Many of the Republican social policies seem to come right out of religious tradition, and so I wonder, would the Repblican party, as we know it today continue to exist in some form without religion?
What do you think about this issue?
They also have a hefty dose of semi-fascism and “free market” nuts, and other factions. The Republicans are an agglomeration of groups that really don’t have much in common. Eliminate religion and you eliminate one of their major aspects, but not their only one. If anything they might well be stronger due to being less divided and somewhat saner.
The same thing can be said of the Democratic party. Having a system of only two major parties creates odd bed-fellows on both sides and they often realign themselves due to circumstances.
This Athiest Old-School Traditionalist Republican-leaning Independent (AOSTRLU) would LOVE to see the religious fundie crap/faction die a horrible screaming death, it has no place in the Republican party, the current Republican-In-Name-Only (RINO) morons like Bushco have struck a crippling blow to Republicanism, I just hope they haven’t mortally wounded the party
the current crop of “Fundiepublicans” are NOT true Republicans
Forgiveness, charity, selflessness, charging-interest-is-evil, etc. These traditions?
Republicans are the party of the Old Testament. Democrats are the party of the New. Both parties draw equally from the Bible.
Well, you also have the tradition of not tolerating gay-marriage, abortion rights and being excessively harsh with petty drug offences.
This is not to say that some Democrats also hold some of these views as well, at least some of the time.
But the above mentioned issues are deeply rooted in religious morality.
It used to be the Party of Business (and the Dems were Labor).
Of course it used to also be “cut taxes and cut spending”.
The party would survive, but it probably wouldn’t win many elections.
Not well, IMO. There’s a reason the party panders to the “Christian Base.” It provides the voting numbers the Republican party needs in order to win elections and pass legislation. They show up and vote every time and they don’t ask in depth questions like “who are your donors” and “That tax cut; who benefits most from it again?”
It’s hard to imagine a major American political party without religion because religion is, for better or worse, a huge part of American culture. Yes, even for Democrats. The concept that we should care about helping the poor probably wouldn’t get so much airtime in the Democratic party if it weren’t for many Americans having been indoctrinated into the whole “Help the poor because Jesus would want you to” kind of mindset.
I imagine a secular Republican party would lean more towards the libertarians. That does seem to be a view that appeals to a fair amount of folks, so I don’t think it would hurt the Republicans. In fact, it might even help if the kind of people who want the government to just leave them (and their money) alone were drawn in by the decreased emphasis on social conservatism.
I doubt that. First, because someone is going to want to appeal to the vote of the poor and of the charitable. And second, because charitableness doesn’t require religiosity; if anything religiosity hampers it. Secular charities are less likely to care about the “sinfulness” of the prospective beneficiaries after all, and secular people are less likely to say that “this world doesn’t matter, it’s the soul that matters”.
Why would they want to? The vast majority of people in this country ascribe to a religion. Given that you need people to vote for you, it makes sense to appeal to commonalities.
There’s a distinction to be made between being religious and insisting on converting one’s dogma into legal code.
If you mean without their fundy ties, yes. The Republican party only became so attached to the Religious Right so much during the Reagan administration. Bary Goldwater, aka “Mr. Conservative” was VERY outspoken against it, and said it was the death knell of the party as he knew it. It’s unlikely that Goldwater-a staunchly pro-choice Republican-would be elected today.
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
The repubs as Bush’s approval rate shows is about 25 %. They need anti abortion folk, gun nuts and the religious right to compete. These groups have shown themselves as unable to amass any significant constituencies of their own. They get together hoping to provide legislation they can not earn by themselves. Sadly when the repubs win all they get is hollow promises from the repubs who are only trying to find a way to loot the system. That they have proven to be very good at.
I guess what I see is that a lot of people (myself included) would vote Republican more often if they weren’t so socially conservative. I have no problem with people who ascribe to a religion, but I think we should do all we can to keep religion out of our laws.
I realize that will never really happen because so many people vote on issues using their own version of morality, and most (I would guess) of these people derive their values from religion either directly (their own worship) or indirectly (from their parents who obtained it from their family & so on).
The Republicans don’t have to pander to the fundies. The fundies will never vote Democratic, so the Republicans can (and should) take them for granted. If they don’t vote at all in protest they lose whatever voice they have left.
If I were the Republican nominee in 2012 I’d say exactly that, and publicly, too.
Quoth Der Trihs:
There’s a church where I used to volunteer, that would host free meals for the hungry. They weren’t able to accept government funding for their meal program, because government funding would have tied them to government regulations for whom they could and could not serve, and they preferred to go it alone and continue to serve anyone who walked through the door. The Religious Left is alive and well, even if they don’t get as much publicity as the Right.
Indeed. A somewhat saner mix of fascists & anti-nomians. As weird as that is.
I think the religious right gives them a lot of cover, but it’s backfiring now. Yay?