The Future of the Republican Party

Remove all ads!

... until he gets his sentence commuted by Bush -- at the request of a Democratic senator.

I am just as often wrong (which would be readily agreed to by Mrs Bruno) -- but will freely admit it unless I'm being pig headed about a subject.

 

The line between the GOP and the Religious right is a little too blurred for the party to succeed. Yes, it's important to defend their beliefs, but they need to govern the country too. That's where the moderates come in--to keep the party back on track. They can't always count on the Democratic candidate failing as bad as Gore and Kerry did.

I'm guessing that these people would still form a minority. They would still be heterosexual, and the authority in question meets legal requirements, all we can do is shake our heads and try not to call them freaks. I'll bet some of them hearing a description of a Mormon wedding in the Temple would think us "strange" at best.

But you forget that it was God that defined Marriage as between a Man and a Woman int he first place. This, by definition, marginalizes them for their willfull non-compliance to Divine Law. While it does not automatically damn them, their union cannot exist beyond this life.

Salvation implies repentance. To repent means to confess and forsake your sins. When Christ forgave the woman taken in adultery after the mob dispersed his charge to her was to go thy way and sin no more. Christianity calls upon the faithful to live a higher standard, exemplifying the virtues that Christ taught, and seek to do God's will as opposed to their own.

That is why I would like to see a way for homosexual couples get their much deserved rights without conflicting with the religious faithful. It grates my nerves to hear what is among the most sacred ordinances of my faith reduced to a legal proceedure, and thus people arguing that it should be reduced further to be available to those who want to receive it in a way that God never intended it to be. There are many less tolerant than I that would likely speak more hatefully. I hold out hope that it can be resolved peacefully, but I see a refusal to consider any alternative by those opposing me on this issue. Who is the real bigot?

The Adultery is a violation of the covenant, and as such, I warn them that they are playing with fire, but forgiveness is part of that covenent, so if they are willing to forgive, that's good. Ultimately it's for God to decide.

Actually, we were told that religious beliefs have no place in public schools. I think other moral teachings should have the same time our religion is granted--none!

So is alcohol. Do you want kids taught how to mix various alcoholic drinks in school? I mean it's legal for them as long as they are old enough and are not driving...

The problem is with the esteem we are placing on the teacher. We want kids to respect and listen to their teachers so that they do well in school, but when these people teach contradictory to the faith, this clouds the judgement of our children. If you insist on teaching a homosexual friendly curriculum, then I want equal time for a Mormon themed curriculum. Then someone would want equal time for another religion, and so on and so on. Then the important stuff from a secular stand point, like reading, writing, business, technology, maths and sciences falls by the wayside. Homosexuality has it's place only in sexual education, but only as far as the following: What it is, informing them that some people will not approve, and that it's wrong to harrass or abuse them. Then move on to the next item.

And when is that supposed to happen? We're still waiting. The State stuck it's nose into Marriage, and has been binding religion to the whim of the state on the matter ever since. If they legalize gay marriage, it's only a matter of time before the churches are compelled to follow suit.

In the writings in the Doctrine and Covenants after the Official Declaration ending the practice of Polygamy suggests that had they not taken these steps, the fedaral authorities would arrest the priesthood and confiscate the Church lands if they did not comply with federal law, which the Supreme Court upheld in 1878 meaning that when it comes to Marriage, that traditional definition is of paramount importance. For that ruling to be anything other than a hate crime against the church, that same ruling must apply now too, and that the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman is important enough to criminalize the alternative.

 

This is probably the most compelling explanation for Mormon opposition against gay marriage I've read so far.

 

Ragusa:
Ok, from a culture war perspective, you and I are foot-soldiers. How does that change our perspectives? How does it show that one of us is right and the other is wrong. I may be a 'foot soldier' in defense of a number of traditional values, but you are the same 'foot soldier' in attack of it. And my point all-in-all was that you have stopped listening to the opposition and just started attacking. In war that's ok, but in a discussion, it means you have quit the discussion.

Chandos:

And yet you're arguing that a 'purging' of the Republican party would be bad for it? I suppose it all depends on what they purge. If you presume the Christian Right to be some radically unthinking cult, then yes, purging everyone else would be, but if you actually look at the Christian Right in the Republican party (away from officials, but actual people) they are the very ones that oppose corruption. The 'centrists' you so praise are the ones that actually allowed corruption in in the first place.

 

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was commenting to someone who is without sin. Of course, if you are not completely without sin, then I suggest you get down off your soapbox and take your own advice before preaching to others.

Really? Good luck trying to prove that one.

 

You know, I don't live in America. I am not a foot soldier, but a disgruntled observer.

As for stopping to listen - the point is rather that there is a time, say at page three or four of such a discussion where about everything has been said, in particular on the x-th such thread, when arguments become increasingly predictable. The only interesting part left then is to extract some clarity, as in Gnarff's passage here. And I am not against traditional values either, you and me merely disagree about how to achieve that. I strongly favour a separation of church and state. I think that it is not and must not be the task of the state or the government to enforce traditional values. Our societies now are too diverse to allow for that to work peacefully.

I see the reaction, this culture war, mainly as a futile attempt to get back to the status quo ante, before Catholics (how was that about 'Irish need not apply'?) and all later immigrants of other confessions and the Seculars destroyed the utopian Christian country America once was. Face it, that is a narrative largely based on myth. For every faithful there has always been a sinner or two in America.

My beef, fundamentalism aside, is that the restoration of the status quo ante is a quixotic quest and that the desired end state is unrealistic because it is unachievable, unless one considers forcibly converting people to Christianity or displacing parts of the US population. I personally think Republican and Religious Right leaders know that perfectly well, but incite the flock anyway, because it keeps them in their camp and produces reliable votes. Also, if one looks at the wealth of some on the Christian Right, the Culture War appears to be good business as well. Well, perhaps they really believe their own narrative, or maybe they simply know a sucker when they see one. Anyway, it is now that he's leaving office that George W. Bush voices surprising scepticism about whether the bible is really to be understood literally.

 

Ragusa - I don't see it that way. It is much later in our history that was the "Golden Age of Culture" for them, say from 1940-1960, between the time of the decline of the "great socialist," FDR, and the rise of the "martyred" JFK. They still feel that the culture war was started by the left in the 1960's. Follow the hot-wire issues for them: Welfare and affirmative action (civil rights), Abortion (woman's rights), and gay marriage and the church losing control of Sex (the sexual revolution).

I agree with this historian, Fischer, that our early history was something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion's_Seed

Great book, btw.

 

Chandos, your knowledge of American history is far greater than mine I have been vastly exaggerating. Thanks for the pointer.

I agree it is significantly about rolling back what the Left started in the 1960s. Still the narrative about the presumable bliss of morally intact, religious small town America (as opposed to the immoral morass of, say, San Francisco), invoked as recently as in the last campaign, still is about a fictitious utopia. In that sense, the thrust of my argument remains unchanged - it is about roll back, and the desired end state is a mirage.

 

Ok, Ragusa, how exactly am I a 'foot soldier' in this 'culture war'? Is it simply because I vote? That and this message board are about as politically active as I get. You try to lump me with a whole (seemingly ficticious) group of beliefs and opinions that you claim I represent, even if I don't agree with all of them. This doesn't really make sense. Aside from grouping me with boogey-men, I'm not really sure what it's aimed at achieving.

As for this 'culture war', there have been culture wars in America, and likely all substantially divergent cultures, for centuries. The war between 'small town' and 'big city' values can be traced back to at least the early 1800s in popular writing. I don't know that it was political at the time, and the values were rather different than those being debated today (though underneath some of those same values are issues today) and I don't think it was so political. The current culture war is really centered around the liberal movement of the '60s and '70s going too far in some people's eyes. We have no problem with desegregation, women's right to vote, etc. Even affirmative action isn't anathema to the Christian Right (though we do want it somewhat restricted). The real issues were abortion, gay marriage, and the like.

Yes, Ragusa, the desired, idealized end-state by many is a mirage, but can you say that this is any different for the liberal left? We've already seen that relatively unhindered access to abortion didn't drop the rate of teen pregnancies, didn't drop the rate of single mothers, and didn't drop the rate of crime. On the contrary, they seem to have increased them (though it could be chalked up to other cultural changes going on at the same time).

Humans tend to paint idealized extremes of the future to rally support. Hell, Obama did that throughout this election. It's nothing new.

