Why are a lot of non-theists favoring the left wing more?

[Wizard]

Why? I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative but why are a lot of non-theists liberal on a lot of things. My political beliefs are somewhere between Republican and Libertarian. What are yours?

[Dingfod]

Wizard, I voted Libertarian in every election from 1980 to 2000. The criminal actions of the Bush administrations have turned me into a stinking commie. This test showed me to be right on the line between Left-Liberal and Libertarian.

[Wizard]

I took the test and I'm a Libertarian according to it. If only more people had known Badnarik would pull of Iraq out he may have won the election. Do you think Kerry would have done a better job?

[Dingfod]

I do not think Kerry would've been the cure-all at all, but once he was the Democrat candidate to face Bush, he stood a brazillion times better chance of getting elected than whoever the Libertarians put up. I disagree enough with the Libertarian Party I've never joined up, much the same way I never joined the NRA despite being a gun ownership advocate.

[alphamale]

Why are a lot of non-theists favoring the left wing more?

There are a number of reasons, but I'll give you two:

- In the U.S., "theist" still overwhelmingly means christian, a religion that emphasizes personal choice, freedon, and free will. These are all anathema to the liberal/left, whose adherents see the ideal society as one controlled by an all-wise, all-knowing, and all-good elite (that would be themselves) - in other words, a statist society wherein the state effectively becomes "god".

- The liberal/left has decided that there is no such thing as morality, no code of what is right and wrong - which of course is what many people who have a religion (and many who don't) try to adhere to. They believe that even suggesting to someone else that something is "wrong" is being "judgemental" - one of the worst things you can be according to the left. You can see it crop up in the way they use language - where someone might in the past say "that is wrong", they might say "that is inappropriate". They see the control of individual behavior as being effected by the law only, so there is no unchanging code of behavior, as with for example the Ten Commandments. All there is (even in a democracy) is mostly the year-by-year changing whims of the electorate.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by alphamale

In the U.S., "theist" still overwhelmingly means christian, a religion that emphasizes personal choice, freedon, and free will.

Is freedon radioactive, by chance? 'Cause if you've been overexposed that could explain the retardation.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Is freedon radioactive, by chance? 'Cause if you've been overexposed that could explain the retardation.

Another way to tell when you've smashed the opposition - they're reduced to making jokes about typos!

[ms_ann_thrope]

vm, you slay me!

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by ms_ann_thrope

vm, you slay me!

Well I'm glad someone was amused. And here I thought I was being nice by focusing on the typo (which anyone could have made) instead of the unbridled stupidity in the part he typed intentionally. Sheesh, there's just no pleasing some people.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

And here I thought I was being nice by focusing on the typo (which anyone could have made) instead of the unbridled stupidity in the part he typed intentionally.

More like you bit off the part you could chew, which actually indicates a bare minimal wisdom!

[davidm]

No real reason to do bother with this, but it's late, I'm at work and a bit bored, and The Library is slow tonight, even with my Midnight Serenade.

Originally Posted by alphamale

There are a number of reasons, but I'll give you two:

- In the U.S., "theist" still overwhelmingly means christian, a religion that emphasizes personal choice, freedon, and free will.

Really? Did you know that for centuries, Christian theologians have been grappling with the problem of God's infallible true beliefs (foreknowledge) and human free will? What do you think the problem there might be?

These are all anathema to the liberal/left, whose adherents see the ideal society as one controlled by an all-wise, all-knowing, and all-good elite (that would be themselves) - in other words, a statist society wherein the state effectively becomes "god".

Yes, we should let God legislate instead. What's his position on the minimum wage, do you think? And teaching creationism in public schools?

- The liberal/left has decided that there is no such thing as morality, no code of what is right and wrong - which of course is what many people who have a religion (and many who don't) try to adhere to.

When you don't know something (which is normally the case) you have exhibited the interesting tendency to characterize as "snobs" those who know more than you. I suspect you know next to nothing about problems in normative ethics, metaethics, the Humean is-ought gap and the like. Maybe ethics and morality are a bit more complicated than you make out? On the other hand, you probably think that the philosophy of ethics, which has a pedigree of centuries, is a "hoax," like modern art. That's what a steady diet of Rush, Sean and Fox News will do to you, I guess.

They believe that even suggesting to someone else that something is "wrong" is being "judgemental" - one of the worst things you can be according to the left. You can see it crop up in the way they use language - where someone might in the past say "that is wrong", they might say "that is inappropriate".

Let's follow this train of logic: if something was called "wrong," and it was called wrong "in the past," it must really have been wrong. Since in the past, Christians invoked the Bible to prove that it was "wrong" to free the slaves, it must really have been wrong, since slavery had Biblical sanction.

They see the control of individual behavior as being effected by the law only, so there is no unchanging code of behavior, as with for example the Ten Commandments.

What Idiot Wrote These Ten Commandments?

[Darren]

The test put me on the Left (the dot appeared on the angle). I'm mostly agnostic, but I do get bursts of theism, particularly when I'm anxious about something or, more often, someone.
I suppose my rational ideas of right and wrong are based on the concept of human society (both how it operates internally and it's place in the biosphere).

To my mind, society is much more than a simple accumulation of individuals - there are social structures which amount to more than a sum-of-parts, which are more like the emergent properties of a higher level of humanity (structurally) than the individual human.
Cognitive science seems to back this up, pointing as it does to the existence of hardwired structures in the developing brain which are set up so as to allow a human child to fit into (and develop in) their social context. The human Language faculty is a good example of this.

I do get the feeling that many non-theists lean to the Left because they recognize the existence and importance of human society, and see its well-being as the key to many of the problems facing humans and Humanity (a hallmark of the Left).

[MooseIBe]

In this country (UK) there is not really a correlation between political affiliation and religious stance. I have Christian friends who are Labour supporters and also who are Tories. Religion isn't really an issue here.

[Leesifer]

Originally Posted by MooseIBe

In this country (UK) there is not really a correlation between political affiliation and religious stance. I have Christian friends who are Labour supporters and also who are Tories. Religion isn't really an issue here.

Yeah, thank god for that!

[Dragar]

In this country (UK) there is not really a correlation between political affiliation and religious stance. I have Christian friends who are Labour supporters and also who are Tories. Religion isn't really an issue here.

That's because the only difference between the parties are the people, not the policies!

The UK tends to be quite liberal anyway, and while there are a lot of theists, they don't tend to be quite so many ones that treat it as the be all and end all of their existence.

[Wizard]

I wish America was like that, we'e just not as advanced as Europe is on some things. My dad is a socially conservative Democrat who doesnt think evolution should be taught in schools and that Christianity should be the state religion. Thats a fucked up idea

[alphamale]

No real reason to do bother with this, but it's late, I'm at work and a bit bored, and The Library is slow tonight, even with my Midnight Serenade.

I read your stuff - may I suggest next time you just take a nap.

Really? Did you know that for centuries, Christian theologians have been grappling with the problem of God's infallible true beliefs (foreknowledge) and human free will? What do you think the problem there might be?

Gosh, no kidding?! Christian church doctrine still holds that people have free will. It's an absolutely fundamental doctrine.

Yes, we should let God legislate instead. What's his position on the minimum wage, do you think? And teaching creationism in public schools?

So the choice is between theocracy on the one hand, and a statist "god" on the other? Gosh, you sure are an intellectual!

When you don't know something (which is normally the case) you have exhibited the interesting tendency to characterize as "snobs" those who know more than you. I suspect you know next to nothing about problems in normative ethics, metaethics, the Humean is-ought gap and the like. Maybe ethics and morality are a bit more complicated than you make out? On the other hand, you probably think that the philosophy of ethics, which has a pedigree of centuries, is a "hoax," like modern art. That's what a steady diet of Rush, Sean and Fox News will do to you, I guess.

Don't read me the table of contents from your ethics book. The vast majority of people who call themselves liberals in the U.S. at least sneer at the very idea of morality.

Let's follow this train of logic: if something was called "wrong," and it was called wrong "in the past," it must really have been wrong. Since in the past, Christians invoked the Bible to prove that it was "wrong" to free the slaves, it must really have been wrong, since slavery had Biblical sanction.

You missed it completely, Socrates. Current day liberals appear to oppose the idea that there could be ANY standard of morality, not just the christian based one.

What Idiot Wrote These Ten Commandments?

Not worthy of a serious reply.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by MooseIBe

In this country (UK) there is not really a correlation between political affiliation and religious stance. I have Christian friends who are Labour supporters and also who are Tories. Religion isn't really an issue here.

Maybe because you have a state religion. Why do you have that? Also, it's only liberals here who make an issue out of religion. And I don't think religion isn't an issue there - you have unassimilated moslems who do nothing to become "British", and the Blair government which has encouraged that, plus some home-grown terrorists who have blown up people on trains - ultimately because they're not moslems.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by alphamale

The vast majority of people who call themselves liberals in the U.S. at least sneer at the very idea of morality.

And you are telling other people their comments aren't worth a serious reply?

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by Wizard

Why? I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative but why are a lot of non-theists liberal on a lot of things. My political beliefs are somewhere between Republican and Libertarian. What are yours?

Well, for one pretty obvious thing, the Republican party has been coopted by social conservatism. They focus very heavily on their social policies to attract the middle-American base they've been relying on in recent years. And in the US, like it or not, we have a two-party system. Most people, regardless of where they fall on the spectrum, seem to make decisions based primarily on social policy. Social policies are the most accessible, the most visceral, and the most frequently discussed among the general population.

