Jump to content

Religious/not Religious Doesn't = Conservative/liberal


Recommended Posts

I've noticed political topics/comments seem to assume that if a person is not religious that means they are politically liberal & if they are religious that makes them politically conservative. The law of large numbers & common sense indicate that isn't true.

 

Declaring any particular political affiliation doesn't mean that person buys into that groups entire agenda. All Christians don't buy into everything their group says they believe, and I'm sure that is true for political associations too.

 

Christian doesn't mean political conservative any more than Atheist means political liberal. I think most people are somewhere in the middle when it comes to religion & politics. The extremist tend to be in the minority in any group, but they also tend to be the most vocal too & that gives the impression their agenda represents the views of the majority, when in fact it doesn't.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Geezer.  

 

I've noticed a lot of infighting here lately and even been part of it myself, much to my shame. I mean, if I'm 'attacked' I'll defend myself, sure, but some of us here seem to have lost the ability to let everyone have their own opinions and discuss any differences in a decent manner.  Too much 'he said/she said' and nit picking, clawing at each other down to last fingernail.

It gets old and takes the fun out of the place.

 

As for me, I lean conservative on some things, and I don't subscribe to the Democrat vs. Republican and Left vs. Right thinking, at least as much as it lies in me not too. A lot of the political discussions on here devolve into a fight over 'sources'. If people don't like a source I think is interesting, they are free to move on, and too often opinions are treated like personal attacks.

 

I also notice certain people like to nip at the heels of anyone or anything that they perceive as being out of line with their personal beliefs.   It can give the place a very chilling fundy flavor that I don't like. If I wanted to join a church that allows for certain sources of information but not others, and use peer pressure and subtle bullying and shame tactics to keep me in line, there are plenty of those around. I don't come here to get that, I come here to get away from that.

 

Thanks for starting this thread, Geezer. I was thinking of starting one myself in the Rants section, but now I don't have to.   

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, a person's religious views, or lack of them, does not necessarily cause that person's political views.  Still, I think various studies have indicated that there is a correlation/likelihood that, for example, Evangenlical Christians are more likely to be conservative politically and non-religious folks are more likely to have liberal politics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. I'm so sick of a handful who drag their pet topic out like its their new religion (every chance possible) has almost made me move elsewhere. Don't want to cause I like so many great people here.

And the Christians are not the biggest trolls anymore :/

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Christianity affected my politics, but not as it does most. When I was a Christian I voted straight Democrat. I was pro-life and anti-gay, but I believed in protecting the poor and opposing religious hypocrisy. Now, I've started voting for many Republicans because I don't give a shit about the poor, and have no compassion for people who threw footballs in high school while I was doing math homework. Leaving Jesus has been immensely liberating in this regard, as I am now free to prioritize my video game budget over basic necessities for random strangers about whom I don't care.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The stereotype didn't appear from nowhere. As with anything, there are exceptions.

 

Exactly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say many posters here have noticed being an atheist doesn't mean the person is liberal because it is illogical to assume so. People can be rational regarding a topic but can be completely irrational regarding a different topic. For myself I would say as I grow older I tend to be more liberal regardless of what I believe.

 

I like coming here to debate because I find people in this forum can present their thoughts better than in other forum. I do feel frustrated from time to time but I don't find heated discussions here bothersome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BO and I have knocked heads a few times. BO claims to be a Libertarian (and if he means the Libertarian Party then I believe him). I, on the other hand, am a Whig (read Classical Liberal, aka libertarian).

 

There are some correlations that can be observed, but I think they are the product of what I will call the "birds of a feather" principle. That is, people will flock to a leader who is most like what they believe, whether that be politics or religion.

 

I have (only half-joking) maintained that religion was created by a nerd who figured out that bullshit could overcome brawn and beauty. I am willing to extend that to politics as also having been invented by a similar nerd (maybe his brother?) and for the same reason: to control people who otherwise would run them over. As the various nerds collected their followings it is natural to assume that religious nerds would ally with political types. The pattern holds true to today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a nice reminder. I'm politically progressive, myself, but I know of quite a few conservative atheists. A tattoo artist in my town is an antitheist, and he's very much in support of the 2nd Amendment, against abortion, and makes homophobic slurs on his FB page. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. I'm so sick of a handful who drag their pet topic out like its their new religion (every chance possible) has almost made me move elsewhere. Don't want to cause I like so many great people here.

And the Christians are not the biggest trolls anymore :/

I concur, I've noticed this trend as well - hence why I have been lurking more than anything else lately. Too many people have the whole "their way or the highway" line of thought, and that is so much like fundy Christians that it makes me chuckle a bit.

 

While I am probably a firm middle of the road person in political outlooks, I definitely agree with the OP on this.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

The last Republican I voted for president was Reagan.

I've voted Libertarian since then. I will wait and see for 2016.

I had major disagreements with both Bushs and now Obama. 

I actually liked some of Clinton's policies and his willingness to

work with congress. 

Plus, he was not a proactive president constantly pushing an agenda.

 

I prefer calling myself a classical liberal over the term libertarian.

 

Definition: 

Classical liberalism is a political ideology that values the freedom of individuals — including the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and markets — as well as limited government.

 

Not to be confused with liberalism as promoted today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...

I prefer calling myself a classical liberal over the term libertarian.

 

Definition: 

Classical liberalism is a political ideology that values the freedom of individuals — including the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and markets — as well as limited government.

 

...

 

Such a position is not compatible at all with the form of government demanded by your religion.  No freedom of religion (one must worship a particular god), or speech (calling the holy ghost an ass is unforgivable), no voting rights (no democracy), etc.  Of course, once you are placed in Heaven those restrictions continue for eternity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Such a position is not compatible at all with the form of government demanded by your religion.  No freedom of religion (one must worship a particular god), or speech (calling the holy ghost an ass is unforgivable), no voting rights (no democracy), etc.  Of course, once you are placed in Heaven those restrictions continue for eternity."

 

~ sdelsolray

 

 

Where in scriptures are Christians commanded to construct a theocracy and demand obedience from all? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Such a position is not compatible at all with the form of government demanded by your religion.  No freedom of religion (one must worship a particular god), or speech (calling the holy ghost an ass is unforgivable), no voting rights (no democracy), etc.  Of course, once you are placed in Heaven those restrictions continue for eternity."

 

~ sdelsolray

 

 

Where in scriptures are Christians commanded to construct a theocracy and demand obedience from all? 

 

Your god is the dictator who demands obedience from all, under threats of violence and harm. The Christians are not necessarily commanded to construct a theocracy on Earth and force all non-Christians to serve their god, but they are commanded to live their lives as though they are in such a theocracy, being ordered to obey and trust their dictator at all times, under the threat of Hell. Why you would value democracy in the real world, but be happy about living under a dictatorship within your church makes no sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought the NT writers expected that Jesus would come soon and inaugurate the millennial kingdom or whatever (I know, different takes on what exactly he is supposed to do when). But Christians are not citizens of this world. Their citizenship is in heaven. Etc. So Paul and others seem to be OK with generally accepting the authority of the emperor or whoever has political power. So I thought the NT doesn't particularly authorize any kind of temporal government (though admittedly it has nothing to say about democracy).

 

Dominionist types who want Christians to create a state on the order of the OT, on the other hand, are to be resisted with all available force.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortunately, the 1st amendment guarantees believers freedom of religion & non- believers freedom FROM religion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Such a position is not compatible at all with the form of government demanded by your religion.  No freedom of religion (one must worship a particular god), or speech (calling the holy ghost an ass is unforgivable), no voting rights (no democracy), etc.  Of course, once you are placed in Heaven those restrictions continue for eternity."

 

~ sdelsolray

 

 

Where in scriptures are Christians commanded to construct a theocracy and demand obedience from all? 

 

I didn't say your religion commands Christians to create a theocracy, although some Christian sects promote exactly that and most of the history of the Christian religion shows exactly that...numerous theocracies created and maintained by Christians.  I said your classic liberal position (as you defined) in not compatible with the form of government demanded by your religion.  Learn to read, please.

 

As far as evidence to support my claim, there is plenty, but I choose to parse it out little by little, just to see if you respond to the evidence and related argument.  That way, if you run away, or quote song lyrics, or ask non sequitur questions, I won't waste much time.

 

1)  The first four of the Ten Commandments, if implemented, would violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution.  These are commandments from the God of Abraham.  This is the same God that Christians worship.  Commanding a human to only worship one particular god, to not make any graven images of that god, to not use the name of that god in vain and to set aside a day of worship for that god are restrictions on freedom of religion, free speech and freedom of association.  This contradicts your provided definition of classic liberalism, to which you claim adherance, your definition being, "Classical liberalism is a political ideology that values the freedom of individuals — including the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and markets — as well as limited government."

 

There's much much more...dozens of items.  But again, let's see how you handle this first one.  Put succinctly, how can you claim to be supportive of freedom of religion when your religion demands fealty to one particular god?  Explain how these two positions are not contradictory.  Yes, please explain that.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

tumblr_mqekrwsKsg1rqfhi2o1_400.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

 

"Such a position is not compatible at all with the form of government demanded by your religion.  No freedom of religion (one must worship a particular god), or speech (calling the holy ghost an ass is unforgivable), no voting rights (no democracy), etc.  Of course, once you are placed in Heaven those restrictions continue for eternity."

 

~ sdelsolray

 

 

Where in scriptures are Christians commanded to construct a theocracy and demand obedience from all? 

 

I didn't say your religion commands Christians to create a theocracy, although some Christian sects promote exactly that and most of the history of the Christian religion shows exactly that...numerous theocracies created and maintained by Christians.  I said your classic liberal position (as you defined) in not compatible with the form of government demanded by your religion.  Learn to read, please.

 

As far as evidence to support my claim, there is plenty, but I choose to parse it out little by little, just to see if you respond to the evidence and related argument.  That way, if you run away, or quote song lyrics, or ask non sequitur questions, I won't waste much time.

 

1)  The first four of the Ten Commandments, if implemented, would violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution.  These are commandments from the God of Abraham.  This is the same God that Christians worship.  Commanding a human to only worship one particular god, to not make any graven images of that god, to not use the name of that god in vain and to set aside a day of worship for that god are restrictions on freedom of religion, free speech and freedom of association.  This contradicts your provided definition of classic liberalism, to which you claim adherance, your definition being, "Classical liberalism is a political ideology that values the freedom of individuals — including the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and markets — as well as limited government."

 

There's much much more...dozens of items.  But again, let's see how you handle this first one.  Put succinctly, how can you claim to be supportive of freedom of religion when your religion demands fealty to one particular god?  Explain how these two positions are not contradictory.  Yes, please explain that.

 

 

Note how Ironhorse has run away from responding to this post.  I'm not surprised because he has demonstrated his cowardice numerous times on this forum.  Now, he has started two new threads, one about Halloween and another one making mere assertions and attempting to sell his particular Baptist denomination.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What first must be realized in this subject area is that all of Western Civilization emerged from and has a Christian moral base. And also that Conservatism has been around since the beginnung where as Liberalusm us a fairly recent development, and which in many ways, I think, is simply a reaction to Conservatism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What first must be realized in this subject area is that all of Western Civilization emerged from and has a Christian moral base. And also that Conservatism has been around since the beginnung where as Liberalusm us a fairly recent development, and which in many ways, I think, is simply a reaction to Conservatism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.