Two Polarized Ideological Views in America

[Darth Wong]

The Christian Right is not against government health care because of the Bible. They're against it because they have imbibed libertarian views. Can we undo this somehow? It seems like, if their opposition isn't actually rooted in the Bible (in fact, it's counter to the Bible), it should be reversible!

The American version of Christianity is a distinct brand, with its own peculiar ideology. This alone is not unusual: Christianity has a huge number of divergent sub-sects, after all. It helps that most people know nothing about the Bible other than what they're told by their preachers, so it doesn't matter that Jesus spends his time railing against the wealthy and praising the poor: he does that in a book they've never bothered to read.

[Bounty]

It seems like, if their opposition isn't actually rooted in the Bible (in fact, it's counter to the Bible), it should be reversible!

It would seem that way - but the great problem with the Bible is that it is so vast, and so mired in symbolism, that you can support virtually any position using quotes lifted directly from it; and the protestant tradition in the US actively endorses it through the rejection of a central worldly authority in spiritual matters. You can construct a perfectly valid appeal for universal health care constructed entirely from Christian teachings that seems waterproof, but an opponent of the position can just as easily do the opposite for his view, and it will be equally footed in direct citations.

All of this would have been moot had their been some sort of central orthodoxy in American Christian politics, but unfortunately the closest it comes to such a pseudo-orthodoxy - the megachurches, the prominent right-wing Christians - is precisely where a pro-UHC interpretation isn't found.

Scripture alone has never swayed someone, it's Scripture as delivered appropriate filtering and preaching. And right now the most widely heard preachers are the ones who are firmly against health care reform. The tool is there, but it's only efficiently wielded by the "wrong" people.

Ghetto edit: sorry, didn't see this had already been replied to.

[Liberty]

It helps that most people know nothing about the Bible other than what they're told by their preachers, so it doesn't matter that Jesus spends his time railing against the wealthy and praising the poor: he does that in a book they've never bothered to read.

I don't know where you're getting this from. While it is true that most Christians stay within the general framework of what they've been told growing up, etc, about the Bible when they read it. However, you state that the Bible is "a book they've never bothered to read." The Christians I know spend an ENORMOUS amount of time reading the Bible. ALL of them. Most have a "quiet time" every morning, reading the Bible and praying. Most have a system by which they read through the Bible every couple of years. I should know - I was raised like this. I grew up in a conservative Christian family, and, until I went to college, I literally never knew someone who wasn't a conservative Christian (with the exception of exchange students from the Middle East, whom my parents sought to evangelize). We went to an evangelical megachurch, and to Bible club each week, where we memorized literally hundreds of Bible verses. Every morning, everyone in my family, and everyone I knew, spent time reading the Bible. By the time I graduated high school, I had read through the entire Bible twice, and many sections more than that. We children were following our parents' example in this: I remember coming downstairs in the morning, and seeing Mom out on the porch, her open Bible on her lap and tears in her eyes, or Dad at the kitchen table, is Bible open before him as he read intensely. Also, in addition to our quiet times alone each morning, Mom read aloud from the Bible after breakfast every day (we were homeschooled). And everyone I knew did the same. Then I went off to college, and became involved in Campus Crusade for Christ. I made many friends, almost all of the Christian. And guess what? We all read the Bible! Campus Crusade taught us to read it individually, and I and my friends Did. Also, Campus Crusade held Bible studies where we studied it together. After a few years of college, though, I began to question things (because of classes I had, science classes, history of the middle east, global studies, etc), and I would now hold different beliefs. Of course, I don't know if my experience has been typical. However, I think it is - typical at least of homeschool families, evangelical megachurches, and college ministries like Campus Crusade.

I will definitely admit that most Christians are influenced in how they read the Bible by what Christian leaders (James Dobson, etc), Christian Books (Purpose Driven Life, etc), and their pastors teach. However, saying that they've never read the Bible is laughable!

And to say that they don't take the Bible seriously (As Ray did in an above post: "Oh please, most of those Christians don't even care about what the bible says."), is equally laughable. All the Christians I've known - and I've known many - care very deeply what the Bible says. VERY deeply. For my dad, for instance, the only thing that matters, the only true authority, is the Bible and what it says. It's the same for the other Christians I've known. Now of course, he interprets it, and often through a framework provided by Christian leaders, etc. But he truly believes that he's looking at what the Bible says for itself. And, if he could be convinced that the Bible says differently from what he's thought it said in certain areas, I am nearly positive he would change his mind. The convincing is not easy, though.

