Shouldn't conservatives be the most welfare loving group since they are very religious about Jesus?
By - SkepticDrinker
Yes. But unfortunately many people use the label "Christian" without actually caring about Christian values.
yes. regardless of their political affiliation.
What are "Christian values"?
Loving others, not being selfish, helping people who are less fortunate than you, being humble and obedient, etc.
Mostly I would agree but sadly those are all really really vague.
Take for instance those who argue that being homophobic is their way of showing gods love to gay people, because only those who love you tell you the truth.
Well, they could start by supporting access to affordable healthcare so people don't die because they can't afford insulin. They could also stop cutting funding to programs that feed hungry children. They could support a living wage so people don't have to live in parking lots. You want me to keep going?
I’m fully on board with you there.
Seriously. Too many diabetics have died in recent years due to their inaccess to insulin. Guy who patented it sold if for $1. He never meant for the shitheads of Big Pharma to become as powerful as they are. Not only that, these fucks have straight contempt for the people they are supposed to provide care for.
San obedience and that's just common decency. You don't need a God to have those values.
Obviously there's more to the religion, but those are the values relevant to the post.
Jesus would be considered a bleeding heart, virtue signalling, woke, libtard , communist, hippy by most of the religious right.
I think I recall being told that in the 80s when televangelism took off it really skewed/ bastardized the christian/ moral compass of republicans.
Yeah, it’d make sense. But conservatives only attempt to follow the Bible when it comes to hating gay people or attempting to ban abortion even though abortion is considered acceptable there.
I agree with how fucked up is when christians hate gay people. But how abortion is acceptable in christianity?
Numbers 5:11-31 describes essentially an abortion performed by God. Check it out, it’s also often referred to as the “Ordeal of the Bitter Water”
There is also a passage in I think Luke? I hate the New Testament and cannot be bothered right now, where God impregnates a child, but we don’t have to talk about that lmao. But before he makes Mary pregnant, he asks her if this is her will, if she agrees to carry this child. Some Christian scholars have argued that this is an argument for people with wombs right to self determination.
Context in those seems to be really important. I'm not sure how this part of Numbers looks in other translations (read both in polish and english), but it seems to be about curse of miscarriage (but my language strongly suggests it's more of infertility, not a word of misscariage here). And again, it's about curse given on a woman for cheating on her husband. Several problems from cultural differences here are different subject.
And about Mary (i really hate the argument of impregnating a child. She was in, back then, acceptable age to get married and have a child. And it specifically excludes any sexual act). And while I see the point of her having to accept it first, it's still not validating abortion. She has to accept it before she gets pregnant. Order of events is important.
That's my understanding at least.
Yes context matters. But if you consider the “life begins at conception” argument that many or even most Christians would subscribe to, it is kind of wild to find a passage in the Bible with a woman who has been intimate with someone and then is made to imbibe a potion that causes her to miscarry or in other words: to abort. Hence, in the term of christian fundamentalists arguing for forced birth: to kill the unborn child inside of her.
Consistency is important and the Bible has none, even less so with the beliefs of current day evangelicals.
Well that’s why I said we don’t have to talk about that. It’s none of my business whether god is a pedo or not lol.
But the point is that god already has the essence of Jesus, the embryo if you will. If Mary declines, it is as if she is denying that embryo nourishment of her womb. Which, again, in Christian fundamentalist terms, would be murder.
I don’t think that religious beliefs should have any input in legislation, much less legislation of abortion, but even if you’d consider that valid, this clearly shows that fundamentalist forced birth advocates are full of shit and just want to control women’s bodies.
Also, so, does that mean that I can only have an abortion if I cheated on my husband? Or If I’m under age?
You can do whatever you want, just ask for forgiveness and you will be washed clean.
Is that regarding Christianity or just in general? Because idk I would beg to differ tbh
Some Christian Faith's allow it, others do not.
Most conservatives do not hate gay people, at all. They just don't want it forced in their faces as if it's something they have to be supportive of. I would be considered "conservative" as libertarians go, and myself and everyone I know like me do not give a flying fuck what you do in the bedroom. That's none of my business, so don't be an ass and make it my business. That's all.
Stop flaunting your heterosexuality then. Don't hold hands with the wife.
That's not what I am referring to. I honestly don't care if gay people are making out in public either. Doesn't bother me in the slightest, because it doesn't affect me. If you aren't hurting someone else, do what you want. Just don't expect me to fawn over you being "so brave" for social approval. I don't care. What does bother me is the militant aggressive assholes that want to force it into others faces to demand approval or condemn them as "bigots" or "homophobes". Maybe they just don't want to deal with your bullshit. Live and let live, and if someone doesn't like you, act like a fucking adult and ignore them. Don't be the dickhead that demands conformity and approval.
> Don't be the dickhead that demands conformity and approval.
Too late. Just call me foreskin forehead.
Well, prepare to be disappointed. There's always going to be someone that doesn't like something about you, and if you're too delicate to accept that, I don't suggest pushing the issue because you're in for a long and frustrating life.
I will never stop fighting for gay rights, for equality. Cope.
Cope with what? I'm not oppressing anyone. What "rights" do gay people not already have? I guess if you live in Iran or something, yea, fight for your right to not be thrown off a building... but unless you want some sort of special privileges, in the US and similar, I don't know what rights you're upset about. You have the marriage and tax bullshit, and all the legal fun that comes with it, along with all the other rights and privileges that everyone else has.... so, are you looking for some sort of special privileges because of who you have sex with or what?
Reported and blocked for nonsense harrassment and hatred.
Whatever... there's never been any "hate" here. 🙄 The only nonsense is you getting upset because I ask an honest question apparently you can't handle. Crybully nonsense. Exactly the sort of antisocial behavior I was referring to.
Yes they should. Most Christians know very little about their religion.
How do Christians support Trump, his whole life is greed, envy, gluttony, vengeance and adultery. Sounds like a huge sinner to me.
Voluntary welfare (charity) like what Jesus taught is fantastic
Forced welfare (theft) from a state “give the poor your money or we will kill you or throw you in jail” is bad.
Jesus taught one to help the needy.
The way I can answer this as a Catholic libertarian is kinda, I believe more so in non forced welfare, so my family donates to charity etc, I believe charity is better then anything the govt can do.
Are you opposed to the govt. doing charity? Because many are.
Sorta sorta, I believe in public hospitals but not much else
American republicans are very much opposed to public hospitals.
So you're good on that part.
Yeah, I hate it cause when I can vote, Neither party is good to me, I'll have to go with what I think is a compromise, it sucks, Polarization.
What? All I'm saying is you support public hospitals. If other republicans did that America would be a LOT better off.
Yeah... What I was trying to say was if I vote republican (I have lots of reasons) then public hospitals won't ever happen, a d if I vote Dem then (only in my opinion) lots of bad stuff will happen, so yea
Do you have proof for this?
Govt charity is just handouts, hell I'm sure my family could get wellfare rn and we're good, so charity gives us reassurance that it's going to the poor/sick. I just don't believe in forced charity, but I support a public option of hospitals.
So why do you think your experience is similar to everyone else’s. Additionally, what specific programs are you talking about. I need evidence not some extremely general, unsupported claim.
What do you not under stand about my claim? Charity says who the money is going to, the government just raises your taxes and forces you to give money to people that might not even need it, if I donate to St. Jude I know the money is going to cancer patients, if I start supporting extra welfare it can go anywhere from a guy dying from cancer to a guy who is morbidly obese and doesn't deserve free handouts for the condition he got himself in, to sex changes for 3 year olds, its just too vague for me! I think charity should more so come from the heart, not forced from my paycheck.
