Religion on the Left and Right

Take a moment to think about this... The foundation and principles of Liberalism are all rooted and steeped in fundamentals closely related to Christianity. The humanity, caring, giving, helping the needy... all tenants of Christ's teachings. In fact, Liberals often lament that "Jesus was a Liberal." Almost everything about liberalism, comes directly from the Bible, and the teachings of Jesus Christ, it is found in every liberal argument and every liberal initiative. Health Care... we are supposed to be Christ-like and help the sick... it's the fundamental foundation to everything Liberal. But isn't it odd and bizarre, that Atheists and Agnostics most often are Liberals? At the same time, we are constantly told how evil and greedy the Right is, how they don't care about helping those in need, they are always looking to cut funding for some social program or 'do-good' work the liberals have established.... the diametric opposite of Christ-like behavior! Yet..... most devoutly religious people are Republicans. Isn't that strange?

Why is this the case? Why are most of the non-religious Atheist anti-God crowd, also Liberals... while, the religious zealots and fanatics are mostly Conservatives? It would seem, by the party policies and principles, it should be the other way around. It would make sense if Atheists and Agnostics weren't interested in helping the needy, didn't care if school kids starved, or old people had to eat dog food.... and it would seem that Christians and religious faithful, would be more inclined to want to be Christ-like and benevolent to the needy. It's strange and odd that it's the other way around, don't you think?

Oh now, before you all jump in on this, let me clarify, I am not speaking in absolutes by any means, don't take it that way. I know there are a LOT of religiously faithful people who vote Democrat, and certainly, there are many secular republicans... but in general, the religious tend to stick to the right and the non-religious tend to flock to the left... statistics will bear this out. That said, I thought it would make an interesting thread topic, to explore why there is such a strange conundrum in politics.

My take is this... I think Liberals, many times, will replace their spiritual faith in a God, with faith in Government. In short, Government becomes their God and Liberalism becomes their religion. Religious people already have a God and Religion, so they don't see government in this role. Where Liberals believe Government bestows blessings on the needy, Religious conservatives believe this is God's purpose, not Government.

Still... it is strange and odd that Godless Atheists and Agnostics would flock to a political ideology so closely tied to Christian philosophy.

But it's not strange, at all. Have you read the Christian Bible? If you want to compare the Bible to political parties the Old Testament is more the Republican cup of tea. (NOTE: Oh now, before you all jump in on this, let me clarify, I am not speaking in absolutes by any means, don't take it that way.) :)

Now, maybe God realized the Old Testament way of running things wasn't working as well as expected so He sent Jesus to try a different "approach", a more Liberal, progressive view.

Just saying.
 
As I said Dixie, many outspoken "Christians" like the "moral majority" (its not moral or a majority) or the "Religous Right" (its not religous or right) or the "Christian Coalition" are on the right, but the liberal Christians often do not form clans that are identified by wearing religion on the sleeve, they are still liberal and I would venture to say the numbers are as large as the Conservative Christians or larger. Liberal religous people tend to not use religen in an effort to push political adgenda's.

The Catholic Church is very Anti-Abortion, yet the membership is overwhelming liberal. Many religous groups do not oppose Gay marriage, the Episcipal Church (the largest church in the USA) ordains gay' clergy and performs gay marriages. The Unity Church does the same, as well as the American Baptists and the Unitarian Universalists.
...
 
Man....these pinheads really got pissed when they get pwned .....

They ought to know not to enter into debate, especially scientific debate, with their superiors.....(their superiors being everyone else)
:rofl:
 
Trump it ? I wouldn't waste my time in elevating your stupidity to a level that it would deserve a serious response.....

Good Blabo. Covering your ass because you'd be hard-pressed, otherwise. A serious response? That would be a first. LOL.
 
When does the fetus become a human fetus?
It's starts off as a human fetus. That wasn't in question. There's all that ambiguity about brain function, and soul. It's not a human being, with rights and privileges until it's viable outside of its' mother's womb. A fetus is not a child or a baby, to the chagrin of many. And you can argue otherwise until the cows come home.
 
It's starts off as a human fetus. That wasn't in question. There's all that ambiguity about brain function, and soul. It's not a human being, with rights and privileges until it's viable outside of its' mother's womb. A fetus is not a child or a baby, to the chagrin of many. And you can argue otherwise until the cows come home.

