Republican Party, Controlled by the Religious Right?
Anna Gregoline | August 31, 2004
I'm not saying anything.
Scott Horowitz | August 31, 2004
4 words: Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson
Erik Bates | August 31, 2004
[hidden by request]
Anna Gregoline | August 31, 2004
He meant control though, not support. I'd much rather Erik Bates control the Republican party than the religious right.
Erik Bates | August 31, 2004
[hidden by request]
Anna Gregoline | August 31, 2004
Yes. Most definitely. You are a knowledgeable, well-spoken, good thinker, who cares about people. From what I can gather. You've already got more qualifications than our President!
Jackie Mason | August 31, 2004
[hidden by request]
Scott Hardie | September 1, 2004
In the literal sense, no; the Republican Party is controlled by its most prominent officials and ultimately by the voters. However, instead of thinking of the Religious Right as a group of people influencing the party, I do believe that religious influence -- ok, let's just call it what it is, Christian influence -- has a strong effect.
The three dominant social issues of the day for Republicans are abortion, gay marriage, and gun ownership, and two of the three positions are directly inspired by Christian values. Granted, there are a good number of Americans who oppose abortion without being Christian, but how many of the Americans opposing gay marriage are not Christian? That doesn't invalidate their arguments, but it's obvious where the belief that sodomy is sin originated.
Fortunately, the Republican Party is usually more interested in fiscal and foreign-policy matters of government, and rarely gets worked up over social issues like this outside of election cycles and Supreme Court hearings on the matter. I hope its level-headed members continue to get elected for this reason.
Jackie Mason | September 1, 2004
[hidden by request]
Anna Gregoline | September 1, 2004
Of course, why should he care? Cause those gays are going to hell anyway.
Melissa Erin | September 1, 2004
[hidden by request]
Jackie Mason | September 1, 2004
[hidden by request]
Melissa Erin | September 1, 2004
[hidden by request]
Scott Horowitz | September 1, 2004
I hate to get wrapped up in this discussion, but in expressing my views I may offend people. If I do, I am sorry. Saying something like I'm pro-life, is a religious view no matter what it is. Personally, I feel that abortion should only be used in 3 instances: rape, incest, or threatening the life of the mother. However, it is not my nor is it government's place to dictate to a woman how to handle her own body. There are plenty of "Jesus Freaks" running both parties, more prominently in the Republican party. If John Ashcroft were president, I would move out of this country faster than Bush can stutter. (Though he is my favorite Republican because he lost an election to a dead man :) )
Why is Christmas a national holiday? That is something that as a Jew has always pissed me off. Why do I have to take days off from work for holidays in the next 2 weeks. If I were a more observant Jew, I wouldn't be able to take vacation from work because I'd have to use my vacation days for all the holidays that I am required to not work. Fortunately, living in NY, I always had Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur off from school.
Anyways, I believe we have gotten into this discussion before. The way the Republican Party has gone after the media this year is deplorable. Should Howard Stern be kicked off the air? Should they need a delay on every live performance known to man? I thought my TV was freaking out during the VMA's when they censored one of the rap artists songs (I was watching because there was absolutely nothing else on).
And Melissa, you say "Bush is one person". As President, he is the face of the party, therefore his beliefs and actions dictate how the party is viewed by the Public.
I know many people that are "Social Democrats and Fiscal Republicans". Just because I am a registered Democrat does not mean I agree with every stance the party has. I vote for a candidate typically, not for the party. If I feel a candidate is unworthy of my vote, I vote for the one who I feel would do a better job, and who would be better for America. In this coming election, it is John Kerry.
Anna Gregoline | September 1, 2004
Right. I never said Bush was the entire Republican party. But that he certainly doesn't hold any of the qualifications I deemed Erik worthy of. And you can't deny that Bush is an extremely religious man. He's said (what are to me) very scary things for our President to say, such as
"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job."
"And we base it, our history, and our decision making, our future, on solid values. The first value is, we're all God's children."
It's so inspirational to see your courage, as well as to see the great works of our Lord in your heart.
-- Speaking on behalf of all Americans in a manner that is only consistent with the religious beliefs of some, Nashville, Tennessee, Feb. 10, 2003
It's also important for people to know we never seek to impose our culture or our form of government. We just want to live under those universal values, God-given values.
And throughout our history, in times of crisis and in times of calm, Americans have always turned to prayer. And this year's event has special meaning. Since the attacks of September the 11th, millions -- millions -- of Americans of every religious faith have been led to prayer. They have prayed for comfort in a time of sorrow, for courage in a time of fear and for understanding in a time of anger. They have prayed for wisdom in the midst of war and for strength on the journey ahead.... Prayer also deepens faith, reminding us of great truths: Evil and suffering are only for a time; love and hope endure. Even in the world's most bitter conflicts, prayer reminds us of God's love and grace, Hismercy and faithfulness, the hope He provides and the peace He promises.... I want to thank you all for coming here to the White House to celebrate this special day, for your devotion to prayer, and for your love of this country, and for the Lord who has blessed it for so long.
I mean, oh my. I don't care that the guy is religous. Great! Awesome, good for him. But I hate how he has to bring up HIS god all the darn time. How does that make the non-Christians in this country feel? How does it honor the separation of church and state?
The simple truth is, it's a way to snuggle in close to religious Christian folks - many of whom are Republicans, or at least feel cozy when he starts talking this way. It makes me sick.
(Quotes taken from dubyaspeak.com, a hilarious site.)
Robert Phillips | September 1, 2004
The very thing that gives us democracy is separation of church and state...Or perhaps more correctly that the constitution requires that the government not favor one religion over another. The Christians would have you believe that this means to not favor one form of christianity over another. The argument being that this country was based on christianity. In my opinion using an argument like that is totally nuts because this country was also based on slavery and social inequality of woman. Just because we are based on something means nothing. Things change. We got rid of slavery and woman have certainly been making gains since the 19th amendment. If you recall the big flack over the judge who was forced to remove the 10 commandmants from his courtroom. Most people probably thought geeze its the ten commandmants why do they want to remove that, but what if it was something from some sort of Pagan ritual...Do no harm to others that is the whole of the law. What would people think of that? Most people would have an absolute and complete breakdown over this...The ten commandments ok, but something from Pagan law...forget it. In many ways the people who support prayer in public schools and such are correct. It really only says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Technically by allowing the judge to keep the 10 commandments in his courtroom would be okay with me as long as he does not have a problem with the judge in the next courtroom over wanting to put something up from the Pagan "Book of Shadows". The moment Christians complain about that is the moment the 10 commandments have to come down. We don't want any hypocritical christians on our hands now do we...
Anna Gregoline | September 1, 2004
I know. That whole thing made me want to be a judge, just so I could put up some world religion stuff and see what people would say.
Erik Bates | September 1, 2004
[hidden by request]
Anna Gregoline | September 1, 2004
Heck no. I don't want a part of even fake political office. =)
Robert Phillips | September 1, 2004
From my perspective a politcal party giving favor to one religion over another alienates me and any others who do not hold the same religious beliefs. I don't want to be alienated I want to be a part of it. That is not to say that I have to agree with all of the secular issues because those can be argued about and perhaps changed with the proper application of logic and passion. The religious zealots who claim that such things as humanism is a religion competely don't understand the difference between science and religion. Religion is not changeable...I could not logically expect to convince a Christian that Jesus was not God because even in the face of physical evidence it makes no difference. I could not change that persons position on that issue...On the other hand...the scientific method is about change. If there actually was evidence that the cell theory was wrong, you COULD convince others with good evidence. At that point the science manuals would be rewritten, and the new theory would go on as the accepted theory.
Jackie Mason | September 1, 2004
[hidden by request]
Anna Gregoline | September 1, 2004
Personally, I like the spirit of Christmas and friends and family and togetherness and everything, but wouldn't Christmas be a lot nicer for everyone if gift giving could be eliminated? That's what's all the stress is about, it seems.
Lori Lancaster | September 1, 2004
[hidden by request]
Anna Gregoline | September 1, 2004
I like buying gifts for people for no reason better. I wish everyone would do that instead of feeling pressure for a certain time of year.
Melissa Erin | September 1, 2004
[hidden by request]
Anna Gregoline | September 1, 2004
I don't expect Bush to keep his religion completely to himself - but it's inappropriate in speeches.
Scott Horowitz | September 2, 2004
All right, ready for Round 2.
1) Jackie, you said "Most people who don't believe in Jesus at all still celebrate Christmas." I completely disagree with that. I would say "Most Americans who don't have faith in an organized religion celebrate the commercialization of the holiday season."
2) Melissa, I used the term "Jesus Freak" as a specific example of a type of person. John Ashcroft, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell. These people do not view people who have faith in other religions as equals. It is either their way or the highway. Two of my best friends are devout Catholics and the conversations we have gotten into over the years have been some of the most intriguing I have ever partaken in. In fact, one of them came to a Passover Seder at my house once.
Anyways, people like Ashcroft and Bush feel that our country should be a "Theocracy" and not a "Democracy" (technically we're a Republic but the wording worked better that way.) The problem is these people take their Religious views and dictate law based on them. Stem Cell Research, Abortion, hell even posting the 10 commandments in public places. There are more than just Jews and Christians in this country. I'm not 100% sure about Islam, but most religions do not view these as a religious commandment. In Judaism, for example there are 613 Commandments.
I think I'm done, if I can remember anything else, I'll post more... I'm sure you're all looking forward to that.
Kris Weberg | September 2, 2004
I'm reading Thomas Jefferson for a class right now, one taught by -- dig it -- Michael Hardt.
