The Problem with the Christian Right Wing.
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-04-2016, 06:15 AM
RE: The Problem with the Christian Right Wing.
(11-04-2016 03:43 PM)Alla Wrote:  thank you!!

there is more to add to it

Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynchings were by far the most effective," Barton said in his book. "Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and their platforms consistently called for a ban on lynching. Democrats successfully blocked those bills and their platforms never did condemn lynchings."

Further, the first grand wizard of the KKK was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, no Democrats voted for the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to former slaves and, to this day, the party website ignores those decades of racism, he said.

"Although it is relatively unreported today, historical documents are unequivocal that the Klan was established by Democrats and that the Klan played a prominent role in the Democratic Party," Barton writes in his book. "In fact, a 13-volume set of congressional investigations from 1872 conclusively and irrefutably documents that fact.

"The Klan terrorized black Americans through murders and public floggings; relief was granted only if individuals promised not to vote for Republican tickets, and violation of this oath was punishable by death," he said. "Since the Klan targeted Republicans in general, it did not limit its violence simply to black Republicans; white Republicans were also included."

The things you are saying are technically true, but are ignoring context. Democrats today don't support those things. Republicans today don't resemble Abraham Lincoln. I'm not saying the GOP supports slavery. Aliza already mentioned that no one really supports slavery in the states anymore.

The context you're missing is that up until the civil rights movement, the south was largely Democratic. When the liberals in the north (also Democrats) decided to back the movement, the south switched parties within a decade. Now, I don't know that I can prove that the reason they were Democrats for a century was because they were anti-Lincoln, but we do know that the south was (and still is, in many ways) deeply racist.

The take-home from all of this is that all of the things you are complaining about are problems of racism, and that racism transcends party lines. It transcends it to the point where an entire region of the country would flip parties in the span of a few elections, just because of it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RobbyPants's post
13-04-2016, 08:43 AM (This post was last modified: 13-04-2016 08:47 AM by true scotsman.)
RE: The Problem with the Christian Right Wing.
(11-04-2016 05:47 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  
(11-04-2016 05:05 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  The Republican party was started by abolitionists, the KKK was started by democrats. 100% of the Republicans in congress voted for the 13th amendment, 23% of Democrats voted for it. Not one democrat voted for the 14th amendment. And, Democrat Robert Byrd, who, was a senator for most of my life, was a member of the Klan and defended it.

I've already pointed out why the the term "Republican" isn't necessarily "conservative" since both parties changed almost completely as far as ideology in the mid 20th century since when they first started they were liberal. But, for now in the modern age it's fair to say Republicans are the conservative party and many people who support slavery, deny climate change, believe in faith healing, etc. are more likely to be Republican and vote Republican then vote Democrat.

That's true. They have changed considerably. But I've never met a Republican who supports slavery. However, the religious conservatives, even if they don't openly support slavery, do support the basic premise of slavery which is the principle that man has no right to live for his own sake. Christianity teaches the morality of self sacrifice and for every sacrifice there has to be a beneficiary of the sacrifice. So they are for slavery in principle. Why would a selfless person care if he was a slave or not? So they are inconsistent with their own worldview's premises if they don't support slavery. The left holds the same basic premise but their policies are consistent with it which is why they keep winning. The Tea Party are a bunch of hypocrites. I've tried to explain that to them but it is just incommunicable to them. They talk of liberty, individual rights and capitalism out of one side of their mouths but through their religion they hold collectivist, self sacrificial morality which is completely at odds with liberty, individual rights and capitalism. Why they can't see the contradiction is baffling.

I've been a Republican all my life but no more. They tell me I can't be conservative if I don't believe in God. It's true that I'm not a conservative in the sense that I want to maintain the status quo or go back to the days of the founders. They had a good political philosophy but no proper moral code to go with it. I'm a radical for individualism and capitalism. What's needed is a total break from the morality of sacrifice. So I'm at odds with most Republicans even though I'm for limited government. There's no party for me so I'm switching to independent.

And as a former Republican, no I don't support slavery, either the kind we had in the 19th century nor the kind we have today which is much more wide spread and damaging.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2016, 09:26 AM
RE: The Problem with the Christian Right Wing.
Others have done a good job pointing out the actual history of the parties' positions. As for today, I think it is hard to label the parties as one thing or the other. There are certainly a bunch of religious zealots in the republican party at the moment who appear to be driving a lot of the party platform. There are also a bunch of anti-vax or socialist morons in the Democratic party. If you object to branding all muslims as terrorists then you should also resist branding all republicans as XXXX.

Full disclosure: I used to be a registered republican but removed myself from the party 8 years ago. I'm not registered with either party.

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored- Aldous Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes devilsadvoc8's post
14-04-2016, 10:10 AM
RE: The Problem with the Christian Right Wing.
The video definitely glosses over the distinction between Republicans and conservatives. He does phrase it correctly as conservatives (rather than Republicans) who supported slavery, but moves through it so quickly that the viewer could easily be confused on that point.

Republicans were not always the conservative party, and the word "conservative" has evolved in meaning considerably over the years, with sudden changes at least three times in American history.

Worldwide, liberalism versus conservatism is mostly an offshoot of the overthrow of aristocracy and monarchy. Those who supported aristocrats and monarchs were conservatives, and those who sought to end such antiquated systems of government by replacing them with things like democracy or communism (at least, the idealized form of communism that got implemented almost nowhere but sounded good in theory) were liberals. This expanded into questions of the rights of individuals versus the power of the state (be that state a monarchy or a democracy). Conservatives favor strong governments with few limits on their power, while liberals favor individual rights and liberties. In an international sense, "liberalism" values things like free markets, freedoms of speech and religion, and separation of church and state in place of the old model of established church and divine right to rule.

In the US, the spectrum between liberalism and conservatism is defined by three additional variables to the point of eventually supplanting the international sense of the words, and what Americans mean by those words aren't really what the rest of the world hears by them.

The first distinction arose from slavery. Those who supported slavery were the conservatives -- there had ALWAYS been slavery, after all -- and those who wanted to impede or eliminate it were (radically) liberal. Initial liberal efforts included things like banning slavery on a state-by-state basis and illegalizing the cross-Atlantic slave trade. Conservatives on the other hand fought to defend the "property rights" of slave-holders even as they brought their slaves into free states (Dred Scott), to enact slave-catching laws, to limit the ability of slaves to revolt, and to ensure at least a balance between slave-state power and free-state power in the federal government.

The second distinction arises from the industrial revolution. The traditional agrarian mode of life warred with the industry and trade. For a while, industry and trade were liberal. Laws and taxpayer subsidies that favored large, sprawling businesses by easing their way were (once) liberal, and protectionist laws that impeded trade and the volatility it brought were conservative. Under this old sense of liberalism and conservatism, banks, corporations, railroads, and the like were all the forces of liberalism, and the people who wanted them and the abuses they often committed against everyday landowners were conservatives. The agrarian south was conservative in this sense, and the industrialized north liberal.

The third distinction arose from the balance between the powers of states and the power of the federal government. One side of this fight wanted state's rights paramount, while the other wanted the federal government to be able to trump the rights of states. The United States was, after all, initially a union of convenience and common cause between multiple disparate colonies that had declared themselves independent states. Supporting states rights over federal power was to champion the cause of self-determination and the sovereignty of individual nations, mush as today people oppose (for example) the subjugation of national power to things like the UN, the International Court, and free trade deals. For a long time, this was an issue of momentary convenience rather than anything that could be described as "liberal" or "conservative". Liberals on the issue of slavery, for example, opposed federal power when it was instituting slave-catching laws, but favored it when it was shutting down the Atlantic slave trade. Industrialists (who were early on liberals) tended to favor federal power when it came to things like nationalizing land for the creation of roads, or eliminating pesky state tariffs.

Following a Federalist/Democratic-Republican spat at the beginning, the back-and-forth was between Whigs and Democrats. Democrats favored agrarian institutions and had opposed federal power early on. They liked to support individual farmers against big banks trying to foreclose on their property, or private landowners against railroads trying to take their land for right of way, and so on. Initially they strongly supported states rights over federal power, but more critically they supported the rights of slave-holders and the institution of slavery, or at least its right to continue where it existed. The Democrats of the time were a big-tent party, trying to accommodate both northern yeomen and southern gentry, and some of the alliances and compromises were a bit awkward. They generally favored the power of the President over Congress.

The Whigs were industrialists and pro-business first and foremost. They had the support of both big business and free labor (who felt their livelihood threatened by the work-for-food-and-fewer-beatings model of slavery to the south... but also viewed black laborers as competition rather than allies). They supported strong trade with England and a national bank. Their seat of power was in the north, and while they often got people into Congress they had trouble claiming the presidency.

The Whig party eventually disintegrated due to its failures and the death of the previous generation's leaders. Several successor parties rose up from the wreckage to try to take its place, including the Republican Party... which, being strongly pro-industry and anti-slavery, were the flaming liberals of the time and very unpopular in the South.

Following the Dred Scott decision, the compromises which held the Democratic party together began to fray. Probably the critical moment of the Lincoln-Douglass debates (for the Congress seat that Lincoln eventually failed to win) was Lincoln's challenge to Douglass about how northern states could remain free if they had to respect the property rights of slave-holders who had brought their slaves north. Douglass, a northern Democrat, was backed into a corner. He proposed that northern states could simply refuse to enact laws recognizing slavery, leaving the slaveholder no legal recourse for reacquiring the slave if the slave just decided to walk away. This won him his Congress seat but, critically, lost him the support of the South in 1860. The 1860 election was a mess. The Democratic Party finally fractured, unable to maintain its big-tent compromises, especially on the subject of slavery. In the wake of both major parties disintegrating, there were four different candidates for president, and it was only in the face of this division that an upstart party like the Republicans could win.

I mentioned that there were two major realignments of what conservatism versus liberalism meant. The first was the Civil War. The South had always controlled the Presidency, and was appalled that such a flagrantly liberal northerner now held it. The Democrats who had always supported the power of the presidency now discovered it in the hands of their worst enemy. They embraced what had always been a states-rights position, the right to secede, which had existed under the Articles of Confederacy and had often been threatened by liberals and conservatives alike on various issues but never been tested under the Constitution.

Glossing over the war itself, and greatly oversimplifying, the end result of the political realignment was this. First, slavery ended. Legacy issues of segregation and racism versus equality of the races would remain, with liberals supporting equality (or at least equal standing) between the races and with conservatives supporting segregation and the subjugation of anyone not white. And second, states rights were (in theory) greatly reduced by the 14th amendment, the defeat of secession, the end of slavery, and Reconstruction. In practice, the South got its hooks back into the federal government in a few decades and many of the provisions of the 14th amendment went unenforced. But this finally aligned states rights as a general principle with the (then) conservative principles of slavery and racism. Part of the efforts to disempower blacks were poll taxes and literacy tests as requirements to vote which effectively dis-mpowered poor whites as well, but otherwise the Democratic party continued to favor farmers and everyday people in the face of big business. The Republican party in successive generations settled down into being more business-focused than slavery-focused (it had won that issue, after all), and did not put up any great fight against segregation... which existed in the North and West as well as the South, but achieved its worst excesses in the South.

The next big realignment was the Progressive Era the turn of the century. Business and industry was no longer the plucky newcomer -- it had become the big kid on the block, and between monopolies, corrupting government officials, and generally carrying on lawless, had earned a great deal of resentment. This realignment saw business, industry, and trade become the conservative forces, while those who sought to regulate them were liberals. Issues like Prohibition,
isolationism and women's suffrage got dragged into the mix. The conservatives of the time favored isolationism in all matters save trade, while the liberals promoted suffrage (to shake up the system) and Prohibition (to dismantle the saloons that were part of the boss systems which big businesses controlled). Unions were also rising at this time. The distinction between Communist and Socialist movements didn't really exist beyond theory yet (that would take a Communist Russia and the disdain it created among western Socialists), but both were against the ability of businesses to abuse and dominate their workers. Conservatives (which now included big businesses) opposed unions, while liberals favored them. Progressives were present in both parties, and (except on the issue of segregation) neither party could be considered conservative or liberal. While the Progressive movement fell apart in the late 20s, it had at least partially achieved its objectives of pruning back the power of business. Its legacy carried forward at least a generation with the social safety net of FDR's New Deal (a callback to Teddy Roosevelt's Fair Deal).

The final major realignment was the Civil Rights era and everything that followed. Conservatives were opposed to ending segregation, and liberals favored it. Conservatives called for states rights and liberals favored the federal government stepping in to protect individuals from the states. Conservatives favored the blatant abuse of power by the likes of Bull Conner and liberals favored curtailing the power of the authorities. I won't rehash the entire fight, but it's probably best to look at the Civil Rights Act and what followed. That officially ended segregation, guaranteeing rights to all regardless of race or gender, and established a policy requiring public accommodation even by private businesses and employers (meaning, no hanging up signs saying that you won't serve or hire blacks or women). This was supported by a majority-Republican Congress, but the interesting thing is what was going on in the Democratic party at the time.

Southern Democrats (Dixiecrats) strongly supported segregation and racial inequality, but the party also contained a very strong pro-labor, pro-poor, pro-individual-freedom wing typified by President Johnson. Johnson in particular campaigned hard for the Civil Rights Act. Republicans didn't alienate their base with their vote and sacrificed nothing, but Democrats did and sacrificed a lot. Upon its passage, Johnson famously commented to an aide that Democrats "have lost the South for a generation". He was mistaken. It's three generations and counting.

What followed is probably one of the more bizarre realignments in American political history: The Southern Strategy. With Dixiecrats alienated from the Democratic party, Republicans started courting them, especially Goldwater and Nixon. This allowed Republicans back into the White House for the first time since the Great Depression. While New Deal safety net programs and other such government assistance had once been broadly popular among whites, that popularity plummeted amidst racist backlash to civil rights. A great many white men, it turned out, did NOT want Welfare extended to blacks, and would rather see it end than see it equalized. Republicans seized on this resentment as a way of courting Southern voters and industry alike, turning against the safety net they had previously supported, calling for an end to government spending and making the government small enough to drown in a bathtub.

Another factor was the links to Communism. Both parties had strongly opposed Communism, but as most things in history, it was complicated. While no one in the Civil Rights movement was really Communist, something like Segregation was just the sort of inequality that communist revolutions typically arose against, and there was a hint of communism among those opposed to Segregation. The anti-communist wars of the 50s and 60s in South Asia were opposed by Civil Rights leaders (on the grounds that the burden for fighting them, especially in terms of lives, fell disproportionately on the poor and disenfranchised, and that they were far from critical to the nation's survival and prosperity). The poor and disenfranchised tended to support socialist programs (which had by now become distinct from communsim... but in the wake of the red scare, most in the mainstream didn't realize this). From this divergence comes the view of conservatives and Republicans as hawkish and pro-military, and liberals and Democrats as anti-war defeatist peaceniks.

But the Civil Rights movement was not JUST about race. Feminism was in the mix too, with women wanting the right to work, the right to divorce, the right to control their own reproductive systems (including abortion), the right to equal pay, and so on. The Gay Rights movement kicked into high gear following the Stonewall Riots, eventually transforming from a "right-to-exist" (or at least a "right to not be beaten and blackmailed and harassed by the police") movement to the the equal-rights LGBT movement we know today. (Notably, many states included sexual orientation alongside race, gender, and religion as one of the things people weren't allowed to discriminate against in hiring or in serving customers when they passed their own versions of the Civil Rights Act, which is why we see cake bakers getting in trouble for not serving gay weddings.) The Free Love movement defied laws that attempted to regulate who people had sex with and how much control the government had over a private citizen's bedroom. And a larger gestalt came into being as well, one in which prejudice, discrimination, and intolerance IN GENERAL is a thing to be opposed in principle, rather than on the case-by-case, issue-by-issue basis it had previously been opposed.

Generally speaking, religion was not happy about this. Christianity had divided over race and segregation, with black churches and more liberal white churches in favor of ending it, but with other churches like the Mormons and white evangelicals in favor of keeping it in place... and especially opposed to "mixing tribes" by allowing interracial marriage. But divided as it might have been over race, Christianity by and large opposed equal rights for women (especially the right to divorce or control their own bodies), sexual freedom, and gay rights. While religion as a whole had been neither particularly liberal nor conservative up until this point, politically speaking, the changes were too much and there was a strong religious backlash against the new model of liberalism. And again, there was a mistaken conflation between socialists and Communists, the latter of whom had (in many of the nations they controlled) suppressed religion. The modern religious right rose up in opposition to all of these things, but especially against interracial marriage and abortion rights, and Republicans courted this group as well.

And that's where the shapes of the modern parties come from. By and large, conservatives and Republicans are strongly, overtly, flagrantly religious (and as an offshoot tend to be science-deniers, especially on evolution and climate change), opposed to things like the Civil Rights act and welfare, heavily favor big business, are anti-reproductive choice, and prefer hawkish, warlike foreign policies. By and large, liberals and Democrats favor more Progressive-Era controls on business, support social safety nets like the New Deal, and try to end prejudice and discrimination in society, while occasionally opposing war and attempting to grow spines.

So did Republicans support slavery? At the time, definitely not, though now a few whackjobs nowadays are saying things mildly supportive of it. Did CONSERVATIVES support slavery? Absolutely, and they continue to fight against efforts to stamp out the last of the problems it created. Did Christians support slavery and later segregation? YES. It's Biblical, after all, and you can't go mixing the tribes. Did Christians OPPOSE slavery and later segregation? Yes -- after all, we're all equal before Christ and do unto others as so on so forth. (Further proof that either God wants Christians fighting against each other or that most Christians aren't actually hearing God when they pray.) Did liberals support slavery or segregation? NO.

As for faith-healing... yeah, that's more a pro-religion conservative issue, but (aside from beatings-based exorcisms) I wouldn't rank it any worse than the anti-establishment liberal use of homeopathy. (And again, these are far from universal among conservatives and liberals, respectively.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Reltzik's post
14-04-2016, 11:15 AM (This post was last modified: 14-04-2016 11:22 AM by Commonsensei.)
RE: The Problem with the Christian Right Wing.

“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” Plato
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2016, 12:17 PM
RE: The Problem with the Christian Right Wing.
(13-04-2016 08:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I've been a Republican all my life but no more. They tell me I can't be conservative if I don't believe in God. It's true that I'm not a conservative in the sense that I want to maintain the status quo or go back to the days of the founders. They had a good political philosophy but no proper moral code to go with it. I'm a radical for individualism and capitalism. What's needed is a total break from the morality of sacrifice. So I'm at odds with most Republicans even though I'm for limited government. There's no party for me so I'm switching to independent.

And as a former Republican, no I don't support slavery, either the kind we had in the 19th century nor the kind we have today which is much more wide spread and damaging.

I am in the same boat. I am a registered republican. I am not happy with either party. I am for limited government but the Republican party is going over board on social issues. And how they pander to christians is sickening.

On all social issues, I am liberal except for abortion. I still call myself pro-life. But I am not to the extreme. I am for birth control, morning after pill, and RU486.

I feel like the Republicans always want to go to war too. I am tired of us getting into everyone's business. We should not have to police the world.

I wish a few smaller government atheists would run for office on the Republican ticket. I think it would be a good thing for the party.

I feel like I do not fit in anywhere....I do not believe in god so I do not really fit into the conservative side. Most atheists are left on everything...I do not want to give the government too much power, I am not a socialist.

I have moved and need to change my voting registration. I do not know how I will register, either Independent or Libertarian.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SallyBr0wn's post
14-04-2016, 07:58 PM
RE: The Problem with the Christian Right Wing.
(14-04-2016 12:17 PM)SallyBr0wn Wrote:  I wish a few smaller government atheists would run for office on the Republican ticket. I think it would be a good thing for the party.

Not going to happen, unfortunately. The Republicans like to present as being a big-tent party, where a diversity of views are welcome, but that hasn't been true for over a decade at the least. That's when the party leadership Primaried out its own sitting congresspeople for failing a series of purity tests. Unless a candidate is staunchly Christian (preferably of the evangelical-protestant type), they have no chance of getting put on a national or even statewide Republican ticket. (They also have to favor a small government that pries into what people do in their bedrooms, and no, that doesn't make any sense, among a series of other litmus tests including wanting to cut taxes while spending boatloads on the military and, increasingly, climate-change denial.) Democrats, these days, are much more diverse, allowing quite a bit of latitude for difference between candidate opinions and party line. That's why we see pro-life Democrats and Democrats that favor military strength and intervention, even if they're the minority in the party.

I don't see the Republican party changing on this unless there's some major shakeup or meltdown among their ranks. Unfortunately for Republicans, the "meltdown" scenario looks increasingly likely with each passing year.

PS, before you register Independent, read the options carefully. Some clever blokes realized that if they created a party named the Independent Party, a lot of people would register for that party by mistake. In places where they're on the ballot, you'll want "Unaffiliated" or something like that instead.

I am an antipistevist. That's like an antipastovist, only with epistemic responsibility instead of bruschetta.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
15-04-2016, 01:18 AM
RE: The Problem with the Christian Right Wing.
(11-04-2016 03:51 PM)Alla Wrote:  3)I believe in faith healing.
But faith healing doesn't mean I have to reject science or doctors.

If faith healers actually worked, they'd be employed in legitimate hospitals. But they're not, because they don't work. At all.

(11-04-2016 03:51 PM)Alla Wrote:  All truth comes from God. All true knowledge comes from God.

Knowledge requires evidence, and you have none. So once again, every time you claim to knowledge without evidence, you are a lying piece of shit.

Stop being a liar.

(11-04-2016 03:51 PM)Alla Wrote:  It would be stupid to reject true scientific knowledge.

Indeed it would, but I doubt that's about to stop your torrent of stupidity.

(11-04-2016 03:51 PM)Alla Wrote:  Faith healing means: to have faith that doctors will help by making right decisions.

Faith is not required, they have a proven track record of being effective. Faith is not required when you have evidence.

(11-04-2016 03:51 PM)Alla Wrote:  Faith healing means to have an intuition that you can trust one doctor and not to look for another.

Peter Popoff and the 700 Club would disagree with you.

(11-04-2016 03:51 PM)Alla Wrote:  Faith healing means to receive specific thoughts to make RIGHT decisions and not stupid/foolish decisions.

If you rely on faith instead of evidence, you have no way of knowing if you are making a good decision or not. You are essentially guessing, without the honesty of making a blind guess.

Your bullshit is never quite so pretty once I've ripped away your layers of pretentiousness and cultural acceptance and lie it bare before you, now is it?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: