Social Issues vs. Economics

Karen

Oh yes I think you forget the religious element in US politics at your peril, and it’s always good to be reminded of it. We used to have a number of the Christian right posters coming here but they seemed to go quiet around the same time the neo-cons did (fading away with the popularity of Bush Jr).

As an atheist I’m often baffled why some people actually turn fictions into religion I mean its like thinking Lord of the Rings is a real history or that Harry Potter exists. I wonder if they will ever grow up and stop believing in Santa Claus and the tooth-fairy.

But you have to wonder why they choose to follow a particular brand of Christianity I mean is it their right wing/conservative views colouring their religion or vis versa? I mean how you view what’s in the bible is all a matter of interpretation, that why for example you can have gay Christians and anti-gay Christians. And that’s why you can have extremely rich believes even though “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”

Anyway I found in may discussions that most of these people were RIGHT WING christians not CHRISTIANS that were right wing.

As I’ve argue before to me the US seems so right leaning because there is nothing there (or very little) pulling it from the left because left wing ideas were mostly purged.

 

LOL and Indie the petulant teenager is back, long time no see but here he is once more in all his glory.

I mean come on man, you know exactly what’s meant but because you have no real argument you throw out what you think in your head is a ‘smart’ reply.

Money buys influence and influence brings power. Money buys lobbyists, it buys airtime, it buys internet trolls, it finances think tanks, newspapers, radio stations, television outlets and so on and so on….

 

Balb:

All I've tried to point out is that we allow money to buy our politicians, both Left, Right, Moderate, Democrat and Republican, and those same politicians use tax money to buy the voters who put them in office. Money is most often spent where it produces the greatest return, and more often than not that is at the source of power, or in other words government. Corporations and the wealthy, like individual voters both poor and middle class usually contribute their money or their votes to the politicians they feel will provide the greatest return to them.

 

Indie

Then why didn’t you say that instead of the smart aleck reply -

That made you come across as a petulant teenager?

Anyway as pointed out - many people believe the problem with the US political system is the great power and influence of wealth. The problem I have with right wingers like yourself is that you seem to want to give wealth even more power and influence, a charge you have not been able to address in any rational or reasonable way let alone refute.

 

Balb:

In answer to your question, no, it only provided a simple test to prove my point.

The problem with the U.S. Federal political system is that it provides a single point from which power can be exercised over both States and the people allowing the influence of wealth to be imposed upon all the governed without their consent or ability to take into account unique differences that require different methods in solving problems which are only similar or even non-existent depending on the State.

 

Most Western religions were created in a time in which they didn't have the alternative of hearing scientific explanations of how things work. Also, stories were handed down mostly by word of mouth, so everything got embellished a little more by each generation, and superstitious, isolated people were quick to believe whatever they were told. I guess they found it comforting. It's hard for me to imagine living in a time like that.

I don't want to lump them together with Eastern religions that are more like philosophies. I find the ones that de-emphasize the supernatural to be more honest and realistic. But human nature being what it is, it didn't take long for followers of Buddha to start attaching god-like powers to his story, once he was dead.

It's tougher for me to understand the more modern inventions like Scientology and Mormonism. At that point in history, people shouldn't have been so gullible. And very few of those newer religions have become large and well-established. The age of the older religions makes them appear more credible, and their roots harder to investigate.

I can only say for certain what I have seen myself. For a typical person in a small Southern town, the social part comes first, then the religious component, then the politics. Church is where they socialize. Your church is an important part of your identity, starting in early childhood. In most cases, you get indoctrinated into the belief system before you are old enough to grasp politics on anything beyond a very basic level.

A lot of Southerners grow up in small towns and move to larger cities, because that's where jobs are. They instantly feel isolated; lost in the crowd. Where do they go to look for new friends for themselves and their children? Church is the easiest option. The more conservative churches tend to be larger, faster growing, and very friendly. They are built on an effective growth model. And they are hotbeds of right-wing political grassroots activity.

