Why Does Fundamentalist Christianity Appeal to Conservatives?

Let me preface by acknowledging that not all Fundamentalist Christians are conservatives, and not all conservatives are Fundamentalist Christians. But you must admit there is a significant correlation between the two, to the extent that the Republican Party must cater to their religious views to retain power.

That being said, why would conservatives embrace a religion that requires them to give all that they own to the poor?

The inconsistency of the two philosophies is profound and twofold: conservativism espouses the acquistion of wealth through hard work and self reliance, and eschews gratuitous welfare to the poor that does not require them to work for it in return. So why would they gravitate to a religion that is anti-materialistic, requires them to abandon their wealth and reward those who don’t work hard enough to make it on their own?

**Granted, it doesn’t say it is impossible, but the analogy is clear; renounce materialism or face eternal damnation.

On these boards and elsewhere I have seen conservatives struggle to reconcile their own materialism with the commands of Jesus, relying on semantic tricks and creative interpretations to allow them have their cake and eat it too. But why would they let themselves in for accusations of hypocrisy in the first place by adopting a religion that is diametrically opposed to their acquisitive desires?

Why would a conservative, whose philosophy espouses responsibility for one’s actions and punishment of evildoers, adopt a religion that requires him to forgive his enemies? The stress of the two competing and opposing philosophies would seem so great as to cancel each other out. Does it spring from low self-esteem, which drives them to adopt a religion that creates self-loathing?

How is this reconciled with the conservative desire to seek out the evil doers of the world and exact retribution for their evil? Tolerance, humility and forebearance are not qualities one normally associates with conservatism, yet they are exactly what Jesus demands of his followers, so what is the attraction of Christianity to conservatives? I should think they would want a religion that commanded the righteous seek out evil and destroy it, to acquire as much wealth as possible, and punish in the name of God those who committed the sin of poverty.

So, are Christian conservatives unrepentant hyprocrites, or are they just a little schizophrenic?

Why can’t they be both hypocrites and schizophrenic ? I think they are both…

As for how can they be rich and fundamentalist… well its all about emphasizing what is good for you and neglecting the parts that are bad. Hardly a conservative tendency though… more like a human tendency.

Fundamentalist Christianity is also associated with the “health-and-wealth”, “Name it and claim it” style of Christianity, which promotes the idea that God desires to bless those who follow Him with material wealth and good health, and that conversly, the lack of either is a sign of weakness in your relationship with Him.

I agree with Rashak Mani that the tendancy to emphasise that which fits with your preconcieved notion of the world is not unique to FCs - “cherrypicking” some would call it.

Grim

Define Fundamentalist Christianity.

Your thesis could apply to anyone, regardless of their political persuazion, who accepts Christ’s teachings but who does not give all their wealth to the poor. One might just as well ask: “Why do Christians who are Liberal not practice true Christianity”? or “Why don’t Christians who are Liberal foresake all ties to Market Capitalism”?

I would say that conservatism appeals to fundamentalist christians and not vice versa. The Bible tells us to work hard and provide for our families. The Bible also tells us to take care of the poor and most Christians I know are very generous giving of both their time and money. In the county I live in all the dinners at the county homeless shelters are provided by local churches. There are numerous other charitable programs provided for by people in my church both in the US and around the world. This is just one of dozens of churches in the area.
What the Bible does not say is that you should give half you money to the government who will then take half and then use the other half to administer programs which will keep its recipients in a state of dependency and perpetual poverty. The difference is the Christians believe in giving people a hand up instead of just handing them a check.
The Bible also says that the purpose of government in to punish the guilty. Conservatives believe that the courts, the police and the military are the legitimate purposes of government. These are all governmental institutions designed to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.
Most fundamentalist christians are conservatives not for fiscal or foreign policy reasons. They see one group disparaging the values that have built this country and the other fighting for those values they tend to join those who share those values. As long as liberalism stands for abortion, sexual license, and secularism and conservatism stands for life, responsibilitym and respect for religion the choice for those who take their religion seriously will be clear.

