+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19

Thread: Reaping the Harvest of Pandering to the Religious Right

  1. #1
    Member Linda_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    God's Own Country ... the Southern Tier
    Posts
    7,713

    Reaping the Harvest of Pandering to the Religious Right

    The Republican Party has spent the last twenty plus years pandering to the extremists of the Religious Right, and this is what they get ... let's all talk about "the big tent again"!

    The Crisis of Faith

    Published: December 7, 2007

    Mitt Romney obviously felt he had no choice but to give a speech yesterday on his Mormon faith. Even by the low standards of this campaign, it was a distressing moment and just what the nation’s founders wanted to head off with the immortal words of the First Amendment: A presidential candidate cowed into defending his way of worshiping God by a powerful minority determined to impose its religious tenets as a test for holding public office.

    Mr. Romney spoke with an evident passion about the hunger for religious freedom that defined the birth of the nation. He said several times that his faith informs his life, but he would not impose it on the Oval Office.
    Still, there was no escaping the reality of the moment. Mr. Romney was not there to defend freedom of religion, or to champion the indisputable notion that belief in God and religious observance are longstanding parts of American life. He was trying to persuade Christian fundamentalists in the Republican Party, who do want to impose their faith on the Oval Office, that he is sufficiently Christian for them to support his bid for the Republican nomination. No matter how dignified he looked, and how many times he quoted the founding fathers, he could not disguise that sad fact.
    Mr. Romney tried to cloak himself in the memory of John F. Kennedy, who had to defend his Catholicism in the 1960 campaign. But Mr. Kennedy had the moral courage to do so in front of an audience of Southern Baptist leaders and to declare: "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute."

    Mr. Romney did not even come close to that in his speech, at the George Bush Presidential Library in Texas, before a carefully selected crowd. And in his speech, he courted the most religiously intolerant sector of American political life by buying into the myths at the heart of the "cultural war," so eagerly embraced by the extreme right.

    Mr. Romney filled his speech with the first myth — that the nation’s founders, rather than seeking to protect all faiths, sought to imbue the United States with Christian orthodoxy. He cited the Declaration of Independence’s reference to "the creator" endowing all men with unalienable rights and the founders’ proclaiming not just their belief in God, but their belief that God’s hand guided the American revolutionaries.
    Mr. Romney dragged out the old chestnuts about "In God We Trust" on the nation’s currency, and the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance — conveniently omitting that those weren’t the founders’ handiwork, but were adopted in the 1950s at the height of McCarthyism. He managed to find a few quotes from John Adams to support his argument about America’s Christian foundation, but overlooked George Washington’s letter of reassurance to the Jews in Newport, R.I., that they would be full members of the new nation.

    He didn’t mention Thomas Jefferson, who said he wanted to be remembered for writing the Declaration of Independence, founding the University of Virginia and drafting the first American law — a Virginia statute — guaranteeing religious freedom. In his book, "American Gospel," Jon Meacham quotes James Madison as saying that law was "meant to comprehend, with the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination."

    The founders were indeed religious men, as Mr. Romney said. But they understood the difference between celebrating religious faith as a virtue, and imposing a particular doctrine, or even religion in general, on everyone. As Mr. Meacham put it, they knew that "many if not most believed, yet none must."

    The other myth permeating the debate over religion is that it is a dispute between those who believe religion has a place in public life and those who advocate, as Mr. Romney put it, "the elimination of religion from the public square." That same nonsense is trotted out every time a court rules that the Ten Commandments may not be displayed in a government building.
    We believe democracy cannot exist without separation of church and state, not that public displays of faith are anathema. We believe, as did the founding fathers, that no specific religion should be elevated above all others by the government.

    The authors of the Constitution knew that requiring specific declarations of religious belief (like Mr. Romney saying he believes Jesus was the son of God) is a step toward imposing that belief on all Americans. That is why they wrote in Article VI that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
    And yet, religious testing has gained strength in the last few elections. Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, has made it the cornerstone of his campaign. John McCain, another Republican who struggles to win over the religious right, calls America "a Christian nation."

    CNN, shockingly, required the candidates at the recent Republican debate to answer a videotaped question from a voter holding a Christian edition of the Bible, who said: "How you answer this question will tell us everything we need to know about you. Do you believe every word of this book? Specifically, this book that I am holding in my hand, do you believe this book?"

    The nation’s founders knew the answer to that question says nothing about a candidate’s fitness for office. It’s tragic to see it being asked at a time when Americans need a president who will tell the truth, lead with conviction and restore the nation’s moral standing, not one who happens to attend a particular church.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07fri1.html

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Amherst
    Posts
    6,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Linda_D
    The Republican Party has spent the last twenty plus years pandering to the extremists of the Religious Right, and this is what they get ... let's all talk about "the big tent again"!



    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07fri1.html

    Hey Linda. You rock!

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    7,322
    It's sad that Reps have to pander to the religious right as much as they do. The kicker is that the left panders to them(but not nearly to the extent of the right) as well as the moveon.org and huffingtonpost whackos.

    Charels Krauthhammer (sp) was making the same point as the NY Times article (that in todays day and age somebody needs to prove their religious credentials).

  4. #4
    Member raoul duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    soup line
    Posts
    4,304
    What? The left "panders" to the religious right? In what universe? Is the left cowardly and wholly ineffective when confronting and/or countering the religious right and it's blatant hypocrisies? Annoyingly so. But pandering? No.

    Also, they've been courted by the Republicans for a lot longer than 20 years. There are a lot of historians who argue the tactic goes all the back to before the Civil Rights Movement when southern Democrats split with their northern counterparts (who tended to favor Civil Rights legislation) and took the southern white christian vote with them. Then, 31 years ago, when Carter whomped 'em in the south, the Republicans took to mobilizing white southern christians with code words such as "states rights" and "busing" in line with the Southern Strategy.
    One beautiful thing about having a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations is that every disaster is measured in terms of economic loss. It's sort of like getting your arm sheared off in a car accident and thinking, "Damn, now it'll take longer to fold the laundry" as blood spurts from your arteries. - The Rude Pundit

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by raoul duke
    What? The left "panders" to the religious right? In what universe? Is the left cowardly and wholly ineffective when confronting and/or countering the religious right and it's blatant hypocrisies? Annoyingly so. But pandering? No.

    Are you going to tell me that Hillary and Obama haven't tried to out religion each other? They are both trying to be seen and heard talking about religion.

    Hillary has mentioned more times than I care to count that her faith got her through the BJ scandal and other infedelities. Obama's pastor and faith have been discussed by Obama and his pastor more times than timmy's said "jew".

    Hell, the 06 race featured numerous Dems pandering to the religious right for votes (Kerry did it in 04).

    Look, it's not a dumb move when considering the sheer number of votes that they represent. I'm pointing out that the Reps don't have a monopoly on the religion card.

    The Dems also have to pander to the leftwing fringe if they want to get through the primaries, then they'll ignore the code pink/Daily Kos whack jobs.

  6. #6
    Member raoul duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    soup line
    Posts
    4,304
    Well I see what you mean. But that's more like appealing to religious people as opposed to pandering to the voting bloc know as the religious right. You're 100% right imo, politicians would get nowhere if they didn't wear some sort of religion on their arm and act concerned about "values." That's not the same as relying on schmucks like Pat Robertson, Bill Donohue and/or Ralph Reed to mobilize a reliable voting bloc. If they did that, people like Jesse Jackson would be a lot more powerful and influential than they are today.
    One beautiful thing about having a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations is that every disaster is measured in terms of economic loss. It's sort of like getting your arm sheared off in a car accident and thinking, "Damn, now it'll take longer to fold the laundry" as blood spurts from your arteries. - The Rude Pundit

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by raoul duke
    Well I see what you mean. But that's more like appealing to religious people as opposed to pandering to the voting bloc know as the religious right. You're 100% right imo, politicians would get nowhere if they didn't wear some sort of religion on their arm and act concerned about "values." That's not the same as relying on schmucks like Pat Robertson, Bill Donohue and/or Ralph Reed to mobilize a reliable voting bloc. If they did that, people like Jesse Jackson would be a lot more powerful and influential than they are today.

    I didn't mean to imply that they pander to the same degree as the right, just that they do pander to the religious right.
    It torques me off that anybody has to or that any political affiliation feels they have the market cornered on religion or the "non-religious" for that matter.
    I just want them to say how they feel. Single issue voters are puds, and if abortion makes them not vote for a candidate that they'd normally agree with on most issues then they deserve what they get.
    I wish we didn't know Mitt was Mormon or Obama went to church etc.

    *Edit...I meant to say I agree with your post

  8. #8
    Member 300miles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Buffalo
    Posts
    8,198
    Mitt has just as much to worry about from the extreme left as he does from the extreme right. The Right may feel he's not the "right kind of christian" while the far Left will fear his allegiance to religion period. Consider that people were suspicious of Kennedy being president because he was Catholic!

