Why is the Religious Right on the Right?

[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.

[Don Corleone]

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.

[Lemur]

-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.

[Adrian II]

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?

[Don Corleone]

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.

[Don Corleone]

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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

-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.

[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.

[Don Corleone]

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.

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.

[Kagemusha]

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.