Why is the Religious Right on the Right?

This is something I have always wondered about. Why is it that the USA's Christians tend to be right-wing and support the Republican Party?

It seems to me that this is somewhat in conflict with their religious principles. Surely they should support the adoption of a more left-wing, or at least welfare state system. Obviously I wouldn't expect them to be communists with the religion as the 'opium of the people' issue, but it seems to me they are suiting themselves rather than actually sharing their wealth.

It also seems that many of America's religious folk live in nice big houses, towards the upper end of the middle-class from what I tend to see. So I can't help but wonder why they elect the likes of Bush who are happy to leave the poor to rot. And what excuses do they make? Maybe its the Republican support for family values (always an excuse for capitalists)? Maybe the Democrats are too liberal in terms of homosexuals etc. I understand their opposition to this, but then it seems too many Republicans end up doing a Richard Quest then bluff their way out the closet anyway. Or maybe its their views on issues such as abortion and stem cell research? The latter seems more acceptable, but IMO it looks more like an excuse than anything else.

Can someone enlighten me?

Abortion and homosexuality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Left

In other words they're reactionary little sods, and hence find their home with the Republicans. (Although I've also heard the Republican wing of the politics was deliberately "colonised" by the religious conservatives decades back as a means of getting their say in decision-making...)

I've read that there also exist a comparatively progressive (socially at least) "Religious Left", which would basically be one of the major support groups behind Obama.

EDIT: Curses ! Foiled by a Martian lunatic !

Well, if I remember my US History correctly, that was what happened up till the middle of the 20th century when conservatism rose in influence and basically the Democrats and Republicans did a huge switch

Republicans freed the slaves. Religious activism and human rights found a voice in the G.O.P.
Conservationism was a central tenant.

The democrats are a party of uber-elites (as opposed to elites of the G.O.P.)

Many religious people are Republicans largely because of the abortion issue and the fact that the G.O.P. doesn't go out of its way to insult them. Many are torn between the democrats and the republicans; the dems might seem like they are better for the poor or that they will give everyone new "human rights", republicans might seem like they are more likely to protect the innocent and maintain the "human rights" that have been established for centuries.

both parties often fail at their agenda's and cause crises in the faithful.

One of the reasons that GWB did so well in the last 2 elections was because of his "compassionate conservatism". He finally won catholics over and a disproportionate amount of evangelicals. He has done a few things for the pro-life movement and increased aid to Africa - among many other things. Many people are again torn over the war in Iraq, however.

I think that McCain is shooting blanks in this election so far. He doesn't seem to have religious conviction - for the first time in recent history the democrat seems more religious. McCain does seem to stand for the human rights of immigrants, but I think Obama seems that way too.

I would put all of my money on Obama this time around for religious voters.

I'm sorry - i wrote such a preschool few sentences. I think that i'm coming down with something.

I didn't realise that unions and blacks were an uber-elite.

Union officials can certainly be elitist and so can anyone of any pigmentation.

Both the Democrats and Republicans are 80% the same. And as for the candidates they are more like 90%.

The candidates are generally rich lawyers from Ivy colleges whose family has a history of being in politics. They might not have one or two of those attributes but in general they have a majority of them.

Quote:

---

Can someone enlighten me?

---

Maybe because some of us think that government handouts aren't the best way to improve people's lives. :idea2:
Pretending that conservatism is incompatible with charity or a desire to help others shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the ideology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Both the Democrats and Republicans are 80% the same. And as for the candidates they are more like 90%.

The candidates are generally rich lawyers from Ivy colleges whose family has a history of being in politics. They might not have one or two of those attributes but in general they have a majority of them.

---

I think that is only a recent impression.

Let's take those chracteristics and see whether they fit onto some Presidents (as pars for all candidates, I can't be bothered to look at them all).

G.W. Bush - rich - business degree - Ivy - political family
W.J. Clinton - rich - law degree - Ivy - non-political family
G.H.W. Bush - rich - business degree - Ivy - political family
R.W. Reagan - rich - no degree - n.a. - non-political family
J.E. Carter - rich - science degree - non-Ivy - non-political family
R.M. Nixon - rich - law degree - non-Ivy - non-political family

They were all rich by the time they were candidates, but Clinton, Reagan and Nixon came from very modest beginnings.

If you go further back among post-war Presidents you will see fewer and fewer signs of elite background. Lyndon Baines Johnson was born between gasoline barrels in a garage somewhere in Texas, Harry Truman's first job was door-to-door salesman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

[...] Christians tend to be right-wing [...]

It seems to me that this is somewhat in conflict with their religious principles. Surely they should support the adoption of a more left-wing, or at least welfare state system.

---

Well you have a point there. The early church, the one that was founded by the first apostles had no poor among them. Why?
Let me provide the following passages from the Christian canon:

Acts 2:44
And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

Acts 4:32
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

And if I am not mistaken, many of the early religious movements in the 19th century US lived as the early Christians by having all in common.

What do we call this today? :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane

What do we call this today? :smash:

---

A legend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane

Well you have a point there. The early church, the one that was founded by the first apostles had no poor among them. Why?
Let me provide the following passages from the Christian canon:

Acts 2:44
And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

Acts 4:32
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

And if I am not mistaken, many of the early religious movements in the 19th century US lived as the early Christians by having all in common.

What do we call this today? :smash:

---

In your hyperbole if you dont know the main difference between what the bible teaches and what the political message of the major form of communism that developed during the 20th century has come to mean then I can't help you.

If communists had adopted the form that the Kibutz (SP) in Israel did - many christians would probably be communist. However history shows that turn of the century communism was heavily influenced by Karl Marx. Therefor a government form that advocates the destruction of religion will not be one that religious folks normally will want to fall under.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

This is something I have always wondered about. Why is it that the USA's Christians tend to be right-wing and support the Republican Party?

It seems to me that this is somewhat in conflict with their religious principles. Surely they should support the adoption of a more left-wing, or at least welfare state system. Obviously I wouldn't expect them to be communists with the religion as the 'opium of the people' issue, but it seems to me they are suiting themselves rather than actually sharing their wealth.

It also seems that many of America's religious folk live in nice big houses, towards the upper end of the middle-class from what I tend to see. So I can't help but wonder why they elect the likes of Bush who are happy to leave the poor to rot. And what excuses do they make? Maybe its the Republican support for family values (always an excuse for capitalists)? Maybe the Democrats are too liberal in terms of homosexuals etc. I understand their opposition to this, but then it seems too many Republicans end up doing a Richard Quest then bluff their way out the closet anyway. Or maybe its their views on issues such as abortion and stem cell research? The latter seems more acceptable, but IMO it looks more like an excuse than anything else.

Can someone enlighten me?

---

Have you looked into the politics, charity, and lifestyle of how christians in the United States live outside of the national politics that is in the news.

Now most of the middle-class christians I know give a decent portion of thier time, and earned money to charities within the community. Most support local community welfare programs that benefit the local community. (Not all do of course, since as with any group of people there are the self-serving that call themselves christians).

What most christians in the United States focus on in national politics is the freedom to believe if one wants, Abortion, and what has been termed family values. Now if one looks at the Democratic party one would find little difference between the majority of the Democratic Party and the Majority of the Republic Party. The vocal minority of both parties is what draws the politic discussion and forces people to decide which party to support.

This is the main problem with our two party system - the extremes of both parties force moderates to chose between the lesser of two evils - to use a figure of speech.

Better lesser of two evils than a greater one in a multi-party system.

The neoliberal tendency of the American religious right looks like an aberration to me. If you look at Christians and Christian political parties worldwide you will generally find that they advocate things which in America would be considered either statist or left wing. This is especially the case with Catholicism, which since at least the end of the 19th century has essentially endorsed corporatism as an economic system. And of course Catholicism has its whole other anti-corporatist and ultra-left wing tendency, to whit Liberation Theology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by makaikhaan

Abortion and homosexuality.

---

That got nothing to do with economy. :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

That got nothing to do with economy. :wall:

---

Economy isn't really a Christian concern unless it alleviates hunger, disease and despair.

the old adage "give a fish" vs "teach to fish". Christians should do both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Economy isn't really a Christian concern unless it alleviates hunger, disease and despair.

the old adage "give a fish" vs "teach to fish". Christians should do both.

---

No idea where you're going with that one. Point being that ones view on human rights [theoretically] got nothing do with whether one prefer a state with much control over the economy or one with little.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

No idea where you're going with that one. Point being that ones view on human rights [theoretically] got nothing do with whether one prefer a state with much control over the economy or one with little.

---

The left-right scale contains slightly more things than that. Besides, state control becomes quite a poor meassurement when you consider that the least state controled economies are in the middle...

If you're really going for the original scale than it's conservative (right)-radical/progressive (left).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I think that McCain is shooting blanks in this election so far. He doesn't seem to have religious conviction - for the first time in recent history the democrat seems more religious. McCain does seem to stand for the human rights of immigrants, but I think Obama seems that way too.

---

Slightly OT, but I'm going to call my shot right now:

McCain will win in November.

If you had told me a year ago that I would be predicting a GOP win, after the complete and utter mess they have made of the U.S. over the past 8 years, I would have laughed myself silly, then called your mom to tell her to stop raising idiots.

But whoda thunk it? The Dems are reverting to their natural state: shooting themselves in the feet and stepping on their own johnsons. They are almost certainly going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Slightly OT, but I'm going to call my shot right now:

McCain will win in November.

If you had told me a year ago that I would be predicting a GOP win, after the complete and utter mess they have made of the U.S. over the past 8 years, I would have laughed myself silly, then called your mom to tell her to stop raising idiots.

But whoda thunk it? The Dems are reverting to their natural state: shooting themselves in the feet and stepping on their own johnsons. They are almost certainly going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...

---

I think his VP choice will be an important factor, but I agree that McCain has the edge this election. He wasn't my first choice, but if elected, I hope he proves me wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

He wasn't my first choice, but if elected, I hope he proves me wrong.

---

HAHAHA! I knew it! I knew you'd come around. I may have seemed like a gnashing dog about Mitt, but I knew that I'd come around pretty soon. 8 months of listening to the cacophony of traitors and not backing McCain was going to be tough

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

HAHAHA! I knew it!

---

:inquisitive:
Sorry if that sounded like a McCain endorsement- it wasn't intended to be one. My point is that if he wins, I hope I was wrong about him. I may vote for him, depending how the Dem ticket shapes up, but I'd rather not. As I said, his VP choice will also be a factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Slightly OT, but I'm going to call my shot right now:

McCain will win in November.

If you had told me a year ago that I would be predicting a GOP win, after the complete and utter mess they have made of the U.S. over the past 8 years, I would have laughed myself silly, then called your mom to tell her to stop raising idiots.

But whoda thunk it? The Dems are reverting to their natural state: shooting themselves in the feet and stepping on their own johnsons. They are almost certainly going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...

---

I hope that you are right. I just see this as the best time he's going to have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

The left-right scale contains slightly more things than that. Besides, state control becomes quite a poor measurement when you consider that the least state controlled economies are in the middle...

If you're really going for the original scale than it's conservative (right)-radical/progressive (left).

---

I'm not at all going for any original scale. Being pro human rights doesn't really conflict with anything but authoritarianism.

Quote:

---

state control becomes quite a poor measurement when you consider that the least state controlled economies are in the middle...

---

Please elaborate why it has to be so.

Well I wish this Christian Left would speak out more, the US and its religious right is developing a pretty unhealthy reputation over here in the UK and is letting the country slip into some sort of horrible Republican stereotype.

@TuffStuff: You support the Republicans? Oh well, after we held the front against abortion in those two threads. :no: You'll need to forgive me but I am pretty left-wing orientated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

Well I wish this Christian Left would speak out more, the US and its religious right is developing a pretty unhealthy reputation over here in the UK and is letting the country slip into some sort of horrible Republican stereotype.

@TuffStuff: You support the Republicans? Oh well, after we held the front against abortion in those two threads. :no: You'll need to forgive me but I am pretty left-wing orientated.

---

I wish the Christian left spoke out more too. If they did, then I wouldn't have as much of an issue with the democratic party. It would be nice to have a choice in the matter.

It's because the Republican party is the only one that has any values, and opposes things like the legal genocide of babies. Which is the most grievous issue there is and therefore easily must trump any other issue.

So Christians have to support the Republican party, even though as the OP states, the Republican party has it wrong on issues of things like having compassion for and helping the poor.

If there was another major party that had values and had a chance of taking power, I'm sure Christians would support that. The Republican party is simply the "least worst" of the available choices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

It's because the Republican party is the only one that has any values, and opposes things like the legal genocide of babies. Which is the most grievous issue there is and therefore easily must trump any other issue.

So Christians have to support the Republican party, even though as the OP states, the Republican party has it wrong on issues of things like having compassion for and helping the poor.

If there was another major party that had values and had a chance of taking power, I'm sure Christians would support that. The Republican party is simply the "least worst" of the available choices.

---

There were three states that just replaced Republicans with pro-life, anti-gay marriage democrats. That's what I like to see.

If we can trend this way, maybe a reasonable democratic party is making a comeback. If that is the case, I would abandon the G.O.P. to the wolves until they start picking charismatic, decent people with leadership skills - as opposed to these corrupt and disingenuous fogies.

It is better to switch sides when the trend changes - but without changing core-principles. Democrat and Republican means nothing. They are empty vessels to be filled with competing good and bad ideological concepts. Democrats have numerous good ones. Republicans have the more important ones as far as i'm concerned. As soon as the balance changes (as it seems to be doing), I will change. You won't see me defending a party full of Giulianis, Bloombergs, Schwarzeneggers, Fossellas, Craigs, Specters, etc.

I don't really need to "change", as I am a conservative, not a Republican. If progressivism didn't have that "slash and burn all tradition" angle, I'd consider myself a progressive as well.

If I was in the US right now I would vote Republican. Which is strange for a leftie, but preventing the (what I see as) murder of babies is more important than economic issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

If I was in the US right now I would vote Republican. Which is strange for a leftie, but preventing the (what I see as) murder of babies is more important than economic issues.

---

Only to blurr the abortion issue even more (I'll skip the moral issues here), did you know that the number of abortions in Sweden is about the same absolute numbers today as it was in the 1930-ies? And at that point it was completely illegal.

That means for the law to have any effect, you also need to decide what punishment that is relevant (premeditated murder on a child!!!!) and how to enforce it (criminal investigation of every miscarriage, to ensure that it wasn't intended murder nor negligent homocide) ...

More on the general topic, there's a tendency for more religious people to care more about family values and decency (or rather indecency) and that usually falls under conservatism, that's the classical right. At the same time has the more radical left often a unpleasant view of religion and taken together this is probably one of the prime reason why religious parties are generally more to the right. This is beyond the US though and certainly has exceptions.

The national Democratic party platform is hostile to Christians. The socialist, anti-Christian fringe pulls above their weight. An example, as part of the national party platform, the Democrat party is very pro-abortion. This isn't the abortion Europe and the rest of the world has adopted, but support for a mother to have an abortion up to the day the baby is born, on a whim, and includes support for partial birth abortion. Hardly anyone in this diverse backroom supports that, but that extreme position is a main plank of their platform. They won't stand for talk of any compromise, and they are the reactionaries in that issue.

I've seen a video of a member of the student council of a university pulling up the crosses of a pro-life display by students that had small wooden crosses arrayed on a lawn as a memorial to aborted babies. He was saying it's not their right to have those crosses, because he could not tolerate respectful disagreement. That is the mindset of the national democratic party.

Further, the GOP does not advocate an end to all food stamps and assistance to the poor. It's not an Ayn Rand objectivist party.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

An example, as part of the national party platform, the Democrat party is very pro-abortion. This isn't the abortion Europe and the rest of the world has adopted, but support for a mother to have an abortion up to the day the baby is born, on a whim, and includes support for partial birth abortion.

---

This is what the Democratic Platform 2004 says about abortion:

Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

Roe v. Wade states that abortion is are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid, whereby 'Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks'.

That's all we have to go by until the new platform is written later this summer, right? Maybe you are privy to national committee secrets that we don't know about, in which case you will no doubt disclose the nature of your foreknowledge. But if the views of the main contenders for the candidacy are anything to go by, I don't believe the substance of that paragraph will be changed in the new one.

Quote:

---

I've seen a video of a member of the student council of a university pulling up the crosses of a pro-life display by students that had small wooden crosses arrayed on a lawn as a memorial to aborted babies. He was saying it's not their right to have those crosses, because he could not tolerate respectful disagreement. That is the mindset of the national democratic party.

---

What kind of logic is that?

I've seen video's of anti-choice activists terrorizing and killing honest citizens. Are we to conclude that John McCain shares their murderous agenda just because he is a Republican senator?

Crazed me heartie, what have you been smoking? :mellow:

Actions speak louder than words. Of course they'll try to speak with the voice of reason. When it comes down to it though, what I said is correct. For example, Hilary voted in 2003 not to ban partial birth abortion with an exception for the health of the mother. I can't think of a more extreme example than that. Well, besides passing laws letting minors get out of state abortions without parental permission or even notification and the like, heavily supported by the abortion groups like planned parenthood and NARAL. Both Clinton and Obama have been rated 100% by NARAL, the national abortion lobby group, for the past three years.

Quote:

---

What kind of logic is that?

I've seen video's of anti-choice activists terrorizing and killing honest citizens. Are we to conclude that John McCain shares their murderous agenda just because he is a Republican senator?

---

Yes, but those people don't reflect the mindset of the leaders, or at least very influential members, of the GOP.

CR

I never understood this......come on...if Jesus was alive today he wouldn´t be a republican...

come on think about it....he hung out with the poor, he was compassionate....he had a hooker friend...that´s not a republican...:laugh4:

now his father before Jesus was born....now that´s a republican...the "do what I say or I´ll kill your ass" God...yeah...that´s a republican.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

For example, Hilary voted in 2003 not to ban partial birth abortion with an exception for the health of the mother.

---

After reading her Senate speech I think she convincingly demonstrated that through this bill the Government legally proscribes procedures that may be medically necessary, and that it does undermine Roe v. Wade.

This is fully supported by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ (ACOG) in their statement of 2007 after the Supreme Court upheld the bill:

Despite the fact that the safety advantages of intact dilatation and evacuation (intact D&E) procedures are widely recognized—in medical texts, peer-reviewed studies, clinical practice, and in mainstream, medical care in the United States—the US Supreme Court today upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. [..] According to the amicus brief opposing the Ban, the Act will chill doctors from providing a wide range of procedures used to perform induced abortions or to treat cases of miscarriage and will gravely endanger the health of women in this country.

I think Clinton was certainly right when she stated in her speech that the principle underlying this bill has no place in a democratic society and properly belongs in nations like Ceaucescu's Romania.

Good girl.:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

I never understood this......come on...if Jesus was alive today he wouldn´t be a republican...

come on think about it....he hung out with the poor, he was compassionate....he had a hooker friend...that´s not a republican...:laugh4:

now his father before Jesus was born....now that´s a republican...the "do what I say or I´ll kill your ass" God...yeah...that´s a republican.

---

Jesus wouldn't be democratic or republican... he'd form his own party and blow dems and reps outta the water.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

After reading her Senate speech I think she convincingly demonstrated that through this bill the Government legally proscribes procedures that may be medically necessary, and that it does undermine Roe v. Wade.

This is fully supported by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ (ACOG) in their statement of 2007 after the Supreme Court upheld the bill:

Despite the fact that the safety advantages of intact dilatation and evacuation (intact D&E) procedures are widely recognized—in medical texts, peer-reviewed studies, clinical practice, and in mainstream, medical care in the United States—the US Supreme Court today upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. [..] According to the amicus brief opposing the Ban, the Act will chill doctors from providing a wide range of procedures used to perform induced abortions or to treat cases of miscarriage and will gravely endanger the health of women in this country.

I think Clinton was certainly right when she stated in her speech that the principle underlying this bill has no place in a democratic society and properly belongs in nations like Ceaucescu's Romania.

Good girl.:2thumbsup:

---

Wonderful. So you were against the partial birth abortion ban. CR stands corrected when he stated that nobody on this forum supported that kind of infanticide. Who would have thought it was Adrian?

You have SEEN videos of anti-choicers killing civilians for supporting abortion? Where?

I know that it has happened, but you are making it sound like it happens often enough to be caught on tape.

-4 points for my respect of Adrian's humanitarian ethics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

After reading her Senate speech I think she convincingly demonstrated that through this bill the Government legally proscribes procedures that may be medically necessary, and that it does undermine Roe v. Wade.

This is fully supported by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ (ACOG) in their statement of 2007 after the Supreme Court upheld the bill:

Despite the fact that the safety advantages of intact dilatation and evacuation (intact D&E) procedures are widely recognized—in medical texts, peer-reviewed studies, clinical practice, and in mainstream, medical care in the United States—the US Supreme Court today upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. [..] According to the amicus brief opposing the Ban, the Act will chill doctors from providing a wide range of procedures used to perform induced abortions or to treat cases of miscarriage and will gravely endanger the health of women in this country.

I think Clinton was certainly right when she stated in her speech that the principle underlying this bill has no place in a democratic society and properly belongs in nations like Ceaucescu's Romania.

Good girl.:2thumbsup:

---

Seems from me that she opposed that Bill because it might have led to later legislation that further rolled back abortion. The reality is that that Bill does seem quite tighly focused, the Republicans might try to use it as a Spring Board but if that is so the Democrats should table a better Bill to protect viable late term foeti, rather that mud-slinging the opposition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

You have SEEN videos of anti-choicers killing civilians for supporting abortion? Where?

---

I can't link to such propaganda on this forum, but you can easily find in on Youtube, just as you can find racist and fascist propaganda, terrorist guides and similar stuff like that with only a few clicks. If you haev trouble finding it, start with this vid and take it from there.

And if you stay with YouTube and search for 'Voices of Choice' you will see a series of videos that gives you an idea of the extent of this terrorism. Because that's what it is.

Then search for Battle Cry, Ron Luce's brain child, and watch some footage of the hysterical mass manifestations he organises, and where the next generation of God's own terrorists is being raised and trained.

The gist of your post is purely personal and I won't comment. But I am surprised you don't know that I support the right to abortion up to the last day of pregnancy. I have defended this several times. I don't feel like repeating myself, we have had so many threads about this already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Seems from me that she opposed that Bill because it might have led to later legislation that further rolled back abortion.

---

She clearly regards the bill as an instrument to undermine Roe v. Wade. The point is that she is committed to Roe v. Wade (as is the Democratic party as a whole until today) and I think she is right that the Bill creates a legal ground for renewed attacks on Roe v. wade.

However that may be, her position isn't nearly as radical as our friend Crazed Rabbit made it out to be. And that, dear Philipvs, was my point. :bow:

Studied this in U.S. history.
During the 1970s there was a realignment of the parties, forming the 'New Left' and 'New Right'. The "New Right" is what we have to day, inspired by the 'Moral Majority" of evangelical Christians and conservatives in general.

While I consider myself a moderate conservative, the only thing that prevents me from joining the Dems is their stand on abortion. While I doubt I'll ever carry a child, I do not believe that women should be able to abort their children.

However, sometimes the planets do realign, such as in Mississippi, hotbed of conservatism and fried-chicken. M-I-S-S

The winner, a Democrat, didn't run as a 'pro-choice welfare stater' as many would suspect, but as a pro-life, gun-toting, Democrat.
To me, it seems that the religious right is on the right because it always seems like the ACLU or the Democrat heads are pounding on the use of God in the pledge, on money, in buildings, on lawns. If they don't slam every single Christian act, they would get farther with Christians as a whole. Until then, the G.O.P remains with G.O.D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

Studied this in U.S. history.
During the 1970s there was a realignment of the parties, forming the 'New Left' and 'New Right'. The "New Right" is what we have to day, inspired by the 'Moral Majority" of evangelical Christians and conservatives in general.

While I consider myself a moderate conservative, the only thing that prevents me from joining the Dems is their stand on abortion. While I doubt I'll ever carry a child, I do not believe that women should be able to abort their children.

However, sometimes the planets do realign, such as in Mississippi, hotbed of conservatism and fried-chicken. M-I-S-S

The winner, a Democrat, didn't run as a 'pro-choice welfare stater' as many would suspect, but as a pro-life, gun-toting, Democrat.
To me, it seems that the religious right is on the right because it always seems like the ACLU or the Democrat heads are pounding on the use of God in the pledge, on money, in buildings, on lawns. If they don't slam every single Christian act, they would get farther with Christians as a whole. Until then, the G.O.P remains with G.O.D.

---

Agreed.

It would undermine Roe vs Wade? Good! Any objective analysis shows that was a terrible constitutional decision for the court to make. And it shows that Hilary is a to-the-hilt supporter of abortion as well.

And she showed nothing of what you claim in her speech. She listed a few examples of children who would die soon after birth. Why then was it so necessary to kill the child as it was halfway out? I find it repulsive that killing, murder, can be justified as a right when a child is halfway out of the womb.

But I digress. The bill, Hilary's lies aside, gave an exception for the health of the mother. Or I should say, gives, as SCOTUS upheld the law. Eat that, NARAL.

'Safe, legal, and rare' my ass. They don't care how rare it is, and it's obvious because of the extreme position on abortion they have. I don't think a national party could get a more extreme position.

Hilary also voted NO on

Quote:

---

Notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
This bill prohibits taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Makes an exception for an abortion necessary to save the life of the minor. Authorizes any parent to sue unless such parent committed an act of incest with the minor. Imposes a fine and/or prison term of up to one year on a physician who performs an abortion on an out-of-state minor in violation of parental notification requirements in their home state.

---

Bill Info: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...:@@@L&summ2=m&

Heaven forbid the pondscum at planned parenthood should have to notify the parents of a child who they are taking over state lines so they can have an abortion without telling their parents.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

It would undermine Roe vs Wade? Good! Any objective analysis shows that was a terrible constitutional decision for the court to make. And it shows that Hilary is a to-the-hilt supporter of abortion as well.

---

Here you imply that Roe v. Wade equals 'up to the hilt bortion', which is another falsity. You can't seem to get it right.

Hilary also voted NO on
Quote:
Notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
This bill prohibits taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Makes an exception for an abortion necessary to save the life of the minor. Authorizes any parent to sue unless such parent committed an act of incest with the minor. Imposes a fine and/or prison term of up to one year on a physician who performs an abortion on an out-of-state minor in violation of parental notification requirements in their home state.


I don't think parents should have to be told about thier child having an abortion (whats the definition of child here ? under 18 or under 16) from extreme cases of parents killing thier children (honour killings are something along those lines) to kids whose parents will physically punish them for getting pregnant, to kids who just don't want to dissapoint thier parents, i thinks its an imperfect situation but ultimately the choice should rest with the child whether to tell the parent or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

Hilary also voted NO on
Quote:
Notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
This bill prohibits taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Makes an exception for an abortion necessary to save the life of the minor. Authorizes any parent to sue unless such parent committed an act of incest with the minor. Imposes a fine and/or prison term of up to one year on a physician who performs an abortion on an out-of-state minor in violation of parental notification requirements in their home state.


I don't think parents should have to be told about thier child having an abortion (whats the definition of child here ? under 18 or under 16) from extreme cases of parents killing thier children (honour killings are something along those lines) to kids whose parents will physically punish them for getting pregnant, to kids who just don't want to dissapoint thier parents, i thinks its an imperfect situation but ultimately the choice should rest with the child whether to tell the parent or not.

---

This thread is digressing into an abortion debate, and I don't think that's what its intended purpose is. I will say, were this debate to find it's own thread, I find large fallacies in both sides of the argument being presented that I would like to address in an appropriate venue.

For the actual topic at hand, I think the OP has missed the forest for the trees and has listened to a little too much rhetoric.

I cannot speak for how Right-wing and Left-wing politics work in the particular in Europe or anywhere else.I can only speak for America.

In America, the Left-wing is represented by the Democratic coalition and the Right-wing is represented by the Republican coalition. I use that term because while they are technically recognized parties, they do not have a cohesive view in the same sense that European political parties do.

Both coalitions are made up of constituent groups. Democrats are comprised of a wider assortment of organizations: environmentalists, consumer-protection advocates, women's rights groups, socialists, peace advocates, gay rights advocates, civil rights advocates and organized labor. Yes, the Republican platform addresses each of these groups as well, but I'm talking majorities here.

On the Republican side, it's much simpler. The Republican party is a coalition of three groups: fiscal conservatives, foreign policy conservatives and religious conservatives. By religious conservatives, I mean evangelical Christians. The Roman Catholic Church, while adamantly pro-life, is quite outspoken about its views on so-called social justice, capitalism, and America's foreign policy. By foreign policy conservatives, I mean simply hawks. Fight for our friends. Fight against our enemies. And by fiscal conservatives, I mean what in Europe would be referred to as "Liberals", those who view deregulation of the marketplace as necessary and good. For the record, while I share sympathies with the first two groups, I am primarily of the third flavor.

So, to answer the OP, the religious right choose the Republican coalition, because they find an expression for their views. This is more than simply abortion, though abortion is probably the largest camp. I can hear the scorn and derision before the words are already out of my mouth, but the issues that drove the Religious Right into the Republican coalition, and away from the Democratic coalition, are as follows:

-An end to abortion on demand at any stage in fetal development
-A proscription against homosexual marriage
-An end to the inclusion of homosexuals as a protected class for civil rights purposes
-Reintroduction of prayer in school
-Acknowledgement that the USA was founded as a Chrisitian country.
-Support of Israel.
-Support of home schooling.
-2nd ammendment protections.
-Support of the traditional, nuclear family.

The Democratic coalition tends to scoff at and ridicule the mere mention of the above positions, if they're not openly hostile to their discussion, and forget about actually addressing them seriously. As they are more important to religious conservatives then foreign policy issues or financial ones, it's no wonder religious conservatives refuse to consider the Democratic coalition as a viable alternative. (Note: I am not saying that "I" support the above issues necessarily, nor am I saying that I don't. I'm saying they are THE issues for religious conservatives, everything else comes in a distant second).

The way religious conservatives rebel against the Republican coalition is by not showing up. Since they are by far the most motivated grass-roots organizers in the country, that has a deep impact on the Republican Party's ability to push its message.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

-Support of Israel. [...]

The Democratic coalition tends to scoff at and ridicule the mere mention of the above positions, if they're not openly hostile to their discussion, and let alone addressing them seriously.

---

Support of Israel is an exclusively Republican thing, and Dems won't even consider the idea seriously? ORLY? Man, I learn new stuff every day at the Org.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Support of Israel is an exclusively Republican thing, and Dems won't even consider the idea seriously? ORLY? Man, I learn new stuff every day at the Org.

---

This one surprised me too, Don. Do you mean to say that in his eight years as as President, Bill Clinton scoffed at supporting Israel, never discussed it and forgot about addressing it seriously?

For the record, the Democratic coalition has a good pitch it could make to Christians. There's much in their platform that were they willing to 'talk the talk', would play well. But Democratic politicians have to walk a very, very fine line. Too much mention of religion, and they'll turn off a large portion of their coalition, that believe any mention of God at all by a politician violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

But messages that Democrats could present:

-Stewardship of the environment
-Providing for the finanically downtrodden at the governmental level.
-Non-interventionist foreign policy.
-A "love the sinner" approach to social issues (Republicans tend to focus more on the "hate the sin" part).


One exception to the "Leave God out of the Democratic party" tradtionally has been among African Americans, who when numbers are counted, tend to be much more reliable church-goers than whites, particularly white Democrats. The Democratic coalition tends to give them a 'free pass' on that. This is one of Obama's great values as a candidate. He CAN bring Jesus into the discussion from the Blue side and not be ridiculed by his own followers. It will be very interesting to see what affect that has on religious conservatives in America among lower income to lower-middle income families. Until now, they have been forced to choose between voting with their wallets or voting with their prayer books. It's not lost on me, so I'm sure it's not lost on his campaign managers that Obama offers a way for them to step outside of that dichotomy for once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

This one surprised me too, Don. Do you mean to say that in his eight years as as President, Bill Clinton scoffed at supporting Israel, never discussed it and forgot about addressing it seriously?

---

Not to the same extent. 30 years ago, support of Israel was in fact a Democratic issue. The Republicans have co-opted it. When you look at who is pushing for 'land for peace' deals, it is invariably Democrats. And when you look at who's saying "Do whatever you think is necessary" to Israel, it's Republicans.

Don't foget guys, the Evangelical crowd believes the Rapture cannot occur until the Temple of Solomon is rebuilt. That's not going to happen with the Mosque of the Golden Dome sitting on top of it's ruins.

Aside from which, I'm not saying this is how "I" view the issues. I'm saying this is how they get sold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Here you imply that Roe v. Wade equals 'up to the hilt bortion', which is another falsity. You can't seem to get it right.

---

You misunderstand. I said Hilary is a 'too-the-hilt' abortion supporter, in that she opposes anything that might lead to the end of a 'right' to abortion, not that Roe v wade necessarily is. You don't seem to understand. ~;p

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

You misunderstand. I said Hilary is a 'too-the-hilt' abortion supporter, in that she opposes anything that might lead to the end of a 'right' to abortion, not that Roe v wade necessarily is. You don't seem to understand. ~;p

CR

---

Alright let's call it a draw. So we're both dumb. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

-An end to abortion on demand at any stage in fetal development
-A proscription against homosexual marriage
-An end to the inclusion of homosexuals as a protected class for civil rights purposes
-Reintroduction of prayer in school
-Acknowledgement that the USA was founded as a Chrisitian country.
-Support of Israel.
-Support of home schooling.
-2nd ammendment protections.
-Support of the traditional, nuclear family.

---

Well I agree with most of the issues there to some degree, although less so for the last three in the list.

I think two-party systems do little to represent the people. In the US, the evangelicals are having to abandon their values where the economy is concerned, just because of a radical fringe in the Democrat Party that is forcing them towards the Republicans.

Even in the UK, the two-party system just is not working. If systems are to be democratic then they must allow many parties to gain representation, since I cannot think of any developed country nowadays that could be split over a single-issue with no contradicting beliefs within either side.

On European sense, is there even left in US, like Social democrats and labour/socialist parties in Europe?When i read statements of US conservatives, liberals are called lefties, who are on the right in political spectrum here in Nordic countries.Its a damn rough classification, when parties or people should be just categorized as either left or right.
How i would see the Democrats and Republicans in US, would be that the first one is both liberal on economy and moral values, while the second is liberal on its economical policies,while conservative on its moral values.So two right wing parties, other more liberal, other more conservative, neither a left wing party.:juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

On European sense, is there even left in US, like Social democrats and labour/socialist parties in Europe?When i read statements of US conservatives, liberals are called lefties, who are on the right in political spectrum here in Nordic countries.Its a damn rough classification, when parties or people should be just categorized as either left or right.
How i would see the Democrats and Republicans in US, would be that the first one is both liberal on economy and moral values, while the second is liberal on its economical policies,while conservative on its moral values.So two right wing parties, other more liberal, other more conservative, neither a left wing party.:juggle2:

---

You can't say American Liberals equate to European Liberals, so a European Liberal is considered left to far left in America. It doesn't work that way at all. American liberals are more like your socialists. Well, probably more like your Labor.

Democrats are not 'liberal' fiscally speaking. They believe in state subsidized industries (although all politicians in America are, Democrats are just honest enough to admit it). The Democrats believe in more power for unions, more regulation, more nationalization of industries, more taxation, more oversight, more goods and services being provided by the Government sector in general. Republicans are the only 'Liberals' in the sense that you're using the term. At least they are on paper. With the way they behave once elected, I think I should change my name to John Galt most days.

Quote:

---

So I can't help but wonder why they elect the likes of Bush who are happy to leave the poor to rot.

---

Not true. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

You can't say American Liberals equate to European Liberals, so a European Liberal is considered left to far left in America. It doesn't work that way at all. American liberals are more like your socialists. Well, probably more like your Labor.

Democrats are not 'liberal' fiscally speaking. They believe in state subsidized industries (although all politicians in America are, Democrats are just honest enough to admit it). The Democrats believe in more power for unions, more regulation, more nationalization of industries, more taxation, more oversight, more goods and services being provided by the Government sector in general. Republicans are the only 'Liberals' in the sense that you're using the term. At least they are on paper. With the way they behave once elected, I think I should change my name to John Galt most days.

---

Thats why its so confusing to me, because our labour/ vasemmistoliitto= left coalition, are the old commies, which i can hardly see as sister party of the US democrats. I guess over here the political tradition is so radically different that direct comparisons are pointless, because for example the "welfare society" is so traditional value that it is seen as conservative to uphold it, while only the liberal party is against the idea more or less completely. While the socialist, social democrats, centrist party and even the christian democrats see it as a founding pillar of the society, the differences appear when it comes to policies how to preserve and fund the "wellfare society" and what parts are integral for the government to handle without loosing efficiency. So in the end maybe its just pointless to even try to compare these political classifications.:sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

The national Democratic party platform is hostile to Christians. The socialist, anti-Christian fringe pulls above their weight.

---

That would explain why there are only a few Atheists in the Democratic congress...