Difference between revisions of "Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(They aren't!)
Line 35: Line 35:
Thats all, well. I hope that i expressed myself good enough.  
Thats all, well. I hope that i expressed myself good enough.  
The answer, when broken down to it's most simple truism, is that the right wing can only exist in a hoary dreamscape populated by various stretches of blind faith.  This is how the secondary religion of the right ends up being a stringent orthodoxy to the proven failures of a raw, unregulated, purely  "free market" utopia.  -JBall

Revision as of 12:49, 15 January 2010

! THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia.
Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.
New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting

Its just a thought I had. At their core element, political parties are economic. You have the right, which favors the rich, and the left, which favors the poor. One strives to keep things the same, the other tries to change the system so it is more equal. So why does the right seem to embrace religion more?--Elamdri 09:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

"Conservatism" is about conserving things, such as traditions. Regardless of what it stands for right now in the US, conservatism has always meant trying to preserve order, protect the country, protect the ruling class, and protect a country's traditions. Every country has some traditional religion, and the conservatives (i.e. right side of the political spectrum) usually want to protect that.--Mathematica 03:36, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
I'd say it's a bit more complicated than that. Politicians, by definition have no qualms about anything, do not hold any principles really - whatever will get them elected and allow them to keep their power. Religion has worked for the right (often) and economic disparity has worked to the left (class warfare). The Rev Ted Haggard is but the most recent example of the hypocrisy of the "right" and on the "left" Nancy Pelosi's efforts at exempting the American Samoa from the minimum wage hike (lobbying by companies headquartered in San Francisco). In a very broad sense, Milton Friedman was right (and as believed by President Reagan) - the best way to protect our freedoms is to keep the pie that the politician rascals control as small as possible and give them as little power as possibly we can. The "left" and the "right" loves Governmental control when it suits their purpose - the left for economic reasons (mostly), the right for social/religious/related agendas that they can enforce. kchittur 12:10 PM, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
If politicians have no principles, as you seem to be suggesting, then why run for political office in the first place? In other words, if you don't have an agenda that you wish to advance, why run for office? Power in and of itself is useless unless you turn it to advancing your own beliefs. "Government Control" only gets us halfway. Control over what? I suppose the recognition and money are nice, but there are a lot better ways than running for political office to make money. Politicians only seem unprincipled because they are often forced to compromise with the other side to advance their beliefs at all. --Rustybutterknife 18:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
A rush, a high, the desire to grab power (OK, perhaps there IS a principle, "grab power") - When I hear about "Public service to give back" - I puke. Many who are in office have, I am guessing, no other better way to make money than wheel/deal - trade/back stab/whatever ... True, that many may try to do what they want to do, but such do not survive - leaving us with the scoundrels. I am watching the story of Congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona, who is STILL fighting a losing battle on the issue of pork/ear marks - he was on 60 minutes a while ago. I do sound like such a cynic. kchittur 23:45 (CDT) 21 March 2007
I dont believe that the right does embrace religion more. The Left is full of religion. For example, environmentalism taken to its extreme is a religion. User: kara
I'm talking about religion in the classical sense of modern Abrahamic religions. Let me rephrase. In any society, when you have a SMD|Plurality voting system like the US, 2 political parties emerge. One party favors the business sector or the rich. The other party favors the working class or the poor. This will always happen under these circumstances. So why is it that in America, the right have taken up God as a member of their party?--Elamdri 10:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I would not say that the right has taken up God more than the left. What about Jesse Jackson?There are plenty of preachers on the left. To say that the left favors the poor and that the right favors the rich is not accurate. Things are not that clear cut. For example, some would say that the Roman Catholic church is far right. However, the Church has taken a clear pro-illegal immigrant stand in the United States. Most people (that would include politicians) are right on some issues and left on others. User: kara

Perhaps it is only that what is "right" and what is "left" is all a matter of perspective? Religion certainly plays a role in shaping perspective, though that does not mean that it is the only thing. I for one, do not consider myself a conservative, but I do consider myself religiously a Christian. I think the reason people think the "right" is more religious is because more people on the right voice their religion as justification, and claim unity among their religion to back their claim. I think the good example of this is the Creation Theology branch that I've seen on this site and elsewhere. It's pretty much a "Christians believe this, or else they are not real Christian" kind of claim. Then it's a simple matter of taking a poll and asking people if they consider themselves Christians or not. If they say "yes," then it appears they believe what you do. You can follow the same pattern with any religion, or even with any group or folk. "I am a republican, I believe abortion is wrong. All republicans believe this, therefore if anyone else is a republican, they also believe this. If they do not, they are not a real republican." 'Tis all a matter of opinion. -- Dikaiosune 21 March 2007

Leftist Christians don't bring their religion into it as much as conservatives. --Kirby 00:01, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I get the sense that conservatives us the Religion more because that is often all they have.--Rebiu 25 March 2007 (EDT)

This question is obvious. It's because God favors conservatives, and therefore, the rich. Debate closed. --Cranky Joe 14:42, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

People who actually have a relationship with Jesus Christ tend to be on the right side of the political spectrum. People who just have a religion based on doing good things will drift to the left side. So the debate question is wrong from the start. SarahFan 09:26, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

They aren't!

Conservatives enrichen the poor while the left exploits them for votes. But recently I've seen more religiousness eminate from the left then the right. Non-theistic religion has been on a steady increase. I'm sorry if that pops the bubble the people think of religion as only being a belief in the spiritual realm such as Christianity. Humanists proclaim their religion everday from the left spectrum and everyone hasn't a clue that a religion is being professed. So I don't, and can't agree that it is only the right side of the spectrum that is more religious.--Roopilots6 20:07, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

I didnt noticed if this debate is talking particulary about the US but here(in this part of the continent) poor people that are mostly farmers or so, are very attached to religion. To prove that, anyone should listen to the folk songs and theyre full of religion. A lot of Singers which came from the poor part of the society and which are clearly left-winged, sing a lot of things about religion. I think that the church (as an institution) tends to protect their enormous amount of money and interests (At least here in south america) and always using god as their banner. Nevertheless there was (and still are) a lot of individual people inside the church more related to social work, helping the poor(economically poor) people, Not by charity. They help them day by day, next to them teaching them important things to survive. I have to point out in case that i didnt express myself quite right: all these people are seen like they belong to some left ideology. Thats all, well. I hope that i expressed myself good enough. Ogainax

The answer, when broken down to it's most simple truism, is that the right wing can only exist in a hoary dreamscape populated by various stretches of blind faith. This is how the secondary religion of the right ends up being a stringent orthodoxy to the proven failures of a raw, unregulated, purely "free market" utopia. -JBall