# Have Demographers misidentified the "Religious Right" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 1, 2018, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-demographers-misidentified-the-religious-right/823858 "2018-11-01T19:55:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2018, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-demographers-misidentified-the-religious-right/823858/21 "2018-11-02T18:43:10Z")
> [@Hermitian](#): > > I would think they would say that the government being inefficient is self-evident. For example, I would think they would say that if you give money to people because they do not have a job, that incentives them not to get a job. > > Also, I have worked closely enough with the federal government to know that it is not a monument of efficiency. > > The tricky question is “efficient compared to what?” Sometimes you can compare it to the commercial world. I have seen it develop/manage products and thought to myself “if this were a commercial entity, this item would have shipped and been on the shelf three years ago.” However, not all of the government’s services can be compared to a commercial entity. > > Can we, as a nation come up with a system that everyone (or a majority) can agree is significantly better? Probably not with the level of distrust within the country. I don’t know, it sounds more like an unsupported axiom that you use to justify other premises, i.e. the government is self-evidently inefficient, therefore taxation is theft, fuck the poor, etc. As a dogma, it’s fine, but it doesn’t really carry its weight in what is ostensibly a reasoned argument. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2018, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-demographers-misidentified-the-religious-right/823858/22 "2018-11-02T18:45:51Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Over the past 30 years, much attention has been paid to the 'Religious Right", defined as Evangelical Christians whose faith has led the to support the Republican party wing due it its opposition to abortions and homosexuality. The conventional wisdom being that this groups politics are defined by their religion. > > To my mind it is becoming clear that this was a incorrect understanding of this voting block. First much of the Republican agenda staunchly supported by this group are in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus Christ (protect the poor, judge not, thy neighbor includes the Samaritan etc.) , and second, the evangelical intensity of African American Churches is at least as strong as their White counterparts but they strongly support the Democrats. > > I think a better description of these people would be “white traditionalists”. Under this understanding, under this understanding the groups political motivations wouldn’t be defined so much by their faith but instead by a broader tribalism of which religion is only a part. Under this view the primary motivator is comfort in a way of life in American prior to upheavals of the racial, social and sexual upheavals of the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s, and a distrust of anything that goes against that. Thus secularization, multiculturalism, loss of standing for whites, increased sexuality, feminism, drug use, tolerance of non-traidional lifestyles all became threats that must be fought. > > I believe that this voting block became associated strictly with religious fundamentalism for a number of reasons. I tend to disagree. I feel that this group of voters does have a distinct identity separate from other groups that share their political ideologies. They do have a clear religious affiliation. I think these people can best be defined as political conservatives and religious believers who have mixed their politics and their religion together. ---
**Author:** ![senoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@senoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/senoy)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2018, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-demographers-misidentified-the-religious-right/823858/23 "2018-11-02T19:11:38Z")
> [@Hermitian](#): > > Evangelicals see themselves as serious theological studiers (sp?) of the Bible. Of course, between hard-line evangelical on one side and complete mainline on the other, there is a complete spectrum. I would completely agree that that is how they see themselves. Of course, their four paragraph theological statements, largely uncredentialed clergy and failure to study any theology that doesn’t fit within a fundamentalist worldview belies that assertion, but nonetheless, I’m certain that’s how they see themselves. > [@](#): > > Evangelicals would look down on a modern stereotypical mainline church as: > > 1. Not much different from modern America. Influenced more by modern culture (e.g. gay-marriage). > 2. Uses the Bible as more like a users manual (not to be taken too seriously). It is great for inspirational quotes and moral stories to tell children. It is not as a supremely important message from God. > 3. Not too interested in converting others to Christianity, probably because we will all go to Heavey anyway so whats the point? Sure, which actually validates my earlier claim about rigid moralities that you seemed to take umbrage with. And of course the fact that they say that probably is also evidence against them being “serious theologians.” ---
