conterversial question for you

[actsnoblemartin]

is the religious right ruining the republican party, and if so... How?

[avatar4321]

No. if anyone id destroying the republican party its Republicans who got to Washington and forget their conservative roots when they get there.

[5stringJeff]

No, the religious right is a part of the GOP, but it is not ruining it at all. I'd agree with avatar: the liberals in the GOP are what is ruining it right now.

[PostmodernProphet]

I think the religious fringe of the right has done less damage to the Rpublicans than the atheist fringe of the left did to the Democrats.....

[DrJohn]

The Bush administration has ruined the republican party.
They don't know what 'fiscal responsibility' means.

They have mortaged our great-great-great grandchildren's future with runaway spending.

One thing that I always admired about the GOP was was the sense of keeping spending down but.....

Not with the present White House.

[truthmatters]

The religious right is a big part of the republican party. How can you say they ruined it when they are just seeking representation. The real question is can the republican party stay true to all the elements of the party at the same time? I dont think they can at this time in history because there are to many factions within the R party who want differeing things. The R party is goig to have to chose which part of its base to stay loyal to or lose all of them. This means the Republican party may need to shed those some here call the liberal part of the party.

I will welcome them to the Democratic party and we will show them how they can be better represented by our party. Most are socially liberal and fiscally conservitive. We can show them the facts that the Dems spend less and are the more fiscal party.

[darin]

The Bush administration has ruined the republican party.
They don't know what 'fiscal responsibility' means.

They have mortaged our great-great-great grandchildren's future with runaway spending.

One thing that I always admired about the GOP was was the sense of keeping spending down but.....

Not with the present White House.

...never mind the WAR, eh?

[DrJohn]

...never mind the WAR, eh?

A war that we should have never started.

BUT, that's probably a different thread.

[Monkeybone]

i agree, i think it is the ones that show their true colors so to speak when they get to DC. when you completely do a 180 on how you said you stood, it don't bode well.

oh and nice way to stay on topic ppl, went from asking a certain question aimed at religion, and shot it towards money. :clap: Taken a jab at bush and the party like sex? take it whenever you can get it?

[DrJohn]

i agree, i think it is the ones that show their true colors so to speak when they get to DC. when you completely do a 180 on how you said you stood, it don't bode well.

on and nice way to stay on topic ppl, went from asking a certain question aimed at religion, and shot it towards money. :clap: Taken a jab at bush and the party like sex? take it whenever you can get it?


You're right.

Sorry...

[truthmatters]

Yeah but money is the whole reason they end up NOT supporting what their base voted them in for.

[darin]

A war that we should have never started.

BUT, that's probably a different thread.


...it's just intellectually dishonest to cite all the spending without placing it in the context of "...while at war..."

[Monkeybone]

Yeah but money is the whole reason they end up NOT supporting what their base voted them in for.

cuz they don't keep enough in the freezer to start out with?

[gabosaurus]

I would take your question more seriously if you knew how to spell controversial.

[avatar4321]

A war that we should have never started.

BUT, that's probably a different thread.

I dont think we had much choice. I mean its not like we chose to be attacked on 9/11

[avatar4321]

I would take your question more seriously if you knew how to spell controversial.

im sure he and others would take you more seriously if you responded to the questions with less condescension.

[Yurt]

No. if anyone id destroying the republican party its Republicans who got to Washington and forget their conservative roots when they get there.

I hate to say it, but:

what he said.

Avatar is spot on, republicans in DC need to get back to their roots. The religious "right" is liberal slander. There are plenty of religious liberals, however, the liberals with the biggest mouths are the ones who villify the "religious right" because they speak out against homo issues etc... The left keeps silent about their own party members who disagree with them.

IMO, both parties have forgotten their base.

[Yurt]

I would take your question more seriously if you knew how to spell controversial.

Are the voices in your head acting up again?

[gabosaurus]

im sure he and others would take you more seriously if you responded to the questions with less condescension.

I generally tend to act that way toward those who display a decided lack of intelligence.
Why should I take your questions seriously if you can't even express yourself in a proper manner? It's no wonder that Republicans are opposed to higher education. They want everyone to be as stupid as they are.

[Cheyenne]

A war that we should have never started.

BUT, that's probably a different thread.
Please start the thread.

[manu1959]

A war that we should have never started.

BUT, that's probably a different thread.


we didn't start it....

[Kathianne]

The religious right is a big part of the republican party. How can you say they ruined it when they are just seeking representation. The real question is can the republican party stay true to all the elements of the party at the same time? I dont think they can at this time in history because there are to many factions within the R party who want differeing things. The R party is goig to have to chose which part of its base to stay loyal to or lose all of them. This means the Republican party may need to shed those some here call the liberal part of the party.

I will welcome them to the Democratic party and we will show them how they can be better represented by our party. Most are socially liberal and fiscally conservitive. We can show them the facts that the Dems spend less and are the more fiscal party.A fair question you pose. At the same time, your conclusion is a bit warped. Can the Democratic Party, serve all it's interest groups fairly? I mean in a representative sense. There is the far left, represented by the various Soros groups. Then there are those that follow the agenda of Soros, but are more or less extreme than the groups he funds. Then there are the Democrats that are 'mainstream' who are difficult to differentiate from the mainstream Republicans. There is also the small, but perhaps pivotal number of conservative Democrats, that really are Republicans.

[Immanuel]

I think the question should be, is the Republican Party ruining the Religious Right?

Mixing one's faith with politics is bad business. When religious leaders get into politics they inevitably lose their respectability (if they had any) as religious leaders. People like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and James Dobson are examples of what I mean. I'd say Jesse Jackson as well, but I am not so certain that Jackson was ever a religious leader. I know he claims to be "The Reverend" Jesse Jackson, but I have only heard him mention the name of Jesus Christ twice and neither time was it complementary to our Lord and Savior.

That is not to say that I think that people of faith should not participate in politics. Far from it, but a religious leader needs to choose whether he/she is going to be a man/woman of the cloth or a politician. Never the twain shall meet.

Immie

[JohnDoe]

I think the question should be, is the Republican Party ruining the Religious Right?

Mixing one's faith with politics is bad business. When religious leaders get into politics they inevitably lose their respectability (if they had any) as religious leaders. People like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and James Dobson are examples of what I mean. I'd say Jesse Jackson as well, but I am not so certain that Jackson was ever a religious leader. I know he claims to be "The Reverend" Jesse Jackson, but I have only heard him mention the name of Jesus Christ twice and neither time was it complementary to our Lord and Savior.

That is not to say that I think that people of faith should not participate in politics. Far from it, but a religious leader needs to choose whether he/she is going to be a man/woman of the cloth or a politician. Never the twain shall meet.

Immie

Does this fall under "Give unto Caesar, what is his"....a separation of Church and State?

jd

[Immanuel]

Does this fall under "Give unto Caesar, what is his"....a separation of Church and State?

jd

No, I don't think so. You see, legally anyone has the right to participate in politics including a religious leader. Everyone has the right to run for office; unless, of course, one is a convicted felon, but just because they have the right does not mean that it makes sense or is good for their other profession.

A religious leader who wants also to play politics is walking on eggshells. The two just don't mix.

Maybe a good Biblical example might be, Matthew 6:24:

24"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

Try as they might, these leaders cannot maintain their respectability as leaders of the church and leaders of the country. When they start compromising (the art of politics) in the political sense they begin compromising their faith as well. Not that it cannot be done, but I can't think of any modern religious leaders and would be hard pressed to find any at all (Gandi?), who have successfully entered the realm of Politics and maintained their standing as a leader of the church/synagogue/mosque etc.

Immie

[JohnDoe]

No, I don't think so. You see, legally anyone has the right to participate in politics including a religious leader. Everyone has the right to run for office; unless, of course, one is a convicted felon, but just because they have the right does not mean that it makes sense or is good for their other profession.

A religious leader who wants also to play politics is walking on eggshells. The two just don't mix.

Maybe a good Biblical example might be, Matthew 6:24:

24"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

Try as they might, these leaders cannot maintain their respectability as leaders of the church and leaders of the country. When they start compromising (the art of politics) in the political sense they begin compromising their faith as well. Not that it cannot be done, but I can't think of any modern religious leaders and would be hard pressed to find any at all (Gandi?), who have successfully entered the realm of Politics and maintained their standing as a leader of the church/synagogue/mosque etc.

Immie

but immie, didn't the pharisees and their legal scholars and other higher ups within the church continually propose questions to Jesus, trying to ''trick'' him in to supporting issues that were clearly involved with their ruling government, the Romans? While Jesus continually answered them in a manner that involved God, and refrained from giving them what they so wanted, an uprising against their ruling gvt?

Was this really not a message from Him, to keep gvt separate from religion.

And I do agree that every citizen has the ''right'' to participate in politics, in who governs them....as any individual citizen.

i guess i don't see Biblical support for the Church, to be the ruling gvt... or to be involved in the secular things that the Pharisees often tried to lure Christ's and the church's involvement...?

Care