It's also not an adolescent or geriatric. It is a human being in the fetal stage of development. Just because there is a debate on ambiguity, it doesn't change or alter biological facts and science. A human fetus is a living organism of the human species, a human life. A human life in the state of being is a "human being." Now, we can have the argument as to how developed or capable of feeling and sentience, and all sorts of more philosophical things, such as human spirit and soul... but the clinical biological and scientific evidence shows, it is indeed a living human being in the earliest stages of development. And you can argue to the contrary until the cows come home, you will still be wrong.
 
I am arguing PRO-LIFE and you are arguing NON-SCIENCE!

I'll save the readers a lengthy cut and paste, but this sums it up fairly well...

http://academic.wsc.edu/mathsci/hammer_m/life.htm

Don't tell me what I'm doing. You're entitled to your opinion...not your own facts.
Pro life is fine, as long as it stays within the confines of your own person. How arrogant for you, of all people to dictate what a woman, not related to you, can do with her own body. Neanderthal.
 
Interesting post Dixie....you won't get the libtards to give this any serious response or denials as it stands, they need something to attack.........

Liberal/Democrats not only promote and support all those socialist ideals, but demand ....DEMAND that everyone else do as they say....not freely, but by force of law....the diametric opposite of our countrys absolute main ideal....individual freedom........so what is it ?
Do they actually promote the socialism for the benefit of citizens....not quite.....

They are building a population of needy, dependent, consumers of numerous welfare programs............
.... programs that offer varying degrees of freebies to satisfy every type of person....from the parasite, that lives on the dole by choice, to the untrained or untrainable that have little or no marketable skills to offer an employer, to the unlucky that have just become victims of a stagnant economy, to the old and disabled that just can't perform work anymore but have in the past...., etc.....
All but the parasite actually deserve the help and should have access to these programs....

The divide is that the liberals want to grow the needy, dependent citizen and not help them to independence....Needy that will vote for them and their programs so they can acquire and retain power in Washington and accumulate wealth for themselves...legislate and initiate regulations and laws to govern the masses but that often don't include themselves.....provide themselves with ever growing benefits, such as health and pension and thousands of perks from free cars and gas, subsidized travel, food, etc. down to free haircuts....
The key is growing that dependent citizen and satisfying their need to a sufficient but minimal degree in insure they stay dependent....a plan that is obviously working.

If the programs/benefits are so good why aren't mass numbers of people quitting their jobs? If the programs/benefits are so good why are there people protesting the shortage of jobs? They should be celebrating. If so many people are enjoying the generous benefits these programs supposedly offer Obama's approval rating should be climbing.

A major factor that contributes to some people becoming dependent is the lack of help. Programs kick in after people have lost what took them years to accumulate. After the home is foreclosed and the family ripped apart through strife and people have given up then help is offered. Barely enough help to keep a person alive and we all know which party does all it can to limit benefits.

Look at unemployment. Finally one state (North or South Carolina, I forget which one) allows people to attend school while collecting UI. The powers-that-be didn't want people to increase their knowledge while unemployed. Their reasoning, if one can call it reasoning, was why should they pay for someones education.

While UI isn't a Federal Government program the same way of thinking pervades government policies. If someone manages to find part time work they're penalized instead of realizing it's beneficial for a person to work. Employers prefer to see someone has taken the initiative to do something.

It's not the help that's the problem. I's the way it's given; too little, too late and too many restrictions.
 
I don't believe that life, and a soul begins at conception. A fetus is not a human being...it's a fetus. I believe that a fetus that is viable (able to live outside of the womb, on its' own) is a human being, and should be preserved and protected. Surfactant, the complex protein that provides for lung compliance and reduction of surface tension, which allows for the alveoli (air sacs) to remain open and productive, doesn't completely form until 35 weeks of gestation. Meaning, that fetuses delivered before 35 weeks have to undergo extraordinary measures to insure their survival, if at all.
I believe abortion should be the course of last resort. Birth control and condoms should be the course of first resort, along with education and counseling.
I believe in abortion as a means of saving the mother's life, or in the cases of rape. I think abortions should be done within the first trimester.
In any event, the decision is between the woman, her conscience, her family and her God, and no other man or woman. I believe a woman should have jurisdiction over her own body and its' contents. Duh.

Good post. Alias and his judgmental cohorts need to research the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice before they condemn any Christian for being pro-choice.

The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) was founded in 1973 by clergy and lay leaders from mainline denominations and faith traditions to provide interfaith support for the new constitutional right to privacy in decisions about abortion...

RCRC member organizations are religiously and theologically diverse, but are unified in the commitment to preserve reproductive options as a basic part of religious liberty. They hold that individuals must be free to make reproductive decisions according to their own faith and conscience, without government coercion...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Coalition_for_Reproductive_Choice
 
It's starts off as a human fetus. That wasn't in question. There's all that ambiguity about brain function, and soul. It's not a human being, with rights and privileges until it's viable outside of its' mother's womb. A fetus is not a child or a baby, to the chagrin of many. And you can argue otherwise until the cows come home.

So it's a human being as a fetus, but it has no rights until it's outside the mother's womb. It's a good thing for you that your mother didn't believe that kind of stupid shit.
 
Good post. Alias and his judgmental cohorts need to research the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice before they condemn any Christian for being pro-choice.

The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) was founded in 1973 by clergy and lay leaders from mainline denominations and faith traditions to provide interfaith support for the new constitutional right to privacy in decisions about abortion...

RCRC member organizations are religiously and theologically diverse, but are unified in the commitment to preserve reproductive options as a basic part of religious liberty. They hold that individuals must be free to make reproductive decisions according to their own faith and conscience, without government coercion...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Coalition_for_Reproductive_Choice

Religious organizations mean nothing if they don't follow Jesus Christ. Entering a church building or joining a church doesn't make anyone a Christian any more than a donkey entering a barn makes it a thoroughbred. If you don't believe the scriptures and what Jesus taught, you can be as religious as a monk and still be full of the devil. Life is a gift of God and only God can make the "choice". If you don't believe life is a gift from God, then it doesn't really matter how many churches you belong to.

If it's not wrong then why don't all of you who believe in "choice" simply call it what it is....abortion. Why put a mask over it and call it "choice" instead of killing a human being? Stop the political correctness and take a stand on what you really believe.
 
If the programs/benefits are so good why aren't mass numbers of people quitting their jobs? If the programs/benefits are so good why are there people protesting the shortage of jobs?
Man...you didn't understand anything in that last paragraph, did you....its the Liberal dem. politicans that are enjoying the perks

They should be celebrating. If so many people are enjoying the generous benefits these programs supposedly offer Obama's approval rating should be climbing.

The 'parasites" are celebrating, the unemployed are taking a 99 week rest, and the needy are voting for Obama and Democrats every election cycle without fail...


A major factor that contributes to some people becoming dependent is the lack of help. Programs kick in after people have lost what took them years to accumulate. After the home is foreclosed and the family ripped apart through strife and people have given up then help is offered. Barely enough help to keep a person alive and we all know which party does all it can to limit benefits.

Look at unemployment. Finally one state (North or South Carolina, I forget which one) allows people to attend school while collecting UI. The powers-that-be didn't want people to increase their knowledge while unemployed. Their reasoning, if one can call it reasoning, was why should they pay for someones education.

The right supports training and re-training and in some instances, require it...sometimes along with drug tests


While UI isn't a Federal Government program the same way of thinking pervades government policies. If someone manages to find part time work they're penalized instead of realizing it's beneficial for a person to work. Employers prefer to see someone has taken the initiative to do something.

You want people to work and collect at the same time? I don't think so...They can work and get welfare or food stamps, but I don't think UI....


It's not the help that's the problem. I's the way it's given; too little, too late and too many restrictions.

And that last line of yours, I can agree with ..... absolutely... it needs to be adequate, its needs to be timely, its needs to only go to citizens, it needs to go to only those that actually deserve it..... it needs oversight....
 
Are you denying that Rick Perry wants to "run the government", PiMP?


Are you denying that the Republican ranks in Congress include self-described "born-again" Christians, PiMP?


Do they - to some extent - "run the government, PiMP?

no, no, and no......when Kennedy was elected president, did Catholics run the government?.....when Nixon was elected, did Quakers run the government?......if Romney gets elected will Mormons run the government?......
 
no, no, and no......when Kennedy was elected president, did Catholics run the government?.....when Nixon was elected, did Quakers run the government?......if Romney gets elected will Mormons run the government?......


Are you denying that Rick Perry wants to "run the government", PiMP?


Are you denying that the Republican ranks in Congress include self-described "born-again" Christians, PiMP?


Do they - to some extent - "run the government, PiMP?


Right on the first two, wrong on the third, PiMP.


1/3 off your score. Thanks for playing.
 
But it's not strange, at all. Have you read the Christian Bible? If you want to compare the Bible to political parties the Old Testament is more the Republican cup of tea. (NOTE: Oh now, before you all jump in on this, let me clarify, I am not speaking in absolutes by any means, don't take it that way.) :)

Now, maybe God realized the Old Testament way of running things wasn't working as well as expected so He sent Jesus to try a different "approach", a more Liberal, progressive view.

Just saying.

lord, forgive him, for he knows not what he says......
 
Back
Top