Understanding the right wing Christian

[manolo]

Folks,

For a long time I have been trying to understand the right wing Christian mind, and would like to have some input into the question of what makes right wing Christians tick.

There seems to be three separate strands to the right wing Christian view: social, economic and spiritual, but they may tie together consistently. From a social point of view, the case is quite simple. I think the RWC ties in biblical teaching with a kind of Darwinist morality. So, the bible tells us that heterosexual procreation among humans is good, we see species thriving in the animal world by procreation and (as RWCs) we take it that the good way to live is in the traditional family group or some acceptable breeding variation such as Mormonism. Gay people are discounted from this because they do not procreate naturally.

The economic case is a little more difficult. RWCs seem to value a kind of economic individualism, based on a notion of self reliance and hard work. They don’t seem to be keen on sharing, at least in any systematic way. There are those of us who find this odd, as we see Christianity as fulfilling a loving and helping sentiment, but I think RWCs are concerned with a perceived tension between helping and self reliance. Again, this seems to tie in with a Darwinist word view of thriving by the strength of the creature and species. Socialists and communists are discounted from this because they do not put the same high value on economic individualism.

The spiritual case is simpler but carries a practical tension . The RWC’s theology is monotheistic and while this theology can be internally coherent it does not take into account other monotheisms, apart from denying them. Muslims, for example, are discounted because they do not accept that the Christian message is the only correct message.

It looks like RWCs will have notable practical and theoretical problems with: gay people, socialists and communists, and Muslims. It looks like the problems with the first two groups are related but the problem with the third group is different. This is quite a complex situation overall and I would like some help in making sense of it.

Alex.

[Mr. Perfect]

Of all the billions of people in the world what is the fascination with the right wing Christian, particularly when they exercise no power in the US nationally or internationally at all.

[Simple Minded]

Welcome aboard Manolo! Good luck with understanding the RWC.

I have the same problem with men, women, whites, blacks, cinnamons, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Gays, the right, the left, Americans, Europeans, Asians, Earthlings, bipeds, humans in general, etc.

The human desire for assigning group identity to themselves or others fascinates me to no end. Seems to me to be some sort of voluntary, mental, pre-conceptual filter whose purpose is to save..... time?.... energy?... thought?....

Much easier in my simple world to deal with people as individuals.

I do understand the need to mentally classify/organize people as herds on the political level. But, now that my shift as general manager of the universe is over, I can drop that method of thinking.....

Once you get to know "Fred" on a first name basis, his/her motivations and ideology seem to be a reflection of his/her personal experience. Pre-packaging seems to lead to a lot of friction, mis-understanding, or mindless herd behavior.

Several times on this forum I have asked those who use the terms "left" and "right" to define them, if anyone replied, I missed it....

[Endovelico]

Several times on this forum I have asked those who use the terms "left" and "right" to define them, if anyone replied, I missed it...

I would say the left is socially aware, solidary and anthropologically optimistic... The right is individualistic, self-centered and anthropologically pessimistic...

[Ibrahim]

I think the context of these terms is crucial, the "right" and "left" being different in many places. But in the context of the USA "right wing Christians" are a vocal minority largely concerned with social issues and preventing change on those issues for ostensibly religious reasons.

[manolo]

Of all the billions of people in the world what is the fascination with the right wing Christian, particularly when they exercise no power in the US nationally or internationally at all.

Mr P,

I think the fascination with the RWC is expressed in the OP. Do they have "no power"? Some say they have power in the US Republican party.

Alex.

[manolo]

Several times on this forum I have asked those who use the terms "left" and "right" to define them, if anyone replied, I missed it....

Simple minded,

As a starting point I would suggest that most opinions to be found on Fox news are to the 'right' of US politics and most opinions to be found on Huffington Post are to the 'left' of US politics. In my country (UK) most opinions found in the Daily Mail are to the 'right' of UK politics and most opinions found in the Guardian are to the left of UK politics.

The themes are economic, social, environmental and ethical with clear strands of thought in each direction. For example, those people favouring abortion on demand will usually not be to the right and those people favouring legal restraints on abortion will not be to the left. There are many other issues which demonstrate clear trends on the left/right model although there will be personal exceptions of course.

Alex.

[Mr. Perfect]

Of all the billions of people in the world what is the fascination with the right wing Christian, particularly when they exercise no power in the US nationally or internationally at all.

Mr P,

I think the fascination with the RWC is expressed in the OP. Do they have "no power"? Some say they have power in the US Republican party.

Alex.

The Republican Party has power in the US in the same way the Washington Generals have power over the Globe Trotters.

[Nonc Hilaire]

I think the context of these terms is crucial, the "right" and "left" being different in many places. But in the context of the USA "right wing Christians" are a vocal minority largely concerned with social issues and preventing change on those issues for ostensibly religious reasons.

Mostly correct, but there are exemplars of right and left Christian public theology. Looking at those is a better basis for comparison.

Sojourners http://sojo.net/ is the largest left wing Christian public theology org.

The right wing Acton Institute http://www.acton.org/ was formed in direct opposition to Sojourner's percieved liberalism.

Comparing and contrasting these two will allow one to observe this basic divergence in Christian public theology. Almost all of what is in the media consists of whatever flock of ducks quacks the loudest and their opinions are usually without nuance or theological accuracy.

[Marcus]

A "right-wing-christian" is an abstraction, a fantasy defined subjectively in the mind of the equally-abstract "anti-right-wing-christian."

Simple minds demand simple answers; simple minds like simple definitions.

In the world of trapping, it's called the "urine post set" —the trapper sets up a post/stick and sprinkles animal urine on it . . that way the quarry knows what to piss on. Trouble is, there's a trap buried next to the stick.

trap.jpeg (10.02 KiB) Viewed 639 times

[Marcus]

I think the context of these terms is crucial, the "right" and "left" being different in many places. But in the context of the USA "right wing Christians" are a vocal minority largely concerned with social issues and preventing change on those issues for ostensibly religious reasons.

Mostly correct, but there are exemplars of right and left Christian public theology. Looking at those is a better basis for comparison.

Sojourners http://sojo.net/ is the largest left wing Christian public theology org.

The right wing Acton Institute http://www.acton.org/ was formed in direct opposition to Sojourner's percieved liberalism.

Comparing and contrasting these two will allow one to observe this basic divergence in Christian public theology. Almost all of what is in the media consists of whatever flock of ducks quacks the loudest and their opinions are usually without nuance or theological accuracy.

Nonc, don't forget Christianity Today, First Things, Books & Culture, World Magazine, and Touchstone . . all excellent publications.

[Typhoon]

Which particular subset of "right wing Christian" is being referred to here?

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump.
I said, "Don't do it!"
He said, "Nobody loves me."
I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes."
I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"
He said, "A Christian."
I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me, too! What franchise?"
He said, "Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region."
I said, "Me, too!"

I said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."
I said, "Die, heretic!"
And I pushed him over.

[Emo Philips]

[Marcus]

Which particular subset of "right wing Christian" is being referred to here?

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump.
I said, "Don't do it!"
He said, "Nobody loves me."
I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes."
I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"
He said, "A Christian."
I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me, too! What franchise?"
He said, "Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region."
I said, "Me, too!"

I said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."
I said, "Die, heretic!"
And I pushed him over.

[Emo Philips]

Nice set, CS, you'd make a good trapper . . .

sknk.jpeg (12.69 KiB) Viewed 626 times

[Simple Minded]

Several times on this forum I have asked those who use the terms "left" and "right" to define them, if anyone replied, I missed it...

I would say the left is socially aware, solidary and anthropologically optimistic... The right is individualistic, self-centered and anthropologically pessimistic...

Endo,
Thanks for the definitions. I applaud you for being the first.

I think the split of socially aware vs. individualistic is most interesting. If individual awareness, concern for individuals is defined as a right wing political issue, I would argue there have been no right wing political parties in Washington, DC for decades.

If I can use some Redneck Zen Speak (RZS) to substitute “mindfulness” or “self-awareness” for “individual awareness,” I find your definitions more applicable.

In a perfect world we would all become self-aware before we become socially aware, ie: perfect yourself before you make it your mission to perfect others.

Think of upper middle class, spoiled, self-absorbed teenagers as the textbook example of socially aware, but not self aware.

In RZS: “If the world is not the place you think it should be, perhaps you are not the person you should be.”

Based on the people I know, whether they prefer the lifestyle of a hermit or a social butterfly, seems largely hereditary. The social butterflies are much more likely to fall prey to, or benefit from “peer pressure.” They are like boats that rise or fall from the tide. They seem to either blame or credit society rather than themselves for their quality of life/equanimity. The hermits seem to do the opposite.

I know a self-aware guy who has little use for crowds who says “As long as I have a task in front of me and I am left alone, I am in heaven.”

I also know people who lack self-awareness but love the spotlight, ie: they have no sense of self unless they have an audience. To be alone, is for them, an existential crises. To them, people are just mirrors, or building material, ie: eggs for the omelette. I would suspect most politicians and Hollywood celebrities fit this personality type.

[Simple Minded]

Several times on this forum I have asked those who use the terms "left" and "right" to define them, if anyone replied, I missed it....

Simple minded,

As a starting point I would suggest that most opinions to be found on Fox news are to the 'right' of US politics and most opinions to be found on Huffington Post are to the 'left' of US politics. In my country (UK) most opinions found in the Daily Mail are to the 'right' of UK politics and most opinions found in the Guardian are to the left of UK politics.

The themes are economic, social, environmental and ethical with clear strands of thought in each direction. For example, those people favouring abortion on demand will usually not be to the right and those people favouring legal restraints on abortion will not be to the left. There are many other issues which demonstrate clear trends on the left/right model although there will be personal exceptions of course.

Alex.

Alex,

Good points. I have heard that perhaps 15% of people in the US classify themselves as right wingers, and 15% classify themselves as left wingers. As far as the pundits and activists are concerned, labeling yourself as right or left probably automatically gets you a 20% share of the market, which seems to be enough market share to earn a living at broadcasting opinions..

Obviously, in the political arenas, it gets binary due to yes/no votes and lobbyists buying influence. Liberals are pro-choice on abortion, but not gun ownership, conservatives are the opposite.

In the US, IMSMO, the split between the two parties seems more based on population density of the residency of the voter than ideology. A democrat in NYC, and a democrat in a rural NY county are two different animals.

Age is also a huge factor, I would expect more similarity in ideology between a 50 year old democrat and a 50 year old republican, than I would between a 20 year old and a 50 year old who both claim to be either republicans or democrats.

I'm sure you have heard some variant of the old expression "If you are not a liberal at 20 you have no heart, if you are not a conservative at 40 you have no brain."

All very general of course, when one considers splitting the world into halves, the labeling will be inaccurate in a huge percentage of cases. But as I said above, a 20% share of the market seems profitable.

The good news is.... no matter what one labels oneself, it is always up to the observer to determine if the label is accurate. Whether the dress makes your ass look fat or not.... can not be determined by the person wearing the dress.

[Marcus]

. . Think upper middle class, spoiled, self-absorbed teenagers as the textbook example of socially aware, but not self aware. . .

They are self-aware, SM, but, like sheep, trapped in such awareness only in the context of the flock . . . think Public Education . . Peer Group . . ect., etc., etc. . . .

trppd.jpeg (14.99 KiB) Viewed 615 times

[Simple Minded]

. . Think upper middle class, spoiled, self-absorbed teenagers as the textbook example of socially aware, but not self aware. . .

They are self-aware, SM, but, like sheep, trapped in such awareness only in the context of the flock . . . think Public Education . . Peer Group . . ect., etc., etc. . . .

trppd.jpeg

Once they step in the trap, even the dullest animal is suddenly self-aware! Prior to that, they were blissfully scavenging.....

Thanks for the pictures! Takes me back about 40 or so years.

[Marcus]

Once they step in the trap, even the dullest animal is suddenly self-aware! Prior to that, they were blissfully scavenging.....

Thanks for the pictures! Takes me back about 40 or so years.

They are, as it were, born in the trap . . only over time do they begin to sense that they're not free but are powerless to understand why not. They haven't the necessary context. They are, after all, sheep.