The issue of welfare is much to large for small charities with minimal funding to be able to deal with. This is is especially significant when one could easily argue most people on welfare aren’t just sitting around abusing it—for Christ sakes a lot of them work. For example, I doubt any significant amount of money is going to people wanting a sex change. Also, your arguments seem to imply you think people have free will enough to actually have controlled their situation and life circumstances. I would love some substantiation of that, as idk how free will really exists and how anyone would have chosen to put themselves into shitty circumstances or to suffer from psychological problems that result from those circumstances.
/u/ErrterIsHere we don't need your kind in /r/Fargo
They should be, yes, but they're just people. I think you're probably holding them to the standard of the bible or Jesus. So you expect more from them, and you should. We're all very much the same, two sides of the same coins. People are just people, we run from our fears and compensate for our insecurities, we get angry, we lash out.
I think it's important to remember that everyone is a person with their own struggles, bitterness, and philosophies. I know a lot of Christians who are the kindest and most giving people I know. I know a lot who aren't there yet. I know they volunteer and try to help less fortunate people more than any other group I know.
In the US(idk where you're from, but this should be pretty relevant anywhere and is a good analogy), the politics are very either-or, and it's become people vs people, science vs religion, liberal vs conservative. Life isn't black and white like this, it's wrong to generalise and not to take people on an individual basis.
This happens so much on here, people generalise too much. Not all conservatives are religious, not all conservatives are hateful people, not all religious people are hateful people. Sure, there are examples, but they're usually extreme examples. You're probably going to see more of the negative side if you're looking at reddit(internet) or media in general.
No offense, I’m all for seeing someone’s personal struggles in a one on one discussion with a friend or co worker. But as far as the hard right fundamentalists in the Republican Party and the lobbying apparatus are concerned, I have no empathy for them.
I mean that's kind of my point though. If you're talking about the extremes or the hard right fundamentalists and holding the actual people to their beliefs and you disagree that's fine. You should challenge that in whatever way you feel would bring change.
But if you're holding all of the republican party accountable to the hard right fundamentalists than that's a generalisation and isn't fair. There are extremes on both sides, there is passivity on both sides.
You should have empathy for everyone. Hateful people are just hurt people. It doesn't justify their behavior, but if you're just going to repeat their mistake back you're just continuing the negative cycle.
Again, as far as people I am on an eye to eye basis with are concerned I’m very willing to have empathy. To understand what background may have made them the way they are. Where it changes is when people have power over me. When they can pass laws and dictate how I’m supposed to live my life, that’s where that ends.
And I’m not above occasionally seeing like one Republican make… I’m gonna say like, an ok move. Justin Amash (spelling?) was ok that one time. John McCain was kind of bearable towards the end of his life. And… that’s it… that’s all of them. I could not think of one (1) additional elected Republican that I didn’t disagree with deeply and violently. That does not mean I hate all Christians. There are many good Christians, it’s a pity most of them are silent on all of this.
And no it will not perpetuate the cycle because this is not a domestic violence situation, this is politics, and sometimes you have to fight for your rights. I will certainly not give in and let them take away my right to control my own body or to love who I want.
It's a little too broad, but still that goes both ways. I think you're completely justified in defending what you believe, but so are they. Yes, it's politics, but it always breaks down to the individual/social side of it. I'm simply challenging generalized views, they're dangerous. Attack the ordinances, legislation, not people who believe in them misguided or otherwise. Challenge people who you disagree with. No compromise or forward movement will come about without mutual respect and empathy.
I will not compromise with or respect someone who sees me as a breeding machine.
You don't have to, but not all Republicans or Christian's believe that. I know people who think like that unfortunately. I know a lot of people that have been accused of that and it wasn't the case too.
You should challenge the individuals who think that way, it's the generalisation I'm trying to challenge. I don't think anyone should be able to tell you what you are, but that means others are also entitled to the same. The only way we get through this is by challenging misinformation, worldviews, etc., but we can only do that through respectful conversations. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
Look, smarty pants, if I challenge for example only Mike Pence. Yes ok, I can point out how his stance on women in general, reproductive healthcare, lgbt issues etc etc… how all of that is atrocious. And granted, that’s good and noble. But unless I also decry his connections to the Heritage Foundation, focus on the family, the family research council, the Koch brothers and the dickweed who runs hobby lobby, among many many others, he will just be one more head of the hydra. Just one more in a row of interchangeable old white men indoctrinated from childhood to turn the us into a theocracy.