[Darth Wong]

No, they read parts of the Bible: specifically, their "favourite" parts, aka the parts they were encouraged to read. Almost none of them read the whole thing.

[Liberty]

Actually, I have known many MANY Christians who have read the whole thing. I read it through twice before I was eighteen. My Mom, in reading through chapter at a time to us children at breakfast, read through everything - even Leviticus, for crying out loud! On their own, my parents have read it through many times. Their friends get on five year plans to read the whole thing, encouraged by the megachurch. My Christian college friends involved in Campus Crusade had read the whole thing, and many were doing it again. I don't think the number who have read the whole thing constitutes "almost none." I wish there was a way to get accurate statistics...

[Darth Wong]

Actually, I have known many MANY Christians who have read the whole thing. I read it through twice before I was eighteen. My Mom, in reading through chapter at a time to us children at breakfast, read through everything - even Leviticus, for crying out loud! On their own, my parents have read it through many times. Their friends get on five year plans to read the whole thing, encouraged by the megachurch. My Christian college friends involved in Campus Crusade had read the whole thing, and many were doing it again. I don't think the number who have read the whole thing constitutes "almost none." I wish there was a way to get accurate statistics...

Sounds like you were unusually hardcore. I spent years going to church every Sunday, and talking to a great number of Christians who were vaguely aware that I was the skeptic being dragged there by my wife. They always admitted they had never read the thing all the way through.

And your own prior question puts our disagreement in stark contrast, does it not? If most American Christians have read the Bible as well as you have, then why are the majority of them so completely unaware of Jesus' attitudes toward wealth, and helping the poor? You said it yourself: it is difficult to read the Bible and come away with any other impression. Yet we know that most American Christians seem unaware of this, given the strong alignment of Christian groups and right-wing politics.

[Bounty]

Now of course, he interprets it, and often through a framework provided by Christian leaders, etc. But he truly believes that he's looking at what the Bible says for itself.

You hit on the core of the problem right there.

What is the Bible, anyway? The answer to that question is going to be drastically different depending on your world view. Is it the word of God, recorded by directly by man? The word of God interpreted by man? Immutable truth passed down through the ages, or 'snapshots' of life that are only applicable in spirit today? Is it symbolic, allegorical, factual? Is it an old collection of legends and half-truths with a fabricated epilogue? Is it a paperweight?

Depending on how you approach it 'read' takes on a whole new meaning. You can memorise every passage and still have no idea of what actually happens. In fact, I'd say most people who read the Bible don't know what happens in it - simply because it's written for an audience that's been dead for 2500 years, and a world view that died along with them. I read the Bible myself and was lost without endnotes, translation notes, encyclopaedia entries on customs of the time - and even with those it's virtually impenetrable. What is "reading" in this context? What does "reading" even mean when you can read the words and not understand them - either from a theological or cultural and historical point of view?

Simply put, unless you father had a firm grounding in theology and history, I really doubt he'd be able to let it speak for itself. He'd read a twentieth-century, American, middle-class interpretation of it.

That's ironically what makes Protestantism so dangerous - everyone is a priest, everyone can read then Bible and make it say what they want it to say, without any regard for how the texts came about or what context they need to be placed in to even make sense as a narrative, let alone as some sort of guidebook to life ans salvation.

You say you did Bible study, and I assume you parents did too. What sort of study was that? Because you can 'study' the Bible you whole long life and still get nothing relevant out of it.

[Liberty]

My parents used various evangelical series for reading the Bible - i.e., reading through Christian books about the Bible, usually while also reading through relevant Bible passages. Another kind they did was simply reading through the Bible verse at a time, discussing what it means.

And Bounty, yes, that's what I think is the problem. And I'd say this to Darth Wong, too - even those Christians who read through the Bible are still being influenced by what they've been TOLD about the Bible. (Ironically, the ones who make new, innovative interpretations sometimes end up becoming cults, because there are SO many different ways the Bible can be interpreted.) So, in other words, the Christian Right has somehow interpreted the Bible to support certain libertarian views (i.e. on health care). These are Christians who often do read the Bible, and definitely see what it says as being extremely important. So I'm wondering, if it were possible to convince them that the Bible does not necessarily simply support these libertarian views (i.e. on health care), would we be able to get them to reconsider health care? Because, conservative Christianity and libertarian views on health care aren't automatically linked - are they?

Wilcox argues that certain right wing political figures were able to intentionally take advantage of these newly politically conscious Christians and bring them together with libertarian views. In some ways, the right of the Republican Party has two groups - the libertarians and the conservative Christians. They are united at the moment, but what if they could be split? After all, the two groups don't go together of necessity.

[ray245]

For all we know, plenty of people who have read the Bible in full would be treating the Bible in the same manner they passed their History exams. Where they simply treat the study of the Bible as nothing more than trying to memorise every single phrases said by the respective people in it.

There are huge amount of people who thinks that studying is simply a matter of memorising facts.

[Bounty]

My parents used various evangelical series for reading the Bible - i.e., reading through Christian books about the Bible, usually while also reading through relevant Bible passages. Another kind they did was simply reading through the Bible verse at a time, discussing what it means.

That's what I was afraid of. It's the book club approach to the Bible, and while it's probably a great social exercise, it won't enlighten you about what's actually in the text. Four poor and ill-informed interpretations do not one good one make.

So I'm wondering, if it were possible to convince them that the Bible does not necessarily simply support these libertarian views (i.e. on health care), would we be able to get them to reconsider health care?

Not without a broad, focused movement from the inside out. Trying to convince anyone as an outsider is a wasted effort - who would you believe, your priest or some guy who says the opposite?

Now, if there were a popular church within current American Christianity that can both appeal to the general public and to wealthy interest groups with a pro-UHC message, and if it could equal or at least approach the financial backing given to "libertarian" churches, and if it could then mould that support into political activism, then you'd have a shot. But not before.

[Axis Kast]

And your own prior question puts our disagreement in stark contrast, does it not? If most American Christians have read the Bible as well as you have, then why are the majority of them so completely unaware of Jesus' attitudes toward wealth, and helping the poor? You said it yourself: it is difficult to read the Bible and come away with any other impression. Yet we know that most American Christians seem unaware of this, given the strong alignment of Christian groups and right-wing politics.

The majority of them aren't unaware of Jesus' attitudes toward wealth, and helping the poor. Charity, or "giving," and service are major themes in almost every Christian congregation. Charity, to tsedaka, is also central to Judaism. I presume that Islamic teachings are in lockstep as well.

There is a significant difference between the lessons which you abstract from Jesus' sermons, translated into high-minded political action, and the conclusions at which they arrive, often bolstered by conservative assumptions, such as the inefficacy of public institutions. Christians don't prefer the private sector because it generates a profit; they prefer the private sector because they have learned to equate profit-seeking with "pays attention to the real world," which they think government is apt not to do.

[Bounty]

American Christianity also suffers from remnants of Dutch Calvinism, where financial success was seen as proof of divine blessing.

It's sort of interesting to compare this to Catholic political movements - they were different in each country, of course, but at least here they have become champions of social safety nets; socially-conservative, economically-centrist Catholics against libertarian, socially-progressive "liberals". It's the American right-wing Siamese twin split in half.

[Samuel]

I presume that Islamic teachings are in lockstep as well.

Third of the 5 pillars (after monotheism and praying to Mecca). So Islam is a bit more explicit about the requirement for charity.

[Surlethe]

In some ways, the right of the Republican Party has two groups - the libertarians and the conservative Christians. They are united at the moment, but what if they could be split? After all, the two groups don't go together of necessity.

No they don't necessarily go together, and it might be possible to split them. Think about, say, Huckabee, who ran a relatively populist primary campaign: source 1, source 2. There was also some anecdotal evidence that younger libertarians jumped ship and voted Democrat after McCain chose Palin - IIRC, Greg Mankiw posted this in his blog.

[Darth Wong]

And your own prior question puts our disagreement in stark contrast, does it not? If most American Christians have read the Bible as well as you have, then why are the majority of them so completely unaware of Jesus' attitudes toward wealth, and helping the poor? You said it yourself: it is difficult to read the Bible and come away with any other impression. Yet we know that most American Christians seem unaware of this, given the strong alignment of Christian groups and right-wing politics.

The majority of them aren't unaware of Jesus' attitudes toward wealth, and helping the poor. Charity, or "giving," and service are major themes in almost every Christian congregation. Charity, to tsedaka, is also central to Judaism. I presume that Islamic teachings are in lockstep as well.

Not among people who subscribe to the line of "why should I have to pay for someone else's health care" argument quoted in the OP of this thread, who are hardly uncommon in a nation where 90% of the residents believe in God.

There is a significant difference between the lessons which you abstract from Jesus' sermons, translated into high-minded political action, and the conclusions at which they arrive, often bolstered by conservative assumptions, such as the inefficacy of public institutions. Christians don't prefer the private sector because it generates a profit; they prefer the private sector because they have learned to equate profit-seeking with "pays attention to the real world," which they think government is apt not to do.

This would apply perfectly to a person who gives so generously to charity that his own lifestyle is austere at best, no matter how large his income is. Anyone else is just bullshitting; they don't actually believe in Christian teachings about charity at all, and they just use "Christian charity" as a talking point to explain how to solve social problems caused by their intended deconstruction of government.

Now be honest: how common are such people? Hell, Jesus even made a specific point about rich people who give an amount of money which does not hurt them at all.

[Patrick Degan]

The Christian Right are opposed to UHC for the same reason the Catholic Church is opposed to birth control for Africa. Religion can only thrive in conditions of ignorance, poverty, and desperation. Make people poorer, more desperate, and reduce their options for self-help or outside help to zero or as close to it as feasible, and you've got a ready-made flock willing to take even an irrational chance in belief in your snake-oil scheme or to at least come to your church as the only source of aid and comfort. Control a people's only source of hope and you've got them. Neat little mechanism for gaining and holding power in perpetuity.

[Simon_Jester]

The Christian Right are opposed to UHC for the same reason the Catholic Church is opposed to birth control for Africa. Religion can only thrive in conditions of ignorance, poverty, and desperation. Make people poorer, more desperate, and reduce their options for self-help or outside help to zero or as close to it as feasible, and you've got a ready-made flock willing to take even an irrational chance in belief in your snake-oil scheme or to at least come to your church as the only source of aid and comfort. Control a people's only source of hope and you've got them. Neat little mechanism for gaining and holding power in perpetuity.

Personally, I find it unlikely that this sort of thing would be a deliberate policy to spread ignorance, poverty, and despair. Neither the Pope nor the leaders of the American Protestant fundamentalist movement are cartoon villains.

But I would buy a modified version of this: if you have an organization that flourishes in a bad environment, it's likely to rationalize and embrace the behaviors that make the environment so bad in the first place. Telling your followers that they are idiots who have been living wrong all these years is not a good way to win friends and influence people, and most groups with a track record of holding on to loyal followers will prefer not to do it.

If my organization thrives on foolishness, it's likely to grow into something that promotes foolish behavior, even if I am not consciously aware of the foolishness and actively trying to spread it so that I'll have new territory to grow into.

[Serafina]

The Christian Right are opposed to UHC for the same reason the Catholic Church is opposed to birth control for Africa. Religion can only thrive in conditions of ignorance, poverty, and desperation.

I would say that organised religion can only thive under these conditions, as a lot of people without (major) problems and with eduaction are still religious. But they tend to treat it as an strictly personal issue and do not really apply it to daily life.

[Patrick Degan]

The Christian Right are opposed to UHC for the same reason the Catholic Church is opposed to birth control for Africa. Religion can only thrive in conditions of ignorance, poverty, and desperation. Make people poorer, more desperate, and reduce their options for self-help or outside help to zero or as close to it as feasible, and you've got a ready-made flock willing to take even an irrational chance in belief in your snake-oil scheme or to at least come to your church as the only source of aid and comfort. Control a people's only source of hope and you've got them. Neat little mechanism for gaining and holding power in perpetuity.

Personally, I find it unlikely that this sort of thing would be a deliberate policy to spread ignorance, poverty, and despair. Neither the Pope nor the leaders of the American Protestant fundamentalist movement are cartoon villains.

But I would buy a modified version of this: if you have an organization that flourishes in a bad environment, it's likely to rationalize and embrace the behaviors that make the environment so bad in the first place. Telling your followers that they are idiots who have been living wrong all these years is not a good way to win friends and influence people, and most groups with a track record of holding on to loyal followers will prefer not to do it.

If my organization thrives on foolishness, it's likely to grow into something that promotes foolish behavior, even if I am not consciously aware of the foolishness and actively trying to spread it so that I'll have new territory to grow into.

That's a nice theory but it just doesn't wash. The leaders have had plenty of time to see that the social policies they hold to cause a great deal of human misery and have had plenty of time to craft ways to guide their flocks in the direction of reform and justice. They have the resources to attempt to improve conditions for their congregations. Instead, they embrace those policies ever more tightly with each passing year and actively campaign against those individuals and organisations who do attempt to rectify conditions because their own self-proclaimed doctrine declares such action wrong if not actually evil. And if they can enlist state power to block progressive efforts, they do so at every opportunity.

[Surlethe]

The leaders have had plenty of time to see that the social policies they hold to cause a great deal of human misery and have had plenty of time to craft ways to guide their flocks in the direction of reform and justice.

So the only conceivable reason the leaders of these various movements have refused to guide their flocks in the direction of "reform and justice" is because they prioritize increasing their movements' power and increasing human misery is a good way to do that? You seem to be falling into the "libertarian fallacy", assuming that the leaders (in particular) are coldly calculating, self-interested, and rational actors. (I'm also noting a dearth of evidence for your claims.)

[Axis Kast]

Not among people who subscribe to the line of "why should I have to pay for someone else's health care" argument quoted in the OP of this thread, who are hardly uncommon in a nation where 90% of the residents believe in God.

There are a variety of reasons why conservative Christians are not privileging that interpretation.

First, many Christians already "know" that there is no dependable connection between their tax money and socially useful outcomes.

Second, this same group of people is worried that their tax money will fund a system run by the government, the efficacy of which is inherently suspect. Worse, if this occurs during a Democratic administration, there will be questions about what kinds of interventions are being forced upon vulnerable patients.

The specter of "nanny government," in almost any form that doesn't relate to national defense, which is perhaps the domain where it is easiest to see the need for enforced contribution, is also significant. Many Christians perceive that government-run healthcare will become a cultural albatross that fuels a sense of entitlement which runs against teachings about self-sufficiency and personal responsibility.

[Samuel]

Ah, but those are not Christian ideals, but conservative ideals.... They can't tell the difference, can they?

[Darth Wong]

Many Christians perceive that government-run healthcare will become a cultural albatross that fuels a sense of entitlement which runs against teachings about self-sufficiency and personal responsibility.

I'm sorry, I must have somehow missed the part of the Bible where Jesus talks about the importance of teaching the poor "self-sufficiency" by not giving them anything for free. Perhaps you could point me to it?

[Axis Kast]

Ah, but those are not Christian ideals, but conservative ideals.... They can't tell the difference, can they?

It's a given that here, we are talking about Christians who are politically conservative by the standards of the United States. Many believe that their faith can be "squared" only with the Republican Party, not the Democratic.

I'm sorry, I must have somehow missed the part of the Bible where Jesus talks about the importance of teaching the poor "self-sufficiency" by not giving them anything for free. Perhaps you could point me to it?

You'll be interested to know that a lot has been said, or added to, the Gosepl since the birth of Jesus Christ some two thousand and nine years ago. Many Christians, if not many Mike Wongs, finds it persuasive.

Can one poke holes in the logic? Absolutely. It is still what's buoying the opposition? It is.

[Darth Wong]

I'm sorry, I must have somehow missed the part of the Bible where Jesus talks about the importance of teaching the poor "self-sufficiency" by not giving them anything for free. Perhaps you could point me to it?

You'll be interested to know that a lot has been said, or added to, the Gosepl since the birth of Jesus Christ some two thousand and nine years ago. Many Christians, if not many Mike Wongs, finds it persuasive.

Can one poke holes in the logic? Absolutely. It is still what's buoying the opposition? It is.

It's funny how that doesn't answer my question at all. You dance about with vague allusions to material the Christians are quoting but which I would not find "persuasive", but you make no attempt whatsoever to identify this material. Once again, could you please show me the part of the Gospel where Jesus preaches that you should refuse to give to the poor, so that they will learn "self-sufficiency"?