British Christians, less Hypocritical

[kalm]

Although accruing to the article, American evangelicals might be shifting left a bit too.

The Bible preaches tolerance and liberal economics. So why do its proponents embrace right-wing politics?

Here’s a newspaper headline that might induce a disbelieving double take: “Christians ‘More Likely to Be Leftwing’ and Have Liberal Views on Immigration and Equality.” Sounds too hard to believe, right? Well, it’s true — only not here in America, but in the United Kingdom.

That headline, from London’s Daily Mail, summed up the two-tiered conclusion of a new report from the British think tank Demos, which found that in England 1) “religious people are more active citizens (who) volunteer more, donate more to charity and are more likely to campaign on political issues,” and 2) “religious people are more likely to be politically progressive (people who) put a greater value on equality than the non-religious, are more likely to be welcoming of immigrants as neighbors (and) more likely to put themselves on the left of the political spectrum.”

Here in the United States, those who self-identify as religious tend to be exactly the opposite of their British counterparts when it comes to politics. As the Pew Research Center recently discovered, “Most people who agree with the religious right also support the Tea Party” and its ultra-conservative economic agenda. Summing up the situation, scholar Gregory Paul wrote in the Washington Post that many religious Christians in America simply ignore the Word and “proudly proclaim that the creator of the universe favors free wheeling, deregulated union busting, minimal taxes, especially for wealthy investors, and plutocrat-boosting capitalism as the ideal earthly scheme for his human creations.”

http://politics.salon.com/2012/04/20/am ... hypocrisy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[youngterrier]

[JohnStOnge]

Summing up the situation, scholar Gregory Paul wrote in the Washington Post that many religious Christians in America simply ignore the Word and “proudly proclaim that the creator of the universe favors free wheeling, deregulated union busting, minimal taxes, especially for wealthy investors, and plutocrat-boosting capitalism as the ideal earthly scheme for his human creations."

I don't think that's true at all. I guess when one uses the term "many" that can mean a lot of different things. But in general I don't think US religous Christians think in terms of the "creator of the universe" either favoring or opposing capitalism, etc. They do tend to think of charity as a matter of personal responsibility rather than as a matter of government compulsion. And they tend to be more charitable in personal terms than the population in general.

The Bible does not preach "liberal economics" as a matter of government policy. It preaches about what Christians should do personally as Christians. Worth saying anything this concept comes up: There is nothing in what Jesus Christ is portrayed in the Bible to have said about establishing a government that will confiscate money from OTHER people in order to give it to the poor. What he's portrayed to have said is that YOU (the Christian) give YOUR money to the poor. And, in general, US Christians do a lot of that.

The author used a common distortion of what the Bible says on the matter of charity to call US Christians hypocrites in that area.

[Ibanez]

Summing up the situation, scholar Gregory Paul wrote in the Washington Post that many religious Christians in America simply ignore the Word and “proudly proclaim that the creator of the universe favors free wheeling, deregulated union busting, minimal taxes, especially for wealthy investors, and plutocrat-boosting capitalism as the ideal earthly scheme for his human creations."

I don't think that's true at all. I guess when one uses the term "many" that can mean a lot of different things. But in general I don't think US religous Christians think in terms of the "creator of the universe" either favoring or opposing capitalism, etc. They do tend to think of charity as a matter of personal responsibility rather than as a matter of government compulsion. And they tend to be more charitable in personal terms than the population in general.

The Bible does not preach "liberal economics" as a matter of government policy. It preaches about what Christians should do personally as Christians. Worth saying anything this concept comes up: There is nothing in what Jesus Christ is portrayed in the Bible to have said about establishing a government that will confiscate money from OTHER people in order to give it to the poor. What he's portrayed to have said is that YOU (the Christian) give YOUR money to the poor. And, in general, US Christians do a lot of that.

The author used a common distortion of what the Bible says on the matter of charity to call US Christians hypocrites in that area.

I know plenty of "Christians" that are just like the author described. One should never use gross generalizations.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW the fact that I don't think people are correct in calling US Chrisitans hypocrites based on the misconception that the Bible preaches liberal economics doesn't mean I don't ever disagree with the political positions Christians tend to take. I think that the New Testament is all about voluntary accpetance of the Christian faith. Once one becomes a Christian then they are obligated to behave in certain ways and do certain things. But there is nothing in there about compelling other people to be Christians or to force the society around you to embrace Christian ethics.

To me the idea is summarized in the following instruction by Jesus to his followers in Mathew Mathew 10: 11-14:

Look for a worthy person in every town or village you come to and stay with him until you leave. As you enter his home bless it. If the home is deserving, your blessing will descend on it. If it not, your blessing will return to you. If anyone does not receive you or listen to what you have to say, leave that house or town, and once outside it shake its dust from your feet

Now, in the next verse he says:

I assure you, it will go easier for the region of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgement than it will for that town.

But the point is that there is no instruction to his followers to try to FORCE anybody to do anything or accept any belief. So I think that when you see things like Christians pushing to outlaw alcohol consumption, outlaw prostitution, outlaw strip clubs, outlaw gambling, etc., based on thinking that it is immoral they are not really sticking to the model Jesus is described in the Bible as having outlined.

[kalm]

Summing up the situation, scholar Gregory Paul wrote in the Washington Post that many religious Christians in America simply ignore the Word and “proudly proclaim that the creator of the universe favors free wheeling, deregulated union busting, minimal taxes, especially for wealthy investors, and plutocrat-boosting capitalism as the ideal earthly scheme for his human creations."

I don't think that's true at all. I guess when one uses the term "many" that can mean a lot of different things. But in general I don't think US religous Christians think in terms of the "creator of the universe" either favoring or opposing capitalism, etc. They do tend to think of charity as a matter of personal responsibility rather than as a matter of government compulsion. And they tend to be more charitable in personal terms than the population in general.

The Bible does not preach "liberal economics" as a matter of government policy. It preaches about what Christians should do personally as Christians. Worth saying anything this concept comes up: There is nothing in what Jesus Christ is portrayed in the Bible to have said about establishing a government that will confiscate money from OTHER people in order to give it to the poor. What he's portrayed to have said is that YOU (the Christian) give YOUR money to the poor. And, in general, US Christians do a lot of that.

The author used a common distortion of what the Bible says on the matter of charity to call US Christians hypocrites in that area.

But we are supposedly a christian nation. And country was supposedly founded upon judeo-christian principles. So...

[kalm]

I don't think that's true at all. I guess when one uses the term "many" that can mean a lot of different things. But in general I don't think US religous Christians think in terms of the "creator of the universe" either favoring or opposing capitalism, etc. They do tend to think of charity as a matter of personal responsibility rather than as a matter of government compulsion. And they tend to be more charitable in personal terms than the population in general.

The Bible does not preach "liberal economics" as a matter of government policy. It preaches about what Christians should do personally as Christians. Worth saying anything this concept comes up: There is nothing in what Jesus Christ is portrayed in the Bible to have said about establishing a government that will confiscate money from OTHER people in order to give it to the poor. What he's portrayed to have said is that YOU (the Christian) give YOUR money to the poor. And, in general, US Christians do a lot of that.

The author used a common distortion of what the Bible says on the matter of charity to call US Christians hypocrites in that area.

I know plenty of "Christians" that are just like the author described. One should never use gross generalizations.

Pipe down. Gross generalizations are fun, so is hyperbole. Without them, we wouldn't have much to argue about and I would have to spend way more time talking football.

[Baldy]

Although accruing to the article, American evangelicals might be shifting left a bit too.

The Bible preaches tolerance and liberal economics. So why do its proponents embrace right-wing politics?

http://politics.salon.com/2012/04/20/am ... hypocrisy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WOW, this guy is so fundamentally wrong from the first sentence, but that's par for the course for Salon.

[kalm]

Although accruing to the article, American evangelicals might be shifting left a bit too.



http://politics.salon.com/2012/04/20/am ... hypocrisy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WOW, this guy is so fundamentally wrong from the first sentence, but that's par for the course for Salon.

Please give us an example of the bible's libertarian bent.

[Baldy]

WOW, this guy is so fundamentally wrong from the first sentence, but that's par for the course for Salon.

Please give us an example of the bible's libertarian bent.

I'm still waiting for examples of the bible preaching "liberal economics".

[kalm]

Please give us an example of the bible's libertarian bent.

I'm still waiting for examples of the bible preaching "liberal economics".

[Baldy]

Guess I'll just have to wait a little longer.

[Ivytalk]

Britain is also one of the most secular nations on earth at this point. Come to think of it, so is most of Western Europe.

[kalm]

Britain is also one of the most secular nations on earth at this point. Come to think of it, so is most of Western Europe.

It's a shame we're not as mature about it.

[Ivytalk]

Britain is also one of the most secular nations on earth at this point. Come to think of it, so is most of Western Europe.

It's a shame we're not as mature about it.

That was one of your biggest non sequiturs ever, kalm!

[JohnStOnge]

I know plenty of "Christians" that are just like the author described. One should never use gross generalizations.

Really? Maybe it's because we live in different areas but I have never heard a Christian say that a particular government approach to economics is favored by the Bible. And I don't think the Bible deals with the question of which economic approach a government should take at all. It just talks about what people personally should do.

And Christians in the United States tend to be personally charitable. As we know from well publicized studies that I assume I don't have to look up and cite they are more charitable than the general population. And that is the case even when donations to their churches are taken out of consideration.

Not that they should be because a lot of what goes to Christian churches goes to charity; ministries to help the poor, etc.

A Christian who is not personally charitable might be called a hypocrite. But a Christian is not being hypocritical for failing to support government programs that compell charity from them as well as others.

In any case no Christian even thinks they'll never violate the "rules." One of the premesis of Christianity is that all people are sinners that deserve to go to hell but Jesus Christ died on the cross to give them the free gift of life so that they REALLY have to screw up to go to hell. But if you ask any of them if they are perfect and never deviate from Christian teaching they will say "no."

[kalm]

It's a shame we're not as mature about it.

That was one of your biggest non sequiturs ever, kalm!

Why thank you.

[JohnStOnge]

Main thing, guys, is that you can't call a Christian who is personally charitable a hypocrite because he or she doesn't support government poverty programs. If I had to bet, I'd bet that US Evangelical Christians give more to charity per capita both in terms of gross amount and percent of income than British Christians do. Don't know that for sure but that would be my bet.

You just can't say that someone who spends a bunch of time devoting their personal time to ministries to help the poor and gives a bunch of money to stuff like that a hypocrite because they oppose some food stamp program or something. And I know people like that. When it comes to their personal lives they give a bunch of money to help people and also give their time.

And, to me, that takes a heck of a lot more than it does to just say, "Let government take care of it" then send the bill to "the Rich" like most liberals do. Hate to be blunt about it but that's the way it goes. We have a progressive tax system such that a very small percentage of the population bears the preponderance of the cost for government programs. And it's REAL easy to support government poverty programs when you're not the one paying for them. It's a lot harder to give your own time and money through the private charity route. And it says a whole lot more about you in my opinion.

[kalm]

Main thing, guys, is that you can't call a Christian who is personally charitable a hypocrite because he or she doesn't support government poverty programs. If I had to bet, I'd bet that US Evangelical Christians give more to charity per capita both in terms of gross amount and percent of income than British Christians do. Don't know that for sure but that would be my bet.

You just can't say that someone who spends a bunch of time devoting their personal time to ministries to help the poor and gives a bunch of money to stuff like that a hypocrite because they oppose some food stamp program or something. And I know people like that. When it comes to their personal lives they give a bunch of money to help people and also give their time.

And, to me, that takes a heck of a lot more than it does to just say, "Let government take care of it" then send the bill to "the Rich" like most liberals do. Hate to be blunt about it but that's the way it goes. We have a progressive tax system such that a very small percentage of the population bears the preponderance of the cost for government programs. And it's REAL easy to support government poverty programs when you're not the one paying for them. It's a lot harder to give your own time and money through the private charity route. And it says a whole lot more about you in my opinion.

But I know liberal christians who donate time and money and support government programs, so....

[JohnStOnge]

But I know liberal christians who donate time and money and support government programs, so....

Well, that's fine. But the point is that one can't legitimately say that a Christian is a hypocrite because he or she does NOT support government programs to help the poor.

It can be as simple as, "I will help the poor. But I do not believe other people should be forced to do that."

No hypocrisy at all.

It really IS incorrect to conflate not supporting government poverty programs with not believing in helping the poor. Liberals try to make that case a lot. But it's a very weak case.

[kalm]

But I know liberal christians who donate time and money and support government programs, so....

Well, that's fine. But the point is that one can't legitimately say that a Christian is a hypocrite because he or she does NOT support government programs to help the poor.

It can be as simple as, "I will help the poor. But I do not believe other people should be forced to do that."

No hypocrisy at all.

It really IS incorrect to conflate not supporting government poverty programs with not believing in helping the poor. Liberals try to make that case a lot. But it's a very weak case.

So if the entire nation was christian we wouldn't even be having this discussion?