Religion and the right, a sencible alliance?

[mur'phon]

This thread is basically for discussing why the fairly common alliance between those supporting right-wing economic policies and the religious institutions. Also should this alliance should continue? Now I know this alliance doesn't exist everywhere, the liberation preachers in Latin America is a good example, but in most western states, and in countless developing countries this alliance persist.

[Darth InSidious]

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

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

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

[Web Rider]

Actually, this really is something that is unique to the United States. Most "religious" parties in other countries, in Germany, the Christian Democratic Union and the Christian Social Union are the notably "religious" parties, yet both are further left than even the American "leftwing". Probably the only non-American parties that have large quantities of religiousness and right-wingness are all minor players, or whackjobs like the BNP.

 

The merging of fundamentalism and neoliberalism is something that is rather unique to the United States, most "western nations" lack the large population of fundamentalist people to make them a viable demographic for any party to care about it.

[mur'phon]

By right I was talking of right in any given country, as each country's political equilibrium will necessarily be different. Thus while the CDU (in Germany) are far left by American standards, they are right/center right in Germany. Also, I did not only mean fundamental religiousness.

[jrrtoken]

It's really just the personality of religious leaders that affect the overall external appearance, and not the fundamental teachings. It also applies to any organized body.

[vanir]

I think the pandora's box you're opening is about sociology and psychology. Among the religious there is the divide of conservatives and revolutionaries, and finally within denominations there is a divide of conservatives and revolutionaries.

 

When you say "right wing and leftist" these terms define conservatives and revolutionaries. This kind of sociopolitical nature goes all the way down the family unit or any social organisation not gathered by synonimity.

 

Why are conservatives frequently religious in their presentation? Because any conservative seems religious to a revolutionary, being often synomynous with traditionalism to all appearances.

 

For example, many of the things viewed as religious dogma by revolutionaries of conservatives are quite plainly expressed as existential observation. My experience, where it differs from yours, is your religion if you are to adhere to it without understanding it. Not the same thing as calling it my religion.

 

As you allude between cultures, and indeed between demographics, perceptions will differ and hence misunderstanding is commonplace. So we have politics, because whilst you have the right to live as you will in a lawful manner, so do I and yet our manners and celebrations are entirely different.

Our definition of right and wrong, responsibility and obligation will often be entirely different.

 

Here's what we can wind up with. You call wrong, right and matters which are none of your concern, wrong, as a nation (both in foreign and domestic policy). But this cannot be explained in spreadsheets, it falls in grey areas of legal systems. Hence many political movements are openly concerned with moral culture, and probably the only political movement which even attempts to deal with such a thing, and the only argument such concerns have, is religious or sounds very much like religion.

 

The proverbial political concern of arriving at a dictatorship like Hitler's Germany for example, is strictly conservative in nature. The US Constitution could be said to have been mooted in a fit of conservatism. Want to break new ground? Could wind up with another Stalin. Pure leftist is to slide the entire structure off the table in a sweeping motion and invent new ideas.

 

But then...new ideas always come from primordeal inspirations, do they not? The most ancient conservatism of all. Could it be revolution at its very core is the beating chest of an ape attempting to challenge its bull male?

The epitome of right and leftist respective policy staring at each other across the table, were Hitler and Stalin in fact very far removed from each other at a grass roots level? Methinks the only change was who/why genocide.

 

 

Right and leftist is a constant and as you said relative. Specific context and considered response irrespective of sentimentality is going to win the day, but there is always something else which comes up, some piece of corruption to mute honesty. The economy, or public order, etc.

[Q]

Well, since the First Amendment to the US constitution establishes separation of church and state, it would probably be for the best if religion stayed out of politics and vice-versa. It's perfectly fine for politicians to be religious and for their convictions to motivate them, but, in the US at least, it stops being fine once they make their religion the central issue of whatever agenda that they happen to be pushing at the moment, or when they tout their supposed beliefs in an effort to buy votes.

 

In short, mixing the two is detrimental to both.

[vanir]

What I'm saying is what you might see as religion in politics sometimes isn't.

 

As to the new point about Constitutional law...well firstly it appears no individual definitions of Constitutional legislature are universally celebrated (which is one very big problem you have), and where you bandy about 1st ammendment rights as the separation of church and state rather than individual religious freedom, you run headlong into a catch-22 with free speech.

[jonathan7]

I think the pandora's box you're opening is about sociology and psychology. Among the religious there is the divide of conservatives and revolutionaries, and finally within denominations there is a divide of conservatives and revolutionaries.

 

When you say "right wing and leftist" these terms define conservatives and revolutionaries. This kind of sociopolitical nature goes all the way down the family unit or any social organisation not gathered by synonimity.

 

Why are conservatives frequently religious in their presentation? Because any conservative seems religious to a revolutionary, being often synomynous with traditionalism to all appearances.

 

For example, many of the things viewed as religious dogma by revolutionaries of conservatives are quite plainly expressed as existential observation. My experience, where it differs from yours, is your religion if you are to adhere to it without understanding it. Not the same thing as calling it my religion.

 

As you allude between cultures, and indeed between demographics, perceptions will differ and hence misunderstanding is commonplace. So we have politics, because whilst you have the right to live as you will in a lawful manner, so do I and yet our manners and celebrations are entirely different.

Our definition of right and wrong, responsibility and obligation will often be entirely different.

 

Here's what we can wind up with. You call wrong, right and matters which are none of your concern, wrong, as a nation (both in foreign and domestic policy). But this cannot be explained in spreadsheets, it falls in grey areas of legal systems. Hence many political movements are openly concerned with moral culture, and probably the only political movement which even attempts to deal with such a thing, and the only argument such concerns have, is religious or sounds very much like religion.

 

The proverbial political concern of arriving at a dictatorship like Hitler's Germany for example, is strictly conservative in nature. The US Constitution could be said to have been mooted in a fit of conservatism. Want to break new ground? Could wind up with another Stalin. Pure leftist is to slide the entire structure off the table in a sweeping motion and invent new ideas.

 

But then...new ideas always come from primordeal inspirations, do they not? The most ancient conservatism of all. Could it be revolution at its very core is the beating chest of an ape attempting to challenge its bull male?

The epitome of right and leftist respective policy staring at each other across the table, were Hitler and Stalin in fact very far removed from each other at a grass roots level? Methinks the only change was who/why genocide.

 

 

Right and leftist is a constant and as you said relative. Specific context and considered response irrespective of sentimentality is going to win the day, but there is always something else which comes up, some piece of corruption to mute honesty. The economy, or public order, etc.

 

No offence, but what on earth does any of that mean? It didn't at least to me, seem to make any sense!

[Lynk Former]

I think the pandora's box you're opening is about sociology and psychology. Among the religious there is the divide of conservatives and revolutionaries, and finally within denominations there is a divide of conservatives and revolutionaries.

 

When you say "right wing and leftist" these terms define conservatives and revolutionaries. This kind of sociopolitical nature goes all the way down the family unit or any social organisation not gathered by synonimity.

 

Why are conservatives frequently religious in their presentation? Because any conservative seems religious to a revolutionary, being often synomynous with traditionalism to all appearances.

 

For example, many of the things viewed as religious dogma by revolutionaries of conservatives are quite plainly expressed as existential observation. My experience, where it differs from yours, is your religion if you are to adhere to it without understanding it. Not the same thing as calling it my religion.

 

As you allude between cultures, and indeed between demographics, perceptions will differ and hence misunderstanding is commonplace. So we have politics, because whilst you have the right to live as you will in a lawful manner, so do I and yet our manners and celebrations are entirely different.

Our definition of right and wrong, responsibility and obligation will often be entirely different.

 

Here's what we can wind up with. You call wrong, right and matters which are none of your concern, wrong, as a nation (both in foreign and domestic policy). But this cannot be explained in spreadsheets, it falls in grey areas of legal systems. Hence many political movements are openly concerned with moral culture, and probably the only political movement which even attempts to deal with such a thing, and the only argument such concerns have, is religious or sounds very much like religion.

 

The proverbial political concern of arriving at a dictatorship like Hitler's Germany for example, is strictly conservative in nature. The US Constitution could be said to have been mooted in a fit of conservatism. Want to break new ground? Could wind up with another Stalin. Pure leftist is to slide the entire structure off the table in a sweeping motion and invent new ideas.

 

But then...new ideas always come from primordeal inspirations, do they not? The most ancient conservatism of all. Could it be revolution at its very core is the beating chest of an ape attempting to challenge its bull male?

The epitome of right and leftist respective policy staring at each other across the table, were Hitler and Stalin in fact very far removed from each other at a grass roots level? Methinks the only change was who/why genocide.

 

 

Right and leftist is a constant and as you said relative. Specific context and considered response irrespective of sentimentality is going to win the day, but there is always something else which comes up, some piece of corruption to mute honesty. The economy, or public order, etc.

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

[Jae Onasi]

I think the pandora's box you're opening is about sociology and psychology. Among the religious there is the divide of conservatives and revolutionaries, and finally within denominations there is a divide of conservatives and revolutionaries.

 

When you say "right wing and leftist" these terms define conservatives and revolutionaries. This kind of sociopolitical nature goes all the way down the family unit or any social organisation not gathered by synonimity.

 

Why are conservatives frequently religious in their presentation? Because any conservative seems religious to a revolutionary, being often synomynous with traditionalism to all appearances.

 

For example, many of the things viewed as religious dogma by revolutionaries of conservatives are quite plainly expressed as existential observation. My experience, where it differs from yours, is your religion if you are to adhere to it without understanding it. Not the same thing as calling it my religion.

 

As you allude between cultures, and indeed between demographics, perceptions will differ and hence misunderstanding is commonplace. So we have politics, because whilst you have the right to live as you will in a lawful manner, so do I and yet our manners and celebrations are entirely different.

Our definition of right and wrong, responsibility and obligation will often be entirely different.

 

Here's what we can wind up with. You call wrong, right and matters which are none of your concern, wrong, as a nation (both in foreign and domestic policy). But this cannot be explained in spreadsheets, it falls in grey areas of legal systems. Hence many political movements are openly concerned with moral culture, and probably the only political movement which even attempts to deal with such a thing, and the only argument such concerns have, is religious or sounds very much like religion.

 

The proverbial political concern of arriving at a dictatorship like Hitler's Germany for example, is strictly conservative in nature. The US Constitution could be said to have been mooted in a fit of conservatism. Want to break new ground? Could wind up with another Stalin. Pure leftist is to slide the entire structure off the table in a sweeping motion and invent new ideas.

 

But then...new ideas always come from primordeal inspirations, do they not? The most ancient conservatism of all. Could it be revolution at its very core is the beating chest of an ape attempting to challenge its bull male?

The epitome of right and leftist respective policy staring at each other across the table, were Hitler and Stalin in fact very far removed from each other at a grass roots level? Methinks the only change was who/why genocide.

 

 

Right and leftist is a constant and as you said relative. Specific context and considered response irrespective of sentimentality is going to win the day, but there is always something else which comes up, some piece of corruption to mute honesty. The economy, or public order, etc.

 

Can you please clarify this? I'm having trouble processing your point(s).

[Darth InSidious]

I think the pandora's box you're opening is about sociology and psychology. Among the religious there is the divide of conservatives and revolutionaries, and finally within denominations there is a divide of conservatives and revolutionaries.

 

When you say "right wing and leftist" these terms define conservatives and revolutionaries. This kind of sociopolitical nature goes all the way down the family unit or any social organisation not gathered by synonimity.

 

Why are conservatives frequently religious in their presentation? Because any conservative seems religious to a revolutionary, being often synomynous with traditionalism to all appearances.

 

For example, many of the things viewed as religious dogma by revolutionaries of conservatives are quite plainly expressed as existential observation. My experience, where it differs from yours, is your religion if you are to adhere to it without understanding it. Not the same thing as calling it my religion.

 

As you allude between cultures, and indeed between demographics, perceptions will differ and hence misunderstanding is commonplace. So we have politics, because whilst you have the right to live as you will in a lawful manner, so do I and yet our manners and celebrations are entirely different.

Our definition of right and wrong, responsibility and obligation will often be entirely different.

 

Here's what we can wind up with. You call wrong, right and matters which are none of your concern, wrong, as a nation (both in foreign and domestic policy). But this cannot be explained in spreadsheets, it falls in grey areas of legal systems. Hence many political movements are openly concerned with moral culture, and probably the only political movement which even attempts to deal with such a thing, and the only argument such concerns have, is religious or sounds very much like religion.

 

The proverbial political concern of arriving at a dictatorship like Hitler's Germany for example, is strictly conservative in nature. The US Constitution could be said to have been mooted in a fit of conservatism. Want to break new ground? Could wind up with another Stalin. Pure leftist is to slide the entire structure off the table in a sweeping motion and invent new ideas.

 

But then...new ideas always come from primordeal inspirations, do they not? The most ancient conservatism of all. Could it be revolution at its very core is the beating chest of an ape attempting to challenge its bull male?

The epitome of right and leftist respective policy staring at each other across the table, were Hitler and Stalin in fact very far removed from each other at a grass roots level? Methinks the only change was who/why genocide.

 

 

Right and leftist is a constant and as you said relative. Specific context and considered response irrespective of sentimentality is going to win the day, but there is always something else which comes up, some piece of corruption to mute honesty. The economy, or public order, etc.

 

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

 

i agree

[Sabretooth]

i agree

 

न च मां तानि कर्माणि निबध्नन्ति धनंजय । उदासीनवदासीनमसक्तं तेषु कर्मसु ॥ ते तं भुक्त्वा स्वर्गलोकं विशालं: क्षीणे पुण्ये मर्त्यलोकं विशन्ति?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

~♪~♪~♪~♪~♪~♪~♪~♪~♪~♪~♪~

[mur'phon]

Vanir: I hardly see the relevance of your post, I stated in my first post that I was interested in the alliance between religion and right wing economic politics. What these policies happen to be will wary depending on the political equilibrium in a given country. This is not a problem for the topic at hand because placing a political party's economic policy on a left-right scale relative to the equilibrium is usually fairly easy.

[Jae Onasi]

Well folks, time to get back on topic.

 

At least in the US, the right wing tends to be more conservative (socially as well as economically), and many of the religious tend to also be conservative (at least socially). From an alliance point of view, it thus makes sense.

[vanir]

I understand, it's a complicated contention I've made: the connection between "religious" and "right" in the term "religious right" is a bipartisan conjuration.

 

All I'm saying is it's far too socially acceptable to hold religious institutions responsible for the hollow claims of what anyone here would recognise are nothing more than salesmen.

As with Arabic terrorists, you're talking about a very small demographic of extremists and sociopaths and just because they like to use self justified terms, you go ahead and let them lead you by the nose to claim greater institutional responsibility for their poor intentions.

 

Everyone wants to replace daddy.

 

There is no church attempting to take over the United States government, ya silly little conspiracy theorists.

[Darth Avlectus]

Most recently the right here in the U.S. has shot itself in the foot. Touting etical and moral business practices, but turn around and do something greedy. With everyone else being set such a bad example by these large businesses, how are we to expect anyone else to behave in the same ideal ethical and moral fashion doing honorable business?

 

To which one friend of me said "***dammit, there you go talking in feudal terms again. Get with the times, real men play dirty business."

 

Guess I'm an idealist.

 

This thread is basically for discussing why the fairly common alliance between those supporting right-wing economic policies and the religious institutions. Also should this alliance should continue? Now I know this alliance doesn't exist everywhere' date=' the liberation preachers in Latin America is a good example, but in most western states, and in countless developing countries this alliance persist.[/quote']

 

Not sure I follow on the same page. You mean specifically in America or the world over? North America? What exactly? Or are you generalizing?

 

Why does it exist? As I understand it, there was originally free market where you had farmers bartering and trading, no currency except gold and precious materials were involved.

 

Then someone decided to come along and make currency because "compensation" was needed, and it was done with the purpose of "Capital", to make as much as possible for your products. Hence Capitalism was born...or something like that.

 

Jump forward a bit: Ethical business is the strive. The more one touts it and yet acts contrary to it, the worse it makes the faith look that the one represents. On the other side of the coin, it makes you look better when you do live up to it, but the problem here is parasitic customers who take advantage of you, and competitors who stop at nothing to take you out of business.

 

It is good to let your principles guide your business actions, but so often I see good behavior punished. I want to say it is a sensible alliance, but the rest of the world will not allow that to survive. Government regulation is supposed to back this but all too often I see corruption in government for much the same reason I see corruption in capitalism: Human Nature.

 

 

Yet if nothing is done, one way or another, to ensure that people act fairly towards one another, justce is not served.

 

For example, many of the things viewed as religious dogma by revolutionaries of conservatives are quite plainly expressed as existential observation. My experience, where it differs from yours, is your religion if you are to adhere to it without understanding it. Not the same thing as calling it my religion.

 

So it's a conflating of concepts? OR What do you mean here?

I get the impression that you mean that one's actions are not necessarily indicative of the whole picture.

 

Example: When I used to not believe, it was because of the actions/justifications of spotty behavior with God of one unscrupulous person or group, etc. and it tainted my view of faith as a whole. Eventually I saw how it was much the same as prejudice of hasty generalizations, just different form.

 

Essentially: Faith and business/economic policy can be good policy if carried out the correct way, if done in a way that perverts it, it could be a terrible and perhaps tyrannical combination.

 

As you allude between cultures, and indeed between demographics, perceptions will differ and hence misunderstanding is commonplace. So we have politics, because whilst you have the right to live as you will in a lawful manner, so do I and yet our manners and celebrations are entirely different.

Our definition of right and wrong, responsibility and obligation will often be entirely different.

Isn't there any universal agreement on this subject in general?

 

The proverbial political concern of arriving at a dictatorship like Hitler's Germany for example, is strictly conservative in nature. The US Constitution could be said to have been mooted in a fit of conservatism. Want to break new ground? Could wind up with another Stalin. Pure leftist is to slide the entire structure off the table in a sweeping motion and invent new ideas.

 

But then...new ideas always come from primordeal inspirations, do they not? The most ancient conservatism of all. Could it be revolution at its very core is the beating chest of an ape attempting to challenge its bull male?

The epitome of right and leftist respective policy staring at each other across the table, were Hitler and Stalin in fact very far removed from each other at a grass roots level? Methinks the only change was who/why genocide.

I guess I'm inclined to agree but I'm still not quite sure what you mean in terms of relevance to this topic?

 

Right and leftist is a constant and as you said relative. Specific context and considered response irrespective of sentimentality is going to win the day, but there is always something else which comes up, some piece of corruption to mute honesty. The economy, or public order, etc.

 

This is the fundamental problem with trying to inject moral and ethical standards into an economic structure is that it always has a counter-force acting against it. Times change and evolve, and so does necessity. And yet if there is no form to the foundations, it is all mud and no structure can survive on a foundation which was corrupt to begin with. This is the tragedy of it all is that a foundation may one day give up its principals (by hook and crook if not out of necessity) in order to move forth. At some point it will no longer be recognizable as the system it once was if it even survives that long.

 

 

What I'm saying is what you might see as religion in politics sometimes isn't.

 

I theorized that certain truths were universal and self evident, regardless of faith or lack thereof. Pity I never followed it up, but maybe this is an opportunity.

 

 

Vanir: I hardly see the relevance of your post' date=' I stated in my first post that I was interested in the alliance between religion and right wing economic politics. What these policies happen to be will wary depending on the political equilibrium in a given country. This is not a problem for the topic at hand because placing a political party's economic policy on a left-right scale relative to the equilibrium is usually fairly easy.[/quote']

 

Well, the ethics in business stemming from religion are not unique to the "right" though as you pointed out they are probably more typical of the right. Perhaps you have examples on your mind that raised these questions so that we can all see where you specifically are coming from?

[Jae Onasi]

I understand, it's a complicated contention I've made: the connection between "religious" and "right" in the term "religious right" is a bipartisan conjuration.

What is a 'bipartisan conjuration'?

All I'm saying is it's far too socially acceptable to hold religious institutions responsible for the hollow claims of what anyone here would recognise are nothing more than salesmen.

That's not what the OP is asking for, however.

 

As with Arabic terrorists, you're talking about a very small demographic of extremists and sociopaths and just because they like to use self justified terms, you go ahead and let them lead you by the nose to claim greater institutional responsibility for their poor intentions.

I don't believe the OP was asking about this, either.

 

Everyone wants to replace daddy.

I have no clue where you're going with this one.

 

There is no church attempting to take over the United States government, ya silly little conspiracy theorists.

No one asserted this, nor did anyone claim a conspiracy, unless I missed something in a recent post.

[mur'phon]

GTA:

 

Not sure I follow on the same page. You mean specifically in America or the world over? North America? What exactly? Or are you generalizing?

 

I meant the world over, however people are free to discuss it in the context of their own countries, for instance pointing by out why the alliance is good bad in the US.

 

Why does it exist? As I understand it, there was originally free market where you had farmers bartering and trading, no currency except gold and precious materials were involved.

 

Hardly true, depending on how early (and where) you think the "beginning" was, the system could be anything from a "planned economy" (where the despot/chief decided what you would do, what you would get in return etc) to a semi free market where individual tribesmen bartered whatever they had been able to gather. Even in this case, it would only fit the definition of free markets in rare cases (for instance having multiple providers of a skin a consumer desperately needs is hard when only one tribesman had been able to kill a suitable animal).

 

 

Jae:

At least in the US, the right wing tends to be more conservative (socially as well as economically), and many of the religious tend to also be conservative (at least socially). From an alliance point of view, it thus makes sense.

 

and to some extent this is true in many other countries, however, I'm a bit curious as to why this is so. For instance it would be fairly easy to use the bible to argue in favor of leftist policies, and indeed many Christians do a fantastic job working in charities to help the poor. Not only are charities disruptive to the free market, it's also a small step from wishing to help with one's own time and money to wish for tax money to be used to help the needy.

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

To which one friend of me said "***dammit, there you go talking in feudal terms again. Get with the times, real men play dirty business."

 

Guess I'm an idealist.

Or your friend is a tool.

He makes me want to make a sock-puppet for everyone... but that might get ugly.

 

Rather, I wonder if that same friend is a "good" christian? The kind that goes to church on Sunday to wash it all away? That is the sickening side of the "religious right" - ends justify the means until reckoning day, but pull out your Jesus trump card and it is all good.

 

Dirty men play dirty business. Real men might play rough, but they follow the rules. Call me a sucker... or an idealist. Right is right.