Correlation between political views and religiousness?

[Folca]

[I split this off from the Same Sex marriage thread. Folca, feel free to change the title if you would like. And if anyone feels that there posts either should or should not have been moved let me know and I'll see what can be done - VtF]

I am a staunch Republican and very conservative but could care less about same sex marriage. In today's society, the convention of marriage is really just holding on to tradition. Marriage is not necessary to pool resources, create legitimate heirs and determine inheritance in our current society.

Quite honestly, I don't object to many of the views found in the liberal agenda. What I object to is a liberal agenda inflicted on me. I typically find myself at odds with liberals when they tell me I can't hunt, own firearms or participate in other activites they object to and are not content to allow me to live my life my way and make my own choices, which is a common theme in the liberal fight for gay rights. I don't find that disparity justifiable at all, and thus have no desire to assist in pushing an agenda like same sex marriage, that I don't object to, because I know I won't be given the same consideration regarding the activities and rights I enjoy in return. So I stand by and do nothing to assist.

There is no reason the tradition of marriage can't adapt to the point that all can enjoy it if they chose. But I won't cast a vote in its favor, because that would remove one more ticket item from the liberal agenda, freeing up resources that will then be directed at destroying my rights and activities those very individuals I just helped will gladly to strip me of.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Folca, I hope to see you participate in this forum more often!

[JewelSong]

But I won't cast a vote in its favor, because that would remove one more ticket item from the liberal agenda, freeing up resources that will then be directed at destroying my rights and activities those very individuals I just helped will gladly to strip me of.

This seems to me to be a very...well...convoluted way of thinking. You won't support something you agree with because by supporting it, you might help it to succeed, which would then make it possible for things you don't support to also succeed?

So, are you saying that no matter WHAT the issue, if it is supported by liberals, you will not support it, simply because it IS supported by liberals? Regardless of the issue?

Interesting.

Suppose you, yourself, had a vested interest in gay marriage. Say that you yourself were gay and wanted to marry. Or someone you loved (a family member, a good friend) was in that situation. Would you support it then? Even if it "freed up resources" to do other things you might not agree with?

[narya]

And just think, if we could get past some of these visceral issues and stop holding some people's lives hostage just to make a political brownie point, we could get on to discussions of Economy and War.



Is there a snarky emoticon around here someplace?

[Folca]

JEWELSONG- I see your point but I don't think it is that convoluted. I can support the idea without casting a vote. My reasons for not voting on behalf of gay marriage have little to do with the issue. I won't vote for it because of principle.

In general, people regardless of political leanings want to be allowed to live life how they choose to. In very general terms, I think that we should all leave each other alone regarding most activities.

However, I will not recieve such courtesy in kind from others. I hunt and eat animals I kill for a variety of reasons (but have never trophy hunted). I wear body armor to work, carry a firearm at all times unless I am in bed or in the shower, and fiercely believe that all citizens have the right to defend themselves to the best of their ability at all times against criminal behavior. I fiercely believe that right should never be taken away from a citizen. I also believe that any citizen who elects not to exercise such rights is entitled to that decision.

These are two activities that I consider intrinsic to who I am. I want to be left alone so I may enjoy my life. However, many who object to these two activities are not content to leave me alone. So, I offer them the respect of allowing them an objection, but I will not tolerate actions to deprive me unvoluntarily of my activities because they don't like them.

Thus the conundrum: I give someone the acceptance of same sex marriage, choosing abortion, etc etc and I am rewarded with regular and systematic campaigns to forcibly strip me of the opportunity to participate in activities the very individuals I help object to.

I find this an extreme form of hypocricy. The attitude of: I want this and this and this to be acceptable and respected but I don't like that you do this and have that so I am going to take them away from you, like it or not.

Casting a vote to end one battle that then brings more resources to bear upon the infringement of my rights is akin to warming myself in a campfire by holding my hands in the flames themselves. I harm myself by the very act, regardless of my good intentions.

I spend far too much time watching people victimize each other criminally, emotionally, psychologically and physically at work and trying to restore some sense of order and balance to tolerate getting my personal life stomped on by others. So the liberal agendas I have no objections to I empathize with, but will not politically support with a vote.

As for my feelings for someone who may be on the short end of the stick for this issue, I don't feel I can give you a satisfactory answer. I don't believe marriage is essential to relationships. It is a tradition to me, and an unnecessary one at that. Regardless of the genders involved, a relationship only holds together as long as both parties choose to remain in it. No piece of paper or public declaration secures a relationship, only personal choice.

[JewelSong]

...the only individuals I have met who seek to cripple religion are liberals.

This is an interesting way of putting it. I don't think liberals want to "cripple" religion so much as ensure that the separation between church and state remains just that - separate. I know plenty of liberals who are quite religious - but I don't know any liberals who would fight to have "creationism" taught as a "science" in public school (for instance.)

I would be interested in hearing some specifics about how liberals want to "cripple" religion.

[Folca]

I mentioned that many if not most liberals are religious.

The most signifigant opponents to marriage I have met are individuals with liberal values who also despise religion, and they focus a large part of that angst against marraige and organized churches. Be they athiests or individuals who feel that organized religion is a societal control mechanism. These are the individuals I have seen with the loudest voices opposing marriage itself. And minority voices are often loud in society so they may be heard, and are often reported because they are a departure from the mainstream, be it for good or ill.

I have found myself in some very involved conversations with such individuals because they like to latch on to my belief that marriage is not necessary for a successful relationship and project that into an objection to marriage.

I have no objections to the institutions of marriage. Those who wish to participate should do so. I just don't see it as a necessity in our society. If I were to have an heir, creating a trust or will to establish inheritance would not be more expensive than a divorce. And it would ensure that if the mother was antagonistic towards me, I can curtail or eliminate her authority over possessions and funds intended for the child.

The articles I have read that discuss the reasons why fewer individuals marry have mostly been focused on the issues created by money and legal wrangling. People have begun to recognize that in a society where all have the opportunity to provide for themselves without having to rely on one partner in a relationship to be the provider it is simpler not to be legally tied to another individual. Some people want life to be simpler, but since we have a legal and governmental system that meddles too much in private lives, one of the ways to keep things simple is to not participate in arrangements that tie you to one or both of those systems.

I have seen the courts victimize enough people involved in the criminal and civil processes that I have no desire to place myself under their jurisdiction unless it is work related. I want to be able to retire with some ability to provide for myself, and I can't do that if I have to start over halfway through life with a plundered retirement plan, no house, stripped of much of my real property and facing years of paying off the costs incurred to recieve such treatment.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Folca, I'm still unclear about what specific ways you believe that some liberals are trying to "cripple religion". Can you clarify that, with specific examples? Thanks!

[River]

Yeah. I'm confused to. AFAIK, no one is trying to actually abolish marriage. People who don't want to just don't.

[Folca]

If you are asking for a book or article reference, I don't have that to offer. Between my college years and then my career experience, I have had the experiences I have referenced. I am not well traveled or anything, so my experience is from where I live.


I had multiple professors and quite a few classmates who were very liberal and wished religion to be a thing of the past. They felt religion was a crutch for weak minds and hearts who weren't willing to buck a tradition that acted as a boot on their neck to keep them from being themselves. Since college, I have met a surprising number of individuals who despise religion in general and have expressed the desire for there to be none. And no, not all of them were criminals. A lot of criminals actually bounce from sect to sect, getting as much "help" as they can for free before moving on after burning their bridges.

But the consistent thing was they all felt marriage was so integrated into religion that the institution was another method of control and compulsion that needed to be discarded.

I do come from an area that has strong and conservative Christianity based sects, and that does leave a sharp divide between those who are, and those who aren't. Perhaps that is why the reactions offered are harsh, since none of you who have responded appear to have experienced anything similar.

Typical demographics where I live: the conservatives and many of the liberals are tied to religion and most participate in their churches. But those who aren't in a church or won't have anything to do with religion are almost exclusively liberal. Individuals such as I, having divorced myself of religion but still maintaining a conservative stance on most things are rarer than pagan liberals.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Okay, I think I understand better what it is that you are saying. However, I don't think that you can really classify the type of person you are referring to as "liberals". For instance, one of the most anti-religious people of recent times has been the late Christopher Hitchens. However, he was neo-conservative who was a major backer of the Iraq war, for example. I don't think the type of thing you are talking about has anything to do with being a liberal, even if the experience that you have had tends to associate the two groups together.

[Folca]

I am content to disagree with you on that, but will have to leave it at that. I feel that my posts are actually distracting from the true topic of the thread once I disagreed with Frelga, which wasn't the goal.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Fair enough. I'd still be interested in hearing what it is that you think it is about "liberalism" that is somehow fundamentally destructive of religion, but that may well be a conversation that you could not be had in a productive manner. I still appreciate your willingness to engage.

[River]

Individuals such as I am one, having divorced myself of religion but still maintaining a conservative stance on most things are rarer than pagan liberals.

Neither type is particularily rare where I live...

ETA: I'm pretty sure we've also got conservative pagans.

[WampusCat]

And the majority of religious people I know are liberal, although it's undoubtably because of the company I keep.

[anthriel]

Fair enough. I'd still be interested in hearing what it is that you think it is about "liberalism" that is somehow fundamentally destructive of religion

I'm not sure I read Folca's words in quite that way. It reads to me as if Folca is describing that in his experience, those who are anti-religion tend to also be liberals. I think that is quite different than "what it is about "liberalism" that is somehow fundamentally destructive of religion". He did write "cripple" religion, but in reading his further clarifications, I feel we are perhaps misinterpreting what he was trying to say.

but that may well be a conversation that you could not be had in a productive manner.

Quite.

I still appreciate your willingness to engage.

Me, too, Folca! Conservative voices are rare around here. Thank you for being willing to participate in this conversation.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think this discussion is worth continuing in its own thread. It seems to straddle the line between Lasto and Tol Eressëa, but since it started here in Lasto, I'll keep in Lasto.

[axordil]

Individuals such as I am one, having divorced myself of religion but still maintaining a conservative stance on most things are rarer than pagan liberals.

Neither type is particularily rare where I live...

ETA: I'm pretty sure we've also got conservative pagans.

Most of the "conservative" pagans I know are actually libertarians, which makes some sense.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm not sure I read Folca's words in quite that way. It reads to me as if Folca is describing that in his experience, those who are anti-religion tend to also be liberals. I think that is quite different than "what it is about "liberalism" that is somehow fundamentally destructive of religion". He did write "cripple" religion, but in reading his further clarifications, I feel we are perhaps misinterpreting what he was trying to say.

Perhaps so, which is one reason why I wanted to try to continue the discussion without continuing to derail the same sex marriage thread. But if the point is not that there is some kind of connection between liberalism and "crippling religion" than I'm not sure what the point is. Hence my continued hope for some further clarification.

[Frelga]

A bit late, but I'd like to thank Folca for coming back to clarify his views. I may be part Vulcan, and if I can't trace a person's underlying reasoning (or find that reasoning lacking in internal logic), it gives me a physical headache. Now that you explained your thought process, I literally feel better. I still disagree on many points, but I feel better.