Why is the Religious Right on the Right?

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[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.

[Ironside]

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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

[Adrian II]

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.

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?

[Crazed Rabbit]

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.

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

[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...

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.

[Adrian II]

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.

[CountArach]

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...