Our new adversary: the Religious Right

Status
Not open for further replies.

Silver Bullet

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
1,335
Location
Arizona
It’s been amusing to read Democrat election post-mortems: they never get it right. They blame their election loss on the “uneducated†hicks or the “religious zealots†in middle America, instead of the real reasons of RKBA, presidential character, and a desire to stop the advance of socialism.

It’s not so funny now: I read an article that said some of the Republicans think they won for the same reasons the Democrats think the Republicans won.

I don’t want the Republicans to think that their first order of priority is addressing the Religious Right’s concerns. I want them thinking about rolling back anti-gun laws. There are some other small-government, strict constitutionalist items I’d like to see implemented, but this is a firearms forum, so I’ll restrict my attention to that.

I think it’s important that we loudly communicate to our representatives our pro-RKBA agenda. We’re going to have to out-shout the Religious Right to make sure our concerns get attention and get addressed.
 
I feel that by addressing the concerns of the "Religious Right", the gun control laws will be part and parcel of that.

The religious right believes in the inalienable right to self defense.
 
Some of that "parcel" might not be acceptable to me. My concern is that RKBA would be a lower priority within that parcel.
 
"The squeaky wheel gets the most grease." If you want your concerns addressed and greased by Congresscritters, you have to squeak.

"Keep them cards and letters comin' in, friends and neighbors."

:), Art
 
White Horseradish said:
Ya, sure. Minnesota concealed carry law is suspended because it was challenged by a coalition of churches.

Religious does not mean "right wing". There's some religious left-wingers out there too, and those churches are part of it.
 
Catholic voters swung their support to Bush and other Republican candidates partly because of the gay marriage issue.

Catholics, who now vote majority Republican, are the religious group to worry about in terms of RKBA. They are not right wing or part of the "Religious Right".
 
My own question...

What if the membership of THR includes folks who are part of that "Religious Right"?

Like myself, perhaps? :scrutiny:
 
I think the membership includes folks from all walks of life.

My goal is to further the RKBA cause. During the last election, that meant promoting Republicans over Democrats because I believed that was the way to further RKBA. There are Democrats on this web site, I'm sure.

Right now I'm afraid that the Religious Right has the President's ear to the point that RKBA will be second- or third-tier priority. I'm suggesting that as members of this forum, we will have to be Mr. Eatman's "squeaky wheel" to get ourselves heard and in the first-tier priority.
 
I'll agree to disagree on that one.

I've seen much mention of the 3 "G's" being the factors in this election's outcome.

1. God
2. Guns
3. Gays

I suppose one could attribute a couple of those to the influence of the "Religious Right". Which leaves the RKBA (#2 above) out there in the cold as a potential non-partisan issue, having met as many gun-owning Dems as I have over the years. (Partly in thanks to this forum, BTW). While people tend to vote on issues, and RKBA issues tend to fall along Republican lines, it isn't always so cut and dry - take the current war in Iraq. A good chunk of the "Religious Right" isn't terribly keen on what's going on over there, and as such, RKBA won't be their leading cause when it's time to do all that influencing. I would imagine that RKBA wasn't as much of a factor in this election as gun forum members would like to attribute. It helped, certainly, but it probably didn't carry the day by itself. That doesn't mean we as gun owners should rest on our laurels, but it also means people of the voting persuasion consider some issues more important than just firearms.

Just remember, as you call the "Religious Right" your adversary...

"Keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer". ;)
 
Maybe "competition" would have been a better choice of words than "adversary".

We need everybody here, regardless of their stands on non-RKBA issues.
 
I think guns are going to be off the radar almost entirely for quite a while. I don't see that as a good thing, nor is it really a BAD thing, IMO, since the vast majority of the legislation in that area has worked against us in the recent past.

With Bush's tacit approval of the now-defunct AWB, I don't see him being inclined to sign any gun-friendly bills into law. And since he won't want the potential embarassment of disagreeing with his GOP fellows in the Congress, I'm willing to bet there will be a lot of work behind the scenes to ensure that such a scenario never comes to pass.

And I say that as a gun-loving member of the Religious Right. ;)

But there are a number of non-firearm issues that are just as important to me that I have very little hope for as well. :banghead:
 
I think guns are going to be off the radar almost entirely for quite a while. I don't see that as a good thing, nor is it really a BAD thing, IMO, since the vast majority of the legislation in that area has worked against us in the recent past.
I have to see that as a BAD thing: right now is our chance to undo some bad legislation. Otherwise, the next time it will be "on the radar" is with the next anti-gun president.
 
Bob Locke said:
...With Bush's tacit approval of the now-defunct AWB, I don't see him being inclined to sign any gun-friendly bills into law...

I think it's entirely fair to say that Bush promoted the end of the AWB more than it's continuance. His ethics of publicly saying that he supported it are questionable. But I think it is entirely true that he worked behind the scenes to ensure the AWB's demise. If he had truly supported it, do you not think he would have picked up the phone and told Hastert & Frist to push it?

Bush's tactics on the AWB were self-serving, but he could have easily made things harder for us if he had wanted to.
 
Gewehr98,
I would imagine that RKBA wasn't as much of a factor in this election as gun forum members would like to attribute.
I agree with you about that. Let's keep writing those letters, folks.
 
RKBA was just about non-existent as a greater issue this election. Literally no one cares about it but us and a smal but vocal group of antis, to whom it is one of a number of relayed issues.
 
The Left has been obsessed with "the Christian Right" for a long, long time. Their only concept of freedom is sexual freedom. Beyond that they prefer collectivism.

And let us remind ourselves that the Left is itself a messianic faith, just recast in materialistic terms.
 
I am not sure that the term “Religious Right†is understood.
Since I consider that I am one, I will attempt to outline how we, or at least many of us, think.

We do not hate any group in the sense of wanting them in jail or dead. We do not want a state religion even if it agreed with mine. It would be abused, and when the state has authorized a state religion both the church and state suffer for the worst.

But it must be realized that any society has a set of values within which it functions. For the first almost 200 years of our history, this nation’s values were based upon the Judeo/Christian ethic.
Those values do care for the poor and one another, and to help the downtrodden. We were not perfect, and especially in the area of racism, but the Christian ethic was that which corrected that flaw. It is an ethic of work and that one should realize the fruits of his labor without others who do not work taking it from him in whatever way.
Christianity stresses integrity and honesty, and also compassion.

But it also stresses righteousness.
Now the question arises as to what is right and wrong? Who has the right to establish moral values, and require them to be observed by the nation?
The answer that we believed earlier was that only God, our Creator, has the wisdom and authority to establish absolute moral values. Those of us on the religious right continue to believe that fact, and to govern our lives by those values. Are we perfect? Of course not. Each of us is a human with the fallen nature of mankind, and we make mistakes and sin also. The difference is that we do not live a sinful life or lifestyle. When we sin we repent and try to do right as a way of life.

The religious right has the desire to have this nation follow the moral values which were once accepted in this nation, and which were taught in the schools. We fully realize that we will never be able to have a perfect society as long as man rules. However, it can be better or worse depending upon who does govern. That is what this election was about, and which politics are about.

We do not try to be police who try to determine if someone is sinning in some way. If that were true none of us could stand. We might not agree on what might be sinful. However, there are some sins that the Bible is so clear on that one can only misunderstand if he is determined to misunderstand or does not care.

Two abominable sins that are in the forefront of this nation today are homosexuality and abortion. These are clearly wrong, and must be corrected if we are to continue long as a nation that we know. They are a cancer in this nation. Those were the major issues to many of us.

But considering righteousness in general, any society will be a better and safer society if it is a righteous society.
In the area of gun control, why do you think that we have so much gun control? It is because people have reached a point of being so self-centered that they do not care what it takes to get their way. If someone gets in the way, then kill him. That is what happens in the movies and TV, and in the environment that many of them are in. Why are they not taught that “Thou shalt not kill?†Once we were taught that in school. But the intentional desire to get God out of everything and especially schools has prevented the Ten Commandments from being taught. Schools do in fact teach morality either by design or default. I think the immorality being taught is by design. If God is not relevant, then there is no one who has the right and authority to establish moral absolutes. So each is free to determine that for himself. Who is to say that robbery is wrong if there is no moral authority? Robin Hood did it.

Once we were taught that sex outside of marriage was wrong. Now ways to avoid pregnancies are taught. I saw on the TV of a patch that women put on before they go out on a date. Instead of wanting to be pure and righteous, they go out with the intention of having sex.
Once abortion was illegal and recognized as murder of the unborn. But now people do not want to have the consequences of their sexual activities to cause them any problem. So just kill the baby. This nation is in a state of moral decay, and getting worse.

The views of society in general do in fact influence behavior. Once a couple shacking up was ostracized. That was a deterrent. Now it is accepted, and so the nation is another notch lower in its morality. That deterrent has been removed.

We want a nation in which our children and future generations can grow up and follow the moral standards which make the nation safer, and more compassionate. That is what this election was about for some of us. We want our schools to teach the three Rs and to refrain from teaching that such things as homosexuality are just alternate lifestyles. In our homes Christians teach their children about God, and the schools teach that He is not relevant.

Since the courts are now lawmakers, it is important to appoint judges and SC Justices who follow the Constitution, and interpret it in accordance with our moral values instead of directly opposite.

Gun rights are very important. But I believe that the religious right is more in tune with that issue than most other groups. But if I had to make a choice, which I have not, to vote for moral values that I believe are right, or gun rights, I will always vote for proper morality.

I could say many other things, but I hope this gives a better understanding of where we stand, and why. The Dems will not understand.

Jerry
 
Ok, after reading the above post...

Maybe I'm *not* a member of the Religious Right after all. You could take the above, change just a few words, and it would literally jump at you screaming "Jihad!". :(

This particular Lutheran is a lot more open-minded than he originally thought he was, in retrospect.

But I'm not giving up the coffee and cookie fellowships after Sunday services, doggonit! :D
 
Gewehr98,
[This particular Lutheran is a lot more open-minded than he originally thought he was, in retrospect. ]

In what ways are you more open-minded? Do you accept homosexuality and abortion?

Jerry
 
There will be much fuss in the next few years about "stacking" the Supreme Court. It has already started in controversy surrounding Sen. Arlen Specter as heir apparent in chairing the Judiciary Committee. The ones who stand to gain the most from that outcome are gun owners. Pro-lifers and gay marriage opponents need constitutional amendments, not biased judges, and Bush already knows that. He already had a Marriage Amendment initiative and has recently said he would nominate "strict constructionists".

I think it is 6 amendment bills already in active status, and we may see more. If gun owners get anything out of this next Congress, it will be indirectly. I see it going well in the long term, very constitutional in tone. I may not like the amendments personally, but it is a legitimate process. If it becomes clear that amendments are required, and they fail, then the issues about stacking the court for social issues are dead. It ain't in the Constitution, so forget it, not my job. However, overturn of Roe v Wade will remain a goal, so watch out. Until all this social stuff dies down, we aren't going to get squat. Neither will Feinstein and Schumer.

A real plus though would be getting the DC Gun Ban Repeal. That will at least mean that gun owners would be willing to congregate in DC.

The Senators who would be influential regarding faith-based issues are the very same people in many cases who would be potentially supportive of gun rights. I think they know they have a number of debts to pay and will do some balancing, at least in a token way. Bill Frist will be the focus of our attention, I think, having a lot to say about what is on the agenda. There may be cases where he does us a favor by keeping gun issues to a minimum. He will also be a key figure in holding Democrats at bay in their anti-gun initiatives. Dems have to cool it with the anti-gun stuff or they will not win another election. There may be resistance within the Democratic caucus to even introduce such bills. Times have changed, and we will see more signs of that.

I am not all that encouraged in the short term, because there is no substantial mention of gun rights in the GOP platform. I watched most of the platform committee proceedings, headed by Bill Frist in a parliamentary capacity, and they were talking religion consistently. There is no question what group is on the front nipple of the GOP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top