You're welcome . .

[Endovelico]

Several times on this forum I have asked those who use the terms "left" and "right" to define them, if anyone replied, I missed it...

I would say the left is socially aware, solidary and anthropologically optimistic... The right is individualistic, self-centered and anthropologically pessimistic...

The key point of my definition is the anthropological aspect. The left believes in the intrinsic goodness of Man, which will flourish once Man is set free, and the right knows Man is a beast and thus has a Darwinian approach to society, allowing the stronger to prevail. The left tends to be stupidly naive, the right tends to be criminally insane... Not much of a choice, is it?...

[Simple Minded]

Several times on this forum I have asked those who use the terms "left" and "right" to define them, if anyone replied, I missed it...

I would say the left is socially aware, solidary and anthropologically optimistic... The right is individualistic, self-centered and anthropologically pessimistic...

The key point of my definition is the anthropological aspect. The left believes in the intrinsic goodness of Man, which will flourish once Man is set free, and the right knows Man is a beast and thus has a Darwinian approach to society, allowing the stronger to prevail. The left tends to be stupidly naive, the right tends to be criminally insane... Not much of a choice, is it?...

Endo,

Thanks again for the elucidation. Your explanation reinforces what I have often heard, and gathered myself from reading the posts on this forum, that the American meaning of "right" and "left" are reversed in Europe.

Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, etc. all viewed man as a beast that must be controlled/shackled for the "good" of society. In America they (along with Mao, Castro, etc.) are often used as examples of why big government leftism should be avoided at all costs. A militant theocracy would be a good example of right wing tyranny.

As a friend of mine, who considers himself a "proud left wing liberal" and was no fan of GW Bush, noted, during the GWB years "that it is so strange how so many of my kindred spirits on the left, including the feminists, are aligning themselves with the radical right wing of Islam which does not believe in either liberalism nor women's rights."

Oddly enough, in America, where the left claims to believe in Darwinism, when a left winger wants to insult a right winger (ie: claim they are mean-spirited or heartless), they claim the right winger is a "social Darwinist!"

Or if an attempt is made to discuss the concept of personal responsibility, the break down is often just as rapid. An if one really wants to muddy the water, try to define "fair" or "just."

How to solve the problems when we can't even define the language? Luckily, human nature is the same on both sides of the line of demarcation, damn shame it isn't better on either side. Consistency ISN'T always a bad thing.

[Simple Minded]

Endo,

On some issues, the language works both ways. "The right" believes in gun ownership because they both fear others and trust others to own guns. "The left" is anti gun ownership because they both don't trust others to own guns and don't feel the need to defend themselves.

People.... they're all like that.....

[YMix]

Since the conversation has predictably wondered from the OP, I'll offer the few features I jotted down in the back of a notebook one day.

- Values instead of solutions, always leading to the same type of society.

- To torment yourself before god in order to compensate for your own uncontrollable passions.

- Responsibility, enduring and torment as main features of passage rites.

- "Natural" or "holy" institutions (church, army, family, work) whose secondary purpose is to lock the individual in chains of torment in order to force him/her to be responsible. Rejection of "man-made" institution, such as government, and especially of those designed to lessen personal torment (social security, national healthcare).

- Maximized personal responsibility and minimized social responsibility.

- Cannot be convinced, only converted.

You can use these as the basis for further discussion.

[manolo]

Several times on this forum I have asked those who use the terms "left" and "right" to define them, if anyone replied, I missed it...

I would say the left is socially aware, solidary and anthropologically optimistic... The right is individualistic, self-centered and anthropologically pessimistic...

The key point of my definition is the anthropological aspect. The left believes in the intrinsic goodness of Man, which will flourish once Man is set free, and the right knows Man is a beast and thus has a Darwinian approach to society, allowing the stronger to prevail. The left tends to be stupidly naive, the right tends to be criminally insane... Not much of a choice, is it?...

Endovelico,

Of course lefties can be Darwinians too.There is plenty of power at the ballot box for the leeches to prevail over the big predator. The process is called 'taxation'.

Alex.