Religious Political Parties

[Freddie53]

The Republican Party is now for all practical purposes the party of fundamental Christians and the right wing in politics. The agenda is set based on the narrow view of Christianity of the fundamentalists.

I get off the internet a publication that refers to Christians and Republicans against the non Christian Democrats.

Never is US history has a political party become dominated by a religous movement and its political agenda set by a religious group.

But this is not true in Europe. Germany has its Christian Democrats. And this is true of many European nations. I don't know how that has worked in Europe.

My question is:

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE IDEA OF POLITICAL PARITES CENTERED AROUND RELIGION, ANY RELIGION. IT COULD BE ATHEISM, LIBERAL PROTESTANT CHRISTIANITY, CATHOLICISM, BUDHIST, ETC.

The question is NOT what do you think about the funddies or Republicans. Other parties with opposite views could emerge based on religion. What is your opinion on political parties based primarily on the agenda of a particular religious group?

I can see the parties now:

The Fundie Republican Party
The Orthodox Republican Party (non religious) fiscal conservatives
The Progressive Republican Party (non religious) Very capitalistic no taxes, unbalanced budget
The Social Democrats (non religious)
The Protestant Democrats
The Catholic Democrats
The Socialist Party (Agnostic and Atheist)
The Libertarian Party (Agnostic and Atheist)

 

[Pecker]

Then, for the fence riders of either political persuasion:

The Finger In the Wind Party.

 

[jonb]

Religious political parties? I think the problem is, religions in the States are becoming political parties.

I think a fundie party here in the States would be like Christian Heritage, combined with the pro-corporate, pro-imperialistic agenda and lack of qualms about abuse of the vote of no-confidence marked by the Tories, and the Grits' political power.

 

[Dr Rock]

organized religions and political parties are two sides of the same coin. no matter how you wanna combine them, they're still ultimately the same thing - and no matter who wins the elections, the people lose. the only "good" or progressive solution is to get rid of them all.

 

[Bananaman]

Originally posted by Dr Rock@May 10 2005, 09:40 AM
organized religions and political parties are two sides of the same coin. no matter how you wanna combine them, they're still ultimately the same thing - and no matter who wins the elections, the people lose. the only "good" or progressive solution is to get rid of them all.

[post=309806]Quoted post[/post]​

Now THAT'S the most sensible thing I've seen in a month! I couldn't agree more!

B-man

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by Dr Rock@May 10 2005, 12:40 PM
organized religions and political parties are two sides of the same coin. no matter how you wanna combine them, they're still ultimately the same thing - and no matter who wins the elections, the people lose. the only "good" or progressive solution is to get rid of them all.

[post=309806]Quoted post[/post]​

Can't agree Dr. Rock. At least not my church. We don't get involved in politics. The worship service is no place for politics. I know that what you are saying is true of some organized religion, but not all.

And I have a legal right to my church. You don't have a legal right to take that from me. I have the freedom to worship if I wish. And I wish to do so.

The countries that have tried to abolish organzied religion have all been totalitarian governments. North Korea, China, the extinct Soviet Union, and others. Millions killed for just being religious.

Same true of governments that have tried to abolish political parties. Totalitarian governments who have killed large portions of their own populations.

I want no part of those kinds of governments.

I want no part of a society that bans political parties and organized religion. The price is total loss of ANY personal freedom for anyone.

Sorry you hate religion that much, but no one is making you go to a religious event. Though I agree that the fundies have distorted what Jesus ever said and turned what he preached into something totally different.

 

[13788]

carolinacurious:

Originally posted by Freddie53+May 10 2005, 08:08 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Freddie53 &#064; May 10 2005, 08:08 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>The Republican Party is now for all practical purposes the party of fundamental Christians and the right wing in politics. The agenda is set based on the narrow view of Christianity of the fundamentalists.

The question is NOT what do you think about the funddies or Republicans. Other parties with opposite views could emerge based on religion. What is your opinion on political parties based primarily on the agenda of a particular religious group?

[post=309740]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b]

Hope this doesn&#39;t violate your posting requests Freddie but I disagree with your premise, at least for now. The Republican party is the "right wing in politics", no argument there (perhaps you were trying to say something stronger?).

The Republican party is controlled by the super-rich special interests that have always controlled the party and who have now convinced the "fundies" in this country that they are the party for them. I&#39;m not entirely sure that (at least the fundie wacko&#39;s) were intentional, I know that they wanted the "Nascar Dads", maybe the nutjobs came along as a bonus?

My point is at this moment the extreme fiscal conservatives are running the show and that every now and then they&#39;ll throw the fundies a bone to keep their votes.

Something has changed (I think), although I&#39;m not sure, perhaps the Jerry Ford and the "George the first" "moderates" were really just a blip on the screen and the extreme controlling right wing is the same as it was before I was born? It seems like even the few at the top running the show have moved to the right fiscally but maybe that&#39;s a matter of my personal perspective.

AT THIS POINT, I really don&#39;t think that the "Fundies" are seting the agenda, although they are getting thrown more and more bones. They are on the verge of "pulling a Hitler", that&#39;s where the train will really come off the tracks. Hitler was a useful tool for his superiors, sure they didn&#39;t want him too close or too powerful but he did bring in the votes, he just wasn&#39;t supposed to be able to take over.

Right now you have the additional confusion of the "Bush Cabal", Bush seems to be the only &#39;Fundie&#39; in the group. Is the group an extension of the ultra right wing fiscal power brokers? Or is the Cabal a small group of people who have seized control from the power brokers themselves?

Right now the Republicans are pretty much running the show, anything they really want, they get, no muss no fuss. If the Fundies were "really" running the show, abortion would be history, possibly the pill too (definitely for unmarried women), and gays would be heading for the exits.

<!--QuoteBegin-Dr Rock@May 10 2005, 10:40 AM
organized religions and political parties are two sides of the same coin. no matter how you wanna combine them, they&#39;re still ultimately the same thing - and no matter who wins the elections, the people lose. the only "good" or progressive solution is to get rid of them all.

[post=309806]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]

While I&#39;m not a big fan of the organized religions and I certainly would like to see a viable 3rd political party in this country I would like to point out that this harsh alignment of the religious to the political parties is relatively new.

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

Originally posted by carolinacurious@May 10 2005, 03:55 PM

Hope this doesn&#39;t violate your posting requests Freddie but I disagree with your premise, at least for now. The Republican party is the "right wing in politics", no argument there (perhaps you were trying to say something stronger?).

The Republican party is controlled by the super-rich special interests that have always controlled the party and who have now convinced the "fundies" in this country that they are the party for them. I&#39;m not entirely sure that (at least the fundie wacko&#39;s) were intentional, I know that they wanted the "Nascar Dads", maybe the nutjobs came along as a bonus?

My point is at this moment the extreme fiscal conservatives are running the show and that every now and then they&#39;ll throw the fundies a bone to keep their votes.

I concur. The influence of the Christian evangelicals on the GOP in Washington is vastly overrated. The Republican party is taking them for a ride. Just when I think they&#39;ll finally realize they&#39;re getting duped, the GOP throws them a bone (as you say) and their egos are stroked. Meanwhile, none of their major causes is being addressed at the federal level and the tax cut fanatics are getting their way instead. In the sense that they&#39;re providing the votes, yes, they have influence. But between elections? Not really. If the Republicans can&#39;t find a 2008 nominee that really speaks to the evangelicals like Bush does, there&#39;s a good chance that they&#39;ll lose the White House. They don&#39;t have to vote Democratic, they just have to not show up.

More likely to me is that what you&#39;re talking about will happen outside the Republican party. That is, the evangelicals will eventually get tired of being taken for granted and start their own party. If that were to happen, it would not kill the GOP. It would just make it very hard for them to manage a majority by themselves.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by aloofman+May 10 2005, 08:49 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aloofman &#064; May 10 2005, 08:49 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-carolinacurious@May 10 2005, 03:55 PM

Hope this doesn&#39;t violate your posting requests Freddie but I disagree with your premise, at least for now. The Republican party is the "right wing in politics", no argument there (perhaps you were trying to say something stronger?).

The Republican party is controlled by the super-rich special interests that have always controlled the party and who have now convinced the "fundies" in this country that they are the party for them. I&#39;m not entirely sure that (at least the fundie wacko&#39;s) were intentional, I know that they wanted the "Nascar Dads", maybe the nutjobs came along as a bonus?

My point is at this moment the extreme fiscal conservatives are running the show and that every now and then they&#39;ll throw the fundies a bone to keep their votes.

I concur. The influence of the Christian evangelicals on the GOP in Washington is vastly overrated. The Republican party is taking them for a ride. Just when I think they&#39;ll finally realize they&#39;re getting duped, the GOP throws them a bone (as you say) and their egos are stroked. Meanwhile, none of their major causes is being addressed at the federal level and the tax cut fanatics are getting their way instead. In the sense that they&#39;re providing the votes, yes, they have influence. But between elections? Not really. If the Republicans can&#39;t find a 2008 nominee that really speaks to the evangelicals like Bush does, there&#39;s a good chance that they&#39;ll lose the White House. They don&#39;t have to vote Democratic, they just have to not show up.

More likely to me is that what you&#39;re talking about will happen outside the Republican party. That is, the evangelicals will eventually get tired of being taken for granted and start their own party. If that were to happen, it would not kill the GOP. It would just make it very hard for them to manage a majority by themselves.

[post=309910]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
Thank both of you for posting.

No Carolina you didn&#39;t violate what the posting rules I requested. And your point is well taken. The "real" Republicans don&#39;t have the votes so they need the evangelical and fundie vote. And so as far as elections go the issues have been primarily religous which I do not like. And I am a devout Christian. Here in the South, we were taught as children, politics and religion don&#39;t mix. I think it is a good rule then and still is. The funniest part about it all is that George Bush attends a liberal United Methodist Church when he goes and his father is Episcopalian which is the most liberal Christian denomination in America.

Aloofman, what you are predicting is why I started this topic. I see that very thing happening. (The evengelicals and fundies starting their own party.) And then other religious parties will start up.

The state needs to be protected from religion and religion needs to be protected from the state. The dominance of religious political parties will do much to undermine the fabric of the American Republic as envisioned by the Founders.

It can ultimately destroy our concept of a pluralistic society and put us in the business of a religious civil war either hot or cold. It happen in Lebanon, Bosnia, and Northern Ireland. Don&#39;t think it can&#39;t happen here.

To me religion is much too personal to be politicalized.

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by Freddie53@May 10 2005, 09:55 PM
The countries that have tried to abolish organzied religion have all been totalitarian governments. North Korea, China, the extinct Soviet Union, and others. Millions killed for just being religious.

Same true of governments that have tried to abolish political parties. Totalitarian governments who have killed large portions of their own populations.

I want no part of those kinds of governments.

[post=309857]Quoted post[/post]​

who says we gotta have a government? I said "get rid of them all", I didn&#39;t say "ban" or "legally proscribe." I don&#39;t believe in the validity of government any more than I believe in the validity of organized religion.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by Dr Rock+May 11 2005, 05:13 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr Rock &#064; May 11 2005, 05:13 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Freddie53@May 10 2005, 09:55 PM

[post=309857]Quoted post[/post]​

who says we gotta have a government? I said "get rid of them all", I didn&#39;t say "ban" or "legally proscribe." I don&#39;t believe in the validity of government any more than I believe in the validity of organized religion.

[post=309994]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
Anarchy would result without some form of government. The old saying is that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest. We have to have a common medium of excahnge (money) transportation system, ownership of land and protection from those violate someone else&#39;s private property etc.

Face it Dr. Rock. There will be government, religion and politics no matter how much you are anyone else may hate those institutions. They have been in every society on record. I don&#39;t see a society developing without all three insitutions being in place in some form or fashion.

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by Freddie53@May 11 2005, 04:35 PM
Anarchy would result without some form of government. The old saying is that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest. We have to have a common medium of excahnge (money) transportation system, ownership of land and protection from those violate someone else&#39;s private property etc.

why?

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by Freddie53@May 11 2005, 04:35 PM
Anarchy would result without some form of government.

Semantically, that&#39;s not right. Anarchy is not the result of a lack of government; it is the lack of government itself. I think anarchy is exactly what Rock is advocating.

 

[KinkGuy]

I think the religious conservatives are just a tool of the neo-cons and are being manipulated. The alter the neo&#39;s worship at isn&#39;t one of God, but a bank vault. And they are willing to "win" at all costs. In actuality, religion, the Bible, God and beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Fear is man&#39;s greatest motivator. Keep the populace frightened; frightened of losing our lives, homes, way of life or your children&#39;s lives and futures and you have complete and total control. Goebbel&#39;s writings regarding the Nazi take over of Germany should be required reading. A great deal of it sounds very familiar. Was not WWII a religious war?

“The essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never again escape from it.”--Goebbels.

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by KinkGuy@May 11 2005, 08:51 PM
Goebbel&#39;s writings regarding the Nazi take over of Germany should be required reading. A great deal of it sounds very familiar. Was not WWII a religious war?

[post=310198]Quoted post[/post]​

nope. technically it was an imperial war, but as with all such things, it&#39;s not that simple. a large part of the actual MOTIVATION for war came from the humiliation of germany under the (admittedly retarded) terms of the treaty of versailles, although the public justifications used by the government ranged from the rational need for lebensraum to the wholly irrational desire to unite all "germanic peoples" and their countries into one nation. at no point was religion ever a factor or even an issue - the upper echelons of the nazi party despised it, and shook hands with the catholic and protestant clergy only because they didn&#39;t have the resources to immediately replace them. hitler&#39;s personal clique is known to have made the odd nod towards the ancient nordic faiths, but they never practised any themselves - his most well-known quote on the subject is "we shall have no god but germany." the majority of germans in 1939 were technically protestant christians, just like the majority of the british and french they were fighting.

 

[Pices2325]

I think there should be more religion in politics. If people followed the readings in the bible or torah, or whatever, I think people would be better people by following the pslams and commandments...i know many people will think this is entirely wrong, but thta is what i think.

 

[13788]

carolinacurious:

I think there should be more religion in politics. If people followed the readings in the bible or torah, or whatever, I think people would be better people by following the pslams and commandments...i know many people will think this is entirely wrong, but thta is what i think.

I&#39;ve got no problem with people following the 10 commandments or whatever and if they do it in their personal lives it should spill over into politics. I have no problem saying that people shouldn&#39;t be absolute shits to each other and if religion helps some of them in this "lofty" goal then that&#39;s fine by me.

Where I do have a problem is where people vote for someone because he "proclaims" to be of the same faith. Or when people think that the world&#39;s problems will be solved if Congress sits down to a prayer breakfast before they screw over half the world by lunch.

I don&#39;t think (nearly) anyone has a problem with more moral behavior between people and governments, I think it&#39;s the false appearance of morality that pisses us off.

 

[KinkGuy]

Dr Rock,
I guess my "religious war" reference was based on the Nazi intent to wipe out an entire religious culture (the Jews) and purify the German race. To my limited way of thinking, that did in part, make it a religious war.
KG

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by KinkGuy@May 12 2005, 12:25 AM
I guess my "religious war" reference was based on the Nazi intent to wipe out an entire religious culture (the Jews) and purify the German race.

Don&#39;t confuse race with religion. Hitler&#39;s hatred of the Jews had less to do with the religion (Judaism) than with their Semitic ethnic origins. To Hitler&#39;s way of thinking, Semites weren&#39;t &#39;white&#39;, therefore they were inferior due to their &#39;race&#39;. He had a religious agenda as well, but that had little to do with the extermination of the Jews. Writings of Hitler that have recently come to light state that Christianity should be abolished because it was based on the teachings of Jesus, an illegitimate Jew. However, the religious war that it might have become didn&#39;t happen. His anti-Jewish propoganda promoted the supposed physical and mental deficiencies of those of Jewish ethnic descent. The irony is that Hitler himself might have been part Jewish ethnically. His grandmother, Maria Anna Schicklgruber, was employed by the Baron Rothschild in Vienna when Alois Hitler was conceived. It is entirely possible that a member of the Rothschild household was the one who knocked up Fräulein Schicklgruber, and that would make Alois Hitler, Adolf Hitler&#39;s father, half Jewish by blood. What is certain is that Maria Anna Schicklgruber was sent packing by the Rothschilds to avoid the scandal of having an unwed mother as a servant. Chancellor Dollfuß supposedly ordered an investigation of the Hitler family and dug up this piece of dirt, and Adolf Hitler knew about the report. Hitler&#39;s attempt to recover the document eventually culminated in the assassination of Dollfuß. Is it true? Who knows. What we do know is that he signed a statement upon his secret marriage to Eva Braun that he was of pure Aryan blood, and he could not have known that because he didn&#39;t know who his grandfather was.

 

[13788]

carolinacurious: Hitler may have been a Rothschild?&#33;

Boy, the fun with that family just doesn&#39;t quit&#33;