Religion and Politics.

[Ysobelle]

So last night, I was watching the Daily Show, and there was an author by the name of Jim Wallis. He was making the point that the Religious Right, though they trumpet their commitment to "family/Christian values," is actually less likely to support the social services such values would seem to require: feeding the hungry, aiding the poor, etc. With that in mind, I found this article from Reuters of interest. Emphasis mine.

Health changes matter more to US Democrats - study
23 Jan 2008 22:00:49 GMT
Source: Reuters

By Gene Emery
BOSTON, Jan 23 (Reuters) - Only half as many Republicans as Democrats want to expand health insurance coverage for the uninsured, according to a survey in states holding early contests to choose party candidates for the U.S. presidential election.
"There are huge differences between Republicans and Democrats on what should be done to improve health care," said Robert Blendon of the Harvard School of Public Health and the chief author of the survey, which was conducted in early November.
The growing number of uninsured Americans and runaway health costs have emerged as a potent issue in the presidential election. The Bush administration, members of Congress and private groups have offered proposals, but with few results.
The telephone survey of 508 likely Republican voters and 674 likely Democratic voters in states holding presidential primaries or caucuses in January and February was conducted by Harvard and the Kaiser Family Foundation.
It showed Republicans were more interested in reducing the costs of health care and health insurance and with improving the quality of care than they were about expanding insurance coverage to the uninsured, which was ranked the most important health care issue by Democrats.
The survey showed 27 percent of Republicans wanted to keep the health care system as it is, with 23 percent looking for a new system that would provide health insurance for the uninsured, even if that meant a substantial increase in spending.
The majority of Republicans, 42 percent, wanted a less ambitious plan that would only cover some of the uninsured, according to the survey, published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
In contrast, 65 percent of Democrats were willing to pay extra for universal coverage and only 22 percent preferred a scaled-down plan. Just 8 percent of Democrats wanted to keep the health insurance system the way it is.
The survey had a margin of error of 4 percentage points.
It also found that voters from both parties said they would not pick a candidate solely based on the candidates' opinions on hot-button topics such as abortion and federal funding for stem cell research. (Editing by David Storey)

[surlywench]

I guess...but it depends on how he compiled the data which shows them less likely to support those services (hunger relief, etc). If he was looking for individual contributions, he won't find it. But if he was looking for donations made by congregations, then that's a different story.

part of tithing goes into the church's local and global missions funds, which are usually then spent on behalf of the congregation on those causes which the particular church is involved with.

so that might explain the lack of funding evidence.

[Gemdrite]

Surlz, I love your icon! And, yeah, it depends on how you look at the data. I would prefer insurance and health care be cheaper, because then I have more money to go to things I want it to go to, be it homeless shelters, Habitat for Humanity, families I personally know who need help, or the guy down the street down on his luck. I would rather be making the decisions about where my money goes than letting the goverment decide. But, if they could lower health costs and maybe raise prices somewhere else, such as gas prices, so that the uninsured could be covered too, I'd go for that as well.

[Ysobelle]

Mr Wallis-- and his book is called "The Great Awakening: Reviving Faith & Politics in a Post-Religious Right America"-- has nothing to do with the Harvard study. I just came across them both in the same 24 hours.

The book:

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Awakening-Reviving-Politics-Post-Religious/dp/0060558296/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201137804&sr=1-1

The very interesting interview:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=148211&title=jim-wallis

[Gellis Indigo]

You also have to keep in mind one of the basic "tenets" of the Republican Party, which is smaller government having less influence on our day to day lives. This, in and of itself, explains why most Republicans are against nationalized health care, as well as being against raising taxes in most cases.

Whereas, Democrats, on the other hand, tend to want government to have their hand in as much as possible, which feeds the need for higher taxes.

[Ysobelle]

The schism, though, is that the Religious Right has aligned itself so tightly with the Republican Party. Wouldn't you think, given the teachings of Christ about aiding the unfortunate, they'd want MORE social services, not less?

And I'm NOT trying to bash anyone. I'm just stating that it seems bafflingly illogical.

[Lis Elfwench]

This applies to foreign aid more than domestic - but it's still terrific and explains *my* viewpoint on governmental involvement.

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=8926

[Gellis Indigo]

I don't think you've come across as bashing anyone.

Perhaps it has to do with the saying that "God helps those who help themselves"? (Also not trying to bash anyone) Perhaps they view the Republican Party as trying to help people help themselves, and the Democratic Party as trying too hard to be all things to all people. I'm just spitballing here. *shrug*

[Ysobelle]

I'm just spitballing here. *shrug*



Eww! Don't get it on meee!

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

So last night, I was watching the Daily Show, and there was an author by the name of Jim Wallis. He was making the point that the Religious Right, though they trumpet their commitment to "family/Christian values," is actually less likely to support the social services such values would seem to require: feeding the hungry, aiding the poor, etc.
Ahhh, I see your problem. You're taking "family/Christian values" too literally.

What "family/Christian values" really means is oppressing gays, denying women reproductive health options, converting heathens, and sanitizing books, music, movies, television and the internet so that it's all appropriate for 5 year olds.

I hope that clears things up for you.

:)

[Holly]

You also have to keep in mind one of the basic "tenets" of the Republican Party, which is smaller government having less influence on our day to day lives. This, in and of itself, explains why most Republicans are against nationalized health care, as well as being against raising taxes in most cases.

Whereas, Democrats, on the other hand, tend to want government to have their hand in as much as possible, which feeds the need for higher taxes.

This is exactly WHY i am a republican. I know for SURE i am NOT part of the religious right. Ugh.

About the whole Christian/ family values... my stab at guessing is that the Religious Right(RR) has aligned itself with the party that does 'sort of' follow their ideals(I'm gonna call them social ethical issues) on abortion and gay marriage etc. However, if you look at the RR primary candidate, Huckabee, for the most part he is conservative on the social ethical issues, and very liberal(read democratic) in his social fiscal issues (taxes and gov programs). Besides hating the RR and what it is doing to my party, I think he is more of a democratic candidate than republican when looking outside of his Social ethical values. (Remember, before you all flame me.. i am not RR and i am SERIOUSLY conservative in government spending and programs(Fiscally)...i don't give a toot about most of the social ethical issues..it will fall on deaf ears:))

[Holly]

The schism, though, is that the Religious Right has aligned itself so tightly with the Republican Party. Wouldn't you think, given the teachings of Christ about aiding the unfortunate, they'd want MORE social services, not less?

And I'm NOT trying to bash anyone. I'm just stating that it seems bafflingly illogical.

I dont think they are aligning themselves with the party. I believe they are trying to take over the party. I also think that the idea is that with less 'forced on them' (read: taxes) social programs, the RR is supposed to doing their service via their church.

Now the non-RR Republicans... well ... we are just going to hell.. because we don't go to church.*snort*

oh.. and i didnt take that as a bash.... :) nicely phrased:)

[BronxGirl]

Ahhh, I see your problem. You're taking "family/Christian values" too literally.

What "family/Christian values" really means is oppressing gays, denying women reproductive health options, converting heathens, and sanitizing books, music, movies, television and the internet so that it's all appropriate for 5 year olds.

I hope that clears things up for you.

:)

Bob, the more you post, the more I love you!

[Isabelle Warwicke]

This is exactly WHY i am a republican. I know for SURE i am NOT part of the religious right. Ugh.

:))

Me too. Smaller government, free market. That's why I'm a Republican.

[Ysobelle]

but we have had 8 years of dominant Republican rule and the government is bigger, more intrusive, ay more expensive and they have bankrupted us. I don't get it.



Same here. Thus my own confusion.

[Ysobelle]

and FREE MARKET? Our national wealth has been given to Haliburton, Blackwater and other business wings of the Republican party through secret, no bid contracts of unknown amounts and no oversight. This is not free market as a free market is competitive and open. The Republican Party supports a Crony Market, they despise the Free Market.

We have an oligarchy, at least for the next few months.



Okay, Steve, this begs one particular question: you turned to the dark side because...?

[Ysobelle]

All democrats are open border advocates as they mistakenly see a voter pool.



Hey, now!

So you're a Dem again?

[Ysobelle]

Guess I am bi.

I just came thisclose to spraying pretzels all over my monitor.

I used to vote solid Democratic as long as they were not horrible. Now, especially in state elections, I will be voting for some Republicans with the correct view on immigration as long as they have a rudimentary concept of church - state separation.
I am still up for grabs on the presidential level. I am decidedly unexcited about any of the remaining folks. I think I am going to read up on Romney as he at least is somewhat on what I see as the correct side on immigration. I wish Bloomberg would do something, don't know much about him except he sees the need to nvest in the infrastructure.

Wait, you mean Romney's running on something else besides his good, solid Christian American values? Gasp! His stance on individual rights-- abortion, marriage, etc.-- makes me gag.

[Pathos]

I want Bill Clinton back.
Judging by Hillary Clintons campaign a lot of people are in agreement with you.

There's something very Napoleonic about regaining power after having already had it for the legal amount.

Yet Bush gets bashed for thinking he's an emperor.

8-)

[Pathos]

I don't think Bill would have a voice in a Hillary White House. Maybe a little, squeaky castrato voice but nothing important.
Ooooooooooooooooooooo...kay.

[Holly]

but we have had 8 years of dominant Republican rule and the government is bigger, more intrusive, ay more expensive and they have bankrupted us. I don't get it.

That is because, in my opinion, the president is more RR republican than truly republican...


sorry.. now i am gonna go back to page two and keep reading...

[Holly]

and FREE MARKET? Our national wealth has been given to Haliburton, Blackwater and other business wings of the Republican party through secret, no bid contracts of unknown amounts and no oversight. This is not free market as a free market is competitive and open. The Republican Party supports a Crony Market, they despise the Free Market.

We have an oligarchy, at least for the next few months.

I guess you see only the republicans as the ones who have cronies??? I feel that BOTH parties do NOT get to use the this argument AT ALL. There is blood on BOTH parties hands here.

Watergate/Whitewater.. enough said.


As another wrench to this mix, i have a problems with people who support large fines/taxes/privaliege taxes to companies and then wonder why they go over seas. I hate that our jobs are sent overseas, however i don't see that the ONE man in the oval office did it. I believe that over regulation of the business and economy have made it necessary for many companies to work overseas(or border). I support the deregulation of business, health care, and education(to a point on this one). This hands off approach is very republican.

[Holly]

and FREE MARKET? Our national wealth has been given to Haliburton, Blackwater and other business wings of the Republican party through secret, no bid contracts of unknown amounts and no oversight. This is not free market as a free market is competitive and open. The Republican Party supports a Crony Market, they despise the Free Market.

We have an oligarchy, at least for the next few months.

Another thought:

Without business in the economy.. American economy, we have very little to build on. If we continue to beat on big business like it is the ONLY bad guy, we will be left with a hallow market. I love small business, but we need to support some of the large businesses as well, especially to compete in the global market. If we crush the business end of things we will be left with a service based economy, keeping losing the technical jobs. Of course, we can join some of the other third world countries and become agrarian. ( i think we need to support farming too.. but that is hard to do with Massive bloated regulations that cripple that department).


I cant help but feel that in the US, it is deemed bad for a business to turn a profit.

I also believe that the wealthy US citizens need to invest in their own country. However, when they are getting tapped buy the 'extreme social left wing segments' like a renewable resource, i don't question their leaving the US.

[Ysobelle]

I also believe that the wealthy US citizens need to invest in their own country. However, when they are getting tapped buy the 'extreme social left wing segments' like a renewable resource, i don't question their leaving the US.



Can you explain this a bit further, hon? I don't get it.

[Gellis Indigo]

I cant help but feel that in the US, it is deemed bad for a business to turn a profit.


I'm not sure that it's necessarily bad for business, but it does tend to get a business/corporation labeled as evil/uncaring/whathaveyou.

I'm totally with you on this. I was listening to McCain talk today in the car on the way home for work and he made some really good points about our economy. What company would want to come over here right now or invest over here right now, what with all of the regulations and the hostile environment that it is for "big business"? We complain that companies are taking their jobs overseas, but what is being done to encourage them not to do that? Not a heck of a lot right now.

[Holly]

Can you explain this a bit further, hon? I don't get it.

Gemdrite posted about this well. I will add that many economic breaks seem to go to segments of the populations that always get a break. The middle class and the upper class does get pushed around. (I dont have the mental wear withal to deal really eloquently... i had a rough day... i found out one of my students broke his dogs legs in a fit of anger, and another one sleeps with knives because his parents let out the pet snakes to catch the rats in the apartment he lives in...Too much tragedy and drama)

As far as Lefty talking about how evil business go overseas to do evil things, well good companies are doing it too. As well as all of the companies who are from other countries. Why would a company who can turn a 5 million profit stay in the US when their taxes go up, there workers are getting penalized (taxes, etc cetera) for making a decent to large wage, if they could go to another country, maintain similar regulations, and turn a 10 mil profit. Republicans are the only party who willingly makes capitalistic moves to encourage growth. My guess, with the areas you cited, the bids for those areas are more heavily regulated in terms of what they are expected to make and do. A company that is not used to dealing within federal guild lines has a hard time transitioning into a differently regulated arena. Look at education, whether you like NCLB or not, it is here. And the field of Education is struggling under the new regulations. Look at a program like HeadStart, it is a federally regulated and funded program, since it has always been under the Feds auspices, it is used to needed mindset. Using that example, you can understand why some segments of business cant or wont bid into the job.

But again, we are talking about the great "my party is more ethical than yours" or the 'your party is crooked and mine is not' debate. With no intention of offense, we will never decide this one, for one, I agree that the republicans are not always ethical and clean, and neither are the the democrats. That is why i used those historical, and nearly synonymous, scandals. It was to prove that you can whine about how evil the republicans are, and i can whine about how evil the dems are. We are both right...

I actually entered this debate because it was sensible and not mudslinging....