I disagree with grimpixie. Although it’s hard to make accurate generalizations about such a broad group, I think it has less to do with economics than with social policy.

First, I’d turn your question around. I don’t think conservatives are drawn to fundamentalism, I think fundamentalists are drawn to conservativism. And although fiscal individualism, low taxes and small government might all play a part, I think the real attraction is the perception that the Republican party is anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-“family values”, etc. And it feeds on itself; as you have more conservative politicians who are religious, it attracts more religious voters to the party, who elect more religious candidtates, and so on.

On the other side, liberals are seen as pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-ACLU, etc. And since Jimmy Carter, there have been far fewer Democrats who are as openly religious as some Republicans are.

*Disclaimer: I am not fundamentalist, nor do I subscribe to the characterizations of the conservative or liberal agendas described above. I’m just sayin’, is all. YMMV.

First of all, I think you have it the wrong way around. Conservativism appeals to Fundamentalist Christians, and that’s mainly because, for a lot of fundimentalists, conservativism is on the “right” side of a lot of social issues, from abortion to gay rights to education.

I don’t think that fundimentalists are particularly conservative economically, and in various issues, the religious right has clashed with economic conservativism. For example, a lot of the religious right have said we shouldn’t trade, or at least give preferential trade status to countries like Sudan or China, or other countries that violate religious or other human rights standards. A lot of economic conservatives think we should trade with those countries.

Also, it’s possible to both believe that the poor should be helped and that that isn’t the job of the government.

I’m still working on the whole “values which made this country great” bit that keeps getting tossed around. What values would those be? Deism and a healthy respect for many religions? The sentiment which inscribed “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift the lamp beside the Golden Door” upon our French-made statue? Or maybe you mean the rapacious greed of the robber barons who founded a few libraries upon the backs of those they ill-used and tossed away? I know! Perhaps its the amazing trait of Americans to turn beautiful idealism into high-handed jingoism which could justify the ousting of “savages” from their native lands and the seizure of the Phillipines in the name of democracy against the will and promises of those within.

Tell me, which side of the ennumerated values does, ohhh, Pat Buchanan most seem to fall on? And regardless of which made this country great, how many do I actually wish to see put into practice today?

I think they mean things like patriotism, thrift, a sense of community, hard work, love of family, love of God, etc.

Now, whether we ever had those values, and, if we did, whether they made our country great, is debatable. But, there are people who believe that we once had those values, and have lost them, or that they are under attack.

Fair comment - I agree with you, thereby disagreeing with myself!! :slight_smile:

It is probably a little of both - they are drawn to these branches of the church because of the social stances they adopt, and then seek to justify thier financial positions with selective adaptations of scriptures…

Grim

Since we are pattern-seeking animals, fundamentalism is for lazy minds. They don’t have to do much to seek out patterns; they just accept some that ancient people came up with and go with that (even though those patterns thought up over 2000 years ago don’t quite match modern life).

So conservatives, by definition, are ‘adverse to rapid change’ and ‘avoid extremes’, therefore they tend to go the way of the easy patterns to explain things.

And when one is willing to do that, I must add, then one is also pretty willing to be in a cult (ritualistic religious system).

A lot of fundamentalist Christianity (or, for that matter, fundamentalist Islam, fundamentalist Judaism, or fundamentalist Pretty-much-Anything) lends itself well to an overall agenda of limiting indidivual behavior to a narrow range, creating a homogenous society of orthodox believers, establishing that individuals take orders from leaders rather than reserving decision-making authority unto themselves (obedience as a moral imperative ). This is especially true if the religion functions as the state and vice versa (i.e., the leaders are leaders of a unified church-state system).

The desire for state control of the individual is not an inherent characteristic of conservatives (e.g. consider the liberatarians), nor is it limited to those we think of as conservatives (e.g., think of marxists, although if you’ll recall the hard-line communist uprising against Boris Yeltsin in Russia you’ll perhaps remember the American media describing the communists as the conservatives and the pro-democracy folks as the liberals. Terminologies do get messy).

But it’s pretty transparently the leitmotif of the American right-wing conservatives most famously affiliated with the religious right. It’s all about social control.

Pardon me as I go stand over here and imagine what good, patriotic subjects of the Crown we were and how that set us on the road to greatness.

Ignore the gales of laughter, etc.

Conservatives, by definition, like things to change slowly, or not at all. “Fundamentalist” Christianity is pretty much synonymous with “old time religion.” So there you have it: Folks who are socially conservative, 'cause they long for the good old days, don’t see much need to change the way they view and worship their god. If it was good enough for Jesus, then it’s good enough for me, etc.

My bias in oppinion is this tendancy to cling to tradition often puts the conservatives on the wrong side of the issues when change is clearly warranted; but occasionally we also find the old way of doing things was actually the best way. The continuing social experiment ultimately provides the verdict.

Neither progressives nor conservatives seem very good at acknowledging the other camp may have a point once in a while. Hence the culture wars. Hence, questions like this one.

I hold conservative Christians to a higher standard when they wear their religion on their sleeve. Someone who publicly says Jesus is their most admired figure bears more responsibilty than a garden variety sinner who struggles quietly to follow the teachings of Christ. It is these “public Christians” that I take issue with, who can loudly espouse both conservatism and Christianity without seeing the inherent conflict between the two. In my experience, “public Christians” are usually also conservative. Judging by their deeds, I don’t think George W. Bush is any better of a Christian than Howard Dean, but he should be, because he crows about his faith far more often. Put up or shut up, I say.

You’re missing the point. We’re not in the realm of facts…we’re in the realm of myths. It’s a country’s myths that define what it sees itself as and what it wants to be.

And we have a bunch of them. The Pilgrim, leaving his home and going to the American wilderness so he can worship freely. The minuteman, leaving his farm to fight against tyranny. The signers of the Declaration of Independence, risking their lives for liberty. Lincoln, freeing the slaves. The pioneer, taming the Wild West. Marin Luther King, winning equality through nonviolence.

All of these images and more are American myths, reflecting American values. It doesn’t matter that they’re romanticized. They’re symbols, intended to represent virtues.

How does conservatism embrace these myths tighter than liberalism? After all, the values espoused by each were and, to some extent, remain liberal (under the definition I understand) at their core. They were all radical breaks from the status quo which, again by theoretical definition, should offend conservatives who wish to maintain things as they are or very close to that state. Its ultimately a ridiculous and farcical position to take, especially since those values were either nonexistent in the people we mythologized (Puritans = freedom of religion? ha ha) or exaggerated. So at least some of what made our country great were values we would no longer dream of embracing (white man’s burden, anybody?).

Anyway, I’m getting lost in my own hijack. It’d be an interesting thread to consider opening but probably not entirely relevant to the OP.

Except that you just implied that your own county simply hands out free dinners. If it’s anything like our local “free dinner” programs, the needy are simply given free food. They are not taught skills or given tools that might allow them to become self-sufficient. Most of the Christian charity programs I have seen foster the exact same kind of dependency that you think is bad when it comes from the government.

But that attitude only seems to apply only up to the point where a law is made that they personally disagree with. Conservatives seem to have no problem with laws about drug use, but when similar laws are enacted regarding gun use, they raise holy heck. It’s all about enforcing laws against “the other guy.”

That’s rather circular. So, as long as conservatism stands for upholding religion (i.e., Christian values only), the Fundamentalist Christians will flock to it.

That makes a twisted kind of sense, but it doesn’t really answer the original question of why there is such overlap between Fundamental Christianity and Conservatism in the first place.

Loopydude:

Amen.

Pun intended.

If you wanna look at Biblical law (including the OT) on giving to the poor, personal generosity & easy-term loans are encouraged, but only two things are commanded- leaving gleanings for the poor to collect, and the tithe on every third year (or annually, a third of the tithe- 3 1/3%).