Religious Right

[Bravus]

I would suggest that the Right has had more influence on religion than religion on the Right in say the past 15 years. Waddaya reckon?

[Dr. Shane]

Not on my religion.

[Neil D]

Not on my religion.

I would disagree with that most strongly, Shane....You have reflected the views of the right on more than a few occassions.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Shane

Not on my religion.

I would disagree with that most strongly, Shane....You have reflected the views of the right on more than a few occassions.

I'm definitely on the right politically, but that doesn't mean the right has influenced my religion. Maybe that is what Shane means also.

In fact, I disagree with many things that the "religious right" say. I don't believe in abortion, but I believe in a woman's right to choose, even if she chooses something I disagree with. I also believe in the separation of church and state, something most of the religious right do not believe in.

I like what McCain said recently, that he does not agree with the anti-Catholic talk coming from certain religious conservatives who have endorsed him. It's not the place of an American president to take sides in religious issues or to say things that separate Americans along religious lines.

[olger]

Not on my religion.

X2

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: Shane

Not on my religion.

X2

And I disagree with that too, Olger...You reflect more of the religious right than you realize....

And, politically speaking, I hold that the Religious Right is neither.... religious, nor right....

[olger]

Of course you disagree, but...

I have nothing against the limp-wristed whiny boy pannywaist bleeding heart hollywood-type perrier-drinkin metrosexual knuckle-draggin nail-bitin liberals. I think we should keep a few around just to remember what NOT to do !

rofl

[Dr. Shane]

I became involved in the Republican Party before I was old enough to vote. I actively opposed the religious initiatives raised by Pat Robertson's supporter at the 1988 caucuses - which is when he ran for President. So from my political beginning I was never influenced much by the Religious Right. I was very influenced by Clifford Goldstein when he was editor of Liberty Magazine and wrote to him a couple of times with questions - and he answered both times.

It has been my examination of the Religious Right's positions that has pushed me further to the left - closer to the middle. While I do lean to the right, I am much closer to the middle than the right of the spectrum. However that said, there are people on the far right, like Limbaugh, Savage and Hannity, that are not part of the Religious Right and shouldn't be confused with them.

[Bravus]

I actually wasn't so much talking about you guys as individuals. I'd agree with your portrait of yourself there, Shane, from what I know of you.

I was more talking about the fact that many of the mainstream Christian denominations have tended to define themselves further to the right. The positions of Christians I know here in Australia on things like welfare and immigration are much more hardline than they would have been 20 years ago.

So, aside from you as individuals, how do you see the bigger picture?

[Dr. Shane]

I think two things have been at work. The first is that the Religious Right has made the Republican Party a very friendly place for religious people to be - including Jews. The second is that the secular humanists have taken over much of the Democratic Party.

The right to abortion has become a center piece to the Left. The Left has not even tried to limit this "right" to the first trimester. They have fought tooth and nail at every attempt to limit and discourage abortion - even partial birth abortion, when the fetus is viable outside the womb. They have fought parental consent laws, mandatory counseling laws and waiting period laws. They have treated religious people that want to restrict or discourage abortion as if they are on the same plain as racists, sexists and bigots.

Gay rights and gay marriage have now further isolated religious people from the Democratic Party. Religious people are again labeled as being intolerant and bigoted. Thus the Democratic Party makes itself an unfriendly or uncomfortable place for religious people.

Liberalism itself advocates a larger, more active role for the government in individuals' lives. That in and of itself is neutral, religiously speaking. Liberals believe the government should regulate industry, manipulate the markets, build and maintain infrastructure, provide for the people's education, stimulate or slow down the economy, provide healthcare and retirement for its citizens. None of that is anti-Christian by itself.

Conservatives believe that as government expands, individual liberty shrinks. Conservatives believe in less government regulations, in free markets, in private industry providing services instead of the government, in private education, private healthcare, private retirement plans and charitable organizations helping the poor and unfortunate. Nothing in that is pro-Cristian in and of itself either.

I think the religious polarization of the two parties can be traced back to Roe v. Wade. The Republicans were quick to condemn the decision. Many Democrats at the time were Christian and pro-life. Over the course of the following decade, pro-life Democrats got pushed out of the party - meaning, they didn't win primaries. Those that existed were replaced by pro-choice Democrats once they retired. Texas had been run by Democrats since the Civil War but they were southern Democrats, a breed that no longer exists. These southern Democrats started jumping ship with Ronald Reagan (who ran on a pro-life platform) and the switch-over has led to Texas becoming a very Republican state.

[Bravus]

That's a very smart and a very fair summation, and I think it's spot on.

[Dr. Shane]

The big error I see in the Religious Right is that they believe being active in government is a Christian obligation. I see being active in government as being a responsible citizen of a democracy. If I lived under a dictatorship I would feel no obligation to get involved in government.

[Bravus]

Yeah, I think that's right. The only thing I'd challenge you on here is the 'American disease' of conflating the left with the Democratic Party and the right with the Republican Party. It ignores the rest of the world and also ignores the fact that the Democrats would be centre-right in many countries, and also narrows the spectrum of possible positions within the US. But the idea that the battle lines have hardened on all sides, and the issues changed, since the 80s I think is true.

[Dr. Shane]

The political spectrum is more like a compass than a number line. Many do think of it as left and right but there is also up and down. Up is authoritarian and down is libertarian. That give us four quadrants. I am in the upper right quadrant but just a tad left of center and just a tad above center. Every time I take a political test I always land pretty close to the same spot - almost dead on the cross-hairs.

[fccool]

What I can't stand about this issue is all of the partisan hackery involved. You know... "bunch of liberals" or "bunch of right wing nuts". That type of things. So people tend to attack people and not the argument itself. I think that FOX (O'reily and crew) is a great example of that. It was amusing at first... the whole "Fair and Ballanced" thing... but then I stopped watching news all together and went online for these. I don't think that shows with the likes of O'reily and Olberman should be dubbed as news, or even commentaries . It's something along the lines of "I am right and you are wrong". And having the "worst person in the world" ... It's amusing, but very unreasonable and by far not newsworthy.

[Neil D]

BINGO!

only I don't think it's amusing anymore...not to say that I ever did.....

[Dr. Shane]

The Democrats use to be able to push their partisanship the most because they had the support of organized labor. Over the past 30 years unions have become less influential and in the past 20 years the new media has become very influential. FoxNews is only a small piece of the puzzle. The internet plays a bigger role than any single cable news channel. Talk radio also plays a large role.

The "fair and balanced" thing is this. When reporting a story, FOXNews attempts to give each side the same amount of time. I.e. if they are reporting on a bill before Congress they will show a 5-second clip of a representative supporting the bill and a 5-second clip of a representative opposing the bill. They do employ a number of conservative commentators and these commentators bring on liberal guests to present the other side. Could they be more fair and more balanced? No doubt. But like all networks, selling advertising is what it is about. Their programming is based on what gets ratings more so than the high ideals of being perfectly fair and perfectly balanced.