You know, if the Republicans don’t want to be demogogued by the Democrats on the contraception issue, they could just adopt mainstream positions on contraception. Like, that there’s nothing wrong with it.
It’s those gotcha questions again. Bad mainstream media, bad!
Of course Obama wants to run against the Republican position on contraception, because America is against the Republican position on contraception. The Republicans could end this issue in two seconds, if only they could throw the anti-contraception theocrats under a bus. But they can’t and so the issue remains a winning one for Democrats.
Thanks IT Champion for making a rational point in your OP.
The entire framework presented by the left is manufactured by Chuck Shumer , and was overheard by a New York Times reporter as a strategy.
“I always use the word extreme,” Mr. Schumer said, “That is what the caucus instructed me to use this week.”*
Only in a twisted and broken society does propaganda like this work even after it’s been outed. Any traditional view now is framed as “radical right wing”, and this has taken root so quickly it’s astonishing really.
Fmr. Senator Barry Goldwater once warned of the growing religiosity of the GOP, but I don’t think anyone listened. However, we must also be sure not to stray too far from the morals we had in this country starting out. If anything, I prefer progressiveness over liberalism, simply because I want the race to advance further than it has before. The Dark Ages really set us back.
Actually the majority of Americans agree with the Republican Party’s position on birth control, rather than the Democratic Party’s position, at least according to one poll. And Obama’s approval rating is 41%, down six percentage points from January, when he announced the new birth control mandate. The Democratic strategy of riding the contraception issue to victory does not appear to be working very well.
There is no growing of religiosity, you’re merely seeing a reaction of those who are already religious because of the growing attacks on it and them. You’re simply seeing feedback. Democrats are propagandizing that natural feedback to make points with the ignorant.
But, there have been none. None of this contraception or abortion business constitutes any kind of attack on religion; neither does banning school prayer, recognizing gay marriage, etc. These are merely attacks on the idea that religious people always should get their way in the public sphere.
And, yes, the religiosity of the political right has grown a lot since the 1950s, when deeply religious people were more likely to avoid politics entirely, as a this-worldly thing and on occasion of sin.
There’s a few things wrong here. Did you know that 80% of Americans call themselves Christian? That 100s of churches take in billions of untaxed revenue, and that many of them believe that they are being persecuted, just because they don’t get their way? Also, Barry Goldwater was a Republican. Now, it just seems as though the Republican Party is the Christian Party. Rick Santorum cares nothing for political process, and wants the church and State to be one and the same. He won’t get them, but if he did, it would give him power second only to The Pope. I don’t think the Papacy would take kindly to his grab for power.
I have to disagree with you, based on my limited 43 year prism and the stories my parents and grandparents have told me over the years, and what I remember as a kid. I can’t speak of the whole history of the US’s psuedo-religious founding til now.
I just see more secularism in general, lax attitudes in regards to religious rules, and hell of a lot more tolerance given by regular practitioners of the Christian faith (generally speaking).
Part of their tolerance no doubt comes from being pressured, part of it is because they are sick of hearing some of the whining, some of it surely because some things panned out ok like gays not turning society into a bunch of Gacy’s, and well …some of their tolerance is an incremental process in light of their own relentlessly “sinful” ways that always come out. Guardrails and commandments are good, but you cant harshly condemn others so much if you’re doing it too.
And really now, the things we talk about today that are actually policy initiatives would never ever be open to public discourse 50 years ago. There’s no way in the world anyone can appropriately say we’ve become “more religious”, “less tolerant”, more “radical”.
I’d like to hear how Christians are being persecuted. Not being allowed to post the ten commandments, pray in school, and put religious displays on public grounds is not persecution. There is no war on Christmas. What else you got?
None of that equates to, nor relates to, any “reaction of those who are already religious because of the growing attacks on it and them.” What “attacks”?! Richard Dawkins publishes a book, while every bookstore has a whole Christian-themed Inspirational section.
There are books, always had 'em, always will have 'em. So what? Is that what fires you up? Man if anyone got that fired up about anyone else’s religion or practices it’s generally termed “hate” nowadays.
Yeah, I’m sure Dawkins hates Christianity . . . What else would it involve but hate, when a person gets “fired up” about someone else’s religion, but with no intention of converting to it?! Intellectual interest it ain’t.
[mounts Santa’s stuffed head on den-wall below inverted crucifix]
Yeah, I’m sure Dawkins hates Christianity . . . What else would it involve but hate, when a person gets “fired up” about someone else’s religion, but with no intention of converting to it?! Intellectual interest it ain’t.