General Question

KidA111's avatar

How do Christianity and American conservatism go together?

Asked by KidA111 (26 points ) September 28th, 2010

I realize that these two ideologies dont necessarily go hand-in-hand and that you can adhere to one without adhering to the other but you cant deny that they tend to affiliate with one another in american politics. I also realize there is a difference between social and fiscal conservatism. However (and this may be a bit presumptuous of me) I cannot help but think that a majority of American voters just assume these two movements are compatible and lump them both into a greater movement of “American conservatism”

That being said, how is a religion which is supposed to advocate self denial (Mat 15:26), abandoning your assets and giving to those in need (Mark 10:21), not returning evil for evil (1 Peter 3:9) etc consistent with an ideology that – generally – supports the profit-motive, self-interest based economic system we have: “capitalism”, tax-cuts for the rich, opposition to universal healthcare, gun ownership rights used to kill in the event of a threat to your family, and a strong military used to retaliate against attacks and start preemptive wars?

I realize that many Christians in our country choose to be realists, and as realists many of them may find these conservative ideals to be the most reasonable positions to take in politics (note that im not criticizing the ideas themselves and i can certainly see how they can be argued for) I just cannot for the life of me see how you could reconcile these seemingly incompatible beliefs that stand as such core values to their respective ideologies

I’m especially curious about how capitalism and Christianity can be reconciled, as a system that supports principles of gaining wealth in an inherently competitive way seems to blatantly conflict with Biblical teachings (Proverbs 23:4) (Luke 19:45) (Acts 4:34–37) (Philippians 2:1–4) (Acts 4:32)

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

64 Answers

CMaz's avatar

It works if you are honest with yourself and not manipulated by your “peers”.

Oh, and the Bible is best understood when you do not get reality and literally mixed up.

wundayatta's avatar

Remember that religion is about abstract things. Commerce is about concrete things. The abstract has a difficult time affecting the concrete. People can say anything they want with their mouths, but their loudest voice is their actions.

JustmeAman's avatar

There is nothing wrong with Christians trying to make money and lots of it. You are taking a few examples of a statement or two from the Bible and making that say and point to your view on the matter. You are trying to say that the literal meaning is there in all cases and if this were so then we are sheep. I see no conflict of interest with a conservative and a Christian and keeping integrity in both of them.

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Qingu's avatar

Because both ideologies require a similar type of gullibility. They’re both structured as dogmatic authority cults. You’re not supposed to question the Bible, your pastor, the founding fathers, the constitution, or the talk-show demagogue you’re listening to. They are both largely based on a belief that the world has “fallen” from some previous ideal that we need to return to.

The economic policy of conservatism gets attached to this more fundamental conservatism so that poor gullible people vote against their interest, and for the interests of the wealthy people in charge of the Republican party.

wilma's avatar

I don’t think Christianity and American conservatism necessarily do go together. Not for many people.
I think it is ” liberals” I use that term for a lack of a better one that usually put them together.
They lump them all in one just to muddy up what they see as opposition.
There are many people who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, and the reverse is also true.
No one religion should have any power in America, and I do think most Americans feel that way.

Discobitch's avatar

There are also several types of conservatism.

Conservatism ranges from Pat Buchanan and his cowboy-shooting, Bible thumping clique of creationists to Julius Evola, Rene Guenon and other radical traditionalists who do not want to have anything to do with liberty-convervatism.

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
ETpro's avatar

Great question. Part of the answer might be found in the background and details for this question. It seems that ideology trumps just about everything else when it is strongly held. It rises above loosely held religious beliefs if they are truly not deep convictions but social conventions meant to ensure a better position in society. And, as this question shows, strong ideology even trumps observed data.

Perhaps a study of the contrasts between the Reality Based Community and the Faith Based Community will highlight some of the reasons why the apparent contradictions between laissez-faire capitalism and Christianity don’t bother the Christian Right.

robmandu's avatar

Complex subject necessitating a wide ranging debate. Let me just pick one item:

abandoning your assets and giving to those in need (Mark 10:21)

It’s about charity… which, to many people, means that you give of your belongings freely to those who need it. Having a government that creates laws which take your wealth and redistribute it by its own set of rules – which you might not even agree with for any number of religious, personal, logical reasons – is not charity.

crisw's avatar

There’s been a fair bit of research showing that both political conservatives and religious fundamentalists share similar behavioral traits- fear of change, fear of uncertainty, preference for the familiar, etc.