I do distinguish. There are like I said many good Christians. Check out Brenda from god is grey or semler baldrige. It just so happens that I have actually looked at all of the elected republicans in congress and in the senate right now and they are all terrible. That’s not my fault, that’s not me generalising, that is on them.
Here’s a good quote on that topic, Stokely Carmichael, a leader of the Black Panther Party said this:
“Dr. King's policy was that nonviolence would achieve the gains for black people in the United States. His major assumption was that if you are nonviolent, if you suffer, your opponent will see your suffering and will be moved to change his heart. That's very good. He only made one fallacious assumption: In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience. The United States has none.”
A quote with it's foundation being a generalisation. I really believe that we need to work from the bottom up instead of top down.
You’re wrong. The people at the bottom do not make policy. Our democratic system is so fundamentally broken that even though more than 70 percent of Americans support Medicare for all, there’s no way in hell it will be passed any time soon. And that is because of money and power. And that is what we need to attack.
There is not respectful conversations with people who see women as breeding machines.
There is no conversing with the far right. The conversations are done. It is over. Debating just gives a respect to their views they do not deserve. The far right are wrong, this was determined time and again.
There is no compromising with hard right fundamentalism.
They are morally wrong and a clear and active danger to America.
The republican party IS hard right fundamentalist.
Prove me wrong.
I would love to be proved wrong.
With as many so Anti-Christ (so to speak), they aren't even trying
Most american conservatives are hateful. They voted for trump TWICE.
The facts are there.
Trump hates America. He hates the military. He killed many americans by neglect.
You voted for him in 2020, guess what.
You’d think so, right? But no, they’re hypocrites.
Growing up Catholic, no. The distinct line is made in how it's administered. Forced to give to others (taxes) is not the same as Jesus' teachings. It's was willful giving of your own accord. Members of my church were very helpful with families and the community because they chose it. The church could also turn abusers away or deny them. It also matters immensely the help of locals with a face, name, and when you know then instead of random nobodies.
I'm now an atheist, but I still see the benefit from these groups and the positive it can bring. It's easy to focus on the bad, but the community growth was always a big bonus (even as an introverted kid).
As we saw with the vaccines, the govt. can do efficient charity when they put their mind to it. To ignore this costs lives.
They support charity and willingly choosing to give to the needy.
Not having the government take your money and then waste it on bad government programs.
You mean give to the needy like Joel Olsteen, who is worth more than $40 million but got $4.4 million in federal PPP loans and then bought a new Lamborghini to add to his collection of 20 cars? That wasn't a waste of government money at all. And total proof that churches willingly give to the needy instead of lining their own pockets.
That is actually a perfect example of the kind of government waste I am talking about.
Even if the gov't didn't give him a penny, he's still not giving shit to charity.
There's govt programs used to FIGHT against govt. waste and abuse.
Not much you can do if the church across the street stops giving you dried goods because your daughter got caught kissing another girl.
Are welfare and food stamps and Medicaid bad programs?
There is an incredible amount of waste and inefficiencies in them. The thought behind it is good, but the execution is bad.
Yet they are in no way being replaced by any Republicans donations.
And republicans refuse to fix the problems. Because they hate poor people.
Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but I think at least for some conservatives, pretty much any federal program would be considered a bad one, even if it has a good end, because the idea of the federal government having enough power to create such programs is bad in principle. Private acts of charity, including those coming from churches, would often be seen as a better means of helping people than these social safety nets set up by the government.
What they neglect to tell you is that with this “charity” they continue to push their religious agenda. They will donate to “unwed mothers homes” but not fund the foster care system. Fund organizations that provide conversion therapy and abusive christian torture schools, but not healthcare or school for kids. They will fund the Arch encounter, but not the National Museum for the History of Slavery. Most of all, they will put their money back into “conservative” causes that keep their corporate donors happy, such as worse labor rights, lower taxes for the ultra wealthy and ever widening religious exceptions that benefit only ultra hard right Christian fundamentalists.
>They will donate to “unwed mothers homes” but not fund the foster care system
False. There are many donations to orphanages, and support for foster care family's in many churches. Also there are monasteries dedicated entirely for living with orphans, and orphans with disability. One of those is literally kilometer from my house. Alongside window of life managed by the same nuns.
>Fund organizations that provide conversion therapy and abusive christian torture schools, but not healthcare or school for kids
As long as christians schools are not public ones, imho it's fine. But yeah, they are often poorly managed. Conversion therapy idea is often critized by christians. It's the idea many of us are trying to change in mindset of some more stubborn in our communities. And about funding schools, they do? I mean, in almost every developed country it's pointless due to free and obligatory education, but in poorer countries they are schools founded by christians and run by missionaries? Not just priests. Don't know anything about healthcare.
> They will fund the Arch encounter, but not the National Museum for the History of Slavery.
Another big argue between christians. From what I know creationism is considered invalid by most, except for hard believers of Biblical literacy. Which is very critized. So looking at this arch encounter thing, it's dumb af.
In the end, yeah there are way too many people like that, hard right fanatics, but they are minority of all christians, and most of charity is for sake of charity, with bonus of it being way to spread christianity by example of actions and life. And those fanatics should be critized and fought against but not be example of "christianity bad"
From my understanding this discussion was mostly focused on an American context, that is what my post references. If things are better in your country I am glad to hear it. In the US they are not.
> And those fanatics should be critized and fought against but not be example of "christianity bad"
I have trouble with any religion running a charity. HUGE trouble. Trust the American govt. far more than a religion running a charity.
And I don't trust govt (any one) running charity at all. Religions are supposed to be selfless by definition, many people dedicated their whole lives to help those in need and, experienced firsthand, changed many lives.
Good intentions does not a charity make
Good intentions are literally base of charity? You can't have good charity without both good intentions and effect. And You really can't deny effectiveness of many charity actions organized by religions. Yeah, there will be bad and selfish ones, can't be avoided. But, at least churches, other religions probably too, do a lot of good.
Same with the government
This is why donating to a church isn’t the same as donating to a charity
Except churches have charitable tax exempt status and are often way too closely intertwined with “charitable” organizations. These organizations in turn support services of some kind. Schools, summer camps, crisis pregnancy centers, think tanks, advocacy groups for forced birth and anti lgbt activists, purity balls and abstinence only “sex education” - all with a hard right Christian fundamentalist tone, often pushed on people who are not or not that religious.
The donations are also tax deductible. Without that I doubt many of these Christians would donate at all. Only if it *also* helps them lol.
And on top of that, instead of being seen as a rightful contribution that they owe society, it puts them in a position of power where charitable causes vie for their donations and will bend over backwards to please them.
At least in my country, yes. Donating to church, is donating to church. Those are required to specify where money went, what they are collecting for, and it's usually maintainence stuff and living expenses.
But there are, in same churches, seperately organized events to collect money for those in need. For example, my local church was collecting funds for house renovation for one of more poor disabled parishioner.
There are collections for orphanages, single parents, clothes for homeless, food for homeless and poor. There's a lot.
If they can give it then they can take it away. Government is a faceless entity that isn't always fight for you and doesn't know the little people (equivalent to the faceless corporations in operation).
Small communities are more willing to help those around them when they are apart of something together and have that feeling of belonging. It's easier to help and do the "right thing" when you know Jim from down the street. You've talked with him and his wife and know they are on hard times. Same is true for Sarah the single mom of 4. It's easier to help those you know and lend a hand.
This has been my interpretation of what you are saying. Not necessarily right or wrong.
