why are the religious right? (Page 2)

That's the problem with mixing politics and religion, neither are well represented. I'm not religious in any sense of the word. I was raised in a Christian home, but that isn't my cup of tea. But there is this weird idea that is Jesus was around today he would be some pot smoking hippie liberal. Why, he wasn't when he was alive. He required things of people. He wanted them to live right, not prostitute themselves, and live in lust and gluttony. And even getting into heaven... there are a few things you are REQUIRED to do... he didn't go around handing out free passes.

What he did do was love the sinner. That little gem is the one that gets lost the most. But do not confuse love with condoning their behavior. That is one thing that looses me about the religious right, I understand you do not condone the behavior, but where was the part the Jesus used hate and condemnation to help those that were on the wrong path?

Christians are some very charitable people. They give plenty. They volunteer and they work to help each other... yes that most certainly includes right wing radicals. I don't really understand how people think the Democratic party basically enslaving people into a live of subsistence off the government is somehow fulfilling Jesus desire to help the poor. That isn't help, and it certainly isn't deliverance out of bondage.

I haven't read through the thread yet, but I think the bolded piece above is a common misconception of the conservative leaning stance.

Just because we don't want the government to be responsible for it, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be an individual's priority.  I believe that the best allocation of charity occurs at the local level and that the more that is left to the individual, the better the community as a whole is served.

twomarks

i honestly don't know exactly where i lie on the spectrum and just wanted to start a discussion.  i am fully aware that systems can be and are abused and create a cycle of poverty, etc etc, and the USA doesn't necessarily do social welfare WELL, but there is also a real, tangible benefit to tons of people utilizing programs subsidized by our taxes.  and it wouldn't be there without the government stepping in...the size and scope of which is just too large for private charitable contributions.  medicaid, wic, subsidized financial aid come to mind.

do you really believe that americans, in such a consumerist society, would take a tax cut in the amount of funding these programs and give that money all away?  i don't think i would if i'm being honest with myself, and i do currently give a lot.

I would consider myself to be a moderate Republican, which seems to be a rare and endangered combination. 

I'm also a Presbyterian, belonging to a PC-USA church, which is the "liberal" wing of the Presbyterian denomination, as opposed to the more conservative PCA.  We do crazy things, like ordaining women, and even allowing them to wear shoes. 

Although I'm a registered Republican, I occasionally cross over and vote my conscience, particularly with local candidates.  That's probably what I'm going to do this year in our local congressional race.  I definitely have become more left-leaning as I've gotten older. 

As a fiscal conservative, I believe we need a balanced budget and to reduce debt.   I have no problems paying taxes as long as I feel the money is being used effectively.  The problem I have with most government-sponsored social welfare programs is the waste and inefficiency.  Unfortunately, I feel we will need to go through a period of austerity to get out of our current economic mess.  Might be painful, but is unavoidable.  My expectation is that the private sector will fill the gaps from cutbacks in federal programs.

Mark

Wow - that is certainly a grand pronouncement. I could counter that with an equally outrageous exaggeration that the Republican party wants to keep us to remain ignorant of basic science and supporting the low tax rates of the rich, keeping the 99% in a state of indentured servitude.

BTs political threads are SO similiar to what's happening in the real world of politics.  The OP asked a simple, politcal party NEUTRAL question and what do we get?

We get otherwise sane, intelligent, rational people painting broad, stereotypical brushstrokes based upon THEIR political leanings.   Can we answer tough, thoughtful  social questions without resorting to campaign slogans or soundbits from FOX or MSNBC. 

I wish the elections were over.  My typing finger are tired.

Speaking for myself as a Conservative voting iCatholic and a Public school teacher. My issues are the amount of waste that goes on in administration of programs as well as the fraud. My wif3e volunteers at our local food bank program through our church. Various supermarket chains donate food and the church distributes it. 15 people run the program and it doesn't cost any of them anything more than the gas to get their and their time.

When I was wroking my way through school I worked in retail. I can't count the nu8mber of times that people would bring in food stamps while driving a caddy or an audi and wearing (at the time $500.00 suits).

I had one guy that would come in and buy a piece of fruit with a $5-$10 FS get his change in cash and then buy beer and cigarettes.

Further I am very fussy about the charities I donate to there are certain causes that I will not support. Why should I have to pay higher taxes and have any portion of my taxes go to support causes I don't?

I also agree with one of the other posters that commented on the fact the Bidens give less of their money to charity than I do but want me to give them more of my taxes.

Well strictly speaking in the U.S. we each owe about 50 grand, so they're really just taking back money you already owe the government, right?

Proverbs 22:7
The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender.

I think you'll want to get that repaid as soon as possible

[all tongue in cheek, please don't send the mob with pitchforks and torches after me!]

I think another factor that caused many Catholics to move to the 
Republican side is Bill Clinton.

During the 1992 convention, Bob Casey Sr. was presumed to have time to speak.
Casey was the leading pro-life Democrat.
Clinton maneuvered to deny Casey that opportunity. 

The message was clear.
There'd be no more room in the Democratic party for serious pro-life politicians,
or for their perspective.
The Democratic tent became much smaller after that. 

^^^^THIS^^^^

The notion that only people at the lower end of the socio-economic ladder are the sole receipients of "Welfare" dollars is completely false.   Everybody agrees there needs to be a "safety net' for those TRUELY in need.  But when greed and graft is rampant in every facet our of lives-it's tough to know where to draw the line.

Clinton at the least offended religiously formed opinions and policy.
Then came Obama who started a full on attack on religious liberty with the HHS mandate issue.

So on the one hand, you have a moral obligation for the preferential option for the poor.
It can be reasonably argued that this can be accomplished either with the economic policies of the left or the right,
even if the actual outcome may not prove either to be fully correct.
Reasonable people may disagree.

On the other hand you have genuine hostility coming from the left toward religious people.

Naturally then, you'd have movement of religious people to the right.

The left made a long term strategic error in owning the pro choice position.
The right made an error with denying the real problems with our immigration issue.

So I think here's what might be coming down the pike.

We have a real immigration problem.
It was started in part by Central Valley farmers who wanted cheap seasonal labor,
so it was essentially started by Republicans.
It grew from there.

Reagan said something along the lines that Latinos are natural Republicans and conservatives,
they just don't know it yet. 
I think he was right, and I think that it's the fault of Republicans that the message hasn't gotten across.

We are blessed in that as difficult as the immigration problem is right now,
it's a problem of immigrants who are mostly hard working, pro family, Catholic Christians.
That's good for the long term future of our country.

The right needs to figure out how to finally get the message across to these immigrants,
while at the same time not abandoning the principles of the rule of law.
Very tough problem.

But not as tough as the left's problem coming down the pike.

Andrew Cuomo will probably be a front runner in the next presidential primary/election.
He is openly pro-choice.
Cardinal Dolan will not let that stand.
Guaranteed. 

It could be the defining issue that finally gets the message across to Latinos that Reagan gave voice to.
Solidify the Latino vote in the next generation or two,
and you will control US politics for a very long time.

<pet peeve>

Catholics are very much Christian.  No need to call us out.

</pet peeve>

You could, but it would be an even greater stretch than my little hyperbole. The "Republican Party" does not have such a  platform. The religious right conservatives that call themselves Republicans certainly would love a cyclical based "science" to be put forward.

I'm not sure how you link tax rates with servitude? You can joke all you want. I do not believe the Democratic party wants the entire nation on government subsistence paying for it by taxing them to death. But keeping people on subsistence is most certainly not doing anyone any good. It is a form of servitude. I'm not the only one that thinks that probably.

I also do not think welfare is as big as problem as it is made out to be. I think the abuse of it is not as big as it is made out to be. It does not mean there is not plenty of room for improvement.

I'd say that Jesus was quite specific about His ideas on the collection of wealth.

Mark 10:21 Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, "One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

Mark 10:24 to 25 The disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!

 "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Luke  16:13 " No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other You cannot serve God and wealth."

And he doesn't say, "Give it to the church."  He says in about 25 times, "Give it to the poor."

I will save you from another 700 words about it and refer you here.

(I am agnostic, BTW, but have oft wondered the same thing).

http://thejcrevelator2.hubpages.com/hub/Thejcrevalator2therich

, "Give it to the poor."

Uhh yeah.. not take it from the rich. If the rich wanted to be religious, they would donate, and many do, but atheist liberals taking it from them does not make either any the better person... just saying.

Also, to add to the topic, I heard a good analogy on this. A good percentage of agnostics/atheists are democratic, and therefore they have no "god" to believe in, so they vent their praise towards liberal leaders, like Obama, who is atheist. On the other hand, Romney/Ryan promote their religious beliefs in speeches and debates, therefore making them more liked by religious people.

Sorry

President Obama reported earning about $790,000 last year and paid $162,000 in total taxes. He and the first lady donated $172,000 to charity, or about 22 percent of their adjusted gross income, according to their tax returns. The majority of the first family’s donations went to the Fisher House Foundation which provides scholarships to veterans’ children.

Romney is a charitable man. His total donations in 2011 totaled over $4 million dollars, or roughly 30% of his total income.  The vast >90% of this money went to support the Mormon Church and Mormon Schools.

Romans 13:7 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; 

As always with these issues, I find dontracy's comments very helpful.  Thank you Don and all who have contributed thoughtfully.

Personally, I was raised Catholic in a family and congregation that put a lot of emphasis on the social justice teachings of the church.  As an adult, I go to a different church, but all of us read the same Bible.  The Bible does have a lot to say about money and justice: 

Psalm 82:3
Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.

There are a lot more verses about this stuff in there than there are verses about sex.

That said, I'm frankly quite conservative on personal morality.  My faith governs how I live my life; it governs how my brothers and sisters in the faith live their lives.  It does not necessarily govern how we vote.  How we vote ends up turning more on what we view the role of government to be.  What things are better done by individuals or private entities, and what are best done collectively?

And then, what behavior do we want the government to proscribe: anything immoral, or just some of the things that are immoral? Anything that causes harm to another person or community, or just some harms?  Or put another way: what moral issues are best dealt with an individual level, and what need collective action to address?

I consider some environmental law, for example, to implicate moral issues, and issues not best regulated by individuals.  We can say, "hey, Incenterator Company, it's immoral to poison the air that children breathe," but if you are talking to a profit-seeking entity, it doesn't get swayed by a moral imperative; its goal is to make as much money as it can for its shareholders within the bounds of the law. Individual lawsuits also don't really help: you can live in an area where your kid is five times more likely to have asthma than your kid's cousin on the other side of state, but you can't prove in court that the incinerator in your neighborhood caused YOUR kid's asthma.  So I think that regulating the negative externalities of the incinerator is something best achieved collectively,  by the government, via pollution control laws.

You can think through any issue this way---and end up with a smattering of policies attributable to either the "right" or the "left."  So in my church, each of us votes our own conscience, and we respect each other's differences as we do so. 

loving all the points brought up and civil discussion.

semi-related thought today...the obama campaign reached $1billion in donations yesterday and i'm sure mitt is not far behind.  think of all the good that money could do, and instead it's buying private jets and attack ads.....