The Greed and Hate of the Religious Right

[untermensche]

Mostly Trudeau, since he won the election.

This thread is about the religious right in the United States.

They voted for Trump and the Republicans in the US Congress.

You clearly didn't read the post you quoted then.

If it was some irrelevant point about something besides the OP then I did the right thing.

Again, this is a thread about the religious right in the US.

What do you have to say about them?

I will read it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If it was some irrelevant point about something besides the OP then I did the right thing.

So you still haven't read it, you declare it irrelevant, and yet you quoted it. Ok, got it.

Again, this is a thread about the religious right in the US.

Is it? I didn't see this being made exclusive to the US in the OP or in what I quoted. Perhaps I overlooked it. I'm not a self-absorbed American.

What do you have to say about them?

Exactly what I said already. That I don't live there and they seem to be different than Christians in other first world western countries, such as Canada (my observation) and Australia (as another poster here noted). You live in a fucked up country. This isn't news, and it isn't indicative of Christians in general.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

James, say "Chag Sameach" which means Happy Festival in Hebrew. If they quote Ayn Rand, point out that Ayn Rand was an outspoken atheist who called Jesus a 'scabrous bum', and called religion a lie and abortion a moral right of women. Most religious Randroids know only the free Never Never Land gush.

Eldarion Lathria

It would be fun to have an anotated list of Ayn Rand's anti-Christian/religious quotes so our good Christian Ayn Rand fans could have them waggled in their faces when they peddle her nonsense at us.

 

[untermensche]

Exactly what I said already. That I don't live there and they seem to be different than Christians in other first world western countries, such as Canada (my observation) and Australia (as another poster here noted). You live in a fucked up country. This isn't news, and it isn't indicative of Christians in general.

I live in a nation with great pluses and great minuses.

Not everybody is a crazed Christian or unrepentant Trump supporter.

This nation created Noam Chomsky.

It isn't all bad.

 

[ronburgundy]

We live in very different worlds/cultures. I only meet this sort of hateful Christian online. Every Christian I know cares about the lives of others. Every Jew and Muslim I know does too. We probably have a few who don't here, but they are rare and hidden. You actually get it in your face as the norm?

As untermensch points out, yes it is in our face daily as they are overrepresented in our government. But yes, in addition, I live in a very very conservative town in a conservative county. I have had people stand up in a room and shout at me while pointing a trembling finger, “YOU WILL ANSWER TO GAWD!!!” Because I dared to claim that the constitution did not allow me to withhold a building permit over the religion of the owner. I have had a children’s director ot the YMCA draw back with a gasp and ask, “you’re not... _atheists!?”

So yes, in my face, and normal enough to be a regular and predictable occurance.
We’ve got whole churches full of them here. This thread was inspired by a co-worker.

Sure, in small conservative towns, I'm sure it is quite common. I've lived all my life in the western side of the US. Outside of the 30-40% fundagelicals segment of Christianity, the mainstream Protestants and RCs, are almost never going to be 'in your face'. Other than the occasional blowhard on a street corner, it just doesn't really happen on this side of the Rockies much in the cities. Even when I lived in Idaho, the conservative Christians generally played nice with the other groupings. But yeah, this version is all too prevalent within the Greedy Old Pervert party. In the media and politics, I think these conservative Christians get far too much credit for representing the face of Christianity; and are certainly the noisiest.

Conservative Christians should get the credit as the face of the religion, because they are the most religious and Christian.
This has been shown by a number of studies in almost any reasonable way one can define and measure degree of religiosity, from certainty in God's existence, to how often one reads the Bible or attends church, to how important one says their religion is in their daily life.

36% of US Prostestants are Evangelical Protestants. They are extremely religious
91% are "absolutely certain that God exists", 80% pray daily and 80% say their religion is "very important in my life", 63% read the Bible at least once a week, and 48% participate in group bible study at least once a week.

And they are highly right wing, bigoted, and opposed to public safety nets to care for the poor.
A majority oppose Government aid to the poor, 2:1 ratio in opposition to gay marriage, and 4:1 ration identify as "conservative" verus "liberal"

By comparison, the 21% of Christians who are "mainline Protestant" are significantly less religious in every way.
Only 66% are "absolutely certain" that God exists, only 53% say their religion is "very important in their life", only 53% pray daily, only 33% attend services once a week or more, only 30% read the Bible at least once a week, and only 19% participate in group Bible study at least once a week.

That much lower religiosity is associated with being significantly less conservative, less bigoted, and more supportive of public safety net to care for the poor.
The conservative:liberal ratio is only 1.8 to 1, they are equally split on whether government should aid the poor, and there is a 1.6 to 1 ratio in support of gay marriage.

