Why is the right wing more religious?

[Shiranui117]

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.

The states which you describe as "socialist" are actually not "socialist" at all, but Social Democrat--AKA, capitalism with a conscience.

 

[Hop David]

North Korea is atheist in name only. They're literally forced into worshipping whoever is in power as a god on earth.

You believe losing belief in God would stop humans from commiting atrocities in the pursuit of power and wealth? That if everyone were non believers we'd have no oligarchies?

This is the atheist version of happy winged unicorns fluttering through the air and farting rainbows.

 

[pearl]

Another popular myth is that religious people are anti-scienceQUOTE]

In the words of Albert Einstein, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

 

[Cooky]

The states which you describe as "socialist" are actually not "socialist" at all, but Social Democrat--AKA, capitalism with a conscience.

I wonder why people always say socialist when the mean Democratic-socialism -a blend of socialism and capitalism.

...Surely noone in their right mind would be for pure and total socialism, right?

 

[Dan Mellis]

The states which you describe as "socialist" are actually not "socialist" at all, but Social Democrat--AKA, capitalism with a conscience.

Fair point. It's worth noting that I'm not socialist either - I'd probably classify myself as a social democrat if anything.

 

[Dan Mellis]

You believe losing belief in God would stop humans from commiting atrocities in the pursuit of power and wealth? That if everyone were non believers we'd have no oligarchies?

This is the atheist version of happy winged unicorns fluttering through the air and farting rainbows.

That's a leap. I simply said that calling north korea atheist was inaccurate and shouldn't be used as an example of secular tyranny, not that there is no such thing as a bad atheist. I believe no such thing - but I do think its one part of the puzzle. At least, in terms of monotheistic religions as they are today.

 

[Shiranui117]

I wonder why people always say socialist when the mean Democratic-socialism -a blend of socialism and capitalism.

...Surely noone in their right mind would be for pure and total socialism, right?

Democratic socialism is still socialism. People confuse democratic socialism with social democracy when the two are very different.

 

[Stevicus]

Democratic socialism is still socialism. People confuse democratic socialism with social democracy when the two are very different.

What about Keynesianism? Would that be socialism, too?

 

[Hop David]

That's a leap. I simply said that calling north korea atheist was inaccurate

It's quite accurate. You contend it shouldn't be called an atheist state because they force the populace the worship their leader. I could turn around and say Christian tyrants aren't practicing the teachings of Christ and therefore aren't Christians.

A more honest approach would be to acknowledge atheists as well as Christians have warts.

and shouldn't be used as an example of secular tyranny,

An atheist state is different from a secular state. A secular state allows believers as well as non believers and takes no position on the existence or non-existence of God. The atheist states tend to be odious oligarchies. I believe in the separation of church and state. It's not the government's business what I choose to believe.

 

[atanu]

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.

I think right wing politicians use religious sentiments to consolidate their followings among the less discerning masses.

For example, right wing in India uses names of Hindu deities as political slogans and some superficial religious concepts towards gaining majority support of Hindus. It is majoritarianism and not affinity to religion.

...

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A Conservative, or someone on the right, tends to favor time proven traditions.

And the liberal is the one with the vision to see that things can be improved. Slavery was a time-proven tradition. It works for the slaver if not the slave.

Progressives are more faddish. They are not content with what has worked for centuries. Instead they prefer the latest fad, even if unproven.

Cars have accelerator pedals beside the brake pedals. It's a nice arrangement that allows for controlled movement forward.

Those on the right have a more confident sense of self
.

Is that why they seem to feel so threatened by brown and black people?

Confidence is what defines liberal psychology. The liberal feels safe in the world and connected to other living things. He cares about issues such as protecting the environment and maximizing people's opportunity. He feels secure enough to welcome unfortunate strangers into his country,

As has already been noted on this thread, many conservatives, by contrast, are basically fearful. They can't have enough locks on the door, guns, surveillance, police, prisons, border guards, and walls. Prison sentences have to be longer. Kids running from the police need to be shot in the back, or at a minimum, when they are, it's justified.

Conservatives feel most secure under authoritarian rule - a leader willing to attack, to angrily bark commandments, and who understands that outsiders are dangerous. Morality is defined in terms of strict obedience to a rigid code. Nonconformists are immoral, and deserve punishment.

The liberal is less interested in top-down power structures and more interested in networking and cooperating.

Big Government is more important for the left, since Big Government can be used like a hammer to force fads down everyone's throat, even if there is little in the way of long term data support. Small Government and freedom is more for those on the right, who have the benefit of long term common sense and data, that works today and tomorrow.

The values one claims are often not the ones embodied in practice. The Republicans are very much in favor of big government. They use it to transfer wealth from the middle class to the 0.1%. They are very happy to have ordinary people working, paying high taxes, and having a government that will send it to them. The Department of Defense is huge, and conservatives like it that way.

The only spending the conservatives want to see cut is spending on ordinary people - welfare, public health care, Social Security, etc.. You never hear them talking about downsizing the military, the police, or the prison or court systems.

As for the right standing more for freedom, does that include reproductive and marriage freedoms? How about the freedom to use the public bathroom of your choice? I'm pretty sure that the conservatives favor contracting those freedoms

A cartoon I've drawn:

Very good. You identified the Christians (I recognized four of the six from your excellent likenesses - didn't know what Eddington or Gödel looked like), but not the athiests. I'm guessing Tyson, Krauss, and Dawkins above.

I used to do block printing using carved linoleum, and they looked like this. Is that your medium, or might this be a wood carving or not carved at all - just pen and ink?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

the right has never been against progress

Conservatism refers to conserving the past, or in some cases, returning to it. Liberals created the modern secular state with secular, democratic government, and the changes that led to a relatively large and affluent middle class. Neo-conservatism is all about returning to a state where the wealth, power, and privilege are concentrated again in the hands of the few - as great a return to the ancien regime as possible.

just a few years ago, Bill and Hillary Clinton both openly opposed same sex marriage.

So did the conservatives. The difference is that the conservatives like Santorum and McConnel still do. They haven't budged and likely never will.

I don’t understand why you think "loving thy neighbour" and the sanctity of life, would not be right wing.

Once again, actions speak louder than claims. What I see from conservatives are the call for border walls and cages to put children in. They want to revoke their neighbor's public health benefits. They march in white supremacist marches, hating their neighbors enough to intentionally run one over and kill her. How many tears for her do you suppose the tiki marchers shed?

Regarding the sanctity of life, what do you suppose the political leaning of the climate deniers is? These are people willing to gamble with all life on the planet. Ad let's get back to public health care. Wanting to eliminate Obamacare, besides being mean-spirited and uncaring, is antithetical to life.

I completely disagree with your assertion that conservatism does not promote the ideals of "loving thy neighbor" and the sanctity of life. I also do not believe that leftists live by or promote these ideals. Not at all.

Liberals, as I just explained, embody these principles better than rightistas.

Once again, labels and inherently purposely skewed statements stumble into a post ... To a lefty, love your neighbor means that your neighbor is endowed with no accountability for anything they do ... Lefties proudly praise the genocide of thousands of babies every year. They love the language manipulation game and adopt the scientific term, fetus, an unborn child till birth, as a word they can hide in, look the other way, and stare like the eyes of a deer in the headlights and say¨ kill it,it aint a baby¨ When an abortionist bocthes his/her job in their grisly calling, and a live child results, the lefties love the idea of simply letting the child die with no medical treatment ot suppport whatsoever

It's a good thing you got past that labeling and purposely skewed statements thing.

Faith, patriotism, valor, chastity, law and order — these Republican themes

I don't have much use for faith, chastity might or might not be a virtue depending on context, valor is a liberal value.

I don't see a lot of law and order in defying subpoenas, failing in one's oversight responsibilities, failing to register as foreign operatives, or obstructing justice.

In an earlier post, you included purity and respect for authority as conservative values. I presume that by purity you meant the same thing as chastity..

Authority has to earn respect to be respected. Conservatives see it the other way around. Respect has to come first.

Protest is also something conservatives disapprove of for the same reason. They see this as a violation of the duty to submit to authority.

Regarding patriotism, conservatives also tend to be more hawkish and jingoistic, and insist on blind loyalty here. This liberal believes that respect even for a nation must be earned. I once respected America. I do not any longer. My allegiance isn't to a country or to a piece of cloth (have you ever noticed that in the Pledge of Allegiance, you are instructed to pledge fealty both, "to the flag AND to the republic for which it stands"), but rather, to a set of principles and values. When my country supports those principles, I support my country. When it fails to do so, I do not support it. America can't be great if unless it is also good - when its actions are in line with its stated ideals. America is far from that today.

That attitude angers the conservative because of this basic difference between the authoritarian and the libertarian psychology. The conservative considers that fickle and disloyal. Perhaps that's why you consider loyalty a Republican value. I am not loyal to those that themselves are disloyal.

I'll note that some of the most odious oligarchies existing today are atheist states.

Are you also implying that atheism is responsible for them being odious, or that if they were theocracies instead, genocides wouldn't occur?

Secular humanism, also atheistic, disesteems brutal authoritarian regimes whether they are run by atheists or theists.

 

[shmogie]

Conservatism refers to conserving the past, or in some cases, returning to it. Liberals created the modern secular state with secular, democratic government, and the changes that led to a relatively large and affluent middle class. Neo-conservatism is all about returning to a state where the wealth, power, and privilege are concentrated again in the hands of the few - as great a return to the ancien regime as possible.



So did the conservatives. The difference is that the conservatives like Santorum and McConnel still do. They haven't budged and likely never will.



Once again, actions speak louder than claims. What I see from conservatives are the call for border walls and cages to put children in. They want to revoke their neighbor's public health benefits. They march in white supremacist marches, hating their neighbors enough to intentionally run one over and kill her. How many tears for her do you suppose the tiki marchers shed?

Regarding the sanctity of life, what do you suppose the political leaning of the climate deniers is? These are people willing to gamble with all life on the planet. Ad let's get back to public health care. Wanting to eliminate Obamacare, besides being mean-spirited and uncaring, is antithetical to life.



Liberals, as I just explained, embody these principles better than rightistas.



It's a good thing you got past that labeling and purposely skewed statements thing.



I don't have much use for faith, chastity might or might not be a virtue depending on context, valor is a liberal value.

I don't see a lot of law and order in defying subpoenas, failing in one's oversight responsibilities, failing to register as foreign operatives, or obstructing justice.

In an earlier post, you included purity and respect for authority as conservative values. I presume that by purity you meant the same thing as chastity..

Authority has to earn respect to be respected. Conservatives see it the other way around. Respect has to come first.

Protest is also something conservatives disapprove of for the same reason. They see this as a violation of the duty to submit to authority.

Regarding patriotism, conservatives also tend to be more hawkish and jingoistic, and insist on blind loyalty here. This liberal believes that respect even for a nation must be earned. I once respected America. I do not any longer. My allegiance isn't to a country or to a piece of cloth (have you ever noticed that in the Pledge of Allegiance, you are instructed to pledge fealty both, "to the flag AND to the republic for which it stands"), but rather, to a set of principles and values. When my country supports those principles, I support my country. When it fails to do so, I do not support it. America can't be great if unless it is also good - when its actions are in line with its stated ideals. America is far from that today.

That attitude angers the conservative because of this basic difference between the authoritarian and the libertarian psychology. The conservative considers that fickle and disloyal. Perhaps that's why you consider loyalty a Republican value. I am not loyal to those that themselves are disloyal.



Are you also implying that atheism is responsible for them being odious, or that if they were theocracies instead, genocides wouldn't occur?

Secular humanism, also atheistic, disesteems brutal authoritarian regimes whether they are run by atheists or theists.

LOL, a diatribe worthy of the bartender of congress, she is proud of you.

 

[shmogie]

And the liberal is the one with the vision to see that things can be improved. Slavery was a time-proven tradition. It works for the slaver if not the slave.



Cars have accelerator pedals beside the brake pedals. It's a nice arrangement that allows for controlled movement forward.



Is that why they seem to feel so threatened by brown and black people?

Confidence is what defines liberal psychology. The liberal feels safe in the world and connected to other living things. He cares about issues such as protecting the environment and maximizing people's opportunity. He feels secure enough to welcome unfortunate strangers into his country,

As has already been noted on this thread, many conservatives, by contrast, are basically fearful. They can't have enough locks on the door, guns, surveillance, police, prisons, border guards, and walls. Prison sentences have to be longer. Kids running from the police need to be shot in the back, or at a minimum, when they are, it's justified.

Conservatives feel most secure under authoritarian rule - a leader willing to attack, to angrily bark commandments, and who understands that outsiders are dangerous. Morality is defined in terms of strict obedience to a rigid code. Nonconformists are immoral, and deserve punishment.

The liberal is less interested in top-down power structures and more interested in networking and cooperating.



The values one claims are often not the ones embodied in practice. The Republicans are very much in favor of big government. They use it to transfer wealth from the middle class to the 0.1%. They are very happy to have ordinary people working, paying high taxes, and having a government that will send it to them. The Department of Defense is huge, and conservatives like it that way.

The only spending the conservatives want to see cut is spending on ordinary people - welfare, public health care, Social Security, etc.. You never hear them talking about downsizing the military, the police, or the prison or court systems.

As for the right standing more for freedom, does that include reproductive and marriage freedoms? How about the freedom to use the public bathroom of your choice? I'm pretty sure that the conservatives favor contracting those freedoms



Very good. You identified the Christians (I recognized four of the six from your excellent likenesses - didn't know what Eddington or Gödel looked like), but not the athiests. I'm guessing Tyson, Krauss, and Dawkins above.

I used to do block printing using carved linoleum, and they looked like this. Is that your medium, or might this be a wood carving or not carved at all - just pen and ink?

View attachment 29804

All the stereotypes used, all the boxes checked. Sounds like Alinsky´s rules for radicals to me.

 

[Prestor John]

Liberals, as I just explained, embody these principles better than rightistas.

I saw you say a bunch of naive things that are not true at all.

 

[Cooky]

Im actually a liberal soul trapped in a conservative mind in a mans body.

 

[Cooky]

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:

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.

You're brilliant. Nice artwork.

 

[Cooky]

Democratic socialism is still socialism. People confuse democratic socialism with social democracy when the two are very different.

I thought the terms "Democratic socialism" and "social democracy" were the same thing, except were spelled inversely based on grammatical inflection.

...Because they're the same two words.

 

[sooda]

Conservatism refers to conserving the past, or in some cases, returning to it. Liberals created the modern secular state with secular, democratic government, and the changes that led to a relatively large and affluent middle class. Neo-conservatism is all about returning to a state where the wealth, power, and privilege are concentrated again in the hands of the few - as great a return to the ancien regime as possible.



So did the conservatives. The difference is that the conservatives like Santorum and McConnel still do. They haven't budged and likely never will.



Once again, actions speak louder than claims. What I see from conservatives are the call for border walls and cages to put children in. They want to revoke their neighbor's public health benefits. They march in white supremacist marches, hating their neighbors enough to intentionally run one over and kill her. How many tears for her do you suppose the tiki marchers shed?

Regarding the sanctity of life, what do you suppose the political leaning of the climate deniers is? These are people willing to gamble with all life on the planet. Ad let's get back to public health care. Wanting to eliminate Obamacare, besides being mean-spirited and uncaring, is antithetical to life.



Liberals, as I just explained, embody these principles better than rightistas.



It's a good thing you got past that labeling and purposely skewed statements thing.



I don't have much use for faith, chastity might or might not be a virtue depending on context, valor is a liberal value.

I don't see a lot of law and order in defying subpoenas, failing in one's oversight responsibilities, failing to register as foreign operatives, or obstructing justice.

In an earlier post, you included purity and respect for authority as conservative values. I presume that by purity you meant the same thing as chastity..

Authority has to earn respect to be respected. Conservatives see it the other way around. Respect has to come first.

Protest is also something conservatives disapprove of for the same reason. They see this as a violation of the duty to submit to authority.

Regarding patriotism, conservatives also tend to be more hawkish and jingoistic, and insist on blind loyalty here. This liberal believes that respect even for a nation must be earned. I once respected America. I do not any longer. My allegiance isn't to a country or to a piece of cloth (have you ever noticed that in the Pledge of Allegiance, you are instructed to pledge fealty both, "to the flag AND to the republic for which it stands"), but rather, to a set of principles and values. When my country supports those principles, I support my country. When it fails to do so, I do not support it. America can't be great if unless it is also good - when its actions are in line with its stated ideals. America is far from that today.

That attitude angers the conservative because of this basic difference between the authoritarian and the libertarian psychology. The conservative considers that fickle and disloyal. Perhaps that's why you consider loyalty a Republican value. I am not loyal to those that themselves are disloyal.



Are you also implying that atheism is responsible for them being odious, or that if they were theocracies instead, genocides wouldn't occur?

Secular humanism, also atheistic, disesteems brutal authoritarian regimes whether they are run by atheists or theists.

Nationalism is not the same as patriotism.

I sometimes wonder if the hard right cares more about "souls" than living people.

 

[Cooky]

Nationalism is not the same as patriotism.

I sometimes wonder if the hard right cares more about "souls" than living people.

Nationalist is a derogatory word for a patriot.