I think it's more complex than self-interest.

Interesting discussion.

There's lots of stuff in the writings and history of the church(es) that are radically liberal. Christianity at it's heart is very much concerned with the poor, since that's where it arose out of.

Yet, there are many religious people that are uber-republican, promoting the cause of faith based prosperity. These people are more than willing to "compromise" a core set of values, all in the name of self-interest.

I think it's more complex than simple self-interest. In my limited experience with organized Christianity, going to church and participating in Sunday School had a very strong element of peer pressure and pressure from more senior members. Once one was a member, there was (not terribly overt but present nonetheless) pressure to tithe a meaningful amount and to attend every week if at all possible. There was always concern about wearing nice clothes and being on one's best behavior.

I think the social aspects of church are why many/most people go, and concern about religious teaching and salvation is secondary. They want to hang out with "good people" and gain support and friendship from like-minded souls.

My most recent church attendance was with my mother. Her church had a minister who was doing his best to be inspiring to his small congregation and the people who watched on TV. One of the things that stuck with me from his message was that one should tell oneself, "I deserve to be rich! I'm going to be rich!" Now, if one listened closely one could hear him talk about being rich with friendship, or rich with compassion for others, etc. But it's clear that many of the people there were thinking of it in monetary terms, and that's what he wanted them to think. It was a little creepy, IMHO. But other parts of his message were about a girl who was graduating from college and doing her parents proud. He was trying to build up the congregation in lots of good ways too.

He was obviously well versed in the Bible and I'm sure he recalls the passages about love of money and camels and needles, but he seemed to be concerned about the church building and its small membership (they had to change buildings a couple of times in just a few years). He seemed to want to be a preacher that could inspire and entertain, even if that was at the expense of what he might have known to be Christ's teachings.

So what can we make of that. The preacher was probably skewing his message out of self-interest and his perception of the importance of strengthening the church. The people attending seemed to be fine, and didn't seem to be money-grubbers. But it probably wasn't in their (objective) self interest to have to spend a lot of money for fancy church clothes...

You've heard about [link|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805073396/002-8794763-2355223?v=glance|What's Wrong with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America]? Snippet from the Amazon review:

The largely blue collar citizens of Kansas can be counted upon to be a "red" state in any election, voting solidly Republican and possessing a deep animosity toward the left. This, according to author Thomas Frank, is a pretty self-defeating phenomenon, given that the policies of the Republican Party benefit the wealthy and powerful at the great expense of the average worker. According to Frank, the conservative establishment has tricked Kansans, playing up the emotional touchstones of conservatism and perpetuating a sense of a vast liberal empire out to crush traditional values while barely ever discussing the Republicans' actual economic policies and what they mean to the working class.

Other economists and politicians have wondered the same thing and have concluded that people weren't voting for their self interest.

I doubt that the blue-collar workers who supported Bush did so out of a feeling of self-interest. I think it was more a gut reaction to their feeling about him as a person and their fear of the caricature of Kerry and "liberals". There are, of course, people in that loud minority who think that God himself chose GWB to be President. But most of the people who feel that way didn't gain that insight all on their own. It's at least partially a result of considering the opinions of people they respect and people in their peer-group. "Where you stand depends on where you sit." Wanting to fit in with peers is a powerful force. It seems to be human nature, also, to want to find a leader to look up to. Someone with charisma can convince people, well, almost anything.

In short:
1) Many people choose churches based on charisma of the preacher and the "friendliness" of the congregation.
2) Peer pressure results in loyalty to the group and wanting to fit in.
3) Interest in the group leads to increasing support of the group's position.
4) It's much more satisfying to feel passionately about something. It motivates people. One doesn't see million-people marches to support afternoon naps. ;-) Thus, noisy groups get attention and motivated people are what politicians like working on their campaigns.
5) All top-5 lists should have 5 items.

If you believe all of that, then the conclusion is that liberals need to be more passionate about their beliefs and act on them.

Can I get an "amen"? :-)

Cheers,
Scott.

Of course, as with any authoritarian organization, even one that's low key, the churches makes every effort to control sexuality. Sex is so powerful and pervasive in human society that if you can control that you hold the people by the balls, so to speak. The church does everyting it can to convince its membership it is key to finding a suitable mate.

Most of the Jewish dietary laws were aimed specifically at making Jews different from their neighbors so they could only find mates within their religion. Being unsuitably picky about food to marry outside the "One True Faith" they were kept from slipping away into the background and within easy reach of the authorities.

Roman law allowed any religion you pleased but one government and only one government, Rome. In two populations religion and government were one and the same, the Druids and the Jews. The Druids said "OK" and the Jews rebelled. Today the Druids are forgotten and their descendents dominate most of the world. The Jews are still Jews, but from centuries after century of merciless pounding they pretty much acknowledge separation of church and state, at least for the forseeable future. Which one was right?

Christianity is now on top, but in the fullness of time it too will pass. Hopefully Islam will pass one hell of a lot sooner.

And that's prtty good topic drift for a single post, don't you think?

Post #211,061 by Another Scott 6/12/05 11:04:45 PM Reply	I think it's more complex than self-interest. Interesting discussion. There's lots of stuff in the writings and history of the church(es) that are radically liberal. Christianity at it's heart is very much concerned with the poor, since that's where it arose out of. Yet, there are many religious people that are uber-republican, promoting the cause of faith based prosperity. These people are more than willing to "compromise" a core set of values, all in the name of self-interest. I think it's more complex than simple self-interest. In my limited experience with organized Christianity, going to church and participating in Sunday School had a very strong element of peer pressure and pressure from more senior members. Once one was a member, there was (not terribly overt but present nonetheless) pressure to tithe a meaningful amount and to attend every week if at all possible. There was always concern about wearing nice clothes and being on one's best behavior. I think the social aspects of church are why many/most people go, and concern about religious teaching and salvation is secondary. They want to hang out with "good people" and gain support and friendship from like-minded souls. My most recent church attendance was with my mother. Her church had a minister who was doing his best to be inspiring to his small congregation and the people who watched on TV. One of the things that stuck with me from his message was that one should tell oneself, "I deserve to be rich! I'm going to be rich!" Now, if one listened closely one could hear him talk about being rich with friendship, or rich with compassion for others, etc. But it's clear that many of the people there were thinking of it in monetary terms, and that's what he wanted them to think. It was a little creepy, IMHO. But other parts of his message were about a girl who was graduating from college and doing her parents proud. He was trying to build up the congregation in lots of good ways too. He was obviously well versed in the Bible and I'm sure he recalls the passages about love of money and camels and needles, but he seemed to be concerned about the church building and its small membership (they had to change buildings a couple of times in just a few years). He seemed to want to be a preacher that could inspire and entertain, even if that was at the expense of what he might have known to be Christ's teachings. So what can we make of that. The preacher was probably skewing his message out of self-interest and his perception of the importance of strengthening the church. The people attending seemed to be fine, and didn't seem to be money-grubbers. But it probably wasn't in their (objective) self interest to have to spend a lot of money for fancy church clothes... You've heard about [link\|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805073396/002-8794763-2355223?v=glance\|What's Wrong with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America]? Snippet from the Amazon review: The largely blue collar citizens of Kansas can be counted upon to be a "red" state in any election, voting solidly Republican and possessing a deep animosity toward the left. This, according to author Thomas Frank, is a pretty self-defeating phenomenon, given that the policies of the Republican Party benefit the wealthy and powerful at the great expense of the average worker. According to Frank, the conservative establishment has tricked Kansans, playing up the emotional touchstones of conservatism and perpetuating a sense of a vast liberal empire out to crush traditional values while barely ever discussing the Republicans' actual economic policies and what they mean to the working class. Other economists and politicians have wondered the same thing and have concluded that people weren't voting for their self interest. I doubt that the blue-collar workers who supported Bush did so out of a feeling of self-interest. I think it was more a gut reaction to their feeling about him as a person and their fear of the caricature of Kerry and "liberals". There are, of course, people in that loud minority who think that God himself chose GWB to be President. But most of the people who feel that way didn't gain that insight all on their own. It's at least partially a result of considering the opinions of people they respect and people in their peer-group. "Where you stand depends on where you sit." Wanting to fit in with peers is a powerful force. It seems to be human nature, also, to want to find a leader to look up to. Someone with charisma can convince people, well, almost anything. In short: 1) Many people choose churches based on charisma of the preacher and the "friendliness" of the congregation. 2) Peer pressure results in loyalty to the group and wanting to fit in. 3) Interest in the group leads to increasing support of the group's position. 4) It's much more satisfying to feel passionately about something. It motivates people. One doesn't see million-people marches to support afternoon naps. ;-) Thus, noisy groups get attention and motivated people are what politicians like working on their campaigns. 5) All top-5 lists should have 5 items. If you believe all of that, then the conclusion is that liberals need to be more passionate about their beliefs and act on them. Can I get an "amen"? :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #211,067 by Andrew Grygus 6/13/05 1:13:05 AM Reply	A good evaluation. Of course, as with any authoritarian organization, even one that's low key, the churches makes every effort to control sexuality. Sex is so powerful and pervasive in human society that if you can control that you hold the people by the balls, so to speak. The church does everyting it can to convince its membership it is key to finding a suitable mate. Most of the Jewish dietary laws were aimed specifically at making Jews different from their neighbors so they could only find mates within their religion. Being unsuitably picky about food to marry outside the "One True Faith" they were kept from slipping away into the background and within easy reach of the authorities. Roman law allowed any religion you pleased but one government and only one government, Rome. In two populations religion and government were one and the same, the Druids and the Jews. The Druids said "OK" and the Jews rebelled. Today the Druids are forgotten and their descendents dominate most of the world. The Jews are still Jews, but from centuries after century of merciless pounding they pretty much acknowledge separation of church and state, at least for the forseeable future. Which one was right? Christianity is now on top, but in the fullness of time it too will pass. Hopefully Islam will pass one hell of a lot sooner. And that's prtty good topic drift for a single post, don't you think? [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #211,129 by Ashton 6/13/05 9:02:33 PM Reply	Damn good for brief. One complementary facet - Peas-in-pod? Guilt We must never misunderestimate the ease with which a certain and apparently large %pop may be induced to feel Personally-Responsible-in-perpetuity - for all the stuff that goes bump in the night. Ever! (along with all those neat-o bodily secretions you covered). Guilt! don't self-flagellate Without It

Welcome to IWETHEY!