I'm confused about the American Republican party

[Tris]

The first rule of politics ... say what you think will get you elected ... then worry about results later. It's noteworthy that many US Prez's had "action on the side" so-to-speak. Then there's the whole Wiener thing... spawning the Spirit Airlines "To Hard to Resist" sale. Impropriety is not limited to one particular party... most recently, the Dems had Clinton and well there's candidate Gingrich on the other side.

Biggest thing about religion on politics seems to be that people in certain parts of the country cling tightly to reactionary christianity. I recall the congregation of the ~6,500 member baptist church in my hometown of Naples, FL. Very easily led/misled group. When you tightly close off your mind and focus on the rantings of the bible-thumper in the pulpit and his version of "reality" you quickly lose touch with what's really going on.

Soon you're screaming for the banning/burning of books and the use of the bible as a textbook for history, etc. along with the teaching of intelligent design and creationism. Thing is, from a biological engineering standpoint, the human body ain't so great

Last time I checked, they were still screaming about giving children the HPV vaccine because it might encourage fornication. Some still believe the Earth is only ~4,500 years old or so. Some still probably believe that angel/human hybrids roamed the Earth.

Every day, lots of barrels of North Dakota crude are pumped from the ground of Northwest North Dakota. Each drop is vastly older than what some parts of the moral majority believe to be the age of the Earth.

From my limited travels to Sask., it seems that Canadians aren't quite as attached to such things as the moral majority.

The biggest irony of the "conservatives" these days: the U.S. should be christian, the U.S. government should be christian, etc. Despite their claims for small government and less regulation, they seem to have no issue with telling others what they should or should not believe.

[kandrathe]

That sort of blew my mind because with my understanding of the 1st amendment, church leaders should never have influence over politics - right?

You misunderstand the 1st amendment. The bill of rights protects the citizens from the government. So the (Federal) government cannot establish a national religion, but it's up to each state to determine how it wants to operate. In fact, many states did have a state religion early in our history.

As of 2010, Article III of the Massachusetts constitution still provided, "... the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."

Since "who is elected" has a great impact on policy that may go against religious beliefs, religious leaders are obligated to engage in forming and sharing their political opinions. Many don't. But, some powerful ones do. For example, the lastest issue with the Obama administration forcing Catholic religious organizations to provide insurance coverage for contraception, when it is against their religious beliefs. Even liberal Catholics are upset, because they sought and got specific assurances that within the rule making phase of rolling out this legislation this confrontation would not happen. Evangelicals are mostly united against abortion, against changing the sacrement of marriage, and against "smut" on the airwaves/cable.

So... back to the 1st amendment. As a citizen, you are (or should be) entirely protected from government interference in practicing your religious beliefs. But, the federal government is prevented from promoting, advocating, or establishing any type of religious act (other than the ones they have -- and no one has yet to win a case against e.g. our money, our pledge of allegiance, etc. ).

The recent SCOTUS decision Citizens United, especially emphasized the defense of political speech... "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

[eppie]

For example, the lastest issue with the Obama administration forcing Catholic religious organizations to provide insurance coverage for contraception,

What is insurance coverage for contraception? And why would an organization need it?

[eppie]

I stay away from political threads when they descend into non-stop debate. I'm not looking to debate anything here; I'm just curious about American politics and why it's so vastly different than Canadian politics, even though we have the same sort of 2-party conservative+liberal system and have so much else in common. The only conclusion I can come up with is the religion angle.

So I don't really get your question then. You find the politics in the US ad Canada so much different and think that is because of religion. And you want to know why?
I think the answer to that question isn't political but just reflects what the people in majority want.
There are many countries in which religion is very important in politics.
Canada is more a progressive country such as the north western european countries maybe New Zealand or so. But again this has nothing to do with the political system but just with how the people are.

If you ask why religion is so important in the US you could ask the same for Italy, Poland, Iran, Sudan or Indonesia.


However, an interesting topic to read up on is how separation of church and state works in different parts of the world. In many country a strong connection between church and state ensures that the church doesn't sink down in a culture of extremism.
A country completely on the other side of the spectrum is France; I think a good example of how it should be. However, now you see that there are issues rising with the Islamic religion that are difficult to handle exactly because the state doesn't want anything to do with religion.

[Archon_Wing]

I'm not American, but I have this insane fascination of American politics.

So the Republican Party is conservative. I get that part. A big chunk of being "conservative" (from what I can gather) means small government, lower taxes, and an emphasis on personal freedoms as outlined in the US Constitution. I like this a lot. Who wouldn't?

What I absolutely do not understand is the connection between the US Republican Party and the Christian religion, and how the Republicans are so dependent on the "evangelical" vote (I don't fully understand what an evangelical is).

From what I can gather as an outsider looking in, the Republican Party wants to have a small government and promote personal freedoms, but only if it does not interfere with the Bible stuff.

The biggest confusion I have is the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution (Freedom of religion), and the Republican Party being so pro-Christianity.

I had some other questions lined up, but I forgot them while typing these ones out.

At this point, the labels for both parties, and arguably the labels for "conservative" and "liberal" are merely buzzwords. Those only describe the degree of which they want to bend you over and proceed to screw you over. The illusion of choice allows your average citizen to bicker with another so we can all argue over whether a dude can marry another dude, rather than issues like say, balancing the budget and handling potentially external hostile threats.

It's for this reason that conservative and Republican no longer equate since both sides want bigger government in different areas. Neo-con is a BS term; the true conservatives are Libertarians and I am afraid that label isn't gonna hold either.

The government has been expanding for a very long time, regardless of whoever's been in charge.

[Jester]

It's for this reason that conservative and Republican no longer equate since both sides want bigger government in different areas. Neo-con is a BS term; the true conservatives are Libertarians and I am afraid that label isn't gonna hold either.

The government has been expanding for a very long time, regardless of whoever's been in charge.

Someone who wants the smallest possible government is a minarchist. This is not, and never has been, synonymous with conservative or Republican. That's just a kind of marketing pitch from the Reagan years.

-Jester

[Archon_Wing]

It's for this reason that conservative and Republican no longer equate since both sides want bigger government in different areas. Neo-con is a BS term; the true conservatives are Libertarians and I am afraid that label isn't gonna hold either.

The government has been expanding for a very long time, regardless of whoever's been in charge.

Someone who wants the smallest possible government is a minarchist. This is not, and never has been, synonymous with conservative or Republican. That's just a kind of marketing pitch from the Reagan years.

-Jester

Powerful marketing campaign that was. Perhaps Reagan being an actor had to do with it.

[kandrathe]

What is insurance coverage for contraception? And why would an organization need it?

There was this bill passed in 2010 euphemistically called Obamacare. Parts of it were delayed for a year, or two or four to give the supporters time to distance themselves from their votes. Now, a part of it has gone through "Rule Making" where the law gets expressed into the agencies who need to enforce it. One of those rules is a list of health care that an employer health plan must cover. One of those items is contraception. Some employers, namely religious organizations who object to contraception, have issues with being forced (by the government) to go against their conciences.

It is a bad move by the administration, because it had promised those same groups that this would not happed. Due to those assurances many otherwise opponents in turn supported the bill, or at least did not mount any pressure against it. Whether or not the administration wins the battle of mandating coverage for contraception, they've betrayed and lost allies.

---

Those only describe the degree of which they want to bend you over and proceed to screw you over.

In that case, I would rather get screwed over conservatively, rather than liberally or democratically.

[Jester]

There was this bill passed in 2010 euphemistically called Obamacare.

Dysphemistically.

This is just one of the many hurdles that could have been overcome with a single-payer system. You don't need to worry about the objections of individuals or organizations if the state just provides it directly, or at least universally.

-Jester

[Lissa]

What is insurance coverage for contraception? And why would an organization need it?

There was this bill passed in 2010 euphemistically called Obamacare. Parts of it were delayed for a year, or two or four to give the supporters time to distance themselves from their votes. Now, a part of it has gone through "Rule Making" where the law gets expressed into the agencies who need to enforce it. One of those rules is a list of health care that an employer health plan must cover. One of those items is contraception. Some employers, namely religious organizations who object to contraception, have issues with being forced (by the government) to go against their conciences.

The question I have is this though, are those same religious organizations paying for things like Viagra or fertility treatments? If the answer to this is yes, then them fighting contraception is discrimination. Likewise, it is not the religious organizations place to mandate that either, it is their insurance carriers that mandate it.

[kandrathe]

The question I have is this though, are those same religious organizations paying for things like Viagra or fertility treatments? If the answer to this is yes, then them fighting contraception is discrimination. Likewise, it is not the religious organizations place to mandate that either, it is their insurance carriers that mandate it.

First, not being Catholic, I don't really get it. But, to attempt to clarify their position...

Discrimination against whom? In the broadest sense of "discrimination", then yes, they have "distinguished one treatment from another treatment" Their beef is with the prevention of pregnancy, which is the natural expression of life. How is this a special class akin to racial, ethnic, gender, age, etc. We choose based on our beliefs (discriminate) all the time. Bad discrimination is when it's against a minority that has little choice. If they were against female birth control, but supportive of male birth control, then it would be a class based discrimination.

In this case, the Catholics are discriminating against a treatment that goes against their beliefs, and it happens to be the majority (of even Catholics) who participate in birth control. If anything, they've been consistantly against all types of birth prevention for a long, long, time. They don't discriminate against types of birth control, they are against all birth control.

Throwing in Viagra, and fertility treatment is a bit of a red herring. It may not, depending on the treatment, go against their beliefs. I imaging harvesting eggs and freezing them is to close to tinking with life for them. Taking a pill to get an erection, or removing scaring from endomitriosis would be restorative treatment for those that seek it.

If employers are required to pony up 60% of the costs, should a religious institution (employer) be required to pay for services that are against their beliefs? That includes birth control for Catholics, and abortions for about 95% of other religious groups.

[FireIceTalon]

In that case, I would rather get screwed over conservatively, rather than liberally or democratically.

That's like saying you would rather eat cat shit than dogshit. Either one sucks. How about not getting screwed at all? What a concept.

[Lissa]

The question I have is this though, are those same religious organizations paying for things like Viagra or fertility treatments? If the answer to this is yes, then them fighting contraception is discrimination. Likewise, it is not the religious organizations place to mandate that either, it is their insurance carriers that mandate it.

First, not being Catholic, I don't really get it. But, to attempt to clarify their position...

Discrimination against whom? In the broadest sense of "discrimination", then yes, they have "distinguished one treatment from another treatment" Their beef is with the prevention of pregnancy, which is the natural expression of life. How is this a special class akin to racial, ethnic, gender, age, etc. We choose based on our beliefs (discriminate) all the time. Bad discrimination is when it's against a minority that has little choice. If they were against female birth control, but supportive of male birth control, then it would be a class based discrimination.

In this case, the Catholics are discriminating against a treatment that goes against their beliefs, and it happens to be the majority (of even Catholics) who participate in birth control. If anything, they've been consistantly against all types of birth prevention for a long, long, time. They don't discriminate against types of birth control, they are against all birth control.

Throwing in Viagra, and fertility treatment is a bit of a red herring. It may not, depending on the treatment, go against their beliefs. I imaging harvesting eggs and freezing them is to close to tinking with life for them. Taking a pill to get an erection, or removing scaring from endomitriosis would be restorative treatment for those that seek it.

If employers are required to pony up 60% of the costs, should a religious institution (employer) be required to pay for services that are against their beliefs? That includes birth control for Catholics, and abortions for about 95% of other religious groups.

First off, it wasn't just the Catholics that were up in arms about this.

Second, it is descrimination against those that choose to either wait on having children (those that are married, but want to wait until their careers are better established before going forward with having children) or those that do not want children, but do not want to obstain. You cannot hold one group of people's sexual activity hostage while providing for others. Likewise, birth control goes beyond just the woman, men have options as well, and holding back on those that want to be responsible about the bringing of children into the world should not be told to obstain because they don't want children (yet).

[DeeBye]

You misunderstand the 1st amendment. The bill of rights protects the citizens from the government. So the (Federal) government cannot establish a national religion, but it's up to each state to determine how it wants to operate.

Does this mean that States, if they voted on it, can ignore the US Constitution?

[LavCat]

Does this mean that States, if they voted on it, can ignore the US Constitution?

Probably not.

[FireIceTalon]

The question I have is this though, are those same religious organizations paying for things like Viagra or fertility treatments? If the answer to this is yes, then them fighting contraception is discrimination. Likewise, it is not the religious organizations place to mandate that either, it is their insurance carriers that mandate it.

First, not being Catholic, I don't really get it. But, to attempt to clarify their position...

Discrimination against whom? In the broadest sense of "discrimination", then yes, they have "distinguished one treatment from another treatment" Their beef is with the prevention of pregnancy, which is the natural expression of life. How is this a special class akin to racial, ethnic, gender, age, etc. We choose based on our beliefs (discriminate) all the time. Bad discrimination is when it's against a minority that has little choice. If they were against female birth control, but supportive of male birth control, then it would be a class based discrimination.

In this case, the Catholics are discriminating against a treatment that goes against their beliefs, and it happens to be the majority (of even Catholics) who participate in birth control. If anything, they've been consistantly against all types of birth prevention for a long, long, time. They don't discriminate against types of birth control, they are against all birth control.

Throwing in Viagra, and fertility treatment is a bit of a red herring. It may not, depending on the treatment, go against their beliefs. I imaging harvesting eggs and freezing them is to close to tinking with life for them. Taking a pill to get an erection, or removing scaring from endomitriosis would be restorative treatment for those that seek it.

If employers are required to pony up 60% of the costs, should a religious institution (employer) be required to pay for services that are against their beliefs? That includes birth control for Catholics, and abortions for about 95% of other religious groups.

First off, it wasn't just the Catholics that were up in arms about this.

Second, it is descrimination against those that choose to either wait on having children (those that are married, but want to wait until their careers are better established before going forward with having children) or those that do not want children, but do not want to obstain. You cannot hold one group of people's sexual activity hostage while providing for others. Likewise, birth control goes beyond just the woman, men have options as well, and holding back on those that want to be responsible about the bringing of children into the world should not be told to obstain because they don't want children (yet).

QFT. And this is why separation of church and state is so key, because religion always ends up being authoritarian when mixed with politics, no matter how good its intentions may be. If me and my girlfriend want to have sex, but do not what to have children, who in the hell has the right to deny either of us the right of using a form of contraception?? The simple answer is, NO one. The Conservatives want to turn this nation (and the ones we go to war with) into a little right-wing Christian playground that resembles the Middle Ages, at the expense of everyone else. Cause afterall, they know what is best for society

[eppie]

In this case, the Catholics are discriminating against a treatment that goes against their beliefs, and it happens to be the majority (of even Catholics) who participate in birth control. If anything, they've been consistantly against all types of birth prevention for a long, long, time. They don't discriminate against types of birth control, they are against all birth control.

This is really a case of being against something and than playing the religion card to protest.
The reason the health care system is so bad is because the republicans like little children have tried to block everything Obama wanted to do.....even if they supported his proposals they would vote against, just because.

I am also against people using my taxes to support churches or investing more in road than in rails or subsidizing fishers or meat-eating, but that doesn't mean I am against taxes.

And about medical insurance....I think it is not just the Catholics but all of us that actually hope we will not have to use it.

[kandrathe]

This is really a case of being against something and than playing the religion card to protest.

I guess I don't understand what you mean. If someone is black and offended, then speaks out, are they playing the race card? If Catholics are upset that the government is forcing them to go against their beliefs, and they speak out, I don't see that as playing a card so much as standing up for themselves. The politics of this are very simple. They don't like it, and so they are going to use the pulpit to tell their adherents to vote against, and deny these people (who betrayed them) any more time in power.

The reason the health care system is so bad is because the republicans like little children have tried to block everything Obama wanted to do.....even if they supported his proposals they would vote against, just because.

Actually, the Democrats forced their way past the Republicans objections. There were no compromises. They were the minority in 2008, and were shut out of the process.

The reason our social systems are so bad is because they are overly complex, fractured, and spend too much on overhead, and not enough on helping people. If you are hungry, homeless, sick, and jobless you need to see at least 6 different agencies to get help. And, if you are elderly, then make that 10 agencies.

I am also against people using my taxes to support churches or investing more in road than in rails or subsidizing fishers or meat-eating, but that doesn't mean I am against taxes.

You are being ironic. Of course you aren't against taxes.

And about medical insurance....I think it is not just the Catholics but all of us that actually hope we will not have to use it.

But, I do hope I use birth control. At least daily.

[kandrathe]

Does this mean that States, if they voted on it, can ignore the US Constitution?

The Tenth amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So if it is not spelled out in the Constitution, then it is reserved for the states to deal with, or if not there then by the people directly.

Second, it is descrimination against those that choose to either wait on having children (those that are married, but want to wait until their careers are better established before going forward with having children) or those that do not want children, but do not want to obstain. You cannot hold one group of people's sexual activity hostage while providing for others. Likewise, birth control goes beyond just the woman, men have options as well, and holding back on those that want to be responsible about the bringing of children into the world should not be told to obstain because they don't want children (yet).

But, yes, actually they can hold people hostage to their beliefs. You have both the "establishment clause", and the "free exercise" clause. If you don't like it, then you need to not work for the Catholics, or the other religious organizations that would deny their employees this "health care". It's not like they are forcing their anti-birth-control beliefs down everyones throat. Quite the contrary, it's the government which is forcing them to go against their beliefs.

[eppie]

The Conservatives want to turn this nation (and the ones we go to war with) into a little right-wing Christian playground that resembles the Middle Ages, at the expense of everyone else. Cause afterall, they know what is best for society

The ironic thing is that the countries they go to war with have the same level of backward religious conservatism as they have......only difference is the name of who they worship.
(o yes and of course that besides god the republicans also worship money)

---

But, I do hope I use birth control. At least daily.

Ok, maybe I as a bit speaking before I knew all the details here.
If it is true that this medical insurance would pay for normal people (who are not poor because they have a job at this ctaholic organisation) to go to a supermarket, buy a box of condoms and get a refund from the insurance, than indeed that is a bit stupid.
(even though it is a known fact that distributing condoms for free actaully does work against unwanted pregnancies and diseases in many mnay countries where this was tried)