GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
There’s been a quiet shift in Evangelical politics for the last few years.
Richard Land, Dr. Dobson, George Barna, Gary Bauer, Rick Scarborough…
These are all names that are supposed to represent the religious right.
These are leaders who oppose an Evangelical Manifesto released a week ago.
Most of the manifesto deals with religious issues but the main controversy has been what it said about politics. The document calls for an end to politicizing religion.
It also criticizes Evangelicals allowing themselves to be closely linked to the Republican Party. I suppose Bush’s approval ratings are so low even Evangelicals want to distance themselves from him (I kid, I kid). Really I think this is a not so subtle distancing of Evangelicalism from the leaders of the religious right.
I think we saw how that worked out in the primary. Endorsements from religious right leaders did little to move Evangelical voters.
Clearly the old power brokers have lost their sway. Republicans will have to form a new model if they want to keep the 40% of the party that’s Evangelical Christian. You can’t depend on Televangelists or leaders of religious right non-profits to be your go between with those scary religious people.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Evangelicals would serve their own purposes much better if they stopped mixing religion with politics, and the GOP, and the nation.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Evangelicals, including Jeremiah Wright, seem unable to keep their hands out of politics. They should come clean, drop the cloth and become full on politicians like Huckabee did, Huck said politics was where the power is and he could make more change in that arena. I disagree with him but at least he was being honest about his true ambitions.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:24 am
It looks like, much to the delight of Metro, Evangelicals are going to start acting more like Catholics and being pro-life on paper but not always voting that way. I am considering whether right wing Catholics and Evangelicals should all join the Democratic party as a group and let Metro have his country club party back. We can always try to make the Democrats more conservative. It won’t work this cycle, but in 2012 possibly.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:44 am
“We can always try to make the Democrats more conservative.”
One at a time, Clarence, not en masse.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:45 am
If I was the GM of the GOP, I’d trade the Evangelicals for the Blue Dog Dems and SocLib/FiCon Indies in a fetal heartbeat.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:46 am
First off, Evangelicals would be better suited ideologically in the Democratic party, for two reasons: (1) You both want more government control over the individual. (2) Christianity demands socialism much more loudly than, say, opposing same-sex marriage. I rarely make point #2, because I don’t want to convince Evangelicals this is true for obvious reasons.
But more broadly, as I said yesterday (without response), morality is rarely changed by government. Instead, morality changes government. Evangelicals should be working within the culture at a level more fundamental than politics if they want their ideals to succeed. Politics will follow as a matter of course.
As an entrepreneur, I’ve often thought of creative ways that SoCons could advance their ideas through the marketplace, and also through non-profits. Why are you guys not thinking creatively like that? If Mitt Romney were truly a SoCon, his entrepreneurial mind would be working on solutions like that.
And most of us non-SoCons have no problems with SoCon goals, so long as they are not imposed via government force.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Rudy was not nominated.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Evangelicals got us Roberts and Alito.
It was secular judges that forced evangelicals into politics.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:50 am
I have no quarrel with Roberts and Alito!
Federalism is the way to unite the two wings of the GOP.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Clarence I don’t think Christians can expect a welcoming home in America, let alone in a political party.
We just have to work with what we’re given and not pin our hopes on things destined to always be flawed and evil. We’re to be beacons of light in this dark world. That requires not getting to attached to the darkness including political parties.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Sometimes secular judges are needed to keep you SoCons from outlawing integration or sodomy.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Or contraception.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Aron, I understand you want Christians out of the GOP. The problem is that shrinking parties tend not to attract new members.
You can kill a party but you can’t easily take loyal parts of the other party that you like better and “trade” them.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Doug, it’s been done before.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Metro, I don’t honestly believe you believe any of what you’re saying. I bet you’re just a social conservative from NC trying to make libertarians look like fascists.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Fascists? I’m the one trying to get government away from controlling individuals.
And you call me the opposite. I think your theory may apply more to yourself.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:11 am
When you talk about needing judges to make unconstitutional rulings to stop imaginary evils you think social conservatives will commit…
Not only does it make you look foolishly extremist, it’s an argument that says you think democracy really doesn’t work with religious people.