In the more liberal churches, you mostly find folks who moved down here from the Northeast, for job reasons, or in search of a warmer climate. Also, you will find a few Southerners who either grew up in a liberal church or discovered liberal theological views in college. All of these groups are small in number.

The dynamics have to be completely different up north, where there are millions of Catholics and Jewish people. Down here, they are statistically irrelevant.

I'm sure there are still plenty of liberal teachers in public schools, so everybody still gets some exposure. Maybe less than when I was there.

One great thing about open-minded, critical thinking is that it only takes meeting one influential person in your life to convince you of its value. Once you have grasped that, nobody can take it away from you. Ten thousand people can pressure you to return to being a blind follower of others, but you will always know better, even though there may be times when you have to pay lip service to playing the game.

 

"I pledge no allegiance to the flag of the Corporate States of America, or
to the Kleptocracy which stole the land, and plunged our nation into debt,
insurmountable, with questionable futures for all."

–Bruce Arnold, 19-Nov-2010

 

I can understand a nation defending itself but how would "the people" in a collective sense know if their government has not crossed the line between self-defence and aggression?

Whose wars would they then be fighting?

 

A difficult question. A line that the USA has seemingly crossed too many times for my stomach to bear.

 

Karen

Or the politics is the belief system that is indoctrinated and that dictates the way the religion is interpreted and what attracts them to the right leaning churches

Urbanisation has been going on for hundreds of years and in many places it led to more radical, progressive and ‘left wing’ politics. In fact early American urbanisation resulted in the rise of unionisation which was mainly an urban event (just as it was in many other places).

But there can be right wing Catholic and Jewish movements for example in Israel the right wing Jewish religious movements dominate.
Again chicken or egg is it the politics or the religion that comes first.

But if you do nothing to counter the ‘blind beliefs’ out of fear of retribution or ignorance the result is the same the dominance of those beliefs.
What I’m saying is that in the US the establishment put in a lot of effort into purging left wing views from US society (witch-hunts, un-American committees, loyalty oaths etc) this was attempted elsewhere but seems to have had a lot more success amongst Americans.
The rise to dominance of neoliberal right wing beliefs in the US is something of a recent event in the 1940-50s labour unions and Keynesian ideas were much powerful.

 

I don't have a link to a study handy, but I know that research shows that most Americans stick with the type of church that their parents took them to in their early years, so they never really made a choice at all. This matches my personal observations.

Is that early belief system more political than religious? More social? Philosophical? I don't know. It's kind of a gray area. Scholars divide up these subjects for study and debate, but there is a lot of overlap in reality, in the brain. Childhood is when we learn 'common sense' and 'obvious truths' and basic things that 'everybody knows', which actually vary quite a bit from one culture to another.

Humans are very social creatures, so the need to conform and get along with others is hard to overstate. Most of us try hard to become acceptable to our peers. We don't want to be isolated and unpopular.

Even for adults, switching to a different kind of church, or none at all, can cause serious problems with your parents and extended family. It's not something that we take lightly.

What you're saying is absolutely true of the corridor from Richmond north to Boston, and from Buffalo west to Chicago. Not so much in the South. Our textile and furniture factories tended to be small, and scattered around to cheap sources of small town labor. Except for the cities of Atlanta and Miami, Southern urbanization took hold in a major way only in the 1970's when we started growing a lot of jobs that required college degrees. Kids from small towns never came back home after college. Those who didn't go off to school stayed home and went to work in the local factory. Now they are moving too, or commuting long distances to service industry jobs in the larger cities.

Unions and liberalism are still weak in the South, because we missed out on the early urbanization trends that you described.

I don't know any more about that (or maybe less) than you do. My direct exposure has been limited. The few Catholics I know who have moved down here seem to have little regard for the Pope's conservative social views. And believe it or not, I have never had a personal conversation with a Jewish person. It wasn't my choice. No opportunity has presented itself.

Ah, separation of church and state! On a personal level, does it ever really happen?

But some of us are in no position to counter anything. When you have to make a living, you deal with whatever situation you find yourself in, and you try not to let those people change you, if they are not on the same page.

Around here, the strongest bastion of liberalism seems to be public education, at least in my lifetime (I wasn't around in the '50's). Conservative parents are putting a lot of pressure on those teachers, through any political means possible. This includes the rise of private schools and home-schooling as significant cultural trends.

 

Karen

I live in one of the most diverse cities in a very diverse country, and I’ve also lived in a number of other countries and visited a lot more.

And the conclusion I’ve come to is that the left more often have the better argument the right usually has more money and money shouts out the calm explanations of its opponents.

Wealth brings power and influence and a lot of that power and influence is used to promote the interests of wealth. And that is the accumulation of more wealth and the protection of what it has from those that might seek to take it away.

Thing is would a person with left wing views choose to go to a right wing church and would a right winger be happy with a leftie pastor?

(Now I’m sure you know about the things that follow but stick with me as I’m trying to think it through)

Many on the left took to heart Marx’s saying that religion was the opiate of the people, meant to keep them from actions against the wealth based establishment through tales of rewards in heaven and the meek inheriting the earth one day.

In many places in Europe rich churches had becoming part of the wealth based governing establishment with each promoting the interests of the other and since wealth dominated politics it basically mean the state and church were joined.

From which position the churches often directed the persecution of its opponents -Catholics against Protestants, Protestants against Catholics - which caused a number of very long and bloody wars. That was one of the reasons why those behind the American and French Revolutions (and there declarations and constitutions) tried to separate church and state and favoured the freedom of religion.

But in many places it remained part of the political wealth based establishment such as in the UK (were the Anglican clergy once had the majority in the second chamber, The House of Lords, and still get 26 seats to this day and where only members of the Anglican church could vote or sit in Parliament up till 1829) and that was where Marx was writing and probably got his view of religion, as a political tool.

In the US there were many competing religions (many of which preached an egalitarian message) and a tacit separation of church and state.

But since the 1960 many religious groups have married themselves to right leaning politics (over such issues as abortion, homosexuality and what they viewed as lax moral standards). Meaning that they (not all but some) have become part of the political wealth based establishment with each promoting the interests of the other.

And since wealth increasingly dominates politics it basically mean the state and church are joining.

What do you think? To me it seems a bit too neat but…

And anyway what if the right moves more toward right wing libertarianism, which doesn’t care about abortion, homosexuality or moral standards (as long as it doesn’t cost them anything in taxes) will the connection weaken I wonder?


I found this that I thought you might find interesting -

http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/02/...gelicalism-book-notes-the-church-enslaved.htm

 

I used to be an agnostic that believed god existed but couldn't prove it. I suppose that I still am - although I believe this:

The universe is impossible without the existence of something that can literally do the impossible; the only thing that can do the impossible is a god.

I think that this sorta belongs in a religious thread, but, well, since it was brought up here...

As per being a blind follower, at some point we are all "blind followers," because, in essence, we are blind. Sure, some of us may believe that we know truth, but all one need do is dig down far enough to discover that we are imperfect beings with tons of flaws.

Being free does not make one sighted, but I can assure individuals that nature does have a path. As paradoxical or contradictory as that statement may sound, it is my profound experience.

 

Maybe. I can think of several female friends and relatives who have never shown any interest in politics. Their theological comments are typically basic, but they have had a lot to say about moral and social topics.

In a political forum, it’s easy to forget that there are still people around who don’t give a shit about the subject, and others who only give half a shit, only around election time, it seems.

Even some big-name hardcore evangelists, such as John MacArthur, completely avoid the general subject of politics.

It’s also easier to make a living as a preacher if you tell people what they want to hear, which is good news about their future. Bad news doesn’t keep the masses coming back for more. Or at least it hasn’t, historically. Fox News is bucking the established pattern.

Wealth and power. I just finished brushing up on the life of King Henry VIII.

Yeah, many of their members had risked death crossing the Atlantic in rickety wooden sailing ships to get away from the European model.

