Why is being religious so closely tied with conservative politics? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Jinn · 10-24-2007, 10:30 AM

IN YOUR OPINION, why is being religious so closely tied with conservative politics?

It is an accepted point by contemporary media that most religious people are conservative, at least anecdotally. As a case in point, the pejorative "religious right" is used often, but you'll never hear of the "religious left." If you accept the point that religious people are more typically conservative, why do you think that is the case?

In my musings on the subject, I've come up with a few reasons, depending on how I come at the issue:

* Conservatives value tradition and the status quo over radical change; this is also valued by churches and their congregations, because religion is very based in tradition.

* Dramatic differences between peoples and societies are scary to religious and conservative persons alike, and both religious organizations and conservative organizations promote homogeny in their ranks.

* Conversative politicians (by happenstance) support positions also supported by strongly religious people, issues like gay marriage and abortion.

* There isn't actually a difference in the number of religious members in both parties, but religious conservatives are more vocal than religious liberals.

* Liberalism is seen by religious individuals and conservative individuals as a scourge on society, and so both groups naturally avoid groups associated with liberals.

* Religious texts and Conservative groups both promote strong loyalty and dedication, and their shared interest in a defined heirarchy and devout loyalty bond them.

So what do you think it is? A reminder that this is IN YOUR OPINION, as it'd be nearly impossible to provide an accurate, unbiased, and representative sample of political or religious motivations.

Ustwo · 10-24-2007, 11:03 AM

Ah now this is an excellent type of question for tfp politics instead of the usual cut and paste and I appreciate the effort.

I don't have time for all of the reasons, but I think much of it is perception more than reality. You don't hear that the democrats are a Jewish party, even though Jews vote far more consistently for democrats than Christians do republicans. I'll also add that as far as I know there are no openly atheist members of congress or the senate and I doubt there have been more than one or two in all of the nations history. I'm not saying that there are none, I'm saying no one would admit it due to it being political suicide, Liberal or Conservative.

Further, someone google Al Gores concession speech after the election and note how many times he uses God in it. At the time I remember it felt like every 4th line.

But what I think we deal with as conservatives is a almost purposeful stigmata (pun intended). After the 2004 election it was all about the evangelical Christians, and 'moral issues' became the buzzword of the day for Bush's re-election by a liberal press stunned that people were still voting for Bush.

Its being used by the enemies of conservatism as a rally cry, a way to make it more of an 'Us vrs Them', or more accurately 'Intelligent people vrs Fundies' as they see it.

That being said, Conservatives do need the religious voters to survive, much like the democrats need their own wacky radical leftists. Democrats need to keep their radicals at least marginally happy so they don't get another Nader, and Conservatives need to keep their religious nut balls happy so they don't get a similar treatment.

Just like the average liberal voter isn't part of the radical left, the average conservative voter isn't borderline Amish and will tend to be the C and E Christian majority of the nation.

roachboy · 10-24-2007, 11:17 AM

very interesting.

i have to do this fast...
obviously, we are talking here about claims regarding "religious people" and not the diversity of beliefs and their political correlates out there in the actual world.
american conservatism tied itself to the political fortunes of the rightwing protestant evangelical movement over the past 20 years or so, with particular emphasis on it since the middle 1990s. one of the quriks of this particular movement is that they like to talk about themselves as if they and they alone WERE christianity, so the political reflection of that turns up in conservative discourse. another quirk is that alot of these churches remain curiously anti-catholic--even though the direction taken by rome under teh last 2 popes has engendered a fairly hard jerk to the right for official catholicism---the us catholic church is a curious, split thing, tho, so i suspect that you have a complicated mapping project trying to work out where that population might stand on anything, really--rome is not a particularly powerful force in shaping the attitudes of the population. anyway, this drift right may be another reason for conservative ideological use of the term "christian"--even though tactically, it seems to refer mostly to the bizarre worldviews of evangelical protestants...

two other quick points:

on this one

Quote:

* Conservatives value tradition and the status quo over radical change; this is also valued by churches and their congregations, because religion is very based in tradition.

american conservatism these days is a strange mixture of old-school conservatism (which the quote describes) and freemarketeers, who have to endorse "creative destruction" even as they hope it doesnt effect them in their gated communities (real or imagine, it doesnt matter so much)...so there is a curious question about how conservative in the older sense the capitalism-uber-alles squad within the conservative coalition (or what's left of it) really is.

this one

Quote:

* Liberalism is seen by religious individuals and conservative individuals as a scourge on society, and so both groups naturally avoid groups associated with liberals.

is way too simplistic.
think about methodism, for example.
think about the fact that the same catholic church in principle accomodated (at one time) opus dei and liberation theology.
think about the split within christianity over how much weight to give the doctrine jesus espoused concerning the dignity of the poor.
(and maybe ask yourself from there just how christian conservative christians really are politically...which would depend on how you interpret this doctrine, how important you think it is to christianity as a whole...)

gotta go.
interesting thread, though.

Rekna · 10-24-2007, 11:19 AM

I can't tell you why they are, it definitely isn't because this:

Quote:

I was hungry and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink. I was alone and away from home, and you invited me into your home. I was without clothes, and you gave me something to wear. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you came to visit me.

Ustwo · 10-24-2007, 11:28 AM

[QUOTE=Rekna]I can't tell you why they are, it definitely isn't because this:

Quote:

I was hungry and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink. I was alone and away from home, and you invited me into your home. I was without clothes, and you gave me something to wear. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you came to visit me.
[\quote]

....and I was lazy and you kept giving me free stuff from other peoples money so I would vote for you.

Seriously try harder.

host · 10-24-2007, 11:35 AM

[QUOTE=Ustwo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I can't tell you why they are, it definitely isn't because this:

....and I was lazy and you kept giving me free stuff from other peoples money so I would vote for you.

Seriously try harder.

Where do you get that upside down cyniscism and resentment.....certainly not out in the "real" world ?

Quote:

.....Bush said he decided to "respect" the jury's verdict that Libby was guilty of four felonies for lying about his role in the leak of a covert CIA officer's identity. But the president said Libby's "exceptional public service" and prior lack of a criminal record led him to conclude that the 30-month sentence handed down by a judge last month was "excessive."........

Quote:

......For instance, the documentary evidence is now clear that in summer 2001 – at the same time Bush’s National Security Council was ignoring warnings about an impending al-Qaeda terrorist attack – NSC adviser Condoleezza Rice was personally overseeing a government-wide task force to pressure India to give Enron as much as $2.3 billion.

Then, even after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when India’s cooperation in the “war on terror” was crucial, the Bush administration kept up its full-court press to get India to pay Enron for a white-elephant power plant that the company had built in Dabhol, India.

The pressure on India went up the chain of command to Vice President Dick Cheney, who personally pushed Enron’s case, and to Bush himself, who planned to lodge a complaint with India’s prime minister. Post-9/11, one senior U.S. bureaucrat warned India that failure to give in to Enron's demands would put into doubt the future functioning of American agencies in India.

The NSC-led Dabhol campaign didn’t end until Nov. 8, 2001, when the Securities and Exchange Commission raided Enron’s offices – and protection of Lay’s interests stopped being politically tenable. That afternoon, Bush was sent an e-mail advising him not to raise his planned Dabhol protest with India’s prime minister who was visiting Washington. [For details on the Dabhol case, see below.]

Contrary to the official story, the Bush administration did almost whatever it could to help Enron as the company desperately sought cash to cover mounting losses from its off-the-books partnerships, a bookkeeping black hole that was sucking Enron toward bankruptcy and scandal.

As Enron’s crisis worsened through the first nine months of Bush’s presidency, Lay secured Bush’s help in three key ways:

--Bush personally joined the fight against imposing caps on the soaring price of electricity in California at a time when Enron was artificially driving up the price of electricity by manipulating supply. Bush’s resistance to price caps bought Enron extra time to gouge hundreds of millions of dollars from California’s consumers.

