[ICTHUS]

Simple question: Why do so many Christians, particularly in the United States, gravitate towards the political right?

I asked my associate pastor about this yesterday when a bunch of people went to the beach (He's from NYC and my denomination (the PCA) itself started in the US) and he said it's majoritorily because the Right in the US has traditionally catered to issues evangelicals consider touchstone issues, gay marriage and abortion. And that's basically it.

[Napoleon17]

Yes, most Christians do not want to have their money taken out of their bank accounts and given to an entity that helps pay for abortions.

Many Christians also care about gay marriage, although most I talk to, including myself, do not really care about that issue. Seems like abortion is a more important issue.

Most conservative Christians believe that it is their duty as Christians to help the poor, witness, feed the hungry, etc. They do not believe that the government should compel them to do these things (by taxing them and using the money for welfareish programs). That is a big disconnect, I think. Conservative Christians and liberal Christians both want to obey what God says about helping the poor, etc. Conservative Christians want to accomplish through the work of the Church, while the liberal Christian would be more open to the role of government in accomplishing the same ends. I mention this because of the way you phrased your question. It almost comes across like "why would conservative Christians be so selfish when God says to help the poor?" I've seen that attitude countless times before, so forgive me if I'm projecting my previous experiences incorrectly onto you.

[thesteve]

A lot of what goes on in US politics is rooted in tradition with only minimal consideration for current political climate. There is a mentality that the Republican party is the party of freedom and self-determination and that these are both things that Christians should want for themselves. This is in contrast to the Democrat party, which is portrayed as the party of government reliance. There is definitely rhetoric within the GOP that draws in Christians (abortion and gay marriage probably being the two most prominent right now) and the ability of the GOP to attract prominent Christian figures (Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, among others) over the years has also drawn many Christians who, when they are unsure of their own instincts feel they can trust perceived church leaders to guide them.

[Nate]

They don't.

The media is stupid.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by Nate

They don't.

The media is stupid.

I'm not sure the article says that exactly. The numbers suggest that born again Christians are still a major bloc in the Republican Party, but not the monolithic "We're all voting red" thing that the media sometimes portrays or assumes.

Originally Posted by The article

According to survey results, 57 percent of Republicans assert that the Bible is accurate in all of the principles it teaches compared to 40 percent of Democrats. Republicans are also twice as likely to believe Satan is a real spiritual entity (33 percent versus 17 percent); more likely to reject the idea that good works can earn salvation (35 percent versus 23 percent); more commonly describe themselves as absolutely committed to Christianity (61 percent versus 48 percent); more likely to deem their religious faith to be important in their life (77 percent versus 67 percent); and more likely to believe that God is the all-knowing, perfect Creator and Ruler of the universe (75 percent to 65 percent).

Overall, 51 percent of Republicans qualify as born-again Christians, according to the Barna Group, compared to 38 percent of Democrats.

51% versus 38% is a pretty huge difference. I don't think the basic idea, that Christians tend to favor the Republican Party is too off track.

To answer Ryan's initial question... It's called the "Southern Strategy." Making a long story short, prior to 1964, the South was almost totally controlled by the Democratic Party. When the Civil Rights movement succeeded, the Republicans realized a key group of people they never could reach normally (conservative Whites in the south) were now essentially disfranchised by the national party's support for the Civil Rights movement. So, in 1968, when Nixon's campaign ran on a "states rights/law and order" platform, it was received (and intended) as a oblique way of saying, "vote for Nixon, and we promise we'll go slower on civil rights." Nixon won VA, TN, NC, SC and FL, while Hubert HUmphrey won just Texas. In 1972, he won all of the old Confederecy at 60%. It worked, and continues to work. Reagan used it, Bush I used it, Bush II used it.

I"m not saying Republicans are racists, by the way. So please don't accuse me of that.

So, the Republicans appeal to conservative voters in the South by promising to slow down on civil rights legislation. Eventually, that issue tends to die down as memories of "the good ol' days" disappear, and since the Republicans already have generally-conservative voters in their pocket anyway, made a similiar "deal" with the ascendant Christian right (often signaled by the formation of the Moral Majority in 1979); if you vote for us, we'll support you on the issues you care about.

That's essentially the reason. The Republicans wanted to maintain a conservative voting bloc that would otherwise stay at home. So they manipulated the religious right into a partnership. Or maybe it's the other way around...

[OneHope]

You could argue that the Republican party has no actual interest in changing abortion laws or banning same-sex marriage because this will drastically reduce their voting bloc.

[JerryLove]

Because that's who they target

Since 1966, in the aftermath of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society program being enacted into law, and after the Watts riots, the Republican Party has employed a winning, if controversial, election strategy: Bring together southern whites, Midwest conservatives, western libertarians, blue-collar Catholics and New England capitalists in a coalition. Focus on anti-communism for the conservatives, the abortion issue for the Catholics, the civil rights backlash for the southerners, and concern about taxes and spending on welfare programs -- and a strong national defense -- for all of the groups.

Look at the gay marriage issue. How is that possibly important. Yes "burning in hell" and all that; but that's hardly a political issue. The only reason the candidates pay lip service to caring is to get votes.

Abortion is another one. The Republicans have done little to reduce it, because if they did they would have more trouble getting outrage votes. So rather than pass laws that would eliminate most abortions and survive constitutional muster, they push what they know can't pass/stick and then rally the voters in outrage when it doesn't.

You are being played. Used for personal gain... I'd imagine the left is too.

[ICTHUS]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

So, in 1968, when Nixon's campaign ran on a "states rights/law and order" platform, it was received (and intended) as a oblique way of saying, "vote for Nixon, and we promise we'll go slower on civil rights."

In my reading this almost is an oblique way of saying Republicans are racists, or at least the attachment to Republicanism on the part of Evangelicals has its roots in racism.

"We'll go slower on civil rights" means we'll take our time giving black people their due civil rights, from what I'm seeing.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

In my reading this almost is an oblique way of saying Republicans are racists, or at least the attachment to Republicanism on the part of Evangelicals has its roots in racism.

"We'll go slower on civil rights" means we'll take our time giving black people their due civil rights, from what I'm seeing.

If you read the entirety of his statement, that isn't really the case at all. He makes an analogy between the "Southern Strategy" (slowly transitioned civil-rights vs. rapid transition by pushing the "states' rights" card) with the ploy used by the Republican party in the late 1970s in regards to abortion (and later with gay marriage).

[nolidad]

[QUOTE

You are being played. Used for personal gain... I'd imagine the left is too.[/QUOTE]

Well said Jerry-- In American politics it ususally boils down to the evil of two lessers.

[scarlet.starlet]

Originally Posted by nolidad

[QUOTE

You are being played. Used for personal gain... I'd imagine the left is too.

Well said Jerry-- In American politics it ususally boils down to the evil of two lessers.[/QUOTE]

I completely agree. When choosing who to vote for, think less about values and more about practical things: what is this person going to do for the economy, for health care, for infrastructure? If you want to be surrounded by people of good values (however you'd like to define that), the best way to do so is to make an example of yourself.

[Epaphras]

I'm convinced politicians on both sides will say they espouse whatever values will get them elected by "the base", and then do whatever they want once in office, with obligatory bone thrown at the base with a nod to a certain issue that they know is close to them.

But honestly, I think it's a lot like pro wrestling. On TV they appear to be mortal enemies, locked in an endless battle against one another. But in the locker room later, they are best buds and go out for a beer. They play characters they know will appeal to the audience.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by Epaphras

I'm convinced politicians on both sides will say they espouse whatever values will get them elected by "the base", and then do whatever they want once in office, with obligatory bone thrown at the base with a nod to a certain issue that they know is close to them.

But honestly, I think it's a lot like pro wrestling. On TV they appear to be mortal enemies, locked in an endless battle against one another. But in the locker room later, they are best buds and go out for a beer. They play characters they know will appeal to the audience.

We need to forget about the letter at teh end of a candidates name and look a ttheir life and voting record in their state or federal job.

A biblical conservative should value life, care for the poor, see only one race-the human race- and be very conservative and wise stewards of the taxp[ayers money.

I just don't know if there are very many candidates out there like this. So we hold our nose and pick the one closest to these ideal;s.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by nolidad

We need to forget about the letter at teh end of a candidates name and look a ttheir life and voting record in their state or federal job.

A biblical conservative should value life, care for the poor, see only one race-the human race- and be very conservative and wise stewards of the taxp[ayers money.

I just don't know if there are very many candidates out there like this. So we hold our nose and pick the one closest to these ideal;s.

There are candidates like this...Christian Evangelicals are just too busy looking at the letter at the end of the name or listening to Rush Limbaugh to realize there are candidates actually worthy of their vote.

[Rainer.]

I'm pretty sure it's a self-perpetuating cycle.

The Right Conservatives have a base to appeal to, so they try to market to a "Conservative Evangelical" vote. The "Conservative Evangelicals" embrace the Right, and the Right caters to the issues that seem to work even more. Ad infinitum.