I wouldn’t say 1960. There may have been some early signs of the future trend, but it wasn’t large-scale until Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter (1980). Before that, the de facto leader and role model in this area was evangelist Billy Graham. He didn’t avoid politics and politicians altogether, but Graham was skeptical of a deeper involvement with what he saw as a dirty business. Church leaders avoided hard right politicians like Barry Goldwater and George Wallace like the plague. Some of their members may have been supporters, but the disagreement was not out in the open.

American politics is such a confused mess these days. Every state has its own story. For example, Pennsylvania is the historical home of the Amish and conservative Mennonites, among the most socially conservative religious groups on the planet, but they have always boycotted politics. They don’t even register to vote. How Pennsylvania shifted from left to right without their participation is a total mystery to me. Neighboring Ohio has a similar economy, but has been a swing state for decades. No change there. I don’t get it.

I think the church and the Republican Party are joining. I don’t see it on the Democratic side. The Left is more inclusive than it was 20 years ago.

The post-Reagan Republican Party has always been a stormy marriage. The old money Republican leaders who wanted the Christian right’s vote never intended for them to take over the party, but they are being overwhelmed in numbers. The Tea Party recruits have no respect for the old guard. Witness the tense relationship in the House between John Boehner (mainstream conservative Speaker) and Eric Cantor (Tea Party leader). They can barely agree what day of the week it is.

Right wing libertarians are more likely to get thrown out of the GOP than take over leadership. The old money people have made a mess, and I don’t see any good way out of it for them.

I’m familiar with Tony Campolo, a long-respected liberal Christian author and scholar from Pennsylvania, but I don’t know the other guy.

Interesting point about the racial issue, which I hadn’t brought up. I keep forgetting to mention that black churches in America always vote Democratic. It doesn’t get talked about much because it hasn’t changed in decades, so nobody ever has anything new to say about it.

The thing about this voting block that interests me most is that they are conservative on moral issues, as are the Hispanics, and they are the two fastest growing demographics in the country, especially in the South. Long term, this could leave social libertarians without a home in the old two-party system. Or it could put that system into chaos.

Does that mean that those who make an effort to independently seek the truth are no better off than those who don't? That may be literally true from a Zen or Taoist perspective, but what can anyone do with that information? Give up on everything? I don't see the value of the point.

 

It means have some humility.

 

Grass

I think in political terms it depend how shallow is the ‘blind belief’ and what form it takes. Can the political ideas being presented be defended in any rational and reasonable way?

Your argument is that ‘if we dig down far enough’ but I often feel that some don’t even bother to scratch the surface, they just accept without question.

 

Karen

So if someone believed in tolerance and understanding and believed their god loved everyone no matter of race, creed, colour or sexual orientation, would they be happy with a pastor that preached intolerance and a strict condemnation of gays and those who’d had abortions as sinners that should burn in hell?

Thing is that in my view social tolerance isn’t a right wing or left wing trait it is a tolerance trait– For example in the UK we have openly gay politicians even right wing politicians, and the move to this tolerance wasn’t just a left wing achievement, it was the achievement of people who were tolerant whatever their political persuasion. It wasn’t a move to the left it was a move toward tolerance.

So in a tolerant society what would define the left and right, social issues or economic ones?

 

Intellectualism seems to give me a headache. Not because I don't understand from which point you come, but because there is no way in which to communicate with you unless I am "properly educated." This, of course, inevitably provides no permanent solution since "properly educated" also becomes a matter of opinion and great bias.

You would trade religious towers for ivory ones, I fear, where great wizards would rule rather than great priests!

I do not have a problem with your dissent. I simply fear a problem of which you, yourself, may be unaware.

 

Grass

Can you please explain what you mean by Intellectualism?

Also I’m not sure what you mean by properly in ‘properly educated’ it seems out of place because it is such a subjective term, even ‘educated’ on is own doesn’t seem to fit, I mean are somehow hinting that learning or education is wrong or that changing a view because of education is wrong or that it is useless in you opinion to discuss anything with anyone that doesn’t think exactly the same as you?

Could you please explain your thinking?

I would have neither myself.

Can you explain this problem that you fear?