    This isn't a Right or Left issue, it's a religious tolerance issue. This country is accustomed to Protestant (i.e. non-controversial) presidents.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    7,839
    It is all about the votes.

    On one side you have the wackjob Christians who control a lot of votes. On the other side you have the wackjob Unions who control a lot of votes.

    Both are horrible for our country but both can get someone elected. Sadly it is one or the other.

  10. #10
    Member yokes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,449
    Quote Originally Posted by leftWNYbecauseofBS
    It is all about the votes.

    On one side you have the wackjob Christians who control a lot of votes. On the other side you have the wackjob Unions who control a lot of votes.

    Both are horrible for our country but both can get someone elected. Sadly it is one or the other.
    No truer words have spoken!

    The religious right votes in Primaries
    The Unions Vote in Primaries

    Candidates must pander to them in primaries to ever get a chance at a national ballot. Generally speaking middle of the roaders who don't vote in primaries suffer with mediocre choices.

  11. #11
    Member Linda_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    God's Own Country ... the Southern Tier
    Posts
    7,713
    Quote Originally Posted by yokes
    No truer words have spoken!

    The religious right votes in Primaries
    The Unions Vote in Primaries

    Candidates must pander to them in primaries to ever get a chance at a national ballot. Generally speaking middle of the roaders who don't vote in primaries suffer with mediocre choices.
    The difference is that the Bill of Right doesn't prohibit litmus tests for ideology. It does, however, forbid litmus tests for religion. Being for or against labor unions or seeking the support of the local business community or drumming up support among Mothers Against Drunk Driving or veterans isn't the same thing as demanding that political candidates pass muster on being the "right" religion. When the "liberal" NYT and the "conservative" Charles Krauthammer point to the same problem -- and pretty much say the same thing about it -- it really is a problem and not simply partisan bickering over ideology.

  12. #12
    Member yokes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,449
    The bill of rights prohibits formation of a state religion, it doesnt limit people from using religion to choose candidates anymore than it prohibits them from using union affiliation

  13. #13
    Member Linda_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    God's Own Country ... the Southern Tier
    Posts
    7,713
    Quote Originally Posted by yokes
    The bill of rights prohibits formation of a state religion, it doesnt limit people from using religion to choose candidates anymore than it prohibits them from using union affiliation
    There's the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, yokes, and that's what the issue is. That Mitt Romney is a Mormon shouldn't matter to anyone any more than that John Kennedy was a Catholic or that Joe Lieberman is a Jew or that Richard Nixon claimed to be a Quaker. In 1960s, most people felt that the issue of religion and the presidency had been resolved and it didn't matter. Jimmy Carter's Baptist roots weren't an issue. People noted it, but they didn't vote for or against him just because of his religion.

    Nowadays, at least among the Republicans, religious affiliation is taking center stage rather than important issues like where the candidates stand on the Iraq war, global warming, health insurance, etc.

  14. #14
    Member yokes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,449
    I do't think religion should matter at all. It isnt a driving issue for me, but there are many where it is a driing force. My point was these people vote in Primaries, which in turn forces candidates to "pander" to them, if they are to have any chance of getting to the full electorate.

  15. #15
    Unregistered
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2,653
    Reaping the harvest of pandering to the religious right

    as opposed to pandering to the jewish left (communists, marxists, socialists, liberals) or the jewish right (neocons)

    as opposed to pandering to the atheists and secular humanists

    as opposed to pandering to the anti-male, anti-boy, anti-family, anti-faith baby suffocating and flushing feminists

    as opposed to pandering to the illegal immigrant lobby

    as opposed to pandering to the rap loving, ni**er swearing anti-education, prejudice and racism accusing, quota and affirmative action civil rights lobby

    as opposed to pandering to the multi-national corporations that have no interest in a country other than what they can exploit out of it.

    no please share with us how christians are the only one guilty of lobbying, influencing and pandering

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Religious Condo
    By joe d. in forum Buffalo NY Politics
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: September 3rd, 2007, 03:52 PM
  2. Did The Religious Right Die With Jerry Falwell?
    By Habermill in forum USA Politics and Our Economy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 30th, 2007, 05:18 PM
  3. Are Catholics This Niave or Disconnected from World Events?
    By LHardy in forum Morning Breakfast - Breaking News
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: January 7th, 2007, 07:52 PM
  4. Corpus Christi Harvest Festival
    By WestSideJohn in forum Positive Points of Western NY
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 27th, 2006, 09:05 PM
  5. Fed Ex Settles Religious Accommodation Case
    By woodstock in forum Morning Breakfast - Breaking News
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: January 4th, 2006, 12:33 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts