Throughout the site I've seen non-Republicans warn about the hijjacking of the Republican Party by the religious right...While I am a Catholic, I'm for the most part a social libertarian, one would think that non religious rightists would be extremely sensitive to a perceived religious right takeover. That said, Is the Republican Party being taken over by the Religious Right?

CP

edited for spelling in the debate question

Is the Republican Part being taken over by the Religious Right?
Definitely. In 2000 George W. Bush campaigned at Bob Jones University, a far right Bible college. He did this despite the fact that their racist policies regarding interracial dating and the fact that the school has a campus building named after a former Grand Dragon of the KKK were bound to alienate and offend anyone outside of the religious right. Currently he supports writing discrimination into the constitution of the United States, when the only argument on the side of discrimination is religious. He consults with religious leaders when making decisions about national health, as was seen in the stem-cell "debate".
Time and again, when the Republican party has to choose between moderates and the lunatics of the religious right they consistently make the same decision. Some moderates try to convince themselves that this is "just politics" that it doesn't mean anything, but you can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding. My question for the moderates is this: when you hear comentators (right wing comentators at that) say the republican party is throwing red meat to the religious right, don't you ever ask why you don't get any scraps?

I must have been trying to post at the same time as Grendel72.


It would be important to know who and what is exactly the "religious right".

As a born again christian, I don't feel that I am all knowing and always right. I not anti-abortion, but nor am I pro choice. Have very mixed feelings on this subject. I do believe that those who bomb abortion clinics, and kill doctors who perform abortions are guilty of that which they are accusing others. MURDER.

As far as other religions, I'm not knowledgable about most other religions. I do know that God goes by many names, among them Allah, Jehovah, Alpha, Omega. Who am I to tell someone that the their religion is all wrong, if they choose to use a different name.

I also think into todays society, Christians are the focus of many who choose to ciritize. Strange that those who are doing the most complaining aren't saying much about those who USED their religion to committ acts of terrorism against their fellow citizens.

Is the "religious right" hijacking the republican party? Guess in honesty comes down to ones own perspective. Our perspective is always the truth in our own reality. Is it truth in general? That too is debatable. So maybe there isn't a answer.



If there are misspellings I apologize, spell check isn't working for me today.


Spell check or not, I used the wrong there. Corrected now.

It's good to see you back, Pat. Good question, too.

First, and least importantly, we can go back at least as far as Eisenhower and note that the GOP was the religion, rather Christian, friendly party. It's not just a G.W. thing. Remember, it was under Eisenhower that the 'under god' part was put into the Pledge of Allegiance. It seems fun for some to bash Bush as the Holy Crusader President, but I think that view tends to ignore a longer pattern of Christian friendly republican presidents.

Personally, though, I don't think the GOP is under the spell of the 'religious right' any more than I do the left being under the spell of the environmental lobby or the unions. Both parties dance to the green enchantress we call money and the rush of ego that comes with power. Supporters' interests always come second, even if your supporter is also your reverend.

In debates, I think lazy debaters tend to throw out the religious right card when they aren't willing to find actual evidence to support their reasons behind disliking the GOP. As Lethalletha points out, exactly who is the religious right? Because it's a stereotype of a group, a few generalizations exist, but there is no hard definition on the identity of this group. I find the use of the term 'religious right' to be the same as when those on the right use the 'liberal media' in a debate. It's often a blanket write-off of the opposition's belief. It's a substitution for actual research, and the mark of a lazy debater.

Speaking of which, I did a little research myself about campaign donations to (and therefore influence on) the major campaigns of this election. It suprised me to find that more religious groups weren't at the top of the PAC donors list. In fact, only two obviously GOP leaning contributors made the top 10 list at Tray.com's Political Money Line. Even more interesting is that unions are one of the biggest contributors overall, Political Money Line, 2004 Election Disbursements*, not any religious groups. The numbers show the religious right has little influence.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::




*To see chart, make sure '2003-2004 cycle' is checked and then check 'total disbursements' then click "List Them!" to see the list.

these people, these people, and these people are just some of the religious right.
No, these people actually do exist and they promote an agenda of hatred that is repugnant to everything this country is supposed to stand for. To pretend they don't exist is just acting like an ostrich with it's head in the sand.

Grendel, I think you misinterpreted what I said. I'm not denying Christian groups that try to influence GOP thinking exist. I'm saying to lump them altogether as one term under 'religious right' is a generalization and sometimes a lazy way to debate. I think more effective debates involve specifics, not ad hominem attacks (not saying you did that, though).

With the specific groups you mentioned, Grendel, what evidence can you provide that their influence has been enacted on by those in the GOP? I can do a little work for you - the Christian Coalition has their Victories page. I had a little more trouble doing the same for the other two (I confess, I didn't try hard ).

You see, I'm not saying religious influence on the right doesn't exist, but I think offering specifics of that influence is a more effective way to debate. Making blanket generalizations about the opposition won't get them to listen. I mean honestly, when someone on the right dismisses an opinion because it represents the 'leftist media' don't you roll your eyes and move on? People on the right feel the same way when they hear blanket statements about the 'religious right.' Offer them specifics; they're harder to dispute.

But how many specific instances does it take to be able to say that they are taking control of the party? Republicans control the presidency and both houses right now- have we seen any fiscally conservative actions in the time they've been there? Have we seen them even propose anything that traditional conservatives favor?
Now compare that with what the religious right wants. We have seen the President vow to support the Musgrave amendment and ban stem-cell research, we see the FCC being used as a tool for censorship.
Moderate Republicans try to claim that the party really supports their views while only paying lip-service to the religious right, but if they would simply take a look they would see that it is the other way around. The Republican party has not shown any support for traditional conservative values of smaller government and states rights, instead focusing on the things that the religious right want.

I think there is a radical right wing but it does not have control of the GOP. There is more influence on Bush then the party as a whole and that, frankly, is politics. There will be no Federal Church established as a part of the Bush legacy and thinking there will be is as alarmist as Chicken Little running around telling people the sky is falling because she got hit on the head.

"They distort my pro-life positions and smear the reputations of my supporters because I don't pander to them, I don't ascribe to their failed philosophy that money is our message."

McCain assails the religious right on Pat Robertson's home turf

No one is accusing McCain of being liberal because he doesn't like certain evangelicals and no one should. The GOP is the only refuge for the issues that the relgious right and its not a question of religious conviction, its just pragmatic political activism. In short, no the religious right is not taking over the GOP anymore then the Catholic Church took over the Democratic party because JFK (a Catholic) was elected.

You mean other than Denis Hastert.

You mean like these people?
I assume you are talking about Muslim fundamentalists... Do you think that maybe seeing how horrible and inhumane theocracies like the Taliban are is a major reason people don't want the United States to become one?

[QUOTE]
Is it wrong for Bush to address Bob Jones students, but OK for Rev. Sharpton and Rev. Jackson to involve themselves in politics? And let's not forget Sen. Byrd's fling with the KKK.
But, seriously, the larger issue is, I think, whether one's personal religious beliefs should influence one's politics. To deny religious people a voice in their government is not something that you would countenance, correct?
dWe have seen in recent decades, a "right" to kill babies discovered in the emanations and penumbras of the constitution where it has been hidden for more than a century. The court discovered another, hitherto unsuspected "free speech" right to produce pornography. Naked dancing was found to be "speech" as was the act of desecrating the American flag. No matter which side of these questions you stand, you have to admit that those radical changes in American society were not the result of new law, but were imposed on us by judicial action.
Is it any surprise that religious people who are offended by these things would seek political remedies? To dismiss them as "right wing radicals" is dishonest. You may object to their politics, but you should not object to their being able to try to influence legislation - just as you are able to do.
I would be interested to know what your views are concerning the "separation" of church and state.

Perdro

I really have no desire to argue with anyone. But....I'm sorry I just don't see the "religious right" committing mass murder??? What 3000 or more victims are there in the last 10-15 years? I'm using this time frame as this seems to be a good starting point for those complaining.





Well, guess we look at the world differently to say the least. I don't see the concern, but that is what makes this country so great. You are allowed the freedom to voice that concern, and I'm allowed the freedom not to be alarmed.
Could we agree that this is a great country??

I would point you in the direction of my sig quote from a true conservative: "Religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives."- Barry Goldwater

Mingling religion and politics cheapens both of them. When I ask myself "what would Jesus do?" the answer is invariably the diametric opposite of what the religious right in this country do. The J-man tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves, yet the religious right want to treat their gay neighbors as second class citizens.

There is a huge difference between a person voting their conscience and allowing their faith to be a guide, and consulting with religious leaders when deciding medical laws. Live by your own religion, but leave me out of it. Religion is between a person and their God, and is not something that can be forced.
All this talk of changes being forced on religious people is complete malarkey anyway: The fact that a woman who was raped has the choice not to carry her attacker's child does not force conservative Christians to have an abortion, they are the ones trying to force their ways on others. If I was able to marry the man I love it would not force Christians to turn gay , once again, they are the ones trying to force their views on others.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::

If they had the power the Taliban has they would. I've had friends who were severely beaten for being gay, and the religious right supports those attacks. The anti-abortion movement in this country has produced murderers, and has protected those murderers from the police.
The vicious cycle of ignorance and religious hatred that leads the Taliban to be so violent is exactly what the religious right in this country want. They don't want people to be exposed to any facts that contradict their worldview- just see the creationist attacks on public education, for example.

Is the Republican Party being taken over by the Religious Right?
In the years before my discovery of Libertarianism, I was a republican. During those dark days, I never had the feeling, and still don't, that the party is being 'taken over' by the religious right.
I don't say that lightly, or because I'm a conservative. I would no rather live under a theocracy than I would under Stalin's rule. People can point out various statements and acts made by 'religious right' groups, but I don't believe that they represent the party as a whole, anymore than the World Workers Party and ELF represent the democratic party. And any comparison to the Taliban is laughable paranoia.
I just don't see the monster under the bed here.

I'm sorry, I just don't think that all the people you are lumping together would condone any murder. That just doesn't fit my ideal of Christinity. While I MIGHT agree that there are some fanaticals on the right, there are also the same on the left, just with different agendas. That isn't to say that either side is completely ruled by these groups and I believe it's unfair of you to say that it is. In my truth(which is only my perspective)you are being guilty of what you are accusing others. Lumping all people together. I don't see how my beliefs are being forced upon you. Are you trying to force your beliefs on me. I don't think so, just voicing your feelings, as am I. I hold no hate for you and hope you don't hold any for me. Hate only eats away at those who are hating. It's not a constructive emotion at all.

Maybe I am being paranoid (I will definitely admit that the religious right terrifies me), but the Republican party actually physically meets with these people. While I'm no fan of the Democratic party, to the best of my knowledge they don't actually have any real world dealings with the World Workers Party or ELF.
Bush actually campaigned at Bob Jones University. The link doesn't seem all that tenuous to me.

Having lived through the Christian Coalition, attended fundalmentalist Christian schools, and seen the mobilization of the christian right, remember the calls on podiums that we needed a "revolution" if Gore won etc etc- yes, the Religious right OWNS the GOP- look at the issues on the docket! There has not been one item of fiscal conservatism in the last 3 years, however, there has been plenty of religious conservative issues put forward.

Look at the mobilization of the PA churches by bush, the support of Isreal based on hopes of "fulfilling prophecy" by the likes of Delay.

The fact is that the religious right is exercising their first amendment right to express an opinion. The Democratic party has set itself against most of the issues that evangelicals and fundamentalists feel so strongly about. I never thought that Jerry Farwell was effective as an activist but Pat Robertson had delegates in every district in the United States. When he lost a certain number of crucial votes he handed them over to Bush and the religious right has had a strong influence on GOP national platforms ever since.

Bush has made some bizzare statements about religion like how he can feel the prayers being offered for him. It reminds me of Clinton saying he can feel your pain, nice sentiment but not much of substance being said. Religion has allways had a profound influence on our political system and that is exactly how it is supposed to be. The churches were quiet too long and I like the fact that their finally speaking up and being heard.

While they haven't killed 3000 or anything close to it, some groups are certainly not above murder, bombing, arson and assault. According to Religious Tolerance.org there have been 24 murders, 177 Bombings and/or arsons, and 2519 invasions, assualt and battery, etc commited by anti-aborition protestors in the last 15 years.

Is this representative of all groups? Certainly not. But at the same time I can't think of a single example of this happening by "left" groups such as PETA, etc.

So, to Grendel's point, there is some validity in the violence comparison.

I don't doubt your numbers, but are all those who are anti-abortion, and bombing clinics and killing doctors, the "christian right" or they the "fanatical christian right" . Guess what I am wanting for those so concerned is to admit that the fanaticals of any group are only a fraction of a group, not the entire group. I put those people(the fanantics )on the same level as those fanatics of Islam.

Or are you saying that all who pratice Islam are fanatics too?

Is the Republican Party being taken over by the Religious Right?

Very interesting question. I believe a majority of white Christians are Republican, but I do not believe most Republicans are Christian. To answer your question ConservativePat, I don’t believe the Republican agenda is being set by the religious right any more than I believe the Democratic Party’s agenda is being set by those on the religious left.

But what about the other end of the religious spectrum?

In “How Prayers Poll, Debunking myths about the religious right”, we see that...

…secular people (atheists, agnostics, etc.(the other end of the religious spectrum)) are extreme, too, in the sense that they are well outside the public opinion norm. They tend to be Democrats.

We also learn that 8 to 10 million white “evangelical Christians" voted for Gore. This group went for Bill Clinton 55 percent to 45 percent over Dole in 1996 and 55 percent to 45 percent for W. over Gore in 2000. That's a swing of about a million votes. And that qualifies them as a serious voting bloc in 2004.

This article debunks seven myths about the “religious right”.
Myth 1: Evangelicals all vote Republican.
Myth 2: The religious right flooded the polls for George W. Bush in 2000.
Myth 3: Bush's religion talk has appealed to his base but has alienated moderate swing voters.
Myth 4: In this era, no candidate would lose votes just based on his or her religion.
Myth 5: Most religious extremists are in the GOP.
Myth 6: Hispanics are conservative.
Myth 7: The key to the Catholic vote is abortion.

And what of the black religious vote? I don’t think anyone would dispute the fact that the black religious vote goes to the Democratic Party.

Is the Democratic Party being taken over by the Religious Left?

There were over 16,000 murders committed in 2002. There have been over 200,000 murders in the US in the last 15 years. Of those, 24 are attributed to a group that numbers into the millions... The per capita murder rate is between 5 and 6 per 100,000. The numbers on assaults are even worse, with many hundreds of thousands being committed per year.

