Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26787
|
|
But who are the victims ? It's Christians.
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19880
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
Then no group should 'identify' themselves as anything since it undoubtedly excludes someone, somewhere.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
english7
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/27/09
Posts: 3050
|
|
We're not talking about "someone, somewhere." "Someone, somewhere" is a ready excuse.
I wanted to make a point that Republicans need to do better if they want to win the next time. They should get off the religion bandwagon (does it work in the ME?) and get oriented to THE PEOPLE.
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26787
|
|
Which religious bandwagon do you mean....
Because I am my brother's keeper....
youtu.be/1YWcyVqPkIo
or I believe in God's command to love thy neighbor.....
youtu.be/H7jgVNee2oE
Politicians that follow a religion are a dime a dozen, but when and who was the last one that ran on the idea, that there should be a national religion, that any religion should be forced on anyone, or that any religion should be made illegal ?
|
english7
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/27/09
Posts: 3050
|
|
I don't disagree that those two ideals/values are important or that doing good for others should not be mentioned in political speech. Is that what you think I mean?
Who ran on the idea of a national religion? No one that I know of.
Who wanted to force religion on people or to make any religion illegal? No one that I can think of.
Do you disagree with my thoughts that the Republican party should not campaign by bringing religion into their rhetoric so often? That's fine if you do. These are just my thought. I'd like to see a Republican candidate who does not do that.
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26787
|
|
Actually it was a response to Republicans should get off the religious bandwagon. The current president has no problem getting on it, and using it to his convenience.
Here is the problem, why does anyone care what religion someone is, or if their values come from that religion ? The only concern should be governing by religion.
Look at our current President, a self admitted lifelong Christian, who follows his religion. Is he a hypocrite, as in all Christians are hypocrites, or do his non religious supporters believe he is just talking the talk to satisfy his low information voters. Is there some kind of secret knowledge around that says we know he isn't really a Christian, how does that work.
No one can name a politician who wants to rule through religion, but somehow, the myth propagates, as it has here, that the republicans are some kind of religious fanatics who want to impose their religion on everyone.
It makes no sense. Should I care if someone is against abortion because of their religion, or if they believe life begins at conception, science gives us no true answer, but somehow the origin of the belief is the issue, and not the belief itself.
If a person lives their life through their religious values, but does not Govern by them, what is the issue.
Which is worse, a person whose religion drives their values, and they freely admit it, or one who says they follow the religion, and then mocks the followers ?
I think the democrats should get off it, the republicans and anyone else in government should get off the bandwagon of imposing religion. As far as their policies go, I don't care where their thoughts come from, only the content. Shall not kill is shall not kill regardless of who thought of it first.
A perfect example is going on right now, with the young lady and a lung transplant. What is the right answer, and what should it be based on?
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19880
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
We're not talking about "someone, somewhere."
---> What do you think "other voters" are? "Other voter" can be Democrats, Independents, Green Party, etc (someone); they can be in any state (somewhere).
"Someone, somewhere" is a ready excuse.
---> "Ready excuse"?!? What is a 'ready excuse' is tossing in 'separation of church and state' to EXCUSE violating the First Amendment.
I wanted to make a point that Republicans need to do better if they want to win the next time. They should get off the religion bandwagon (does it work in the ME?) and get oriented to THE PEOPLE.
---> Ever consider the it's because of THE PEOPLE, that they are getting on the 'religion bandwagon' as you call it.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
english7
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/27/09
Posts: 3050
|
|
" The current president has no problem getting on it, and using it to his convenience. "
Should the president not mention religion during the National Prayer Breakfast? That, to me, is the perfect venue for such talk, not when making laws or garnering votes.
"No one can name a politician who wants to rule through religion" I think it's impossible to know, before elected, exactly how a candidate's religion will rule through or by religion. Michele Bachmann gave me the creeps. If anyone would rule that way, it would be she. Saying that God called her to run for House seat kind of sounds like she'd rule by religion, but I can see the other side of it, too. As I recall, she also wanted religious topics taught in schools.
All I'm saying is that I want a Republican candidate who does not speak as if he or she is talking mostly to the religious Right.
|
english7
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/27/09
Posts: 3050
|
|
" Ever consider the it's because of THE PEOPLE, that they are getting on the 'religion bandwagon' as you call it. "
Yes, I've thought of that. But THE PEOPLE must mean some representation of all citizens, not just those who want more religious fervor in a ruler.
Michael Steele was recently interviewed about the future of the GOP, as in the Grand Old Party. He said, "You know, Republicans should run in the communities as they find them, not as you want them to be or think they are. And the moment you sort of get past that pretense and that falsehood that, you know, everybody, you know, is with you because they're with the other guy, you can have a conversation about the things that matter. You can have a conversation about the things that matter to people, as opposed to matter to your party." Sounds to me like he understands the importance of representing THE PEOPLE more generally.
When asked about the Religion Right, he said, "I've said before, we're not a religious party as the GOP. We have religious folks in the party, but that is not the main driver for us."
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26787
|
|
But should he use religion to sell tax increases, at the national prayer breakfast.
Should he use religion at a campaign event. He is on the bandwagon, as much as anyone, when he needs to be. But somehow he avoids the religious label, why is that ? How does a self professed true believer avoid the religious label, when he even uses religion to sell tax increases, and votes. Any candidate, Bachman included, who pushes for legislation to put religion in the classroom would lose my vote. It is not the place to teach religion.
But for some reason you are lumping all republicans into this religious right group, and that is a myth, a total unfounded myth, with zero evidence. As a self professed true believer in Jesus Christ, Where does Obama get his views on life, if not from the religion he says has guided him.
I get it, you can govern without it, like Mitt Romney did in Mass. But where is the evidence, the facts,, or anything to actually prove this whole republicans and religion thing.
"I think it's impossible to know, before elected, exactly how a candidate's religion will rule through or by religion."
There is nothing wrong with having a feeling, and even voting on that feeling, but to present an idea as fact, to back up a feeling when there is no evidence is just not right.
That is no different than the birther movement, a feeling with no evidence.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