In short you must know you’re being offensive with no chance of convincing anyone of your beliefs. That’s why I assume you’re a phony who’s only trying to make libertarians look evil.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:13 am
#9 agreed
#11 that is slander as per integration
A super majority of we the people passed the 14th amendment, thanks to christians, ie so-cons.
#12 Sodomy and contraception are issues for the states that the us constitution does not address. So, yes, when you can must simple majorities in states or get fed const amendments you are willing to let 5 judges IMPOSE you secular religion.
thanks for the admission
May 9th, 2008 at 11:14 am
#15 LOL - good one
May 9th, 2008 at 11:18 am
But it was social conservatives who imposed all those evils. You guys were fighting to outlaw sodomy only 10-20 years ago, and some of you still!
I can understand why you guys would be so embarrassed and sheepish about all your previous battles that you’re denying it was part of the same philosophy or movement. BUT IT WAS.
Gamecock, I believe the Constitution DOES protect individual liberty, including sexual liberty, and that textualism is losing the forest for the trees. That was the whole point of the 9th/10th Amendments, but SoCons blank them out as if they do not exist.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:19 am
And, guys, how do I come across as an evil fascist, for insisting in individual liberty?
Aren’t you incredibly embarrassed by such lack of thought?
May 9th, 2008 at 11:19 am
This is how religious fundamentalism destroys minds: You can write perfectly reasonably about any number of topics, then certain topics come up, and your brain simply shuts down.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:24 am
I’m a pro-lifer.
My goal is to save human lives. That’s not got anything to do with past evils of past generations who you identify as social conservatives.
Someone can be wrong yesterday on one issue and be right on a different issue today. So your genetic logical fallacy just shows that you’re letting your emotions make you irrational.
Or you’re a phony trying to make libertarians look not only evil but stupid.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:25 am
I’ve said my peace, Metro. I’m not going to wallow in the slop with you.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:26 am
I addressed that yesterday. I said abortion was an issue about which you have ground to stand on, because it is conceptually different from the other SoCon issues.
But, Doug, you are well-read enough to know what cultural conservatism means, and that all those battles I named yesterday were fought under that banner, under that name, under that philosophy, under the same justifications, under the name of religion and Christianity and the Bible.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:27 am
#24: Translation: I’m totally embarrassed that the history of social conservatism has been one of evil and oppression, don’t want to admit it, don’t want to think about it, just want to shut down my mind on these issues and disappear.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:42 am
I generally agree with Metro that, without any particularly well-defined political philosophy, Christianity naturally lends itself to a sort of light socialism. Ergo, Huckabee and his minions. Lots of the most prominent Christian thinkers were what you can only fairly term, economic liberals. G.K. Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc, etc. And as abortion and gay marriage and the like fade from the political landscape, we’re seeing increasingly liberal evangelicals who are concerned primarily about social justice. This is part of the reason I’m adamantly opposed to the GOP abandoning social issues; it’s been relatively easy, historically, to lose a group of voters. It’s much more difficult, and usually requires some sort of seismic event or leader, to permanently add a group of voters. In other words, I think it’s quite likely that if we abandoned social issues, we’d simply lose the evangelicals, and have nothing to replace them with until some sort of transcendent leader arose, to bring us back into the majority. And you’ve already given up the game when you’re banking on transcendent leaders to save you from electoral ruin.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Capital L liberty is the right of We the People to self government. The states formed a federal government with limited powers and listed a Bill of Rights that the federal government could not transgress, then later insisted that the states provide equal protection of the laws.
None of that related to sexual liberty, which remained within the police powers of the states.
The founders believed that happiness pursuits would be maxinmized with likeminded people living together in communities, thus different locales could have laws that affirmed their values.
There is no blank check in the 9th or 10th amendments for federal judges to make up rights. That is for we the people.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:48 am
gamecock, no. I’ll use slavery as an example. Even though the Constitution permitted it, slavery was incompatible with the very ideas this nation was founded upon, but it had to co-exist with the Constitution purely for political reasons. Eventually the contradiction was resolved. The same is true of sexual and every other type of liberty that we’ve been slower to realize has to be reconciled with the Consitution.
The bottom line is that individuals have inalienable rights, and that majorities cannot take those away. Even though many modern conservatives don’t get this. Why have a Constitution at all, if you’re fine with majority rule?
May 9th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Matthew, what you’re forgetting is that there are millions of independents and Democrats who would be sympathetic to Republican ideas on the economy and national security, but won’t even let themselves HEAR those ideas right now because of what they perceive as the bigotry of the SoCon agenda.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:50 am
By the way, the 2 most recent polls out of WV have Hillary up 43 and 40 pts respectively.
In the ARG poll, 50% of democrats say they would never vote for Obama.
I guess McCain doesn’t have to worry too much about that state.
I really think Hillary could win WV by 50.
KY is twice as black as WV so she’ll probably have a lower margin there, but she should win both by at least 30.
That popular vote lead of Obama’s is going ot start looking awfully small.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:52 am
jim, when Hillary had a 25% shot at the nomination you scoffed at those who thought she had any chance and said Obama had it “locked up.”
Now that she has a < 10% shot, you speak of how weak Obama’s claim to the nomination is.
Maybe you’re just a contrarian.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Matthew, I don’t think that’s right.
Christianity has no commentary for what governments are to do except to maintain justice and punish the wicked.
A personal duty to care for those in need doesn’t necessarily lead to support for the welfare state.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Doug, so somehow even though the Bible tells us we are our brother’s keeper, and omits any discussion of the right of the individual to exist as an end himself, you don’t think it demands socialism or at least a substantial welfare state?
Yet you see a need for individual economic liberty, which you got from somewhere else? But not a need for individual personal liberty?
And you don’t see that the Constitution demands both types of individual liberty?
I can’t see why a devout Christian would fight the Bible on “brother’s keeper” in favor of individual rights, and at the same time NOT see that the Constitution screams for individual rights.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Metro -
I find myself agreeing with you more and more through this thread.
During my four years in a Southern Baptist seminary I was commonly the lone voice in my political science classes. I have always thought that too many SoCons (the religious ones, at least) depended much too much on the government to serve the roles that should be filled by the the Church. If the Church would fulfill its biblical duties in caring for the poor, widows, and children the government would not be needed. Instead, church-goers sit in the pews and listen to nice sermons then leave and wait for Uncle Sam to take care of the poor, widows, and children.
I think the SoCon agenda would be more widely acceptable or at least palatable to many Americans if they didn’t all seem so hypocritical. If we are going to “shout from the rooftops” then we better make sure our foundations are secure.
Last time I checked, being a beacon in a dark world was accomplished through love and compassion, not comdemnation and judgement.
Since I’m at work and have to continually hide this page I’m going to assume that much of what I have written makes no sense to anyone.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Metro,
I am a bit of a contrarian.
But, Obama will win the nomination. That doesn’t mean he has a strong claim to it. Both Obama and Hillary have equal claims to it. Obama will get it because he has slightly more delegates, but for all intents and purposes, the race was pretty much a draw.
Obama’s strength in the caucus states and his 90% support among the black vote will end up being the difference.
Also, the pure fate of the calendar. He was lucky that after Super Tuesday in Feb there were all caucus states and black states like LA, MD, DC and VA. That allowed him to build his insurmountable lead.
Imagine if the states that voted then were WV, OH, PA, TX and KY? Hillary would have won easily.
I was just pointing out that it’s amazing that the democratic nominee will struggle to top 30% in succesive primary states even after he’s been crowned the victor by the media and the DC establishment. That 45% of dems in WV who say they’ll never vote for him has to be frightening to the DNC. It tracks with a SUSA poll showing McCain winning dems in KY vs Obama. Not getting 20% of them, winning them over him 46-45.
Regardless, the media will have to cover WV next week and a 40 pt Hillary win will not go unnoticed.
But it’s too little, too late.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
The point of this post is that this year we may lose so many Evangelicals that Obama wins.
If we lose 10-15% more of the Evangelical vote we’re probably not going to be able to make that up among the anti-war voters in the middle and in Democratic Party. I don’t see us bringing in another 5 or 6 million voters who didn’t vote for Bush.
It’s something to consider when McCain uses old issues to appeal to the Evangelicals of today.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Back to the original post, why don’t Evangelicals spend more time cleaning up their own house?
SoCons, why is it that when we see another headline of kids killing their parents, or schoolmates, or plotting to do so, it’s almost always kid from Red America? From religious, socially conservative households?
For all your talk of the family, and the evils of liberals as it pertains to raising kids, why is it that liberal’s kids are generally good kids, law-abiding kids? Why is it that the (non-minority) prison population is comprised mostly of the kids raised by Red state America?
May 9th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Metro, what does that have to do with the election?
May 9th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Why do I always seem to join in on conversations too late? I was just reading through Billy Valentine’s response to Clarence Clause and was very disappointed I missed out on that wonderfully eventful discussion. Not to mention, not much has happened here since I posted my comments.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Metro - I think you are painting with a rather large brush. Not, saying that I am disagreeing with you (per se) but just because a school shooter comes from a “Red” state does not necessarilly mean that that home is a “religious” home.
I think there is a difference between the religious right and social conservatives that needs to be better defined as we enter into these debates.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Metro, are you voting for John McCain?
May 9th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
RayinNH, but they usually ARE religious homes. It’s usually part of the story. Like the recent one from Emory, TX.
Doug, yes.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Welcome Ray,
I suspect that Metro’s post #30 is true. The vast majority of the people I associate with understand the benefits of capitalism and defense completely, and yet tune out the party that is perceived as the party of bigotry and theocracy.
There IS a right-center majority in this country, and earning it does not require bending to the demands of the theocrats who would legislate morality nor does it require bending to every demand of fi-cons like Metro or to an extent myself.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Metro, I thought you said if Giuliani wasn’t nominated you were leaving the party.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
eric, but I disgree. I don’t think many of them do understand the benefits of free-market capitalism, because they are so turned off by what they perceive as unacceptable bigotry that they assume everything else Republicans have to say is equally stupid/uneducated/uninformed or unworthy of listening to. So they would be sympathetic to our economic ideas, if the impediment to them LISTENING to and learning about them were removed.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Doug, I’m letting myself believe it’s because of a failed primary strategy (and bad draw of early states), rather than an outright rejection by the party. There were enough polls of conservatives and SoCons during the primary season showing that Giuliani was acceptable to 80-90% of them.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Metro -
I don’t discount what you’re saying. I will agree that many of these stories do come out of “religious” homes. But, we could then argue just how “religious” were they, really. I don’t want to argue that point, but I’m saying that one could.
Eric-
I don’t disagree with Metro’s comment in #30. Metro and I have gone back and forth on many issues for over a year now. I am quite familiar with Metro’s beliefs on pretty much everything political. I am absolutely opposed to a Theocracy and to those that support one.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
RayinNH, but what about the simple geography/demographics of who are committing these crimes? (Setting aside inner-city minorities– another highly religious group.)
Doug, the relevance is this: How can you guys go about trumpeting family values, and how liberals are evil and corrupt in this regard, when in fact secularism apparently seems to teach VALUES in a far superior way to religion? Just looking at crime stats and prison populations.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Metro, that’s in dispute.
The least criminal group in America is the Amish. So much for religious fundamentalists being violent and dangerous.
I do agree that religion can make people evil just as secular philosophies can. A religion that makes you feel superior to other people is dangerous.
Family values are the only stable basis for civilization. The entire difference between black and white poverty is that whites tend to be married at a higher rate and have fewer out-of-wedlock children.
Married black families and married white families are economically identical. They also have similar rates of criminal activity.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
But, Metro - as we have seen from Rev Wright, the inner city religion tends to be one of Black Liberation theology, so now we are at a point of having to look at the sect or denomination and break it down from there.
What religous denominations tend to raise the most well-adjusted, “peace” loving, “sane” children? What denominations raise mass-murderers?
I, also, refuse to let you off the hook in your statements that secularists raise well-adjusted, law-abiding citizens. There are contrary examples in every situation.
Again, all I’m asking is that we not brush all “religious” folks with the same brush. Also, should we not take into accout the economic welfare of these criminals? Might that be a better indicator than religious upbringing?
I do consider myself and wife to be religious so some of your extremely wide brush strokes rub me the wrong way. But, I will still grant you that much of what you say is founded in at least some bit of truth.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
RayinNH, sorry, I should do a better job differentiating.
Most of my comments on religion are targeted toward religious fundamentalists and toward many aspects of social conservatism.
I have respect for, and little problem with, theists who think. That includes most theists in the U.S., who believe the Bible is metaphorical, and accept geology rather than believing the world is 6,000 years old, for example.
Also, there are many religious SoCons who are regular participants here, whom I respect, and who I think THINK about everything, including topics touching on religion. That would include yourself, Matthew Miller, Kavon, Gary M Miller, and way too many to name right now. And I’ve gotta run!
May 9th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
“SoCons, why is it that when we see another headline of kids killing their parents, or schoolmates, or plotting to do so, it’s almost always kid from Red America? ”
Because liberals don’t have as many kids.
——-
Anyway,
Christian leaders are right to criticize anything that reduces their influence or power.
Do you people really think that religious leaders would be more likely to accomplish their goals if they stopped participating in the political system (where policy is actually made), and just stuck to preaching twice every Sunday?
May 9th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Act,
The should do a whole lot more than just preach twice on Sunday. They have 6 (or 4 so they get 2 days off per week) other days of the week that they can spend working in homeless shelters, filling food pantries, working at adoption/abortion counseling centers, and many other worthy causes that would draw others to their church. I seem to recall something in the Bible that says others will know you are Mine by your actions.
I’m reminded of a professor I had while attending Seminary. He is also an OB/GYN and he runs a free clinic in the downtown section of the very urban city the school is in. At this clinic he has the best Sonogram machines available (the ones that offer 3D images) so that mothers who are considering abortion can see their children in real-live 3D.
Now, if they choose to abort their child he can not prevent them, but he doesn’t perform abortions but he does do all he can to save that precious life before that decision is made.
To me - that is what Christianity is supposed to look like. One man, making a difference in individuals’ lives. He doesn’t stand outside abortion clinics and harrass women and doctors and he certainly isn’t spending his free time torching clinics but I have NO problem saying that he makes a bigger difference in the struggle against abortion than all of those protesters combined.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
I have no problem with good works - and certainly no problem with trying to make a difference on your own, but Christians are not going to stop the vast majority of abortions, or prevent gay marraige, or so on, without pushing policy that does those things.
My problem is with people who try to drive values issues/moral issues/social issues off of the political scene - as if they are completely irrelevent to the strength of our country in the future. The fact is, without a strong moral fabric, and without a large and healthy future general, this country isn’t going anyplace in the future.
May 9th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
But everything you talk about should be promoted and pushed in the home and the church. If parents who are against gay marriage raise their children in such a way to avoid homosexual activities then it doesn’t matter if gay marriage is legal since these “religious” parents will have “raised” their children to desire heterosexual relationships. [yes - i do believe homosexual activity is a choice but this is not the proper board to be debating that issue].
Legalized abortion shouldn’t matter if parents raise their sons and daughters to cherish human life and to avoid sexual relations before marriage.
If the Church and parents brought up their children in such a way that these values were instilled in them (not Beaten into them or scared into them) then these moral issues will address themselves. I still believe that too many well-meaning religionists put too much faith into the government to raise their children for them.
May 9th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
There is a HUGE difference between Christians, or anyone for that matter, doing all the Biblically (or other books) taught ‘good works’ voluntarily, and being forced to pay, and forcing others to pay taxes to have the Government do it. God never asked any of us to try and force anyone to do their share of helping others. Each of us have to ponder these things for ourselves and determine in what manner we will provide for those less fortunate, but from what I can tell, its not supposed to be by forced coersion of others when their hearts may not be in it. That’s communism/socialism, and that is not Biblical.
There is a row of Government as spelled out in our Preamble to the Constitution ‘promote the general welfare’, but by promoting, that does not mean forcing taxes on people not willing to pay it through the appropriate channels. Those of us that do give very liberally to our churches and charities end up getting a double wammy as we move closer and closer to Socialism because we end up paying huge taxes on top of our tithes and offereings. That’s not what God had in mind in MHO. In my humble opinion, we have already gone way, way, way too far toward Socialism.
May 9th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
#57 - well stated.
May 9th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I think people may be mistaken about the point of this manifesto. I don’t know how familiar everyone is one of the manifesto’s authors, Os Guinness. I am pretty familiar with him. I have read several of his books, and he is someone I admire very much. Given my acquaintance with some of his concerns, it is my opinion that he is acting more out of concern for the church than for any political party. As Thomas Jefferson’s original statement concerning “a wall of separation” between church and state was meant as an assurance to a church that the government would not interfere, so I think this manifesto is more a concern that the future of the church is endangered if it is aligned too closely with any political ideology. Some of these fears grow out of concerns about the decline of European Christianity being related to the amalgamation of church and state and the subsequent disillusionment with the church. This I would surmise is the greatest concern of the signatories. It isn’t an essentially political document. It concerns primarily the definition and role of evangelicalism. I think there is also in Guinness’s writing a concern about the stridency of the dialogue on the political scene and the victim mentality of many evangelicals. But again, this isn’t an essentially political document.
Let me also say that any assertion that this is a rejection or discarding of certain moral principles is also inaccurate. The church Guinness is a member of, for example, the church I attend when I’m in DC (a fabulous church - Falls Church, VA) is one of those that recently separated from the Episcopal communion because of some of these biblical principles. Now, that the authors would assert that the primary way to uphold these principles is through means other than politics is arguable. But, this isn’t written by a group of people who have rejected moral standards that evangelicals typically uphold.
I don’t know that I am restating the obvious, but I just wanted to clear up the idea that the authors of this document are trying to re-align the republican party or alter the political landscape. Rather, I think their orientation is essentially apolitical.
This link I found helpful:
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/05/interview-with-os-guinness-about.html
May 9th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Socialism and Capitalism devoid of context are adiaphorous. The Bible doesn’t mention modern political systems.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
I hope noone miscontrued what I wrote above to mean that I don’t think those of us who are Christian, or other faiths for that matter, should not utilize Government in order to accomplish what we believe to be right. For example, if we believe abortion is wrong, we have a perfectly legitimate right as citizens to use our votes to influence an outcome. Its the same right that everyone has. We just can’t impact, other than by long suffering and gentle persuasion over time, what others may think about a given value or position we may hold.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
#29 see the 13th amendment - change within the rules.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
#29 The Constitution provides a way to change. Use your free speech to persuade others to pass an amendment. Don’t empower 5 lawyers replace King George or We the People.
We the People passed the 13th amendment.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
The Constitution replaced one man rule with a republic. The Constitution and the amendments were all ratified, as required, by, not just majorities, but super majorities. These rights are not self effectuating. The issue is how and who defines them. In our Constitution, most are defined at the state level.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
#57 right on
May 9th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
I think the problem with “religious conservatism” is that religion and politics mix like oil and water.
Social conservatism has become code for government according to the Bible or Torah or Koran, etc. And that’s fundamentally a bad idea, because there has always been a generational shift in what people of all of those faiths think that God thinks, and it only takes a generation for a Religious Right to become a Religious Left.
Cultural conservatism, on the other hand, is a very useful component of the Republican Party. In fact, in many ways, I am a cultural conservative, in the sense that I believe in the conservation of American culture, including its vibrant pop culture, its ethos of individual freedom and liberty, its roots in Western thought, its Anglosphere traditions, and its superiority over many other cultures of the world that don’t have these things. I think American culture is BETTER than the Latin American cultures that produce junta after junta or the Middle Eastern cultures which stone rape victims. And I would support efforts to ensure that our culture is not diluted or destroyed by those other cultures, which is happening in “Eurabia” as we speak.
The difference between cultural conservatism and religious conservatism is that cultural conservatives need not be religious at all. They just need to have made a value judgment regarding American culture. Religious conservatives, on the other hand, are basically trying to translate what they think God thinks into public policy. I think the GOP would do better to re-discover the beauty of cultural conservatism, which would appeal to a wider audience than religious conservatism and which would still attract large numbers of religious people who are conservatives.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
#66 One can try and attach labels to try and rationalize, but the bottom line is that the real danger in this country are leftists that are anti-religion, anti-moral absolutes. Religious people were forced into politics due to judicial rulings retricting their free speech rights and usurping the power of we the people to self government in their schools, cities and states.
So the religious right are really, anti-anti-relionists.