How many are in the "Religious Right"? 20 million? Comparing scattered murders by disparate groups to the action of Al Qaeda turns my stomach.

Debunking myths about the religious right.

A good read giving some perspective...the whacko religious nuts vote Democrat too...

The link seems to be broken, not sure what is wrong with it. Unless something is just screwy with my connection. Edited to add: Nevermind, it seems to work in Beladonna's post, so I can go read the article now



Looks like relatively few violent crimes in the grand scheme of things. However, we aren't talking about someone getting mugged, beaten or killed on the streets. we aren't talking about rapes, serial killers, murder in the heat of passion. We are talking about deaths and/or injuries at a protest -- people heading to work to do their job and someone kills them, beats them or sets off a bomb. If you look at it from that perspective then that 24 is a little more significant considering the most that usually happens at protest is an arrest.


Point of clarification, I was not making any comparison to Al Queda in my post.

However, I just wanted to clarify my original post and not continue down this path because it is somewhat off topic I think. I'd like to refocus on the link that Jamie supplied earlier, the Victories page for the Christian Coalition. Their page spells things out pretty clear -- they wouldn't have achieved these "victories" had the GOP not been a majority in congress and in the white house as well.

So while the question "Is the Republican Party being taken over by the Religious Right?" may be a little extreme (i.e. I don't know if the words 'taken over' are appropriate) the GOP is certainly highly influenced by this group, more than any other. One simply has to look at the legislation and executive orders during the Bush administration to realize this. It has only now become plainly clear because the Bush administration is so intent on forwarding this agenda, from 1992 to 2000 Clinton was able to successfully veto many of the bills along these lines from the Republican congress (e.g. the partial birth abortion bill).

CJ,

Amlord's link is the same as mine in the post above his. He is such a copy cat.

Nobody is talking about all Christians. We are talking about the religious right, which is a subset of Christianity- and a fanatical, hateful bunch at that.

Read some of the posts on this very board defending murder, and then try to tell me the religious right isn't extreme. This is not all Christians, this is the religious right- and it most certainly is not following the teachings of Christ.

It seems to me that another important question here is how do you actually define "the religious right"? I think that also makes a big difference in how you answer the question for debate.

Maybe it is important that we agree on that or even debate that question.

Personally I agree with the article Beladonna and Amlord cited:


When I refer to the "religious right", I'm generally referring to the fundamentalist segments as opposed to anyone who is Christian.

Therefore, one could be correct in saying that the GOP is catering to those fundamentalist agendas very heavily, especially in this administration. This is further proved by the fact that "evangelicals", as this article describes them, are often divided on these issues -- some support GOP positions while others support Democratic positions.

Before this devolves into whether or not citizens on the religious right hit more people with their cars than mainstream religious folk, agnostics, or atheists (although, come to think of it, in my area the Amish probably cause a fair number of accidents by driving black horse-and-buggies around after midnight on weekends. Big partiers, the Amish. I'm not kidding.), back to the main question.

Is the Republican Party being taken over by the Religious Right? In both the sense that the religious right does not now "control" and is unlikely to do so in the near future, NO. I think their influence has certainly waned since the initial ascendancy of the Christian Coalition. Having said that, it's pretty clear to anyone who cares to see it that they have a very large amount of influence over the party, in influencing actions from legislation to judicial appointees to executive orders, etc.

As far categorizing what counts as influence, there are certainly non-religious reasons and support for positions taken by the religious right. But issues like stem cell research and complete opposition to abortion (not even in cases of the health of the mother, etc.), the bulk of the reasoning for the "conservative", "GOP" position is religious, and non-religious reasons are often a reflection of religious thought as well, theology with "God" removed from the letter-head.

Both the Dems and the Repubs are influenced by smaller movements of politically like-minded individuals. In the Democrats, these groups are more numerous and more contentious with one another, often based around strident advocacy on a limited number of issues. I laugh when someone says this or that special interest controls the Dems, because we invariably have at least one constituency screaming at us to go the other way. We're pluralism in action.

The Republicans have a smaller number of groups, but they are larger, have more members, and less tension between them. If I had to break it down real basic groups, I'd say Business Lobby, Cultural Conservatives, and Small Government. This is a gross over-simplification, but I think it's something some need to think about: those GOP-opponents who claim the Repubs are all one of those three, and those party members who deny the influence of the groups they don't like. That isn't directed toward anyone here as much as posts where I've seen people claim the GOP is ALWAYS for smaller gov't in all aspects, etc.

If I had to list those three in order of "influence", it would be as listed above. I don't think influence is as simple as number of voters self-identifying themselves in some category voting this way or that, it involves money, ability to dictate agendas, and all the stuff we usually don't get to see/hear about. I'd put the religious right under the more general cultural conservatives, as a generally more reactionary but principled group, and one certainly worth distinguishing as the largest block within that category. Their hand can be felt wherever there's no decent explanation for a policy move other than it's popularity among people who have a very specific, limited reading of their religion (in that the priorities of modern voters with a certain political bent are often different from the authors of the religious dogma they claim, i.e. theological schizophrenia by individual Catholics in condemning politicians on either abortion and school choice or war, the death penalty, and poverty issues; with their political leanings within our system being de facto more decisive than their religious excuse).

I'd argue that the religious right has a large, obvious influence on the GOP, more so than any similar Democratic group (because our groups tend to be individually be fewer in members and more numerous in competitors), but that it is behind Business in influence within the GOP and really a subset of general Cultural Conservatism. It doesn't dictate the GOP agenda, and it won't anytime soon, but pretending like it doesn't "cause" a significant portion of the GOP platform and agenda is misguided.

Submitted as further evidence to prove the religious right does in fact have a huge influence on the GOP, the GOP Platform for the 2002 Texas election. All of the following are direct quotes from this platform document.



If this isn't extreme influence on the GOP platform by the religious right, then I don't know what is. You can find these issues, almost verbatim, on the websites of religious right oriented groups.

You're kidding, right? PETA and other "left" groups don't engage in violence?

With the accumulated toll of the attacks now estimated at more than $100 million, environmental extremists have become the top priority for FBI domestic terrorism squads across the country.

oooh, but PETA didn't light those fires.

In 2002 the Center for Consumer Freedom first revealed that PETA had donated $1,500 of tax-exempt funds to the FBI-labeled terrorist Earth Liberation Front (ELF)

Follow the money...

But hey, it gets better...

A stunning development in the domestic war on terror unfolded this week, as seven hard-core militants from the violent animal rights group SHAC (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty) were taken into federal custody on terrorism-related charges. In addition, SHAC itself (which, it turns out, is an honest-to-goodness corporation organized in Delaware), was named in a five-count federal indictment -- which outlined violations of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act as well as a conspiracy to stalk innocent victims across state lines. The indictment charges that SHAC's tactics include "assault including spraying cleaning fluid into one's eyes," "smashing the windows of one's house," firebombing cars, threatening to "kill or injure one's partner or children," and "arranging for an undertaker to call to collect one's body." The federal government also alleges that SHAC "listed the names and addresses" of various targeted Americans on its website. "In some instances, SHAC also listed home phone numbers; names of employees' spouses; the names, ages and birth dates of their children and where the children attended school; license plate numbers and churches attended by employees and their families." The seven accused animal-rights radicals each face between three and five years in prison. "This is not activism," said Christopher Christie, the U.S. Attorney in New Jersey. "This is a group of lawless thugs attacking innocent men, women and children." ...Indeed, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) communications director Lisa Lange defended SHAC's thugs in the New Jersey Star-Ledger, calling them "longtime activists and well respected." And responding to last week's U.S. Senate hearing on animal-rights violence, PETA's official statement ominously warned: "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent revolution inevitable."

As to whether or not the "Religious Right" has taken over the Republican Party, duh...

no.

Abortion remains the judicial dictate of the land, even though the Republicans controlled Congress and the Presidency.

The Republicans can't even get enough gumption to get judges to a vote.

Neither Romney nor Schwarzenegger, both Republicans under the thumb of the priests , have the nards to stand up to the rebellious courts and local officials.

Take a look at the platform of the Christian Coalition from 12 years ago and how much of it has been implemented?

yeah, they "control" the Republican Party.

Just one more thing: if those nasty, homophobic KKKKristians had control of the party, why haven't they tossed the Log Cabin Republicans out on their lit'l pink tushes?

Because A) they don't control the party, and they aren't the monster in the closet.



but they sure are a handy bugbear for Lefty fundraising, eh?

I rather think the issue is whether one's religion should influence one's policies. Taking sides with a party for religious reasons is within everyone's right. Allowing bible purchases with federal funds for "job training" purposes and turning Jews into complete Jews because your "faith" compels you to empower religious organizations is quite another.

As a self-professed man of faith it's slightly amusing that Bush didn't foresee a problem with faith-based initiatives. Perhaps he did and dismissed the difficulties of keeping the line intact with provisions but little regulation/checks and balances in the program. It's a perfectly legitimate prediction that ministries take this "gift" as a sign from God that he has opened the door to reach new souls and work His will. Conversely those of faith have their own reservations like sacrificing core ideals in pursuit of funds and winding up as another secular program.


Of course not. At the same time questioning the motivation behind legislative initiatives is not a crime. A bill backer doesn't get off the hook any more than gun advocacy groups because the backer is religious in nature.

The answer to whether or not the Republican party is overrun by Christians is no for now. The longer members bite their tongue due to party/religious loyalties and put off keeping tabs on religious influence within the party the sooner I'll be better off. I have a perverse desire to see this version of HR 2357 pass so the Grand Ole Party can take another step in the metamorphosis to the Government of the Proselytizers.

Edit: Quotes are Pedro's.

[QUOTE=Grendel72,Jun 6 2004, 09:39 PM][QUOTE=Dontreadonme,Jun 6 2004, 04:21 PM] People can point out various statements and acts made by 'religious right' groups, but I don't believe that they represent the party as a whole, anymore than the World Workers Party and ELF represent the democratic party. And any comparison to the Taliban is laughable paranoia.
I just don't see the monster under the bed here. [/QUOTE]
Grendel wrote:
[QUOTE] Maybe I am being paranoid (I will definitely admit that the religious right terrifies me), but the Republican party actually physically meets with these people. While I'm no fan of the Democratic party, to the best of my knowledge they don't actually have any real world dealings with the World Workers Party or ELF.
Bush actually campaigned at Bob Jones University. The link doesn't seem all that tenuous to me. [/QUOTE]

Can you be more specific about who you are identifying as "religious right?" You seem to be saying that anyone who has religious/moral opinions who is a Republican qualifies. Or are you talking about people who disagree with your politics? In other words, what is it about these people that puts them (in your mind) on the far right fringe?
Surely, Earth First, for example, pushes its political agenda with religious intensity. Are they on the religious left?
Is it possible that you are so offended by the political positions of "religious" people that you ascribe it to ignorance and superstition, rather than honest disagreement?

Pedro

Cube Jockey wrote:


Gee, what's wrong with this? They are defending religious liberty for everyone, not just Christians. They are proposing "equal time" for the views of the vast majority of Texans and the passage of their preferred legislation by means of democratic processes. What is it that you find objectionable?

Pedro

I'm not sure how one could read this platform and then state they are defending religious liberty for everyone -- The first point I quoted alone should make that blatantly obvious. If we are a "christian nation" where does that leave Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics, Jews, etc?

Once again, come back when you have read the Barry Goldwater quote I provided.
What defines the religious right is their intolerance and hatred. They refuse to live and let live, they must force their backwards views on everyone else.
Barry Goldwater was a Republican who faced discrimination in his time because of his faith. John McCain is a Republican who lives by his faith rather than using it to put on a show (as Jesus cautioned us against doing).
I resent your implication that I have something against Christians, some of the finest people I know are Christians.
Actually, if you would read the bible rather than listening to what hate filled words fundie preachers put in his mouth, you would realise that Jesus Christ is the religious left.
No, it isn't. I can respect many positions that I disagree with, but when that position is based on ignorance- as the opposition to stem-cell research and the opposition to same-sex marriage are- I can not respect that.

The reason that the religious right hijack of the Republican party angers me so much is that I detest many things about the Democratic party. All of you whining about how the Republican party is the "only party that supports evangelicals" should consider how you would feel if the Democratic party supported criminalizing Christianity, locking people up for going to church, and the only opposition party was a group you disagreed with on many fundamental issues.
I agree with much of what the Republican party says they stand for, but when they never deliver on what they claim to stand for and instead bend over backwards to please people who hate people like me, who actively campaign to make me a criminal... I'll be damned if the Republican party will ever have my support.

Abortion remains legal because 1.) overturning Roe v. Wade would require 2 appointees to the Supreme Court, confirmed by Senate, who are so stridently anti-abortion they won't "flip" like previous conservatives (Justice Blackman, author of Roe v. Wade, comes to mind), and 2.) a ban requires convincing some of the 60% of the public that backs Bush's "in cases of rape, incest, and health of the mother" compromise to change their minds or that those three areas could be adequately guarded as reasons for abortion.

Politics is the art of the possible- this has nothing to do with whether or not the religious right is in control, and everything to do with political possibility/expediency. Like who can get elected in Mass. or California. These aren't exactly states that define the soul of the Republican party- solid Repub North Carolina, however, has "uninvited" the Log Cabin Republicans to their own convention. Romney, meanwhile, has tried to "stand up to the rebellious courts" (here I thought we had an independent judiciary that was sworn to defend constitutional rights such as Mass.'s pledge against creating second class citizens).

Does the religious right control the GOP? No, as I stated earlier. Do they have far more power in the GOP than would allow anyone genuinely against gov't making their most intimate decisions to vote for them? Yes.

It's past tense. It's a done deal. It happened around 1975 on the ashes of the Nixon debacle with the party in disarray, the John Birchers, flushed out with Nazi gold smuggled into the country and laundered by o certain 'televangelist' ("Honest,they just sent me all that money in the mail") and old dixiecrat democrats really PO'ed by the advances in civil rights and racial integration came together and made the shell of the party their own. Their agenda was to turn America into an old-Europe styled theocracy with divine rights dictator, run by rich 'aristocratic' theocrats, with the whole of the working population re-inducted into universal slavery, or find a way to kill the whole human race (armageddon), or just find a way to kill all non-whites. They suffered a setback when Reagan's pursuit of armageddon got him shot and the US army forced the 'moral majority' to disband a week later. They had renamed the old John Birch Society to the Moral Majority and kept it active because they never had complete control of the party until around 1994, and today it is a complete bonafide Nazi organizationm, theocratic dictator and all. The sexual freedoms of the seventies caused them to endeavor to bring about armaqgeddon. The closest they got was the development of the HIV virus in a genetics lab in Haiti that was masquerading as a 'missionary hospital' under the costly protection of "Papa Doc" Duvalier, who died before they could finish their "doomsday bug" development.

I don't think the religious right has taken over the Republican party, but I think that appealing to members of the religious right plays an important roll in policy decisions for many Republicans. While the Republican party is not religious, most conservative (in the religious not political sense) Christian groups are Republican. Politicians, if they wish to win elections, must cater the the whims of their constituents. Many of those who vote for Republican candidates are members of the religious right, but there are many who are not. Republicans must try to please both groups. Should the religious right ever become the majority then it will be able to dominate the Republican party. But I don't think that that will happen.

Ronald Reagan was really the leader of the takeover of the republican party by the religious right- and would have not been elected without them. Since then, it is the single largest part of the Republican movement, and without them, they could not place a person in office in America.

You only have to look at the primary issues that the republicans have fought for and even been successful in to see the takeover complete- because the republican party have been completely unsuccesful, and even uncaring to the point of mere lip service to "fiscal" conservatism. Ronald Reagan never submitted a balanced budget. No republican ever has, but in this case, this was a RR campaign issue. No repubican has truly shrunk the size of goverment.

However, they have waged extremely intense battles on : gay marriage, prayer in schools, faith based initiatives, "under god" in the pledge and on and on and on.

I'll partially agree with you there...However, these so called Religious Rightists did not bring up the issue of gay marriage, or the Pledge, that was done by the oh, I don't know, "Athiest Left". Without the "Athiest Left", those issues would probably not be in play right now. But you are right about the faith based initiatives and prayer in school, which I'm not a fan of.

Also CR, how do you figure that Reagan "led the takeover"?

CP

I agree with the assertion that the religious right is an important element in the Republican party, they would not have won the congressional seats and presidential elections that they have without the religious right's support. While the religious right by themselves are not a majority in this nation, they are nevertheless, a large bloc of voters that have made them selves indispensible to the GOP. You can't argue that the religious right doesn't call the shots in the party unless you show how the GOP has been successful without them. I've looked up some non-religious right groups, and they are for the most, political midgets in a land of giants. The republican liberal group? The libertarian republicans? Other than Ron Paul, they are just a curious oddity. Compare them with the likes of the Christian Coalition and you see how much the former are bit players in the whole GOP cog.

...and they don't seem to agree on much, except opposition to the faith-based funding initiative. Trade with China? They differ. Endorsement of GOP hopefuls in 2000? They differed. There are certainly Christian Republican voters, but Christians don't vote as a block (like some ethnic groups, say).

So the people who changed the Pledge in 1954 by adding the words "under God" were atheists?
And the folks who propose changing the constitution? Note that the case in Massachusetts was entirely started by the religious right attempting to pass a law that contradicted the state constitution, it wasn't gay folks trying to change anything. Note that the Musgrave amendment is being sold as a pre-emptive measure, as was the DOMA.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::


I'm sure that's what the Christian Coalition voter guides are all about. They seem to support a lot of Democratic candidates.

Are you really that uninformed? Your argument makes as much sense as saying that Congress started the brouhaha over child pornography on the Internet when they passed the Internet Pornography Act (or whatever that legislation is called.) "If it hadn't been for Congress, then there wouldn't be a stink." No, if it hadn't been for child pornographers finding a new way of violating societal norms, there wouldn't have been need for the legislation.

The relevant portions of Massachusett's constitution have not changed in 200+ years. Go back and read the LEGAL definition of marriage 200 years ago. DOMA and the proposed constitutional amendment and all that is because the gay activists are demanding something NEW. The case in Massachusetts was filed by gays demanding change. Gadzooks man, they didn't go to COURT to try to stop somebody from PASSING a law, which is what you're claiming. If they had, even the nutjobs in the Massachussetts judiciary would have sent them packing on the basis that ruling on legislation that hasn't even been passed exceeded even their overreaching authority. No, they went to CHANGE the status quo, one that stretches back hundreds of years, and they chose the courts because they knew that there would be no way that they would get what they wanted from the legislative process for at least a generation, if ever.

I'm referring to the athiest in California who sued to have "under God" removed from the Pledge.
I wasn't aware that the judges who decided to break the law and perform gay marriages were members of the Relgious Right. The proposed amendment [which I'm not a fan of] was forced by "activist judges", it wasn't just taken out of the blue by the administration and other alleged Religious Rightists.

CP

The rash of gay marriages started after George W. Bush decided to make it his business to define marriage and brought it forth in the State of the Union message to Congress. Had he not mentioned it, there would have been no backlash.

The "under God" part of the pledge of allegiance was seized upon during the Red Scare, another litmus test to separate the Commies from good Christian/Jewish folk. It was used more to divide than to unite, as is Bush's crusade to deny gay couples the right to be called "married."

That the Log Cabin Republicans are not heard more over the marriage issue is curious to me. They must really feel torn.

This President panders to the Religious Right to the point of asking the Pope to help him out by talking to his bishops about this. There is rich and disturbing irony here. This Freemason, born-again Protestant President of privilege who commits troops in a war based on missing evidence and supports the death penalty curries favor with the Bishop of Rome in order to defeat a Catholic in order to be in office for four more years!

While the Religious Right has not quite taken over the party, G.W. knows what side his bread is buttered on.

Paladin, the facts of the matter betray you. Again.

The ball started rolling with the Vermont "Civil Union" brouhaha, pursued through the courts, before Bush was even nominated!. The Massachusetts case, brought by 7 same sex couples who were denied marriage licenses was brought in April of 2001. That's @3 years before Bush raised the subject in his SotU address.

Willful mistatement of the cause and effect in these matters only makes you look foolish, and undermines any credibility the rest of your post has.

Incidentally, I must note that if the gay "marriage" (and yes, those are scare quotes) advocates were so confident of the popular support, justice and inevitability of their cause, they would have simply waited for the legislative initiatives to restrict the definition of marriage to its traditional understanding to fail.

Odd, isn't it, that they didn't wait? I wonder why? Oh yea, I know. Because they weren't even able to defeat the POPULAR initiative in California. Imagine that, the "Left Coast", where even though the Democrats controlled both houses and the governor's mansion, even though all the major newspapers and television media opposed Proposition 209 (?), the gays still lost. They know that the people are not behind them, and they know that the legislatures aren't behind them, and if they failed to move quickly enough any chance of victory through friendly courts would be eliminated, so off to friendly City Hall they go to flout the laws of the land.

Facts are so unkind to ideology...

Well, you certainly do seem to have a handle on twisting the facts to match your hateful ideology.
Geez, the suit was brought because these couples were denied marriage licences because of a law passed by the religious right. If the bigots of the right didn't insist on forcing their views on everybody else there would have been no basis for the lawsuit, there would be no reason to sue.
By the very nature of what is being asked for it is clear that the right has always acted first- a person cannot demand equality until it has been denied by someone else.
This is true, yet you still misstated the cause and effect in your post, didn't you.
This is about what is right and just, not what is popular. The miscegenation laws had popular support at the time of Loving vs. Virginia, that doesn't mean the laws were ever just.
Frankly, though, the hateful tone of your posts on this topic do more good for the side of justice and love than anything I could say on the matter.

When I say "rash," I am referring to the spread of gay marriages, Bikerdad. Not the inception of civil unions in Massachusetts.

Do you deny that Bush exacerbated the situation? Yeah, Mr. "I'm a uniter, not a divider."

So, Bikerdad, do you really want to talk about who is looking foolish?

And as for your accusation of willful misstatement of cause and effect, you are barking up the wrong tree.

Which law would that be? When was it passed, who passed it? If you're going to claim that specific laws passed by "the religious right" is responsible, then back it up. Cite the law, the when, the where, the who.

Paladin made general charges that Bush's SotU Address was responsible, I merely pointed out that the timeline didn't support her assertion as originally formulated. Same for you. Going back even further than Vermont, in the United States, this issue first came up, in 1991, when 3 same-sex couples sued the Department of Health in Hawaii for being denied marriage licenses. Unless you can prove that the laws on the books in Hawaii at that time were passed by "the religious right", your argument fails. You're making the assertion that the religious right is behind the laws that these folks initially challenged, I'm simply asking you to back it up.

Interesting that you would pick miscegenation laws as your model. Did you know that 20 years before Loving vs. Virginia, California repealed its miscegenation laws? Between 1948 and 1967, 14(?) states repealed their miscegenation laws. Clearly, the "popular support" was waning, and the pace of repeal had only been picking up. How many states, without judicial intervention, have greenlighted gay marriage? None. And, as I pointed out regarding the "rash" of gay marriages, it appears as though gay activists don't have enough respect for the legislative process to conclude that any will do so. Who, exactly, is forcing their views on everybody else ?


No, I don't deny that his reaction (encapsulated in the SotU address) to the attempted forced changes from the status quo may have exacerbated the situation. Of course, Bush isn't the one who rushed out to get married to Cheney, is he? The gay activists had a choice, they could work through the legislative processes, where they were suffering defeat after defeat. They could try another end run using the courts, an avenue that looked like it may be shut down, or they could stunt. Is Bush to blame that they "rashly" chose #3? Is anything other than support of the gay activists immoral, wrong, and just cause for the gay activists to flout the laws?

In a similar vein, accusing Bush of being a "divider" on this is erroneous. If everybody is sitting in one place (the situation before 1990), and then somebody chooses to strike out in a different direction (the gay activists), they are the one's "dividing." The fact that gays didn't like the way things were doesn't change one iota the basic fact that they are the ones who chose to split off, nor does the justice or lack thereof of their cause change the basic fact that they chose to divide. Accusing the great mass of folks who haven't moved of being "dividers" is dishonest.