• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why is the right wing more religious?

sooda

Veteran Member
You're assuming too much -- my conversations with liberals on any platform indicate that there is very little understanding on that side. If it's there, it's rare... There are a few -- Bill Maher, Tim Pool, etc... It's really damn rare... :D

The most common area of fault though on the liberal side are conflating the conviction of the oppositions view with religious beliefs. Most conservatives compartmentalize those things -- e.g. understand their faith, social view, and economic positions may necessarily be at odds to some degree and aim to resolve them. Liberals are more likely to abandon tradition for some sort of virtue points that appease their egos -- while simultaneously actually doing nothing. :D Mind you, I'm a right-leaning Libertarian by modern understandings... I've dealt with both sides -- they both want more government for "reasons", and I want way less... My political position has always been -- "I don't need a new daddy to tell me what to do when I've grown up." Both angles in popular politics are adverse to that notion, so I've ceded that I'll never be satisfied either way... lol

How can you say MOST conservative compartmentalize things??? That is absurd.
 

dfnj

Well-Known Member
My political position has always been -- "I don't need a new daddy to tell me what to do when I've grown up."

People on the left are not looking for "a new daddy". Why do you get to define what it means to be a liberal Democrat? This would be like me saying conservative right wingers are just looking for a God-like strong bully leader they can worship in authority because they are incapable of thinking for themselves.
 

dfnj

Well-Known Member
How can you say MOST conservative compartmentalize things??? That is absurd.

Most conservatives I meet think their own opinions are "facts" while other people's opinions are "wrong", "lies", or "falsehoods". Just because someone has a different opinion than you do does not make it immediately "wrong." It think conservatives are like born-again Christians in the sense that the more people who share their dogma the more they are convinced their dogma is not delusion.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Most conservatives I meet think their own opinions are "facts" while other people's opinions are "wrong", "lies", or "falsehoods". Just because someone has a different opinion than you do does not make it immediately "wrong." It think conservatives are like born-again Christians in the sense that the more people who share their dogma the more they are convinced their dogma is not delusion.

It was an idiotic statement.
 

dfnj

Well-Known Member
It was an idiotic statement.

Which one? Modern day propaganda is very sophisticated in that it makes the person think the views they have about politics and religion are them thinking for themselves. But in actuality, their views are programmed according to very well known techniques:


Think of this way. Just take one election, say the 2020 presidential election, and vote Democrat if you are a Republican. And vote Republican if you are Democrat. If the very idea of voting for the party you don't normally vote for makes you physically ill, then there's a good chance you've been programmed by propaganda.
 

Mindmaster

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
How can you say MOST conservative compartmentalize things??? That is absurd.

They certainly do.. beyond that talking of the right in terms of the most extreme of it's proponents is absurdity... Most conservatives are "right-center" or "middle-right" and not the "religious right", but everyone here seems to be frustrated with the smallest percentage of right in total. (The religious right...) The "alt-right" is a media fiction created by the liberal media, so I'm not even discussing that.

When I say "compartmentalize" I mean that conservatives are willing to work with all of those others, even though they agree on little -- they're willing to work for the small bits that they do. (This is the cause of the weird LGBT stance position, with most of the right being completely fine with it/supportive, and a small vocal minority rejecting it.) Surprisingly, they're even willing to work with Democrats most of the time of the issues they agree with. This is a vastly different perspective than I've witnessed with most liberals in modern times -- you either swallow what they're shoveling whole or they're throwing you under the bus or embracing enmity. Even with that said, I don't think progressives represent the majority of Democrats in their beliefs either -- though the progressives are currently working to force out the middle-left and the center-left in the party. It's more of a wait and see on that one...

Certainly, either party has a capacity for partisan antics, but I'm not talking that so much as the voter base and individuals.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Which one? Modern day propaganda is very sophisticated in that it makes the person think the views they have about politics and religion are them thinking for themselves. But in actuality, their views are programmed according to very well known techniques:


Think of this way. Just take one election, say the 2020 presidential election, and vote Democrat if you are a Republican. And vote Republican if you are Democrat. If the very idea of voting for the party you don't normally vote for makes you physically ill, then there's a good chance you've been programmed by propaganda.
Or you just don't hate yourself enough to vote for a party that hates you, along with hating science. I vote Democratic because they're less insane than the Republicans, although both are garbage.
 

Mindmaster

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
People on the left are not looking for "a new daddy". Why do you get to define what it means to be a liberal Democrat? This would be like me saying conservative right wingers are just looking for a God-like strong bully leader they can worship in authority because they are incapable of thinking for themselves.


From my position, yes they are...

They want daddy to give them:

1) Money
2) Healthcare
3) Keep them safe by taking away all the guns
4) Tax everything to pay for "the madness"
5) Keep the "environment" clean (Isn't it your job to clean up your mess?)
6) Indoctrinate their children in morals and thought in school

(in fairness, 6 applies to the religious right as well, but it's unanimous on the left, especially on issues of LGBT, Abortion, and etc... On the right, there are a lot of people who just want a secular education that doesn't include these topics -- they feel the parents should handle them.)

etc...

This is the exactly the capacity a "daddy" serves in your pre-Adult life. When I grew up I expected to be self-sufficient and provide all of these things to myself and my family, and I still don't want or need anyone to do them for me as they will not do them better from my perspective.
 

Mindmaster

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Or you just don't hate yourself enough to vote for a party that hates you, along with hating science. I vote Democratic because they're less insane than the Republicans, although both are garbage.

I vote per-candidate not per-party. Neither vote for the religious right whackos or the extremely progressive lunatics.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
They certainly do.. beyond that talking of the right in terms of the most extreme of it's proponents is absurdity... Most conservatives are "right-center" or "middle-right" and not the "religious right", but everyone here seems to be frustrated with the smallest percentage of right in total. (The religious right...) The "alt-right" is a media fiction created by the liberal media, so I'm not even discussing that.

When I say "compartmentalize" I mean that conservatives are willing to work with all of those others, even though they agree on little -- they're willing to work for the small bits that they do. (This is the cause of the weird LGBT stance position, with most of the right being completely fine with it/supportive, and a small vocal minority rejecting it.) Surprisingly, they're even willing to work with Democrats most of the time of the issues they agree with. This is a vastly different perspective than I've witnessed with most liberals in modern times -- you either swallow what they're shoveling whole or they're throwing you under the bus or embracing enmity. Even with that said, I don't think progressives represent the majority of Democrats in their beliefs either -- though the progressives are currently working to force out the middle-left and the center-left in the party. It's more of a wait and see on that one...

Certainly, either party has a capacity for partisan antics, but I'm not talking that so much as the voter base and individuals.

I was a republican for 35 years until we invaded Iraq. Don't pee on my leg and tell me its raining.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
From my position, yes they are...

They want daddy to give them:

1) Money
2) Healthcare
3) Keep them safe by taking away all the guns
4) Tax everything to pay for "the madness"
5) Keep the "environment" clean (Isn't it your job to clean up your mess?)
6) Indoctrinate their children in morals and thought in school

(in fairness, 6 applies to the religious right as well, but it's unanimous on the left, especially on issues of LGBT, Abortion, and etc... On the right, there are a lot of people who just want a secular education that doesn't include these topics -- they feel the parents should handle them.)

etc...

This is the exactly the capacity a "daddy" serves in your pre-Adult life. When I grew up I expected to be self-sufficient and provide all of these things to myself and my family, and I still don't want or need anyone to do them for me as they will not do them better from my perspective.

How are Trump's efforts to gut the EPA coming along?
 

Hop David

Member
I am Catholic and regard myself as fairly liberal. Our parish in Ajo has provided a venue for Ajo Samaritans, folks who leave food and water caches to the desert. Carol Johnson is prominent in our parish. She owns the barn that Scott Warren was arrested at.

Often effective proponents for social justice has worked through religion. Martin Luther King was a Baptist minister.

Another popular myth is that religious people are anti-science. A cartoon I've drawn:

WOGdWAY.jpg


Protecting the club house are celebrity "scientists" who haven't done much.

On the bottom left to right: Max Planck, James Clerk Maxwell, Arthur Eddington, Georges Lemaître, Kurt Gödel and Isaac Newton. The folks on the bottom were Christians.

By demonizing believers the new atheists have alienated potential allies. Many believers have come to perceive science as hostile. How many potential Newtons or Plancks has Tyson, Krauss, Dawkins et al run off from the science club house?

I believe the new atheists are doing a grave disservice to social justice and scientific progress.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
It's interesting that monotheistic religions which preach left wing things like "loving thy neighbour" and the sanctity of life seem to find their home in right wing politics... could it be that life is only sacred until you don't agree with their choices.... surely not....

EDIT: This is an unfair generalisation, thanks for pointing that out. I now mean this only to apply to conservatism - of course it's possible to be a leftie religious person and I'm glad of it, we need more of that sort of thing.

Both right wing politics and the Bible/Christian Deity were chronicled/philosophized in such a way as to leave them prone to manipulation by authoritarian figures. So you find both of those two things coalescing in politics. Not that there aren't left leaning authoritarians, as there are.
 

Hop David

Member
Both right wing politics and the Bible/Christian Deity were chronicled/philosophized in such a way as to leave them prone to manipulation by authoritarian figures.

I guess that's why the Christian west led the world in the transition from monarchies to republics with checks and balances to prevent concentration of power.


So you find both of those two things coalescing in politics. Not that there aren't left leaning authoritarians, as there are.

The terms "left" and "right" mean different things to different people. I'll note that some of the most odious oligarchies existing today are atheist states.
AtheistStateNorthKorea.jpg
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I am Catholic and regard myself as fairly liberal.
Ditto, but my guess is that I'm probably even further to the left than you as I'm on the lunatic left-wing fringe. :emojconfused:

Another popular myth is that religious people are anti-science.
Fundamentalist Protestants and JW's tend to be more anti-science, but mainstream Protestants, Catholics, Anglicans, and Orthodox generally are not.

BTW, welcome here to RF as I don't remember seeing any of your posts before, as I've been terribly busy lately.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
I guess that's why the Christian west led the world in the transition from monarchies to republics with checks and balances to prevent concentration of power.




The terms "left" and "right" mean different things to different people. I'll note that some of the most odious oligarchies existing today are atheist states.
View attachment 29708

They are atheistic in the sense that they put all of their chips on one person and treat them as a god (authoritarian dictatorship). These people quell religion eventually because that causes people to think freely and deeply, as long as they are not constrained to think a certain way (doctrines are not important), people are free* to spiritually and emotional grow, which by nature will effect politics. The crux of the issue is whether or not a population is allowed to critically think, or are they told how to think.

*Free from outside influence of others.

Edit: it was the dogmatic Christian west that has caused a rise in authoritarian politics as of late. It was the Deistic Christian west that founded "The West." It was also the dogmatic Christian authoritarian monarchies that the Deistic Christians that founded the US were running from.
 

Dan Mellis

Thorsredballs
I guess that's why the Christian west led the world in the transition from monarchies to republics with checks and balances to prevent concentration of power.




The terms "left" and "right" mean different things to different people. I'll note that some of the most odious oligarchies existing today are atheist states.
View attachment 29708

North Korea is atheist in name only. They're literally forced into worshipping whoever is in power as a god on earth. Its worth nothing that left wing, *secular* states tend to score much higher on the happiness index, quality of life index than conservative, more religious countries. They usually also have lower infant morality rates, lower teenage pregnancy rates, lower STD/STI rates and longer life expectancies. That's in the west, and applies to fairly moderate socialist states rather than communist or ex-communist states.

Of course there are exceptions... unfortunately they are also exceptions in the realm of dictatorships and oligarchies. Lets consider the UAE, Syria etc. They most certainly are not secular.
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
Since Reaganomics wealth inequality is at all time highs. Trickle down economics just doesn't work. How many times are we going to see massive tax cuts for the rich along with the gutting of consumer protection laws and delays in raising the minimum wage before people wise up to the fact these policies only exacerbate wealth inequality. If you are billionaire everything is great! But if you are just some common Joe, not so much:


I really sick and tired of right wingers telling me what it means to be a liberal Democrat. Why do they get to define what it means. As a liberal Democrat, I will go with FDR's 1936 speech on what it means to be a liberal Democrat in this country:

"An old English judge once said: 'Necessitous men are not free men.' Liberty requires opportunity to make a living - a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor - other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government."

Speech before the 1936 Democratic National Convention

How can any conservative think they have any morals at all when wealth inequality is so out of proportion?

And for God sake why can't we have a minimum wage law that is based on some economic measure independent of inflation. Every 10 or 15 years we hash out the same God damn stupid arguments about the minimum wage. Conservatives want total control over people's economic lives. Liberals want to restore freedom and liberty to the worker making the median wage.
Thanks for the history lesson, but I honestly have absolutely zero idea where all this stuff about Reaganomics and minimum wage comes from in a conversation about why conservatives have more religious folk than liberals. I was just referencing data about the different moral foundations that liberals, moderates and conservatives have.

Jonathan Haidt's Moral-Political Psychology
"The third and primary empirical point of Haidt's talk is about his own research on the five moral value systems that he argues underlie the liberal-conservative political dimension: 1) Care for Others/Do no harm; 2) Fairness/Justice/Equality; 3) In-Group Loyalty; 4) Respect for Authority; and 5) Purity. His research shows-across large numbers of people and many different countries-that there are very reliable differences in the degree to which liberals and conservatives differ in the extent to which they endorse these values. Conservatives tend to value the five domains relatively equally. Liberals, in contrast, value the first two domains much more than the latter three.

Haidt's final point is we need metacognitive awareness about "the Moral Matrix". Speaking to a group dominated by liberals, Haidt argues that we should be very aware that such a group (and disciplines like psychology) likely have massive biases against conservative viewpoints. Moreover, Haidt argues (or implies), conservatives actually have a more complicated moral system, consisting all of the five values, whereas liberals are dominated by just two. He asks that we step outside our systems and understand the other point of view."

‘The Righteous Mind,’ by Jonathan Haidt
"These moral systems aren’t ignorant or backward. Haidt argues that they’re common in history and across the globe because they fit human nature. He compares them to cuisines. We acquire morality the same way we acquire food preferences: we start with what we’re given. If it tastes good, we stick with it. If it doesn’t, we reject it. People accept God, authority and karma because these ideas suit their moral taste buds. Haidt points to research showing that people punish cheaters, accept many hierarchies and don’t support equal distribution of benefits when contributions are unequal.

You don’t have to go abroad to see these ideas. You can find them in the Republican Party. Social conservatives see welfare and feminism as threats to responsibility and family stability. The Tea Party hates redistribution because it interferes with letting people reap what they earn. Faith, patriotism, valor, chastity, law and order — these Republican themes touch all six moral foundations, whereas Democrats, in Haidt’s analysis, focus almost entirely on care and fighting oppression. This is Haidt’s startling message to the left: When it comes to morality, conservatives are more broad-minded than liberals. They serve a more varied diet.

This is where Haidt diverges from other psychologists who have analyzed the left’s electoral failures. The usual argument of these psycho-pundits is that conservative politicians manipulate voters’ neural roots — playing on our craving for authority, for example — to trick people into voting against their interests. But Haidt treats electoral success as a kind of evolutionary fitness test. He figures that if voters like Republican messages, there’s something in Republican messages worth liking. He chides psychologists who try to “explain away” conservatism, treating it as a pathology. Conservatism thrives because it fits how people think, and that’s what validates it. Workers who vote Republican aren’t fools. In Haidt’s words, they’re “voting for their moral interests.”
 
Top