*crickets*
Anyway, I dig it. Look him up on amazon.com if ya like.
Jefferson takes special pains to separate church doctrine and civil law, as he is a product of the Enlightenment, which accepted rational calculus -- utilitarianism, for example, or liberal positivism as one finds in our Constitution -- rather than revealed truth -- that's religion, where you don't work out what's good so much as have God come down and lay it on ya.
The authority and basis of the law should not, cannot be religious if you intend to have a country with freedom of religion. It's like asking, say, a Christian, to make his wife wear concealing clothes because the founders happen to Islamic. Or asking them to worship Melek Taus, the Peacock Angel and redeemed Lucifer, because the Kurds run things -- they really believe that, which may explain why Iraqi Shiites don't like Kurds.
The principles of morality many claim derive from Christianity -- don't kill, don't cheat, don't steal, etc. -- are also RATIONAL values for a society. They can be determined by reason, and are arguably necessary for any society involving free expression and possession of private property to function.
If stealing isn't wrong, then no one effectively owns anything. If murder isn't prohibited, who can count on staying alive? One needn't be a Christian to discover that,
In another sense, Christianity's notion of moral commandments is fundamentally at odds with democracy. You can't have what amounts to a "dictator" -- God who dicates all conduct, all rules -- and believe in the vote. The vote can't overturn God, if God is God. And anyone who claims a monopoly, or even a plurality, in terms of representing God -- and all we have are representatives of God, since He doesn't actually show up explicitly to talk publicly -- can then set any rule they like, with no recourse...if God's rules are the government's basis.
You don't get to vote for God; in a democratic republic, you get to vote for everything, including the people who make the rules.
Anna Gregoline | September 2, 2004
I think it's funny how much this looks like a pulpit with crosses on it.
Melissa Erin | September 3, 2004
[hidden by request]
Scott Hardie | September 3, 2004
Well put, Kris. If there can be no single acceptable religious basis for law, then the basis must be some non-religious principle. I'm all for the Libertarian notion that the only activities that should be illegal are activities that directly harm other people (theft, assualt, etc) and activities that undermine the system (counterfeiting, fraud, etc). As it stands, our society's legislation is a framework of laws with different influences and principles, but as long as there are courts to test the fairness of these laws, it's hardly an intolerable system.
Kris Weberg | September 3, 2004
Exactly, and if we really did wholeheartedly embrace the notion that our government and its laws were those of a Supreme Being or a religion, we would be that much less a democratic society.
How does one vote against or debate against God? How is there a will of the people in regard to anything taken as a commandment from God?
I realize that there are references to a creator in the Declaration of Independence, for example -- the source of inalienable rights being that they are endowed on men by their creator -- but this, too, must be understood contextually.
The Declaration is made in the face of a system in which church and state were one, Britain, where the Anglican Church claimed the power of the king and Parliament to be God-ordained. That question of mine recurs -- how does one argue against God? Why, by claiming that God said something else entirely, of course.
That use of God is less a religious doctrine than an argumentative technique, a kind of appeal to unanswerable authority that saves one having to complicatedly lay out ethical/social proposals, and prevents an opponent from claiming that your human reason is inferior to their received commandments from God.
Kris Weberg | September 3, 2004
To the original question, I'd say no -- no political party is really "controlled" by an outside group. They're controlled by groups of cynics whose job it is to determine what groups, if pandered to verbally if not in actual concrete political action, will in combination prove a sufficient majority of voters for victory.
The principles or tendency of the party's member's is secondary to this, of course; even in the last 12 years, both the Democratic and Republican platforms have changed as the party bases have changed. No very violent shift of belief can happen, of course, but thsi owes as much to the relative sability of support groups in the party's base as to any genuine "shape" of the party. Not too long ago, Pat Buchanan was a Republican, and Ralph Nader might have been a Democrat, after all; but that's not possible these days.
In recent years, the Christian Right has been a highly organized network of political groups, most notably but not solely or unificatorily the Christian Coalition. Their broadly "conservative" leanings have made them a group the Republicans therefore court, though, you may notice, not always to the point of crafting legislation that would withstad a Supreme Court challenge.
Mike Eberhart | September 6, 2004
Hey Eric,
Thanks for the support. I'd run for president in a fake election. Of course, on this board, I'd lose. :)
Melissa Erin | September 6, 2004
[hidden by request]
Mike Eberhart | September 7, 2004
Alright, I at least have 2 votes.... :)
Kris Weberg | September 8, 2004
I guess that'd make me Ralph Nader...or possibly Eugene V. Debs... :)
Jackie Mason | September 8, 2004
[hidden by request]
Want to participate? Please create an account a new account or log in.
Robert Phillips | August 31, 2004
All right I know this is a provocative title to a discussion, but it is worth it to get others thoughts on the issue. Especially those who consider themselves republican.