The Religious Left - a factor in Nov?

[FlFishOn]

"an increasing large number of Republican Constituants who could be labeled the "Religious Right" are defecting from the Republican party."

A fine leftist fantasy. You'll pull in all those Fundies with partial birth abortion and gay marriage.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Great point about the non-profit status of those churches. My mouth waters at the prospect of yanking that from them.

Using nonprofits as political vehicles has been a calling card of the right wing money men.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate the religious right as much as anyone, in fact I have a bumper sticker on my car that states, "The Christian Right is Neither", but lets face it, the democrats use churches as political get out the vote machines much more than republicans. The republican churches they use are just much more dispicable, though much smaller in numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]

smaller in number isn't even close - the rise of suburban Mega-Chruches - (some now rent out stadiums) is directly connected to the increase in Religious Right activity on the political forum.

Maybe in 1960 - the Democratic party hasn't thrown any serious effort behind the churches in yrs. - and the Religious Left in question isn't really trying too hard to find a political identity.

Mostly we're so [censored] repulsed by the folks on the Religious Right we feel we have to say something to keep people from thinking Christian = "homophobic warmongering fundie bigot who wants women barefoot and pregnant all the time and wants to kill/imprison anyone who disagrees with them"

RB

[/ QUOTE ]

Youre just a bastion of liberal tolerance arent you?

[/ QUOTE ]

yep -

in a society run by the Democrats, Christians still have all their freedoms to practice what they believe on each other - they just can't make it the law of the land.

If they have their way we can just burn the Constitution and start over with the Old Testament, cause that will be the law of the land.

You can make as many snide comments as you wish, but you can't dispute the core fact that the Religious Right is actively working to reverse 50 years of freedom and progress because they claim it goes against what their God wants, even though God never commanded Christians attempt to seize power thru military/political means and never asked them to make Christian allegience a mandatory requirement to serving in Government. That is what they wish to do.

keep drinking the kool-aid, bro....they'll come for your online poker next.

RB

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny that you label me a kool-aid drinker when Ive posted my views on certain subjects which are very much not in keeping with the party line. Meanwhile every one of your posts reads like something pulled straight off of The Democratic Underground. As Ive said before, I appreciate your passion for what you believe in and I think you are sincere, but you arent doing yourself any favors by posting in such a condescending and insulting manner. And yes I'll point the finger at myself for my original response to you.

As for your original claim, I find it tenuous at best. No way in hell is any significant number of the "extreme religious right" going to vote Democrat. And if they dont vote Republican, the sole reason is because the Republican party hasnt really delivered much on the issues that matter to them. Heard much about a gay marriage amendment lately?

On the use of churches as a political vehicle, the Democrats usage of such has already been pointed out on this thread. I completely agree that this shouldnt be allowed but its misleading at best to suggest this is a Republican only thing, as the Democrats have been doing it for a long time.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
On the use of churches as a political vehicle, the Democrats usage of such has already been pointed out on this thread. I completely agree that this shouldnt be allowed but its misleading at best to suggest this is a Republican only thing, as the Democrats have been doing it for a long time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually find the notion of yanking nonprofit status from religious groups for political activity to be very disturbing. "Go ahead and talk about Jesus all you like, and we're fine with that. But if you start to talk about politics, we'll send the tax man in to take all your money." I'm not sure that message is really consistent with freedom of religion.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On the use of churches as a political vehicle, the Democrats usage of such has already been pointed out on this thread. I completely agree that this shouldnt be allowed but its misleading at best to suggest this is a Republican only thing, as the Democrats have been doing it for a long time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually find the notion of yanking nonprofit status from religious groups for political activity to be very disturbing. "Go ahead and talk about Jesus all you like, and we're fine with that. But if you start to talk about politics, we'll send the tax man in to take all your money." I'm not sure that message is really consistent with freedom of religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

bobman,

I agree its a bit of a murky area. I had the same thoughts you did when I posted. But something about it doesnt quite sit well with me. ITs hard for me to articulate why, I'll have to think about it some more.

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
If Jesus Christ were alive today he would be a (fill in the blank) . And its not even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

Comments like this are why I hate both religion and politics.

[moorobot]

I wonder if another large party shift will occur. America has this big problem:

40% of people are very moderate overall and/or have a rather inconsistent political ideology.

However, most people have a more consistent, less moderate ideology. about 18% are populists/christian democrats-left in econ, right in social, 16% left in both, 16% right in both, and 9% libertarian (everyone knows what these are because of this board, although this board is dominated by the extremist 1% of these libertarians).

If we could change the electoral rules (national proportional representation like a civilized nation, perhaps?) we could have more than two viable parties. If not we are fitting at least four extremely distinct large (should be) parties into two.