Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
MarkC

Republicans, Religion, and the Constitution

10 posts in this topic

I sure am glad we kicked those religious fanatical Republicans out of office.

Yes, I'm sure that had McCain won the Presidency, and Republicans held on to their seats, then we'd be so much better off.

Then again:

Big men drove small cars on a road trip to Washington to beg for billions and billions of taxpayers' dollars. They rotated driving duties, ate at Quiznos, and - presumably - used public restrooms like the rest of us.

Sound like a not-so-funny reality show? It was. But it's no game for millions of ordinary Americans whose way of life depends on the outcome. For them, it could be a real-life tragedy.

The participants were executives of Detroit's Big Three U.S. car companies. Their sought-after prize: $34 billion in public aid for their beleaguered industry.

To help their chances, they made a very humble and public 500-plus mile drive of shame from the Motor City to Washington for congressional hearings Thursday and Friday.

...

Whether they get what they came for is still unclear. Polls show a majority of people opposes an industry bailout or a loan or a rescue.

"Are you planning to drive back?" one senator, Alabama Republican Richard Shelby, asked the panel of witnesses at the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing. [Emphasis added.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I sure am glad we kicked those religious fanatical Republicans out of office.

Yes, I'm sure that had McCain won the Presidency, and Republicans held on to their seats, then we'd be so much better off.

As I read it, your post misses the point: the central reason given by many (though, like myself, not all) Objectivist opponents of Mr. McCain and, by extension other Republicans, is his and their supposed permeation by Religion, NOT their enthrallment with Fascism. It has been my experience that those who hold this view often regard mentions of the fact that the Republicans’ Democrat opponents are far more consistent advocates of Fascism than they as “concrete-bound” irrelevancies to be dismissed virtually out of hand.

Religion may have taken a good hit in the recent election . . . but to the decided advantage of Fascism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I sure am glad we kicked those religious fanatical Republicans out of office.

Yes, I'm sure that had McCain won the Presidency, and Republicans held on to their seats, then we'd be so much better off.

As I read it, your post misses the point: the central reason given by many (though, like myself, not all) Objectivist opponents of Mr. McCain and, by extension other Republicans, is his and their supposed permeation by Religion, NOT their enthrallment with Fascism. It has been my experience that those who hold this view often regard mentions of the fact that the Republicans’ Democrat opponents are far more consistent advocates of Fascism than they as “concrete-bound” irrelevancies to be dismissed virtually out of hand.

Yes, that was my point. Many Objectivists advocated against Bush and all Republicans because of some alleged religious right attempt to create theocracy. What apparently was missed is the fact that Bush may go down as the first socialist president in history.

Religion may have taken a good hit in the recent election . . . but to the decided advantage of Fascism.

Religion didn't take a hit; what took a hit were those who were attempting to use religion to influence public policy on a national or state level. And they were always in a minority anyway, and, in my opinion, will always remain in a minority. There are probably more religious Democrats than Republicans anyway. The Democrats are a party of conjoined pressure groups. What needs to be done is for the Republicans to establish themselves as a party of principle, one advocating limited government and property rights and individual rights. We don't need a return to the way the Founding Father's interpreted the Constitution (as McCain claimed), we need to base rights on rational moral principles. Once that is done, the Consitution, with a few changes, will be the perfect document needed to secure rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I sure am glad we kicked those religious fanatical Republicans out of office.

Yes, I'm sure that had McCain won the Presidency, and Republicans held on to their seats, then we'd be so much better off.

Then again:

Big men drove small cars on a road trip to Washington to beg for billions and billions of taxpayers' dollars. They rotated driving duties, ate at Quiznos, and - presumably - used public restrooms like the rest of us.

Sound like a not-so-funny reality show? It was. But it's no game for millions of ordinary Americans whose way of life depends on the outcome. For them, it could be a real-life tragedy.

The participants were executives of Detroit's Big Three U.S. car companies. Their sought-after prize: $34 billion in public aid for their beleaguered industry.

To help their chances, they made a very humble and public 500-plus mile drive of shame from the Motor City to Washington for congressional hearings Thursday and Friday.

...

Whether they get what they came for is still unclear. Polls show a majority of people opposes an industry bailout or a loan or a rescue.

"Are you planning to drive back?" one senator, Alabama Republican Richard Shelby, asked the panel of witnesses at the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing. [Emphasis added.]

Congratulations on winning the cherrypicking of the word "Republican" award. I got no idea how that proves what you are trying to say on this topic, but I have seen other articles that has that exact same senator declaring he will not support a bailout of the automakers.

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articl...50_FORTUNE5.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Congratulations on winning the cherrypicking of the word "Republican" award. I got no idea how that proves what you are trying to say on this topic, but I have seen other articles that has that exact same senator declaring he will not support a bailout of the automakers.

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articl...50_FORTUNE5.htm

Not a major point, just this: were I a Republican in Congress, I would be unable to find this a joking matter. I would find it entirely inappropriate to point out the abject groveling of the automakers (in spite of their own flaws, it's a depressingly horrible spectacle) except to define it in terms of the underlying principles--certainly, never with this sort of casual, flippant quip. And ultimately, that's my problem with the Republicans: because they lack the proper principles, they're at the very least unreliable, and at the very worst traitors to the cause.

The fact that this particular Senator doesn't support an automaker bailout means nothing to me in this particular context. And in reading the rest of the story you link to, one must conclude that his opposition is based not on principles, but rather on a simply pragmatic belief that the bailout "won't work."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What needs to be done is for the Republicans to establish themselves as a party of principle, one advocating limited government and property rights and individual rights.

Precisely. And it's my opinion that what holds the Republican Party back from establishing themselves as exactly that party is religion. Until they reject the altruism/collectivism that's inherent in their religious beliefs, they'll be unable to accept the fundamental principle of individual rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Precisely. And it's my opinion that what holds the Republican Party back from establishing themselves as exactly that party is religion. Until they reject the altruism/collectivism that's inherent in their religious beliefs, they'll be unable to accept the fundamental principle of individual rights.

"The Republican Party" is a collection of individuals who vary a great deal. Some Republicans are religious and some are very secular. The same for Democrats. Thus you have to be very careful when making collective judgments about the "them."

With that said, I think that the main problem with most politicians including most Republicans, almost all Democrats (except for Joe Lieberman on foreign policy), and President Bush is not that they are religious, but they are pragmatists.

Nobody can "accept the fundamental principle of individual rights" if they are opposed to principles as a matter of principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Precisely. And it's my opinion that what holds the Republican Party back from establishing themselves as exactly that party is religion. Until they reject the altruism/collectivism that's inherent in their religious beliefs, they'll be unable to accept the fundamental principle of individual rights.

I think that the main problem with most politicians including most Republicans, almost all Democrats (except for Joe Lieberman on foreign policy), and President Bush is not that they are religious, but they are pragmatists.

Nobody can "accept the fundamental principle of individual rights" if they are opposed to principles as a matter of principle.

Very nicely put, Betsy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Religion may have taken a good hit in the recent election . . . but to the decided advantage of Fascism.

Religion didn't take a hit; what took a hit were those who were attempting to use religion to influence public policy on a national or state level. And they were always in a minority anyway, and, in my opinion, will always remain in a minority. . . .

An excellent point, indeed, and one I grant you. What this means to me, and what seems to be the implication of so much of the discussion of Religion and Republicans, is that while Republicans may be prone to invoke religion in the public sphere more frequently than Democrats, it is illogical to conclude from this fact that more privately-held and expressed religious faiths and ideas do not animate Democrats to a similar degree. My own experience proves otherwise. Defeating the public use and expression of religion is a worthy goal to pursue, but does next to nothing to undermine the adherence to religion per se, insofar as its articles of faith serve as an inspiration for an individual's most deeply-held ideas, political or otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What needs to be done is for the Republicans to establish themselves as a party of principle, one advocating limited government and property rights and individual rights.

Precisely. And it's my opinion that what holds the Republican Party back from establishing themselves as exactly that party is religion. Until they reject the altruism/collectivism that's inherent in their religious beliefs, they'll be unable to accept the fundamental principle of individual rights.

How are the religious beliefs of the Republicans different from the religious beliefs of the Democrats? Do you also hold that if the Democrats "reject the altruism/collectivism that's inherent in their religious beliefs" they will then be able "accept the fundamental principle of individual rights"? Is religion holding back the Democratic Party?

If a Republican classifies himself as "pro-choice" with respect to abortion, do you classify him as a religious Republican?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0