--Bush granted Lay broad influence over the development of the administration’s energy policies, including the choice of key regulators to oversee Enron’s businesses. The chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was replaced in 2001 after he began to delve into Enron’s complex derivative-financing schemes.

--Bush had his NSC staff organize that administration-wide task force to pressure India to accommodate Enron’s interests in selling the Dabhol generating plant for as much as $2.3 billion.

Bankruptcy

As Enron’s corporate house of cards collapsed anyway in fall 2001, the toll was devastating. Investors lost tens of billions of dollars; some retirees were financially wiped out; 5,000 Enron employees were laid off. Enron’s accounting tricks also discredited its accounting firm, Arthur Andersen LLP, which was soon closed by government regulators.

But Bush was fortunate that the Enron scandal broke while he was still wrapped in the glow of favorable poll ratings that followed the 9/11 attacks. The Washington news media generally acquiesced to Bush’s insistence that he really wasn’t that close to Enron or Lay, though Lay had earned a Bush nickname: “Kenny Boy.”

The facts, however, suggest a political intimacy between Bush and Enron, especially with the now convicted swindler Ken Lay, dating back at least to Bush's first campaign for Texas governor in 1994.

By the 2000 presidential campaign, Lay was a Pioneer for Bush, raising $100,000. Enron also gave the Republicans $250,000 for the convention in Philadelphia and contributed $1.1 million in soft money to the Republican Party. Not only was Lay a top fund-raiser for the campaign, but he helped out during the recount battle in Florida in November 2000.

Lay and his wife donated $10,000 to Bush’s Florida recount fund that helped pay for Republican lawyers and other expenses. Lay even let Bush operatives use Enron’s corporate jet to fly in reinforcements. After Bush secured his victory, another $300,000 poured in from Enron circles – including $100,000 from Lay and $100,000 from Skilling – for the Bush-Cheney Inaugural Fund......

Ustwo · 10-24-2007, 11:59 AM

host, you didn't read the op did you.

I don't read your cut and paste anymore, I haven't since the first few times we tore them apart and you just kept plodding on. Please give your opinion in your own words when/if you want me to reply.

ratbastid · 10-24-2007, 12:20 PM

Conservatism--at least, the flavor that currently sets up camp under that name--shares one feature with religion: cultural control. Religion is the most fiendish tool for the domination and control of the populace ever devised by mankind. As such, it's a fearsome tool for those who have those agendas inside the government domain.

tecoyah · 10-24-2007, 12:29 PM

Often...when one looks to hide something they are not proud of, they might create a mask to deflect attention away from peering eyes. By taking Christianity as a cloak, many will simply ignore minor indiscretion because of the inherent good projected by Christian affiliation.

JohnBua · 10-24-2007, 12:45 PM

I don't know. Obama just said he was an instrument of god and no one blinked. Had Bush said it, the internet would explode.

Rekna · 10-24-2007, 01:02 PM

[QUOTE=Ustwo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I can't tell you why they are, it definitely isn't because this:

....and I was lazy and you kept giving me free stuff from other peoples money so I would vote for you.

Seriously try harder.

I am serious here. Bush just vetoed children's health care. This is something that Jesus would be appalled at. I believe Jesus would be saddened at the current state of the "religious party". This party does not give to the poor and feed the hungry. This party does not give away their money as Jesus taught (eye of the needle). This party does not love their neighbor as themselves (All of the commandments are summed up by this). He would be sorely disappointed in the way we hate on homosexuals instead of love on them (though he would also be disappointed by the homosexuals, look at what he said to the Samaritan woman at the well). The only major issue he would agree with the Republican party on is abortion.

(The above is my view of what I have learned from the bible, I am a non-denominational Christian).

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBua

I don't know. Obama just said he was an instrument of god and no one blinked. Had Bush said it, the internet would explode.

I don't think they would. There is a difference to claiming that you believe God is using you for a higher purpose and that you are God's chosen messenger who speaks for him.

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-24-2007, 01:06 PM

Bush did not veto giving health care to children, Bush vetoed a 35 billion dollar increase in funding to the program. Big difference.

Rekna · 10-24-2007, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Bush did not veto giving health care to children, Bush vetoed a 35 billion dollar increase in funding to the program. Big difference.

And Jesus would say give a lot more than 35 billion.... he would say give it all away to others.

dc_dux · 10-24-2007, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Bush did not veto giving health care to children, Bush vetoed a 35 billion dollar increase in funding to the program. Big difference.

In his acceptance speech at the 04 Republican Convention, Bush said:

Quote:

America's children must also have a healthy start in life. In a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor children who are eligible but not signed up for the government's health insurance programs. We will not allow a lack of attention, or information, to stand between these children and the health care they need.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040902-2.html

His $5 billion version of the SCHIP bill results in nearly 1 million fewer children being covered.

Jesus wouldnt flip flop like that

Jinn · 10-24-2007, 01:52 PM

Jesus was the first communist, though. Give everything you have to other people, blah blah blah. Conservatives hate communists, don't you know this?

Ya'll have kinda threadjacked it with the child-care bit.

Elphaba · 10-24-2007, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Conservatism--at least, the flavor that currently sets up camp under that name--shares one feature with religion: cultural control. Religion is the most fiendish tool for the domination and control of the populace ever devised by mankind. As such, it's a fearsome tool for those who have those agendas inside the government domain.

Once again, ratbastid speaks the thruth. A recent research publication also suggests that the conservative response to various stimuli may be hard wired in the brain.

liberal-conservative-brain-differences/

Quote:

Some provocative research covered by the Chicago Tribune has proposed that the brains of liberals and conservatives work differently. David Amodio, the primary investigator, found that the anterior cingulate cortex for liberals performs differently, allowing them to think more flexibly.

The work grew out of decades of previous research suggesting that political orientation is linked to certain personality traits or styles of thinking. A review of that research published in 2003 found that conservatives tend to be more rigid and closed-minded, less tolerant of ambiguity and less open to new experiences.

It could be argued that the very rigid thinking of some evangelicals would have a similar brain response as some conservates. I suspect this would be more likely of the extremes of both groups.

There is other research that indicates that fundamentalists and those with extreme conservative political beliefs require a strong father figure with a clearly defined set of beliefs to follow. Internal and external sources of anxiety or chaos are brought under some control by the powerful daddy.

Obviously, the researchers are wacky liberals.

pan6467 · 10-24-2007, 08:47 PM

I believe that the conservative nature is the answer. I covered this in another thread.

In the 60's and 70's the Dems. became the party of anti-war, feminism, gun control, equal rights, "liberalism" in general. They wanted a freer more open society and government and took somewhat radical stances.

The conservative church goers were more apt to be the conservative, middle class, who gained under Eisenhower and while they may have agreed with a few of the stances (such as the Vietnam War), they disagreed with the majority of the views and especially the radicalism. They wanted a status quo, if change were to come they wanted it slowly and not governmentally ordered.

Now, there were also a group of "reverends" that had followings and power through the religion. (Remember one of the most very basic tenets in religion is to preach fear of change and that only your beliefs (as told to you by your church leaders) is the only truth. Organized religion is, IMHO, used as a way to control the masses.

So through Falwell, Robertson and some others, they formed the "Moral Majority" just as the GOP was weak and lost as to what to do. It was the 70's and Watergate after all. The party was in shambles and lost it's momentum. The Moral Majority got the GOP to be viable again.The "Moral Majority" was based on religion but also welcomed the NRA (the Dems wanted to take guns from hard working Christian men), they welcomed those men and women, who thought women's rights would negatively affect the standards they had been brought up by (it was not Christian to have the woman go out and leave the children and work), they welcomed the pro-lifers, they used the Dems embrace of Equal Rights as that of the party that welcomed the Black Panthers, the GOP welcomed the isolationists who saw trade as slicing our own throats...... and so on and so on.

Each step welcoming the people into the party and as the leaders became more Christian in views the party's platform became far more "Christian".

All the while the Dems. were trying to find their identity, they weren't the "radicals" the press and GOP and Moral Majority portrayed them, but it did work to get the fringes who liked the Dem platform but were opposed to 1 or 2 issues they felt morally against (Abortion, Gun Control, etc).

That's why today there isn't much of a difference in party platforms. However, in order to show difference, the radicals and extremists of each party have taken control and squeezed the middle, centrists, moderates, whatever you wish to call them, out. This I believe is why so many are so distrusting and the polls ratings for both parties, congress and the president are so low.

loquitur · 10-25-2007, 05:26 AM

I'm not positive that as a factual matter the premise of the OP is correct, nor that many of the people who posted and accept the OP's premise are correct.

Religion per se is neither necessarily conservative nor necessarily liberal. For example, back in the 1970s and 80s there were plenty of left-wing pastors talking about how Jesus was a revoutionary and that his heir was Daniel Ortega. There are plenty of religious Jews (like Michael Lerner) who fulminate against Bush very loudly. William Sloane Coffin was a major antiwar leader. The civil rights movement was heavily led by black churches. I could go on with examples.

To some extent, I think people are extrapolating from today's set of facts by looking at a subset of religious actors and a subset of people calling themselves conservatives. The Dobsons and Robertsons of the world certainly have a substantial constituency and they also have (in my view lamentably) outsized influence in certain parts of the Republican party. But it's a mistake to equate conservative thought with religion, and it's a mistake to overlook either the diversity of views among religious people or the diverse kinds of conservatism - laissez faire capitalist types are different from holy rollers who are different from libertarians who are different from national greatness types who are different from .......... well, you get the idea. On the Democratic side, try to figure out the points of agreement among, say, blue-collar industrial union members and transnationalist environmentalists, and you'll see the tensions right away. Why should the other side of the aisle be any different?

It's true that there are a number of points of overlap between religious views and certain aspects of certain types of conservatism, most notably an emphasis on the value of traditions (or, to use the less charitable way of phrasing it, reliance on authority and hierarchy). But that gets you only so far.

I'd also suggest that people refrain from attributing political views to mental defects. What you consider a defect depends on your point of view. "Suspicion of harebrained schemes that haven't been tested" is how righties would describe their view of lefty proposals, whereas lefties would describe righties as "fearful and intolerant of change." Neither description is fully accurate, but both have kernels of truth. These things cut both ways.

I'm not particularly pleased that political views appear to be the ingredients of the latest tribalism, but that seems to be what the emerging pattern is. It's certainly better than race, but that doesn't make it good.

filtherton · 10-25-2007, 05:39 AM

Well said loquitur. Myself, growing up in the bastion of liberalism that is minneapolis, well, there are plenty of churches in this city, and plenty of religious folk and we've not had a republican mayor since 1973.

I think that if there is any reason why conservatives are associated with religion it is that the republican party has made religious branding an essential part of its marketing. It's similar to how military competence, at least prior to the iraq war, used to be synonymous with the conservative perspective. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the way things actually are, it's just a useful angle for appealing to a particular subset of eligible voters.

10-24-2007, 10:30 AM	#1 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	Why is being religious so closely tied with conservative politics? IN YOUR OPINION, why is being religious so closely tied with conservative politics? It is an accepted point by contemporary media that most religious people are conservative, at least anecdotally. As a case in point, the pejorative "religious right" is used often, but you'll never hear of the "religious left." If you accept the point that religious people are more typically conservative, why do you think that is the case? In my musings on the subject, I've come up with a few reasons, depending on how I come at the issue: * Conservatives value tradition and the status quo over radical change; this is also valued by churches and their congregations, because religion is very based in tradition. * Dramatic differences between peoples and societies are scary to religious and conservative persons alike, and both religious organizations and conservative organizations promote homogeny in their ranks. * Conversative politicians (by happenstance) support positions also supported by strongly religious people, issues like gay marriage and abortion. * There isn't actually a difference in the number of religious members in both parties, but religious conservatives are more vocal than religious liberals. * Liberalism is seen by religious individuals and conservative individuals as a scourge on society, and so both groups naturally avoid groups associated with liberals. * Religious texts and Conservative groups both promote strong loyalty and dedication, and their shared interest in a defined heirarchy and devout loyalty bond them. So what do you think it is? A reminder that this is IN YOUR OPINION, as it'd be nearly impossible to provide an accurate, unbiased, and representative sample of political or religious motivations. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

10-24-2007, 11:03 AM	#2 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Ah now this is an excellent type of question for tfp politics instead of the usual cut and paste and I appreciate the effort. I don't have time for all of the reasons, but I think much of it is perception more than reality. You don't hear that the democrats are a Jewish party, even though Jews vote far more consistently for democrats than Christians do republicans. I'll also add that as far as I know there are no openly atheist members of congress or the senate and I doubt there have been more than one or two in all of the nations history. I'm not saying that there are none, I'm saying no one would admit it due to it being political suicide, Liberal or Conservative. Further, someone google Al Gores concession speech after the election and note how many times he uses God in it. At the time I remember it felt like every 4th line. But what I think we deal with as conservatives is a almost purposeful stigmata (pun intended). After the 2004 election it was all about the evangelical Christians, and 'moral issues' became the buzzword of the day for Bush's re-election by a liberal press stunned that people were still voting for Bush. Its being used by the enemies of conservatism as a rally cry, a way to make it more of an 'Us vrs Them', or more accurately 'Intelligent people vrs Fundies' as they see it. That being said, Conservatives do need the religious voters to survive, much like the democrats need their own wacky radical leftists. Democrats need to keep their radicals at least marginally happy so they don't get another Nader, and Conservatives need to keep their religious nut balls happy so they don't get a similar treatment. Just like the average liberal voter isn't part of the radical left, the average conservative voter isn't borderline Amish and will tend to be the C and E Christian majority of the nation. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-24-2007, 11:59 AM	#7 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	host, you didn't read the op did you. I don't read your cut and paste anymore, I haven't since the first few times we tore them apart and you just kept plodding on. Please give your opinion in your own words when/if you want me to reply. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-24-2007, 12:29 PM	#9 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Often...when one looks to hide something they are not proud of, they might create a mask to deflect attention away from peering eyes. By taking Christianity as a cloak, many will simply ignore minor indiscretion because of the inherent good projected by Christian affiliation. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

10-24-2007, 01:06 PM	#12 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Bush did not veto giving health care to children, Bush vetoed a 35 billion dollar increase in funding to the program. Big difference. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

10-24-2007, 12:20 PM	#8 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Conservatism--at least, the flavor that currently sets up camp under that name--shares one feature with religion: cultural control. Religion is the most fiendish tool for the domination and control of the populace ever devised by mankind. As such, it's a fearsome tool for those who have those agendas inside the government domain.

10-24-2007, 12:45 PM	#10 (permalink)
JohnBua Banned	I don't know. Obama just said he was an instrument of god and no one blinked. Had Bush said it, the internet would explode.

10-24-2007, 01:52 PM	#15 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	Jesus was the first communist, though. Give everything you have to other people, blah blah blah. Conservatives hate communists, don't you know this? Ya'll have kinda threadjacked it with the child-care bit. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

10-24-2007, 08:47 PM	#17 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I believe that the conservative nature is the answer. I covered this in another thread. In the 60's and 70's the Dems. became the party of anti-war, feminism, gun control, equal rights, "liberalism" in general. They wanted a freer more open society and government and took somewhat radical stances. The conservative church goers were more apt to be the conservative, middle class, who gained under Eisenhower and while they may have agreed with a few of the stances (such as the Vietnam War), they disagreed with the majority of the views and especially the radicalism. They wanted a status quo, if change were to come they wanted it slowly and not governmentally ordered. Now, there were also a group of "reverends" that had followings and power through the religion. (Remember one of the most very basic tenets in religion is to preach fear of change and that only your beliefs (as told to you by your church leaders) is the only truth. Organized religion is, IMHO, used as a way to control the masses. So through Falwell, Robertson and some others, they formed the "Moral Majority" just as the GOP was weak and lost as to what to do. It was the 70's and Watergate after all. The party was in shambles and lost it's momentum. The Moral Majority got the GOP to be viable again.The "Moral Majority" was based on religion but also welcomed the NRA (the Dems wanted to take guns from hard working Christian men), they welcomed those men and women, who thought women's rights would negatively affect the standards they had been brought up by (it was not Christian to have the woman go out and leave the children and work), they welcomed the pro-lifers, they used the Dems embrace of Equal Rights as that of the party that welcomed the Black Panthers, the GOP welcomed the isolationists who saw trade as slicing our own throats...... and so on and so on. Each step welcoming the people into the party and as the leaders became more Christian in views the party's platform became far more "Christian". All the while the Dems. were trying to find their identity, they weren't the "radicals" the press and GOP and Moral Majority portrayed them, but it did work to get the fringes who liked the Dem platform but were opposed to 1 or 2 issues they felt morally against (Abortion, Gun Control, etc). That's why today there isn't much of a difference in party platforms. However, in order to show difference, the radicals and extremists of each party have taken control and squeezed the middle, centrists, moderates, whatever you wish to call them, out. This I believe is why so many are so distrusting and the polls ratings for both parties, congress and the president are so low. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

10-25-2007, 05:26 AM	#18 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I'm not positive that as a factual matter the premise of the OP is correct, nor that many of the people who posted and accept the OP's premise are correct. Religion per se is neither necessarily conservative nor necessarily liberal. For example, back in the 1970s and 80s there were plenty of left-wing pastors talking about how Jesus was a revoutionary and that his heir was Daniel Ortega. There are plenty of religious Jews (like Michael Lerner) who fulminate against Bush very loudly. William Sloane Coffin was a major antiwar leader. The civil rights movement was heavily led by black churches. I could go on with examples. To some extent, I think people are extrapolating from today's set of facts by looking at a subset of religious actors and a subset of people calling themselves conservatives. The Dobsons and Robertsons of the world certainly have a substantial constituency and they also have (in my view lamentably) outsized influence in certain parts of the Republican party. But it's a mistake to equate conservative thought with religion, and it's a mistake to overlook either the diversity of views among religious people or the diverse kinds of conservatism - laissez faire capitalist types are different from holy rollers who are different from libertarians who are different from national greatness types who are different from .......... well, you get the idea. On the Democratic side, try to figure out the points of agreement among, say, blue-collar industrial union members and transnationalist environmentalists, and you'll see the tensions right away. Why should the other side of the aisle be any different? It's true that there are a number of points of overlap between religious views and certain aspects of certain types of conservatism, most notably an emphasis on the value of traditions (or, to use the less charitable way of phrasing it, reliance on authority and hierarchy). But that gets you only so far. I'd also suggest that people refrain from attributing political views to mental defects. What you consider a defect depends on your point of view. "Suspicion of harebrained schemes that haven't been tested" is how righties would describe their view of lefty proposals, whereas lefties would describe righties as "fearful and intolerant of change." Neither description is fully accurate, but both have kernels of truth. These things cut both ways. I'm not particularly pleased that political views appear to be the ingredients of the latest tribalism, but that seems to be what the emerging pattern is. It's certainly better than race, but that doesn't make it good.

10-25-2007, 05:39 AM	#19 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Well said loquitur. Myself, growing up in the bastion of liberalism that is minneapolis, well, there are plenty of churches in this city, and plenty of religious folk and we've not had a republican mayor since 1973. I think that if there is any reason why conservatives are associated with religion it is that the republican party has made religious branding an essential part of its marketing. It's similar to how military competence, at least prior to the iraq war, used to be synonymous with the conservative perspective. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the way things actually are, it's just a useful angle for appealing to a particular subset of eligible voters.