Christian Right Split Over GOP

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

However, I do believe that the "Fundie Right" has less relevance/sway as of late which is not such a bad thing.

True, real Conservatives want less government interference in ones life where the Fundies want more.

One could also look at it as Fundies want different gov't intereferences than liberals, not necessarily "more". Most "fundies" I know really only want the libs to stop taking God out of things and also wish to not have liberal ideals forced on society. But in general you are mostly correct.
I as a Conservative want less gov't interference and so along with that I expect less "God" by the gov't - but not a prevention of God within gov't.

I appreciate a Fundy not wanting liberal ideals "forced" on them, such as mandatory healthcare or similar gov't programs, but the basic liberal ideals are about "forcing" CHOICE on people, not taking it away.

Oh contrair Sir. Abortion? The libs want, and have federal funding of it. That's makingthose who disagree with have to fund it. Libs doen't stop at at making sure it's not illegal. Then they take away your parental rights, your kid doesn't even need you to informed if they get a gov provided aboratiopn etc.

Same with premarital sex. Gotta teach it in schools and use taxpayer funds for free condums etc.


Abortion or childbirth? Sex or abstinence? To pray or not to pray? Right to terminate your life if you suffer from a painful terminal illness or to hold on until even a machine can't support you? I'm tired of seeing the Sciavo thing misrepresented. I don't every recall it being a religious thing. The husband was portrayed as shady, possibbly having a hand in her condition. And he wanted the insurance money. Her parents wanted to support her. Many people felt bad for the parents. Particularly those of us with children of our own. To read a book or ignore it.

It's seems it's the Fundy's who want to remove the choices and force their views on me and the country. I think you've got it backwards No abortion ever. No sex before marriage. Mandatory prayer time set aside in schools. No medically assisted suicide. Suicide is a catholic no-no. Not a Protestant one. Look, if the Libs wanna outlaw teh death penalty cuz the method causes pain, how can you support the same thing for someone under different circumstances? Makes no sense. Banning "evil" books.

Of course libs aren't entirely consistent, who is? I doubt the uber left would mind seeing all guns taken away from the people, not a choice on whether or not to own a gun. But in general, the freedom to make choices is the ideal. As long as it's the choice the libs like. As we've seen time and again.

Fern

You're so off on everything here I can't bother with it. Have a good weekend.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

However, I do believe that the "Fundie Right" has less relevance/sway as of late which is not such a bad thing.

True, real Conservatives want less government interference in ones life where the Fundies want more.

One could also look at it as Fundies want different gov't intereferences than liberals, not necessarily "more". Most "fundies" I know really only want the libs to stop taking God out of things and also wish to not have liberal ideals forced on society. But in general you are mostly correct.
I as a Conservative want less gov't interference and so along with that I expect less "God" by the gov't - but not a prevention of God within gov't.

Where I believe a Secular Government has no room for any diety, whether it be the diety of the majority or minority. Your own beliefs should be just that, your own. Your religious beliefs should have no influence on others period.

That said, I believe there are more pressing problems regarding our government and country than the mere mention of god as long as it's just the mere mention of god.

I should have been a bit more clear. The point was not about having "God" laws but rather that it shouldn't be forbidden for gov't like some are trying to do these days. Removing "in God we Trust" off coinage? Seems pretty harmless and doesn't FORCE religion on anyone. Pledge? Same thing. It just seems there is a lot of "God" being forbidden whereas that is not the intent of the idea of Seperation of Chuch and State. They can co-exist, but the point was that we didn't have a Church State(which we have been no where near in our history).

Where exactly does it seem like that? I certainly notice a trend of people whining about having secular beliefs "forced" on them, but in EVERY SINGLE CASE, that does not seem to be what is going on. Nobody is preventing you from believing whatever your little mind desires, the fight is whether or not you are able to force other people to live by your beliefs. That is the fundamental core of Separation of Church and State, and I think the reason this issue is so "confusing" is because conservative Christians know they're full of shit but want to keep arguing anyways.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

However, I do believe that the "Fundie Right" has less relevance/sway as of late which is not such a bad thing.

True, real Conservatives want less government interference in ones life where the Fundies want more.

One could also look at it as Fundies want different gov't intereferences than liberals, not necessarily "more". Most "fundies" I know really only want the libs to stop taking God out of things and also wish to not have liberal ideals forced on society. But in general you are mostly correct.
I as a Conservative want less gov't interference and so along with that I expect less "God" by the gov't - but not a prevention of God within gov't.

I appreciate a Fundy not wanting liberal ideals "forced" on them, such as mandatory healthcare or similar gov't programs, but the basic liberal ideals are about "forcing" CHOICE on people, not taking it away.

Abortion or childbirth? Sex or abstinence? To pray or not to pray? Right to terminate your life if you suffer from a painful terminal illness or to hold on until even a machine can't support you? To read a book or ignore it.

It's seems it's the Fundy's who want to remove the choices and force their views on me and the country. No abortion ever. No sex before marriage. Mandatory prayer time set aside in schools. No medically assisted suicide. Banning "evil" books.

Of course libs aren't entirely consistent, who is? I doubt the uber left would mind seeing all guns taken away from the people, not a choice on whether or not to own a gun. But in general, the freedom to make choices is the ideal.

"SOME" liberal ideals are about "choice" - some are not.

Maybe, but that hardly seems to make a difference to the people complaining about liberal ideas. Virtually all of the modern "liberal" issues that fundies get their panties in a bunch about are "choice" issues, nobody is advocating forcing you to do anything you don't want to do. If anyone is forcing their ideals on society, it's the Christian right, as they are the ONLY ones arguing that everyone has to live by the rules Pat Robertson approves. I have yet to see a single mainstream liberal idea arguing a similar thing from a liberal point of view.

And telling you to shut your big trap isn't "forcing" anything on you, it's encouraging you to remember that you live in a free society, where it's not an imposition to ask other people to keep their noses out of your business. Lance and Bruce are two gay liberals who want to get married, they are advocating a policy that governs THEIR behavior and rights. Bob and Mary are two right-wing Christians who oppose gay marriage, and they are also arguing for a policy that governs Lance and Bruce's behavior and rights. Is this such a complex topic that you are incapable of seeing who's forcing their beliefs on whom?

 

[Lemon law]

When we talk about choices, we always have to remember religion is a choice also. Maybe not for a child, where the parent drag the child to the church of their choice, but even then, its a you can bring a horse to water, but you can't make the horse drink. And later in life, the child grows up and is free to make their own religious choices.

Which then brings up the first dilemma a religion faces in a competition based world. If a religion loses touch with the mores of the larger society, former recruits will vote with their feet either by rejecting religion or by finding a different religion or religious sect better fitted with their ideals. Even if we restrict the argument to the United States and the various flavors of the Christian religion that supposedly share a common bible, the variety of existing differences in interpretation is rather vast. At this point, for the religious right, the cutting split seems to be mostly over being against abortion. And for the religious right, Roe v Wade is a continuing open wound that will not heal and pits their religious ideals against the secular law of the land.

At the same time, politicians know repealing Roe v Wade is political suicide and loses two votes for every vote it gains. And for that matter most churches are comfortable with abortion leaving the passionate anti abortion group in a minority seeking to impose its will on a larger majority. At the same time, the anti abortion group is politically organized, able to raise vast sums of cash with televangelism, and hence a political and secular force that cannot be ignored. At the same time religious and secular pro lifers
are not as organized or passionate, and are somewhat reduced to shaking their head in bemused wonder at the religious right while underestimating their power.

For the politician, its somewhat a no brainer pander to the religious right. Promise they are on their side, but don't actually actively pass the laws they want. But the religious right is also asking politicians for their hearts desire without the political suicide required. And that is in asking pandering politicians to stack the courts and thus repeal Roe v Wade which is a far safer strategy for politicians.

The next election may indeed be the ball game on that strategy. I therefore predict the religious right will be fully committed and I doubt they will settle for Giuliani unless they can cut a secret back door deal. If they miss the Supreme Court nominations likely to open up after 2009, who knows when their chance will ever come again?

At the same time, I have to somewhat wonder how pragmatic the religious right is. Even if GWB is their man, they seem blind to the fact that many of the policies GWB is pursuing will doom the GOP Presidential hopes in 2008. And it would seem they must either use their influence to change those policies or see all their patient gains go up in smoke.

If the religious right wants to have any control of events, they must place their bets now. And instead seem undecided.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
When we talk about choices, we always have to remember religion is a choice also. Maybe not for a child, where the parent drag the child to the church of their choice, but even then, its a you can bring a horse to water, but you can't make the horse drink. And later in life, the child grows up and is free to make their own religious choices.
...

I think you're overestimating how much choice you really have outside of how you are raised. Sure, once you're all grown up, you can make your own choices, and kids rarely turn out exactly like their parents. Even if there is a political shift one way or the other, the belief system of the parents is a huge part of who most people become. I would imagine most conservative Christians were raised in conservative Christian families, and most people who do NOT hold those beliefs were probably raised in a more agnostic household. Even for the folks who stop practicing their religion, being raised with those beliefs being beaten into your head (sometimes quite literally) leaves people with a far different interpretation of religion than folks who were raised by less religious parents. And it's not just religion either, most people I've met seem way more like their parents when it comes to most issues than they might like to believe.