44% of USians think Christ Will Be Back in 50 years

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No milk (cheese) and meat together, as you well know.

No eating of a calf with its mothers milk. If youre gonna exclude interpretation, or any notion of oral torah, as the fundies do, you dont have a lot to play with.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


They have their own, different reasons. Wanting one overarching explanation for all people isn't fair. We're talking about a particular, and politically powerful, segment of the U.S. electorate.

a single explanation isnt required, but i see no need to draw some non obvious deductions from a particular religious doctrine when other explanations are sufficient. This is like the right wing loonies who try to deduce historical instance of Muslim extremism and antisemitism from particular Koranic passages. In the absense of a real social correlation, its just story telling.

[lord of the mark]

In particular I see no evidence that fundie christians were particularly opposed to the conservationist policies of say, Theodore Roosevelt. Their hostility to the enviro movement is a product of the 1960s and 70s, when their sense of cultural besiegement led them to alliance with the right, and when the enviro movement became associated with other cultural forces of change. It was a natural alliance building. It would be surprising if they HADNT become antienviro.

Alliance building often trumps ideological consistency. Ideology can be modified to make sense of necessary alliances, among christians as well as among Stalinists

[Kidlicious]

LotM,

I have a hard time seperating fundie christians from what you call the right. Progressive christians supported conservation. Are you saying that fundie christians were what were known as progressive christians?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kidicious
LotM,

I have a hard time seperating fundie christians from what you call the right. Progressive christians supported conservation. Are you saying that fundie christians were what were known as progressive christians?

fundie christians are those who believe in the literal truth of the bible, and are found particularly in certain denominations. IIUC, they tended to vote for Democrats during the 1930's and 1940s and 1950s, as did most people of their lower income levels. There was no "Christian right" at that time - both GOP and Dems were led by non-fundamentalist, but generally christian members of mainstream churches. Religion (apart from the issue of anti-Catholicism) was not a huge part of US politics at the time.

Fundies at the time were not "progressive" they didnt read Harvey Cox, or talk about stewardship, or any of that. They simply voted their pocketbooks and took a relatively quietist approach to activism (IE they werent activist at all)

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


fundie christians are those who believe in the literal truth of the bible, and are found particularly in certain denominations. IIUC, they tended to vote for Democrats during the 1930's and 1940s and 1950s, as did most people of their lower income levels. There was no "Christian right" at that time - both GOP and Dems were led by non-fundamentalist, but generally christian members of mainstream churches. Religion (apart from the issue of anti-Catholicism) was not a huge part of US politics at the time.

Fundies at the time were not "progressive" they didnt read Harvey Cox, or talk about stewardship, or any of that. They simply voted their pocketbooks and took a relatively quietist approach to activism (IE they werent activist at all)

But were the progressives fundies? You seem to be saying they were. Conservationism was a progressive movement. So it seems strange to me that you would say that fundies were not opposed to conservationism, especially while saying that fundies were not progressives. Can you explain?

edit: And are you sure that fundies tended to vote Democratic in the 40s and 50s?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
But were the progressives fundies?

Some of them, yes. Consider Williams Jenning Byran.

[Odin]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Some of them, yes. Consider Williams Jenning Byran.

My opinion of him would be much higher if it wasn't for the Scopes trial (thats the one where a schoolteacher broke the law by teaching evolution).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kidicious


But were the progressives fundies? You seem to be saying they were. Conservationism was a progressive movement. So it seems strange to me that you would say that fundies were not opposed to conservationism, especially while saying that fundies were not progressives. Can you explain?

edit: And are you sure that fundies tended to vote Democratic in the 40s and 50s?

I think of "progressives" as the leaders and activists in the (fuzzily defined) progressive movements. Fundamentalists as a rule were NOT activists in that era. I wouldnt call everyone who voted for FDR as a progressive - you end up saying some really silly things if you talk that way.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kidicious



edit: And are you sure that fundies tended to vote Democratic in the 40s and 50s?

i have no sources at hand, and this is not the kind of thing you can google on (religion, voting, FDR tends to bring up the usual claptrap about contemporary issues) but I dont think what i said is particularly controversial.

[lord of the mark]

" To the extent that the Christian Right participated in national political life after William Jennings Bryan's eclipse, its sympathies remained with the Democratic party. The alliance between theological conservatives and the more liberal of the national parties can be explained largely in historical, regional, and class terms. The force of tradition kept theological conservatives firmly attached to the party that had reestablished white political dominance in the wake of Radical Republican Reconstruction. The linkage was further cemented in the 1930s by the popularity of New Deal social welfare programs that attacked poverty and agricultural distress in the region (Billington and Clark 1991; Allinsmith and Allinsmith 1948). And, although the states rights revolt at the 1948 Democratic National Convention had demonstrated the capacity of the civil rights issue to draw southern whites away from a Democratic allegiance, the partisan impact of that controversy was checked by the similarity of the Democratic and Republican positions until the 1960s.
The first stirrings of change in the pattern of Christian Right politics were visible in the presidential elections of the 1960s. When the Democratic party nominated a Catholic for president in 1960, again reflecting a long-standing antipathy toward Roman Catholics, large numbers of white, church-going southern Protestants defected to the Republican candidate, Richard Nixon (Converse 1966; Dawidowicz and Goldstein 1974, 41-48). In 1964, the same parts of the country that had given William Jennings Bryan his greatest margins of support, responded favorably to the candidacy of Republican Senator Barry Goldwater (Burnham 1968). And in 1968 George Wallace's independent presidential candidacy showed extraordinary strength among southern whites belonging to theologically conservative denominations (Orum 1970)."

[Kidlicious]

You're correct. Very interesting.

[Kidlicious]

Here's an interesting study. According to this conservative protestants favor programs for the poor as much as members of the general population, and favor them more than moderate protestants.



Sociology and Religion

Figure 1 presents an overview of religious group support for government economic assistance measures.(2) It shows that Liberal and Moderate Protestants, Jews, Unitarians, and Mormons receive negative scores, indicating that members of these religious families show less support than the population as a whole for government action to reduce income inequality and improve the standard of living. Conservative Protestants, Catholics, and Nonaffiliates score near the national mean on this index. Jehovah's Witnesses and Black Protestants show relatively strong support for government assistance efforts.

[Agathon]

" To the extent that the Christian Right participated in national political life after William Jennings Bryan's eclipse, its sympathies remained with the Democratic party. The alliance between theological conservatives and the more liberal of the national parties can be explained largely in historical, regional, and class terms. The force of tradition kept theological conservatives firmly attached to the party that had reestablished white political dominance in the wake of Radical Republican Reconstruction. The linkage was further cemented in the 1930s by the popularity of New Deal social welfare programs that attacked poverty and agricultural distress in the region (Billington and Clark 1991; Allinsmith and Allinsmith 1948). And, although the states rights revolt at the 1948 Democratic National Convention had demonstrated the capacity of the civil rights issue to draw southern whites away from a Democratic allegiance, the partisan impact of that controversy was checked by the similarity of the Democratic and Republican positions until the 1960s.
The first stirrings of change in the pattern of Christian Right politics were visible in the presidential elections of the 1960s. When the Democratic party nominated a Catholic for president in 1960, again reflecting a long-standing antipathy toward Roman Catholics, large numbers of white, church-going southern Protestants defected to the Republican candidate, Richard Nixon (Converse 1966; Dawidowicz and Goldstein 1974, 41-48). In 1964, the same parts of the country that had given William Jennings Bryan his greatest margins of support, responded favorably to the candidacy of Republican Senator Barry Goldwater (Burnham 1968). And in 1968 George Wallace's independent presidential candidacy showed extraordinary strength among southern whites belonging to theologically conservative denominations (Orum 1970)."

In other words, fundamentalist Christians are racist crapbags.

[Kidlicious]

The interesting thing is that from FDR (or was it Wilson) up to Kennedy they we should beleive that they voted for the progressive economic party. Wilson was a rascist and one could say that FDR was too though.