Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Conservatism after Christianity

Collapse
X
Collapse
First Prev Next Last
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Conservatism after Christianity

    Albert Mohler talked about how the worldview of the American is changing. The U.S. is becoming more secular, the Democrats have been leading the way but with this last election the Republican party has been catching up in secularization.

    https://albertmohler.com


    Cato Institute did a study on Trump voters and one of their studies they found that it was this secularization of the Republican party which allowed Trump to win.

    Here is a summary of their results:

    Christians - preferred Ted Cruz
    Secular - preferred Trump


    The conservative Christians (these are not nominal or cultural Christians, but attend church each week) were found to have the following characteristics:
    1. Racially tolerant
    2. More accepting of multiculturalism
    3. Free trade/globalists
    4. Married, less likely to have been divorced
    5. Civically engaged in their community
    6. College educated

    While the secular conservatives were:
    1. Economic populists
    2. Tribal on race and identity
    3. More likely to have been divorced, less likely to be married
    4. Less trusting and less optimistic
    5. More isolated
    6. More authoritarian in nature

    There was no difference in income between the two factions. The conservatives Christians already a minority in the country have also become a minority in the Republican party. Of the people who voted for Trump, 31% attend church each week. ~50% either don't attend church or seldom attend.

    In the end, Trump was rolled out his stances on abortion and religious liberty and Christians in the Republican party eventually were pragmatic and rallied to Trump.

    This is giving us a taste of what the future of politics will look like as secularization continues to increase not only in the democratic but Republican party. You will see more economic populism, less globalism, more resentment and less tolerance on both sides.

  • #2
    I just want an anti-totalitarian leader. Fundamentally, I’m not conservative except that I believe in small federal government, and that the only thing more important than one’s own body is another person’s life. Other than that, I’m pretty liberal. What other attributes are Republican in nature?
    Livin the dream

    Comment


    • jdshock
      jdshock commented
      Editing a comment
      SHOCKvalue - do you believe your comment added to the discussion?

      Yes, I think I probably know what it was referring to, but this is how civil discourse works. wufan has put forth a philosophical belief, and I am prodding that belief by saying "well, what about these aspects of it?" It's possible he actually does support mandatory blood donations. A strict utilitarian would be completely on board with even killing a healthy person to harvest organs to save 15 people.

    • SHOCKvalue
      SHOCKvalue commented
      Editing a comment
      My comment added as much as yours did.

      You’re arguing for the sake of arguing, which you’re apt to do sometimes.

      I mean, feel free to do so... whatevs.
      Last edited by SHOCKvalue; September 20th, 2018, 11:10 AM.

    • wufan
      wufan commented
      Editing a comment
      No issues clarifying. I’m obviously speaking of abortion. Abortion is tough because of the conflict between “life” and “liberty”, and I’m all about liberty.

      So, the difference between abortion and taking a kidney, is that in one instance, if you do nothing, a life is saved. In the other instance, if you do nothing a life is lost. My “take” on this is that you can do whatever you want, as long as you don’t hurt someone else (I consider a fetus to be “someone else”). You are not required to put yourself in danger to save someone else.

      In instances of high risk, my opinion would be that an abortion would be an option.

      A secondary point is that if you engage in intercourse, you’ve chosen to take a risk of pregnancy. Once you’ve taken that risk, you are responsible to see it through. To use your example, if I donated a kidney voluntarily, I couldn’t later change my mind and demand that the kidney be given back to me. It’s now “someone else”.

      In instances of rape, my opinion would be that an abortion is an option.

  • #3
    Originally posted by SB Shock View Post
    Albert Mohler talked about how the worldview of the American is changing. The U.S. is becoming more secular, the Democrats have been leading the way but with this last election the Republican party has been catching up in secularization.

    https://albertmohler.com


    Cato Institute did a study on Trump voters and one of their studies they found that it was this secularization of the Republican party which allowed Trump to win.

