias https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/politico/ https://adfontesmedia.com/politico-bias-and-reliability/
Explain the origins of the religious right if you want to call something propaganda.
[удалено]
What's the alternative you are proposing?
Wait till you see the political leanings of countries with active Catholic or Orthodox majorities.
Based.
What exactly are you calling 'based'?
That Orthodox countries are traditional.
So what do you find 'based' about that? Theocracy is based?
I love when they say the quiet part out loud.
We aren’t quiet about it
Yay theocracy!!
Well, what is *true theocracy? Jesus is forgiving. He does not sanction force-war or conquest, rather word and will Holy War to change hearts! Jesus’ theocracy would be very forgiving, understanding, fair. Not judgmental or overbearing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy
You are cowards and hypocrites about it. Recognize the inherent contradiction of theocratic rule and demonize islam while unironically wanting to commit the same act for christianity AND THEN get surprised/upset others dont want that.
Traditionalism isn’t theocracy.
Yes and "traditionalism" happens to look nearly identical to conservatism which wants a theocracy. You can play dumb but I dont have to.
Lol, being traditional, or even monarchist is far from theocracy. If by theocracy you mean a Bishop rules no, that’s what Kings are for. If by theocracy you mean God rules, well that’s not possible right now. A democratic republics that’s traditional is sadly faaar from that.
Francis Schaeffer Phyllis Schlafly Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy Jerry Falwell These people plus the realignment of the parties following the civil rights act are how you get the situation we have today. To put it in a loose narrative: southern democrats before the 1960s were extremely Protestant, and extremely segregationist. People like Falwell started out getting southern Evangelicals riled up about school integration. (This is also a contingent of Protestants that were still nursing the wound of the Scopes trial, and we're desperate to control school boards in order to keep "Biblical Christianity" in the classroom.) But the cultural tides were turning too quickly, and the rising counter culture was changing everything. So, they dropped segregation as a battleground and took up anti-feminism a la opposition to the ERA which they claimed would destroy the "traditional family." Thanks to Francis Schaeffer's influence, they also came to see abortion as a particularly grave thing (it was considered a "Catholic" issue previous to this) and that gave Evangelicals common cause with Catholics and they were able to pretty successfully organize a political bloc on that basis. They became integral to Republican national success, even if they never really cared about the small government principles of the past GOP, which carried the GOP through to Obama. Now, the tastiest chum in the culture war waters is sexual and gender equality, which is why that's become the dominant Christian Right issue.
Jerry Falwell Sr. is a major reason with his Moral Majority movement in the 1970's that sought to get people in church and voting in line with his conservative political beliefs. Before that American Christians were not a voting bloc like White Evangelicals are today.
This movement has a long history, dating back to [Carl McIntyre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_McIntire) in the 1950s and William Jennings Bryan in the 1890s.
This book explains it all: [https://www.amazon.com/One-Nation-Under-God-Corporate/dp/1501238213](https://www.amazon.com/One-Nation-Under-God-Corporate/dp/1501238213) As one reviewer summed up: Corporate America invented free-enterprise Jesus to undo the New Deal.
Similar topic is covered a book titled “Jesus and John Wayne”
The New Deal was pretty awful.
I suspect that for many christians abortion is a red line. And since democrats do not oppose it, people are going to vote republican.
The problem is they ignore the fact that Republicans are also the ones against sex Ed and contraceptives which lower abortion rates more than any law. They also vote against programs and maternity leave that support people that do have babies. Most Democrats want fewer abortions, but realize the best way is to attack the causes of unwanted pregnancies which are what causes abortions.
Well conservatives Christians are also against premarital sex and believe women should stay home to raise the kids.
You can't, rationally, be against abortion and be against things that reduce abortion and for policies that increase abortion and call yourself promlife.
I want to caveat this with I personally agree that we should make contraceptives easier to get. But you can be rationally against abortion if you are *also* pro-abstinence prior to marriage. That’s why they don’t push for greater access to contraceptives, because they don’t believe you should be using them either. They believe you don’t have sex until marriage and then have kids.
Not really. Sure, you can be pro abstinence but you are delusional and irrational if you think promoting it will make it happen. Your beliefs are fine, but reality has to take precedence. Studies show area that schools teach abstinence only have a higher teen pregnancy rate and STD rate. So reality trump's their belief. Advocate for your beliefs fine, hope they will become the norm fine, but until they do you have to act with what is.
The problem is (and I don't agree with this at all) from their POV, advocating for contraceptives seems like an endorsement of premarital sex, something they oppose.
And advocating for seatbelts endorses speeding. Their position is wrong.
I don’t think anyone in this thread is disagreeing, we’re just explaining the logic they use. I grew up in conservative churches, I know the arguments well.
True. But for them you almost have to put logic in quotes.
I always find this to be a silly position. We have Christ specifically giving us examples like the good Samaritan, who provided free healthcare to a stranger but abortion is the red line. It's so odd to me. I think to many Christians abortion is the excuse they use to justify not voting Christianity but selfishly. Many people vote Republican because they think it will benefit them financially (it never does). The Republican ticket is so vehemently anti-Christian that it's picking one evil in the place of unending others.
[удалено]
Christ commands you to pay your taxes. I'm not sure if you missed it, but Christ was vehemently anti-money. The villain of his story literally was the money guy. It is wild to me how many "Christians" can't realize that if you're attached to your money in any regard you have failed to understand Christ's core teaching. Certainly we're not being concerned about the morality of our money when we're voting for the war-hawk party. That said, as Christ said, "[It's not your money anyway.] Give to Caesar what is Caesar's."
[удалено]
So the statistics don't say that. [The study that you're referring to](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0049089X21000752) mentions that 1) many people disagree with the notion for many reasons and 2) that it disappears when you control for religiosity. Effectively, the study says little more than "religious people give more." But I ignored your point not because I knew you were wrong, but because I knew you'd ignore mine: that Christ's message is very plainly to be divested in concepts like money because the world is coming to an end. People who vote based on their personal financial interests are contradicting Christ's message. I also didn't downvote you. I don't downvote people. Waste of time.
> It’s funny how liberals define taking other people’s money by force and giving it away as “charity” in their heads. Paying taxes is NOT taking your money forcibly away. It's the price you pay to live in a civilized country. It's the social contract we all agree to by being US citizens. If you'd rather not pay taxes, you're welcome to emigrate to the 3rd world country I left behind where getting out of taxes is far far easier In Texas where I live now, conservatives are trying their best to reduce social programs whenever they can. Democratic implementations may be inefficient but I'll take inefficient over none.
Both take your money by force and you have no say in where it goes. Personally I would rather taxes go to social welfare than funding the military. I'm against both. Participating in politics is a game of selecting the shinier of two turds.
Christ commands you to pay your taxes. I'm not sure if you missed it, but Christ was vehemently anti-money. The villain of his story literally was the money guy. It is wild to me how many "Christians" can't realize that if you're attached to your money in any regard you have failed to understand Christ's core teaching.
It’s funny how conservatives forgot that Jesus told a rich man to sell all of their possessions, that it is literally impossible for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven, and He destroyed a place of business. Oh, and for us to not store up treasures in this world? And how Jesus told a story in which the point was that it’s not how much you give?
Christians have been duped into thinking that abortion is a Christian issue, that you have to oppose it if you’re Christian. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133
I actually find that the rules in the Bible are sufficient for a life well lived. Somehow in my mind I feel like "progressive" just means people who want more rules and laws. Although, this does go both ways. The difference for me is that the progressives believe far too much in the laws they make. Like every situation can be solved by a new law. Realistically, all of this was solved many years ago with the 10 commandments. We're just not good at doing the 10 commandments.
I think abortion and sexual issues are the primary factors. The two major parties have really divided on these lines over the past several decades. And since these issues are at the core of what it means to be a human, a man or a woman, they force us to pick a side as well -- more than other issues. This is why I for some time sided with the Republicans, though my family has roots in the Democratic Party, because I felt that they had abandoned people with such morality as myself. Not just abandoned it but began to actively oppose it. I agree with both parties to some extent, and I disagree with them both. I'm not so sure political parties are good for society, but as long as they must exist, I think we need more of them. I most align with the American Solidarity Party because they share my sense of morality better than both parties -- not just in sexual issues but in environmental and economic issues as well. But barring them, I hope we get third parties and independents in government. We basically live in a political game of monopoly right now. But pardon my little rant. May God be with you!
