Rational Republicans question religion's growing role in their party

You're absolutely correct AAA. It's a double edged sword though.

As the old "country club" bastions of white suburbia become increasingly secular, it's increasingly difficult for a GOP that's aligned with traditional social values to not turn off those "progressive" voters. Long gone are the days of Connecticut, Chicago's North Shore, and Philly's Main line clocking in guaranteed Republican majorities. There's not a demographic difference between Greenwich and Plano or between Marin County and Orange County. All are white and affluent. But while SoCal and much of the suburban South and West have a fair share of right wing Christians, the more liberal denominations (Episcopalians, Presbyterians) are more secular (agnostic perhaps ?) in nature. Hence there's subcultures in the North that are Euro/Canadian in thought and deed. Republicans are scaring many of those voters (particularly the women), even those who are fiscal conservatives.

I think it's great the GOP stands up for solid values. I doubt many PGA golfers or NASCAR drivers are into abortion and homo's getting legally married. By the same token we need a charismatic political leader who can articulate the righteousness of our beliefs and not be treated like a tool by the anti-American leftist media.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

This is about pol's like danforth and Whitman losing influence and bitterly resenting it. They are not bad people, but they are representatives of the country club republican movement that reached its high water mark in the 50's and has steadily lost ground. They are reduced to writing bitter books that appeal to the New York times fantasies of a reign of theocratic repression led by evangelicals. It's all nonsense of course, and as the article points out, the religious right has plenty of legitimate complaints about having their agenda ignored after they provide the muscle to get Bush and congressional republicans elected.

The bottom line is that if Whitman and her pro abortion republicans stay home, the party may lose a few northeastern seats. If the religious right stay home, the party will lose congress and the presidency. It is becoming increasingly likely that they, along with traditional conservatives who are sickened by republican betrayals, will do just that.
More...
 
Great points.
Quote from whitster:

john frigging kennedy mentioned god in his inaugural (and in general) more than bush

the civil rights movement, and the abolition movement was in effect run by religious people (MLK et al).

people don't like it when religious ideas they DON'T like are present in the political debate. left or right - doesn't matter

but this country was founded by religious nuts with guns (to borrow a PJ ORourke'ism), and that needs to be understood.
More...
 
The concept of secular government has its foundation in the abuse of power by religious factions in government in Europe prior to our independence.

Religion doesn't promote freedom in this world, Judeo/Christian/Islam promotes freedom in the afterlife, and a bunch of social rules that restrict personal freedoms in this life.

When a rational argument can be given for no abortions, or no homosexual marriage, than the argument can be inclusive of all religious or non religious beliefs.

The religions don't want this though, as if we leave law to secular reason and common sense devoid of religiousity, the religions begin to lose their grip on the electorate.

There needs to be more common denominators in policy, not more divisive elements, which is exactly what religion in politics does. It divides the believers from the non believers.

Quote from Pabst:

You're absolutely correct AAA. It's a double edged sword though.

As the old "country club" bastions of white suburbia become increasingly secular, it's increasingly difficult for a GOP that's aligned with traditional social values to not turn off those "progressive" voters. Long gone are the days of Connecticut, Chicago's North Shore, and Philly's Main line clocking in guaranteed Republican majorities. There's not a demographic difference between Greenwich and Plano or between Marin County and Orange County. All are white and affluent. But while SoCal and much of the suburban South and West have a fair share of right wing Christians, the more liberal denominations (Episcopalians, Presbyterians) are more secular (agnostic perhaps ?) in nature. Hence there's subcultures in the North that are Euro/Canadian in thought and deed. Republicans are scaring many of those voters (particularly the women), even those who are fiscal conservatives.

I think it's great the GOP stands up for solid values. I doubt many PGA golfers or NASCAR drivers are into abortion and homo's getting legally married. By the same token we need a charismatic political leader who can articulate the righteousness of our beliefs and not be treated like a tool by the anti-American leftist media.
More...
 
repub party is scaring fiscal conservatives because george bush is anything but a fiscal conservative

i like bush, but he's not even a conservative. he's an authoritarian right-moderate. as a libertarian right moderate myself, i disagree with him on lots of stuff.

however, he's just proving that regardless of policy stances, when u have a repub majority in house/senate and the presidency, there is little restraint. same thing would.does happen if dems control house/senate/prez. its kind of sad, but typical of politicians

bush not a conservative though. weak on spending (he spends like a second wife witha gold card), weak on gun rights, weak on the border, weak on racial preferences (he's not strongly against them ), etc.

i read "progressive" pubs all the time - the nation, mother jones. etc. they REALLU believe that the religious right is in control of GWB and his candidacy, which is patently absurd. but these are the same people that think all pro-lifers (i happen to be pro-choice myself) are "anti-women", so they are absurd in general
 
"Religion doesn't promote freedom in this world, Judeo/Christian/Islam promotes freedom in the afterlife, and a bunch of social rules that restrict personal freedoms in this life."

arguably false.

civil rights movement, abolition movement, anti-slavery movement, etc. all spearheaded and essentially run by deeply religious folks, and religious insitutions.

the USA, which is among the most religious DEMOCRACIES in the world, also has - by most measures- the most freedoms - especially when you count freedom of speech, which the US soundly leads europe, canada, etc. in.

my point isn't that you are wrong. my point is that it is arguable.

religion does promote social rules. so does every single code of morality i am aware of - religious or nonreligious, with the possible exception of anarchistic hedonism, which in its lack of rules, still has the rule of "no rules if it feels good' but i digrtess.
 
I have nothing against deeply religious people, spiritual people. I am in favor of them.

The deeply religious folks who were/are at the forefront of human rights for all, were/are not using the Bible or other religious doctrine to make their arguments.....

Their arguments and appeals are to universal principles that appeal to reason and common sense, not the regressive mentality of the far right wing. They are geared to benefit anyone of any religion or non religion, as they envision a society that puts personal freedoms ahead of religious dogma.


Quote from whitster:

"Religion doesn't promote freedom in this world, Judeo/Christian/Islam promotes freedom in the afterlife, and a bunch of social rules that restrict personal freedoms in this life."

arguably false.

civil rights movement, abolition movement, anti-slavery movement, etc. all spearheaded and essentially run by deeply religious folks, and religious insitutions.

the USA, which is among the most religious DEMOCRACIES in the world, also has - by most measures- the most freedoms - especially when you count freedom of speech, which the US soundly leads europe, canada, etc. in.

my point isn't that you are wrong. my point is that it is arguable.

religion does promote social rules. so does every single code of morality i am aware of - religious or nonreligious, with the possible exception of anarchistic hedonism, which in its lack of rules, still has the rule of "no rules if it feels good' but i digrtess.
More...
 
"The deeply religious folks who were/are at the forefront of human rights for all, were/are not using the Bible or other religious doctrine to make their arguments....."

absolutely false.

have you read the speeches and writings of the civil rights movement leaders, abolition, anti-slavery folks etc?

obviously not.

MLK, as ONE example, specifically stated that he beleived in his civil rights beliefs BECAUSE of his religious beliefs.

this is inarguable. he repeated such statements endlessly.

relgion informed, inspired, and led his beliefs, and his actions

try some reading. i suggest you just kneejerked a response, because anybody who has actually studied the civil rights movement KNOW that MLK used religion to justify his position - endlessly
 
His speeches appealed to Jews, Christians, Atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, men, women, black, white, yellow, brown, and all men who saw the universality of his message....because they were not a narrow focused view of right and wrong, but rather an expansive view of human rights.

Comparing his speeches, to say Pat Robertson, because they both were preachers, is a crime...and you know it.

King condemned hate, which is what the far right wing thrives on. King did not try to make his politics beneficial for only one religious belief system, but for all religious and non religious belief systems.

Hatred of homosexuals, hatred of sexual freedom, hatred of liberalism, hatred of progressive ideas, hatred of science, hatred of other countries leadership, etc., etc., etc.

King spoke to pure spirituality, the same spirituality of Gandhi and others who emphasized non violence and personal freedom and liberation from bondage. King spoke of tolerance and acceptance.

When I see that from the right wingers, then I will change my opinion....

Try some thinking with your "reading."

Quote from whitster:

"The deeply religious folks who were/are at the forefront of human rights for all, were/are not using the Bible or other religious doctrine to make their arguments....."

absolutely false.

have you read the speeches and writings of the civil rights movement leaders, abolition, anti-slavery folks etc?

obviously not.

MLK, as ONE example, specifically stated that he beleived in his civil rights beliefs BECAUSE of his religious beliefs.

this is inarguable. he repeated such statements endlessly.

relgion informed, inspired, and led his beliefs, and his actions

try some reading. i suggest you just kneejerked a response, because anybody who has actually studied the civil rights movement KNOW that MLK used religion to justify his position - endlessly
More...
 
spare me the strawmen zzz.


i was not comparing his speeches to pat robertson.

i responded to specfic statements you made that were demonstrably false

and you proceeeded to create strawmen

you made specific statements.

i made specific responses (that showed you are wrong), and instead of defending your statements (lord forbid with evidence), you began a strawman campaign

this aint about pat robertson or any of the other tangents you just brought up

how about focusing on the statements you made, that i refuted?
 
ZZZ,

You have an odd way of defining religious tolerance. Basically, if you agree with the policy, then it's "inclusive" and ok but if not, then it's "divisive" and religious bigotry to support it. You are in good company since Sen Sanctimonious Danforth agrees with you.

Our country has a rich tradition of religiously informed politics. Can it lead to excesses? Of course, just as any politicla philospohy can. Luckily we have a First Amendment which guarantees freedom of religious expression and prohibits the establishment of religion by government. That line may be vague at times, but certainly it does not prohibit voters or politicians from expressing their deeply held moral and religious beliefs. That's why we have elections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top