Another possibility is that maybe people who don't believe in the supernatural are less likely to believe that life is actually fair. Very frequently, you'll find that fiscal conservatives have an overriding sense of justice. They'll either believe, at some level, that life is fair, hard work is rewarded, and people don't suffer undeservedly; or that it all evens out in the afterlife or something. As such, they're less likely to see a need to even the playing field with social programs and such.

I took the test and I'm a Libertarian according to it. If only more people had known Badnarik would pull of Iraq out he may have won the election.

Dude. As long as we're talking trends: While there are many [L|l] policies and platforms I find more odious, there is nothing more annoying than this generalized perception among Ls, big and little, that the concept is so new and so radical that everyone must need a primer. I don't think I've ever--and I mean ever--met a libertarian in real life who hasn't immediately launched into a definition of what libertarianism is, based on the assumption that nobody's ever heard of it before.

News: Most everyone has heard of it. Most everyone that I know has heard of Badnarik and his 'platform,' such as it is. (IIRC, he was very, very, very vague about the vast majority of issues, focusing on Iraq to the exclusion of purt near everything else.) You really think Badnarik could have won on that single issue? What were his policies on other issues? I mean, apart from the obvious ones?

Furthermore, the Libertarian party seems to target naive voters almost exclusively in its recruiting efforts, from what I've seen. They focus their efforts on talking to teenagers and first-time voters and trying to win them over with silly, unrealistic, poorly thought out plans for the complete elimination of taxes, immediate withdrawal, etc., with no discussion of the real complexity of the issues.

You know, right around last election time, we were listening to some guy interviewing a Libertarian candidate for something on the radio, and the candidate guy, at one point, tossed out the 'fact' that about 35% of Colorado voters are Libertarians, whether they know it or not.

I mean, really, what kind of ignorant, patronizing bullshit is that?

Don't like paying taxes? Wanna pull out of Iraq like some backseat lothario? You're a Libertarian, whether you know it or not!

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by Wizard

Why? I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative but why are a lot of non-theists liberal on a lot of things. My political beliefs are somewhere between Republican and Libertarian. What are yours?

Could you possibly paint us all with a broader brush? Why do you tell us what our political leanings are in your subject, and then proceed to ask us in your post? You've obviously already made up your mind.

Oh, what the fuck, I'll answer anyway. I assume it's okay for me to answer on behalf of all non-theists, since we all share one brain. It's because we love chocolate ice cream and hate America.

[LadyShea]

Lessee, I lean to the left because I don't want public policies based on religious beliefs I, and other Americans, do not share. I don't want genitalia to be a criteria for who can legally pair up and create a family. I don't want my, and other American's, reproductive choices made by people who have no business making those choices. I don't want my, or other American's, children indoctrinated into one belief system that we do not share via the public school system.

[alphamale]

Well, for one pretty obvious thing, the Republican party has been coopted by social conservatism.

Like saying the democrat party has been co-opted by tort lawyers and appeasers.

They focus very heavily on their social policies to attract the middle-American base they've been relying on in recent years. And in the US, like it or not, we have a two-party system. Most people, regardless of where they fall on the spectrum, seem to make decisions based primarily on social policy. Social policies are the most accessible, the most visceral, and the most frequently discussed among the general population.

Uh, no - most people make decisions based on their pocketbooks and wallets.

Another possibility is that maybe people who don't believe in the supernatural are less likely to believe that life is actually fair. Very frequently, you'll find that fiscal conservatives have an overriding sense of justice. They'll either believe, at some level, that life is fair, hard work is rewarded, and people don't suffer undeservedly; or that it all evens out in the afterlife or something. As such, they're less likely to see a need to even the playing field with social programs and such.

Also not true - some of the most generous people I've come across are libertarians. Just because they don't subscribe to $7 trillion-down-the-drain-and-counting "Great Society" solutions, doesn't mean they are unconcerned.

[D. Scarlatti]

Hmm ... I seem to recall a federal budget surplus as of 12/12/00.

[Dragar]

Maybe because you have a state religion. Why do you have that?

It's a holdover from when the Church of England split from the Catholic church, due to a King wanting to get divorced. Basically he made a new religion, with him at the top (instead of the Pope). The Queen is technically the head of the Church.

But with church attendance dropping dramatically, and ageing (I believe the average age will be over sixty in a few years time, if the trend continues) it's not an issue.

And I don't think religion isn't an issue there - you have unassimilated moslems who do nothing to become "British"...

I'm not sure this is an issue. 'British' comes in all sorts of flavours, Muslim is just another.

...plus some home-grown terrorists who have blown up people on trains - ultimately because they're not moslems.

Agreed that these are a problem. Though curiously they didn't seem to mind that many of their victims were of their same religion.