**Author:** ![Pinmin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@Pinmin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pinmin)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2018, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-demographers-misidentified-the-religious-right/823858/24 "2018-11-03T01:06:15Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > So evangelicals are concerned with their own salvation through “faith” and in spreading a “message”, i.e. denigrating other faiths. Doing good works on Earth and loving one’s neighbors is not the priority. Yes, that’s what I thought. > > I don’t see why the correlation between “Evangelism” and right-wingism should be considered at all surprising. Despite what “Coexist” bumper stickers would lead you to believe, pretty much all major religions make contradictory claims compared to the others. They believe these claims to be accurate representations of reality (aka truth). The goal is to convince others of this truth. “Denegrating other faiths” makes the assumption that they are all equally valid. I also challenge your assertion about doing good works and loving ones neighbor. If you look around at people doing these things, more often then not they are motivated by their faith. From homeless shelters, food kitchens / pantries, etc; I know of numerous examples that fly under many people’s radar. Evangelicals work based on different foundational assumptions than you, considering eternal destination as part of the calculus. ---
**Author:** ![Pinmin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@Pinmin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pinmin)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2018, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-demographers-misidentified-the-religious-right/823858/25 "2018-11-03T01:19:40Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > I would completely agree that that is how they see themselves. Of course, their four paragraph theological statements, largely uncredentialed clergy and failure to study any theology that doesn’t fit within a fundamentalist worldview belies that assertion, but nonetheless, I’m certain that’s how they see themselves. > > Sure, which actually validates my earlier claim about rigid moralities that you seemed to take umbrage with. And of course the fact that they say that probably is also evidence against them being “serious theologians.” Your broad brush sounds like shades of the old “religion is for dumb people who don’t know any better” trope. I’m not sure of the source of your view, but all of the evangelical churches I’ve been around and involved with have leadership with masters or PhD level credentials in theology. Can you name some of these theologies they fail to study? From an Evangelical point of view, there is a concrete, absolute reality about the world. That reality includes a perfect, holy God with standards for morality. These standards have an eternal impact on the lives of each person far beyond a handful of decades here in this life. You may disagree, but there are numerous reasons that these beliefs can be rationally held (for example, I point you to the work of Dr. William Lane Craig at [reasonablefaith.org](http://reasonablefaith.org)). ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2018, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-demographers-misidentified-the-religious-right/823858/26 "2018-11-03T02:22:30Z")
> [@Hermitian](#): > > 1. You can believe in taking care of the poor and “the least of these” without thinking that the best way to do that is have the inefficient government take money from you by force and then doling it out according to their own criteria. Millions of Christians work in soup kitchens and other charity organizations. The most generous and helping people I know are the Christians in my life, not the non-Christians. They believe is the responsibility of the individual to be giving and helping, not the state who uses force. At the risk of highjacking my own thread, why do you view this as an either or proposition? If Jesus commands us to do all we can to help the needy why can’t we give of our own, and additionally vote for government policies that help the poor as well. Or do you believe that government inefficiency is so great that on a dollar for dollar basis, tax cuts for the wealthy do more to help the poor than food stamps and medicaid? To some extent this is a perfect example of what I am talking about. I also don’t recall Jesus saying give to the poor but not too much less they become lazy and shiftless. But concern that government money is being given to some “other” who I don’t know or trust, would fit a “white traditionalist” concern, which is then rationalized by making a distinction between individual charity and other methods of supporting the poor. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I tend to disagree. I feel that this group of voters does have a distinct identity separate from other groups that share their political ideologies. They do have a clear religious affiliation. > > I think these people can best be defined as political conservatives and religious believers who have mixed their politics and their religion together. I guess the question then is which is primary. If presented with say a pro life Jesse Jackson, who is clearly culturally liberal, but also obviously religious, or Trump who hits the cultural touch stones but is the antithesis of everything Jesus represents, who would they vote for? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2018, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-demographers-misidentified-the-religious-right/823858/27 "2018-11-03T02:42:20Z")
> [@Pinmin](#): > > Despite what “Coexist” bumper stickers would lead you to believe, pretty much all major religions make contradictory claims compared to the others. They believe these claims to be accurate representations of reality (aka truth). The goal is to convince others of this truth. “Denegrating other faiths” makes the assumption that they are all equally valid. > > I also challenge your assertion about doing good works and loving ones neighbor. If you look around at people doing these things, more often then not they are motivated by their faith. From homeless shelters, food kitchens / pantries, etc; I know of numerous examples that fly under many people’s radar. > > Evangelicals work based on different foundational assumptions than you, considering eternal destination as part of the calculus. Wrong. Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism — right there are three of the world’s “five great religions” that do NOT generally proselytize. Many minor religions could be added to this list. Amusingly, the religions evangelicals most hate — Islam and Roman Catholicism — are the same ones that Evangelism most resembles. I do not doubt that many individuals who identify as Evangelicals do good deeds. Evangelical organizations, OTOH, tend to focus their “charity” on religious schools where they can inculcate, and care-giving opportunities to proselytize. They focus strongly on issues like abortions and guns, deliberately to increase partisan rancor. Lately they have joined Trump and FoxNews in spreading deliberate lies. Nasty and unscrupulous “televangelists” pander to personal greed rather than charity; if this is a caricature of “evangelism”, why do these televangelists get millions of viewers? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2018, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-demographers-misidentified-the-religious-right/823858/28 "2018-11-03T03:12:32Z")
I’ve read about 3 pages of Allan J Lichtman’s [White Protestant Nation](https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/allan-j-lichtman/white-protestant-nation/) (2008). It grounds modern conservatism in the 1920s rather than among libertarians of the 1950s. Sociologically, this feels appropriate, but it led to David Frum [panning the book in the New York Times](https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/books/review/Frum-t.html) when it was published. In Trump’s America, the book seems prescient. Unfortunately I haven’t read enough of the book to make a more substantive comment. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2018, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-demographers-misidentified-the-religious-right/823858/29 "2018-11-03T13:50:40Z")
> [@F.U.Shakespeare](#): > > Religious people can have blind spots to inconsistencies. They’re also subject to indoctrination and tribal loyalties: if every preacher they’ve ever known told them that Jesus wanted all of us to be rich, they’re inclined to believe it. Especially if the only people who’ve ever disputed it are liberals. The thing is that those inconsistencies have been pretty consistently in favor of making it clear to non-straight WASPs that they should sit at the back of the bus. Not that being a white US Evangelical (WUE) necessarily means being mean. If most WUEs were like Rob Bell, there would hardly be a problem and Trump wouldn’t be in the White House. > [@Hermitian](#): > > 1. Abortion and Homosexuality are a part of it. Most Christians are not comfortable looking back on their life and admitting that they voted for a leader that believes in killing babies. That is hard to get over. It doesn’t matter that Republicans cannot wave a magic wand and end abortion. It’s the principal of the thing. Are you using “Christian” to mean “white US Evangelical”? Most Christians in the West don’t have that much of a problem voting for politicians who don’t want to make abortion illegal. The _Irish_ voted 2-to-1 to make abortion legal. It’s the WUEs who are aberrant in that regard. Then there’s the fact that the Bible sees murder as deserving the death penalty but not assault which results in miscarriage. Looks like YHVH himself doesn’t think abortion is killing babies. You mention homosexuality but say no more about it. If WUEs invoke Leviticus 20:13 to justify opposition to homosexuality, shouldn’t they be consistent and propose to actually apply that verse? > [@Hermitian](#): > > 1. You can believe in taking care of the poor and “the least of these” without thinking that the best way to do that is have the inefficient government take money from you by force and then doling it out according to their own criteria. Millions of Christians work in soup kitchens and other charity organizations. The most generous and helping people I know are the Christians in my life, not the non-Christians. They believe is the responsibility of the individual to be giving and helping, not the state who uses force. So, does this mean that a majority of WUEs want to abolish Medicare and Social Security? ---
**Author:** ![Mdcastle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/958977/32.png) [@Mdcastle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mdcastle)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2018, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-demographers-misidentified-the-religious-right/823858/30 "2018-11-03T23:39:03Z")
> [@Hermitian](#): > > As a white evangelical, who is somewhat of a Republican (more old school, not Trump), here is my take. > > 1. Abortion and Homosexuality are a part of it. Most Christians are not comfortable looking back on their life and admitting that they voted for a leader that believes in killing babies. That is hard to get over. It doesn’t matter that Republicans cannot wave a magic wand and end abortion. It’s the principal of the thing. > > 2. You can believe in taking care of the poor and “the least of these” without thinking that the best way to do that is have the inefficient government take money from you by force and then doling it out according to their own criteria. Millions of Christians work in soup kitchens and other charity organizations. The most generous and helping people I know are the Christians in my life, not the non-Christians. They believe is the responsibility of the individual to be giving and helping, not the state who uses force. > > 3. With those being said, evangelicals are just people. Most people vote according to their emotion and gut, not well reasoned or even theological arguments. They get trapped in their outrage news bubble, and once you get stuck there, it is hard to see things differently. > > I am not necessarily supporting or defending these arguments. I am just relaying from the inside. I’d give even more to charity if they government didn’t take so much of my money. I’m a white evangelical Republican (more Trump as opposed to old school) and I agree with this entirely. Does a politician support killing unborn babies? If yes they’re not getting my vote, period as I consider supporting the killing of unborn babies as fundamentally incompatible with Christianity as supporting the killing random people walking down the streets is. As for helping the poor, somehow liberals get the idea that the only way to “help the poor” is to advocate having the government vacuum out your wallet and use the money they see fit, not for you to write checks directly to charities (or donate your time, etc) as you see fit. I give quite a bit of my time and money to charity. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2018, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-demographers-misidentified-the-religious-right/823858/31 "2018-11-04T04:16:55Z")