    Here is a summary of their results:

    Christians - preferred Ted Cruz
    Secular - preferred Trump


    The conservative Christians (these are not nominal or cultural Christians, but attend church each week) were found to have the following characteristics:
    1. Racially tolerant
    2. More accepting of multiculturalism
    3. Free trade/globalists
    4. Married, less likely to have been divorced
    5. Civically engaged in their community
    6. College educated

    While the secular conservatives were:
    1. Economic populists
    2. Tribal on race and identity
    3. More likely to have been divorced, less likely to be married
    4. Less trusting and less optimistic
    5. More isolated
    6. More authoritarian in nature

    There was no difference in income between the two factions. The conservatives Christians already a minority in the country have also become a minority in the Republican party. Of the people who voted for Trump, 31% attend church each week. ~50% either don't attend church or seldom attend.

    In the end, Trump was rolled out his stances on abortion and religious liberty and Christians in the Republican party eventually were pragmatic and rallied to Trump.

    This is giving us a taste of what the future of politics will look like as secularization continues to increase not only in the democratic but Republican party. You will see more economic populism, less globalism, more resentment and less tolerance on both sides.
    Do you have a direct link to his piece on this? I can't seem to find it from the main site, though it may be right in front of me.
    Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind. ~Dr. Seuss

    Comment


    • SB Shock
      SB Shock commented
      Editing a comment
      Sorry. On his podcast he links the articles he discussion. It looks like his website is not as clear. Here is the NYT opinion pace.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/15/o...istianity.html

      The poll raw data is also out there, but I don’t have direct link.

  • #4
    This election wasn't about religion. It was about anti-socialism.

    Trump won because a) he is capable of running large organizations, b) vocalized putting America's interests first (like all Presidents should), and c) will call out socialists and biased liberal entities proclaiming to be "objective" for what they truly are.

    Not much more to it than that.

    And while the election wasn't about religion, Trump's as-yet unparalleled ability to execute on the conservative agenda in only two years has helped religion FAR MORE than any of the other candidates would have been able to accomplish during their entire tenure.
    Last edited by Kung Wu; September 20th, 2018, 10:55 AM.
    Kung Wu say: "If Chuck Norris had a coach, his name would be Gregg Marshall."

    Comment


    • #5
      The endorsement of Trump by many Christians on the right - either in collective groups or individually - during this last election cycle, was culturally damaging. I mean I’ve warmed up to Trump in many contexts, but on a personal level the guy’s morals and ethics are absolutely awful. When some Christians said “look... he’s one of us” generational-level damage was inflicted in the public perception realm. And it’s a gift that keeps on giving, unfortunately.

      There are a few positional stances that should be common to all Christians, but the idea that being a registered Republican is a secondary requirement to the faith needs to go the way of the dodo bird. It’s not productive.

      I say all that as a registered Republican.
      Last edited by SHOCKvalue; September 20th, 2018, 10:52 AM.
      There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
      - Ernest Hemingway

      Comment


      • RoyalShock
        RoyalShock commented
        Editing a comment
        I particularly agree with your first paragraph. Just as Dems/TheLeft lost their credibility in criticizing Trump's treatment of women after they looked the other way and treated Bill Clinton's accusers horribly, Christian leaders who embraced Trump as "one of us" have made it impossible for us to criticize future candidates that may have the same faults.

    • #6
      Originally posted by SHOCKvalue View Post

      There are a few positional stances that should be common to all Christians, but the idea that being a registered Republican is a secondary requirement to the faith needs to go the way of the dodo bird. It’s not productive.
      i don’t think the argument or discussion of Albert Mohler or the opinion piece was that Christians need to be republican (there are Christians who are democrats, republicans, libertarians, etc). The point is that the Republican Party is secularizing at a pace where the Christians are no longer a big enough group to moderate the party position or have much influence.

      In the past there would have been no way a “Trump” could expect to win the nomination, but now it has happened illustrates that the tipping point has happened in the Republican Party. I would expect that u will see less and less Christians affiliated.

      Comment


      • #7
        Originally posted by SB Shock View Post

        i don’t think the argument or discussion of Albert Mohler or the opinion piece was that Christians need to be republican (there are Christians who are democrats, republicans, libertarians, etc). The point is that the Republican Party is secularizing at a pace where the Christians are no longer a big enough group to moderate the party position or have much influence.

        In the past there would have been no way a “Trump” could expect to win the nomination, but now it has happened illustrates that the tipping point has happened in the Republican Party. I would expect that u will see less and less Christians affiliated.
        I think it is generally a good thing if the Republican Party isn’t beholden to Christians. I’m a Christian. I believe the same things as most Christians. I don’t believe that morality, even my moral opinion, should be legislated, even if it is verifiably true that people would have better life’s or be more successful if it was law.

        So, do I hope that Republicans are Christians? Yep. I just don’t want Christian morality being legislated, and I don’t want Republican candidates to be forced to hold those views.
        Livin the dream

        Comment


        • #8
          Christianity is dying in America, that is a fact. I've watched it with my own eyes, in my own family. The hypocrisy is so incredible you can't even remember what it was like when people were "true believers". Christians supporting a man like Donald Trump is the smart, strategic play. But Christians are not supposed to be "smart and strategic", they're supposed to adhere to the principles taught by Christ and allow the Holy Spirit to "move mountains".

          It all started with the church transforming itself from a place to worship God, into a place to lure and entertain "non-believers". The modern Christian church (the successful ones) could be compared to a high-level theatrical performance. I would advise anybody with a little free time on Sunday morning to visit Life Church @ 127th and Central. The music is so good you will feel guilty you didn't pay to get in the door. The "feel" of the entire production is indiscernible from what you would experience in an Old Town club. The only difference is no alcohol. That's coming next...


          T


          ...

          Comment


          • #9
            Originally posted by wufan View Post

            I think it is generally a good thing if the Republican Party isn’t beholden to Christians. I’m a Christian. I believe the same things as most Christians. I don’t believe that morality, even my moral opinion, should be legislated, even if it is verifiably true that people would have better life’s or be more successful if it was law.

            So, do I hope that Republicans are Christians? Yep. I just don’t want Christian morality being legislated, and I don’t want Republican candidates to be forced to hold those views.
            Got it, you don’t care if the politicians u elect have the same values as you do or not.

            Comment


            • #10
              Originally posted by SB Shock View Post

              Got it, you don’t care if the politicians u elect have the same values as you do or not.
              Not necessarily. I just don’t want them to legislate morality. Victimless crimes should go unpunished. Don’t regulate my soda size, don’t regulate my guns, don’t regulate my neighbors weed, don’t regulate my neighbors spouse.

              I do want someone that shares my values, but only so long as they won’t pass legislation against my neighbors values. If they don’t share my values, but don’t infringe on my values, then so be it. Give me a small gov guy.

              Just to add a little more nuance; given the option between a Christian authoritarian and a liberal (classical definition; not leftist) atheist, I’d take the atheist, so long as the atheist is small gov. My fundamental belief is that every life is free. You are free to succeed, free to fail, free to accept or reject Christ. Free will is a natural law, a god given law. To remove someone’s god given rights is to defy god himself. That’s where I start. That’s my first premise. That’s how I want my government.
              Last edited by wufan; September 20th, 2018, 07:02 PM.
              Livin the dream

              Comment


              • C0|dB|00ded
                C0|dB|00ded commented
                Editing a comment
                Have you ever met an atheist that doesn't have a secret fantasy to crush all Christians under an anvil like Wile E. Coyote? Well, I guess you wouldn't if it was a secret... but you know what I mean. I've dealt with a lot of them.

                Functional (perhaps literal) atheists like Obama, Hillary, Bill and Bernie will not hesitate to infringe on the rights of believers. If you are a religious person you would be in a much better place being governed by the Christian authoritarian. At least he/she will share your belief in a higher authority, a higher morality.

                Morality as interpreted by the individual is about as dangerous of a belief system with respect to maintaining life on earth that there is.


                T


                ...
                Last edited by C0|dB|00ded; September 20th, 2018, 11:42 PM.

              • wufan
                wufan commented
                Editing a comment
                To your first question, probably not. I provided a dichotomy where a moral atheist was better (to me) than the Christian, because he wasn’t authoritarian. It’s a hypothetical.

                While people would be better on average by graduating high school, not having children out of wedlock, and keeping a job, I don’t believe that it’s the governments choice to make.

                I am not a moral relativist. I believe in right and wrong, but I don’t have all the answers, so if there is no victim, then there is no criminal, and no reason to legislate.

            • #11
              When you say Christian authoritarian you actually mean in the classical sense, not an authoritarian personality a la DJT? I agree, a religious theocracy would be very dangerous as has been clearly proven in the past. Still though, an atheist can have exactly the same characteristics regarding intolerance as the Theocrat, just look at Stalin and Mao Zedong. I've yet to find a true card-carrying atheist that respects and appreciates the faith of believers as their own personal "God-given" choice. Most (all) view religion as a roadblock to Utopian civilization and must be "educated" out of the populace.


              T


              ...

              Comment


              • #12
                Originally posted by C0|dB|00ded View Post
                When you say Christian authoritarian you actually mean in the classical sense, not an authoritarian personality a la DJT? I agree, a religious theocracy would be very dangerous as has been clearly proven in the past. Still though, an atheist can have exactly the same characteristics regarding intolerance as the Theocrat, just look at Stalin and Mao Zedong. I've yet to find a true card-carrying atheist that respects and appreciates the faith of believers as their own personal "God-given" choice. Most (all) view religion as a roadblock to Utopian civilization and must be "educated" out of the populace.


                T


                ...
                Yes...I mean an actual authoritarian. Yes...atheists can also be authoritarian. Give me the least authoritarian choice, not the most Christian.
                Livin the dream

                Comment


                • #13
                  Originally posted by wufan View Post

                  Not necessarily. I just don’t want them to legislate morality. Victimless crimes should go unpunished. Don’t regulate my soda size, don’t regulate my guns, don’t regulate my neighbors weed, don’t regulate my neighbors spouse.

                  I do want someone that shares my values, but only so long as they won’t pass legislation against my neighbors values. If they don’t share my values, but don’t infringe on my values, then so be it. Give me a small gov guy.

                  Just to add a little more nuance; given the option between a Christian authoritarian and a liberal (classical definition; not leftist) atheist, I’d take the atheist, so long as the atheist is small gov. My fundamental belief is that every life is free. You are free to succeed, free to fail, free to accept or reject Christ. Free will is a natural law, a god given law. To remove someone’s god given rights is to defy god himself. That’s where I start. That’s my first premise. That’s how I want my government.
                  Victimless crimes don’t stay victimless forever. Statistics show a circular pattern. Kids who grow up in households without fathers, two parents or in the social system often have had parents uncles, aunts, and grandparents who are alcoholics or drug addicts. Those kids often run without supervision on the streets (sometimes kids who are kindgarteners on the street until midnight or later) may start out as vandalizers ( I know 6th graders who were accused of rape), and then they advance to stealing drugs and alcohol. They often join gangs, have children out of wedlock who begin a life of crime. Often these types of kids who grow up to be adults commit crimes, mug and commit violence, and they hurt others including a deputy sheriff the other day. Too bad values are not the focus in their lives and the natural depravity of human nature takes over. You see. The natural direction of human nature is to worry about how you feel and not about others. Victimless crimes don’t continue to be victimless. Churches and shared values used to be unifying experiences. We used to agree that certain things were wrong. Now it seems that the circle is widening and it takes over until we can’t hire enough police to stop the lack of shared values.

                  Comment


                  • #14
                    Originally posted by Shockm View Post

                    Victimless crimes don’t stay victimless forever. Statistics show a circular pattern. Kids who grow up in households without fathers, two parents or in the social system often have had parents uncles, aunts, and grandparents who are alcoholics or drug addicts. Those kids often run without supervision on the streets (sometimes kids who are kindgarteners on the street until midnight or later) may start out as vandalizers ( I know 6th graders who were accused of rape), and then they advance to stealing drugs and alcohol. They often join gangs, have children out of wedlock who begin a life of crime. Often these types of kids who grow up to be adults commit crimes, mug and commit violence, and they hurt others including a deputy sheriff the other day. Too bad values are not the focus in their lives and the natural depravity of human nature takes over. You see. The natural direction of human nature is to worry about how you feel and not about others. Victimless crimes don’t continue to be victimless. Churches and shared values used to be unifying experiences. We used to agree that certain things were wrong. Now it seems that the circle is widening and it takes over until we can’t hire enough police to stop the lack of shared values.
                    I agree that there are things people should do to make their life better and their kids lives better, and the community better. I don’t want anyone legislating it.
                    Livin the dream

                    Comment


                    • #15
                      Originally posted by wufan View Post
                      I don’t want anyone legislating it.
                      Well somebody is going to legislate it - you can book that Dano. At this moment in time it not Christians that should be your greatest fear....

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X