Democrats vs. Republicans...

[Poodleshooter]

One point that those who oppose "religion in government" might consider: If religion took the proper place in society that it once had, we wouldn't have the perceived need for the bloated government run welfare and unemployment systems that we currently have. In prior times these were handled to an extent by the church-privately. Movement away from organized religion and the constructs that once held "traditional" families together has eliminated the traditional social "safety net" that families provided. That has been replaced by the embracing arms of socialism (gag).
I think that this idea is the focus behind GWB's "faith based initiatives", not some mass conversion of the nations atheistic free thinkers into strict protestants.
BTW, 10 points to the first guy or gal to find the words "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution. BTW,no cheating and reading Jefferson's letters to the danbury baptists regarding the government holding Protestant denominational preferences .

 

[Marshall]

A perfect example of this are laws that will not allow same sex marriages. These have nothing to do with anything governmental, and everything to do with a religious based morality. If you don't agree with it then that is your right but by you not letting someone else do it you are forcing your religious beliefs on them.

Who say's these are religious beliefs? I will give it to you that some moral beliefs and religious beliefs mirror one another, funny how that works, huh? But, people can certainly disagree with your statement and not have it have anything to do with religion! I know many folks that are not religious so to speak, and think same sex marriages are rediculous and should not be sanctioned or reconognized by your states governmental and legal authorities!

You know, I wish the Falwells of the world would stay out of it as well. I cringe when I hear him open his mouth on most issues because I know it either going to be said wrong, taken wrong or cause a stir regardless and make the Republican party look bad. However, there is so much difference in the two parties that if a braisen man speaks and you disagree, there are sooooo many other issues that seperate the two parties. If that's someones only problem with the republican party, they would have to be willing to give up many other substantial and important issues to become a Demorcat. For those people that happens to, they are probably not voting on other issues strongly to begin with and are evidently and obviously "one issue" voters.

Just my opinion.

 

[NewShooter78]

Who say's these are religious beliefs? I will give it to you that some moral beliefs and religious beliefs mirror one another, funny how that works, huh? But, people can certainly disagree with your statement and not have it have anything to do with religion! I know many folks that are not religious so to speak, and think same sex marriages are rediculous and should not be sanctioned or reconognized by your states governmental and legal authorities!

I can agree with that. But, most of the people who have come out publicly to disagree with same sex marriages, or domestic partner benefits have done so with religious basis for it. I know people who also aren't religious so to say, and don't like the idea of anything that has to do with homosexuality. But in my experience when I've asked people why they don't agree with it, they usually tell me to go read the bible for the reason why it is wrong.

However, there is so much difference in the two parties that if a braisen man speaks and you disagree, there are sooooo many other issues that seperate the two parties. If that's someones only problem with the republican party, they would have to be willing to give up many other substantial and important issues to become a Demorcat. For those people that happens to, they are probably not voting on other issues strongly to begin with and are evidently and obviously "one issue" voters.

I can agree with that as well, but there are a lot of people that feel more strongly about certain issues than others. Right now I can think of two prescribed "defining" issues that can be used to identify both parties. I don't feel that I need to mention them because one will start a whole other argument, and the other should be obvious since we are on this board.

The Republicans need to do a little bit of in party policing if it plans to hold on for more than one term in office. Unless Bush and Congress can do some serious work on the economy then they have lost. If more middle of the road types could call themselves Republicans without also automatically calling themselves conservatives, then the Republicans would have a better chance at getting their agenda passed. But the religious conotation, which isn't such a bad thing, associated with the party keep a lot of people away from the party.

The same can be said for a person who thinks of themselves as a true liberal. They wouldn't want to be alligned with the Democrats because all they do is invade our paychecks to advance their social agenda which is not a liberal idea at all. Being "liberal" means being independent of federal and state invasion of ones person or their belongings.

 

[Zander]

So what makes ordinary people fear Republicans and become Democrats?

No offense, but don't you have your question reversed?

 

[Tamara]

How can the Republicans win? First they need to stop trying to legislate morality.

There's a technical term for this: it's called "libertarian".

 

[Marshall]

But in my experience when I've asked people why they don't agree with it, they usually tell me to go read the bible for the reason why it is wrong.

This is my point. You either agree with same sex marriages, as your example, or you don't. If that is indeed your defining issue, you vote for it or you vote against it. Don't vote for or against your issue because of someone else, no matter who they are or what they call themselves. Additionally, just because a bible thumper chunks a bible at me, I am big enough to vote my beliefs and not let someone else throw me of my track. As I said, if that is the case, then people are more than likely one issue voters because there are many other issues that seperate the two parties. Or, they are going to let other peoples actions guide them to their vote or push them away from their vote.

 

[SteyrAUG]

Tamara, trust me I know.

I am "philosophically Libertarian" but a "practicing Republican."

The only times I actually vote Libertarian are in local races where the Lib stands a chance of winning.

 

[NewShooter78]

Tamara, SteyrAUG:
So who would be a good Libertarian candidate for 2004? Or is there any hope that a decent candidate will even be presented by then? Just looking for a few possibilities here.

 

[Tamara]

NewShooter78,

There won't be a viable libertarian candidate for pres. There will be a Libertarian candidate, as always, but he's a sad joke these days.

Me? I'm already starting to campaign for "None Of The Above Are Acceptable."

 

[NewShooter78]

I'm already starting to campaign for "None Of The Above Are Acceptable."

Like in Brewster's Millions? Wouldn't that be interesting.