Sometimes conservatives get mistaken impressions like this, than go on to use them to rationalize all kinds of stuff: > [@Mdcastle](#): > > As for helping the poor, somehow liberals get the idea that the only way to “help the poor” is to advocate having the government vacuum out your wallet and use the money they see fit, not for you to write checks directly to charities (or donate your time, etc) as you see fit. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-demographers-misidentified-the-religious-right/823858/32 "2018-11-05T16:46:01Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Wrong. Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism — right there are three of the world’s “five great religions” that do NOT generally proselytize. Many minor religions could be added to this list. Amusingly, the religions evangelicals most hate — Islam and Roman Catholicism — are the same ones that Evangelism most resembles. > > I do not doubt that many individuals who identify as Evangelicals do good deeds. Evangelical organizations, OTOH, tend to focus their “charity” on religious schools where they can inculcate, and care-giving opportunities to proselytize. They focus strongly on issues like abortions and guns, deliberately to increase partisan rancor. Lately they have joined Trump and FoxNews in spreading deliberate lies. Nasty and unscrupulous “televangelists” pander to personal greed rather than charity; if this is a caricature of “evangelism”, why do these televangelists get millions of viewers? Evangelical organizations include Food for the Poor, World Vision, Compassion International, and Samaritans Purse, each of which gives hundreds of millions in aid to poor people around the globe. Evangelicals and our organizations focus on issues like abortion because it has the potential to save millions of babies from being killed each year, not to increase partisan rancor. I am not sure who you are talking about with the televangelist comments but there are at least 70 million evangelicals in America, only a small fraction of us are watching greed pandering preachers. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-demographers-misidentified-the-religious-right/823858/33 "2018-11-05T16:54:39Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > At the risk of highjacking my own thread, why do you view this as an either or proposition? If Jesus commands us to do all we can to help the needy why can’t we give of our own, and additionally vote for government policies that help the poor as well. Or do you believe that government inefficiency is so great that on a dollar for dollar basis, tax cuts for the wealthy do more to help the poor than food stamps and medicaid? > > To some extent this is a perfect example of what I am talking about. I also don’t recall Jesus saying give to the poor but not too much less they become lazy and shiftless. But concern that government money is being given to some “other” who I don’t know or trust, would fit a “white traditionalist” concern, which is then rationalized by making a distinction between individual charity and other methods of supporting the poor. > > I guess the question then is which is primary. If presented with say a pro life Jesse Jackson, who is clearly culturally liberal, but also obviously religious, or Trump who hits the cultural touch stones but is the antithesis of everything Jesus represents, who would they vote for? What helps people out of poverty the most is not government handouts but productive jobs. Over the last century and a half neoliberal policies have allowed more people to escape policy, than anything else in the history of mankind. As a Christian we should vote to expand such policies and then give to charity so as to ameliorate the situation of those who can not help themselves. To dismiss conservative economics as just giving tax cuts to rich people shows a lack of understanding of the politics and the economics. I would rather have a culturally liberal religious person as a preacher but someone like Trump as president because the job descriptions are so different. It would be better to have a good person as president who is working for good goals but that is not currently on the table. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-demographers-misidentified-the-religious-right/823858/34 "2018-11-05T17:07:24Z")
“Republican agenda staunchly supported by this group are in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus Christ (protect the poor, judge not, thy neighbor includes the Samaritan etc.) ” Perhaps Jesus should have realized the awesome potential of the Roman tax-collection apparatus, but I don’t remember that part. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-demographers-misidentified-the-religious-right/823858/35 "2018-11-05T19:21:41Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > “Republican agenda staunchly supported by this group are in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus Christ (protect the poor, judge not, thy neighbor includes the Samaritan etc.) ” > > Perhaps Jesus should have realized the awesome potential of the Roman tax-collection apparatus, but I don’t remember that part. Its right next to “blessed is the industrialist for he shall provide jobs”. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-demographers-misidentified-the-religious-right/823858/36 "2018-11-05T19:33:55Z")
Well, a cheesemaker is sort of an industrialist, isn’t he? ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-demographers-misidentified-the-religious-right/823858/37 "2018-11-05T19:48:22Z")
I don’t entirely disagree with the OP, but I do think there is still value in separating out a Religious Right. Yes, they fit under your “white traditionalists” umbrella, but I would still argue there is a difference. They were originally convinced by white traditionalist arguments made into religious ones. Before the big push for the Religious Right, these more fundamentalist evangelicals basically kinda stayed out of politics, because that was part of the modern world. I think the reason that simply pointing out who Jesus actually was doesn’t work is that they are Fundamentalists, which is a white traditionalist religion. They don’t accept any modern interpretations of Jesus. They are part of a purely tribalistic religion. So yes, it may be better to sidestep the religious issue. But I also think it’s useful for those of us who are technically part of their religion–or at least part of their culture enough to be able to interact with them at that level–to continue to push the religious arguments. I applaud the Evangelical pastors who are pointing out that a line was crossed with supporting Trump and his hate. I myself am one of those using _sola scriptura_ and my knowledge of how evangelicals preach to convince people that the Bible doesn’t support what they are doing. It’s just that you can only appeal to a tribalistic religion from the inside. Outsiders are evil. When we run religious ads, we need to virtue signal to show we are “one of them.” That means to state our beliefs in such a way that we communicate with them that we are one of them. Even if you’re a different kind of Christian, learn the evangelical terminology. If you’re not a Christian, but you can support some Christian values, try that–with the terminology. But, yes, also appeal to them via other means if you can. Don’t assume that actual religion is their motivating force. Religion is just the way to get them to listen. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-demographers-misidentified-the-religious-right/823858/38 "2018-11-05T20:21:54Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > What helps people out of poverty the most is not government handouts but productive jobs. In a way, I don’t disagree. It is better that people become self-sufficient rather than rely on the government to pay them. But the problem is that you assume that, in order to make them self-sufficient, you cannot give “handouts.” And you assume that the other parts of conservative economics actually create these productive jobs that would make them self-sufficient. But the reality seems to be that conservative economics, in practice, seem to do more to help the rich at the expense of the poor. Decreasing regulations may make money in the short term, but greed will exploit anything it can, and it eventually comes crashing down. (See the 2008 crash.) Weakening the government by cutting taxes only makes it harder for the government to stop exploitation. We are, in effect, questioning the truth of the Bible. It says to help out the poor. Sure, it does say that those who can work should work (the real meaning behind “he who does not work shall not eat,” which was in response to people just quitting their jobs), but those who can’t, whether due to disability, lack of job availability, lack of skills, should be helped out. That doesn’t mean we can’t also help out the reasons why they are in trouble. But in a country with such disparity, taking some from the top to help out those who need it now doesn’t really hurt them in any significant way, while it helps these people. And if they want to avoid losing that money, maybe that will push them to create productive jobs, since both parties benefit. Yeah, that’s right: I think that tax breaks actually disincentivize job creation in the long run, and that higher taxes actually push you to create more jobs to get more revenue to offset the tax burden. Don’t get me wrong: there’s a balance, because it is also possible that too high taxes can keep the company from being able to grow. But that’s reality for you: the actual extremes don’t work. It’s always balance. The arguments we should be having is on where the balance is. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-demographers-misidentified-the-religious-right/823858/39 "2018-11-05T21:07:35Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Its right next to “blessed is the industrialist for he shall provide jobs”. If you say so. I don’t cruise the Bible looking for God’s validation of my economic theories. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2018, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-demographers-misidentified-the-religious-right/823858/40 "2018-11-06T01:25:07Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Evangelical organizations include Food for the Poor … I Googled “Food for the Poor” for the obscure reason that it was the first organization on your list. Google, Wikipedia, et al tell me that it is an _ **ecumenical** _ organization, and do not mention the word ‘_ **evangelical** _.’ Is Wikipedia confused? I clicked to the Food for the Poor website and clicked again to see a list of their Board of Directories. Several Roman Catholic and at least one Episcopalian bishops appeared. For example, His Eminence Óscar Andrés Cardinal Rodríguez Maradiaga. And yes, just in case some ‘Good ol boys love Guns and Jesus’ organization in Alabamy is awarding titles like “His Eminence” I Googled the Cardinal. Wikipedia thinks he’s a Roman Catholic. 🙂 Since you apparently define “Evangelical” as “Christian”, needless to say I didn’t bother to Google any of the other organizations in your list. HTH. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-demographers-misidentified-the-religious-right/823858.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-demographers-misidentified-the-religious-right/823858.md?page=3)