# Would the Republican Party be able to survive without religion? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 8, 2008, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-republican-party-be-able-to-survive-without-religion/476241 "2008-12-08T14:53:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-republican-party-be-able-to-survive-without-religion/476241/41 "2008-12-09T15:22:07Z")
> [@villa](#): > > I would say the opposition to same sex marriage is pretty much tied to religion. Just as the promotion of it is pretty much tied to secular humanism. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-republican-party-be-able-to-survive-without-religion/476241/42 "2008-12-09T15:22:25Z")
> [@shallora](#): > > Many of the Democratic social policies seem to come right out of a secular humanist tradition, and so I wonder, would the Democratic party, as we know it today continue to exist in some form without secular humanism? Secular humanism isn’t really much of a tradition , is it? Most Democrats don’t identify themselves as “secular humanists” and indeed, that’s a term primarily used by the Right to portray their opponents as embracing an ideology. But a lack of religious bias is not a religion in itself. Secularism is simply the setting aside of religion in a given situation. “Liberals” are people who think they can figure things out for themsleves without having to be told what to think by a movement that you join. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_Door](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@Bill\_Door](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_Door)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-republican-party-be-able-to-survive-without-religion/476241/43 "2008-12-09T15:23:23Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > This is, of course, completely false. Americans who practice their religion donate far more of their time and money to charity than the secular do. > > I’d dig up a cite, but there is really no need. > > Regards, > Shodan I’ve seen that data, and they assume that monies used to proselytize, air condition kennels and purchase Rolex watches for televangelists is charity. Just because it’s deductable doesn’t make it charity. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-republican-party-be-able-to-survive-without-religion/476241/44 "2008-12-09T15:27:27Z")
> [@shallora](#): > > Certainly. > Roe vs Wade; Eliminating prayer and the mention of God from public places; prevention and opposition to school vouchers for parochial schools; need I continue with more? The list is quite exhaustive. You might have added the promotion of homosexuality as an “alternative lifestyle” and a generally multicultural agenda in the public schools. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-republican-party-be-able-to-survive-without-religion/476241/45 "2008-12-09T15:28:58Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Just as the promotion of it is pretty much tied to secular humanism. I know of many religious individuals who support same sex marriage. But I know of almost no one who opposes it whose opposition does not boil down, in the end, to being based on religion. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-republican-party-be-able-to-survive-without-religion/476241/46 "2008-12-09T15:37:24Z")
> [@villa](#): > > I know of many religious individuals who support same sex marriage. But I know of almost no one who opposes it whose opposition does not boil down, in the end, to being based on religion. The fact remains that the ideology used to justify same sex marriage comes from secular humanism. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-republican-party-be-able-to-survive-without-religion/476241/47 "2008-12-09T15:38:39Z")
> [@Bill\_Door](#): > > I’ve seen that data, and they assume that monies used to proselytize, air condition kennels and purchase Rolex watches for televangelists is charity. Just because it’s deductable doesn’t make it charity. You’ve seen data he didn’t even specify? Interesting. ---
**Author:** ![shallora](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f9ae1b/32.png) [@shallora](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shallora)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-republican-party-be-able-to-survive-without-religion/476241/48 "2008-12-09T15:39:58Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > Secular humanism isn’t really much of a tradition , is it? Most Democrats don’t identify themselves as “secular humanists” and indeed, that’s a term primarily used by the Right to portray their opponents as embracing an ideology. You mean just like ‘religious right’ is a term primarily used by the Left to portray their opponents as embracing another kind of ideology? I don’t see how there’s a difference. > [@sqweels](#): > > “Liberals” are people who think they can figure things out for themsleves without having to be told what to think by a movement that you join. That’s the most condecending and ignorant statement I’ve read all day. Are you saying that Conservatives don’t think for themselves? Are you saying that Conservatives obey without question the leaders of movements they are part of? How do you explain Bush’s dismal approval ratings WITHIN HIS OWN PARTY? How do you explain Powell’s endorsement of Obama? How do you explain Conservatives who have called up Rush on the air when he goes too far? How do you explain Conservatives who stayed home when McCain ran for office? How do you explain Huckabee’s latest book and the statements he’s made in that? Geez, you made an ignorant statement. And, on a side note, are you saying that not a single Liberal leader out there has ever given ‘talking points’ to their followers to go out and repeat ad naseum on Air America and on Liberal blogs? Just ONCE I’d like to see a Liberal disagree with soemthing Obama is doing. If anything, today’s Liberals are taking everything Obama says as 100% Gospel with no filters on whatsoever. Sqweels: Gimme a huge, huge break, man. You say that Conservatives don’t think for themselves, yet then you go out and simply repeat something you heard on Air America or somehwere without examining what your own leaders are spoon-feeding YOU. What a hypocrite. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-republican-party-be-able-to-survive-without-religion/476241/49 "2008-12-09T15:40:15Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > The fact remains that the ideology used to justify same sex marriage comes from secular humanism. It does? How so? Many people I know support equal treatment under the law because they believe their faith requires that. Your God may differ to theirs, however. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-republican-party-be-able-to-survive-without-religion/476241/50 "2008-12-09T15:42:58Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Just as the promotion of it is pretty much tied to secular humanism. So “secular humanism” is another term for “fairness”? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-republican-party-be-able-to-survive-without-religion/476241/51 "2008-12-09T15:43:02Z")
> [@shallora](#): > > Just ONCE I’d like to see a Liberal disagree with soemthing Obama is doing. I am opposed to Obama’s views on the Assault Weapons Ban. I also find Obama’s seeimg views on the role of religion in public life to be contrary to my strict interpretation of the Establishment Clause, though I am willing to wait and see what he does in practice. Now, how about a cite to a policy in favor of “eliminating prayer.” ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-republican-party-be-able-to-survive-without-religion/476241/52 "2008-12-09T15:45:03Z")
> [@villa](#): > > It does? How so? You mean it doesn’t? How so? > [@villa](#): > > Many people I know support equal treatment under the law because they believe their faith requires that. Your God may differ to theirs, however. Eqaul treatment, however, does not mean same sex marriage. Before you can justify same sex marriage, you need to explain what the function of marriage is supposed to be in the first place and how same sex marriage would serve that function. And I neither believe nor disbelieve in God. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-republican-party-be-able-to-survive-without-religion/476241/53 "2008-12-09T15:46:16Z")
> [@villa](#): > > It does? How so? > > Many people I know support equal treatment under the law because they believe their faith requires that. Your God may differ to theirs, however. Please to remember that the person you’re responding to holds the firm conviction that he is one of those few, those happy few, who stand atop the battlements protecting “Western culture” from hippies, immigrants and fags. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-republican-party-be-able-to-survive-without-religion/476241/54 "2008-12-09T15:49:37Z")
> [@MacTech](#): > > 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 Like it or not, fundiepublicans are one of the groups the pubbies can count on the most in elections. Not liking them is different from being able to claim they don’t belong. Fundiepubs go back at least as far as Reagan. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-republican-party-be-able-to-survive-without-religion/476241/55 "2008-12-09T15:50:30Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > So “secular humanism” is another term for “fairness”? So silly rhetorical tricks like this are all you’ve got? ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-republican-party-be-able-to-survive-without-religion/476241/56 "2008-12-09T15:51:34Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Please to remember that the person you’re responding to holds the firm conviction that he is one of those few, those happy few, who stand atop the battlements protecting “Western culture” from hippies, immigrants and fags. Vilification is much easier than having an actual point, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-republican-party-be-able-to-survive-without-religion/476241/57 "2008-12-09T15:53:31Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > Like it or not, fundiepublicans are one of the groups the pubbies can count on the most in elections. Not liking them is different from being able to claim they don’t belong. Fundiepubs go back at least as far as Reagan. Just as the loonie left–you know, the sort of people who take Michael Moore seriously and believe William Ayers wasn’t a terrorist–are one of the groups that the demmies count on heavily. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-republican-party-be-able-to-survive-without-religion/476241/58 "2008-12-09T15:54:58Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > You mean it doesn’t? How so? > Eqaul treatment, however, does not mean same sex marriage. Before you can justify same sex marriage, you need to explain what the function of marriage is supposed to be in the first place and how same sex marriage would serve that function. And I neither believe nor disbelieve in God. Marriage doesn’t have to serve a function, but if you’re hinting that marriages between heteros produce more stable family relationships than marriages between gays, all you have to do is compare divorce rates between the places most heavily opposed to gay marriage and places where gay marriage is legal. “Family Values” anti-gay activists don’t have a leg to stand on. Of course that ignores the fact that people have rights, and those rights don’t necessarily have to serve a purpose. To deny someone the right to do something, YOU have to give the reason WHY NOT. They shouldn’t have to provide a reason for doing it. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-republican-party-be-able-to-survive-without-religion/476241/59 "2008-12-09T15:55:16Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > You mean it doesn’t? How so? No, you see, you are the one who made the (incorrect, btw) claim. It’s really up to you to defend it. > [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Eqaul treatment, however, does not mean same sex marriage. Before you can justify same sex marriage, you need to explain what the function of marriage is supposed to be in the first place and how same sex marriage would serve that function. And I neither believe nor disbelieve in God. It honestly doesn’t matter what you think, or why you have come to your views. You have made the incorrect statement that those who base their support for same sex marriage because of a religiously inspired belief in equal treatment under the law are actually motivated by secular humanism (but presumably are too stupid, or too corrupted by years of liberal education to know that). ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-republican-party-be-able-to-survive-without-religion/476241/60 "2008-12-09T15:56:35Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Please to remember that the person you’re responding to holds the firm conviction that he is one of those few, those happy few, who stand atop the battlements protecting “Western culture” from hippies, immigrants and fags. Oh I know. And I am one of those three. I’ll leave it to our paladin of 1950’s culture to determine which. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-republican-party-be-able-to-survive-without-religion/476241.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-republican-party-be-able-to-survive-without-religion/476241.md?page=4)