I'm confused about the American Republican party

[FireIceTalon]

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)

Yep. And for as much as I bash America and its backward ass values, Iran isn't safe from my scrutiny either. They are just as tyrannical and anti-Socialist and anti-human in general as America is. The only difference between the two, is that Iran portrays all Americans as being Capitalist, imperialist greedy pigs (when in fact a substantial number of us deplore the actions of the US government, for a variety of reasons), and that we portray all Iranians as being Muslim Extremists hell bent on the destruction of the West. They are two sides of the same coin.

The world would be a much better place without religion in general. I think Marx once said something like "the abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for them to realize their real happiness" -- And given the material circumstances regarding the history of religion, I would have to concur. My Atheism is due to scientific reasons and the lack of empirical evidence that proves a deity exists, which is part of Materialist philosophy, but also for social and historic purposes.

[eppie]

The world would be a much better place without religion in general. I think Marx once said something like "the abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for them to realize their real happiness" -- And given the material circumstances regarding the history of religion, I would have to concur. My Atheism is due to scientific reasons and the lack of empirical evidence that proves a deity exists, which is part of Materialist philosophy, but also for social and historic purposes.

I partly agree. I am pretty anti-religion myself although I am somewhat pragmatic. I am not sure if whenwe get rid of religion all our problems are solved.
The uneducated masses and the sociopaths as well as the semi-educated masses would always find something for which they can form some kind of group and start collectively behave as morons.

Take the global warming discussion. This is something that is huge. Potentially the biggest impact on our modern society that we know of. Comparable to the plague in medieval europe or so.
But do people base their opinion on facts? No, most people just have their mind made up (either we are here to profit from the world that was created for us or we should do everything to protect it) and attach to it an opinion about this topic that they can never intellectually grasp.

[Jester]

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.

Except that the 14th Amendment binds the states to the bill of rights. Each state can no more establish religion than the Federal government can.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Except that the 14th Amendment binds the states to the bill of rights. Each state can no more establish religion than the Federal government can.

Yes, there is that. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".

Can the States override or ignore the US Constitution? No, not really.

I believe Deebye's questions are answered. Our job is completed. Lest the thread devolve into "Religious people (i.e. republicans) caused global warming, all the wars in history, and the plague..."

[Lissa]

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.

And with that, we're right back to discrimination. Sorry, but a religon does not have the right to say what someone can and cannot do in the US. First Ammendment goes both ways, while the US government cannot state that one religon is the religon of the entirity of the US government, religons cannot also tell people what they can and cannot do because they have no power over the people of the US because of the first ammendment.

[kandrathe]

And with that, we're right back to discrimination. Sorry, but a religon does not have the right to say what someone can and cannot do in the US. First Ammendment goes both ways, while the US government cannot state that one religon is the religon of the entirity of the US government, religons cannot also tell people what they can and cannot do because they have no power over the people of the US because of the first ammendment.

Actually, when it comes to religious affairs, the government cannot tell them to go against their religious beliefs. This is the essence of "Free Excercise". It seems pretty clear... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" And... again... The 1st amendment constrains only what the government can do... It does not apply or constrain you, me, or a church from doing anything. There is EEOC law though that prohibits employment discrimination, and so if and when you or I become employers, then that law would govern how we hire, interact with, and fire our employees. In the case of religious employers, they still get protections from the 1st amendment.

So if you want to call that discrimination, then sure, its discrimination based on religious grounds. If someone is a Lutheran, they shouldn't expect that the Catholic church is going to make them a Bishop. It's discrimination based on the fact that they are Lutheran. When you say a religon does not have the right to say what someone can and cannot do in the US... They can... but we don't need to listen or follow them if we don't want to. But, if you enter into an employment agreement with some Baptist church organization based on adhereing to their religious principles, then yes, they get to base your continued employment on whether you drink, gamble, smoke, or represent their lifestyle.

There was a recent case involving religious freedom before the SCOTUS... "HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ET AL."

They unanimously sided with religious freedom guaranteed by the 1st amendment. And, just as the government (through the EEOC) cannot intrude on the hiring or firing of staff, they cannot intrude on forcing them to participate in actions that are against their beliefs. But... I would say that it has also been the case that religious organizations that tread repeatedly into legal grey areas usually get unwanted negative attention (e.g. Moonies, Branch Davidians, or FLDS).

[LavCat]

Animal sacrifice is protected under free expression. How about human sacrifice?

[Jester]

Can the States override or ignore the US Constitution? No, not really.

I believe Deebye's questions are answered. Our job is completed. Lest the thread devolve into "Religious people (i.e. republicans) caused global warming, all the wars in history, and the plague..."

Ah, but the questions of the limits of states' rights and federal power go right to the core of the topic. That's a question with deep historical roots, and the interpretation of the 1st, 10th, and 14th amendments has everything to do with it.

Why are the Republicans so incredibly concerned about the rights of states, and the Democrats not so worried? The answer to that question is the answer to Deebye's question.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Animal sacrifice is protected under free expression. How about human sacrifice?

Limits on practice were decided in Reynolds v US

I don't agree with that specific opinion(bigamy), but do in principle agree that "General Welfare" of the citizens is an area where legislation (against murder), and the courts have interest in defending us from the actions of others. I put the measure up against the libertarian filter of "harms". Marriage, being a religious sacrament, is wholly within a Church's sphere to regulate for its membership. I believe the government has historically and wrongfully intruded into this area. We wouldn't have the issues we have today with government sanctioned marriages if they had found a different way to describe the social contract part that is regulated. Even then, what right is it of the government to determine with who, and how many people we wish to enter into this type of social contract?

[FireIceTalon]

Marriage is NOT a religious sacrament, but rather a civil one. What right is it of a church, or any other social institution, government or otherwise, to determine who can marry who and when? I do not want any effing organization or individual telling me who I can marry and when. I will marry anyone I effing please when I please, for any reason I please, and it is not the business of anyone else to make that decision for me. And anyone who has a problem with that, can shove it where the sun doesn't shine. Period, point blank. I am so sick of conservatives complaining about big government taking away peoples rights or being intrusive into their personal decisions, but then turning around and allowing private institutions to do the very same stuff that they detest government for. But as I've pointed out numerous times, hypocrisy takes precedence before rational thought in conservative ideology. No government or church, or any other institution has any right to determine who or how (so long as it does not involve the direct physical harm of another person) a person can marry. End of story.

[DeeBye]

Marriage, being a religious sacrament, is wholly within a Church's sphere to regulate for its membership. I believe the government has historically and wrongfully intruded into this area. We wouldn't have the issues we have today with government sanctioned marriages if they had found a different way to describe the social contract part that is regulated. Even then, what right is it of the government to determine with who, and how many people we wish to enter into this type of social contract?

Your second point about government not having a say in who gets married is muddled when you combine it with a lot of stuff about benefits to married people, and dependents in tax law. It seems to me that the Republican party particularly likes this part to insert itself to deny benefits to same-sex marriages and to deny same-sex couples from adopting.

Your first point about marriage being solely a religious sacrament is contentious. There are lots of married people around the world that are not religious.

What I took from your post is that government should not interfere with marriage, and that marriage is solely a religious thing. Where does that leave the non-religious couples that are madly in love with each other? It's valentine's day.

[kandrathe]

I rearranged to better explain.

Your first point about marriage being solely a religious sacrament is contentious. There are lots of married people around the world that are not religious.

In Western Civilization, the "institution of Marriage" has been pretty much inexorabily linked to the Church (Catholic, and then also Protestants) for some hundreds of years (since the 1300's). But, yes, a form of marriage exists in almost every culture. I particularly like the one where "sharing a meal and a bed" means you are married. So, anyway, we are in a culture of laws, morals and ethics based on English common law, which is based on a Judeo-Christian framework. What are the 7 sacrements of the Catholic Church? Marriage is one of them. In Judaism, marriage is viewed as a contractual bond commanded by God in which a man and a woman come together to create a relationship in which God is directly involved.

As the government seeks to move toward secularism I think we need to critically examine the whole, rather than specific parts. There is a social legal contract in which the State takes interest (health care for dependents, tax law, hospital visits, inheritance, guardianship of minor children, etc. ), but this is not the same as the sacred holy sacrament of the Catholic or Jewish faiths. People want to call them the same, but they are not the same.

Your second point about government not having a say in who gets married is muddled when you combine it with a lot of stuff about benefits to married people, and dependents in tax law. It seems to me that the Republican party particularly likes this part to insert itself to deny benefits to same-sex marriages and to deny same-sex couples from adopting.

Not just Republican, but yes, the evangelicals within the conservative Republicans fight that battle. They are traditionalists who have a rigid view of marriage, and family -- they don't want anyone to change that. For me, the problem is not that they have this viewpoint. Why not? Let them have a viewpoint. The problem is that we've become so familiar with incorporating religious things into our daily habits that even for those not religious, marriage, divorce, vice laws, and excoriating moral terpitude are normal and acceptable expressions of our society. Why can't some people buy booze on a Sunday? The problem I see is that we still do not separate "sin", from crime. Our government, when taken over by the zealots (choose your stripes), has power over what is our own moral perogatives and personal lives.

What I took from your post is that government should not interfere with marriage, and that marriage is solely a religious thing. Where does that leave the non-religious couples that are madly in love with each other? It's valentine's day.

Up until the 1300's, people would just fall in love and commit to each other without the need for ceremonies, or having state or religious administration. I think it would be liberating to return relationships back into a personal choice, wrested free of state licensure and control. When I buy life insurance, I can list any number of beneficiaries and the portions paid out whether they are related to me or not. Why doesn't this work for determining inheritance, the guardianship of your children, who can visit you in the hospital, who becomes the executor of your estate and so on? As for health benefits... Each individual gets their own, or for dependents they could write that into the contract however they like. Insurance is a contract between you and the insurer. If we were the insurer for bigamists, or polyamorous unions, we'd just need to limit it to the insured getting $X of coverage, and their dependents get up to a fixed $Y divided by however many people are in the family. I was on a similar plan actually up until recently. Our family deductible was $5000, or $2000 per person. Once the deductible was hit for a person, or the whole family they covered 100% beyond. This works for my 50 wives, and 200 children... Just kidding.

Or, if you like a more socialist model, every citizen gets $X dollars to buy an insurance plan.

[Taelas]

I rearranged to better explain.

Your first point about marriage being solely a religious sacrament is contentious. There are lots of married people around the world that are not religious.

In Western Civilization, the "institution of Marriage" has been pretty much inexorabily linked to the Church (Catholic, and then also Protestants) for some hundreds of years (since the 1300's). But, yes, a form of marriage exists in almost every culture. I particularly like the one where "sharing a meal and a bed" means you are married. So, anyway, we are in a culture of laws, morals and ethics based on English common law, which is based on a Judeo-Christian framework. What are the 7 sacrements of the Catholic Church? Marriage is one of them. In Judaism, marriage is viewed as a contractual bond commanded by God in which a man and a woman come together to create a relationship in which God is directly involved.

As the government seeks to move toward secularism I think we need to critically examine the whole, rather than specific parts. There is a social legal contract in which the State takes interest (health care for dependents, tax law, hospital visits, inheritance, guardianship of minor children, etc. ), but this is not the same as the sacred holy sacrament of the Catholic or Jewish faiths. People want to call them the same, but they are not the same.

Marriage as a concept goes beyond religion. While it is often associated with it, it is not limited to it.

If religious institutions want a word that is unique to their particular brand of social union, they need to call it something other than marriage. Subverting the word--and thereby denying it to people of no religious affiliation--is practically theft.

If they don't want to do that, they need to accept that marriage is not limited to religious unions.

[kandrathe]

Marriage as a concept goes beyond religion. While it is often associated with it, it is not limited to it.

This is a modern, multicultural view. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that you are not thinking the same way that people did 100 or 200 years ago when our system of government and laws were laid out. The chaffing between traditionalists and modernists is due to an archaic system not meeting the needs of both groups. To contrast how far we've moved since the 1800's; in Sweden, Germany, and some other places, registration of migration from parish to parish was legally required in addition to births, deaths, engagements, and marriages. All were legally required to be kept in the parish church records. I suspect this exercise in human accounting had more to do with efficiently levying taxes. I can't imagine needing to seek permission and a letter of reference from the parish Minister/Priest in order to move. I know in Sweden, they also came around to administer a household examination (test) to determine each individuals knowledge of the fundamentals of the faith (or the state religion). If you didn't pass this test it would limit your abilities to get a job, get married, and other normal activities we take for granted. This is one reason why Sweden had almost a 100% literacy rate. I suspect this state/religious authoritarianism, and the civic unrest caused by the rejection and emancipation from this control is one reason why religions still have a bad reputation over there. The other big reason has to do with the success of age of enlightenment movement, which emerged in opposition to the traditionalist theocratic monarchies. The movement influenced the formation of the US, but didn't become contentious as we had the freedom of thought denied to Europeans.

But, this is why we have our 1st amendment regarding the prohibition of the establishment of a state religion. For hundreds of years, this is how it was, and so it was all they knew. Declaring the US to be a place embracing all beliefs was a revolutionary idea. One which some people still cannot grasp, like when it comes to allowing for cultures who have arranged or plural marriages (again, with limitation on practice as established by the natural law rights of all individuals).

If religious institutions want a word that is unique to their particular brand of social union, they need to call it something other than marriage. Subverting the word--and thereby denying it to people of no religious affiliation--is practically theft.

Well, to be fair. They stole it some 800 years ago. Now the word has become to mean more of a religious thing. We have invented other phrases to describe non-religious unions, civil ceremony, domestic partnership, etc.

Let's put it into another context. You go to college for 4 years, spend $100K and get a Bachelor's degree, and someone else sends in $2000 and gets a mail order Bachelor's degee. Should they be considered the same thing? The difference inherently is the accredidation of the institution. What does it mean to have a Bachelor's degree?

Now, I'm not saying that there is this kind of difference between secular and religious marriage. They probably have the same level of devotion, love, committment, etc. What I'm saying is that neither government nor relgious institution should need to accredit our love for one another.

If they don't want to do that, they need to accept that marriage is not limited to religious unions.

Or, the other shoe would be to leave the cultural traditions alone and remove Marriage from all government use. Then the word is just a word. It is no more fair for them to tell you how to think or live, than it would be for us to tell them how to think or live. The problem that I see is not that they think or live that way, but that our system of government has become somewhat entrenched in enforcing one model based on archaic western traditions. If you remove this enforcement of a particular lifestyle from the governments laws, then the religious traditionalists and modernists are on the same footing for winning the hearts and minds of the people. The way it is now, the traditions are encoded in law, and modernists wants to change the law to favor their position. I reject both, in favor of removing these laws entirely.

It is the government use and discrimination of marriage, versus unmarried which is causing the issues. Simply put then; The problem is not that select groups of people are denied marriage, but that the government has any say in it at all, for anyone.

[FireIceTalon]

Sometimes I wonder if you know how to think critically.

Cultural traditions should be abandoned if they discriminate, impose themselves on, or otherwise lead to harmful results for someone else who doesn't agree (or even doesn't disagree) with them, such as Fundamentalists position on marriage which discriminates against same-gender couples. Unfortunately, many of the traditional values held by conservatives are hypocritical if not downright dangerous for society in general. Slavery was once a "cultural" tradition in this country, but that hardly makes it justified. Yes, this is an extreme example, but it nevertheless can apply to other conditions of society where a particular group of people would be affected. As much as I deplore government being in everyone's business just as you do, they are far from the only ones being the problem. Religious fundamentalists and other reactionary groups are just as well to blame. The whole purpose of society is not to maintain social traditions, but to IMPROVE upon them. Government or not, modernists and traditionalists will never be on the same page so long as traditionalists force their views down others throats as they have done historically, resulting in the tyranny, injustice, and discrimination towards others, and continue to do so. So when people say, "but you want to do away with the values and traditions of what this nation was founded upon!"...my simple reply to that is, you're damn right I want to. Because this country was founded upon slavery, racism, and the systematic slaughtering of almost an entire culture of people who were here long before us. And why shouldn't I? If we kept social and traditional norms as conservatives so desire, we'd still be living under a hereditary ruler that has justification to subject the rest of us to his will by Divine Right, or we'd still have "legal" slavery, women would have no identity in society except to be home makers, etc....Once again, I dont want any government or institution, based on traditional values, religion, or otherwise, telling me who I can or cannot marry. It is that simple.

[DeeBye]

The problem I see is that we still do not separate "sin", from crime. Our government, when taken over by the zealots (choose your stripes), has power over what is our own moral perogatives and personal lives.

And this is where I stop debating you, because we totally agree on this point. I disagree on your view of marriage as a purely religious thing, but I won't argue that point further because that horse is dead enough and nothing either of us say will change each other's mind.

It's just really confusing as an outsider looking at the Republican party saying "Freedom for everyone! Constitutional rights rule!" while also saying "Gays want to marry? We better make that against the law, because the Christian Bible says so."

[DeeBye]

Sometimes I wonder if you know how to think critically.

kandrathe thinks quite critically, but you have to realize that he has his own moral/political/ethical viewpoint. This is not likely to be changed just because you insult him for having a differing moral/political/ethical viewpoint than your own. I can guarantee you that he finds your values as insane as you view his, but he doesn't insult you for having a differing viewpoint.

I'm pretty firmly between you guys as far as politics goes. I disagree with each of you equally, but I actively read kandrathe's posts and mostly ignore yours.

[FireIceTalon]

Yea, and I'm sure slave owners and racists also had and have their own "moral", "political" and "ethical" viewpoints. Doesn't mean they should be respected or be taken seriously. To that, I'm sure you will say that I am not tolerant of other peoples views. To which I will reply, no, I'm not, when they are just used as a justification to discriminate, subjugate, control, or otherwise harm others that don't fit into our own set of values. This is why I have a staunch dislike towards conservative ideology, because they scream "let freedom ring!!", but it only applies to rich, white, straight males. Let me ask you something, do you think Nazi's should have the right to express their hatred towards Jews or other "non-white" ethnicities and cultures? Most conservatives would answer yes to that question and call it freedom of speech. To me, its hate speech, and no, hate speech does NOT have the right to be protected, and if it does, then it shouldn't. And if that makes me sound authoritarian, perhaps the people who want to discriminate against others, be it on religious grounds or ethnocentric grounds, because they view them as inferior, need to take a look in the mirror first before calling me as such.

As far as you reading Kandrathes posts and not mine, that is your prerogative, it makes little difference to me either way. You do you man. But as far as im concerned, his values and ethics are wrapped up in a bunch of grand words like "freedom" and "democracy" to protect the status quo, and nothing more. So, you keep reading and believing that the Constitution and all these sound bytes that politicians spew forth sound great, when they are really an illusion to protect the interests of the ruling class only and to keep the American populace ignorant so the status-quo stays intact. Yes, I have a problem with his values and moral code because they are all based on reactionary principles that ostracize and dehumanize others. Now, you can sit here and complain about my values, but my values don't discriminate, or subjugate others to MY will (quite the opposite in fact) - this is self evident if you have read any of my posts.

[kandrathe]

It's just really confusing as an outsider looking at the Republican party saying "Freedom for everyone! Constitutional rights rule!" while also saying "Gays want to marry? We better make that against the law, because the Christian Bible says so."

And, this is where I agree with you. The answer is that both Republicans and Democrats are split into factions (all under a big bloody tent).

Within the Republicans, there are at least three clear groups. There is a faction that are mostly evangelicals (religious i.e. see Bob Jones III), and want to use government to enforce their world view on others, or at least use their influence to keep the government from changing the status quo (such as in broadening marriage to include same sex couples, decriminalizing drug use, opening liquor stores on Sunday) . There is another faction that are more strongly libertarian, and see the governments true role as defending people, and not in providing/caretaking for people (e.g. Ron Paul). Then there are the Neocons (e.g. George Bush kinder gentler nation), who are in favor of social democratic domestic policies, and strong interventionist foreign policy.

Within the Democrats, you have traditional conservative blue collar labor, the progressives (e.g. Clinton, Obama, who often overlap with Neocons in domestic and foreign policy), a more communist/socialist group, the environmentalists (Naderists), and a myriad of single issue fringe.

Since we have the two party system, everyone chooses either red or blue. If we had a multiparty system you'd see at least six to eight different strong political parties, and dozens of small fringe ones.

[eppie]

ge.

Since we have the two party system, everyone chooses either red or blue. If we had a multiparty system you'd see at least six to eight different strong political parties, and dozens of small fringe ones.

I read an interesting story about Spain this week. They also have two-party system comparable to the US. A very religious and Franco loving right populist party and an also religious left wing party.

Apparantly what happens a lot is that both parties break down everything the other has build up during periods in which they were governing.
Examples were a 300k europ bikelane made by the left was subsequently destroyed for 30k euro by the right and and a good functioning government webside made by the right which was completely changed (for the worse) by the left.

It must be so frustrating living in such a country where money is thrown away like that.

Just to say that it is not only the US that has such a system.