Jaxk's avatar

I don’t see the conflict. First conservatism has little to do with religion but strong religious people will tend to be conservative. Conservatism is about individual choices and responsibility. Liberalism is about collective choices and responsibility. Conservatives have more faith in the individual and liberals have more faith in the collective.

Religion is all about personal choices as well. Religion teaches that you are your brothers keeper not that the collective will see to the needs of your brother.

Discobitch's avatar

@Jaxk

Liberalism is a economical form of thought crafted by, among others, Adam Smith.

What you are talking about, is called socialism.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
flutherother's avatar

Personally I cannot see how Christianity can be reconciled with an extreme right wing viewpoint. American conservatism means selfishness Christianity means we should have consideration for others. One is for getting and the other is for giving. They are quite different.

robmandu's avatar

My opinion is that the definition of “American Conservatism” portrayed by @flutherother as well as many others who skew liberal is completely false. First of all, it’s not “extreme right”. While there’s always some crackpot that’s doing something extreme, that is not the case for the vast majority of normal folks who consider themselves conservative. Labeling such as extreme is a talking point from the play book of folks who are opposed to conservative views. Pure propaganda.

Without citing any statistics to back me, I think we’d all agree that most conservatives are religious of some stripe and attend a place of worship regularly. And further, that those places of worship devote billions of dollars and millions of hours in relief and volunteer efforts, at home and abroad. Missionary work, after-school programs, Christmas gifts, back-to-school, meals, drug & alcohol dependency, divorce care, etc., etc., etc.

That does not sound like “selfishness” to me. That’s people giving of themselves to help others, often at the global scale… and amazingly, usually with zero assistance from the U.S. Government.

So, you don’t like conservative ideas. Fine. Great. But the demonization, indeed the fear mongering, of conservatives and their viewpoints is getting really frickin’ old.

Discobitch's avatar

@robmandu

Not true. They beat children, forbid abortions, wage wars (though the democrats do so as well), and believe that our planet is 6000 years old.

augustlan's avatar

[mod says] Let’s stick to answering the actual question, folks, and please remember to disagree without being disagreeable.

ETpro's avatar

@robmandu With the large number of conservative republicans campaigning this year for a complete ban on all abortions, even in case of rape and incest, clearly a right-wing Christian position, I think the linkage is fair. A right-wing ballot initiative in Colorado even sought to rewrite the state constitution to give a human egg personhood at the moment of fertilization. This would have made women taking numerous types of birth control pills guilty of murder. I call that right-wing religious extremism. If mainstream conservatives think so to, I wish they would stand up and be counted as being against it.

Jabe73's avatar

@Qingu took my answer here but I will add. It is about not questioning authority (regardless of what it does) and blindly standing by without a fight while being pillaged. That is the problem with the bible and Christianity, anyone can twist the interpretations to justify their true motivations. The KKK has done this, and so have many others. Conservative capitalists are no different. It’s all about where the money and power is. The threat of eternal hell (which does not exist) is a great way to help keep the masses in check.

Jaxk's avatar

@Discobitch

“What you are talking about, is called socialism.”

Yes, ain’t that the truth. A liberal will tell you “it takes the village to raise a child”. A conservative will tell you “it takes a parent to raise the child”. If the village does it, it’s called an orphanage.

I find it interesting that liberals will belittle the religious while honoring the theory of evolution. Evolution by it’s very nature dictates survival of the fittest. While religion advocates caring for the weak and disabled. Religion advocates charity, while liberals mandate it.

It’s interesting to note that conservatives give about 30% more to charities than liberals. They also give more blood and more time to charities, while earning less. I can only conclude that liberals need to legislate, to make it law that people support those less fortunate simply because they they won’t do it otherwise. Conservatives on the other hand don’t need to be forced to give they just do. Conservatives believe it is up to the individual while liberals believe it must be mandated by the collective. Conservatives believe in the individual liberals don’t. I can only assume it is because they personally need to be forced to help so they believe everyone else needs to be forced as well. The facts don’t bear that out.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

Jaxk's avatar

@ETpro

It is interesting that you would make such a dramatic point about abortion during this election cycle. Virtually no one is campaigning on this as it is all about the economy. There is no question that Democrats want to change the subject to anything other than the economy. It’s their only hope, talk about anything, and I do mean anything other than the economy.

But as long as you’ve brought it up, it is not as easy as you would have us believe. Everyone wants to argue the extremes. Either abortion on demand, up to and including the delivery room or no early termination, including the ‘morning after pill’. So when you say “I wish they would stand up and be counted as being against it”, I’m not sure what you want.

I’m against outlawing the morning after pill. If that’s what you’re looking for, I submit it freely. If however, you’re looking for conservatives to cheer the practice of giving a lethal injection to the fetus before the abortion to insure it’s not born alive, I can’t give you that.

The Supreme Court tried to resolve this with their ruling. Truth is they should have stayed out of it. They should have refused to hear the case. Abortions were around at the time of the founding of the country. The founding fathers choose not to write anything into the constitution because it is not a federal responsibility. Nonetheless, the court did the best they could with it by by giving the guidelines (first trimester – ok, third – no, second is up to the mother and physician). That ruling has been bastardized to the point that anytime goes.

Why is it that once the baby’s head emerges, it’s not OK to kill it but a few seconds earlier, before the head emerges, you don’t give it a second thought, Go ahead and kill it. It’s the same baby. Until we get away from all the name calling, distortions, and emotional rhetoric we’ll never get a resolution on this. I’m not sure we’d ever agree even with a rational debate. But the irrational, emotional arguments take us further apart and make any compromise impossible. We can’t split the baby, so to speak. And religion is not the only thing keeping us apart.

Discobitch's avatar

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

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

It doesn’t matter how many bumper stickers you have, it will stay that way. It doesn’t matter whether you Support Our Boys or Go To Church, it will stay that way.
Liberalism is an economical ideology that is based upon individual choice, laissez-faire economics and free will. What you describe is called socialism.

Discobitch's avatar

I find it very funny when people try to tell that evolution is a social philosophy or an ideology.
It’s like saying: “gravity does not exist, since if a weak person falls due to it, he gets killed and a strong person has a better chance to survive, so there is no gravity and God lets people fall according to His Divine Providence”.

People who say so deserve only mockery.

thekoukoureport's avatar

Okat lets discuss the economy. Recessions are driven by fear. Fear I will lose my job, fear I will lose my house fear that my government is being overthrown by a Kenyan Colonialist, etc. etc. So I save, I get out of the game, my money stays with me rather than float around the country to feed “THE ECONOMY”. However we all know that the economy will turn around, things will become better again. It just seems that things are always at there worst right after a republican administration. AND it always takes the Democrats to fix it!
But you have to get it done in less than two years!

What we are seeing in less than two years is how succesful the stimulus and the bailouts have truly been. This president saved tens of millions of jobs by Bailing out an auto industry and returning them to a profitable enterprise saved MIllions of jobs alone, The bail out of AIG saved the ENTIRE world from economic collapse, The insuring of money market funds saved most large corporations in America. All of these investments it seems will be paid back in full with a steady tax stream to boot.

How many Bush Era programs can say the same?

Financial regulation brought stability back to the market not seen since the repeal of the Glass/ Steigle act. The lynchpin to the entire meltdown.

With tax cuts and business tax incentives this adminstration has done much to help stimulate the economy, but business has decided to stay on the sidelines with their 2 trillion in cash(and growing) hoping they can get enough of us to throw the bums out. So they can keep their tax holidays. While the rest of us Eat Cake!

ETpro's avatar

@Jaxk The Republican party has been abundantly clear in its desire to overturn Roe vs. Wade and go back to criminalizing abortion in almost all cases. It is true that there is an argument internally between those who would make exceptions for incest, rape and threats t life of the mother versus those who say “no exceptions”. But it is also true that the extreme right is in the process of taking over the Republican party, purging even Republicans who had a firm conservative voting record in favor of candidates at the far extreme of right-wing politics. So voicing concern as to what happens if we hand over rule to this new radical right seems perfectly reasonable to me.

It is also not true that the only point of view on the Democratic side are Democratic side is total abortion on demand up to and including partial birth abortion. Personally, I am a registered Democrat and I oppose abortion after the baby would be viable outside the womb. If there are cases where it is the only option to save the mother’s life, and a premature c-section would not do, I would make an exception. But only then. I am not alone in this view. Our President has said that while he supports a woman’s right to choose, he hopes to do all that is possible to limit unwanted pregnancies so that such choices becom as infrequent as possible.

Qingu's avatar

@Jaxk, liberals don’t “honor” evolution anymore than we “honor” gravity. Evolution is a description of fact, just like the theory of relativity. I believe that the moon orbits the earth because of gravity; that doesn’t mean I think smaller people should orbit larger people.

As a matter of fact, conservative economic policies are the ones that resemble the law of the jungle/survival of the fittest, not liberal economic policies.

And as far as conservatives giving more to charity, I strongly suspect it’s because many conservatives are cultists and their cults demand they tithe 10%, which adds up to a lot. How much of that charity actually goes to help poor people, rather than converting them or paying your minister’s salary?

Jaxk's avatar

@ETpro

Wow I seem to be arguing with everyone. Apparently, I the only, or at least one of the few, conservatives on this site. That’s OK because I enjoy the debate.

The Roe v Wade issue is a little more complex. Most but not all conservatives, do believe it should be over turned. But I’ve not heard any calls to legislate, on a national level the abolition of abortion. Most conservatives simply don’t see this as either a constitutional issue or a federal issue. It is merely the federal government imposing it’s will in an area that not allocated to the federal government. It’s a states issue. Now I’m not saying that some would like to see it outlawed at the state level, but that’s a different issue and would not gain the same level of support that Federal issue has gotten. I for one, would not support complete abolishment of abortion but I would support overturning Roe v Wade for the reasons I mentioned. And I consider myself to be a very staunch conservative.

Democrats are not all in sync either. They just tend to use the slippery slope argument as Obama did, to keep from opening any deterrent to abortion on demand. They’re afraid that if you disallow abortion for a given period or situation, that it will open the door for outlawing it in all circumstances. I wish we would not argue both sides from the extremes but we do. Religion plays a part in all this but it is not the only argument for either side.

JustmeAman's avatar

No I am with you Jaxk just learned not to discuss when it’s of no consequence.

Qingu's avatar

@Jaxk, to be blunt, I don’t believe you. I don’t think you actually oppose Roe vs. Wade on the basis of states’ rights. I think it’s clear you oppose Roe vs. Wade because you believe abortion is immoral, and the states’ rights is ad-hoc window dressing.

Now, I do agree that the abortion debate is about much more than religion (in fact, the Bible explicitly says that a fetus is not morally equivalent to a free human being, so religion’s interaction with abortion is complex, to say the least). I support Roe vs. Wade and the right to have abortions, but at the same time I don’t think a baby magically becomes a human the second after it is born. I also don’t think a nerveless clump of cells should be treated as a human being. Humanity, in terms of rights and morality, is not binary, but rather an emergent property as an organism develops in the womb.

Jaxk's avatar

@Qingu

“Evolution is a description of fact, just like the theory of relativity.”

It is interesting that you would use that analogy. Evolution does not explain everything. There are still gaps that require some imagination to explain. Looking at the various species that inhabit the earth it takes a bit of faith to believe that they all evolved from a single cell creature at the beginning of time. Even the theory of relativity has some holes. Science is continuously evolving and what we knew is not always the way it is.

http://www.rense.com/general28/erin.htm

Personally, I’m an agnostic. That means I’m an atheist that reserves the right to change my mind on my death bed. I find it easier to believe the theory of evolution than to believe in divine intervention. I trust that we will eventually plug the holes in that theory. If someone would rather believe in some divinity to explain the holes, I have no problem with that. Heck I don’t even consider them stupid. They just prefer a different route to tie things together.

We want to say there is no god but I’ve yet to see a good definition of what god is. If I look back at the early civilizations, someone from the 21st century would sure look like a god. Hell we can produce a living creature with only a few seemingly invisible cells. So when you say you don’t believe in god, I don’t even know what it is you don’t believe.

Qingu's avatar

@Jaxk, there are gaps in gravity as well. Huge ones, arguably much larger than any in evolutionary biology. We don’t know how gravity interacts (as we do with the other three fundamental forces). Relativity doesn’t jive with quantum mechanics.

That said, nothing you pointed out is a “gap” in evolution. Your failure to imagine or understand how every living organism evolved from a common ancestor is not a gap. Considering that every living organism is based on cells, with identical lipid bilayer membranes, identical DNA-RNA-protein-catalyst machinery, and identical ways of reproducing, I’d find it pretty hard to believe that they didn’t emerge from a single cell with just these qualities.

Qingu's avatar

Also, the speed of light link is not remotely earth shattering as we’ve known the speed of light changes depending on its medium.

If you want something that may end up “debunking” Einstein, look to explanations for quantum gravity through holography or string theory. Of course, these wouldn’t actually “debunk” Einstein anymore than Einstein “debunked” Newton—just refined and expanded. That’s how science evolves.

Jaxk's avatar

@Qingu

I’m surprised that you would think I’m lying to you. I don’t think abortion is immoral nor do I want it completely outlawed. And it is certainly not my religion since I have none. The truth is, it doesn’t sound like we are really that far apart. I do believe that there is a place for abortion even in normal circumstance not involving rape or incest. A young girl that gets in trouble should not have to be burdened with a child she is completely incapable of raising. nor should it ruin her life. I would however want to see that decision made in the early stages. Difficult though it may be. At some point the unborn child becomes viable and deserves a chance to be born alive. We may disagree on where that point is but it is obvious there is a point.

Just to be clear. I disagree with Roe v Wade for the reasons I stated. Abortion has been around for a long time and the federal government should not be injecting itself into our lives at that level. If you choose to think I’m lying, that’s your choice but it serves no purpose.

Jaxk's avatar

@JustmeAman

Thanks for the support. I know it sometimes seems useless but I like to know what the arguments really are (without all the talking points). I find it interesting even if a bit frustrating. But the truth is I’m here to learn and enjoy the process. If I beat my head against the wall, well maybe that wall needs to be torn down. I just need to know where the studs are.

JustmeAman's avatar

I understand @Jaxk I get too frustrated so I’m content to listen to you and others with their points of view.

Jaxk's avatar

@Qingu

The commonalities you point out would be present with any divine or other intervention as well. Things tend to be built using similar techniques. My point here is that any of these theories have not been proven to the exclusion of all other possibilities. And it seems that once we accept a theory as fact, it changes either subtly or revolutionary. It would be interesting to visit another planet with similar environmental conditions and see if life evolved in a similar fashion. But alas, unless Einstein is wrong and we can travel faster than light, it won’t happen. I’m hoping he’s wrong even though I’ll never live long enough to find out.

Discobitch's avatar

“Proof” is a word that has no meaning in empirical science.

JustmeAman's avatar

Like all words in society they are just a description of views so that we can communicate. Words as far as the Universe do not exist.

Jaxk's avatar

@Discobitch

Apparently it has no meaning in politics either :)

Discobitch's avatar

@Jaxk

Is there anything that does have a meaning in politics?

JustmeAman's avatar

Our words have no meaning in the Universe. What is a sock, belief, feeling, science or anything else to the Universe?

Qingu's avatar

@Jaxk, apologies for doubting your sincerity; I can see you were being genuine now and I was operating on a false assumption (that you were religious).

I don’t think there’s too much difference between our views on abortion. I also think abortions should happen as early as possible, and I support legally limiting them in the third trimester.

I don’t agree with your views on states’ rights, but that’s probably a discussion for another day. :)

ETpro's avatar

@Jaxk You are not a lone conservative here, but you are probably outnumbered. Nonetheless, feel free to hold out for what you believe. I have to agree with @Qingu though. When you claim that Republicans mostly oppose abortion because they see it as a state’s rights issue, I flat don’t believe you. Who am I supposed to believe, you or my own lying eyes and ears?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/world/americas/31iht-31abortion.15764422.html
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/68110.php
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Republican_Party_Abortion.htm

Jaxk's avatar

@ETpro

I have no problem being outnumbered in fact it works better for me. It would be no fun at all if everyone agreed and simply cheered every issue. That being said, I like to point out a few issues.

Quoting the NY Times on what conservatives believe or want would be much like me quoting Rush Limbaugh on what liberals believe or want. It’s simply skewed. There is no energy or effort to offer a pro-life amendment. Few if any would even discuss it.

Prior to Roe v Wade abortion was a state issue. The whole case revolved around whether states could limit abortion. When Roe was decided, it changed to a federal issue. That was the inherent flaw in the decision. Once the court ruled there were only two ways to change that decision. Either the court reverses itself (an unlikely scenario) or a constitutional amendment. Without the supreme court ruling some states would have limited abortion and others would have liberalized it. It would be a more local issue, women could have always gone to where it was legal. If however, a constitutional amendment was passed to change this, it would then be illegal everywhere. Such is the danger in federalizing issues which are better served locally.

There was never any discussion about a pro-life amendment prior to Roe. What little there is now is simply a reaction to the court having federalized the issue. Pro-choice advocates applauded the court for that decision. They will rue the day if the pendulum swings the other way. The image of a dead baby having just received it’s lethal injection, is a powerful one. You may believe that having abortion free and easy nationwide (even knowing that the rules are sometimes abused) is the right thing. The pro-life advocates do not. Their only recourse at this point is to nationally prohibit it.

Hell, the court even tried to hit the middle ground, it simply didn’t work. Now we’re into this all or nothing for both sides. It’s unfortunate. The pro-life folks were happy to work at a state level. No more.

And just for the record, I didn’t say they opposed abortion because it was a states rights issue. I said they opposed Roe v Wade because it was a states rights issue.

ETpro's avatar

@Jaxk You are informed enough about debate to know better than rely on an ad hominem. WHo said it doesn’t influence whether it is true or not. Whether it’s true is what decides that. The fact is that the New York Times has excellent journalistic standards, and goes out of their way to at least cover things factually. I will grant they have a bias, but they are not a blatant propaganda outlet such as Fox News is. Fox is the only major US News Organization ever to have gone to court to defend their right to make their reporters knowingly “lie to the public“http://www.ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html.

If you wish to argue that Roe v. Wade was a flawed decision, on that you may be right. As much as I like the idea that there is an implicit guarantee to the privacy of my own body in our Constitution, I frankly can’t see it in there. But since the Court, in its wisdom, did find a right to individual privacy and the right to control your own body rather than have government control it for you, it’s clear the only way Republicans can achieve their stated goal of overturning Roe V. Wade is Constitutionally. With the current court packed with right wingers, that probably doesn’t require a Amendment.

Jaxk's avatar

@ETpro

I can’t believe you use some blogger to try and prove your point. Frankly I’m not interested in doing the work to even address that.

Your reading of Roe is not quite accurate. The decision was based on the unborn child having no constitutional rights. Their rights according to the court don’t materialize until they exit from the womb. Therefore the only person involved is the mother. That’s part of my problem with the ruling. They had to determine when life begins in order to make that decision. And by most accounts, the court is fairly evenly balanced at this point in time.

Jaxk's avatar

@ETpro

I said I wasn’t going to but I feel we need to clear one point about your reference. You need to understand how the appeals process works. You can’t appeal a verdict. You can only appeal a process mistake or a misread of the law. Fox never argued that they lied or that it was OK to lie. They argued that the law was misapplied. That’s how appeals work. Your guy ranting about Fox is irrelevant.

ETpro's avatar

@Jaxk Back to the ad hominem again. Disprove what the source said. Even a flawed messenger may sometimes be telling the truth. Once again I say that you know very well ad hominem dismissals of data are a logical fallacy.

As to Roe v. Wade, I don’t think I have read it wrong at all. Yugo seem to grab snippets of a isue, and promote them to being the only valid point. Wikipedia says, “Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),[1] was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. The Court held that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state’s two legitimate interests for regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting the mother’s health.” Check the refernece listed for backup on that interpretation.

Jaxk's avatar

@ETpro
First look at the basic issue. Fox had reason to believe they would be sued if they ran the story. It wouldn’t be the first story that was killed based on possible lawsuits. Much easier for a reported to make a stand based on principle, they have nothing to lose.

Second listen to the arguments this blogger makes and you can see the fallacy in his argument without looking up the case. The original case was wrongful termination based on ‘Whistle Blower status’. The reporters never ran the story and were terminated. Fox argued that regardless of the facts involved the reporters were not entitled to whistle blower status and apparently the Appeals Court agreed. From that your guy rants that fox admitted lying and argued that it was OK to lie. I’m sorry, that’s too much of a stretch for me and not worth my time.

As for Roe v Wade, I agree it was a landmark decision. What you think are snippets are the parts I disagree with. That doesn’t mean they are the only important pieces but that I am pointing why I disagree.

From Justice Douglas’s concurring remarks:

“No prosecutor has ever returned a murder indictment charging the taking of the life of a fetus. This would not be the case if the fetus constituted human life.”

Of course this is no longer true since Scott Peterson was convicted of a double homicide for killing his pregnant wife. Got the death penalty because of it as I recall. Kinda makes you wonder how we determine murder. It seems we can call it murder based on who committed the act rather than the act itself. Just another dichotomy as a result of the erroneous decision.

ETpro's avatar

@Jaxk The salient point is the the story was actually a lie. Fox insisted it be run anyway, even after informed by the reporter that he had turned up the fact it was a lie. Fox routinely runs Republican taliking points as if they are truth. Repert Murdoch, the owner of Kox and a plethora of other right-wing news media, gave the Republican GOvernor’s Association a $1 milliion dollar donation this year. Fox is no more a legitimate news organization than Pravda was in the days of the Soviet Empire. It is a Republican fund-raising organization and propaganda mill.

Jaxk's avatar

@ETpro

You’ve been sold a bill of goods. Listen to the reporters in the video with a little bit of skepticism. They have an agenda. They were hell bent on saying that Monsanto was causing cancer by putting hormones in the milk. A pretty hefty charge that requires some pretty hefty proof. The reporters were all self righteous and looking for a Pulitzer. Fox was looking to stay out of a decade long lawsuit that was an unlikely winner. Hell, I don’t blame them, look how long it took to get the first win against the tobacco companies and the connection was pretty clear. But none of that matters. They were told to rewrite and they did many times but would not let go of the cancer thing. Fox fired them for that. I would have as well.

As for the rest of your post, it is standard talking points. The NY times and every other organization donates to political parties, mostly Democrats. I don’t get your point. If you want to hear a propaganda mil, try listening to MSNBC. Or is that where you got these talking points.

mattbrowne's avatar

Do you mean, How do conservative Christianity and American conservatism go together?

ETpro's avatar

@Jaxk I followed up the story on the reporter. Here’s what I found. I can see there are tow sides to it. The source I first cited covered only one. Thanks for calling that to my attention.

Jaxk's avatar

@ETpro
Things are never as clear as they appear at first glance. Especially if it’s a legal matter. I appreciate the follow up.

iamthemob's avatar

I’m going to approach the question as @mattbrowne rephrased it – I think that’s the clearer question. @laureth posted this question a while ago and I think it addresses the issues well. Essentially, conservatives in the U.S. tend to skew towards rule structures being beneficial for society. Conservative Christianity tends to provide a clear rule set for people to follow – there are clear black and white, wrong and right moral choices. This is both (1) an easy platform on which to debate “moral corruption” in our society and (2) easy for people who want these rules to be folded into. However, it is a U.S. phenomenon because of a christian morality, and it seems that a conservative religious approach of any kind works with right-based morality.

brengunn's avatar

Both totally incompatible idea’s. Live and let live, a basic part of christianity, does not square with conservatism. We know left to charity, people die of starvation, go without healthcare and proper shelter.
On the other hand, with a welfare state these problems are not eradicated but greatly improve. The evidence of this is clear, western europe is proof.

Ron_C's avatar

I know that this is an old question but I want to put my two cents in. Conservative Christianity and Conservative Politics fit very well together. Conservative Christians are very much concerned with hellfire, judgement, and making sure you neighbor isn’t doing anything “illegal, or immoral”. Conservative Politicians are very concerned about punishment and power and they have no problem using force to accomplish their goals. On the other hand they say that government should stay out of a person’s life. For some reason neither the conservative christian or politician see the irony in that position. A perfect match!

Response moderated (Flame-Bait)
Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

Not well at all. American conservatives would crucify him as a socialist if he were alive today. If not after the Sermon on the Mount, then after that little brouhaha with the money changers at the Temple.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther