Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 139
  1. #21  
    I have created a new thread containing most of the gayness posts from this thread. If you want to discuss gayness AND the other matters outlined in the OP here, fine.

    If you want to discuss gayness as it pertains to evolution, fashion, civil rights, or whatever - take it to The Obligatory Gayness Thread. ;)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Pleasant Valley
    Posts
    639
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap View Post
    We're talking about the OP's questions concerning the religious right as they relate to specific issues in the OP. While homosexuality and gay marriage are a small part of much larger questions, let's not get sidetracked into an entertaining but irrelevant discussion of gayness. ;)
    And besides, drugs and prostitution, are so much more interesting than gay marriage! :D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by Water Closet View Post
    And besides, drugs and prostitution, are so much more interesting than gay marriage! :D
    Well, since I'm not a lesbian, I'd have to agree with that. :D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Senior Member Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Water Closet View Post
    The genesis of this thread is a reply I made in the thread regarding Specter changing parties...



    This, predictably, engendered a great deal of discussion that drifted away from the subject of the OP. Therefore, being a responsible member of this community, I decided to break the topic out into a separate thread.

    The original post was constrained by looking at those issues/positions of the Religious Right (RR) as regard specifically to the bedroom. If I were to drop that constraint and look at a broader range of issues, I would add the following:

    6. Opposes the legalization of drugs

    For the most part, probably yes - but they are not alone in this and the reasons are not really religious at all.


    7. Opposes abortion, including many forms of birth control that it regards as equivalent to abortion

    Yes, some do so on religious grounds.

    Others, such as I, think it is denying a human being the most basic right and it is more an issue of individual liberty than a religious reason.


    8. Supports the teaching of creationism (in some form) in science classes as an "alternative" to evolution

    Some do some don't. This is not a solid across the board thing with the RR

    What is important to note about all of these issues is that the RR supports or opposes based primarily upon moral grounds derived directly from their religion.


    All of this leads me to a series of questions as follows:

    1. Does the Religious Right even exist as a cohesive political and social force in this country?

    They are certainly a force - but I think the power they have is vastly overstated by some in order to alienate people from the Republican party.

    2. Are the above eight points a fair and accurate portrayal of the RR and their position on issues?

    See the individual responses above - but I do not see eight points

    3. Has the RR taken the Republican Party to the right over the last 28 years? If so, has this broadened support for the Republicans or shrank it?

    They certainly have tried - but have failed miserably. They themselves gain as many people to the Republican party as they alienate - probably are a net gain, but that is simply my opinion and I cannot back it up.

    4. Would the RR like to see a government that enforced its religious/moral beliefs, even at a cost to personal freedoms? Note that I'm not speaking of turning the government into a theocracy, but rather of returning to a (mythical) time in the past whereat the policies of the government were more in tune with the teachings of the scripture.
    If you could be specific, I might be better able to answer this. Without that, I would say no not at all.


    Good post.
    Last edited by Constitutionally Speaking; 04-29-2009 at 04:44 PM.
    I long for the days when our President actually liked our country.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Jfor View Post
    Since when did being gay become equal to the color of one's skin? Sexual choice is not the same as being born with different colored skin. Homosexuality is a choice that they decide to persue for their own pleasure. Homosexuality is deviant behavior. If somebody wants to be gay. They can be gay but quit trying to make ME feel bad because of a choice THEY make.
    Current medical and social science does not see it that way. Sexual orientation is a hard-wired personality trait related to brain development in the uterus--which is a function of genetics and pre-natal nutrition.

    Sorry, Ginger, I wasn't sure how to copy/paste it to the new thread.

    Let me just add--to make relevant to the OP--that IMO, the Republican party could attempt to hold its RR base by making this an issue of tolerance--we must ensure the rights of those born different than us.

    Although, the (false, IMO) notion of choice about sexual orientation seems to be pretty well engrained into the RR core beliefs.

    Maybe the RR needs their own party?

    Here's a relevant question for this thread:

    To what extent has the RR and GOP mutually beneficial relationship become less beneficial to one or the other? Could the GOP now survive without the RR?

    Can RRs reach a point where they focus on fiscal and public policy issues in Government and accept moral choices as a private matter?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Senior Member Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by marinejcksn View Post
    I don't agree with a lot of their points and a lot of other strong Conservatives and Libertarians don't either. I think we need to remember what Barry Goldwater said about the Religious Right and Homosexuality:

    "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."

    "The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay. You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it."


    Amen.

    I thinkg most Christians would agree with you there. Even the evangelicals. What we resent is the fact that they are teaching our children things that are contrary to what we wish our children to be taught.

    They demonize anyone who dares disagree with them - like they did with Miss California - and like they did with anyone who dared vote for or contribute to Prop 8 in California.
    I long for the days when our President actually liked our country.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,421
    From a federal legislative standpoint, has there been a serious effort to force the teaching of evolution in science class in schools? If so, I've missed it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    1. Not to the extent that its critics assert. The Religious Right became politically active as part of an overall backlash in reaction to the excesses of the left during the 60s and 70s. Evangelicals began to see themselves under attack by an increasingly hostile and powerful secular left and organized against that. Their high water mark was the election of Ronald Reagan, but they were only part of the Reagan coalition (albeit a critical part), along with fiscal conservatives, non-religious social conservatives, law and order conservatives, cultural conservatives (not necessarily religious, but generally respectful of religion and suspicious of radical changes to the culture as promoted by the left), anti-communists and even country club Republicans (who smelled a chance to get back into power and held their noses while they made common cause with the declasse arrivistes) and libertarians.

    2. Yes and no. Again, many of these positions are not simply religiously decided positions but resonate across conservative groups.
    1. Gay Marriage is mostly opposed by the Religious Right, but others across the political spectrum are disturbed by the radical redefinition of an ancient and effective institution into something that will eventually become unrecognizable. Fiscal conservatives recognize that the traditional family is a bulwark against the state, as do anti-communists. It's hard to find a conservative who doesn't find this trend alarming.
    2. Sodomy laws are pretty much passe, but for the most part, it's a religious objection.
    3. Prostitution is put forward as a victimless crime, but to those conservatives who see it as exploitation and slavery, it cuts across the conservative coalition. Also, why would you want laws on the books that aren't enforced?
    4. Personally, I have no problem with PDA if it's two women. I don't particularly want to see two men, but that's my own issue. I don't know of anyone who has sought to ban it, though.
    5. My previous comments on sex ed are that opposition to the various leftist coalitions that seek to promote stems not from a dislike of either sex or education, but distrust of the agenda of the promoters. Since you didn't address this comment the first time because you wanted to start a new thread, I'm repeating it here, but this cuts across conservative positions as well.
      Ah, now there, you have 'em. Why a religious fundamentalist wouldn't want his or her kindergartner to learn the finer points of putting a condom on a banana and to learn the details of oral sex as a means to prevent pregnancies is obviously a serious question. After all, the public schools do so well at teaching the most important basic skills, such as reading, writing, math and history, that we'd be fools not to entrust our children's moral and sexual development to them. Of course, the three Rs have changed a bit over the years, but Recycling, Relativism and Reproductive rights are every bit as important as those outmoded concepts. Why, I remember when Jocelyn Elders proposed teaching masturbation in public schools. What an uproar! Of course, if she knew anything about public schooling, she'd have known that the phys-ed teacher is usually the one responsible for the sex ed classes, but I'd happily entrust my daughters' knowledge of the art of self love to someone with no neck, a stopwatch and a whistle (and I'm sure that the male gym teachers will do equally well with the boys in the class). Nope, no argument there. Who could possibly be against that?
    6. Drug legalization is a tough call. You'd think that because Prohibition was partly a religious movement, that religious conservatives would oppose drug legalization, but Prohibition was also a big Progressive cause. William F. Buckley, who was certainly a religious conservative, favored drug legalization. I'm going to say that this isn't a religious issue.
    7. The Religious Right is probably most concerned with the life issue, which covers abortion, euthanasia, embrionic stem cell research and any other areas in which medical technology challenges previously accepted norms, but even secular conservatives can be concerned about these issues. It ultimately comes down to whether or not you believe that human life begins at conception or at birth and whether or not you see human life as fundamentally unique, as opposed to animals. However, it must be noted that the left's demagoguery of these issues is as shameless as anything that they accuse the right of. When the Democratic VP nominee promised that Christopher Reeve would walk if embrionic stem cell research was permitted, he was just as over the top as any preacher.
    8. Creationism and Intelligent Design are definitely issues of the Religious Right.
    3. It's not so much that they've taken the Republican Party to the right, as they've kept it there on some issues, notably abortion and stem cell research, but single issue voters who vote on abortion are more likely to be pro-life than pro-choice, and that's the same for embrionic stem cell research. BTW, it's funny that this started in a thread on Arlen Spector, because the RINOs that we invariably come to loathe for their constant betrayals are the country club Republicans who never miss an opportunity to demand control of a party that they ran into the ground in the 50s and 60s. They are constantly telling us that we need to purge the party of the Sarah Palins, Newt Gingrichs and other declasse riffraff that offends their delicate sensibilities, but keep in mind that they also wanted to jettison Ronald Reagan in 1980 (they supported Bob Dole and George H.W. Bush) and had their way in 1976, when they gave us the Ford/Rockefeller ticket, but given a choice between a liberal Republican and a liberal Democrat, the liberals will almost always pick the liberal Democrat. Given a choice between keeping Sarah Palin and Arlen Spector, I'll take Palin in a heartbeat.

    4. I think that most religious conservatives would be happy if they were just left alone. As I said before, their politicization cannot be understood except in the context of the radical politics of the 60s and 70s which put them on the defensive. Here's an obvious example: The Los Angeles seal used to have a cross on it, not as an expression of faith in Christianity, but as a reference to the city's founding as a Catholic mission. The ACLU threatened a lawsuit to have it removed, and the city council caved in. Now, as a very secular Jew who was living in LA at the time, I didn't find the crest offensive, but I also knew the history of the city, but militant atheists couldn't live with a Christian symbol on a state seal and, like the good little fascist bullies that they are, they had to make sure that no one else got to live with it either. If I were a Christian, I'd have been offended by the ACLU. In fact, I was offended by them and I'm not a Christian.

    On edit: You missed a couple of major issues that may appear to be religiously based, but also cut across the spectrum of conservatism. First, gays in the military, second, support for Israel, which many evangelicals consider a biblical prophesy issue.
    Last edited by Odysseus; 04-29-2009 at 06:36 PM.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Constitutionally Speaking View Post
    I thinkg most Christians would agree with you there. Even the evangelicals. What we resent is the fact that they are teaching our children things that are contrary to what we wish our children to be taught.

    They demonize anyone who dares disagree with them - like they did with Miss California - and like they did with anyone who dared vote for or contribute to Prop 8 in California.
    Like what for example?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Like what for example?
    Like how to put a condom on a banana. Especially in elementary school. Or a revisionist history of the US that treats our founders as a bunch of cynical and corrupt oppressors of people of color. Or a highly politicized view of global warming that paints dissenters as "deniers." You know, indoctrination rather than knowledge.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •