It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

It's official - RELIGION = Right Wing, ATHEISM = Left Wing.

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry
Not in the UK - religion transcends the political spectrum here.


This is correct.

Wales and Scotland ( in particular ) have always been traditionally left-wing and socially liberal, yet have the same proportion of religious adherents as England does.

There is a small number of the ''religious right'' in the UK ( mostly Daily Mail readers
), but they are nothing more than an inconsequential fringe movement.

I think it's mainly in the USA where the Christian/right and non-religion/left connection exists.



edit on 21-9-2010 by Sherlock Holmes because: Spelling.




posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
It seems to me that this phenomenon is seen in less civilized countries. So at the extreme you have the right wing mullahs of Iran and at the other extreme you have Kim Jong Il, who is, in effect, the god-emperor of his people. The frightening thing is that we in the US are beginning to see this fervor arise as our country becomes more impoverished and less stable.

Many people prefer authority to freedom, and those people are more likely to choose authoritarian government AND religion, thus the connection between fundamentalists and tyranny. Those on the left tend to be social liberals because they prefer a libertarian ideal for their private lives, including spirituality. This is less the case in more stable societies where the people are less fearful and feel more secure, like in Canada for example, where the inherent liberalism of Christianity is more obvious.

I fear the OP is correct in that the U.S. is becoming more polarized and religion will increasingly play a role in politics.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Although the press and Hollywood tends to push theism and atheism into the political camps of left and right the fact is that such a sweeping generalization is often inaccurate. I'm an atheist and far from being "left wing".



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by infinite
In the words of the Pope, is religion really compatible with equality, liberty and fraternity? I very much doubt it. Religion dictates we are separate and cannot be united - unless we submit to a deity. Clearly, you are right to suggest those of conservative thinking wish for religion to become a part of public/political life. Liberal practices reserve the right to separate Church and State, which the right oppose. God's place is the Church, not the legislative branch of government.


I think western nations have nailed it perfectly by guaranteeing both Freedom of Religion and Freedom from Religion. There is nothing wrong with keeping Religion out of Politics. But there is nothing wrong with consulting spiritual ideals when practicing politics.




Even though great nations, such as the French Republic and the United States both believe in religion being prevented from public life - politicians on right (in both respected nation) support religious involvement. But the irony, American voters feel the urgency to elect figures who are of a religious bias. A recent poll, said the majority of Americans would never vote for an atheist. How Bizarre.


Thats because public perception is that spirituality comes with a set of values and ideals.

Atheism has not yet been able to advertise its values and ethics to the larger audience.


SWhow me one place in The United States documentation that guarantees the freedom from religion????

There isn't. There isn't a separation of church and state and any implication of one is one way, being that the state cannot influence religion not the other way around.

Again I ask you to show me ANY documentation stating otherwise, caselaw is not valid. That is someone's interpretation. Our founding documents are clear and easily understood, and do NOT require interpretation as has been done.

We need to return to common law if we have any hope to preserve liberty.

Jaden



new topics

top topics
 
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join