>If they can give it then they can take it away. Government is a faceless entity that isn't always fight for you and doesn't know the little people (equivalent to the faceless corporations in operation).
Yes, Democrats give it and Republicans take it away
What if Jim turns out to like wearing dresses on Saturday nights and his church doesn't like that so stops all donations?
This is the argument, yes. And many do donate generously to charities. The Catholic church has a rich structure, and i have witnessed the generosity of Catholic Charities toward their own.
But i grew up in the Bible belt, where seventy Baptist churches to a town preach every Sunday morning that every other church in town is leading people to hell—especially the one Catholic church and the one Methodist church. In my decades of experience in the church, the charities the church wants to support do very little to enact real change. They want to count souls for conversion. They don’t want to feed or clothe people who aren’t going to join and contribute to their church. Churches I’ve been to often had no outreaches to their local community. The tithes go to building buildings and paying for “mission trips.”
I’ve been to churches that not only had no outreaches in local communities, but refused to support existing charities in town because of slight doctrinal beliefs and even discouraged their members from volunteering there. I’ve been to churches that refused to allow homeless people anywhere near the church.
My youth group in high school spent hundreds of dollars buying pizza every week for the kids of the richest families in town. That youth group had zero outreaches to for anyone in town or even anyone in the church. In the four years i was there, they organized a senior cleanup exactly once and drove a few teen volunteers to a wonderful non profit after school program (run by one of the church members with NO CHURCH ASSISTANCE) exactly once. A handful of the teens went, and they never went again. That woman ran the only free after school program in that town. And she even lead it like it was a church with Bible services every day. They still weren’t interested in having anything to do with her ministry. You know who helps fund her? The local government and Winn Dixie.
The adults sang at a rich people nursing home every other weekend. That’s it. That’s the extent of the outreach in the seven years I attended that church.
The church spent thousands taking the teens on white water rafting trips. They spent thousands taking them on ski trips. 0 dollars went to any kind of local charity or toward organizing a local charity to actually help people. I can go on with all the churches I’ve been to, but this church was a hallmark.
When you allow an organization with no checks or balances to care for the needy, it ends up exactly how you’d expect. Humans are selfish. It takes work to break through that cycle, and that work involves government. “If men were angels, we would need no government” applies to churches as well. They either need to step and work together or they need to let someone else help the poor people they reject.
This is the best answer here. Props for coming up with an actual explanation rather than just “conservatives are bad and hypocritical.” Many Christian conservatives do a lot to support their communities and help the poor, but they don’t believe the government should be “stealing” your hard-earned money to give at their discretion. Just because you don’t want a huge nationwide governmental welfare program doesn’t mean you’re a hypocrite or someone who doesn’t support those in need.
That’s garbage and you know it’s garbage. When has any Republican ever donated food or clothes or shelter for those in need? Their donations go to think tanks, religious pressure groups and Christian indoctrination camps and schools.
What ogredandy said goes for me as well.
Democrats don't generally raise taxes on the poor. Biden is raising them on people who make over $400k
What does that have to do with anything?
Somehow I got the wrong thread
this stuff is handled personally. not via govt transfers. meaning christians tend to engage in a lot of private charity that redditors know nothing about. and when i say charity, im not talking about organizations, im talking about direct charity to affected people.
If you mean that conservatives are altruists like liberals are, then yes.
If you mean that that non-diverse brother's keeper morality is why conservatives end up being the kind of "RINO" compromisers that even many of them can't stomach, then yes.
They all agree principle morality. They just disagree to the rate at, and certain confines to, which the welfare state should be enacted/continued. You end up at about the same place in the end, just takes a little more time.
Voting to give other people's money away is not some virtue. Conservatives give more to charities than liberals.
Christianity and conservatism aren't mutually exclusive. And many conservative christians put their politics before their faith (something they shouldn't do) making other christians look bad.