 

I'm speaking as someone who's been through the process of seeking forgiveness for sins past. It's not a secret about my past experiences with alcohol and marijuana. I also experimented with other illegal drugs. Part of that process of repentance and returning to God's good graces was that I confessed my sins and left them behind. It's not getting on a soapbox to condemn others, but to encourage them to also confess and forsake their sins, that they too may come unto Christ.

And I'll remember you're comment next time you rip on GWB.

But what if the State interjects itself into a religious matter? Does religion then have to give it up? No. By the very principle of Separation of Chruch and State, either the government has NO authority over Marriage as a religious matter, or the institution is so vital to the nation that it needs to be regulated. The 1878 ruling against the Mormons suggests that the accepted definition of marriage is so vital that the first ammendment to the Constitution itself could be overlooked to shut down an alternative. That precedent makes Gay Marriage also illegal. This should trump any state supreme court ruling and overturn any state law in regards to same sex marriage.

Hence the separation of Church and State, and the pluralistic society that you spoke of earlier in this thread. But the people have spoken on where the lines are drawn for allowing a newly tolerated minority to exist within society. There is much more detail to be filled in, but crossing that line is not necessary for them to get all the rights that heterosexual couples enjoy.

The Republican Party caters to the Religious Right and gets results because they can contrast Democrat policies which they vehemently oppose. This is a gold mine for the GOP because they feel abaondoned by the Democrats. The GOP offers them a voice, and they eagerly embrace that voice. But while the Religious right will put the Republicans over the top in a close election, they won't win an election by themselves. That's why the GOP needs to make the elections closer in other regards...

The law in Canada in regards to Marriage directly contradicts the definition of Marriage proclaimed by the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as well as the accepted definition of Marriage given by many of the largest Christian faiths. You introduce this into the classroom before the students are old enough to understand the difference between church and state, and you will sow confusion within them. It undermines the parent's right to teach the chuildren according to their faith. It is an attempt by these lobbyists to undermine religion in general.

How about Englich classes where the definition of Marriage would be discussed? The Law says one thing, the child's religion says another. By endorsing homosexuality at that age, you bring it into play years before they are ready for such a controversial topic.

I just see it as a desire to preserve a line where that which is sacred is proteced from the radical changes that are being made. I agree with decriminalizing homosexuality, but I don't aggree with letting them marry or adopt. I understand that they requirements for a happy relationship between a couple are not much different between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple. I think that gays don't get the rights they deserve. But I don't want marriage redefined. I can't endorse homosexuality.

NOG points out the key difference between the issues here. Many things addressed were things that needed to be changed, but the Culture War has gone too far, and the Religious Right is rising up to dfend the lines they don't want crossed.

Neither extreme is a viable option. That's why some things still need to be "fixed" and other things need to be preserved. The conflict here is over where that line is to be drawn...

 

Well, it's news to me. But I would hardly list any of that as "sinful." It's like anyting else, there's nothing wrong with it as long as you can control it. Btw, I think most drugs should be legalized. I dion't use drugs, but I think the whole Comprehensive Drug Law, left over from the Richard Nixon days, is just plain idiotic.

The Republican Party has been taken over, for the most part, by the religious right. Hence, the danger of becoming a regional party. The more the party reflects the regional conservatism of the deep south, the less appeal it has to the rest of the nation. The Republican Party is losing the mainstream vote.

 

Remember that my religion does forbid these things outright, and I now admit that had I a steady income, I would have developed severe problems with that.

That's the identity that the Republicans need to get away from. Yes, they need the religious right, but they need more temporal theories too.

 

Chandos, I'd just like to point out that I grew up in New Hampshire. Not exactly 'deep south'.

 

Results for New Hampshire:

Winner of New Hampshire's Four Electoral Votes: Barack Obama (D)
Margin of Victory: 54% to 45%.

Winner State Senate Seat: Shaheen (D)

Margin of Victory: 52% to 45%

House of Representatives: Well, Democrats all around, again.

Governor: Ditto.

New Hampshire: Nice blue state, NOG.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/state/#val=NH

 

54% blue and 45% red makes purple.

There are no true blue or red states.

 

I think of our election process as a winner take all propostition (that may or may not be a good thing). There's really no prize for second place.

 

There's a difference between an election and politics. Anyway, my point was that the religious conservative movement is not actually limited to the deep south, as you had suggested.

 

Chandos, isn't that Bush's philosophy. "We won, our way must be best and everyone else needs to just get with the program."