The numbers for the 21% of Christians who are "Catholic" are very similar to mainline protestants. And this undersells the strength of the relationship between how religious a Christian is and how bigoted and supportive of uncaring right wing policies they are.
That's because mainline protestants and Catholics are a more politically diverse group than Evangelicals. When you divide mainlines and Catholics into conservatives and liberals who find that the conservatives are similar to Evangelicals in high strength of religiosity.

The bottom line is that most US Christians are politically conservative and when you don't include Hispanic Catholics and Black Baptists, its probably close to a 3:1 split among white Christians in being conservative over liberal. And the minority that are liberal are "Christian" in a much weaker sense.

 

[funinspace]

Sure, in small conservative towns, I'm sure it is quite common. I've lived all my life in the western side of the US. Outside of the 30-40% fundagelicals segment of Christianity, the mainstream Protestants and RCs, are almost never going to be 'in your face'. Other than the occasional blowhard on a street corner, it just doesn't really happen on this side of the Rockies much in the cities. Even when I lived in Idaho, the conservative Christians generally played nice with the other groupings. But yeah, this version is all too prevalent within the Greedy Old Pervert party. In the media and politics, I think these conservative Christians get far too much credit for representing the face of Christianity; and are certainly the noisiest.

Conservative Christians should get the credit as the face of the religion, because they are the most religious and Christian.
This has been shown by a number of studies in almost any reasonable way one can define and measure degree of religiosity, from certainty in God's existence, to how often one reads the Bible or attends church, to how important one says their religion is in their daily life.

Well, though you have some interesting data, I find your views on who is ‘the most Christian’ to be biased, much as the conservative Christians carry this same bias. If one believes that Jesus Christ is one’s savior and will go to this God’s heaven, then I see it in a relatively binary format. And that belief doesn’t have to be the moronic 110% sure…’cuz gawd said so’ either. One isn’t “more Christian” because they do something different than the other grouping. Sure, more conservative Christians carry on with their version of the trappings of Christian faith, but I really don’t see that as being ‘more Christian’. Also, these conservative Christians also do many things that the liberal Christians to be antithetical to how they interpret God’s will and the Bible.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I’ve decided Ayn Rand is the Golden Calf of today’s Pharisees, if you’ll pardon the mixed verse metaphor.


We are starting to hear the moderate and liberal Christians disown them publicly.

Atheist Ayn Rand an idol of the Religious Right? Interesting.

 

[ronburgundy]

Sure, in small conservative towns, I'm sure it is quite common. I've lived all my life in the western side of the US. Outside of the 30-40% fundagelicals segment of Christianity, the mainstream Protestants and RCs, are almost never going to be 'in your face'. Other than the occasional blowhard on a street corner, it just doesn't really happen on this side of the Rockies much in the cities. Even when I lived in Idaho, the conservative Christians generally played nice with the other groupings. But yeah, this version is all too prevalent within the Greedy Old Pervert party. In the media and politics, I think these conservative Christians get far too much credit for representing the face of Christianity; and are certainly the noisiest.

Conservative Christians should get the credit as the face of the religion, because they are the most religious and Christian.
This has been shown by a number of studies in almost any reasonable way one can define and measure degree of religiosity, from certainty in God's existence, to how often one reads the Bible or attends church, to how important one says their religion is in their daily life.

Well, though you have some interesting data, I find your views on who is ‘the most Christian’ to be biased, much as the conservative Christians carry this same bias. If one believes that Jesus Christ is one’s savior and will go to this God’s heaven, then I see it in a relatively binary format. And that belief doesn’t have to be the moronic 110% sure…’cuz gawd said so’ either. One isn’t “more Christian” because they do something different than the other grouping.

IOW, you ignore all relevant data and any basic understanding that beliefs (like all psychological traits) exist on a continuum rather than a false dichotomy.
So, imagine your doctor tells you that he is 51% confident that drug A won't kill you, and is 100% certain that drug B won't kill you. According to you those two levels of your doctor's belief are identical and both mean he is a "believer in the drug's safety". Thus you should be just as comfortable taking either drug.
OF you won't, because you don't actually believe what you are claiming about the either/or nature of beliefs and the fact that you wouldn't act on it proves you don't actually believe it.

If God doesn't exist, then you cannot very well go to heaven via is only son. The data I linked showed that 1 in 3 mainstream protestants are not certain he does exist, and most of them know almost nothing about their founding doctrines of the faith that they participate in only by checking the "Protestant" box on surveys. Strength of beliefs determines action, and actions reveal the strength and sincerity of belief.

The strength of belief and belief-consistent actions are the only valid determinants of whether a person is a Christian. What is completely meaningless is the only criteria you are using which is whether they check the "Christian" box on a survey. It makes the entire category of "Christian" utterly meaningless. It is equal to concluding that a person is a dog if they simply say "I am a dog".

Sure, more conservative Christians carry on with their version of the trappings of Christian faith, but I really don’t see that as being ‘more Christian’.

The "trappings" (aka actually believing and acting like you believe) are what make it the Christian faith. Without them, Dawkins becomes just as Christian as the Pope, if he simply utters the phrase "I am Christian", even as a joke. Hell, your definition literally means that any actual parrot trained to say "I am Christian" is just as Christian as the most intense devotee.

Also, these conservative Christians also do many things that the liberal Christians to be antithetical to how they interpret God’s will and the Bible.

As the evidence I showed you demonstrates, most liberal Christians do not read the Bible nor listen to others read it, they don't think about the Bible and don't consider it highly important in life. So, they are not "interpreting the Bible". They have no idea what it says. They are ignoring the core document of their claimed faith and making up their own notion of "God's will", which many of them aren't convinced is even real.
They get their notions not from their claimed faith but from non-Christian ideas from secular non-religious culture and society. They just slap the label of "Christian on just notions because they don't want to give up the label despite giving up most things it refers to that distinguish it from non-Christian or even non-theist.

 

[funinspace]

Sure, more conservative Christians carry on with their version of the trappings of Christian faith, but I really don’t see that as being ‘more Christian’.

The "trappings" (aka actually believing and acting like you believe) are what make it the Christian faith. Without them, Dawkins becomes just as Christian as the Pope, if he simply utters the phrase "I am Christian", even as a joke. Hell, your definition literally means that any actual parrot trained to say "I am Christian" is just as Christian as the most intense devotee.

When I said “If one believes that Jesus Christ is one’s savior and will go to this God’s heaven, then I see it in a relatively binary format”, I was not implying that merely parroting the words makes one a Real Christian, that would be a dead parrot. I was merely stating that if the individual actually has belief in the above then they are a Real Christian IMPOV.

 

[Elixir]

I’ve decided Ayn Rand is the Golden Calf of today’s Pharisees, if you’ll pardon the mixed verse metaphor.


We are starting to hear the moderate and liberal Christians disown them publicly.

Atheist Ayn Rand an idol of the Religious Right? Interesting.

It is interesting indeed. I think the take-away is that the "religious" right are largely atheists who mouth the words of their ostensible religion(s) as a matter of expedience.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I’ve decided Ayn Rand is the Golden Calf of today’s Pharisees, if you’ll pardon the mixed verse metaphor.


We are starting to hear the moderate and liberal Christians disown them publicly.

Atheist Ayn Rand an idol of the Religious Right? Interesting.

It is interesting indeed. I think the take-away is that the "religious" right are largely atheists who mouth the words of their ostensible religion(s) as a matter of expedience.

My take away is "I don't like X, I don't like Y, therefore they are the same."

 

[Elixir]

It is interesting indeed. I think the take-away is that the "religious" right are largely atheists who mouth the words of their ostensible religion(s) as a matter of expedience.

My take away is "I don't like X, I don't like Y, therefore they are the same."

I like atheists (as a rule) and I don't like the "religious right", so... no.

Are you hearing "I don't like Ayn Rand and I don't like the religious right, therefore they are the same"?
I can't speak for the poster but I don't believe that is what he meant.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It is interesting indeed. I think the take-away is that the "religious" right are largely atheists who mouth the words of their ostensible religion(s) as a matter of expedience.

My take away is "I don't like X, I don't like Y, therefore they are the same."

I like atheists (as a rule) and I don't like the "religious right", so... no.

Are you hearing "I don't like Ayn Rand and I don't like the religious right, therefore they are the same"?
I can't speak for the poster but I don't believe that is what he meant.

Not in your case, but you're not the OP. I also hear "they agree on a few things, therefore they agree on everything."

 

[Elixir]

I like atheists (as a rule) and I don't like the "religious right", so... no.

Are you hearing "I don't like Ayn Rand and I don't like the religious right, therefore they are the same"?
I can't speak for the poster but I don't believe that is what he meant.

Not in your case, but you're not the OP. I also hear "they agree on a few things, therefore they agree on everything."

Lol! Anyone agreeing with everything Rand wrote has much bigger problems than being part of a religious right!
I still think there is a point to be made that the greed and hate (the Any Randish component) of the religious right runs contrary to the tenets that are (or used to be) central to the religion to which they <pretend to> subscribe.
The analogy isn't perfect, but analogies tend to not be perfect. And I'm sure that most individuals of the religious right would deny any affinity for Ayn Rand, whether or not they harbor beliefs and feelings similar to hers.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Greed and hate? We must not be discussing the same Ayn Rand.