Alright so.. I have a perspective that disagrees with just about all of you and I'm a little afraid to say something tbh. I don't want to get downvoted to oblivion and maybe the chances of that happening reduce if I comment with this first, or should I just stay quiet?
Now I’m curious haha, go for it!
Well, I'm already being downvoted but alright. I speak only for myself, and I also mostly have libertarian values, only partially conservative. But I am religious so this kinda pertains to me. My whole life I donate to charity monthly and do service at any free point in my life, and that, to me, is how it should be with everyone. Doing charity work/social work and contributing to privately funded programs as an individual is the best feeling and I strongly believe in everyone's liberty to do so on their own accord. I think Jesus believed in reaching out to people's hearts individually and changing them because he loved them individually. I (again this is speculation on my part) feel like it is everyone's personal decision to progress as a person, and therefore contribute to society or not.
Technically they are. Their mega churches don't pay taxes, and the biggest political contributors pay so little in taxes it's like nothing at all. If you are just over the poverty line you pay more than the richest companies. It's socialism for the rich.
There's been outright Christian socialist movements in the past, but the political lineage of modern conservatism has more to do with conserving a preexisting economic order than it even does theology.
Religiosity used to essentially be the default and you'd find religious movements for all sorts of economic views. But what's taken control in the western world is "Liberalism" not in the modern american sense of the word, instead more in the sense of the "laissez-faire" ideology of the industrial revolution.
The short of it is rich and powerful people who've built their fortunes on others backs have somehow all fallen upon believing that the market should decide everything with minimal intervention.
You're question is so vague, please clarify. And why do you think all conservatives are christians?
Fiscally Conservative is not the same thing.
There is an idea known as "the deserving poor" it is rooted in that idea that God recognizes the truly deserving and hardworking and that if someone was poor it was because they were opposed to work, morally deficit or had in some ways earned this fate from God. It is an extension of the "Just World Theory" which is the idea that good things happen to good people, and bad to bad. You can see this attitude in how we have historically treated the homeless, (Originally we threw them in jail, now we just push them out of sight)
well, no. you're conflating conservatism with a specific religion.
You would assume...but will be the worst
If Jesus ran for president, not a single American evangelical would vote for him.
He'd be called a Communist libtard snowflake.
Actually, the Christian way is to be giving out of love. The welfare way is having someone else force you to give. One is Ultimate Freedom. The other is slavery. One is freely giving. The other is being robbed.
They love money more than the people but loving money is a Christian value. Does it not say on the back of a bill "In God we trust"?
A large percentage of "conservatives" aren't Christians...
“John answered, "Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same." - Luke 3:11.
"Whoever shuts their ears to the cry of the poor will also cry out and not be answered." - proverbs 21:13
"The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'" Matthew 25:40
Conservatives and Christians give more to charity - they're opposed to welfare because they see it as 'Let's help them! You're paying...'
Not all conservatives are religious.
They don't care about the big picture, God has that. They give locally and support small. Supposedly. But really it's about the individual
How does this question belong in this subreddit?
There are 0% chances you are afraid to rip on conservatives on a majority leftist site like reddit.
Conservative != Evangelical
Obviously conservatives believe in welfare and charity, they just don’t think the federal government is the best or most efficient way of enacting such public welfare. Look at poverty rates across republican versus democratic districts for example to get a hint at conservative reasoning.
Religions are nothing but rich cults, weapons of manipulation to keep the gullible masses in line.
Love? Religion? The two are not intertwined, most atrocities are a direct result of differing faiths crossing paths.
The swords, the blood, the fire, the holocaust denial and the sympathisers in the vatican are all disgusting results of a failed mutation.
We still so not understand the human mind but we understand what happens to imaginary friends ..
The only difference is that rational thinking, moral people grow out of theirs.
Conservatives *should* do a lot of things, but they don't
Agreed. Almost like the way they posture is virtue signaling horseshit.
I thought Christianity was all about love with 'Love thy neighbor' n stuff but on the media it seems super toxic. I come from a Christian school
Jesus helps those who help themselves