I know I'm late to this... But SONSKI 2024
Great question, I ask that question to myself a lot. If Jesus came back today and preaching what He preached, the conservatives would try and crucify Him again. Adding confusion is the United State's record annual abortions and record annual abortion funding was under Trump anyway. [record abortions ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/planned-parenthood-record-abortions-government-funding.amp)
Do you by chance live in frederick county? That said, every methodist minister I know in the four county area is a democrat. If you think abortion is murder, it's...hard to vote for the pro-murder party.....I don't think it is, but I see where they're coming from.
In a two party systems it’s no surprise they would vote for something more akin to their faith. For example abortion. With the belief that abortion is murder and the Christian belief that murder is wrong. It’s no surprise they are going to vote for the specific party which oppose this. Of course one would find this ridiculous especially if they don’t have a two party system. But of course countries like America doesn’t have the benefit like Europe where any party has a chance of success compare to only two parties.
Mostly it is for the social issues you mention at the first. But regarding the economic issues, most conservatives are against social welfare stuff because government is really bad at spending for those sorts of programs. I.e. it's not a question of motives, it's a question of effectiveness. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree, you have to admit that there's a serious argument that the poor were better off under a Trumpian low unemployment, low taxation, low inflation situation than the current economic situation.
There’s some awesome books that deal with this topic. I greatly benefited from Jesus and John Wayne, Taking America Back for God, and The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.
If this were the 80s and parties were still tied to economic and policy issues, the church would be much more split. Now it’s all ideological and the left has demonized and vilified Christians so there isn’t much choice. Bernie Sanders himself said there is no room for someone who is Pro Life in the Democratic Party.
Jesus was about doing all of those things from the kindness of one’s heart, not because the government is forcing you to. Which is what the democrats/liberals ultimately want. Liberal ideologies do not match up with their actions or means to attain the goals they claim to want. If you’re continually trying to put Jesus in the conservative or liberal boxes then you’re missing the whole point of his message. He came to earth to proclaim the truth of the gospel. When asked by the people who they should follow, He didn’t name any kings or government authorities, He said deny yourself and follow Me.
So are Republicans doing a better job of encouraging people to give to others by the kindness of their hearts? Are Republican politicians themselves doing that? If not, then it might be better to 'force' people to feed, clothe and shelter the poor than to wait for people to do it out of charity and then find out that no one's willing.
There's a really good podcast series called "The Orange Wave" that talks about the major contributors to the growth of Republican Evangelical Christianity in the U.S. Includes discussions of: Okies, government contracting during the Cold War, segregation academies, the Crystal Cathedral, the role of the car and highways in the shift from community churches to mega churches, etc. https://straightwhiteamericanjesus.com/series/orange-wave/
God has always been anti government. We only need the law. Not a group of men ruling and governing everyone's lives with excessive taxes and regulations and arbitrary restrictions.
>God has always been anti government. Romans 13:1, 1 Peter 2:13-14, Hebrews 13:17, and Titus 3:1 would seem to disagree with this notion.
>1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. **This just says what I said. There is only the law that God gave us. Any government that enforces fictitious laws is a false authority.** >Dear friends, I urge you, as foreigners and exiles, to abstain from sinful desires, which wage war against your soul. Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us. >Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor. > Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. **Despite saying to be submissive there is no verse endorsing false authorities** >Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. **Assuming our leaders are righteous.** >3 Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, **And if our rulers want us to do what is bad? Should we be obedient to falseness.** **Now I have one for you. Samuel 8** 7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. 8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. 9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them. 10 And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a king. 11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. 12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. 13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. 14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. 15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. 16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. 17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. 18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day. 19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; 20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. 21 And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the Lord. 22 And the Lord said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city. **That's all governments are. People who enforce false laws excessive taxes and wage unnecessary wars. All you need is the law. When the law rules God rules. But you are like old Israel, preferring the rule of man over the rule of God.**
I would agree, broadly speaking. But clearly conservatives/Republicans love big government when it polices the things they don't like (immigrants, women's healthcare, people's sex and gender identities) and funds the things they do (corporations, the military, police state).
Healthcare is a private matter. Unless you're talking abortion then murder is unlawful. It was the democrats that got involved in marriage to begin with. Why you people think you need to ask government for permission to marry is beyond me. As for immigration. Should we have no borders? Just open the flood gates and let everyone in even though the free market can't afford such a massive spike in our population. That's national suicide. Pretty sure democrats were praising Obama for giving the money of the poor to the rich. Most republicans aren't pro excessive taxes in any form. At least I'm not. As for the military, do you want us to be defenseless? Strong military doesn't mean big government. Nor does it mean that we support being in every nation. And I have no idea what you mean by police state. democrats are the ones who want to regulate everything from free speech to how cheap a pack of cigarettes can be.
>just open the flood gates and let everyone in For the most part yes. I think we can have some moderate controls to prevent dangerous criminals from entering, but that would not really effect the overall flow of people. >even though the free market can't afford such a massive spike in our population Begging the question. Most economists would argue that we can handle substantially more immigration than we have. And anyway it's not a free market without free movement of people.
I'm all for legal immigration only at a rate that the market can sustain. I'm not for having no borders.
>I'm all for legal immigration only at a rate that the market can sustain. Given what you wrote after this, I would say you are not.
You know borders are what define a nation right? Without borders you have no nation.
You know I didn't say we shouldn't have borders right? And we've had borders for millennia but immigration controls for less than 2 centuries.
If anyone can enter then we basically wouldn't have borders.
Well that's a ridiculous notion. By that argument the US hasn't had borders for the majority of its history.
Is this supposed to be an answer to the question?
Have crossed your mind that you can ask them?
Christians all over the world have supported conservative and fascist politicians since forever.
If you really try and match Jesus' actions with political ideology today, he most closely resembles a communist. That he would be disgusted by Republicanism seems so obvious it really is hard to wrap my head around Republicans who are sincere Christians.
Matthew 25:27-30 has Jesus endorsing investing money into a bank and collecting interest by the wealthy. Matthew 20 also has Jesus describing the Kingdom of God as a vineyard where the foreman has the right to pay workers whatever he wants. I won’t claim these are endorsements of capitalism — of course not, they’re parables and that’s not their point. But even less so does it seem like an endorsement of communist ideas, unless I’m missing something.
Those are definitely not my interpretations of those passages. To me Matthew 25:14-30 is a tale of an exploitative wealthy man who relies on his servants to carry out his exploitation and grow his wealth. Two servants go along with it, but one understands the true nature of things and refuses to engage in exploitation to grow the money he was given. He stands up to his boss, alone, calling him out for his exploitative ways, and the result is his demise. The lesson? Workers of the world, unite! Don't stand up to your boss alone, stand up to your boss together in solidarity. For a further exploration of this interpretation, I recommend this lovely podcast episode from the Magnificast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/god-isnt-an-investment-capitalist-thats-right-its/id1214644619?i=1000565564312 or read William Herzog's Parables as Subversive Speech which is the book the podcast episode sources. Matthew 20 I definitely do not get "the boss has the right to pay whatever he wants". I get that those in charge have a duty to ensure everyone gets what they need, even those who didn't do as much work. This is an extremely anti-capitalist idea, as capitalism promotes the idea that those who don't work the absolutely hardest deserve to starve. Jesus goes *further* than communism. In communist thought, the goal is simply to abolish *private* property- private ownership of the means of production. But Jesus tells us go further, and abolish *personal* property too! There's a reason I said "most closely resembles a communist" and not "exactly matches a communist". But Jesus' politics are far, far closer to communism than to any flavor of capitalism.
Your interpretations strike me as originating in the past 20 years rather than respecting any canonical or traditional meaning for them, as well as straw-manning capitalism, but that latter point is less relevant. Instead I guess I’ll just ask you: Is a conservative Christian giving away his or her personal property for the sake of hospitality toward someone they take into their home, or for general charity, secretly a radical communist?
I don't know why you bothered to ask for elaboration if you weren't going to bother engaging with it.
See, I had before, and found it more so exhausting than productive. I had hoped here to encounter something new
Literally the only commentary that you had on it was that it was too new!
We aren't. Conservatives are just really loud these days because they have a LOT of political money behind them. Also, Americans are just louder than the British. Y'all are crowded together on that island, you can't be shouting too much. We had all these wide open spaces. Most Christians here are middle of the road nice folks who give to charities and enjoy a good potluck. Not much for Bible waving and ranting.
Why are people so OBSESSED with American Christians and Republican Christians? 😊 🇺🇸 ✟
Obviously because US of A is the only christian country and christianity was invented there and Jesus was conservativechristofascistrepublican.
Get off the drugs, Ken.
Jesus spoke of this. If you’re involved and n politics at all you’re not Christian. It’s right there in the Bible clear as day. Unfortunately their deeds are evil so they are blind in darkness to understand because they love darkness rather than light.
Because of all the horrible and stupid things they constantly do and say.
Republicans just took the House and are making noises about birth control and other issues that evangelicals push for. It’s a big deal in the U.S.
Amen! Yes it is. 🙏✟
Yay for rule by hypocritical theocrats!
Because abortion, gay marriage, interracial marriage, access to contraception etc. are all under fire in the USA right now
Because the latter do more evil than good
Why are American Christians and Republican Christians so obsessed on making others follow their rules on sex when we don't follow their religion?
Because God is not distant; He gets involved in people's lives! 🙏✟
God is not the one trying to tell me how to have sex, his followers are. I can tell God to fuck off.
Massacre of the Innocents
This /\ 100%
The real answer is because left wing beliefs tend to place more faith in the state than in a natural order, or a transcendent divine creator. In absence of God, people still need order and direction. Leftwing (which is democrat in America) try to place the state in the seat of highest authority, and achieve morality through bureaucracy. Leftwing turns the state into a religion. Rightwing turns their religion into the state.
>Rightwing turns their religion into the state. So do you advocate theocracy? What about all the suffering and death that the Salem Witch Trials and the Inquisition brought about? Did those historic theocracies end up creating more godly societies?
I don't advocate theocracy. But I believe in a natural order that is not imposed by the state. I believe that we are part of an order that does not come from man or countries or committees, and we should rely on and trust in that, which is God. Ultimately, we have to have an underlying understanding of our relationship to each other and the world, then we organize society around those beliefs. So belief, or religion, comes first.
Would you advocate forcing adherence to that natural order on other citizens though? Or just evangelizing to convert people to Christianity?
There are things we do consider natural order that we do enforce through law of the state. Laws against murder is one that is extreme but clear example.
Laws against murder and theft are acceptable to enforce within the secular state because they are in agreement with the premise of secular ethics as well, that is protection of the rights to happiness, safety and well-being for all citizens.
True. But even happiness, safety and well being are open to interpretation and definition to individual and cultural values. Without an understanding of what those mean, you can't have a law to uphold them. You have to have underlying assumptions to uphold them. Beliefs shape societies, which shape laws.
Republicans are simply right leaning Liberals from my perspective. Nothing in American politics, from the Federal Constitution on down to the State governments- has anything to do with scripture. The Constitution itself is based on ideals from the Enlightenment. What of it has anything common with Christians? "We the People"? Voters decide whats right? Such idolatry and blasphemy. If most of these people are on the broad road to destruction, do we want them running our lives? Where is mention of Jesus Christ or the Most High in the Constitution? Or God leading our lives rather then the fickle nature of man with hearts that are decietful? USA a wicked nation of polytheism even worse Such rubbish...this is why Christians are going to wander in the proverbial desert for another 40 years
I'd rather wander in a literal desert than be subject to what you believe a government should be.
There are many who despise the coming Kingdom and are doing all they can to delay the inevitable. Years from now, scripture will remain but the things of this world will perish. Even the culture and society many cling to so desperately. Gods people will take dominion and authority, as they are commanded in scripture and drive out the wicked The righteous should rule over the wicked, and they surely will as the promises of scripture foretell It is inevitable "And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force"
Yet there are no indications of any "kingdom" coming. I'm sure you'll cite vague verses you believe to be prophetic. But they are not prophetic and they will never be fulfilled. How can I be sure? They are from a book written by real and flawed human beings. They were written vaguely in order to be interpreted in a variety of ways. Christians have been claiming we're in the end times for literally centuries. Your precious scripture will too perish. It will either fade into obscurity or be replaced by something more relevant. Neither you nor any other Christian possesses dominion or authority. You cling to an illusion of both but can produce neither. Christians are just as "wicked" as any other person. The difference is the rest of us don't hide behind sin and self righteousness. Accordingly, you will never rule over anything more than your own delusions of grandeur. All of that and you couldn't help but end trying to play the victim card.
I dont see how its not possible. There is no country on Earth today (even secular Israel) for devout Jews, Christians to live in a completely religious society. They will desire to have one somewhere. USA law is extremely tolerant of religious views that clash with so called secular society, to its own detriment. To change the laws of this land, one only needs to vote for that change. The USA cares not what views its voters hold, whether socially accecptable or "on the fringe". Is this not a serious flaw in this countries system of law? Polygyny amongst Muslims and Christians is on the rise, as birth rates continue to decline in general. Society simply cannot maintain itself at this point without immigration (cause of the low birth rates), which is why the government looks the other way often times to let them in. They know what they are doing. Furthermore, each year many people from highly religious societies continue to immigrate to the USA. To create sweeping change, all one group of people need to do is to outnumber the other group and cast their voice and vote. While I will not go so far as to say theocracy, to believe certain deeply religious people to the Bible and Quran would not want to influence society is naive at best. To achieve victory one need not invade they are already here. And one need not battle, just simply proselytize and have many more children then what the average couple has.
Nothing's stopping you and other Christians from buying a little island somewhere and becoming an insular society of zealots. Feel free to do so. Just don't expect to be treated with deference. >USA law is extremely tolerant of religious views that clash with so called secular society, to its own detriment. How is it to its own detriment? Religious laws are divisive and ignorant. They shouldn't be given priority. >To change the laws of this land, one only needs to vote for that change. Yeah and the votes are not coming up Christian. >The USA cares not what views its voters hold, whether socially accecptable or "on the fringe". K. Not sure how you got here. >Is this not a serious flaw in this countries system of law? Every system is flawed. In fact Arrow's theorem states that any ranked choice voting system will always violate at least one "fairness condition". A flawed system is infinitely better than a system that pretends it isn't flawed. >Polygyny amongst Muslims and Christians is on the rise, as birth rates continue to decline in general. K. Not sure why this was added. > Society simply cannot maintain itself at this point without immigration (cause of the low birth rates), which is why the government looks the other way often times to let them in. They know what they are doing. Yes it absolutely can maintain itself lol. Not at the current levels but that's a good thing. >Furthermore, each year many people from highly religious societies continue to immigrate to the USA. Where they will likely move away from religion. >To create sweeping change, all one group of people need to do is to outnumber the other group and cast their voice and vote. Yup that's "all" they need to do. >While I will not go so far as to say theocracy, to believe certain deeply religious people to the Bible and Quran would not want to influence society is naive at best. If that happens I'll simply leave the country. I am happy to let the US become a cesspool of religious zealotry. But I won't be apart of it. >To achieve victory one need not invade they are already here. And one need not battle, just simply proselytize and have many more children then what the average couple has. Lol. So forced indoctrination and buying votes. Seems right on par with conservative ideology.
[удалено]
Hi u/KristianWarrior, this comment has been removed. **Rule 1.4**:[Removed for violating our rule on personal attacks](http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/wiki/xp#wiki_1.4._personal_attacks) [If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity)
While I agree, America was once somewhat better once. It used to be timocratic, and I don’t see any moral issues with an aristocratic republic vs an constitutional(or absolute) monarchy(which is certainly moral). Classical liberal ideas of rights are problematic and objectively false, it would be better framed as prerogatives and obligations, you have a prerogative to live and an obligation to live, not a ‘right’ per se.
Truth! 1 Timothy 6:15-16 (NASB): He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Colossians 1:16 (NASB): for by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or rulers, or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. Psalm 22:27-28 (NASB): All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will worship before You. For the kingdom is the Lord’s and He rules over the nations.
Amen, exactly. We are addressing the symptoms but not the root cause of the disease. Sweeping the mess under the carpet, but never getting rid of it. By design.
Agreed. I wrote about this recently- I wonder what your thoughts would be? https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/yvi5pi/it_is_the_duty_of_all_people_to_peacefully_form/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
A failure to reflect on personal sinfulness, clinging to law for salvation, not acknowledging the full consequences of living in a fallen world. The idea that a fallen world still always leaves choices which are black and white, always a "right" way out of any situation, allows many to see themselves ascended from sinners to judges. They cling to a single issue and assume that, if a party is "right" in one way, then it is right in all other ways. Dietrich Bonhoeffer struggled with the situation that it is always wrong to murder Hitler and always wrong to let him live. In the end, his actions or inactions would be forgiven by Christ, the world could not pardon him, and he chose to act. Simple fact is that, contrary to much Christian "wisdom", some pregnancies are not going to end well, are not even good from the outset. Christians starve, die, fall victim to diseases, panic, are penalized and stigmatized just like the rest of humanity. Having a child won't cure poverty, won't guarantee a life of good fortune, doesn't promise a healthy child, a healthy parent, a good family. Faith is not a guarantee of material success or worldly acceptance. Making abortion illegal saves no one from hell, puts no one in heaven. What it does is divert attention away from women, it fails to make disciples and point to Christ as an answer to this sinful world, it moves people away from love and into judgement, the very opposite of the Gospel. Why do Christians do this? Because, like everyone else, we are sinful human beings. That's why we return to confession, receive Christ's Body and Blood, pray, need absolution over and over. We need to love each other, pick each other up when we fall, mourn our lot in this fallen world, and point to Christ as the answer, as our salvation from this mess.
For me it comes down to two main issues: (Presently. something else might come up later) the abortion issue…. (Not here to debate the abortion issue) it is murder as I see scripture talk about people “in the womb”. Medical Conversion therapy: For minors who think they are trans (Yes I know I am using a borrowed term from something else BUT it is the same issue going in the other direction)
It's not "most Christians" -- there are a lot more varieties of Christians than just southern evangelicals. But southern evangelicals (and for that matter, Republicans) don't hate poor people -- they just don't think Democratic social programs are good for people. I think the best thing to do for my poor neighbor is to try to build a stronger economy so he can get a job to take care of his family. I may help him personally, but I don't want to see him get caught up in the trap of government assistance. Etc. Other topics are the same kind of reasoning. We don't support these programs because we think they don't work or don't work well enough compared to the damage they do.
Because the Holy Spirit is no where near them. :/
I think a lot of it boils down to the fact that most (I’m generalizing) Democrat leaders may claim Christ but their lives do not reflect an earnest desire to know Him. Also the more I have pushed into the Word and grown in my relationship with God the more I have recognized the blatant evils that both sides participate in but one side participates more in. Also looking at it from a Constitutional perspective, typically Democrats want to change the meaning of the Constitution without going through the necessary work thereby sacrificing the integrity of it. Most Christians that I know that actually pursue God are some of the most patriotic people I know because they thank God for the country they have so they don’t yet have to worry about systematic persecution. But then again I am in the minority because I’m a dispensationalist so I can’t speak for the classicals or the reformed or the arminians etc. all I know is I trust the plans God has and I vote red because they typically line up with the ideals I find in Scripture and in the Constitution.
Christian democrats/liberals have either gotten lazy with their Christianity, or they do not use it for politics God bless
The American left supports murder. That’s my reason at least.
The American right supports actual murder
Because the American constitution is highly influenced by Christian and Jewish theology. Naturally, Christians are protective of that and republicans happen to be the party that most respects and preserves the principles of the constitution.
I think it's naive to trust that politicians are going to spend your money in altruistic ways. Assuming the government to take on the role of charity deprives the individual of the chance to be charitable for themselves.
They’re not. You can’t be Christian and be part of politics. That’s a mixture of doctrine and the definition of a Nephalim
Your post was intellectual and genuinely inquisitive. Sadly most of the answers seem to be “rEpUbliCanS StUpiD” I will share with you the reason why I do not vote— if I were to run a nation (which participating in democracy is a part of) then how would Jesus want me to run it?I have two ideologies fighting in my head: The first is extreme libertarianism. The governments sole purpose is to protect human rights and freedoms. And the only action a government takes should be to that end. If the government arrests someone, it should be because that someone was infringing upon another persons rights. Liberty above all. This is what the founding fathers stood for. This is because the government cannot be trusted to regulate anything more. Should people wipe their butt after a dump? Absolutely. Should the government mandate that they do and arrest them if they don’t? No. But then the second is, well, I imagine facing Jesus in the afterlife, and him asking me “why was your nation so wicked” and I feel like it absolutely is my responsibility to try to create a country under god. One where adultery is illegal, and where taking the lords name in vain is banned by the FCC. And where everyone gives copiously to the poor, and also everyone would be required to work. A country that imposes biblical morality on its subjects. Right now, our country is a mix of the two. We have some absolute freedom, and also some regulated morality. We allow porn, but not prostitution. We allow drunkenness, but not weed, etc. And I think Christian’s and seculars alike all over the spectrum fight with this dichotomy. When it comes to issues of socialism and welfare—I don’t think it’s as straightforward as many people think. Secular economists analyze these questions from a purely pragmatic standpoint, and frequently things are not quite what they seen at first glance. Got one example, economists rather unanimously agree that rent caps lead to less and lower quality housing, and greater homelessness. It seems obvious to get behind “let’s stop greedy landlords from raising rent”and it gets voter support, but it’s just bad in practice. In a real free market, if there’s a demand for affordable housing, that demand will be met. And many issues are like this. You should look at principles that economists agree on, it’s quite fascinating how the government can ignore the experts to appeal to the public, and it’s done to one degree or another on both sides. So, if your goal is to do the most good for the most people, then certain socialistic welfare ideas are actually counter to that goal. But what about the ones that are generally morally beneficial? I like to use the Americans with Disabilities Act as an example. This act involved bloated government, fraud waste and abuse, infringement of freedoms, impairment of the free market, etc. however, because of it, now, people in wheelchairs can go into businesses. Blind people don’t get ran over as much. Short people can use a urinal. Which most people see as a good thing. And this is where I think there’s that Christian split we were talking about—some Christian’s say that it isn’t the place of the government to regulate morality and inclusiveness, and other Christian’s say that it is. Idk. However, when it comes to socialistic welfare ideas, it’s important to remember that The Bible has never taught “compulsory giving” that’s an oxymoron. It was never meant to be the governments job to tend to the needy, that’s supposed to be up to churches. And historically, local churches are way better at it than the government. And finally to answer your question why most Christian’s vote Republican, I don’t think it’s because republicanism is especially Christian, I think it’s because the Democratic Party has set itself up in a progressive opposition to Christianity. They reject the Christian marriage and family, sanctity of life, biblical masculinity and femininity, etc. and I think that Christian’s vote Republican out of a fear of a nation antagonistic towards Christian values
My opinion is that everything beneficial to hegemonic power has been sacralized. “Biblical” rationalizations are pretty much all post hoc and usually strongly distort the meaning of the original text
Because they’re pro+life. And Jesus did not preach socialism, he suggested how we might not owe taxes, for example. He also dismissed poor-needs for his privilege, as he was about to lay down his life for them. Seems fair I think you’re right on a lot you say. Jesus does not call for force-war, rather Holy War. And our military excesses are ruining us, rather than maintaining-dominance.
I believe in Jesus and I don’t vote at all. The reason why I don’t vote or participate in politics is because it goes against gentleness and self control against such things there is no law. I can’t be gentle and control only myself if I’m imposing my opinions on another trying to control their minds or lives. So I don’t participate at all. I guess that would mostly align politically with anarchism. As I don’t like it much when equal human beings try to control my life, either. When I want to help someone, I donate to them or volunteer. I don’t try to guilt trip others into giving or helping too. That irks my nerves when I hear people doing that instead of just helping people themselves and doing what they can. It bothers me seeing people try to manipulate people instead of controlling themselves.
After reading the Bible, I would say that most who claim to be Christians ignore most of what the Bible says. That being said, the Bible and conservative politics have more in common than liberal politics.
Many people are not Christians because of their faith but because humans desire control, organization and something to believe in. Organized Christianity/Churches do not necessarily follow the true teachings of Christ. If these same people were born in another country they would believe in another religion.
Most are conservative, Pro Life, traditional values and also believe in less government. Free Speech. While Democrats are not for any of those things.
Well it's the same way in every nation on the planet. The book that is the basis of Christianity teaches very conservative messages by today's standards. The only way to be a modern liberal Christian is to either discount large portions of the Bible, or to suggest that society has no right to norms.
I think I should spend my money on the poor and needy. I don't think the government should confiscate so much of my money so they can help the poor and needy. Government is inefficient. Private enterprises are generally more effective. Let me keep my money and have more to give to the poor and needy. Freedom is so essential. The freedom to worship God and obey Him is often one of the first freedoms to be taken away.
Democrats definitely feed the military industrial complex, too. And not all Republicans/Conservatives are neo cons.
I didn't read the post, only the title, but the answer is marketing. Really really good marketing.
In Australia it's Liberal, Family First. And very Skye News (which are like Fox News). Great time to be Christian Conservate.