Conservative Christians Criticize Republicans
As I read this, and I’ve seen others like it, I am left wondering just who they’ll support if they don’t continue to support those who’ve come closest or made the friendliest noises regarding agenda. I find the threat rather amusing, especially since they’ve made it so public. This undermines their attempts to impose their version of Christian beliefs on all Americans. Surely, they aren’t going to turn to Democrats. While there may be other candidates who are willing to run under the Republican banner, I suspect they aren’t already on ballots because they aren’t viable for federal office, at least not yet. The cleverness of the movement to politicize this so called “Christian Right” has been spectacular. After a series of blunders seeking high office at the federal level, they reorganized and went the route of local & state offices before trying to grab federal seats in the legislative or executive branches. Perhaps they’ll end up biding their time while their candidates acquire the disguises of experience at local & state levels, and learn the art of politics.
Perhaps these folks are finally going to be fed up with unfulfilled promises from the Republican Party for the theocracy they so badly want and form their own party. There are such parties in other parts of the world, though their rhetoric and positions, at least in Europe, are not quite so severe. They’d likely find much in common with the many religious political parties in the Muslim dominated countries. I’ve spoken with many of what I call “Country Club Republicans” over the years who wish the theocrats would leave their party and form one of their own. I always giggle at such desires because they eagerly hopped into bed with them for their votes.
Your thoughts?
May 15th, 2006
I am not sure what the Republican party is going to do. If you look around the internet, you will see tremedous dissatisfaction from the (small l) libertarian type republicans. This administration has expanded government greater than any other since the new deal. I think the currrent administration has alienated a huge portion of their base, and it is currently the democrats election to loose.
I just don’t see a viable candidate from the republican party. Of course I don’t see one on the democrats side either.
The only thing that will keep the republicans in office is the fact that this is a two party system, so it is and will continue to be a race to the center come election time.
May 15th, 2006
It’s been a while since I’ve heard from the religious left and their special brand of pulpit stumping… I wonder where Jesse and Sharpton are hangin out these days? It always struck me odd, that the religious right and religious left more or less share the same religion and many of the same stands on fundamental moral issues but seem to be polar opposites in political affiliation.
I am happy to see the continued decline of the unions as a special interest powerhouse. I wish religion would take the same route. If they did we could take the fluff issues (abortion, prayer in school, same-sex marriage, obscenity, etc…) off the debate circuit and Washington might have to address things I care about (lobby, tort, property rights, copyright, state rights, etc…).
So that’s never gonna happen…… ;-)
June 6th, 2006
I saw a video yesterday and was reminded of this thread. It was a StumbleUpon referral to youtube.com . Sam Harris, an interesting, articulate fellow, gives a 20 minute talk on what he sees as the danger of religious folk trying to impress their beliefs and rules on greater society. It is fascinating, and potentially alienating & offensive if you are of a religious bent. David, you’ll probably find viewing it worth your while just because he represents a point of view rarely heard, and even more rarely offered so well. Search for him if you have the time. I think he was speaking at some seminar or conference called “Idea05” or some such thing.
This thread also ties into our current one regarding proposed changes to California’s allocation of electoral votes, and its sub-thread of why President Bush is once again suddenly concerned about gay marriage.
June 6th, 2006
Here it is.
June 7th, 2006
It strikes me a bit funny that his point seems to be based on his own beliefs, as some of his analogs contain overgeneralization and assumption (I assume he makes a better case for his view in his book). The bit I found interesting was his assertion that extremism is caused by toleration of moderates. The rest of it was pretty well worn ground.
One could make the observation that Mr Harris has created an anti-spiritual fundamentalism, from which the point could be made that, tolerance of his beliefs by non-spiritual moderates will lead to anti-spiritual extremism.
Also enjoyable was the host, whose comment at the end struck me as the words of one who would be in the front pew peppering a sermon with “AMENS”. ;-)![\"\\"Wink\\"\"](\"%5C%22wp-content/plugins/editormonkey/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif%5C%22\" "\\"\\\"Wink\\\"\\"")
June 7th, 2006
I suppose it depends upon how you define belief. The impression I got from the speaker was that he relies on what can be perceived, theorized, and/or proved by science/scientific method/reason. From the perspective of belief, perhaps he believes what he perceives, theorizes, and/or proves by scientific method. Is this the same as belief based on faith? Perhaps.
Regarding his assertion that religious moderates tolerance of extremes within their religious affiliations: it sounded to me like he thinks it is their responsibility to police their ranks, weed out, expose, and perhaps ridicule those who espouse so called extreme views and practices. Maybe so, but with regards to Christianity, it is my understanding that Christians should not judge others. If that is the case and it may be said that moderates are more inclined to practice this idea, then how would they police extreme elements within their midst?
I'm not sure what you mean by anti-spiritual fundamentalism, but I'll give it a whirl. Any idea or belief that takes root among a group or society will attract those opposed, apathetic, mildly interested or enthusiastic, and those who are wildly or fanatically enthusiastic. If his idea takes root, there will certainly be those who would like to do their best to emulate the Spanish Inquisition. This time though, the inquisitors would be seeking confessions of abandonment of faith rather than professions of it. As result, I don't think you've really said anything that isn't painfully obvious regarding the power of ideas and beliefs to motivate people.
In his case, I definitely have the impression that if he could banish religion from society, he'd do it, or at least give it very serious consideration. Perhaps this is what you are getting at with your observation. Given that religion, in one form or another, has been with our species for most of its existence, as best evidence indicates, it seems an extreme point of view.
Finally, I agree completely with your observation of the man who introduced the main speaker. He struck me as an "amen" sort of person. Thanks for taking the time to watch it and comment.
June 8th, 2006
Since science has yet to explain the beginning of existence, I think everyone is doin a little believing, or possibly ignoring…
June 9th, 2006
It certainly hasn’t gotten there yet, and it is possible science will never possess sufficient data to derive a meaningful conclusion. The same argument you made has been made many times since science has been used to unveil the mysteries we encounter. The difference between science and faith is that the former is a moving target while the latter essentially never moves.
There have been, are, and will likely always be adherents of science who treat it as religion, often holding on to ideas, outdated theories, etc as if they are articles of faith. Eventually, at least from my reading of history, they either relent or die out, leaving their successors to examine data, re-examine, and reach new conclusions as data & methods allow. Science, when free of the dogmatic impulse that finds its way in with disturbing regularity, is open to change, new information, and new means of testing ideas & data.Â
While changes do take place in the way people worship, the central article of faith rarely changes. Ways that have changed include the many variants of Judaism and Christianity that have arisen. The central article, the deity worshiped, has not changed a great deal. A strong case may be made that the deity of the Jews is/was a god of war, frequently smiting, punishing, etc. With the formalizing of Christianity, this same deity was made over into one of peace and love, though there have been and are those who happily remind sinners of the punishment awaiting them.
I prefer to accept that my ignorance will always greatly outweigh any knowledge I possess. Â I accept what I perceive on its own merits without feeling the need to blame it on some designer, deity, aliens, or any other cause which cannot be proved. Since proof denies faith, it is highly unlikely that any deity is going to provide proof of its existence.
June 10th, 2006
So we will never see a babelfish? ;-)